HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-01 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet*REVISED*
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Architectural Review Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: October 1, 2020
Virtual Meeting
8:30 AM
****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 974 7551 5801 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20,
issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be
held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be
broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center
at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow.
Members of the public may comment by sending an email to
arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live
comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of
this agenda. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details.
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative
Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions
Action Items
Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All
others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1310 Bryant Street Castilleja School Project
Second ARB Hearing [19PLN-00116]: Architectural Review of Castilleja School's
Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal for Site Modifications, Demolition,
Construction of a Below Grade Parking Garage and a new Classroom Building, and
Minor Alterations to one Facade of a Historic Inventory Category 3 Building on
Campus. Redevelopment is Associated With a Request for Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) Amendment and Variance for Gross Floor Area (GFA) Replacement. Zone
District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was Published July 29, 2020. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief
Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2020
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates –
Boardmember Lew
Objective Standards – Jodie Gerhardt, Boardmember Thompson and Boardmember
Hirsch
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers
are:
Chair Peter Baltay
Vice Chair Osma Thompson
Boardmember David Hirsch
Boardmember Grace Lee
Boardmember Alex Lew
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at bit.ly/paloaltoARB.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the
appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following
instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If
using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser:
Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality
may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto
your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID
below. Please follow instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When
you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to
speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the
Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your
remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join
Meeting ID: 974 7551 5801
Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
(you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service)
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11633)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 10/1/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance
Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent
Project Decisions
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate.
Background
The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and
comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a
future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.
The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year.
Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair.
The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming
projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change.
Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects.
Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division.
There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing.
However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets
containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter
1
Packet Pg. 5
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the
applicant.
No action is required by the ARB for this item.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)
• Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
2020 Schedule
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
1/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
1/30/2020 9:00 AM Palo Alto Art Center Retreat
2/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
3/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
4/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
4/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused
5/7/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
5/21/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
6/4/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Subcommittee
6/18/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
7/2/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
7/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
8/6/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
8/20/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
9/3/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
9/17/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled
10/1/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
10/15/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused
11/5/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
11/19/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
12/3/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
12/17/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular
2020 Subcommittee Assignments
Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing
January February March April May June
1/16 –
Hirsch/Lew
2/6 –
Baltay/Lew
3/5 –
Baltay/Lew
4/16 –
Hirsch/Lew
5/21 –
Thompson/Lew
6/4 –
Thompson/Hirsch
July August September October November December
7/2 –
Thompson/Hirsch
/Lew
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
2020 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
October 15, 2020 • ARB Review of Objective Standards
1.b
Packet Pg. 8
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 10113)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/1/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 1310 Bryant (Castilleja School) 2nd Formal ARB Hearing
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1310 Bryant Street
Castilleja School Project Second ARB Hearing [19PLN-00116]:
Architectural Review of Castilleja School's Phased Campus
Redevelopment Proposal for Site Modifications, Demolition,
Construction of a Below Grade Parking Garage and a new
Classroom Building, and Minor Alterations to one Facade of a
Historic Inventory Category 3 Building on Campus.
Redevelopment is Associated With a Request for Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and Variance for Gross Floor
Area (GFA) Replacement. Zone District: R-1(10,000).
Environmental Review: A Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was Published July 29, 2020. For More Information
Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding September 2020 modifications to
the Project Alternative (Alternative #4);
2. Provide input into verbiage for Draft Architectural Review Findings (Attachment B); and
3. Continue the public hearing to November 5, 2020; a continuance enables publication of
and comments on Draft Project Conditions scheduled for presentation during the
October 14, 2020 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) public hearing.
Report Summary
The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. The August 20, 2020 staff report
includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
policies. The purpose of this report is to restate the ARB’s comments and describe the
applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the
information contained in the earlier report. The information is modified to reflect plan changes.
Background
On August 20, 2020, the ARB reviewed the project. The August 20th ARB staff report1, excerpt
meeting minutes2 and video3, and presentation4 are viewable online. The excerpt ARB minutes,
provided to the PTC in the September 9th PTC staff report5, captured comments from:
(a) the 21 speakers (including some who spoke for a group of individuals also attending), and
(b) two speakers affiliated with Castilleja (head of school and a Castilleja teacher).
The ARB supported the Project Alternative (EIR Alternative #4: Reduced Garage/Disbursed
Circulations Alternative) more than the Project. The ARB did not support the original Project’s
encroachment into the Embarcadero setback and single drop-off location in the garage.
PTC Reviews, Public Comments and Applicant Submittals
In two public hearings, on August 26, 2020 and September 9, 2020, the PTC reviewed the Final
EIR. On August 26th, the PTC received the initial staff report and oral presentations from staff
and the applicant. In addition, the PTC was able to take public testimony, close the public
testimony portion of the hearing, and provide one round of questions to staff. The PTC then
motioned to continue the hearing. Staff noted the questions and provided written responses to
the questions as well as being available for oral discussion on September 9th. Links to the
August 26th PTC meeting report, excerpt minutes and presentations were provided in the PTC
September 9th report. The short September 9th PTC presentation6, video7 and excerpt PTC
meeting minutes8 are available online.
Public comments received by the PTC members prior to the two PTC hearings are viewable here
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78182) and here
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78360). The Applicant’s
submittals of September 8th and 9th, responsive to PTC questions (and posted the same days on
the ‘Project Documents’ webpage as items 10 through 17) are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp. Also
viewable on the same ‘Project Documents’ webpage link, are the Applicant’s new documents
(items #13-23) described below. These documents are responsive to the August 20th ARB
hearing comments.
1 ARB August 20th staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78021
2 ARB August 20th excerpt meeting minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78325
3 ARB August 20th meeting video https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-8202020/
4 ARB August 20th presentation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78197
5 PTC September 9th staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78346
6 PTC September 9th presentation https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78373
7 PTC September 9th video https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-992020/
8 PTC September 9th excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
PTC Action on Final EIR and PTC’s Next Step
On September 9th, the PTC discussed staff’s answers to the initial round of PTC member
questions. PTC members also discussed the project and the EIR. The PTC voted 4-1-2 (Summa
opposed, Roohparvar and Riggs absent) on the adequacy of the Final EIR for transmittal and
recommendation to the City Council. The PTC then voted (4-1-2, same positions) to continue
the public hearing to the PTC meeting date of October 14th. The continuance came with a
request for staff to return with Draft Findings and Conditions for the filed applications within
the PTC’s purview.
Historic Resources Board (HRB) September 24, 2020
Staff and/or the HRB Chair will provide a summary of the HRB’s discussion and feedback on
Draft ARB Finding 2 related to historic preservation. The HRB reviewed and approved the draft
wording for the AR finding. An HRB subcommittee will have an opportunity to see revisions to
the stair railing enabling egress from the Gunn Building second floor door; this subcommittee
follow up item would be incorporated into conditions.
ARB Comments/Direction and Applicant Responses
Since the architect (WRNS) provided a written description in 20199, the Applicant has since
updated the original Project plans and provided plans for Project Alternative #4. The ARB
comments on Project Alternative #4, and the Applicant’s responses thereto, are summarized in
the below table and following paragraphs. The Applicant states that the architect team will
continue to advance some of the thinking and development of items 1 and 2. The Applicant
also committed to submitting additional images before the ARB meeting to help the discussion
of the design approaches.
ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response
1. Kellogg Avenue Side of campus
• 400’ long ‘unrelenting’ - break up
roofline, continuous plate height,
style, mass
• Provide enlarged elevations to see
detail (too ‘ad hoc’ diagrammatic now;
see west elevation approach, concern
too modern)
• Need to see facades without trees
straight forward visuals
• Drop off ‘after-thought’ not reflected
in design
• Need an entrance of importance,
coordinated, that drives design
1. Applicant’s submittal includes some detail at the Kellogg elevation
to show design intent and texture (window detail, color),
modulation of massing to mitigate perception of length;
• Additional enlarged elevations will be presented to the ARB
• 2nd floor area (586 sf) removed breaks up roofline, plate, mass
• Kellogg 2nd floor deck (at 2nd floor area removal) would overlook
street and connect with bridge to Bryant St. deck over porch/lobby
connecting the two building components
• Renderings and elevations are devoid of trees; Renderings are
viewable via this link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78402
• Focus is on entrance porch/lobby at Bryant (see #2 next)
2. Bryant Side of Campus Modifications 1. Submittal reflects at-grade, deeply inset, covered, Bryant-facing
“entry porch” (477 sf) taking cues from the Gunn Building)
9 Original written project description: (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72392)
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
(viewable at same link as for Kellogg side)
• Attached single-story building over the below grade basement
area between the classroom and fine arts/library buildings; a ‘see-
through’ lobby/gathering space (2,136 sf) option
• Rear covered ‘porch’ counts as gross floor area (PAMC 18.04.030
(65)(D)(v)); this porch faces the circle (900 sf)
3. Materials palette how materials change
• Darker tones recede (worth
considering);
• Applicant confirmed at meeting:
(a) Straight edge shingle
(b) Kellogg planter box standing seam
metal
3. Materials update - proposed material changes on Kellogg
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78403
4. Keep the circle but consider landscape
modifications (make circle smaller?)
4. Circle exhibit shows set-backs, smaller circle from existing, site
planning benefits of circle-- more building mass is shifted inward,
deliveries, trash below grade; circle exhibit is viewable at this link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78404
• Planting plans Project sheets L2.0 - L2.3 are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75353
• Interior gardens (green color around circle) include five tree types,
four shrub types, five perennials, grasses and groundcover
• Bioswale areas (turquoise color) have four grass types
5. Tunnel Study - Consider tunnel length
and where ends up (circle destination)
• Consider symbolic entrance
5. Section shows movement from garage up to campus and image of
figures inside tunnel; images viewable at this link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78405
6. Landscape design
• Replacement oak spacing design
intent?
6. Landscape responses:
• Trees at parking facility foundation wall and soil nail wall section:
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
• Trees 84, 85, 87, 89, Trees 115-120
• Needs to be more complete
o What is happening in the right
of way?
o User comfort at pickup
(seating, shade)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78331
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78333
• Project sheets L.1 through L3.4: planting plans, images of selected
materials, plans/details for fences, gates, planter walls/seating
(but note the Emerson ‘park’ is not proposed with Project Alt #4);
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75353
• Perimeter plantings show six tree types, four shrub types, five
perennials, two grasses and one groundcover (ROW plantings are
not shown in these plans) – applicant to update re ROW planting
7. Temporary Campus information –
more info needed and concern about
permanence risk
7. Temporary campus, project alternative; exemplative modular with
screening images (below) shared with PTC; layout:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78343
Image of modulars:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78344
Temporary campus landscape:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78345
8. Sustainability materials
• Solar study, rooftop solar structures,
rain screens, material changes, metal?
• Graphics…enlarged details needed
• Classroom below grade – daylight
Cellar not natural light – borrowed
light - no natural ventilation
8. Daylighting studies were provided to support the daylight that gets
into the garden/lower level; see
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78406
Documents the applicant submitted for this ARB review, responsive to ARB comments and
listed as items 13 through 24, are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp. They
include:
#13. details regarding the trees next to the below grade parking facility
#14. a ‘soil nail section’ (next to Spieker Field to support protection of the Redwoods)
#15. temporary campus layout for Project Alternative #4
#16. Images of the portables from rights of way
#17. Landscape design intent for the temporary campus
#18. Variance Response letter
#20. Materials update
#21. Circle exhibit
#22. Tunnel study
#23. Daylighting analysis
#24. Area summary responsive to ARB
In addition to the design-related comments, the ARB requested more information on the traffic
and TDM program, floor area replacement, and noise. The EIR and Final EIR covered these
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
topics in depth and the project webpages include such information. Below a brief summary is
provided to assist the discussion.
(1) Traffic/Transportation demand management (TDM) – The ARB asked about numbers and
drop-off schedules. The ARB noted a concern about construction detours; specifically, a
concern about conflicts resulting when trucks turn right, and bikes go straight. The ARB also
wondered if the Applicant would consider not increasing the student cap until the
construction on campus is complete. The Final EIR adjusted the mitigation measures related
to implementation of the Enhanced TDM plan, related to the Project Alternative that
disburses vehicular circulation on the streets around10 the campus.
The presentations to the PTC included discussion of the increase in daily trips along the
bicycle route, Bryant Street, next to Castilleja’s campus. This is a different discussion than
Castilleja’s commitment to ‘no net new trips’ related to peak traffic hours. The effectiveness
of mitigation measures to ensure monitoring and enforcement of these measures has been
questioned. Staff noted in public hearings that CUP approval conditions would need to
provide for the City’s enforcement of—and consequences from failures to meet—these
measures. Note the applicant’s July 28, 2020 letter to the Palo Alto City manager contains a
link to a TDM compendium to help describe the program to the community.11
Special Events
A related topic is special events. The ARB purview includes circulation and lighting design,
which are relevant to campus events. The Applicant’s proposal is to decrease the number of
events that have been held annually. The Applicant’s events calendar from March 2018 is
here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64424. Trips to the larger
events would be outside of ‘peak’ traffic periods, and such events are never to be held on
Sundays. The Final EIR determined special events trips would not cause a CEQA impact at
street intersections. However, the concern with events traffic and potential conflicts
between bicyclists and car drivers relates to the quality of life in the neighborhood. The
Public Comments section of this report describes recent correspondence on events. The
Planning and Transportation Commission could recommend, and the City Council could
support conditions to adjust the special events numbers and related operations.
(2) Clarification on Proposed Floor Area
The applicant requests approval of a Variance12 to replace non-complying floor area. The
approval findings are within the PTC’s purview to consider. However, the gross floor area to
be embodied in the proposed new buildings is within the ARB’s interest. The applicant’s
September 8th letter (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78330), is
10 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78328
11 Compendium:
https://issuu.com/castillejaschool/docs/tdm_packet_for_city_of_palo_alto_final?fr=sZjE2NDQ5MjQ1OQ.
12 The ARB may also wish to review the Applicant’s Variance request letter, viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64423.
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
responsive to Commissioner questions on the parking facility. Prior letters from community
groups and the applicant related to the floor area calculations and interpretations are on
the project webpages.13
Because the ARB requested clarification about the gross floor area (GFA), the applicant
provided a visual summary of the Academic Building floor area; it is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78509 (item 24 of the
Applicant’s submittals in 2020). This drawing is referenced to plan sheets G.004 & G.005
from an earlier submittal viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77155).
With respect to locating the below-grade parking facility in the R-1 zone outside a building
footprint and not counting it toward gross floor area, staff has cited applicable code sections.
Staff’s interpretation has been that non-habitable, non-single-family residential basement
parking facility accessory to a conditionally permitted use in the R-1(10,000) zone district does
not count toward GFA. Staff also notes the relevant precedent, Kol Emeth, a religious institution
CUP approved along with a GFA Variance in 2016. The facility included over 100 parking spaces
below grade plus over 10 spaces on the surface lot. Kol Emeth’s below grade facility extended
well beyond the building footprint but the Variance was unrelated to basement parking facility.
In other zone districts, there are several projects where a basement parking facility is not
located under a finished first floor or extends significantly beyond the finished floor. These
include Stanford Medical Center’s subterranean parking facility at 300 Pasteur, the recent
Marriott parking facility at 744 San Antonio Road, and Stanford Research Park properties.
Further discussion on GFA is provided in the Analysis section of this report, related to the
revised plans for ARB review.
(3) Noise
The ARB expressed interest in swimming pool noise, noting the use of a sound wall may not
help if noise bounces of the existing gym wall. The topic of noise and mitigation is covered
in the EIR. The ARB has purview over the design of the sound wall that faces out toward the
neighborhood. Images of the wall were provided in the original Project plan set and clips
are provided below for ease of discussion.
13 Neighborhood group (PNQL) attorney’s letter in 2018
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61796.37&BlobID=67301
Applicant’s rebuttal to PQNL’s letter in 2018
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61892.67&BlobID=67302
Applicant’s letter responsive to Commission dated September 11, 2020
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78401
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
Analysis14
Below images from revised plan sheets, uploaded to the Project Documents page, are
presented to request direction from the ARB on approaches responsive to ARB comments.
A. Kellogg Side of Academic Building and GFA
The Kellogg Avenue side of the Academic Building has been modified; the plate height and
massing have been broken up with removal of a portion of the second floor. The applicant
seeks input from the ARB on this design to mitigate the long, unbroken plate height/wall issue.
The removed second floor area is 586 square feet of gross floor area (GFA).
B. Bryant Side Entrance and GFA
14 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action
from the recommendation in this report.
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
The Bryant lobby entrance and deeply recessed, covered porch facing Bryant Street would
provide a welcoming entry. It would provide substantially shaded, bench seating at this drop-off
location in response to the ARB’s comments. The applicant prefers Option 2 (of three options).
Three porch design options are provided in the plans15.
Recessed, covered porches deeper than 10 feet are counted toward gross floor area (GFA) in
the R-1 zone district. Habitable basement areas underneath GFA calculated at the first-floor
level do not count against GFA in the R-1 zone. Habitable basement areas not under GFA at the
first-floor level count against GFA.
The two components of the Academic Building were previously only connected below grade by
habitable basement area. Because that habitable basement area was not beneath a finished
first floor, staff had counted the basement area toward GFA; in contrast, covered basement
area in the Academic Building was not counted toward GFA.
In front of the new enclosed lobby/gathering space, a deeply recessed, covered porch would
face Bryant Avenue. The roof area would provide a second-floor deck and ‘green roof’. A total
gross floor area of 3,513 at the first-floor level is used to create the gathering/covered porch
spaces.
The breakdown of this Bryant Street square footage is:
• Front Porch=477 sq ft
• Enclosed Gathering space = 2,136 sq ft
• Rear Porch = 900 sq ft
Habitable basement area beneath this first-floor area
would not count toward gross floor area. The 200 sq ft
lightwell does NOT count towards the GFA.
C. Temporary Campus
The applicant provided images for the temporary campus layout with the Alternative #4
proposal – the modular buildings would all be accommodated on Spieker Field. Before-after
images of the two-story modular buildings are found below the campus layout image.
Conditions of approval would require removal of the modular buildings following construction
of the Academic Building. These temporary campus images were shown to the PTC on
September 9, 2020 in the presentation and in the September 9th staff report.
15 Plans showing 3 options for Bryant side entry https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78402
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
D. Tunnel
As the ARB considers the underground, pedestrian tunnel, the verbiage on plans provided in
conjunction with the original Project submittal may be helpful:
“The underground tunnel would connect the proposed underground parking garage to a
stairwell and elevator shaft that would extend upward at the surface adjacent to the
existing administration Building. The tunnel would be approximately 36’ long with a
standard section of 12’ x 11’ (inside dimension of 10’ x 7.5’). The tunnel would start at the
underground parking garage at the finished floor elevation. The tunnel would drop 3.5’ over
the first 7’ of run in order to drop below (maintaining 2’ of cover) the existing 8” public
sewer line located within the 25’ public utilities easement (PUE) using (6) 7” risers on one
side of the tunnel and an ADA accessible lift on the other side. The tunnel would then run at
that elevation (3.5’ below FF of parking garage) for the remaining 29’ of the tunnel until
reaching a surface access shaft complete with stairwell and elevator.”
E. Tree Protection and Design Modifications
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 11
The submittal included a memo from the project Landscape Architect (BFS) dated September 4,
2020. The memo cited standard measures such as protective fencing at the limits of the tree
protection zones and mulching, plus additional protection recommendations for 11 trees:
(a) Redwood #115-120 in place (with a 12-foot excavation setback and other measures),
(b) Coast Live Oaks 89, 113 and 126 (with ten-foot excavation setbacks and other measures),
(c) Deodor Cedars 123 and 124 (with excavation setbacks of nine feet).
Additionally, regarding tree #89, the memo recommended:
• Reconfiguring the stairwell down to the pool with a switch back, to minimize excavation
within 20’ of the trunk.
• Maintaining irrigation over the entire root zone during construction.
• Constructing the transformer pad and DG paving on top of existing grades with minimal
subgrade compaction.
• Utility line boring under roots at a minimal depth of 48” to protect the root zone or “Air
Spade” the utility line at the proposed location.
F. Architectural Review Findings:
Draft AR Findings for Approval are provided with this report (Attachment B). The ARB may wish
to provide feedback to staff regarding draft Findings. The HRB reviewed and recommended the
draft finding related to historic preservation during its public hearing on September 24, 2020.
The finding is included in Attachment B.
Environmental Review
The Final EIR was published July 29th to 30th. The Final EIR presentation to the ARB August 20th
and the PTC August 26th were captured in the staff reports, presentations, and videos. Weblinks
are provided on the Castilleja Project homepage.
The ARB did not previously make a statement on August 20th as to the adequacy of the EIR. The
ARB may consider voting on the adequacy of the Final EIR with respect to areas within the
ARB’s purview.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post
on September 18, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on September 16, 2020, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comments
Public comments on the Castilleja School EIR and project are captured on the Castilleja Project
webpages and PTC and Council webpages, associated with meeting packet dates.
2
Packet Pg. 19
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 12
The neighborhood group PNQL, and others, have commented on the number of campus events
and related approval conditions set by the existing CUP. Recent email related to CUP conditions
enforcement also included comments on the September 9, 2020 Commission staff report. The
correspondence is found among the correspondence received after September 9th (item #4 on
this page https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/public_comments.asp).
Alternative Actions
The ARB is requested to continue its discussion of revisions to the Project Alternative
(Alternative #4) plans to November 5, 2020. In addition to the recommended action, the
Architectural Review Board may:
1. Recommend project approval with finding modifications and request to see the
modified findings along with draft approval conditions at a future ARB hearing;
2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or
3. Recommend project denial based on denial findings which staff would need to prepare.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB16 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX)
• Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)
• Attachment C: ARB August 20, 2020 Staff Report no Attachments (PDF)
16 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 20
Location Map – Castilleja School
2.a
Packet Pg. 21
ATTACHMENT B
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PLANS
19PLN-00119
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements reflected in the Project Alternative
design, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in
Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
The Project Alternative conforms to the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies.
Comp Plan Goals and
Policies
How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the site is Single
Family Residential
Castilleja School has existed at this site since 1910 and has co-existed since 1960
via CUP with the surrounding Single-Family Residential uses
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy L-1.1: Maintain and
prioritize Palo Alto’s varied
residential neighborhoods while
sustaining the vitality of its
commercial areas and public
facilities.
The school’s functionality will be enhanced for increased safety, sustainability,
and programmatic space to better serve its student population. Project features
are intended to minimize existing school-related disruptions on the surrounding
neighborhood: below grade pool with sound-wall, and all but 26 parking spaces
are hidden below grade, the distributed drop off to avoid TIRE impact on
Emerson; preservation of mature trees that are of value to the community.
Policy L-1.5: Regulate land uses in
Palo Alto according to the land
use definition in this Element and
Map L-6.
Schools are conditionally permitted uses in areas designated as Single-Family
Residential. This is not a ‘grandfathered use’. No change to the land use
designation is proposed.
Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses
that address the needs of the
community and manage change
and development to benefit the
community.
Existing school land use is single-gender, non-sectarian school. Schools are an
important community need. Project expands enrollment gradually with as
facilities are redeveloped for increased safety, sustainability, and programmatic
space with enhanced TDM.
Policy L-1.11: Hold new
development to the highest
development standards to
maintain Palo Alto’s livability and
achieve the highest quality
development with the least
impacts.
New building design utilizes high quality materials, results in net reduction of
campus gross floor area (and thus, FAR). Total gross floor area reduced by 988
sf). Increased are below grade. Building replaces over-height limit buildings with
building meeting height limit. Temporary changes in campus-wide visual
character will occur, via demolition, construction and associated tree removal.
Overall, project would improve the site’s visual character its compatibility with
the surrounding residential neighborhood compared to existing conditions by
reducing the perceived building scale and massing.
Policy L-2.11: Encourage new
development and redevelopment
to incorporate greenery and
natural features such as green
The site plan includes greater open space area (3,766 sf). This new open space
was reduced from 6,904 sf additional open space for Project Alternative noted in
EIR (Existing open space at 140,390 sf; 147,294 sf in Alternative #4). New porch at
3,513 sf reduces the increase in open space to 164 sf; however, the porch has
2.b
Packet Pg. 22
rooftops, pocket parks, plazas
and rain gardens.
1,954 sf green roof. Circle to be smaller but retained. Project incorporates new
planter areas, preserves most trees around the site’s perimeter, provides
additional landscaping with trees, shrubs, grasses, vines, and groundcover,
gardens adjacent to buildings, bioretention areas, and a green roof above
subterranean parking facility.
Policy L-2.8: When considering
infill redevelopment, work to
minimize displacement of existing
residents.
The houses on Emerson Street are retained under Project Alternative #4. One
house is used as a rental housing unit. Both of these R-1 properties are
developable with second dwelling units to increase housing supply.
Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or
remodeled structures are
compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent
structures.
The new academic building complies with the R-1 height limit and the revised
Kellogg elevation shows the roofline/mass at second floor level broken to help the
proposed building’s scale and massing to be more compatible with neighboring
residences. Buildings would be slightly smaller in scale and mass than the existing
buildings. Building design incorporates articulation and variety in material and
colors to further break up the massing. Architectural features, fences and walls
similar to those found in residential, rather than institutional, neighborhoods;
examples: large roof overhangs with exposed wood beams, trellised patios,
outdoor covered areas, use of exterior materials that are predominant in the
neighborhood.
Program L4.9.1: While preserving
adequate parking to meet
demand, identify strategies to
reuse surface parking lots.
The existing surface parking lot next to the gym is to be reused as below-grade
pool location; the size of the parking lot at Emerson/Kellogg is reduced and
tandem spaces eliminated.
Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings
that Create Coherent
Development Patterns and
Enhance City Streets and Public
Spaces.
Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality
design and site planning that is
compatible with surrounding
development and public spaces.
Policy L-6.7: Where possible,
avoid abrupt changes in scale and
density between residential and
non-residential areas and
between residential areas of
different densities. To promote
compatibility and gradual
transitions between land uses,
place zoning district boundaries
at midblock locations rather than
along streets wherever possible.
Project replaces five institutional buildings with two new buildings with slightly
less gross floor area; Kellogg façade undulates; roofline and mass are broken up
partway; porch entrance on Bryant connects the new buildings; updated
materials are compatible with the existing residences surrounding the site.
Removing outdated buildings of substantially lower quality than buildings built to
current standards promotes high quality design and site planning. The new
building design is more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood; the
required ARB review process ensures building will meet the City’s architectural
review approval findings.
The below-grade parking facility would relocate many circulating and parked
vehicles from the neighborhood streets with a new pick-up and drop-off location.
On-street parking in the neighborhood will be reduced with adequate on-site
parking space supply. School parking will become more compatible with
residential neighbor parking. The bus drop-off and pick-up area relocated internal
to the site, and loading, delivery, and trash functions moved off City streets and
onto school property to reduce neighborhood congestion and noise.
New building façades scaled to the size of neighboring residences, to avoid abrupt
changes in scale between residential and nonresidential uses. The project
increases the amount of undeveloped open space on the project site and
retaining the Emerson homes improves transitions between uses.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale
and character of the City. Avoid
land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due their size
and scale.
The proposed changes to the site with this project are consistent with the site and
neighborhood character, which is primarily a two-story residential neighborhood.
Project Alternative #4 maintains scale on site and maintains the Emerson Street
character be retaining the two residential structures at 1235 and 1263 Emerson.
Policy L-9.2: Encourage
development that creatively
The project would reduce the amount of surface parking on the site from 82
spaces to 26 spaces and construct an underground parking facility for 117 spaces
2.b
Packet Pg. 23
integrates parking into the
project, including by locating it
behind buildings or Consistent.
Analysis underground wherever
possible, or by providing shared
use of parking areas. Encourage
other alternatives to surface
parking lots that minimize the
amount of land devoted to
parking while still maintaining
safe streets, street trees, a
vibrant local economy, and
sufficient parking to meet
demand.
(10 of which are the interior space of a tandem pair and are not counted towards
attainment of the City’s minimum parking requirements). With many drop-off
and pick-up traffic routed through the underground parking garage, and the
availability of on-site parking, the parking garage would relocate vehicle
circulation and parking away from the neighborhood streets such that the school
use can be more compatible with its residential neighbors.
Policy L-9.3: Treat residential
streets as both public ways and
neighborhood amenities. Provide
and maintain continuous
sidewalks, healthy street trees,
benches, and other amenities
that promote walking and
“active” transportation.
The project would include bicycle parking for students consistent with the
Municipal Code. The project would be consistent with all aboveground setback
and landscaping requirements which would ensure a high-quality and
comfortable pedestrian experience on adjacent residential streets
Policy T-1.1: Take a
comprehensive approach to
reducing single-occupant vehicle
trips by involving those who live,
work and shop in Palo Alto in
developing strategies that make it
easier and more convenient not
to drive
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will implement
additional Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce peak hour
vehicle trips. This includes encouraging bicycling, walking, and carpooling and
providing shuttle and bus service.
Policy T-1.2: Collaborate with
Palo Alto employers and business
owners to develop, implement
and expand comprehensive
programs like the TMA to reduce
single-occupant vehicle commute
trips, including through incentives
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will implement
additional Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce peak hour
vehicle trips (Appendix B). This includes encouraging bicycling, walking, and
carpooling and providing shuttle and bus service.
Policy T-1.6: Encourage
innovation and expanded transit
access to regional destinations,
multi-modal transit stations,
employment centers and
commercial centers, including
those within Palo Alto through
the use of efficient public and/or
private transit options such as
rideshare services, on-demand
local shuttles and other first/last
mile connections.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will expand the
school’s Transportation Demand Management program to meet the performance
standards identified in Mitigation Measure 7a, which may include expanding
shuttle and bus service.
Policy T-1.16 Promote personal
transportation vehicles as an
alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles,
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will implement
additional Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce peak hour
vehicle trips and the daily trip rate per student as required in Mitigation Measure
2.b
Packet Pg. 24
skateboards, roller blades) to get
to work, school, shopping,
recreational facilities and transit
stops.
Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities
that encourage and support
bicycling and walking.
Program T5.12.1 Work with
employers, merchants, schools
and community service providers,
to identify ways to provide more
bicycle parking, including e-bike
parking with charging stations,
near existing shops, services and
places of employment.
7a. This includes encouraging bicycling, walking, and carpooling and providing
shuttle and bus service.
The project will add new bicycle facilities on- consistent with the goals of the 2012
Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan; it will improve the bicycle
parking capacity of the site and incentivize the use of bicycles as a mode of
transportation to the site.
• 140 bike spaces (94 long term spaces and 46 rack spaces) provided in three
bike parking areas; 46 rack spaces at grade along the front of the proposed
library; 52 long term spaces between the proposed pool and the parking
garage exit ramp; 42 long term spaces near athletic building.
• Castilleja increasing TDM efforts to meet a “no new AM or PM peak hour
trips” standard (2016 TDM Plan and 2016 TDM Plan Supplement, EIR
Appendix B).
• Additional requirements and performance standards for the TDM plan are
identified in Mitigation Measure 7a.
• The building and site design will enhance the pedestrian and bicycling
environment and access to the site overall. The parking lot adjacent to
Bryant Street would be reconfigured, providing 13 parking spaces for visitors.
Emerson and Kellogg parking lot to be repurposed as a staff parking lot with
13 parking spaces.
Policy T-4.6: Require project
proponents to employ the TIRE
methodology to measure
potential street impacts from
proposed new development of all
types in residential
neighborhoods
EIR Chapter 7, Transportation and Circulation, includes analysis of the project’s
effects using the TIRE methodology. Mitigation measure 7a recommends specific
percentage distribution of drop offs to avoid TIRE impacts.
Policy T-5.1: All new development
projects should manage parking
demand generated by the project,
without the use of onstreet parking,
consistent with the established
parking regulations. As demonstrated
parking demand decreases over time,
parking requirements for new
construction should decrease.
Policy T-5.6: Strongly encourage the
use of below-grade or structured
parking and explore mechanized
parking instead of surface parking for
new developments of all types while
minimizing negative impacts
including on groundwater and
landscaping where feasible.
Policy T-5.11: Work to protect
residential areas from parking
impacts of nearby businesses and
uses, recognizing that fully
addressing some existing intrusions
may take time.
Most parking will be in a below-grade parking garage within the project site.
Currently, the campus does not provide sufficient vehicle parking to meet the
Municipal Code requirements. The proposed on-site parking would exceed the
Municipal Code requirements. Further, it would improve the ratio of parking
spaces to students, which would reduce the amount of on-street parking in the
neighborhood.
The development of below-grade parking would reduce the use of on-street
parking by students and parents and would therefore reduce the intrusion of
campus vehicles on street parking in the residential neighborhood
Policy T-5.12: To promote bicycle The project includes provision of onsite bicycle parking and a bicycle repair
2.b
Packet Pg. 25
use, increase the number of safe,
attractive and well-designed
bicycle parking spaces available in
the city, including spots for
diverse types of bicycle and
associated equipment, including
bicycle trailers, prioritizing heavily
travelled areas such as
commercial and retail centers,
employment districts,
recreational/cultural facilities,
multi-modal transit facilities and
ride share stops for bicycle
parking infrastructure.
station for students and staff. As part of the Transportation Demand
Management Plan, the project would also provide for bicycle “fix-it” days to
encourage bike riding.
Policy N-2.1: Recognize the
importance of the urban forest as
a vital part of the city’s natural
and green infrastructure network
that contributes to public health,
resiliency, habitat values,
appreciation of natural systems
and an attractive visual character
which must be protected and
enhanced.
Adverse effects to the existing trees within and adjacent to the project site were
studied; the proposed landscaping plan includes planting new trees throughout
the campus. Project Alternative #4 would remove 22 trees, including 8
protected and street trees, and relocate 32 trees, including 5 protected and
street trees. The Project Alternative #4 retains the row of six redwoods next to
Spieker Field. The Tree Removal Management Program is intended to ensure the
protection of existing trees and the survival of new and replanted trees.
Replanting established trees causes significant impact which will require long
term care plus mitigation for reduction of health and longevity. Mitigation
Measure 4b requires replacement of protected trees, replacement of street trees,
and additional tree planting to replace the tree canopy from trees that are not
specifically protected.
Policy N-2.4: Protect soils in both
urban and natural areas as the
foundation of a healthy urban
forest. Recognize that healthy
soils are necessary to filter air and
water, sustain plants and animals
and support buildings and
infrastructure.
The evaluation considered effects due to encroachment into the soil area
necessary to support healthy trees. Specifically, the Arborist Report and
September 2020 landscape architect’s letter contains recommendations
regarding provision and/or protection of adequate soil area to support healthy
tree growth.
Policy N-2.6: Improve the overall
distribution of citywide canopy
cover, so that neighborhoods in
all areas of Palo Alto enjoy the
benefits of a healthy urban
canopy.
Mitigation Measure 4b requires Castilleja School to plant trees in landscape
planters along public streets in the project vicinity. This will improve the canopy
cover in the neighborhood.
Policy N-2.8: Require new
commercial, multi-unit and
single-family housing projects to
provide street trees and related
irrigation systems.
The project would retain most of the existing street trees around the project site
perimeter and would plant additional street trees in the vicinity as required by
Mitigation Measure 4b.
Policy N-2.9: Minimize removal
of, and damage to, trees due to
construction-related activities
such as trenching, excavation, soil
compacting and release of toxins.
Impact 4-3 evaluates the project’s potential to result in adverse effects to the
existing trees within and adjacent to the project site, including consideration of
effects due to encroachment into the soil area necessary to support healthy trees.
The project would retain 97 99 trees, removing 35 trees and relocating 40 34
trees. Mitigation Measure 4b requires that the project applicant prepare and
implement a Tree Protection, Removal, and Relocation Preservation Plan for each
construction phase, subject to review and approval by the City’s Urban Forester.
2.b
Packet Pg. 26
Further, this plan must include specific measures for the protection of retained
trees from 4 – LAND USE AND PLANNING Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019, as revised July 2020 4-19 Table 4-1 Comprehensive Plan Policy
Consistency Analysis Policy Analysis adverse effects associated with construction
activities
Policy N-2.10: Preserve and
protect Regulated Trees, such as
native oaks and other significant
trees, on public and private
property, including landscape
trees approved as part of a
development review process and
consider strategies for expanding
tree protection in Palo Alto.
Impact 4-3 evaluates the project’s consistency with the City’s Tree Preservation
and Management Regulations. Project Alternative #4 would remove 22 trees,
including 8 protected and street trees, and relocate 32 trees, including 5
protected and street trees. The Tree Protection and Preservation Plan required
under Mitigation Measure 4b, which is subject to review and approval by the
City’s Urban Forester, must include specific measures for the protection of
retained trees from adverse effects associated with construction activities.
Policy N-6.7: While a proposed
project is in the development
review process, the noise impact
of the project on existing
residential land uses, public open
spaces and public conservation
land should be evaluated in terms
of the increase in existing noise
levels for the potential for
adverse community impact,
regardless of existing background
noise levels. If an area is below
the applicable maximum noise
guideline, an increase in noise up
to the maximum should not
necessarily be allowed.
EIR Chapter 8, Noise, provides a detailed analysis of the potential noise impacts
associated with the project. The proposed project could create a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels for some neighbors during construction and
associated with the use of amplified sound equipment at the proposed pool.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 8a and 8b which require use of
noise management measures during construction and modeling that
demonstrates the sound system at the pool would be designed and installed such
that noise levels remain in compliance with the City’s standards, would ensure
that the proposed project would be compliant with Policy N-6.7.
Policy N-6.8: The City may
require measures to reduce noise
impacts of new development on
adjacent properties through
appropriate means including, but
not limited to, the following:
• Orient buildings to shield noise
sensitive outdoor spaces from
sources of noise.
• Construct noise walls when
other methods to reduce noise
are not practical and when these
walls will not shift similar noise
impacts to another adjacent
property.
• Screen and control noise
sources such as parking lots,
outdoor activities and mechanical
equipment, including HVAC
equipment.
• Increase setbacks to serve as a
buffer between noise sources and
EIR Chapter 8, Noise, identifies the anticipated noise levels associated with special
events and truck activity and finds that impacts would remain less than
significant. The proposed project would relocate truck activity to a below-grade
loading and trash enclosure area. A Sound Wall is proposed adjacent to the new,
below grade pool to be set 15 feet below grade.
2.b
Packet Pg. 27
adjacent dwellings.
• Whenever possible, retain
fences, walls or landscaping that
serve as noise buffers while
considering design, safety and
other impacts.
• Use soundproofing materials,
noise reduction construction
techniques, and/or acoustically
rated windows/doors.
• Include auxiliary power sources
at loading docks to minimize
truck engine idling.
• Control hours of operation,
including deliveries and trash
pickup, to minimize noise impacts
Policy N-6.11: Continue to
prioritize construction noise limits
around sensitive receptors,
including through limiting
construction hours and individual
and cumulative noise from
construction equipment.
EIR Chapter 8, Noise, identifies the general noise levels associated with
construction and includes Mitigation Measure 8b requiring Castilleja School to
submit detailed construction equipment and noise management plans for each
construction phase
Policy N-7.4: Maximize the
conservation and efficient use of
energy in new and existing
residences and other buildings in
Palo Alto.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards
achieving “zero net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to
meet the majority of energy demand. This may include photovoltaics, solar water
heating, and/or wastewater heat recovery.
Policy N-7.5: Encourage energy
efficient lighting that protects
dark skies and promotes energy
conservation by minimizing light
and glare from development
while ensuring public health and
safety.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards
achieving “zero net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to
meet the majority of energy demand. This may include photovoltaics, solar water
heating, and/or wastewater heat recovery.
Policy N-7.6: Support the
maximum economic use of solar
electric (photovoltaic) and solar
thermal energy, both as
renewable supply resources for
the Electric Utility Portfolio and
as alternative forms of local
power generation.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards
achieving “zero net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to
meet the majority of energy demand. This may include photovoltaics, solar water
heating, and/or wastewater heat recovery. Castilleja’s Sustainability Road Map is
to improve energy and water efficiency, reduce vehicle travel, prioritize use of
environmentally sensitive materials, and reduce light pollution.
Policy N-8.1: Take action to
achieve target reductions in
greenhouse gas emission levels
from City operations and the
community activity of 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030.
The project would replace four buildings with new construction that is more
energy efficient and water efficient than the existing structures which would help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project also includes implementation of a
Sustainability Plan that would further reduce Castilleja School’s contribution to
greenhouse gas emissions
Policy S-2.5: Minimize exposure
of people and structures to
geologic hazards, including slope
The geotechnical report for the proposed project demonstrates that the geologic
and soil conditions at the site are suitable to support the proposed improvements.
2.b
Packet Pg. 28
stability, subsidence and
expansive soils, and to seismic
hazards including ground shaking,
fault rupture, liquefaction and
landslides.
The Project Alternative design complies with the City’s Zoning regulations; it will not increase
the development area of the site regarding height (which will be reduced to meet the R-1 Zone
height limit), gross floor area/floor area ratio (net loss of GFA, FAR (above grade floor area), and
setbacks. A Variance is requested to replaced non-complying gross floor area that exceeds the
maximum floor area ratio, established in 1998 for the R-1 district properties. On-site parking
spaces will be increased to address the increased student enrollment; the parking facilities will
be Zoning Code compliant with the required parking ratio based on the number of classrooms,
but not ‘overparked’. The project will increase the number of bike parking spaces on the site to
meet/exceed bike parking requirements. The applicant requests approval of a phased
Architectural Review project, under Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76.020 (g), for
construction to take place over a three year period, with associated enrollment increases at a
rate not to exceed 27 students per year.
Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively
to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when
relevant,
c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, NA
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses
and land use designations,
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent
residential areas.
Responses:
(a) The project’s new buildings and site improvements will enhance the pedestrian
environment within and surrounding Castilleja School. The L-shaped Academic building will
provide a desirable environment with a library and fine arts space located in the wing facing
Bryant Street and the majority of the teaching stations, the cafeteria, offices and common
areas in the wing facing Kellogg Avenue. The Academic Building design will be unified and
coherent, an aesthetic improvement from the existing buildings to be replaced.
(b-1) The project retains and improves the existing Historic Resource Category 3 resource, the
Gunn Administration Building, in a way that demonstrates compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, by:
• Separating it from the Rhoades building to be demolished;
2.b
Packet Pg. 29
• Refinishing the exterior wall on the eastern façade with differentiated stucco on the first
floor and wood shingles on the second floor, consistent with the existing building
materials and finishes, and matching the existing exterior finishes in material, color and
dimension; the refinishing plans would not alter the building dimensions;
• Adding new doors on the first and second floors and constructing new exterior stairs
(with Condition for modifications to Option 1 retaining door proposal but capturing
some of Option 2’s railing features – with review of final details for egress stairway to be
reviewed by HRB subcommittee) to provide access to the second floor (with wood trim
to match existing window trim);
• Maintaining and preserving distinctive finishes and character-defining features,
including its stucco- and shingle-clad exterior walls, wood shingle roofing, and
Craftsman style features;
• Enabling, upon project implementation, the Administration Center to continue to
convey its distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of fine
craftsmanship.
(b-2) The Project would keep 99 trees in place, whereas the Alternative #4 keeps another 11
trees in place; the Project Alternative #4 would remove 22 trees, including eight protected and
street trees, and relocate 32 trees, including five protected and street trees. The Project
Alternative #4 retains the row of six Redwoods next to Spieker Field.
(c) Not applicable (no context-based design criteria in the R1 zones)
(d) With Project Alternative #4’s retention of Castilleja’s two single-family houses on Emerson
Street, the existing character of Emerson Street between Melville Avenue and Embarcadero
Road will be retained; the proposed harmonious fencing and landscaping will add to the
residential and school character, to improve the transitions between uses; the character of the
Bryant and Kellogg frontages will be improved; temporarily, due to the proposed temporary
campus, the character of Embarcadero Road frontage will be dramatically changed, but the
proposed vegetation is intended to interrupt views of the proposed two story portables.
(e) There are no living units on the Castilleja School campus. There are measures in the EIR that
address protection of the adjacent historic resource at 1215 Emerson Street, under separate
ownership, from damage during construction. Construction and the installation of the proposed
temporary campus will be a nuisance to residents adjacent to the project for a certain period of
time, after which construction will cease and the temporary campus would be removed.
The proposed below-grade pool’s stepped bleachers would face northwest (towards the
interior of the campus); pool equipment would be in an area below grade under a portion of
the bleachers and adjacent to the driveway ramp; a six foot tall noise attenuation wall would be
constructed at the setback from Emerson Street with a two foot kicker placed at the top,
slanted inwards towards the pool, extending 3 feet towards the interior of the project site.
These noise-reduction measures are supplemented by mitigation measures related to
loudspeaker use.
2.b
Packet Pg. 30
Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials,
and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other
details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
The project includes materials which are durable and have high-quality finishes. The new
Academic Building will be finished with cedar wood shingles and vertical cedar siding wall
system (subject to ARB review of board and batten pattern, tile options for use at the break in
massing on Kellogg (including matte glazed tile, ceramic tile, glazed brick or textured tile), and
window trim options) Window, storefront and curtain wall glazed assemblies are proposed.
Exterior metals include painted steel, steel plate and picket railings, anodized aluminum
window and opening framing, zinc and anodized aluminum paneling. The design is intended to
enhance the character of the site and update the existing conditions, with: board form finishing
from foundation to roof, timber or composite metal decking topped in concrete, with an SBS
flat roof system with overhangs and trellises to shade and reduce conditioned space, and with
extensive photovoltaic panels.
The lighting plans were reviewed in the EIR and subject to mitigation measure implementation;
ARB review to ensure lighting limits of 0.5 foot-candle, as measured at the abutting residential
property line; with interior lighting to minimize nighttime glow; low intensity lighting for
building exteriors, parking areas, and pedestrian ways; and directing pedestrian and security
lighting downward.
Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of
open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
Bicycle parking: The project will improve circulation for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic
and access to the project site.
• Bike parking increases from 102 surface level spaces to approximately 140 spaces,
consistent with the proposed Sustainability Plan. These spaces would be provided in
several bicycle parking areas.
(1) At grade along the front of the proposed library within the new Academic
building, at site access driveway on Bryant Road (46 rack spaces).
(2) Surface-level bike area between the proposed pool and the parking garage exit
ramp (52 rack spaces).
(3) Additional 42 bicycle parking spaces near the athletic building.
(4) Long-term bicycle parking would be located along the northern wall of the pool
area and gymnasium and include four bicycle lockers as well as bicycle racks.
Bicycle circulation and repairs: The project includes a Bryant Street repair station for students
to use for routine bicycle maintenance and minor repairs. Bicyclists would be directed to access
the campus either from Emerson Street or the corner of Bryant Street and Kellogg Avenue.
2.b
Packet Pg. 31
Bicyclists using Bryant Street would park in the short-term parking or walk their bicycles across
the front of the Academic and Administration buildings and then along the Chapel Theater to
the long-term parking area. Pedestrian access to the site would be provided from Bryant Street
at the exit driveway for the Bryant Street loop and from the sidewalk along Emerson Street.
Service delivery facilities: These would be relocated below grade and away from the perimeter
of the campus, accessed via a 26-foot wide paved vehicle ramp from Emerson Street into the
basement area of the proposed Academic building, which would host a trash enclosure and
service/loading area.
Temporary campus on Spieker Field: The temporary campus would contain 40 classrooms,
restrooms, a kitchen and dining facilities, a library, a student-cubbies building, a storage
building, several storage sheds, and a maintenance building. These would be placed on Spieker
Field following construction of the garage. In the final construction phase, the temporary
campus would be removed, and Spieker Field would be restored.
Pedestrian tunnel: The approximately 36 foot long underground pedestrian tunnel would
provide access from the garage to the central part of the campus, between the athletic center
and chapel. With a standard section of 12 feet by 11 feet (which would provide an inside
dimension of 10 feet by 7.5 feet), the tunnel at both ends would include appropriate provisions
for access required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This tunnel is proposed as a
permanent encroachment within the 25-foot PUE located along the old alignment of Melville
Avenue through the campus; the PUE would shift 15 feet to the southeast to accommodate
construction of the proposed below-grade garage. The garage walls would be placed a
minimum of five feet from the existing sewer line (so the sewer line would not be affected).
The Circle: An open-space organizing feature of the campus to be reconstructed in a slightly
smaller configuration and shifted easterly (with the Circle’s edge approximately 40 feet further
from Bryant Street than the current Circle). A driveway would continue to provide access to the
Circle from Emerson Street and continue around the perimeter of the Circle for on-site
circulation of buses and other vehicles, as needed. The Circle would be surfaced with artificial
turf requiring no irrigation.
Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical,
regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat
that can be appropriately maintained.
Many of the existing trees will be preserved as noted in Finding 2, and there will be no net loss
of tree canopy. All but one tree species (Queen Palm) will be native trees. The plant species will
provide suitable habitats; and include flowering plants/trees suitable for wildlife. The different
planting areas are appropriate to the functions and locations – perimeter plantings, interior
garden, and bioretention swales. California natives, drought tolerant and habitat creating
species are selected, with an appropriate variety of perennials, shrubs, grasses and trees that
2.b
Packet Pg. 32
will complement the building design and site.
Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas
related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
As part of the proposed Sustainability Plan, Castilleja School will work towards achieving “zero
net energy” use by using renewable energy generated onsite to meet the majority of energy
demand. This may include photovoltaics, solar water heating, and/or wastewater heat
recovery. Castilleja’s Sustainability Road Map is to improve energy and water efficiency, reduce
vehicle travel, prioritize use of environmentally sensitive materials, and reduce light pollution.
The project will comply with green building energy code requirements. The landscaping will
include a significant amount of native or low to moderate water usage plants along with on-site
water treatment (C3) that will reduce storm water runoff and allow water to enter the local
aquifer.
When removal of an entire structure is proposed, it must be accomplished through a process of
deconstruction rather than demolition, requiring careful disassembly of building components to
maximize reuse and recycling. This approach is consistent with Castilleja School’s proposed
Sustainability Road Map and their goal of attaining a LEED platinum
The mechanical systems are primarily radiant heating and cooling distributed in a concrete
topping slab over decks; this uses a center water cooled heat pump in the lower level of the
new building. The system includes pumps, expansion tanks, air separators, chemical feed and
VFDs. This will replace the existing on-site cooling tower that will then serve other buildings on
site.
2.b
Packet Pg. 33
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11193)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/20/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 1310 Bryant, 1235 and 1263 Emerson: Castilleja First ARB
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION ITEM 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and
1263 Emerson Street [19PLN-00116]: Architectural Review of
Castilleja School's Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal for
Site Modifications, Demolition, Construction of a Below Grade
Parking Garage and a new Classroom Building, and Minor
Alterations to one Facade of a Historic Inventory Category 3
Building on Campus. Redevelopment is Associated With a
Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and
Variance for Gross Floor Area (GFA) Replacement. The Primary
Project Also Includes Requests for a Tentative map With
Exception and a Variance for Below-grade Setback
Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback (the
Alternate Project Does not Include These Requests). Zone
District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 29,
2020. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief
Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
1. Consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)1 published July 29, 2020;
particularly, sections focused on aesthetics and cultural resources,
2. Conduct a public hearing of the Architectural Review (AR) application (19PLN-00419) for
phased redevelopment of Castilleja’s campus, and
1 Final EIR published July 29, 2020:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4823&TargetID=319
2.c
Packet Pg. 34
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 2
3. Continue the hearing to September 17th.
Report Summary
The applicant, the Castilleja School Foundation (Castilleja), seeks to redevelop portions of its
campus and increase the school’s enrollment. Castilleja School is a private school providing
education for girls from sixth grade through 12th grade. Founded in 1907 at 1121 Bryant Street,
the school moved in 1910 to the 1310 Bryant Street campus. It is located within a single-family
residential neighborhood zoned R-1(10,000).
This staff report:
• Supports the ARB’s consideration of the Final EIR, published pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
• Supports review of campus redevelopment proposals (Project and Project Alternative
plans) associated with the CUP request for annual enrollment increases up to a 540-
student cap; and
• Clarifies the upcoming review process steps and purview of the ARB, HRB, and PTC for
the Castilleja School project.
The ARB is scheduled to consider the Project over at least two meetings; August 20 and
September 17, 2020. This first ARB discussion will include the EIR presentation and a
presentation by the applicant. The applicant’s presentation will include the Project plans and
more recently submitted plans for a ‘Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative’; this is
referred to as the “Project Alternative.”
The ARB’s purview includes the physical changes to the campus, such as the site modifications,
construction of a below grade parking garage and new classroom building. Staff asks for ARB
comments regarding the Project and Project Alternative and requests a continuance of the
public hearing to September 17, 2020. The September 17th staff report will include draft
Architectural Review findings. Staff is now preparing these findings, as well as approval
conditions tailored to the Project Alternative described in the Final EIR as the environmentally
superior alternative.
The applicant also seeks a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment (file 16PLN-00238) to
increase its student enrollment cap. The enrollment would occur in stages alongside the phased
campus redevelopment and would also include an enhanced Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will consider
the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the CUP, and Variances on for gross floor area
replacement and setback encroachment, and Tentative Map with Exceptions (17PLN-00234)
August 26, 2020. Links to relevant documents are found on the City’s Castilleja School Project
webpages: (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp).
EIR Consideration and Project Objectives
2.c
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 3
The ARB is asked to consider the EIR prepared for this project. The ARB members received
notice of the 2019 Draft EIR 60-day public comment period. The July 15, 2019 Draft EIR
addressed the planning entitlement applications associated with the Project, and
• Noted the Applicant’s eight project objectives;
• Identified the Project’s ‘significant and unavoidable’ CEQA traffic impacts;
• Provided explanations and mitigation measures to address other impacts;
• Evaluated two on-site alternatives to the Project; and
• Discussed six other project alternatives, rejected from further analysis.
On July 30, 2020, ARB members were notified of the Final EIR publication. The Final EIR:
(i) Provides Master Responses (MRs) and Individual Responses to Draft EIR public comments
received during the 60-day review period that ended September 16, 2019;
(ii) Revises the Draft EIR with additional analysis, clarifies project alternatives, and adds two
alternatives (in Revised Chapter 13) discussed in the Final EIR Chapter 2 (MRs 4 and 5);
(iii) Describes the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact (SOI) under CEQA (the TIRE2
Index increase on Emerson Street); the increase in daily traffic on Emerson Street between
Melville Avenue and Embarcadero Road (Impact 7-1 in the Draft EIR); and
(iv) Describes the Project Alternative’s ability to avoid significant CEQA impacts, including the
TIRE Index impact described above.
Project Alternative
The Project Alternative is considered the ‘environmentally superior alternative’ to the Project; it
changes the level of significance of CEQA impacts and would not require Council to adopt a
‘Statement of Overriding Considerations’ to approve it. The Project Alternative, submitted in
2020, would enable achievement of all Project objectives, while addressing several community
concerns; removing the significant and unavoidable CEQA traffic impact of the Project; and
enabling withdrawal of the Tentative Map application and Variance request for a below grade
garage encroachment into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback.
If Council supports the Project Alternative, Council can:
• Certify the Final EIR by Resolution;
• Adopt the associated mitigation measures with a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program; and
• Approve a Record of Land Use Action containing approval findings and conditions for
the CUP, the Variance for floor area replacement, and Architectural Review.
Background
Applicant’s Project Objectives
The Applicant’s eight project objectives, as noted in the Draft and Final EIRs, are as follows:
2 TIRE = Traffic Intrusion into Residential Environments
2.c
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 4
1. Maintain a single integrated campus for the middle and upper school in the current
location, while providing new structures that integrate state-of-the-art technology and
teaching practices and retain flexibility to adapt to unanticipated changes.
2. Achieve better architectural compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through a well-
articulated building and improve site aesthetics and harmony with the surrounding
neighborhoods through enhanced landscaping.
3. Increase enrollment to 540 students* to allow more young women the unique
opportunity to receive an all-girls education.
4. Increase on-site parking via an underground parking garage in order to reduce both
parking visibility and surface parking spaces.
5. Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for students and staff through design
efficiencies and a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan.
6. Ensure no increase in vehicle trips to and from the campus during AM and PM peak
hours relative to recent (baseline) traffic volumes. Reduce the number of service
deliveries and relocate deliveries within the campus and below grade, to decrease
nuisance effects to neighbors.
7. Improve the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency by developing new facilities.
8. Phased development of the project to allow Castilleja School to continue to operate
during construction and to reduce impacts on the neighborhood.
*Note: Applicant request for a 540-student cap is associated with phased enrollment increases
and special events limitations, alongside phased campus redevelopment over three years.
Project Information
Owner: Castilleja School
Architect: WRNS
Representative: Kathy Layendecker
Legal Counsel: Mindie Romanowski
Property Information
Address: 1310 Bryant Street, and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street (project site)
located within R-1 (10,000) Zone District) See Attachment A map
Neighborhood: Seale Addition (located south of Embarcadero Rd west of Alma St)
Lot Dimensions & Area: Project site is 286,783 square foot (s.f.) comprised of three parcels.
• 1310 Bryant (APN 124-12-034) frontages: 500’ on Kellogg; 406.6’
on Bryant; 429.4’ on Embarcadero Rd; 430’ on Emerson St
• 1235 Emerson (APN 124-12-031) 75’ wide by 100’ deep, a rental
housing unit on a 7,500 s.f. lot);
• 1263 Emerson (APN 124-12-033) 105’ wide by 100’ deep, a
10,500 s.f. lot no longer used for housing).
Housing Inventory Site: No
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes
2.c
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 5
Historic Resource(s): Yes. Local historic inventory Category 3 resource. Other Castilleja
buildings more than 45 years old are not on the inventory and are
not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources.
Existing Improvement(s): One-, two- and three-story buildings; oldest building is circa 1910
Existing Land Use(s): Private all-girls school and housing (Emerson address parcels)
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: single family residential; R-1(10,000) i.e. 10,000 sf min lot size
West: Single family residential; R-1 i.e. 6,000 sf minimum lot size
East: single family residential (R-1 10,000)
South: single family residential (R-1 10,000)
Special Setbacks: Embarcadero Road 24 feet
Aerial View of Property:
Source: Google Maps
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines
Zoning Designation: R-1 (10,000), Single Family Residential with 10,000 sf min. lot size
(enables replacement of school campus with 24 additional homes)
Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Residential
Context-Based Design: Not Applicable in R-1 Zoning Code Regulations
Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable
SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable
ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, residences on project site and across all bounding streets
Located w/in AIA
(Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: Council informational EIR scoping report/summary of comments June
2017 http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58246
PTC: PTC Scoping Session March 8, 2017 staff report:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56245
2.c
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 6
PTC August 2019 Draft EIR hearing report3, excerpt minutes,4 and
video5 links are provided in footnotes below.
HRB:
ARB:
HRB September 12, 2019 Draft EIR hearing report6, excerpt minutes7
and video8 links are provided in footnotes below.
None
Enforcement:
Case for exceedance of CUP 2000 cap: Enrollment reductions, TDM
program monitoring9, penalty payment. Status: 430 students
enrolled in 2019-20 school year; 426 students enrolled for 2020-21
school year. Enforcement agreement: TDM implementation; 2015
Embarcadero Road access study; 2016 CUP submittal/process while
reducing enrollment annually, except City agreed to a pause in
enrollment decrease for academic year 2017-18.
Project Description
The following applications will be presented to Council for consideration:
• Architectural Review: The ARB’s recommendations on the Project and Project Alternative
will be forwarded to the City Council for action on the Architectural Review application.
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and GFA (FAR) Variance: Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77 establishes the process for evaluating a CUP amendment
application and a Variance request. Variance and CUP applications are evaluated to specific
findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve these applications. The
CUP phased enrollment increases are timed with phased campus modifications. The CUP
includes an enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The GFA (FAR)
Variance is a request to replace above ground gross floor area (GFA) on the existing campus
parcel, exceeding the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The FAR, the ratio of the gross floor area to
the lot area (campus parcel), is currently exceeded by existing building GFA. The GFA (FAR)
Variance is requested for the Project Alternative, as well as for the project.
• Encroachment Variance: A second Variance is requested for the Project, but not the Project
Alternative. The Project’s subterranean garage would encroach into the Embarcadero Road
special setback below grade; the Project Alternative’s reduced garage would be located
outside this setback.
3 PTC August 19, 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72895
4 PTC August 19, 2019 excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77794
5 PTC August 19, 2019 video https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-8142019/
6 HRB September 12, 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73280
7 HRB September 12, 2019 excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77795
8 HRB September 12, 2019 video https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-09122019/
9 Project webpage news updates: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/archived_news_updates.asp
2.c
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 7
• Tentative Map with Exception: The Tentative Map with Exception is associated with the
Project, but not required or requested with the Project Alternative. The request is to
increase the campus size to add the two Emerson Street parcels, coupled with demolishing
the two houses on these lots. The application (incomplete) includes an Exception request,
because this R-1 (10,000) zoned Campus parcel exceeds the maximum allowable lot size of
19,999 sf.
The Final EIR provides descriptions of the Applicant’s Project and Project Alternative, and other
alternatives to the Project. The Project and Project Alternative both include:
• Demolishing five campus buildings (including the Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center fronting
Emerson Street, classroom and campus center buildings along Bryant and Kellogg),
• Replacing campus gross floor area (GFA) on the campus parcel in a new academic building
that also increases below-grade, non-GFA space,
• Constructing a subterranean garage accessed from the existing Bryant Street surface
parking lot with a two-way access ramp with a one-way garage exit ramp; garage
completion is associated with the phase 1 student enrollment increase.
• Providing a below grade pedestrian passage from the garage to campus buildings,
• Demolishing the at-grade pool and constructing a below-grade pool and pool sound wall,
• Providing for below-grade delivery and trash enclosures/waste pick-up with reconstruction
of the Circle in the center of the campus, and
• Installing new landscaping and fences.
Project - Brief Summary
The Project is described fully in the Draft EIR10 as updated in the Final EIR. In addition to the
common elements listed above, the Project:
• Merges the two Castilleja-owned Emerson Street parcels (at 1235 and 1263 Emerson)
with the campus parcel;
• Demolishes the Emerson homes to create open space and a large subterranean garage;
• Constructs a subterranean garage that:
o Provides more than the required number of on-site parking spaces,
o Extends beneath the Embarcadero Road special setback and beneath the two
Emerson residential parcels, and
o Receives all peak hour student drop offs; and
• Removes 31 trees, relocates 34 trees, and retains 99 trees in place; of these trees, seven
of the trees to be removed and five of the trees to be relocated are protected trees, and
three of the trees to be removed and one tree to be relocated are street trees.
Phases of Redevelopment
10 Link to Draft EIR published July 15, 2019 with revisions in Final EIR published July 29, 2020:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4823&TargetID=319
2.c
Packet Pg. 40
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 8
The first phase of the Project is the demolition of two houses and merging these parcels to
construct the subterranean garage. The below grade garage would extend beneath the two
residential parcels and beneath the Embarcadero Road special setback (subject to Council
approval of a Variance). The Project’s garage would:
(1) increase on-site parking spaces beyond code requirement (taken together with
surface spaces), and
(2) modify campus circulation, re-routing drop-offs and pick-ups through the garage.
Following the first phase completion, the enrollment level would increase annually, up to 490
students. Additional construction phases would be associated with requested student
enrollment caps of 520 and 540 students, as follows:
• Phase 2 relocates the pool and increases enrollment to a maximum of 520 students; and
• Phase 3 relocates deliveries and waste pick-ups further from the street and below
grade, reduces food service deliveries by 10%, and implements a sustainability plan; and
• Phase 4 demolishes campus buildings, replaces removed GFA with the academic
building GFA, and increases enrollment to a maximum of 540 students.
Project Alternative - Brief Summary
Final EIR describes the Project Alternative. The Project Alternative responds to and addresses
several community concerns, while continuing to achieve the Project Objectives, proposed
enrollment cap, and the number and frequency of special events.
Compared to the original Project, the Project Alternative:
• Reconfigures the subterranean garage footprint, reduces the overall size of the garage, and
moves the underground structure outside the Embarcadero Road setback;
• Retains two residential structures on Emerson Street and the row of six redwood trees at
the western edge of Spieker Field;
• Distributes school traffic to three drop-off/pick-up locations around the campus (retaining
the Kellogg Avenue drop off driveway);
• Removes the right-turn only restriction for vehicles exiting the garage, avoiding the Project’s
TIRE Index impact on Emerson Street, subject to mitigations that would avoid creating any
new TIRE Index impacts.
• Provides on-site parking spaces meeting the code-required spaces;
• Reduces the size of the Academic Building at the ground floor level by 754 square feet
(offset by increasing the building’s below-grade level by 800 square feet);
• Includes site modifications; namely, reconstruction of the existing loop driveway on Kellogg
Avenue, in generally the same location; and
• Retains 21 more trees than the original project.
Construction Phases of Project Alternative
The first phase of construction of the Project Alternative would include completion of the
reduced subterranean garage and landscaping. Once concluded, this would enable an increase
2.c
Packet Pg. 41
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 9
of enrollment up to 490 students through an annual increase of 27 students. The subsequent
phases for the Project Alternative are the same as the subsequent phases for the Project.
Enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Traffic Increase
The Project and Project Alternative rely on an enhanced TDM program to address an increase in
daily vehicle trips to campus and maintain existing peak hour trips. The enhanced TDM plan
would supplement the school’s existing TDM program. The Draft EIR included a Mitigation
Measure (MM 7a) requiring Castilleja to implement TDM measures sufficient to reduce the
daily trip rate to 2.4 trips per student. The measure is to reduce the number of vehicles
accessing the proposed garage for drop-off and pick-up, thus reducing the projected maximum
queues. The TDM plan and Mitigation Measure 7a allow some increase in total daily traffic trips
but set a limit on the number of peak hour trips and the daily trip rate per student. Attachment
B provides a brief summary on traffic (baseline, TDM, CEQA impacts and Council policies).
Historic Resources Board Review
Both the Project and Project Alternative propose minor modifications to the Gunn
Administration Building, a Historic Inventory Category 3 resource on campus. The Draft EIR
found Castilleja’s Emerson houses ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historic
Registers. In September 2019, the HRB considered the Draft EIR and viewed potential changes
to the Category 3 resource. Related content is provided in the Discussion report section.
PTC Review
The ARB’s review of the Project and Project Alternative designs will inform PTC review. The
proposed Academic building is the physical manifestation of the requested gross floor area
(GFA) replacement/FAR Variance. The ARB’s review of and comments on this design will help
preparation of both AR and Variance findings. The ARB’s review of the garage design and
related site modifications for the Project Alternative will also help focus the PTC’s Variance
discussion.
In addition, the PTC will recommend Council action on the CUP requesting enrollment increases
and will discuss the proposal for special events. The existing CUP recognizes five major events
held each year plus additional events with between 50 and 100 guests. The PTC will consider
the CUP’s proposal for limits on campus events of between 50 and 100 people.
In August 2019, the PTC conducted a meeting to receive public comments on the Draft EIR.
Links to the staff report11 and minutes12 are provided in the footnotes for this page. Written
comments to the PTC13 are also provided in the footnotes below.
11 PTC August 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72897
12 PTC meeting minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74495
13 Comments to PTC in August 14, 2019 packet https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72753
2.c
Packet Pg. 42
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 10
Discussion
This report section assists the ARB and members of the public, focusing the discussion on seven
topics:
1. Architectural Review (AR) Findings - provides the general AR findings and a brief note
about Finding #1.
2. Request for Phased Development Construction - provides the language of PAMC
18.76.020 (g) for ARB and Council consideration of the request.
3. Final EIR’ is to assist the ARB navigate the EIR - including master responses to comments
relevant to the ARB’s purview, and project alternatives.
4. Circulation and Parking Design - relates to AR Findings #2 and #4.
5. Compatibility of Building Design and EIR Aesthetics Section - relates to AR Findings #2D,
#3, and #6.
6. Views, Trees, Landscaping, Fences, Lighting and Historic Preservation - relates to AR
Findings #2B, #3 and #5.
7. Other Considerations - briefly discusses the retention and/or loss of the Emerson Street
homes, sustainability and stormwater, and construction dust emissions.
1. Architectural Review Findings
The ARB reviews development projects with respect to the Architectural Review (AR) Findings
set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020, item (d).
The Project Alternative plans will be evaluated with respect to the six AR findings below. Note,
however, that not all AR Findings are applicable to the project. For instance, the R-1 districts do
not have Context Based Design Criteria (which is cited in general AR finding #2c).
The ARB may wish to comment on the project with respect to AR findings at this time –
especially, to flag any AR findings staff should pay special attention to when crafting draft AR
findings. As noted earlier, the September 17th report will include tailored, draft AR findings for
ARB input.
PAMC 18.76.020 (d) Findings: Neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall grant
architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is
met:
(1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and
any relevant design guides.
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(A) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants,
visitors, and the general community,
(B) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute
positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the
area when relevant,
2.c
Packet Pg. 43
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 11
(C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone
district,
(D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent
land uses and land use designations,
(E) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in
adjacent residential areas.
(3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other
details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
(4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and
amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical,
regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable
habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
(6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related
to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning.
a. AR Finding #1: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
AR Finding #1 is to compare the project with Zoning Code development standards and
Comprehensive Plan policies. The content and analysis of the project with respect to these land
use documents is found in the EIR. The Zoning Code enables the Applicant’s requests for CUP
and Variances; therefore, AR Finding #1 will reference CUP and Variance findings in the draft
Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) for Council action.
b. RLUA
A Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) citing applicable AR Findings will be prepared for the ARB’s
meeting scheduled on September 17, 2020. Similarly, the RLUA prepared for the Planning and
Transportation Commission’s second staff report will contain draft CUP and Variance findings.
Not all AR Findings are applicable to the project; thus, the RLUA will cite AR Finding #2c as not
applicable to the decision.
2. Request for Phased Development Construction
a. Three Years Construction
The ARB may wish to comment on the Applicant’s proposed three-year campus redevelopment
plan, included in the Draft EIR project description. Phased developments up to five years are
allowed via Phased Architectural Review approval. Ultimately, the Council will consider the
Applicant’s request for phased development after reviewing and certifying the Final EIR.
2.c
Packet Pg. 44
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 12
The PAMC Chapter 18.76 section 18.76.020, Architectural Review, item (g) enables approval of
phased development projects, as follows:
PAMC 18.76.020 (g) Phased Projects and Enforcement of Approval Conditions
An application for a phased project may be submitted and a specific development
schedule may be considered and approved. In no event, however, shall such a
development schedule exceed five years from the original date of approval. Approved
project plans and conditions of approval imposed through the architectural review
process shall be enforceable as approved unless the application is revised or withdrawn
in accordance with this title.
b. Modular Classrooms
The ARB may wish to comment on or request additional information regarding the modular
classroom proposal. During the three-year construction time frame, the Applicant would install
modular classrooms temporarily on Spieker Field to enable continuation of educational
programs. The design of the modular buildings is not detailed in the Project plans, but the EIR
includes some description.
3. Final EIR
The ARB is requested to consider the Final EIR as it reviews and provides comments on the
Architectural Review application. Final EIR Introduction (Chapter 1) orients the reader. The
revised Draft EIR/Final EIR include responses to comments on the Draft EIR, via individual
Responses to Comments (Chapter 3) and Master Responses (Chapter 2).
a. Chapter 2 - Master Responses
There are 13 Master Response (MR) sections. Master responses related to Architectural Review
topics are underlined below and include:
• Alternatives and Circulation (MRs 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, and 12),
• Compatibility of building design (MRs 4 and 6), and
• Views, trees and landscaping/character (MRs 6, 7, and 8).
1. MR1, Project Description: garage circulation slight change, construction period/closure of
Embarcadero, Embarcadero during operation, bike/pedestrian circulation.
2. MR2, CUP: past violations (code compliance issue rather than a CEQA issue); baseline is
conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued, current CUP terms and
requirements, enforcement mechanisms, reporting for non-traffic issues.
3. MR3, Construction: traffic, noise, air quality.
4. MR4, Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative: description, impacts.
5. MR5, Project Alternatives: split campus, relocate, no garage, reduced enrollment,
retain/replace housing, disbursed drop-off/pick-up.
6. MR 6 Land Use and Planning Impacts: building style, compatibility, external effects (traffic,
noise) compatibility - special events, character of residential block, loss of housing in face of
housing demand citywide, FAR including garage rules.
7. MR7 Tree Impacts and Mitigation: tree loss and mitigation.
2.c
Packet Pg. 45
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 13
8. MR8 Aesthetics: tree loss, Embarcadero as scenic corridor, views of garage exit.
9. MR9 Historical Resources: Dudek methodology/conclusions, Lockey house, historic district
10. MR10 Vehicle Transportation: Stanford Hospital, Stanford GUP, Signalization Kingsley,
Churchill Closure, Surface Circulation - including Embarcadero issues, TDM - existing and
proposed, effectiveness
11. MR11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: accident history, traffic impacts on bike boulevard,
proposed circulation routes
12. MR12 Garage Circulation: intended circulation, staff management, wheel stop time,
queueing, emergency response
13. MR13 Noise: pool, special events, heavy trucks and buses
b. Alternatives
Staff recommend the ARB focus discussion on the Project Alternative as the environmentally
superior alternative. Final EIR Chapter 2, Master Response 5, Project Alternatives provides
further discussion of several alternatives and reasons for not carrying some alternatives
forward in the EIR, or for providing further analysis.
Some example alternatives are:
• The alternative for Castilleja to create a second campus and the reasons for not carrying
it forward for further evaluation in the EIR.
• A ‘no garage’ alternative, initially considered but rejected from further analysis in the
Draft EIR; this was looked at further in responses to comments (see Draft EIR Chapter
13, Alternatives, and Final EIR Chapter 2, Master Response 5).
• An alternative requiring Castilleja to relocate, additional discussion and reasons for not
carrying it forward for further evaluation in the EIR.
4. Circulation and Parking Design (AR Findings #2 and #4)
AR Findings #2 and #4
• AR Finding #2 (E) is to ensure a unified and coherent design that enhances living
conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
• AR Finding #4, in part, is to ensure a functional design allowing for ease and safety of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. AR Finding #4 is also to ensure elements are provided to
support the building's necessary operations. These include convenient vehicle access to
property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and
integrated signage.
a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation On-Campus
The ARB may review the bicycle and pedestrian circulation on the site as it relates to AR Finding
#4. The Master Response, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety (MR11), responds to comments
regarding bicycle safety given traffic volumes on local streets and potential conflicts with
vehicles at the project site frontages. The Project and Project Alternative differ with respect to
curb cuts onto rights of way:
• The Project would reduce driveway curb cuts, which would improve bicycle safety. • The Project Alternative would retain the two curb cuts on Kellogg Avenue.
2.c
Packet Pg. 46
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 14
Other proposed project features would have no impact on bike and pedestrian safety around
the site. However, the ARB may wish to discuss bicycle circulation on site and adjacent
frontages (Bryant, Emerson, Kellogg, Embarcadero) and pedestrian circulation, especially
relating to below grade garage drop-offs and pick-ups.
b. Garage Circulation - Vehicle Access and Queues
The ARB can consider the site plans with respect to vehicle access and the functionality of the
garage design and surface parking lots to remain. The garage’s two underground lanes will
accommodate passenger vehicles and emergency response vehicles. That is, if one lane is
blocked, emergency access would be maintained with the second lane. If both lanes are
blocked at the Bryant entry, emergency vehicles would enter from the Emerson Street side.
Some members of the public have expressed concerns about drop off queues spilling out onto
local streets. The garage entrance queues are not expected to extend onto Bryant Street or
Embarcadero Road (see Draft EIR pages 7-32 through 7-34 discussion). The Final EIR amended
Mitigation Measure 7a to require monitoring and adjustment of the TDM plan, to ensure this
does not occur. Master Response 12, Garage Circulation, and Response to Comment C27.4-1
provide additional discussion of queues at the garage entrance.
c. Parking Design – Tandem Spaces
The ARB may wish to discuss the proposals for tandem parking spaces. The existing campus
staff surface lot currently includes six tandem spaces, located in the staff parking lot on the
corner of Emerson and Kellogg. These six spaces do not count toward the existing spaces
existing on campus. The Project and Project Alternative garage plans include tandem car
parking spaces as well; the deeper space of the tandem pair is not counted toward the required
parking spaces for a private school.
• The Project plans show 131 parking spaces; of these, 121 non-EVSE parking spaces, with 95
below grade parking spaces and 26 surface lot spaces, plus ten EVSE parking spaces. Of the
ten pair of tandem car spaces (20 parking spaces), the deeper ten spaces of the tandem pair
are not counted toward meeting required parking spaces. That is because they cannot be
accessed without coordination among the school staff. These ten deeper spaces are not
required per the demand based on analysis; however, the City could enable their use for
staff or event overflow parking associated with the CUP. Without the ten deeper spaces,
the 131 spaces represent an increase of 49 car spaces over the existing 82 spaces on
campus.
• The Project Alternative plans show 104 on-site parking spaces, 78 below grade and 26
above grade. These numbers do not include the five deeper car spaces of five tandem pairs.
The Project, the deep spaces are not counted toward meeting required parking. Without
the deeper tandem spaces, the 104 spaces represent an increase of 22 spaces over the
existing 82 spaces. The City could enable their use with the CUP.
2.c
Packet Pg. 47
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 15
d. Circulation - Construction Traffic
Related to the request for phased construction, the ARB may wish to discuss issues related to
proposed phases. The EIR contains analysis and measures to address issues that may arise
during the four anticipated phases of construction. The issues addressed are:
• construction traffic volumes,
• traffic management,
• potential noise disruption to students during construction,
• impacts of construction traffic on bicycle safety,
• construction encroachment into the public right-of-way that requires temporary lane
closures, and
• construction dust emissions.
References:
• Final EIR Chapter 2 MR describes anticipated construction phasing and schedule
presented in Draft EIR Chapter 3,
• Revised Draft EIR Chapters 3 and 7 demonstrate that construction would not adversely
affect traffic conditions in the vicinity, and
• The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety responses (MR 11) address impacts of construction
traffic on bicycle safety.
e. Vehicular Circulation – Visibility at Embarcadero Curve
The ARB may wish to consider the safety and visibility issues related to the Project’s proposal
for traffic exiting the garage. The Project’s drop-off traffic would exit onto Emerson and turn
right to access Embarcadero, which has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The curve in
Embarcadero Road, approximately 150 feet west of Emerson Street, can obscure views of
oncoming vehicles. The EIR notes that 150 feet of distance will meet the stopping sight distance
requirements for Embarcadero Road. The EIR also notes the gaps in Embarcadero Road traffic
would allow for right turns from Emerson Street.
References:
• Master Response 10, Vehicle Transportation, notes the updated TIS (Appendix E)
includes an analysis of existing traffic flows on eastbound Embarcadero Road
between Kingsley Avenue and Bryant Street that found traffic moves at an average
speed of 29 to 30 miles per hour during the AM, School PM, and PM peak hours.
• The TIS and Draft EIR Table 7-6 identify the Emerson/Embarcadero intersection
operates at acceptable levels of service and that the project would not cause the
level of service to degrade.
• The EIR notes that while there would be some congestion from vehicles waiting to
turn right onto Embarcadero Road, this approach to the intersection would continue
to operate consistent with City policy and standards.
2.c
Packet Pg. 48
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 16
5. Compatibility of Building Design and EIR Aesthetics Section (AR Findings #2(D), #3, and #6)
AR Findings #2(D), #3 and #6
• AR Finding #2(D) is to ensure harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to
adjacent land uses and land use designations.
• AR Finding #3 is to ensure buildings will have high aesthetic quality, use high quality,
integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporate textures,
colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
• AR Finding #6 is to ensure the project incorporates design principles that achieve
sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building
materials, landscaping, and site planning.
a. Aesthetics
The ARB may wish to review this chapter and responses to comments on the Draft EIR
regarding aesthetics. The building materials, along with the landscaping design and fencing
details, reflect materials and designs present in this residential setting. The EIR Aesthetics
section (Chapter 5) analyzes the proposed site plan, buildings, and landscaping. The Aesthetics
section notes that the campus’ compatibility with neighboring residences would be improved
compared to the existing conditions and that proposed architectural features, fencing and walls
will reduce the institutional character of the site.
b. Academic Building
The ARB’s attention on the Academic Building and garage and other aesthetic considerations is
appreciated. The Applicant’s goal for the new Academic Building is to attain LEED Platinum
standard; this includes a deconstruction approach in compliance with Castilleja School’s
proposed Sustainability Road Map. The proposed building would be slightly smaller in scale and
massing than the existing buildings along Kellogg and Bryant.
The new building would comply with the R-1 zone height limit and incorporate more horizontal
and vertical articulation than the existing buildings. The design includes large roof overhangs
with exposed wood beams, trellised patios, and outdoor covered areas, and use of exterior
materials that occur in the neighborhood.
The ARB may wish to review Draft EIR pages 5-11 through 5-13 and MR 8, Aesthetics, pertaining
to building design, including articulation, materials, and colors. In Draft EIR comments, some
community members characterized the design as too modern and industrial, with a mix of
siding materials that would not harmonize with the neighborhood. But as one commenter
notes, “compatible does not mean matching; the Comprehensive Plan defines compatible as
“capable of existing together without significant conflict or ill effects”.”
Master Response (MR) 8 conveys that the proposed Academic Building would be slightly
smaller in scale and mass than the existing buildings and Response to C3-15 notes:
“the Academic building is proposed to consist of two wings, with the library wing
oriented along Bryant Street and having a footprint of 8,237 square feet and the
2.c
Packet Pg. 49
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 17
classroom wing oriented along Kellogg Avenue with a footprint of 33,036 square feet. In
contrast, the average size of a Walmart Supercenter (which offers both merchandise and
groceries and is typically open 24-hours per day) is 179,000 square feet while the original
big-box Walmart store is now called a Discount Store (which typically do not offer
groceries and are open for 14 or 15 hours per day) and has an average size of 105,000
square feet (247wallst.com 2014). The above grade portion of the proposed Academic
building would be smaller than a typical Walmart.”
The requested Variance to replace existing gross floor area (GFA) lies within the PTC’s purview
and findings. The Project and Project Alternative require Council approval for reconstruction. A
comparison of the Project and Project Alternative GFA, as in the Final EIR, is excerpted below.
Feature Project Project Alternative
Demo GFA
and above
grade GFA
90,593 sf to be demolished (6,021 sf
from two Emerson houses plus
84,572 sf on campus) replaced by
above grade new construction
(84,124 sf)
New above grade construction (84,170 sf) is less
than the existing above grade construction to be
demolished (84,572 sf) on campus; 800 sf below
grade is to be repurposed.
Academic
Building
GFA
33,060 sf on the first floor and
31,082 sf second floors, plus 3,713 sf
GFA below-grade GFA (because
there is no interior building space
above it at the ground level, as per
Municipal Code Section 18.12.040).
32,683 sf on the first floor and 30,705 sf on second
floor, plus 4,513 sf of below-grade GFA (because
there is no interior building space above it at the
ground level).
Campus size Tentative Map to merge campus
parcel with two parcels = 286,783 sf
Campus parcel size remains 268,783. Two house
parcels remain, 7,500 sf and 10,500 sf
c. Garage Exit
The ARB is requested to consider the aesthetics of the garage exit. The EIR Aesthetics chapter
discusses the underground garage. Several members of the public expressed concern as to the
garage’s size and compatibility with the surrounding context. The EIR Aesthetics chapter
discusses the underground garage. Neighbors have expressed specific concerns about the
garage exit at Emerson Street.
The garage entrance would be located internal to the site and views of it would be filtered by
landscaping. The garage exit would be set back 80 feet from Emerson Street, with trees and
landscaping on either side of the garage exit ramp. Draft EIR images (figures) illustrate this.
Draft EIR Figures 5-2 and 5-3 provide photographs of the existing visual conditions along
Emerson Street.
Draft EIR Figures 5-4 and 5-6 show the proposed gate at the parking garage exit ramp would be
placed at the below-grade end of the ramp, immediately at the exit to the garage structure.
The renderings and photo-simulated images show only the top of the gate would be visible
from Emerson Street for the Project. The below excerpted plan clips show differences between
the Project and Alternative:
2.c
Packet Pg. 50
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 18
• The Project’s garage exit driveway would be curvilinear leading to the street frontage,
• The Project Alternative’s straight garage exit driveway just across from Melville Avenue.
Project driveway Project Alternative
The ARB’s comments on the visibility/screening of vehicular egress gate and ramps for the
Project and Project Alternative would be helpful to the review. The Project’s curved driveway,
fencing and landscaping are shown below in photographic simulation of the garage exit viewed
from Melville. The simulation shows the brick wall, landscaping, and curve in the ramp would
help the garage exit blend into the Castilleja campus, preventing visibility of the garage exit
gate.
Project Alternative’s straight-in driveway, fencing and landscaping, shown on figure 13-4 (clip
below) viewed from Melville Avenue. The simulation shows that since the Project Alternative’s
driveway is not curved, the retaining wall, fence and exit gate would be more visible from
Melville than the Project’s exit gate.
2.c
Packet Pg. 51
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 19
6. Views, Trees, Landscaping, Fences, Lighting, Historic Preservation (AR Findings # 2(B), #3,
#5)
AR Findings #2B, 3 and 5
• AR Finding #2(B) is to ensure the project preserves, respects and integrates existing
natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character,
including historic resources of the area when relevant,
• AR Finding #3 is to ensure the design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality,
integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating
textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the
surrounding area.
• AR Finding #5 is to ensure the landscape design complements and enhances the building
design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the
extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of
providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
a. Tree Removals and Views
The ARB’s purview includes review of proposed landscaping and views of the site from off-
site vantage points, and this includes existing trees on the site. The Project removes 31
trees and relocates 34 trees. The Project would change the views of the site from each
frontage, with changes in tree locations and canopy. However, following Project
construction, the landscaping within and around the perimeter of the site would be similar
to the existing landscaping on the project site. Analysis is found in Final EIR Master
Response 8, which notes the visual impacts due to tree removal and construction impacts
were evaluated in Impact 5-1 in Draft EIR Chapter 5, Aesthetics. The Project Alternative
involves 21 fewer tree removals.
b. Tree Canopy Increase
The ARB purview includes review of replacement trees. The proposed tree replacement
planting is shown on Sheet L.2.1 of the Project site plans. The plans for both the Project and
Project Alternative provide for a replacement of tree canopy within the project site and an
increase in the number of trees on site. The goal is a net increase in canopy, in the long
term. The landscape plan (see Updated Figure 3-11 Final EIR) for the Project shows:
• Several trees are proposed to be planted in the landscaped open space between
Spieker Field and Emerson Street, and
• Several trees are proposed to be planted in the northwestern corner of Spieker Field.
The Project Alternative plans indicate retention of the Redwoods next to the Lockey House,
as shown and discussed on the following report page.
2.c
Packet Pg. 52
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 20
c. Embarcadero Views
The ARB may wish to discuss the anticipated views of the Project and Project Alternative
from off site, including views from Embarcadero Road. The EIR included detailed discussion
as to how the views of the site from each frontage would change as a result of the Project.
This analysis identified changes in tree locations and canopy as well as proposed building
demolition, landscaping, fencing, and building design. Views of the Project from
Embarcadero Road, given the Project’s removal of Redwoods, were a key community
concern.
The Draft EIR concludes that the Project would not substantially change visual
characteristics of the site as viewed from Embarcadero Road. A photographic simulation of
views from Embarcadero Road is included in the Final EIR (Figure 5-6), showing the Project’s
trees would provide similar visual resources as the existing Redwoods. Although the trees
would be in different locations than the existing row of Redwood trees, they would be
visible from the road which would preserve the general quality and character of existing
views from Embarcadero Road. As shown in the above image, the Project Alternative would
include preservation of the Redwoods adjacent to Castilleja’s two Emerson houses; these
Redwoods are visible from Embarcadero Road.
d. Tree Preservation and Management Regulations and Mitigation Measure 4b
The ARB and community may wish to discuss the City’s regulations for tree preservation and
removals. As noted in the Final EIR/responses to comments, the proposed tree removal and
relocations are permitted under the City’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations.
Tree removals and relocations are subject to Mitigation Measure 4b, which was updated in
the Final EIR. The Final EIR responses noted that the Tree Preservation and Management
Regulations encourage preservation but also expressly allow for removal of protected trees.
The classification of “designated” trees provides flexibility to interpret appropriate
protection for particular trees or projects. For this project, staff deemed it appropriate to
designate more trees, to allay neighbor concerns. The mitigation measure exceeds
minimum protection requirements for trees and with conditions of approval and code
requirements, staff anticipates a very high level of compliance.
2.c
Packet Pg. 53
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 21
e. Landscaping and Fences
The ARB’s purview includes review of the landscape architectural design, theme,
cohesiveness, and use of native plant materials. The ARB may wish to discuss the campus
circle modifications in plans for the Project and Project Alternative. The functionality of the
circle will be modified, with changes in access from buildings and proposal for vehicle
access. The ARB may also wish to comment on the landscaping and fences proposed in the
campus design with respect to the campus’ relationship to neighborhood setting and
context.
In addition to five types of fences, which appear to be compatible with the campus and
neighborhood context, a concrete and cedar plank sound wall is proposed to be located 20
feet from Emerson Street right of way, to buffer the pool noise. The “Fence Section @ Pool”
on Draft EIR Figure 5-5 shows the wall would have a height of six feet in relation to the
sidewalk on Emerson Street. The wall above six feet, angled towards the interior of the pool
area, would not be perceived as excessive when viewed from the sidewalk or street.
Vegetation is proposed in the 20-foot wide buffer between the wall and property line.
f. Lighting Design
Lighting plans associated with construction phases 3 and 4 are shown on Project plan sheets
LTB 100-104. Luminaire styles proposed for the site construction in Phases 3 and 4 are
shown on plan sheet LTB.003. The plans show lighting fixtures would include:
• bollards and ground-level fixtures along walkways and near building entrances,
• building-mounted lighting around building perimeters and at entrances,
• ground-level lighting in bicycle parking areas,
• wall mounted lighting on steps and planter walls,
• upward-directed spot lighting only to highlight specimen trees.
The EIR Mitigation Measure 5a requires a lighting plan that:
• identifies the specific light fixtures to be used and their proposed locations and the
expected light levels within the property and at the property boundaries,
• demonstrate compliance with the criteria identified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.23.030. This includes requirements such as spillover reduction; use of high-pressure
sodium and metal halide as permitted light sources; lighting limits of 0.5 foot-candle, as
measured at the abutting residential property line; designing interior lighting to
minimize nighttime glow; using low intensity lighting for building exteriors, parking
areas, and pedestrian ways; and directing pedestrian and security lighting downward.
Note that a 0.5 foot-candle is the amount of light generated by 1 candle at a distance of 1
foot. Light levels at the project site perimeter would be 0.5 foot-candle or less; thus, the
project would not create substantial light spillover to adjacent public right-of-way or private
property.
2.c
Packet Pg. 54
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 22
g. Historic Preservation - HRB Review of EIR and Historic Resources
The Project and Project Alternative propose minor modifications to the Gunn
Administration Building, a Historic Inventory Category 3 resource on campus. In September
2019, the HRB reviewed concepts for modifying this building after it is separated from the
non-historic building to be demolished. At the meeting, the HRB also considered the Draft
EIR. The Draft EIR found Castilleja’s Emerson Street houses ineligible for listing on the
California Register of Historic Registers.
The HRB briefly discussed the older of the two Castilleja-owned houses on Emerson Street.
The HRB focused on potential impacts to cultural resources. One HRB member questioned
whether retention of the Emerson houses was a project alternative. Regarding the Gunn
Administration Building’s modifications, the HRB requested to see the final design
considerations. The HRB also requested additional information regarding the Lockey House
evaluation and historic district consideration (noting this is not the applicant’s
responsibility).
h. HRB Meeting 2019 Public Comments
In September 2019, many of the eight public speakers (including the Castilleja applicant
team, and speakers on behalf of Castilleja) also submitted individual written comments on
the Draft EIR. The Final EIR addresses individual and meeting comments. Commenters’
concerns included:
• Demolition of Castilleja’s two Emerson Street homes and removal of the six redwood
trees next to the Emerson Street homes, to create the subterranean garage and
landscaped open area,
• Interest in retention of the Lockey House,
• Aesthetics concerns/block character degradation, given the Emerson garage exit,
• Interest in neighborhood historic homes and context for the home at 1215 Emerson,
• Bike boulevard concern,
• Liquefaction concern for historic buildings, due to the geologic report, and
• Construction noise.
Commenters also expressed support during the HRB meeting, noting:
• The design would be compatible, given the proposed use of materials complimenting
the campus’ historic building, and similar scale and massing as the existing building,
• The value in separating the Gunn Building from the attached building, and
• The new gates, fencing, and landscaping were appreciated.
i. Proposed Modifications to Gunn Administration Building
Plan sheet AB.303 shows the proposed façade treatment for the building wall to be exposed
following demolition of the attached non-historic building. The facade on the right side of
the below image would be the façade to receive architectural treatment that is necessary
for safety and to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS). Exposed sections of
the wall would be covered with stucco on the first floor and wood shingles on the second
2.c
Packet Pg. 55
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 23
floor, consistent with the existing building materials and finishes. New doors would be
installed on the first and second floors and new exterior stairs would be constructed to
provide access to the second floor.
j. Referral to HRB/AR Finding #2(B)
Per PAMC 16.49, the ARB is not required to refer to the HRB proposals for alterations to
‘contributing’ resources – i.e., resources not identified as ‘significant’ unless they are within
the Downtown area or a historic district. The Category 3 Gunn Building/Chapel is
technically not a ‘significant’ structure by definition set forth in PAMC 16.49. A
"Contributing building" is:
“a good local example of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a
neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing
building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design,
such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden
facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.”
Referral to the HRB enables review of the final design for the Gunn Family Administration
Building. Removal of the attached building and SOIS compliant modifications could improve the
building’s historic integrity. An HRB hearing September 10, 2020 would enable staff to refine
draft wording regarding treatment of the historic resource for AR finding #2(B) for the ARB’s
consideration on September 17.
7. Other Considerations
The ARB discussion may include comments on Project and Project Alternative plans relating to:
a. Emerson Street Houses
Emerson Street’s existing character/Proposals for home demolition and retention:
• Project’s demolition of two houses would be a noticeable change in visual conditions
along the Emerson frontage. The Project includes a 0.33-acre landscaped open space
area above a garage, instead of the two houses; open space is part of residential
character; however, housing unit loss is a concern.
• Alternative Project’s retention of two Emerson houses and adjacent redwoods is likely
to be viewed more favorably by the community.
2.c
Packet Pg. 56
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 24
b. Sustainability, including stormwater considerations
• Many community members are concerned about garage construction, including
groundwater concerns. The garage floor would be approximately eight feet above the
highest anticipated groundwater level, as reported in the Geotechnical Investigation.
• The below-grade garage and all project site features have been designed to incorporate
standard stormwater quality requirements. This includes routing all runoff to water
quality treatment facilities, such as bioswales, flow-through planters, and sand/oil
separators in drain inlets, as shown in the project site plans provided in Appendix B.
• There would not be any untreated runoff from any developed portions of the project
site, including the garage.
c. Construction over a three-year period and dust emissions
• Concerns regarding three years of construction include dust emissions. A mitigation
measure requires all areas to be paved and building pads to be completed as soon as
possible (Mitigation Measure 9a) and use of seeding or soil binders to minimize dust
emissions from portions of the site that have been disturbed.
• The measure requires materials stockpiles to be covered on days when they are not
accessed, including any day on which construction does not occur.
Notification, Outreach & Comments
Notice of the Final EIR publication and ARB meeting was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on
July 28, 2020. The City’s webpage provides an announcement of the meeting. Staff mailed
postcards on July 28, 2020, announcing the Final EIR publication and August hearings. Staff
emailed notices to Council, PTC, ARB, and HRB.
The Applicant provided information about the multiple outreach meetings Castilleja conducted
over the past several years. A summary of outreach efforts prior to submittal of the application
is found on the City’s website for this project:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp. Additional outreach meetings
took place after the application was submitted. Staff met with neighbors separately and shared
neighbor comments with the applicant. The neighbors presented concerns to Council in early
2016; the neighbors’ comments are linked to the City’s project website.
Staff attended one meeting Castilleja School held in October 2016 on campus in advance of the
removal of an on-site Redwood Tree. Prior to the meeting, a tree removal permit was filed and
approved, based on the applicant’s arborist report of September 2016
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54272). Following the community
meeting, a second arborist report was prepared for a neighbor to further study the tree; the
study is found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54449.
2.c
Packet Pg. 57
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 25
Many public comments on the project were collected and shared in reports to the HRB, PTC
and Council 2017-2019. Comments on the IS and scope of the Draft EIR received were
forwarded to the City’s consultant for consideration during preparation of the Draft EIR.
With website posts alerting the community to news updates, comments were received after
the late Spring 2018 completion of the CUP application, late Spring 2019 Architectural Review
application submittal, and ARB application completion in March 2020. Just prior to packet
preparation, staff received an email showing a neighbor’s suggestions for another alternative; it
is attached to this report (Attachment D).
Next Steps
The Council is required to certify the Final EIR and take actions on all requested planning
applications. The PTC will be tasked to provide recommendations on the project; reviews by
the PTC will occur over at least two public hearings. On August 26, 2020, the PTC will receive
presentations on the Final EIR, CUP and Gross Floor Area (GFA) Variance, applicable to both the
Project and Project Alternative. The PTC, with its purview over land use and transportation, will
also have an opportunity to make comments regarding the Tentative Map and Variance for
encroachment associated with the primary Project (but not associated with the Project
Alternative). The PTC will be invited to discuss the proposed enhanced Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program, potential approval conditions, and compliance related to the
requested CUP.
As noted, staff has a placeholder September 10, 2020 for the HRB to review the modifications
to the Category 3 resource on campus. Staff will return to the ARB September 17, 2020, with
draft Architectural Review findings for the ARB’s consideration. At that time, the applicant will
be able to present any modifications to the Project Alternative plans in response to the ARB’s
comments.
Environmental Review
The PTC held a scoping meeting on March 8, 2017. The Draft EIR 60-Day Comment Period ran
July 15, 2019 through September 13, 2019. The Draft EIR process enabled many public
comments including in the first public DEIR hearing with the PTC on August 14, 2019. The HRB
held a public hearing September 12, 2019, also during the public comment period. Process
history prior to the DEIR hearings is captured in those reports. Public comments on the DEIR are
indexed here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73834. The Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published July 29 and 30, 2020.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB14 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
14 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2.c
Packet Pg. 58
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services Department Page 26
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX)
• Attachment B: Enhanced TDM and Traffic Impacts (DOCX)
• Attachment C: Links to Plans and Final EIR (DOCX)
• Attachment D: Comments Received After Final EIR (PDF)
2.c
Packet Pg. 59
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 11634)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 10/1/2020
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Minutes of August 20, 2020
Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August
20, 2020
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Draft minutes from the August 20, 2020 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in
Attachment A.
Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB
Attachments:
• Attachment A: August 20, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX)
3
Packet Pg. 60
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, Grace
Lee and David Hirsch.
Absent: None.
Chair Baltay: Good morning. I'm Peter Baltay, Chair of the Architectural Review Board. Welcome to our
August 20, 2020, meeting. Before starting, I’d like to read a statement. [Reading] Pursuant to the
provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held by virtual
teleconference only, with no physical location. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through
the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 932 2779
7046. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and
unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. Spoken public
comments using a Smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom mobile application. To offer
comments using a regular phone, call 1-669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 932 2779 7046. When you
wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak.
[Roll Call]
Oral Communications
Chair Baltay: Next item on the agenda is oral communications. Do we have any members of the public
who wish to address any item not on our agenda today?
Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: Yes, we do have some raised hands but I’d like to remind
everyone that oral communications are for comments on items that are not on the agenda. If you are
here to speak on either San Antonio or Castilleja please lower your hand now and you can raise your
hand again later when we get to that item.
Chair Baltay: Do we still have people then, Vinh?
Mr. Nguyen: It looks like everyone has lowered their hands. We don’t have any oral communication
today.
Chair Baltay: Okay. We will get to everyone’s comments on the specific items. I can promise that.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: August 20, 2020
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
3.a
Packet Pg. 61
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Baltay: Okay. We will get to everyone’s comments on the specific items. I can promise that. Next
time is agenda changes, additions and deletions. Staff, do we have any agenda changes, additions or
deletions?
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes at this time.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future
Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions
Chair Baltay: Very well. The next item is City Official reports. Can you have a transmittal of the future
meeting schedule and attendance record, please?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. As it's coming up here we do show that the September 3rd meeting would be
canceled; however, it’s possible we have two major items on the agenda today. It is possible those may
get continued to September 3rd. The next hearing that we have on September 17th is potentially open to
hearing more testimony about Castilleja as well. If we go to the next slide we can see this. On October
1st we’re looking to hear the ARB objective standards. We have started a webpage about the objective
standards. I believe it is attached to our pending projects webpage. I will make sure to send out that
direct link to everyone. That concludes the presentation.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION ITEM 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street
[19PLN-00116]: Architectural Review of Castilleja School's Phased Campus
Redevelopment Proposal for Site Modifications, Demolition, Construction of a Below
Grade Parking Garage and a new Classroom Building, and Minor Alterations to one
Facade of a Historic Inventory Category 3 Building on Campus. Redevelopment is
Associated With a Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and
Variance for Gross Floor Area (GFA) Replacement. The Primary Project Also Includes
Requests for a Tentative map With Exception and a Variance for Below-grade Setback
Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback (the Alternate Project
Does not Include These Requests). Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review:
A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 29, 2020. For More
Information Contact Amy Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Jodie. Moving on then to our action items. We’re going to start
with action item number two, which is the public hearing for action item 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and
1263 Emerson Street: architectural review of Castilleja School's phased campus redevelopment proposal
for site modifications, demolition, construction of a below grade parking garage and a new classroom
building, and minor alterations to one facade of a historic inventory category 3 building on campus.
Redevelopment is associated with a request for conditional use permit (CUP) amendment and variance
for gross floor area (GFA) replacement. The primary project also includes requests for a tentative map
with exception and a variance for below-grade setback encroachment into the Embarcadero Road special
setback (the alternate project does not include these requests). Zone district: r-1(10,000).
Environmental review: a final environmental impact report (EIR) was published July 29, 2020. Before we
get started on that, I’d like to go through any disclosures we may have. Does anyone have anything to
disclose? David, do you want to start? Do you have anything to disclose?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I visited the school, given by a vice principal there, to see the buildings on-
site, and the open area of the playground, and generally through the school. As well as to see the
materials board at City Hall.
Chair Baltay: Any other disclosures? David, did you meet with any neighbors?
3.a
Packet Pg. 62
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Baltay: Yes, thank you for the reminder. Previously met with a neighbor’s group who requested --
Peter and I met with them this past weekend and listened to their concerns. It was a small group of
about six people with us in a backyard.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Osma, any disclosures?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yes, I went to see the materials board and I visited the site.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Grace, any disclosures?
Board Member Lee: Yes, I also visited the site over the years. I went and saw the materials board. I
did want to note that I did sit on the Board back in 2006, I believe, when the gym/fitness building came
to the Board. I have been in contact with the applicant, and I have reviewed community member’s…
what they have shared.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Alex, any disclosures?
Board Member Lew: Yes, I do have five items here. In November of 2019, I talked to David Bower
[phonetic] from the HRB. He said that he would like to see the new stair at the Gunn Building come back
to the HRB. I think that that is in our staff report. There’s no new information there. I downloaded two
aerial photos; one from 1941 and one from 1965. Photos from that era were mentioned in the historic
evaluation but I didn’t see them in the report. I wanted to actually see the photos and I was looking for
the relationship of the school to the neighboring houses over time. I did exchange emails with Mary
Sylvester regarding meeting with the neighborhood group that I declined. I did visit the site yesterday,
and I also regularly pass by the site weekly over the past ten years. I visited the materials board at City
Hall yesterday. That’s it.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. I would like to disclose that I have met with a neighborhood group led by
Mary Sylvester at their home near the property. I didn’t really learn anything that’s not in the public
record. I also met the Assistant Head of School, I believe, Mary Layendecker. She toured the campus
with me and David Hirsch. The only thing I learned that was perhaps not so clear in the public record is
that the alternate design proposes to not have all the students enter through the underground garage. It
would rather be distributed around the campus. That wasn’t clear to me from looking at the drawings.
I've also spoken with several other neighbors in the community who have mixed support. Some are very
strongly in favor of this school and some opposed to the project. Okay, with that can we have a staff
report, please?
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, I would like to share my screen. I've been trying to get that
permission but still unable.
[Setting up presentation.]
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director: While Amy gets that set up maybe, Chair, if
you don’t mind, I’d like to just preface her presentation with a few remarks. I'm Jonathan Lait. I’m the
Director for Planning and Development Services. I want to acknowledge that the City’s been processing
this application over the past several years as it has evolved. As you noted, Chair, a moment ago, there
clearly are a lot of strong opinions about this project from those who support it and those who are in
opposition to the project. While there’s been a number of meetings with residents and the applicant
team, we’ve had some public meetings regarding the historic resources and the environmental analysis.
The meeting this morning is really the first opportunity for the applicant to present the project and for
the public to really engage in sharing their comments on some of the specific aspects of the application
itself. Because of the very number of applications that are involved in this project, there will be hearings
before this Body, the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, the Planning and
Transportation Commission. Once we have gone through all of those Boards and Commissions with their
3.a
Packet Pg. 63
City of Palo Alto Page 4
recommendations, the project will ultimately be presented to the City Council. That Body will take final
action on the project. For today, you'll likely hear a lot of comments that range across the spectrum of
areas where these different boards and commissions have interest or focus. We’ll try to identify in our
staff report and in our presentation that Amy’s about to present the area where the ARB’s focus will be
most helpful. We do know that there are a lot of aspects of the project that the community is interested
in discussing related to enrollment, activities, and things of that nature. Some of those will be addressed
by the PTC and fall outside of the role of the Architectural Review Board. For staff’s part in this, as you
know, we receive applications and it is our job to objectively review those applications and process them
to the various boards and commissions and make recommendations based on findings that are set forth
in the City’s Municipal Code. To that end, I want to thank Amy French with her 21 plus years of
experience with the City of Palo Alto, her deep knowledge of the code and the City’s processes, for her
stewardship of managing this project and getting it to a place where we can begin these public meetings.
Amy has made herself available to community members and has done an amazing job putting a lot of
data on the City’s website. Thank you, Amy. Appreciative of your efforts and with that I welcome you to
start you presentation. Thank you, Chair.
Ms. French: Thank you. Good morning, all. I'm Amy French. I am the Chief Planning Official and the
steward of this process. I’m happy to be here today in this clean air giving you the presentation. This is
really the first time that the applicant’s are going to present their proposal in a public hearing setting. It’s
a first hearing after the final EIR was published a few weeks ago at the end of July. This is the first ARB
hearing on the project. This is our order of the presentation today with staff. We’re going to cover the
brief history. We’re going to give a project overview, and the required applications to get through this
process, and the final Environmental Impact Report. I'm supported by Katherine Waugh of Dudek. Then
we’ll get to the applicant’s presentation, and the ARB will have questions for staff and the applicant.
Then, we’ll launch into community comments and the ARB comments. As noted, we are asking for a
continuance of the hearing. This is the site. This is Castilleja School. All of these properties but one are
Castilleja owned. We have a property on the corner here under separate ownership. Now for some
history. Castilleja School started in Professorville at this location, 1121 Bryant, for several years before
moving to their current location. They had about 68 students and it was kindergarten through twelfth
grade. They moved to 1310 Bryant in 1910, starting with several buildings as you see here. You'll see
the Recitation Hall is still on campus. This is the Gunn Administration Building that is a historic resource
on the City’s inventory. By 1924, they had quite a few more buildings. Again, you see the Gunn
Administration Building is still here. None of the other buildings pictured here still exist. Ten years later,
we have the Recitation Hall existing still, and now we have a Birge Clark Building, the Chapel. Lots of
changes; tennis courts came, etc. You'll see the historic building here, the Gunn Administration Building.
It’s attached to a 1960’s building called the Rhodes Hall. Then we have the Birge Clark Chapel. Here is
the view from Bryant Street of that building that does attach to the historic building. Here on the other
side at Emerson we are seeing the two houses owned by Castilleja, and this third property that’s a
residential home on this side of Emerson. Here’s a view of those homes. Here’s a view of the property
as it exists today and the buildings that are there today. Now for a project overview. Castilleja is
seeking to change the campus and upgrade the buildings and relocate the pool to below grade. They
submitted a master plan with their conditional use permit for phased development. They want to rebuild
the above grade floor area, and expand the basement to create the capacity for a student enrollment
increase up to a new cap of 540 students with the phased development that’s subject to architectural
review. Here in this image are buildings to be demolished with this proposal. There are five buildings in
total. This is the original project submitted in 2016, and later updated with the architectural review
application in 2019. Plans have been updated over the several years we have been at this. This is the
current version of the original project. It shows the new building, which is the Academic Building here,
the new Library -- these are also connected -- the pool below grade, removal of two Emerson homes, and
other changes. This is the project alternative that came in this year in February, and updated. This
shows retention of those two homes. It also shows a different circulation pattern called the dispersed
circulation. Below here is a reduced garage size. A garage that doesn’t encroach into the Embarcadero
setback. You'll hear about student enrollment. This is the thing that has been of concern and a code
enforcement case. The original use permit allowed for 415 students. Today’s enrollment is 426 students.
The proposed enrollment is 540 students, as I mentioned phased over time. This just documents here
the case that the City handled in 2013 with a penalty payment, transportation demand management
3.a
Packet Pg. 64
City of Palo Alto Page 5
implementation, annual enrollment reductions, and leading to this conditional use permit application. I
have this very wordy table showing the changes in gross floor area. We can come back to this but
basically demolition on this side. They're going to demolish 84,572 square feet in these buildings. Above
a gross floor area, and they're putting a proposal in that replaces that 84,572 square feet slightly above
grade. Then the alternative project also replaces slightly less than the existing above grade. There is
some below grade expansion. That will handle additional classrooms that are needed for the additional
students and other functions. I will come back to this later because it is a lot of detail, as needed. This
is the project components. Again, the five buildings to be demolished, replacement in the new academic
building with expanded below grade area. We have subterranean garage access from the Bryant Street
parking lot and exiting over onto Emerson, opposite Melville Avenue. The proposal is to complete the
garage and begin student enrollment increases after that. There is a pedestrian passage that goes from
the garage below grade over to the campus buildings for students that would be dropped off. There is a
proposal to demolish the pool and reconstruct it with a sound wall. Then, there are deliveries and
enclosures for those types of functions that are near the Circle and under the academic building, and, of
course, the landscaping. This shows an image that came with the original project showing the park or
open space landscape area that would replace the homes on Emerson Street. With this project, the
garage did extend under these homes under the park area and into the setback on Embarcadero. All
drop-offs were to occur inside the garage and then the cars would exit on to Emerson and all turn right
and this caused an impact. The project alternative has a garage exit at the same location onto Emerson.
In this project alternative, the cars are not all leaving and turning right because of the dispersed
circulation proposal. This is an image showing the original garage here encroaching under the
Embarcadero setback, and encroaching under these two homes. The reduced garage alternative is this
configuration retaining homes, retaining these trees, and not encroaching. Again, another image
showing parking spaces. The parking spaces in the project alternative meet the code rather than
exceeding the code, which is what the project included. The project alternative was submitted by the
applicant to address several community concerns, remove the significant and avoidable CEQA impact,
and it enables the withdraw of the tentative map and variance for the Embarcadero Road encroachment.
It reduces the ground floor level of the Academic Building but this is offset in the basement with
additional floor area. I believe this is a typo. I think they are retaining 11 more trees than the proposed
project. Retaining I said, not removing. The main thing with this project alternative is that it would not
require a statement of overriding considerations by the Council if the Council were to approve the project
alternative. Now, we get to the discretionary review and the required applications. We are here at the
ARB because of the Architectural Review application. We’re looking at all these things. We’re looking at
potential hearing dates. We’ve published that September 17 is the next ARB date but that’s a flexible
situation. We have other potential dates in October as needed to come back with some tailored
architectural findings and plan refinements as needed. The Planning Commission meets next
Wednesday, August 26. They have quite a few applications in front of them. The top two are CUP and
Variance for floor area replacement. Those are the two associated with the project alternative. The
project has all four of these applications associated. Again, we have published September 30 as our
second Planning Commission meeting on the project. The HRB met last September to discuss the draft
EIR, which had a cultural resources section looking at the historic buildings on site and the neighborhood
adjacent the historic building. The image here on the screen is the preferred option between the two
that the HRB saw back in September. Then, of course, City Council I have a November/December target
after all of the other boards and commissions have had several meetings. What the Council would be
doing is certifying the final EIR. They would be approving a record of land use action that addresses the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and those applications we discussed: architectural review,
conditional use permit, and variance. Now, in the staff report, I noted seven topics that relate to
architectural review findings. These are the seven topics, packet pages 18 to 32. Again, these relate to
findings that the ARB would eventually have to discuss and come to an agreement on. These are the
findings, of course. We have several findings. We have the proposal for phased construction. This is
through the architectural review process. Up to five years are enabled through the architectural review
process. The applicant requests three years of construction, the first phase being the garage;
subsequent phases noted in the staff report. Then the final EIR. There’s been quite a history. As I
noted, our consultant Katherine will be presenting on the final EIR but we’ve been through a few years of
preparation, publication, comments, responses to comments, and here we are now after the final EIR
was published. We have a vehicle and circulation parking design. This is a topic that is an ARB topic
3.a
Packet Pg. 65
City of Palo Alto Page 6
because we have various parking lots around the campus. There are three surface lots now. They are
going to two surface lots plus the underground garage. They are proposing the use of tandem spaces
but we don’t count those tandem spaces toward the parking requirements. They are, as noted earlier,
putting some service functions under the Academic Building and the buses would use the Circle perimeter
driveway. The underground circulation uses a double row of one-way drive through. This does enable if
there is an emergency necessitated through this morning drop-off situation there's a second drive.
There’s also this pedestrian tunnel, as noted earlier, going from the garage to the campus in both project
and the project alternatives. Noting that this pedestrian tunnel has been studied and looked at through
the City Staff for compliance. It would be a permanent encroachment within that 25-foot public
easement. We have bike parking around the campus increasing to 140 spaces in both long-term and
rack spaces. Then the compatibility. Of course, the applicant has a long presentation to get to so I’ll
leave it to them to show their studies for capability and architectural treatments there. As noted, the
materials board is on display at City Hall. Again, the ARB has a finding related to historic preservation
which, you know, for this campus we have this historic building that will be separated by 50 feet from the
new academic building that’s proposed, and there will be some landscaping there. These are the
materials. Then we have sustainability. This is the goal is a LEED building, and these are some of the
things that Castilleja is proposing. They’ve cited the benefits of achieving these goals and some
strategies. I’ll turn it over in a minute. This is what Katherine will be presenting. These are the five
categories that are most related to the architectural review purview regarding the final EIR. I’m going to
now, I think, share Katherine’s screen. Let me check with her.
Katherine Waugh, Senior Project Manager: Good morning. Thank you, Chair, and Board Members. As
Amy mentioned, my name’s Katherine Waugh. I am a Senior Project Manager with Dudek, and we are
the City’s environmental consultant for preparing this EIR. This slide outlines what the required contents
of a draft and a final EIR. The draft EIR was released for public review last summer starting in July, and
it includes a detailed project description. In the environmental analysis, a really important component of
CEQA is that we start with what exists currently. We look at the baseline conditions of the existing
setting and we compare the effects of a project to those existing conditions. The analysis is based on a
defined threshold of significance and those come out of City Code, the City Comprehensive Plan, other
planning and regulatory documents that the City has adopted, as well as any applicable State or Federal
criteria depending on the resources we’re looking at. We then determine whether an impact would occur
and whether it would be significant or remain below any particular thresholds, in which case we would
find it to be less than significant. Where there is a significant impact, CEQA allows, or requires, that we
provide mitigation measures that can reduce or avoid or provide compensation for that impact. These
mitigations measures need to be commensurate with the level of the impact so that there is a nexus
between the impact and the mitigation measure, a direct nexus, and that they are comparable in scope
to the level of that impact. Another really important component of a draft EIR is to look at project
alternatives. In the final EIR, we expanded that alternatives analysis based on some of the public
comments, and as Amy mentioned, based on the project alternative that Castilleja School has proposed.
In that final EIR, we have a series of master responses. There is a large volume of comments that were
received on the project and the EIR. We wanted to be able to provide comprehensive responses to those
issues in a complete way rather than in little bite-sized bits, directly responding to individual comments.
We took the whole body of comments and tried to distill them down into the major topic areas that were
addressed. This slide just lists the topics that were covered in the master responses. I am happy to
answer questions on them but I didn’t want to bog things down by trying to get into the details of each
one. As Amy highlighted, it is really important to understand the differences between the proposed
project here and the project alternative that Castilleja has suggested, which we call the dispersed
circulation reduced garage alternative. I’ll go through this quickly since Amy’s already done a really good
overview as well. I just wanted to present it in a slightly different way in terms of what elements are
common to both project versions and then how those two differ from each other. You can see easily it is
the same enrollment level, the same amount of special event activities. There are no changes in how the
pool would be designed or operated. They both provide a very similar pedestrian and bicycle circulation
plan showing how students and faculty could move throughout the site and how they would access the
site if they're not coming in a single-occupancy vehicle. Under the proposed project, as Amy pointed out,
the project would demolish the residential structures on Emerson Street and replace that area with a
landscaped open area, whereas the dispersed circulation reduced garage alternative would retain those
3.a
Packet Pg. 66
City of Palo Alto Page 7
existing structures and the other features on those two parcels. Amy did a really good explanation of
how the garage would differ between the two alternatives. Obviously, it’s a little bit smaller under the
dispersed circulation alternative. Then there would be a drop-off lane added to Kellogg Avenue in
generally the same location where there is one currently. Then there would also be drop-off and pick up
and the Bryant Street/Luke Driveway, closer to the Kellogg side of that frontage. Then the building size;
the Academic Building would be nearly the same size under the two alternatives. As Amy pointed out,
there is a slight change in the above grade square footage because of adding the Kellogg Avenue drop-
off lane. Then that is made up for with below grade space. I just have a few more slides where I
wanted to highlight the findings of the EIR related to those five topics that Amy pointed out as being
most relevant to the ARB purview. The first one is the land use impacts. We broke this down at different
components of the project. As Amy noted, there is a significant and unavoidable impact under the
proposed project that’s related to traffic volume. Specifically, it was the TIRE index analysis, which
stands for the traffic infusion on residential streets or in residential environments. We found that there
would be a significant increase in the number of trips of cars on Emerson Street between Melville and
Embarcadero on a daily basis. That impact would be reduced somewhat by implantation of an enhanced
TDM Plan, as required under Mitigation Measure 7a, but that that would not be sufficient to bring that
traffic volume down to a less than significant level based on the TIRE index thresholds. In the final EIR,
we added some text to Mitigation Measure 7a to clarify some of the monitoring and enforcement
provisions, and strengthen the performance standard. The City has a set of metrics to evaluate how well.
Castilleja would be attaining the standards set forth in the that TDM plan and allow for a process of
adaptive management so that that TDM plan can be modified. The specific strategies that are
implemented each year can be modified to reflect changing conditions in where students are coming from
as well as background conditions and what specific strategies are more feasible and more effective as
those conditions change. We also looked at impacts associated with noise. We found that specific to the
pool there is a lot of [distortion] the alternative proposed to place that pool below grade so that that
provides a lot of noise attenuation. Then there would also be a sound wall constructed along the
projects Emerson Street frontage. The wall would be set back 20 feet from the public right of way, and
the wall height relative to the street elevation would be consistent with the City’s codes at six feet. There
would be a kicker, which is an angled wall facing in towards the pool area to further reduce sound levels
without adding height to the perceived height of that wall. The one mitigation measure require under
noise related to land use compatible is the Mitigation Measure 8a, which requires further analysis of the
loudspeaker system and where those speakers are set and faced to ensure that noise levels remain
acceptable. We also looked at activities associated with special events. Again, we looked to what the
existing condition is and how many events are currently being held each year. This Mitigation Measure
4a would slightly reduce that and define a set cap on the number of special events that the school would
be allowed to have in any given year. There are also requirements related to providing floor circulation
and parking plans. We also found a potentially significant impact under land use related to whether the
project would be consistent with the City’s tree preservation and management regulations. The project
plans and the project alternative plans include tree protection measures and landscaping plans that did
demonstrate consistency with the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, but we required
Mitigation Measure 4b to further give the City the tools to be able to monitor that and do additional plan
review as the individual construction phases are proposed. We also, in that Mitigation Measure 4b, added
a little bit more stringent of a requirement than the City’s codes in terms of monitoring the trees that are
on site. Even the ones that are retained, which is not typically required, but to have the monitoring
program for five years after each construction phase that’s proximate to those trees that are retained to
ensure that their health is not compromised by the construction process. Finally, we concluded that
impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant and the next slide goes into a little bit more
detail on that one. We had to address it both under the land use chapter but it had its own chapter as
well under aesthetics. There’s much more detail in that second chapter. This finding, again, was less
than significant with mitigation and the only mitigation measures you see on that final bullet is related to
lighting plans and making sure that those plans meet the City’s standards related to light spillover. The
other issues we looked at were comparing the proposed building against the existing buildings in terms of
their scale and massing and materials and colors. In the final EIR, we added some exhibits that provide
photographic stimulations of the view from Emerson Street. Amy included a couple of those in her
presentation as well. Again, the pool sound wall was something that we spent a lot of time on because
there was concern about its height and whether it would conform to the City standards and how it would
3.a
Packet Pg. 67
City of Palo Alto Page 8
appear from Emerson Street. As I mentioned, it would be set back 20 feet with landscaping between the
sidewalk and the wall. Again, we looked at the tree removals and relocations and replacement and
because the site plans do demonstrate consistency with the City’s regulations and Tree Technical Manual,
from an aesthetic standpoint we concluded that that impact would be less than significant. As I
mentioned in the land use context, we looked at noise, as well in a more detailed way. Some of the
things I didn’t mention earlier were that the building orientation… the configuration of the new academic
building would actually provide some additional attenuation from noise that happens when there are
special events held on the Circle. We found that there were some houses for which that noise level could
increase slightly but in all instances the noise levels would not exceed the City Code or would not exceed
the increase above ambient level that’s allowed under the City Code. Again, we talked about the effects
of the pool reconfiguration and relocation on sounds and we have the mitigation measure related to the
loudspeaker design standards. There is also a mitigation measure related to construction noise levels but
that’s a very standard process of developing specific noise reduction strategies for each individual
construction phase. Finally, the impact analysis related to cultural resources. As Amy reviewed, the
project would modify the eastern façade of the Administration Building, which is a historic resource.
Those proposed plans are consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards and, therefore, that would
not be a significant impact. There are no other historic resources within the project site. Mitigation
Measure 6a requires protection for both for the Administration Building and the neighboring historic
resource building during construction to ensure there is no inadvertent damage during those processes. I
believe that is my last slide. Thank you, Amy. I did want to keep my presentation really short because I
know we have a lot to get through this morning but I am happy to answer questions on any of these
topics as well as anything else that’s addressed in the EIR.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Director Waugh and Amy French, for the EIR presentation. I’d like
to ask if we have any questions from the members of the Board for the Staff but I’d like to try to keep it
at a high level. We want to hear from the public as much possible and the applicant. Are there any
questions from other Board Members? Okay, then.
Board Member Hirsch: I do have one. Just to emphasize this. The garage will or will not be used as a
drop-off location, then? Has that been eliminated from the program?
Ms. French: I can answer that. In the project alternative that is to be presented, the drop-offs occur
around the site as they do today. The new drop-off in the garage would be another place for drop-off
but not the only place. The applicant can share what their plan is for that.
Board Member Hirsch: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you for that question, David. Anything else from the Board? Vinh, do we have the
applicant keyed up? Could they give their presentation, please?
Mr. Nguyen: Amy, who’s the applicant?
Ms. French: It’s Adam Woltag.
Mr. Nguyen: It looks like Adam Woltag is in the meeting as a panelist.
Adam Woltag, Applicant: Good morning, this is Adam.
Chair Baltay: Good morning, Adam. We’ll give you ten minutes to speak and then you'll have a chance
to rebut community comments. Please do let me know if you think that’s not adequate though. Go
ahead.
Adam Woltag: We’ll try to get through this in ten minutes.
Chair Baltay: Vinh, if you could time that, please.
3.a
Packet Pg. 68
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Adam Woltag: Great. I am going to share my screen.
Chair Baltay: Adam, if you could please spell your name for the record.
Adam Woltag: Sure. It’s Adam, A-D-A-M. Last name is Woltag, W-O-L-T-A-G.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. Go ahead.
Adam Woltag: Well, good morning, everyone. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look
forward to your comments and questions. I’d like to open up by saying that this project is designed to
respond to many things. It’s a combination of buildings and landscapes and spaces that help frame the
experience of this really beautiful place. This project is designed to respond to the educational
advancement of our next generation, and is also designed to be sensitive to the surrounding
neighborhood. In so doing, our overall sustainable approach responds to and reflects the City’s
sustainable guidelines. Let’s start with a view of the existing campus looking southeast. The red
contiguous roof of the two and three-story classroom building that joins with the historic Guinn Building,
and wraps the edge of the campus along Bryant and Kellogg. This is a site plan of the proposed design.
This page shows three diagrams that compare the existing and proposed footprint as well as height. On
the upper left the orange existing and the gray proposed. Note that the overlaps of what we’re
proposing and what is there is roughly the same. Regarding height, the diagram on the lower right
illustrates that our proposed roofline is lower than the existing condition. In fact, we’re actually not
taking advantage of the full City’s allowable mechanical roof equipment. We think that’s actually a really
good thing to try to keep this as low as we can. Our original submitted campus plan on the left received
comments which we have responded to in the alternative number four campus plan. Amy touched on
this a little earlier. There are a few key things I’d like to touch on as we move through here. One is
illustrated in blue, the reduced garage footprint, which has allowed us to preserve the two houses both
owned by the school along Emerson. As well as reduce the impact to existing on-site trees. With some
subtle shifts in the massing and some interior re-planning, the introduction of an additional campus
pedestrian entry along Kellogg has allowed us to maintain the existing Kellogg drop-off that supports an
overall distributed drop-off strategy. Now traffic engineers have studied the impact of this model and
concluded that this distributed approach, which is the current practice, is superior to a consolidated
model where all traffic is funneled through the garage. This approach mitigates the traffic impacts
identified in the DEIR. This approach has minimized curb impact along the streets with vehicular ingress
and egress. It results in few curb cuts that are now thoughtfully organized around use and flow. Really
key to this is how service, trash, loading, and deliveries have been moved inboard to campus away from
the neighborhood and moved below grade. We think that’s an excellent way to mitigate those impacts
on the surrounding neighborhood. As noted earlier, this project’s sustainable goals are aligned with the
City’s sustainability and climate action plan, focused on resource efficiency, the use of healthy materials,
and a commitment to eliminating fossil fuels. It has really guided our design approach of three floors of
academic program, one below grade and two above, that are connected together through day-lit
teaching and gatherings spaces, and landscaped elements to ensure an experience of comfort, health,
and delight. Skylights cover teaching patios, sunken gardens, and the use of clear stories will help
ensure good daylight penetration at every floor in an effort to create a welcoming environment and
reduce energy needs. Windows and exterior covered walkways and teaching spaces bring the outdoors
in connecting teachers, students, and staff to nature. For example, looking at the below grade garden
level, which benefits from generous open double-height stair spaces, those are opportunities to bring in
daylight into those public spaces that are below grade. Light-colored wall finishes and interior classroom
clearstories will allow that light to flow into hallways and teaching spaces. This is a section through the
upper school hub space. This is the upper school’s living room. This illustrates how we are approaching
maximizing daylight penetration through glass curtain walls and skylights to get light into that garden.
For the middle school hub space, that space bends upward to the second-floor classrooms and a central
sky-lit hallway. This slide graphically illustrates our sustainability approach, which is summarized. There
are a lot of icons here. It is really summarized to say that everything is working together to achieve our
goals. Building elements, like walls, roofs, floors structural systems, our NEP systems, material site, and
landscape design all has a purpose and has to if we’re going to achieve our ambitious goals. As do the
edges of the campus that face a neighborhood where they address entry, acoustics and safety, security,
3.a
Packet Pg. 69
City of Palo Alto Page 10
service access, storm water, and we hope beauty. As an example, our roof design highlights day-lighting
opportunities in yellow and energy generation which you see highlighted in blue. It is reflective of our
design and our goal toward net-zero energy. Now in response to neighborhood and contexts, we began
this process by walking the campus and taking in the neighborhood that surrounds this campus. We
looked closely at the street elevations across the street from our campus. We studied the relationships
and textures of solid and void, of building surface to open space, of accents and elements of the houses
across the stress, the cadence of glazing, and the roof height and roofline, and the overall comprehensive
texture of that street. We began to layer this into how we might approach each campus street edge, not
as a singular gesture but taken into account how landscape and the existing street trees comprise the
whole experience. Now, I’ll walk through some of the proposed building elevations in perspective and
follow up with some more conventional flat elevations and some photo-montage images to show how the
proposed design works in the existing context. I will also show you images that have the tress on and
off. The Bryant Street view, trees on. Emerson Avenue view, trees on. The Kellogg Avenue view, trees
on. I’d like to pause here and point out our approach at the sidewalk edge. We really tried to focus on
scale and the fine grain patterning of the surfaces. The very eave edge that goes from Bryant to
Emerson, and the cadence of windows and the depth of the façade and how it will play with shade and
shadow. A view highlighting the distribution of the various materials across the elevation, and I’ll touch
on this more a little bit later in the presentation. Also, our approach to designing the new quite entry off
of the Kellogg Drop-off that we feel is trying to be sensitive to that activity along Kellogg. A view of the
corner of Emerson and Kellogg, and the deep express roof eave of the second floor recessed planter at
that corner entry. Now to help respond to the scale and the exiting contacts, we have photo montage six
street-level views of the proposed design, two views of the proposed Bryant and Emerson garage entry
and exits. The Bryant Street existing; you can see the Gunn Building and the existing classroom building
that are joined together, and the proposed design. Bryant Street and Kellogg intersection, existing. Now
the proposed. The Kellogg Avenue looking toward Emerson elevation, existing, and proposed. Then
Kellogg Avenue looking toward Bryant, existing, and proposed. Emerson Street corner, existing, and
proposed. Then about midway down Emerson Street, existing, and proposed. Now off that intersection
of Bryant and Embarcadero, this is a view of the existing entry parking before and after the incorporation
of the garage entry. Then moving to the other side of the site to Emerson. This is the exit right now off
of Emerson, and this is the proposed. Moving on to some more conventional flat building elevations,
what you'll see is on the upper portion of each of these drawing is the elevation without trees and then
the elevation below with trees. This is the Emerson Street elevations. The Kellogg Avenue elevation. I
am going to pause here for a moment just to show a perspective diagram with some hash marks where
we’ve stitched in areas where we really tried to shift the massing of the building elevation to highlight
where we’ve broken the plane of that side. This is a building cross-section that illustrates, along with the
program richness of this project, the various day lighting strategies we are applying to bring natural light
into every possible space. It also helps to describe our use of dowel laminated timber system, or DLT,
which is a wood structural decking system that has a very low carbon footprint and allows for greater
spans, reduced structural members that in turn results in faster assembly, a lower impact on construction
time, and eventually lower impact on the surrounding neighborhood. We feel that it has many benefits
and we also think it’s beautiful when exposed and there is lots of opportunities in the project to do that.
These are a few wall section elevations to show how we are using wood as an exterior material. Here, as
vertical [distortion] siding as well as shingles that we think hark back to some of the historical resources
on campus as well as some of the residential resources within the neighborhood. Now, this is a view of
our material palette. This is what we think pulls from the campus and we believe it is a warm and
natural palette. It’s a durable palette and one that has taken views from history and also reflects some
of the texture of the surrounding residential neighborhood. We really feel it provides the right frame for
the experience of the campus center. This is a view from the center of campus, the Circle, looking
towards the middle school entry. As noted earlier, we have…
Chair Baltay: If I could break in for a second. You're now at twelve-and-a-half minutes. How much
more time do you need, please?
Adam Woltag: A minute-and-a-half. I’ll get through it very quickly.
Chair Baltay: Go ahead.
3.a
Packet Pg. 70
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Adam Woltag: Great. Real quickly, we’ve met with the HRB. We’ve received comments and we’re
looking forward to going back and meeting with them. I’ll touch really quickly on landscape. It’s very
important because our landscape design has been developed to ensure perimeter edges of the campus
gather rain water and storm water to help with infiltration and help reduce the impact on the City’s
infrastructure. This is the same strategy we’ve been suing for the interior of the campus where bioswales
and flow-through planters help reinforce place making and gathering spaces. The topography along the
perimeters are also designed to help screen the campus but also provide opportunities to help highlight
our storm water strategy. Our palette is pulled from native and drought-tolerate plants, and brings
nature into the over campus experience. This approach provides an opportunity to use landscape as an
educational and infrastructural tool, and tells a valuable story about this place, our climate, and is central
to the core values of Castilleja. Thank you. Sorry for running over time there.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Adam. Very nice presentation and I especially appreciate your
before and after photo montages. They make it very clear. Vinh, I believe we have some public
comments. I’d like to open the meeting up to public comments at this point. Can you tell me how many
people we have to speak? What should we anticipate, please?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, it looks like the number is quickly rising. Let’s give everyone 30 seconds to a minute
to raise their hand. If you want to speak on this item, please raise your hand now. If you’re using the
Zoom app, there should be a raised hand button at the bottom of your screen. If you’re calling in from a
phone you have to dial *9 in order to raise your hand. We do have a couple groups who will be pulling
their time together. If you are part of that group where you’re going to be donating your time, please
raise your hand as well. Let’s give everyone maybe 30 seconds or so.
Chair Baltay: To the public, I would like very much for everyone to have an opportunity to speak and I’d
like to maintain it at the full three minutes that we typically allot. I would hope that everyone could
recognize that that might be a lot of time and while this is a very important project it would be great if
you could limit your time to less than or try not to repeat what someone else is saying. We’ll listen to
everyone’s comments, however, and we very much want to hear every member of the public who has
something to say. Vinh, as soon as you could I’d like to get a count of approximately how many people
we have.
Mr. Nguyen: It looks like we have topped at 31 speakers.
Chair Baltay: At three minutes each that’s a lot. Okay. I think we should get started then.
Vice Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay?
Chair Baltay: Yes, Osma.
Vice Chair Thompson: Will we ask questions of the applicant after public comment?
Chair Baltay: Do any of the Board Members have questions? Would you like to ask something, Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: I just have a quick question. It’s about the material choice for the shingle. I just
wanted to confirm that it’s a straight-edge and not a scattered or shake.
Adam Woltag: Yes, it is. We’re really looking at that shingle to match the same profile that’s on the
historic Gunn Building. We’re looking for that continuity. We think that’ll be a wonderful response, right,
to the historic resources.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Sorry, I have one more question. I noticed that you had a
corrugated metal siding but when I looked at the material palette I didn’t see it. Where does that occur,
the corrugated metal siding?
3.a
Packet Pg. 71
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Adam Woltag: The metal siding is one of the options were looking at at the Kellogg elevation. There’s
kind of a drawer that’s pulled out of the building that creates a second-floor planter box. We felt it was a
nice contrast to the overall wood elevation. If you look at the Kellogg elevation, you'll see a call out for a
metal panel system. We are right now considering standing metal seams. There will be some texture to
those metal panels. We think that will help really accentuate the shadows across that facade, especially
on that part of the project.
Vice Chair Thompson: And does that use the MT1 anodized aluminum finish?
Adam Woltag: No. We’re looking at a couple different options. I think the one we’ve settled on we were
looking at a zinc or a zincalume or something that really doesn’t need a lot of paint. Something that
doesn’t have high reflectivity but still has a nice robust feel to it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Are there any other Board questions? I’d like to get started.
Board Member Lee: I had a quick question if it’s allowed at this time.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely, Grace. Go ahead.
Board Member Lee: My question is about the modular classrooms. I just didn’t see anything in the
applicant’s project materials regarding how many, what kind, and perhaps this is forthcoming at the
continued meting but I just wanted to put it out there for the applicant.
Chair Baltay: I believe, Grace, I saw a drawing of the proposed modular layout and whatnot. Would it
be acceptable to you, Grace, if the staff or the applicant could find that drawing and bring it back when
we have comments from you directly?
Board Member Lee: Absolutely. (crosstalk)
Chair Baltay: I’m eager to get to public speakers.
Amy French: It’s available on the webpage, so I can bring that up during the comments.
Board Member Lee: Okay, thank you.
Chair Baltay: Are there any other Board Members have any other questions for the staff or the applicant?
Then let’s get back to our public hearing meetings. Vinh, do we have the first speaker, and is it possible
to get a list of some kind or something, Vinh?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, if you click on the participant's tab at the bottom it will bring up the list of speakers.
You should see that there is 31 raised hands.
Chair Baltay: Great, okay. Well, I’ll count on you, Vinh. Please announce each person in turn. Give the
next person a heads up. To each speaker, please state and spell your name and you'll have three
minutes. Let’s get started, Vinh. Announce the first person, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay. I’ll go ahead and announce the next five people so that way they can know who is
coming up next. First would be Cath Garber, and I do apologize if I mispronounce anyone’s name. After
that will be Rebecca Eisenberg, followed by Nancy Tuck, followed by Tom Shannon, and then Rebecca S.
Up first would be Cath Garber. If you could please unmute yourself on your computer you may speak.
Cath Garber: Hello. My name is Cath Garber, C-A-T-H, last name Garber, G-A-R-B-E-R. I’d like to share
my thoughts regarding the final EIR for Castilleja. I'm a Principal at Fergus Garber Architects and have
been practicing architecture in Palo Alto since the mid-90’s. I designed a number of new homes in the
3.a
Packet Pg. 72
City of Palo Alto Page 13
neighborhood. One each on Kellogg, Emerson, and Waverly, and two on Kapper. I am currently working
on two historic remodels across the street on Embarcadero. I live next to Green Middle School, and my
children, both boys, attended Palo Alto Schools. My strongest relationship with Castilleja is that I ride my
bike right on my way to the office near Town and Country. In all of my years, I have never witnessed
anything other than calm and courteous parents, staff, and students getting dropped off. I feel very safe
as I ride by on my bike. As with other interested community members and as a curious architect, I've
looked at the proposal. I like the overall design and its attention to the surrounding neighborhood. I
was pleased to see that the historic Gunn Building will remain. I think the new construction is
complementary. The new buildings are quite and the materials nicely complimented the historic building.
Being lower in height and having recesses in balconies, incorporating the variation in materials, and the
scale and massing feels right on the new construction. I agree with the EIR, which states the project
improves the neighborhood aesthetics. I also wanted to comment on the landscaping. I think that the
gates and the fencing are handsome. They are better detailed than you see on most commercial
projects. I was also impressed with the plant and tree selection. I think the landscaping looks dense and
is as attractive as found on most of the residential projects found in the neighborhood. In summary, I
wanted to commend the school for proposing this alternative that they are today. It saves the homes,
preserves trees, reduces the scale of the garage, and eliminates erratic impacts associated with the
original proposal. I think this is evidence of Castilleja’s responsiveness to the input from the DEIR and
from the neighbors. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Vinh, next person, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next person will be Rebecca Eisenberg. If you could please unmute yourself you
may speak.
Rebecca Eisenberg: Hello. Thank you so much for your time and for allowing me to speak. I greatly
respect and recognize the amount of time and the many years that this commission, as well as the other
commissions and departments of Palo Alto, have spent on this issue.
Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Rebecca. Please spell your name for the record.
Rebecca Eisenberg: Certainly, sure. It’s R-E-B-E-C-C-A, last name, E-I-S-E-N-B-E-R-G.
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Rebecca Eisenberg: Yeah. I am calling because it is extremely clear that this very hearing is in violation
of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Section 7-6. As well as California State Government Code
Chapter 8700, and the various provisions held within it. The City and this Commission have absolutely no
legal right, and Castilleja has even less legal right to be presenting an EIR at his time. In particularly,
because of the way that it is misrepresenting the purpose of this project. The purpose of this project and
the purpose of these hearings is to determine specifically, not whether or not Castilleja has mitigated its
recognized extremely large impact that it would have on the community, should it be allowed to build this
school according to its amended CUP. But rather, the purpose is to ask and evaluate whether Castilleja
School, a private entity that offers zero public interest and shares zero of its facilities with the public in
any way, has the right to take 55 residential lots and destroy everything in them and convert them to a
private school that would offer zero benefits to the public. Also as admitted, it would actually provide a
great deal of harm. To ask to be at the state where [distortion] is illegal stage in this hearing. I’m not
blaming you. I am just pointing out that this is where it is. Now, just to explain a little bit of the
background of this, given the proposed use of this six-acre parcel that some value at as much as one
billion dollars by the applicant that pays zero in any property taxes into the City, as it now needs to be
taken is whether or not Castilleja has a right to build anything on these residential lots other than 55
residences. Castilleja only has the right to use those residential lots for purposes other than residential if
the City of Palo Alto were to grant Castilleja those rights. The City of Palo Alto doesn’t have the right to
grant Castilleja any variance whatsoever because of an agreement that Castilleja signed with the City in
2013, where Castilleja agreed that if it did not comply with the schedule to reduce its enrollment to 415
students by the year 2018, and if it didn’t reduce its traffic to 365 cars by 2018, Castilleja signed an
3.a
Packet Pg. 73
City of Palo Alto Page 14
agreement that would be happening here is a revocation hearing of its permit. I’d like that to happen
according to the law and contract. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Vinh, next speaker, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Nancy Tuck. Nancy, if you could please spell your name for
the record, and then you may speak. Hi, Nancy, if you're there please unmute yourself.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Nancy Tuck: My name is Nancy Tuck, N-A-N-C-Y, last name is T, as in Tom, U-C-K, and I’ve lived on my
home on Melville Avenue, a couple hundred yards from the school, for the past nine years. I’m also a
parent of a 2017 Castilleja graduate. I haven’t had any contact with the members of the ARB. You can
add me to your list a strong supporter of this project. I've attended countless outreach meetings
graciously hosted by Castilleja over the years. As someone who has been directly involved in the
conversation and collaboration over these many years, I can attest to Castilleja commitment to
transparency and meaningful dialogue with its neighbors. Even more important, the plan itself speaks to
the steps Castilleja has taken to listen and respond with solutions that address neighbor's concerns.
Castilleja’s proposal to significantly decrease their garage size and maintain multiple or distributive drop-
off and pick-up locations are key examples of this. So was the meeting they held with neighbors whom
we could provide direct feedback to the architects on design elements. Now, Castilleja has a plan with no
significant impacts and a beautiful design, which is a win-win for everyone in the neighborhood, the
school, and the City. As a neighboring property owner, I find the proposed upgrades to be far more
aesthetically pleasing than the current structures. I appreciate that there is no increase in the building
height, the modern architecture, the proposed landscaping, as well as the environmental benefits of the
reduced carbon emissions. I am also pleased with the amended traffic plan, with the additional drop-off
and pick-up spots, as well as the options for disbursement direction for autos leaving the proposed
garage. At various times over the years, my support for this project had made relations hard for me in
the neighborhood, but I stand by my conviction because I see how hard Castilleja has worked to make
the design changes to respond to input. Castilleja is an excellent and considerate neighbor. I feel lucky
to own a home nearby. The administration and the Castilleja community always work to be mindful of
neighbor’s needs and requests. In recent months, I have especially appreciated how Castilleja has
delivered to neighbor’s doors detailed information about their new project alternative. We’ve been
informed of the progress and the updates to the plans at every step along the way. This smaller less-
impactful project is the result of a successful collaboration toward shared goals to improve the
neighborhood and the campus. The renderings on the Castilleja website are significantly more attractive
than the dated buildings that we look at today and would greatly enhance our community. Thank you.
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you, Nancy.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Vinh?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker will be Tom Shannon and Tom I believe you have a presentation for
us. Yesterday you had indicated that you might have a neighbor who is going to be donating some time.
Can you confirm that’s still happening?
Tom Shannon: The neighbor was Allen Cooper [phonetic], but we weren’t sure that the Chair was going
to allow that.
Chair Baltay: That’ll be fine, Tom. How much time do you need to make this presentation?
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Baltay, if I may?
Chair Baltay: Sure.
3.a
Packet Pg. 74
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Ms. Gerhardt: In order to combine speaker times, we need a group of five or more people to combine
speaker time.
Tom Shannon: That’s what I heard, yes.
Chair Baltay: I would like to make an exception to that and allow -- you want to combine with one
person, Tom?
Tom Shannon: Yes, my neighbor’s named Allen Cooper. My presentation shouldn’t take more than
three-plus minutes. It just rolls over slightly.
Chair Baltay: Okay, go ahead, please. Let’s see what happens. Thank you.
Tom Shannon: Okay. Good morning, Architectural Review Board. My name is Tom Shannon, T-O-M, S-
H-A-N-N-O-N. I am a 40-year resident of Palo Alto, 31 years directly across the street from Castilleja. I
am also one of the four creators of the neighbor’s alternative plan in your staff report, but there’s no time
to talk about that this morning. The picture on your screen shows two simulation models. The top
picture depicts Castilleja’s drop-off traffic pattern for the draft EIR published in July of 2019. The bottom
picture is Castilleja’s proposed drop-off traffic pattern for the final EIR published on, what I heard was,
July 29th. We got it July 30th of 2020. Note the significant difference. The top one was made available
for public comment though. The bottom one had no public comment. That’s a significant problem, we
find, with the final EIR. Not to mention a public relations credibility problem for the City. Notice that the
bottom diagram depicts a powerful visual of the native impacts Castilleja traffic pattern would have on all
the surrounding neighborhood streets, including the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard. Now, what's the ARB’s
role in this? I would ask them to look at the context. Study how the applicant’s proposal will interface
and affect our surrounding neighborhood. We cannot understand how the City concludes that this traffic
plan is compliant with the Code, quoting the code “the proposal shall not be detrimental to property and
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding
communities.” In granting a conditional use permit, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be
imposed to assure the conditional use is compatible with the existing adjoining properties in the general
vicinity. I would believe that our neighborhood is “in that general vicinity.” We have to ask ourselves
why does the City continue to give greater priority to the needs of Castilleja, a private education
foundation business, over the neighborhood and communities needs aimed to preservation of one Palo
Alto’s historic residential neighborhoods? Let’s talk architecture. We all acknowledge that mistakes were
made in the past. How a three-story dormitory got built on Kellogg Avenue in the 1960’s across the
street from seven craftsman-like homes leaves one to question that approval. Now Castilleja proposes an
industrial-sized horizontal high-rise with little articulation to replace this dormitory and classroom building.
The proposed building would stretch nearly the entire length of Kellogg Avenue, equivalent in size to Palo
Alto’s City Hall, situated directly across from seven early 20th century craftsman homes. We would ask
the ARB to study this building in scale and carefully decide if it’s consistent without neighborhood’s
architecture and does it deserve to be called compatible. We have an opportunity to correct past
mistakes and reestablish preservation of our neighborhood. Let’s jump on it. Here is a six-point plan for
the ARB to consider implementing. Send the plan back to staff and ask for a revised plan that’s in
keeping of the scale, design, and architecture of the neighborhood; two, correct past architectural
mistakes by recapturing the residential feel of the neighborhood; three, design a creative compatible
campus that mirrors the surrounding historical context; four, eliminate traffic impacts. If we can’t get an
Embarcadero entrance, require the school to shuttle all students to campus. Per the EIR, this could
reduce traffic on some residential street by over 1,400 trips per day. Five, hold a community meeting, or
hold as many as you have to. The public deserves a right to comment. Six, be transparent. Correct a
flawed EIR process. If you want to stand behind the so-called mislabeled final EIR, schedule a comment
period. Thank you very much.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Tom. Vinh, could we line up the next speaker, please?
3.a
Packet Pg. 75
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Rebecca S. Then the five speakers after that will be Nanci
Kauffman, followed by Gary Paladin, followed by Barbara Hazlett, followed by Sonali, and then followed
by Jeff Levinsky.
Rebecca Sanders: Yeah, my name is Rebecca Sanders, spelled R-E-B-E-C-C-A, S-A-N-D-E-R-S. I have
arranged to yield my time to the Lawyer Leila Moncharsh. I just want to go on record I will stay online
until she is able to speak.
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: To be clear, she is using your time, Rebecca, and speaking on your behalf?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, that’s correct and they actually had emailed beforehand. Our next speak will be Nanci
Kaufman. Nanci, if you could unmute yourself, identify yourself and you may speak.
Nanci Kauffman: Good morning, everyone. This is Nancy Kaufman, N-A-N-C-I, K-A-U-F-F-M-A-N. I am a
Castilleja neighbor and homeowner for more than 20 years. I am also the head of Castilleja School for
the last ten years. I want to start just by thanking all of you, the members of the Architectural Review
Board, the staff and all the consultants for the time and attention you’ve given to revealing Castilleja’s
master plan, and especially for studying the new project alternative. As you know, Castilleja is over a
100-year-old institution. Our classrooms buildings are over 50 years old. We must modernize our
facilities to meet the needs of our students, and to update our systems to enhance our sustainability.
We’re fortunate to be working with a team of architects who understand how to design with the
community in mind. You’ve seen the stunning architecture that Adam has shown you, but beneath that
there is a real programmatic rationale for our new campus. Every aspect of the new building is there for
a reason, contributing to learning, minimizing environmental impacts, and enhancing the neighborhood.
Over the past five years, we have participated in over 50 meetings with our neighbors to gather feedback
to incorporate into our campus plan. Whether it was a large group setting or some of the intimate
smaller ones the goal was always the same: to find a way to modernize our campus in a way that
improves the neighborhood and reduces our impact. Many of the key elements of a modernization were
driven by neighborhood feedback. The garage to move cars off of the neighborhood streets, the below
grade pool and deliveries to minimize noise, and the commitment to preserving trees and housing to
protect the residential feel. The proposed alternative is the most recent evolution of our project as we’ve
gradually scaled back and refined our design to do more with less. We are very proud that the final EIR
report found our proposed alternative to be the environmental superior project alternative due to the
robust transportation mitigations, and the preservation of trees and housing. For all of these reasons, we
would like to proceed with project alternative number four as our project. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much.
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Baltay, if I may, I just want to be clear to the applicant that anyone speaking for the
applicant should stay within the ten-minute presentation window. I believe the last speaker is also a
neighbor but anyone speaking for the application should not be presenting using this public review.
Chair Baltay: That’s a fair statement, Jodie. Let’s try to keep an eye on that.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Vinh, next public speaker, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Barbara Hazlett. Barbara, if you could unmute yourself,
identify yourself, and you may speak.
Barbara Hazlett: Good morning, Commissioners, and everyone. My name is Barbara Hazlett spelled B-A-
R-B-A-R-A, last name H-A-Z-L-E-T-T. I have lived very near Castilleja School just across Embarcadero for
over 40 years. I feel very fortunate to live near this important institution. We all need to be reminded
3.a
Packet Pg. 76
City of Palo Alto Page 17
that much like Stanford, Castilleja is a nationally ranked school. How lucky are we to have these kinds of
educational institutions in our backyard. Specific to this haring, I wanted to speak today about the
building design and how pleased I am with the proposed plans. The schools’ architects have carefully
studied the surrounding homes to select materials that mirror them. The new rooflines are at the same
height, or lower, than the current structures reducing the overall size and allowing for more sunlight. I’ve
looked at the renderings Castilleja has shared on their website and the landscaping, including all of the
trees, blends the buildings beautifully into the surrounding neighborhood. Without increasing any floor
area ratio, Castilleja modernization greatly improves on the current aging structures we see on campus
now. All of us as immediate neighbors will benefit greatly from this design. In conclusion, the school is
an excellent neighbor. The school predates all of the neighbors having been at this location since 1910.
Castilleja should have the opportunity to modernize as have Ohlone, Paly, Addison Elementary and
Stanford. I look forward to seeing this plan come to fruition because I know it will quickly become part
of the architectural fabric of our residential streets. Castilleja’s always been a gem in Palo Alto and I
hope they can finally modernize their aging campus. Please support the school’s plans, and ensure that
inspired architecture and exceptional educations continue its foundational and timeless values in Palo
Alto. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Barbara. Next speaker, Vinh, please.
Mr. Nguyen: The next speaker will be Sonali.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Sonali Simgh: I just wanted to note I'm a community member. I’m also an alumni of an all-girls school
and a Stanford grad. I have personal friends who are Castilleja grads. I support girl’s education and I
support intentional community building.
Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Sonali. Can you spell your name for the record.
Sonali Simgh: What? I’m sorry. Spell my name?
Chair Baltay: Spell your name.
Sonali Simgh: Sure. My name is S-O-N-A-L-I, last name S-I-M-G-H. I'm a community member. I’m also
an alumni of an all-girls school and a Stanford grad. I have personal friends who are Castilleja grads. I
support girl’s education and I support intentional community building.
Male: Can you start the timer?
Sonali Simgh: Should I start again? Okay, I'm a community member. I’m also an alumni of an all-girls
school and a Stanford grad. I have personal friends who are Castilleja grads. I support girl’s education
and I support intentional community building. It is absolutely absurd that you think you need to build a
parking lot to expand girl’s education. There are many ways to do this; expanding enrollment that
doesn’t include spending an unnecessary amount of time and money and creating significant community
disturbance for a parking lot. With your clear financial surplus, you could be extending by ensuring
scholarships for girls from East Palo Alto. You could be using charter buses for students and faculty who
live close by, and allocating existing parking permits based upon distance. Again, I went to an all-girls
school and I do support girl’s education. I don’t support dishonesty about the impact to the environment
around it. I don’t support the disregard for disadvantaged girls in this community who are separated
from us by only a highway. I believe that given Instagram accounts that have amplified personal
testimonials racism at Castilleja, including bypocatcasti [phonetic], Castilleja could use rethinking and self
reflection about where your funds go. What are you really doing to desegregate your school? What are
you doing to increase enrollment for disadvantaged students who are in our community? What are you
doing to address institutional racism at your school. If you’re building a parking lot instead of answering
those questions, you certainly cannot use the excuse of not having the funds to resolve the more
important issues at hand during our community public health and public crisis. This pandemic, the
3.a
Packet Pg. 77
City of Palo Alto Page 18
devastating effects of climate change we’re seeing, and rampant institutional racism. None of this needs
to involve building a parking lot. That picture that Adam denoted of historic Castilleja is hardly anything
to hold up. It shows exclusively what its students -- it denotes a time in which the school embraced
racist harmful segregation policies. Make no mistake, there are people of color out here that Castilleja
refused to admit into its school. These dynamics still exist in the community. I'm not sure why we’re so
focused on the appearance and exteriors when we’re not talking about the alternate ways that Castilleja
could be achieving the same goal that cost the same amount but involves less disturbance and do not
involve spending money on a parking lot. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you Sonali. Vinh, if we could move to the next speak, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Jeff Levinsky and then the five speakers after him will be
Nelson NG, Sonali Simgh, Cathy Layendecker [phonetic], David Yee [phonetic], and then Angie
[phonetic]. Jeff, can you please identify yourself, unmute yourself and you may speak.
Jeff Levinsky: Okay, this is Jeff Levinsky, J-E-F-F, L-E-V-I-N-S-K-Y. I’d like to share a screen. Is that
possible or not?
Mr. Nguyen: Unfortunately, that’s not possible at this time.
Jeff Levinsky: Okay. All right.
Mr. Nguyen: If you would have submitted it before the meeting we could put it up for you.
Jeff Levinsky: Okay, I asked about this in the EIR but the EIR did not address the specific question that I
asked, which is about the laws governing whether Castilleja’s proposed underground garage should count
as floor area. The ARB members are familiar with this topic in general and they are being asked in their
finding number one to certify that the project complies with the Palo Alto zoning laws, and it appears that
there is a problem. In four separate places, our zoning laws say that a garage in the R-1 zone, in which
Castilleja sits, does count as floor area. I’ll just briefly rattle off what those are. They're in the definition
section 65. It says in the R-1 single-family residence districts as that gross floor area includes “covered
parking.” Further on, it goes on to say “garages shall be included in gross floor area.” Then in the site
development standards for R-1 it says that gross floor area includes “covered parking.” Further on down
there’s a table, table three, which is in the letter I sent in yesterday. It shows specifically garages and
carports and there is a star to say included in the gross floor area. The only argument that the EIR made
in opposition to this is that it was a basement. That the garage is somehow also a basement and
basements are or can be excluded from floor area. There is an explicit law that says that basements may
not extend beyond the building footprint. The garage that’s proposed is under a playing field, not under
any building footprint, so it cannot be considered as a basement. One last point, by the City’s not
counting the garage as floor area, I calculate that the City will be losing almost a million dollars in impact
fees, most of which would go for affordable housing. This problem is not only a violation of the law, it
appears, but is also something that will harm the community beyond. I’d like to see it addressed in the
EIR, which it wasn’t, and corrected. Thank you very much.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jeff. Next speaker, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, our next speaker is Nelson NG. And Nelson I see you have two accounts in this
hearing and both of them have a hand raised. Can you confirm if it’s the same person or if they are two
different individuals?
Nelson Ng: It is two different individuals. One is my wife Kimberley Wong. This is me. She's going to be
speaking as well but she is on the iPad and I am on the…
Mr. Nguyen: Understood. Okay, go ahead.
3.a
Packet Pg. 78
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Nelson Ng: My name is Nelson N-E-L-S-O-N, N-G is the last name. I have been living in Palo Alto across
from Castilleja on Emerson Street for over 24 years. In the next three minutes, I will just cover two
issues of the incomplete study of the impact and providing inaccurate information of this EIR. I am
asking the commission to reject it until these are corrected. First issue, from page 44 of the appendix E
Traffic Impact Study, they stated after revealing the (inaudible) data between March 2015 and March
2018, only found one single non-injury collision occurred along the studied segment during this time.
The finding concluded given the lack of crashes involving bikes along Bryant and Embarcadero and I
quote, “a safety concern involving bicycles along the study segment has not been demonstrated.”
Therefore, the study is not focusing on it. However, there was indeed an accident of a bicyclist and
pedestrian on a scooter struck by a car going westbound on Embarcadero at the intersection of Bryant
and Embarcadero on February 13, 2018, at around 5:00 p.m. That accident shut down both sides of
Embarcadero for over an hour. You can find the details of that accident on the weekly articles titled Two
Injured on Embarcadero Road Collision. The next issue is about the proposed project found that the
results is significant and an unavoidable impact even with mitigation because the garage would direct an
increase of 80 percent of new trips coming off bound on Emerson to eastbound Embarcadero to make a
right. That will increase it from 842 trips to 1,521 daily trips. In order to address that, the new
alternative proposal was that without any study in the EIR validating assumption. It just says that the
alternative assumed that only 10 percent of the traffic will go into Bryant Street into the garage.
Therefore, by further splitting up the garage’s traffic coming out they’ve reached that goal by reducing
the traffic by 21 percent to only 51. Their assumption is just not correct. This is just like with our
studies. If the student got an F minus they should not be retested to pass the class because they are
assuming that the student is getting better. What I am asking the commission to do is basically to
restudy all the incomplete findings and inaccurate issues. Then asking them to come back to them to
present the EIR. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Nelson. Next speaker, Vinh, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, next speaker will be Kimberly Wong. Kimberley, I believe you sent me a presentation
yesterday. We’ll get that up for you. If you can please unmute yourself, identify yourself, and then you
may speak.
Kimberly Wong: Hi how are you?
Mr. Nguyen: Good, thank you.
Kimberley Wong: My name is Kimberly Wong, K-I-M-B-E-R-L-E-Y, W-O-N-G. I've lived across from the
Lockey House for 24 years. With the construction of the gym in 2007, we were affected by the noise,
dust, and dewatering of the construction. The project Castilleja is now proposing is monstrous in
comparison. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that a project enhances the living conditions on the
site and in the adjacent residential area. It also says that a project should promote visual environments,
which are of high aesthetic quality. This project does not take into consideration neighborhood livability
as residents need to bear the brunt of traffic and noise brought on by this massive project. Cars
traveling in and out of the garage and around campus will compete with bicyclists on the Bike Safety
Boulevard and neighboring streets causing unsafe conditions. I suggest that a no garage option be
returned to the table and studied to provide a safe and a more aesthetically appeasing alternative within
a single family neighborhood. Here’s slide one. The proposed three-fourth block long building on Kellogg
also fails to blend in with the classic Spanish tutors, craftsman colonial revival homes around the campus.
This goes against the mixed-use area L6 to avoid drastic changes between residential and non-
residential areas. For slide two, please. To illustrate the size and massing of this building. To the left is
Target, which is 600 feet long and Castilleja, which is currently 200 feet long. Though there are different
sizes, the relative building length to the street is just the same and as much of an eye sore. Adding a
row of trees in the front of this does not change that fact. The new structure should be broken up and
redesigned with more pass through views of greenery and open space, and be more compatible to the
administration and Chapel Building in a manner with Gustav Laumeister first envisioned when he created
the campus for Ms. Mary Lockey more than 100 years ago. Thank you very much.
3.a
Packet Pg. 79
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Kimberly. Next speak, Vinh, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker is Sonali, who I believe will be donating your time to Rob Levitsky.
Can you please confirm if that’s correct?
Vice Chair Thompson: Didn’t we just hear from Sonali?
Sonali Simgh: This is donating my time to Rob Levitsky. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Vinh, did we already hear from her or is this…
Mr. Nguyen: I do not think we have heard from Sonali yet.
Vice Chair Thompson: The person who was on Zoom who had written her name as Sona, when she
spelled her name for the record she spelled Sonali Singh.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay. Sonali, can you confirm if you're the same Sonali speaking from earlier?
Sonali Simgh: Hi, yes this is the same person.
Mr. Nguyen: Since you already spoke you won’t be able to donate your time to Rob Levitsky as well.
Sonali Simgh: Okay. Sorry about that.
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Rob, you have three minutes. Please state and spell your name for the record.
Mr. Nguyen: Rob has a couple of other speakers as well but he is down on the list. The next person will
be David Ye [phonetic]. David if you could please identify yourself and you have three minutes to speak.
David Ye: Yes, this is David. I would also like to donate my time to Rob Levitsky.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, thank you.
Chair Baltay: Vinh, please keep track of all this. Let’s find the next speaker.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Angie, who I believe might also be donating time to Rob as
well. Can you please confirm?
Angie: Yes, I would like to donate my time to Rob. Thank you.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, sure. After that will be Ruben [phonetic] who I believe will also be donating his time
to Rob. Can you please confirm? Ruben, if you're there can you please unmute yourself and confirm.
Ruben: Yes, sorry. The window to unmute just showed up. Yes, donating time to Rob Levitsky.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, thank you. Our next speaker will be Bruce McCloud. Bruce, can you please unmute
yourself and identify yourself and you have three minutes to speak. Bruce, if you're there can you please
unmute yourself on your computer?
[Adjusting Audio.]
Bruce McCloud: My name is Bruce McCould, B-R-U-C-E, M-C-L-O-U-D. I've lived and worked in Palo Alto
[distortion]. The ARB’s charge includes promoting visual environments, which are of high aesthetic
quality, and variety [distortion]. I’ve worked with WRNS Studio on other projects and the aesthetics for
3.a
Packet Pg. 80
City of Palo Alto Page 21
the proposed buildings for Castilleja [distortion]. Kellogg Street façade is devoid of any variation along
the 400-foot roofline and includes only [distortion]. At a public meeting the school’s representative
stated that the neighbors would not notice once the landscaping is in place. [Distortion]. As for
neighborhood considerations, I have admired many of the modern homes that have been built around
the City. When [distortion] they have been welcome additions to the diverse fabrics of our
neighborhoods. This design has been allotted by Castilleja [distortion] overbearing 1960’s era
monstrosity. That is a low bar. Castilleja has an opportunity here [distortion] something that is
compatible with the neighborhood and compliments the surrounding houses. The Palo [distortion] with
no increase in floor area. Castilleja circumvents the spirit and [distortion] floor area below grade plus
another 30,000 square feet of garage space. I ask that the ARB [distortion] Palo Alto neighborhoods
from overreaching development; however, well-intentioned by rejecting plans that in any way increase
the floor area of this [distortion]. Finally, in April of this year, eight months after the DEI public comment
period of the proposal [distortion] triggered additional studies, especially traffic flow, and a public
comment period. It did not. [Distortion] is legally defensible avoiding additional public comment for the
revised plans is a betrayal of the public [distortion] responsible to the community at large. The ARB
should correct this lack of oversight and refuse to consider any development [distortion] plans are
subjected to public comments and review. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mr. McCloud. Next one, Vinh, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next person will be Netta [phonetic], who I believe is also donating time to Rob
Levitsky. Netta, can you please confirm if that’s true?
Netta: Yes, that’s true.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, thank you.
Chair Baltay: Okay, next person, Vinh, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker will be Hank Sousa, who we have a presentation for. We’ll pull up your
presentation for you in one second. Okay, Hank. Please unmute yourself, identify yourself and you may
speak.
Hank Sousa: Yes, Hank Sousa, H-A-N-K, S-O-U-S-A. Hello, Board Chair Baltay and fellow Board
Members. PNQL stands from the beginning with no garage, no demo of the schools two Emerson Street
homes, and preservation of protected trees. The schools’ no garage alternative calls for the demo of the
two homes, substantially altering the community character leaving one private residence on the corner of
Emerson and Embarcadero. What we would like to see happen is the preservation of the 86 parking
spaces on the current campus. That would require some redesign of the proposed new building but the
no garage alternative already calls for a reduction in classroom space and lower student enrollment. This
idea is in the revised DEIR Section 13.8, alternative five, pages 13-30 and 13-31. This reconfiguring of
the buildings utilizing tucked under parking. To go a bit further with that logic, use the existing footprints
of the current buildings. An enrollment of 450 would most likely to be more palatable to nearby
residents. Let’s assume the 86 spaces on campus are assigned to workers and staff. The school would
continue to use off-site parking for some of the staff. Next, let’s address the single-car drop-offs. If the
school were to establish east and west side kiss-and-ride drop-off spots where busses picked up the
students, there would be virtually no traffic issues associated with the school except when large events
occur. The school could continue to park vehicles on a playing field for large events, which we would like
to see reduced to 20 per year. The school has yet to show a willingness to embrace an authentic
shuttling program. The newly planned buildings have state-of-the-art environmental features. Building
an underground garage is incongruous. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Use the current parking
on the campus, reconfigure the buildings, save the two Emerson Street residences, shuttle in the
students, and continue to provide a high-quality education to a student population that fits comfortably
within the site. We’d like to see you recommend new buildings that are less massive than the one
planned for Kellogg, no underground garage, and the embrace of authentic shuttling from drop-off spots.
Thank you.
3.a
Packet Pg. 81
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Mr. Sousa. Vinh, if we could move on to the next applicant, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Carla Befera and I believe we also have a presentation for you
as well. I believe you will be sharing the same presentation as Tom Shannon. Carla, if you can please
unmute yourself, identify yourself and you may speak.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Carla Befera: My name is Carla Befrey, the name is spelled C-A-R-L-A, last name B-E-F-E-R-A. I’d like to
address some specific issues related to this project. A 4,000-page FEIR was released on July 29th. In
order for the stakeholders to review this information, they had to read 200 pages per day to be well
informed for this meeting, a scant 20 days later. First question is why the rush? This project is listed as
an action item on your calendar. I respectfully request that this project be referred back to the City staff
for further review, and more importantly, to establish a comment period on the latest plan, which is most
definitely revised since the one submitted for the DEIR last July. Some nine months after the initial
comment period expired, Castilleja submitted a revised plan. Why was there no public comment period
for the revised plan? Surely this is not acceptable. I submit that approving or even reviewing this
revised plan without a public comment period is in violation of the spirit, if not the specific requirements
of CEQA, and makes for a troubling view of the inner workings of our City staff. The revised plan has
been trumpeted as mitigating some of the variances the project required but it also establishes new
concerns A particular note the revised plan completely alters the suggested traffic pattern, yet no
additional traffic studies were made. Instead of cars arriving and exiting adjacent to Embarcadero as you
can see, the new plan has cars dropping off and picking up on all three sides of the school facing the
neighborhood in addition to the garage entrance on the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard. According to table
MR5-2 in the FEIR, the school anticipates 1,477 car trips per day driving through all adjacent
intersections of this residential neighborhood. One of the most significantly impacted intersections,
Bryant and Kellogg, was not studied at all during this process. You can see by the illustrations the
differential under Castilleja’s revised plan, cars will travel not just around the school but will impact all the
neighboring streets. The impact is significant on the Bike Street Bike Boulevard, as well as on Kellogg
Street, which is currently being explored for new bike access. The plan traffic -- let me repeat, we’re
talking about 1,477 car trips per day not including traffic related to the 95 events -- will impact bikes,
cars, and pedestrians trying to commute to several neighboring public schools. Just another reminder
that 75 percent of this school’s attendees come from outside of Palo Alto. These are untamable impacts
incorporable for a quite residential neighborhood particularly when compared to alternatives, such as the
alternative plan to be found in your packet which was suggested by neighbors with all ingress and egress
via signal on Embarcadero. I believe one of your directives is to preserve quality of life, which this plan
I'm afraid does not do. Because both of these significant lapses and the lack of review of viable
alternatives we request that you dent approval of this plan at this time and rehear the project back to
City staff to establish a comment period on the revised EIR. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Carla. Next speaker, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker will be Rob Levitsky who we have a presentation for. And, Rob, you
have a group of five people. You will be given 15 minutes to speak. I think you previously indicated you
have more people to donate time but 15 minutes is the maximum, so even if you have more people
available to donate time you will not be given any additional time. Rob, if you could please unmute
yourself, identify yourself and you may speak.
Rob Levitsky: My name is Rob Levitsky, that’s R-O-B, L-E-V-I-T-S-K-Y. Owner at 1215 Emerson, which is
adjacent to the school. A sixty-three year resident of Palo Alto and 30 year neighbor of Castilleja. I am
looking at the architectural review goals and purposes and trying to see how this project fits in with that.
Castilleja completely took us, neighbors, by surprise on June 30th, 2016, with their slide in a presentation
showing an underground garage, removal of two nice houses on Emerson replaced with an underground
garage, an unwanted private park, and the parking garage. Just about everything in this picture was to
be removed in this plan: the six Redwoods, a bunch of the Oaks, the houses. All would just vanish. Cars
would be parked 16 feet below grade, in some cases right up to my property line. My house is in the
3.a
Packet Pg. 82
City of Palo Alto Page 23
corner with the redline around it and you can see the first iteration of the parking garage had cars
basically touching the property line 16 feet below grade. Nearly all 168 trees, including protected Oaks
and 120-foot Redwoods, would be subject to being killed or maimed. This is quoting from the April 2016
inventory of trees report by Arborist Michael Bench. Among the 168 trees, there are 122 trees on the
Castilleja campus. There are 42 street trees and 4 trees located on my neighboring property. All of the
168 trees are expected to be impacted by proposed construction. That’s architectural review goal
number one, promote orderly and harmonious development in the City. This surprise on the
neighborhood and just whacking all the trees and houses is not exactly fitting into my definition of
harmonious development. Purpose number two of the ARB: enhance the desirability of residents or
investment in the City. There’s no way that the extra traffic, loss of protected trees and canopy,
underground parking garage, loss of two of the three houses on the block, three to five years -- who
knows how much construction -- and 5,000 truckloads of excavated dirt was going to enhance the
desirability. In fact, we had several people move away because of the conflict, and houses pulled off the
market because of scared buyers. One Sunday afternoon after seeing Castilleja misrepresentation of
neighbors about the garage, we collected signatures from 47 neighboring households against the garage.
All of the lighted addresses are people who signed petition against the underground garage. Purpose
number three in the ARB: encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements.
But at what costs to the neighbors who never were showed the plans? We never objected to a compliant
project but they came at us with a list of demanded variances violating the setbacks on Embarcadero, on
Emerson, on Bryant, merging two house lots on Emerson, and tearing down the perfectly good houses.
Shifting the Melville public utility easement and building a pedestrian tunnel two feet under the Melville
sewer line. This is a permanent encroachment of the public utility easement. This is not normal. None
has been granted in the last ten years. This is showing the underground tunnel, and just above it, below
the red line, is the Melville sewer line that services the whole neighborhood, two feet between the sewer
line and the underground tunnel. Not to mention destroying two of the three houses on the east side of
the 1200 block of Emerson. The school tried to buy my house. When I said no, it was in further
discussions that they had -- I know they tried to discuss anyway -- trying to get my house by eminent
domain. Real friendly, huh? Then there's the variance required for floor area ratio. They cry hardship in
their variance requests blaming the lot shape as an excuse. But Castilleja didn’t complain about the
shape of the lot when the City of Palo Alto gave them Melville Street in 1992. Now they want, out of
havoc, to follow the FRA rules for lot coverage. They also want to get planning to allow an underground
garage where, as Jeff Levinsky has explained, is not allowed and not count 35,000 to 50,000 square feet
in the FAR calculation. Purpose number four ARB: enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the
immediate site or in adjacent areas. There is no way that cutting down the standing 100 to 120-foot
Redwoods and large Oak canopies enhances the desirability. Nor does slicing and dicing through the
roots of other protected trees for various pipes, walls, equipment faults. Perhaps some of you noticed
the extreme interest in preserving the 300-year-old Oak in the 2300 block of Webster at the City Council
meeting on Monday night. Over 30 residents spoke in favor of not violating the Tree Protection Zone.
No one spoke in favor of the supposed property rights of the builder. Palo Alto’s cared deeply about
trees, especially Oaks and Redwoods, and believed that the rule protecting trees would be even tighter
than what is in the tree manual. Here’s an example of interfering with the tree protection zone of a
protected tree. The arrow points to a little dot you'll see in the center, which is the center of a tree.
There’s a Tree Protection Zone around it but you would never know it. There’s a large electrical
transformer, the sidewall of a swimming pool, a set of stairs, a fire access road which cuts into the
canopy, bicycle parking, and, of course, the school’s trash dumpsters. That’s how they value tree
number 89. This may be a 70 or 80 percent of the TPZ being violated versus the 17 percent which
caused all the uproar at the City Council over the Oak on Webster Street. There are many other trees in
this design subject to similar TPZ encroachment. The desirability is another question. The desirability of
imposing an ugly and dangerous underground parking garage entrance along the Bryant Street bike
route. Others have talked about this. The people would be diving into the underground parking lot and
there would be a risk of a bicycle accident. Or a parking garage exit on Emerson aimed at Nelson’s
house at 1260 Emerson? Talk about bad feng shui. Is that what neighbors should be doing to each
other? Having hundreds of car lights shining in your doors and windows along with the attendant
buzzers, lights, engine noise, and toxic auto exhausts? And then there are the same cars queuing up on
Emerson blocking access to the driveways. Purpose number five on the ARB: promote vital environments
which are high aesthetic quality and variety, and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.
3.a
Packet Pg. 83
City of Palo Alto Page 24
This is our block. Beautiful trees. You can see that there’s stands of Oaks, Liquidambar’s, the Redwoods
are to the right, and a couple of houses. All of these would be demolished. Somebody thinks they're
going to improve on this 100-year-old aesthetic of trees and houses with some bulldozed mess, private
park… who knows what they actually want put there. The planning department has chosen to call a
dozen or more protected trees “less than significant.” So these trees would not be listed in the biological
resources section of the EIR. The trees could be removed and replaced by mitigation 4B: planting
something else somewhere else. This is the game they play. We’re mitigating. We’re buying some
trees; we’re buying some canopy; we’ll try to put it on the side if we have room otherwise we’ll just plant
some trees somewhere else. Done. Nice slide of hand planning department. Not to mention the 120-
foot Redwood that was cut down in 2016, based on an inaccurate arborous report. This tree just so
happened to be in path of the garage exit. This 120-foot Double Struck Tree looks perfectly health and
was perfectly healthy. But they ran in and said oh its danger, danger, danger. There’s the but cut of this
tree. It’s almost solid wood, maybe 85 percent wood. You need about 30 percent to hold a tree up.
The tree was really in no danger. It was a bogus report and just happen to be in the path of the exit of
the proposed parking garage. Our neighborhood of 100-year-old houses and trees would be salvaged
and cleared by their first proposal, replaced by an underground parking garage. No thanks. We like our
neighborhood how it is with trees, houses, and no underground garage. We are more interested in
houses and trees than in the number of curb cuts, the cadence of the windows, or the shape of the
shingles. So far the school has grudgingly accepted the neighbors have made good points. Why else
would they come back with a proposal that now saves more of the Redwoods, but not all, spares the two
houses, and avoids the 24-foot setback on Embarcadero? I might add that none of these changes were
suggested by the City planners who seemed to have shown no interest in comments made by the
neighbors. The next step is to lose this unnecessary parking garage and give up on 540 students. The
neighborhood has already lives with 448 students, and we are willing to accommodate a few more as
well with a zoning compliant no-garage option. Castilleja should have the right to modernize but follow
the zoning rules like everyone else, but the scattershot design shown here have been very abusive to the
neighborhood and is nowhere near ready for a favorable recommendation. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mr. Levitsky. Vinh, could we move on to the next speaker, please?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we have eight speakers left and the order will be Chase Lambert [phonetic], followed
by Jim Poppey [phonetic], followed by Leila Moncharsh, followed by Gwen Whitlwer [phonetic], followed
by Andie Reed, followed by Gary Paladin, followed by Lorraine Brown, and then last but not least, our last
speaker will be Neva Yarkin. Up next will be Chase Lambert. Will you please unmute yourself, identify
yourself, and you have three minutes to speak. Seeing there is no response, in the interest of time we’ll
come back to Chase at the end. Up next would be Jim Poppey. Jim, can you unmute yourself, and you
may speak.
Jim Poppey: I am donating my time to the next speaker Leila Moncharsh.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, sure. Hi, Leila, can you please unmute yourself, identify yourself, and you will have
six minutes to speak.
Leila Moncharsh: Good morning, [distortion]. I am L-E-I-L-A, Last name [distortion]. I represent PNQL
land use attorney and I have been since 1993, and I have a Master’s degree in [distortion]. I am also a
former vice president and a continuing board member of the Berkeley Heritage Association for about ten
years now. My office is in Oakland. I help neighborhoods with land use issues throughout the greater
Bay Area. I want to make a couple of comments first of all, on the Gunn Administration Building just to
preface what I have to say in substance for the rest of it. First of all, the speakers are correct. Legally
this [distortion] the final will need to be recirculated. The law is very clear on that. I will be citing the
code sections in my letter about the EIR. The changes to the wall on the Administration Building need to
be part of that recirculation. Also, [distortion] that there’s more than the stairs that need to be looked at.
I am glad this is going to the Architectural Review Board. My topic mainly is about repurposing. One of
the problems with this project that I see is it has been left out of the discussion here in terms of what
you’re going to be able to do with this property long-term. First of all, I want to thank Amy French for
being responsive to requests but it is one thing that for some reason staff has really never addressed, so
3.a
Packet Pg. 84
City of Palo Alto Page 25
let’s talk about it today. First of all, much of my practice deals with conflicts between [distortion] and
neighborhoods. I have seen a lot over the years and I've learned a lot about private schools and how
they operate. They have an enormous number of [distortion] to their business. They have very large
endowments but those are very [distortion], and most of them run on shoestrings, to be frank about it.
The best, kind of, sweet spot for them in California has been the 350 to 450 enrollment level or less. You
can look at the Department of Education and you're going to see that. They have incredible competition
challenges in the Bay Area, especially for parents who can pay full tuition. There’s a great demand
among the private schools. Now they’ve got another challenge in this: the pandemic. Lately, around the
Bay Area we’re finding that religious private schools are closing permanently. That wasn’t totally
unexpected but because of changes in how people look at religion and how they proactive religion. We
had another one that was consistent with Castilleja and that was Palmer School in Walnut Creek. Three
hundred and eighty-five students, kindergarten to eight, came along; they closed permanently after 82
years. Politics, besides funding sources, are challenges. Sonali brought up some of that and we see it
around us. What we’re looking at here is when the project would be completed you'd have 224,500
square feet of developed property. What are you going to do with it if in the future either Castilleja is
extremely successfully but this square feet is used up, and they can’t continue to build on it indefinitely
so they move? What you’ve got is 224,500 square feet. You might say, well, there’s always a housing
need. We can demolish there and rebuild. No, because demolition costs are extremely high. So, what
are you going to put there? If we say housing still, well, so, what are you going to do? Put a high-rise
housing development there? Condos? No, because you’re restricted by the zoning. What happens to
these things with private schools and other institutions, it’s not limited to them, is they end up just sitting
there and there isn’t any good repurposing. When you look at this garage you look at the type of
buildings [distortion]. What are they consistent with? In my looking at them you could put a lot of walls
into the new building that you see that’s very long and the neighbors are criticizing. Using like SRO’s
there, but there are no services around there. That’s not going to work. They appear to be office.
They're very consistent with what we see in large office complexes but it’s not zoned for that. What are
you going to do with it? Does Palo Alto need empty school campuses? [Distortion]. I would suggest
that a lot of the mess that you see with trying to do things, like move parents around and figure out how
you're going to get all of them into the property and such. A lot of this would dissipate if you reduce this
overall project by a lot. Also recognizing, as much as we love Palmer in Walnut Creek and we love
Castilleja in Palo Alto, these private schools move and they close in one day’s notice. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next speaker.
Mr. Nguyen: The next speaker will be Gwen. Gwen, if you could please unmute yourself, and identify
yourself, and you may speak.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Mr. Nguyen: I am not sure if Gwen is having technical difficulties or not. We will come back to her at
the end. Up next will be Andie Reed. Andie, if you could please unmute yourself and you may speak.
Andie Reed: Thank you, Vinh. Andy Reid, A-N-D-I-E, R-E-E-D. Thank you and hello to the Architectural
Review Board. We appreciate your hard work on this project. To provide context, Castilleja operates in
an R1 zone under a conditional use permit. These conditions include a number of students to be enrolled
and number of events that can be held on campus. The school has exceeded their conditions on both of
these over the past many years, and yet this project that you are currently reviewing asks for more
students and more events. You have the difficult job of deciding whether the City should bend new
conditions around the school’s latest business model or instead acquire that the private tax-exempt
school adjust its goals to fit the needs and interests of the residents of Palo Alto. There is a variance
being requested for an increase of 33 percent in floor area ratio. Code allows 86,800 square feet above
grade floor area and the school is asking for 116,000 square feet -- although if you include if you include
the underground garage, which code appears to require, the increase is more like 70 percent. The
proposed modern style building will loom large and is not compatible architecturally with the surrounding
small older homes. What is also important to note is another square footage increase that’s not other
apparent. Page G..001 of the current plans specifies that the total floor area above and below grade
3.a
Packet Pg. 85
City of Palo Alto Page 26
combined currently existing is 160,000 square feet. Proposed is 192,000 square feet. The school is
asking for an increase of 20 percent square feet of usable space on the same six acre lot where they
have successfully educated girls for many decades. That increase doubles when you consider the
underground garage as active usable space. No matter how you look at it, all of these increases in
square footage are to accommodate 30 percent more students, parents, staff, faculty, supporters, and
volunteers so Castilleja can achieve a new operational model. Unless it can be shown how this benefits
Palo Alto, the boards and commissions reviewing this project should request that the school dramatically
reduce its demands. I have a couple seconds here. I am going to ask where is the discussion around
the underground garage? Where is the architect that’s building the underground garage? What is it its
environmental impact? Does the gate clang closed? How does that tunnel work? We would like to see
renderings and understand this better but we have not been able to get the school to let us speak with
the underground garage architects. Thank you very much.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Andie. Vinh, if you could line up the next speaker, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Gary Paladin, followed by Lorraine Brown, followed by Neva
Yarkin, followed by Mary and then we’ll go back to Gwen at the end and see if her computer’s working
again. Gary, if you can please unmute yourself, identify yourself and you may speak.
Gary Paladin: Hi, good morning. My name is Gary Paladin, G-A-R-Y, P-A-L-A-D-I-N. I believe Castilleja
deserves some recognition for the effort its put into developing a master plan for its campus. This plan
aims to reduce the school's environmental footprint in our community and establishes a benchmark of
sustainability that other institutions, I believe, will want to model. Castilleja’s plan aims to meet or
surpass both California’s and Palo Alto’s aggressive sustainability goals. Its innovative solutions for a
clean and sustainable future. For starters, outdated campus structures will be disassembled, rather than
raised to maximize recycling and utilization of existing building materials. In new construction, it will
incorporate only non-hazardous responsibly sourced green building materials. The future campus is
designed to be completely self-sustainable, reliant upon on-site generated energy from solar panels on
building rooftops and heat recovery systems. With the exception of its science labs, the campus will be
entirely fossil fuel free. Planned installation of high-efficiency recycled water infrastructure and drought-
resistant landscaping, along with efforts to preserve existing trees on campus, will also contribute to the
schools self-sustainability. Castilleja’s plan demonstrates commitment not only to the environment but
also to the community. The plan to build environmental education into its curriculum demonstrates
commitment to educating young women to become environmental stewards and leaders for our future.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mr. Paladin. Vinh, if you could line up the next speaker, please.
Mr. Nguyen: The next speaker will be Lorraine Brown. Lorraine, if you could please unmute yourself on
your computer, identify yourself and you may speak.
Lorraine Brown: Good morning. I am Lorraine Brown. My name is spelled L-O-R-R-A-I-N-E, B-R-O-W-N.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. I grew up in Palo Alto and I raised my family
here since the 1990’s. I also work at Castilleja. I know traffic has been a concern for our neighbors. I
want to comment on how traffic demand management, or TDM, has become embedded in the culture at
Castilleja. As a long time Palo Alton, I appreciate concerns about traffic in our city, so I’d like to share
my perspective on the school’s commitment to managing traffic and parking and being the best neighbor
that we can be. When Castilleja embarked on the master planning and CUP process years ago, we kept
an eye toward reducing impacts in everything from noise to traffic. The project alternative number four,
it’s in the final EIR, specifically features a smaller garage and distributed drop-off for this very reason. In
the seven years since we developed our robust TDM plan, our traffic levels have been consistently 25 to
30 percent below where we started. Accomplished at a time when traffic has been relentlessly increasing
in the Bay Area. Over this time, TDM has become part of our culture. It is not just what we do, but it’s
who we are. Through parents, student, and employee education, frequent reminders, and strict rules for
parking and traffic, everyone in our community has come to appreciate their role in making a difference,
and they do. To support their efforts, we have added bus routes, shuttle service between Caltrain and
3.a
Packet Pg. 86
City of Palo Alto Page 27
the school, and employee reimbursements for non-car commuting. All employees are required to come
to campus at least three days a week by some means other than single-occupancy vehicles or participate
in traffic duty to help manage flow during drop-off and pick-up. The results have been astonishing with
fewer than 50 percent of our students arriving on campus in single-occupancy vehicles. With this
successful track record and a depth of experience, we are poised to continue to reduce our car trips per
student as we grow enrollment, resulting in no net new trips while making this unique education available
to more girls from a diversity of backgrounds. We will be held accountable through carefully documented
mitigations and conditions of approval with penalties to ensure our compliance. To ensure compliance
within our community, we have at least seven monitors who help with daily and special event traffic and
parking. They also patrol neighborhood streets to ensure that Castilleja community members are only
parking in designated areas. We have shifted event-related parking to our athletic field, and our
attendants promote compliance and efficiency. We intend to further reduce our parking impacts with the
underground garage designed to relocate parking on the perimeter of campus below ground. I also want
to note that a proposal from the community to enter and exit campus on Embarcadero was studied at the
City’s request before we filed our CUP application. After study by traffic consultants, the City determined
that it would cause an adverse impact. I'm telling you all of this…
Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Lorraine. If I could interrupt you, please. It sounds to me like your speaking
as the applicant not as a member of the public. That’s fine but I will then credit that against the time the
applicant is granted to rebut comments from the neighbors. I would like to stop you at this point,
however, and continue with public comments. To anyone else in the public who intends to speak as the
applicant, please hold off on doing that now. Vinh, could we go on to the next public member, please?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, the next speaker will be Neva Yarkin. It looks like she just lowered her hand. Okay, it
looks like our next speaker will be Mary Sylvester. Mary, you can unmute yourself, identify yourself, and
you may speak.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Mary Sylvester: Thank you, Chair Baltay and Board Members, as well as City staff for the opportunity to
speak today. I am Mary Sylvester, and that’s M-A-R-Y, S-Y-L-V-E-S-T-E-R. I am a 43 year resident of
Palo Alto and I to have raised my two children at this home on Melville Avenue, one-half block from
Castilleja School. For the last 20 years, I have professionally worked with children and teens, and frankly
enjoyed the presence of Castilleja in the neighborhood. I've loved the sound of children and young
people’s voices and it brings energy and vibrancy to the neighborhood. I have never made a complaint
against the school; however, when the school submitted its expansion plan on June 30th of 2016 and had
their underground garage exiting at the front door of one of my friends on the corner I decided it was
time to make a statement and intervene. The thrust of my comments today will focus on how does this
project serve the best interests of Palo Alto. Not just the neighborhood, but this could be a
groundbreaking project for the community as a whole, opening flood gates that we may not want to see.
First of all, let’s set the context. Castilleja operates in a residential neighborhood on a conditional use
permit. That’s in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18, Section 76. They’re on a CUP because given
the nature of their operations, their size, their scope, and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
They do not readily fit into the residential neighborhood context. This is a privilege to operate in this
neighborhood. Not an entitlement. Whether they’ve been here 100 years or 110 years, that is not the
issue. The City regulates zoning. Consequently, the holder of such a privilege may not do anything that
will be injurious to property in the vicinity and will be not detrimental to public health, general welfare or
convenience of the citizenry. To accomplish the goals of the ARB, there are findings that I believe you
must make. Finding one, the design is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan, the zoning code, the coordinated area plan, and any relevant design codes. Something’s up with
my timer her but is this plan consistent with -- hello? Is this project consistent with…
Chair Baltay: Mary, I’ll give you 30 seconds more if you could, please.
Mary Sylvester: Something happened to the timer here. Okay. I contend that this project is not
consistent with a comprehensive plan, the zoning code or our sustainability plan. On balance, I contend
3.a
Packet Pg. 87
City of Palo Alto Page 28
that the cost to Palo Alto with Castilleja’s current plans as a whole do not justify the benefits to a small
portion of Palo Alto residents. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Mary. Vinh, if we could move to the next speaker, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker will be Gwen. Gwen, if you could please unmute yourself, identify
yourself, and you may speak. Gwen, if you're there could you please unmute yourself? Okay, seeing as
how there is no response and Gwen is the last hand raised, Chair Baltay, would you like to give her some
more time or would you like to close public comments.
Chair Baltay: No, I think we will now close the meeting from public comments. Thank you everyone for
speaking.
Mr. Nguyen: Chair Baltay, sorry to interrupt, it looks like one person just raised their hand. I would like
to call this person if that’s okay with you.
Chair Baltay: Sure, Go ahead.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay, Neva Yarkin. She had her hand raised earlier...
Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Fair enough. Let’s let this person speak, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Okay. Neva, can you please unmute yourself and you may speak.
Neva Yarkin: My name is Neva Yarkin. Its spelled N-E-V-A, the last name is Yarkin, Y-A-R-K-I-N. I live
on Churchill two blocks from Castilleja. My family has owned this property for over 60 years. Traffic in
Palo Alto has continued to increase for years. Castilleja’s expansion adding another 125 more women will
continue this increase on the congested roadways in Palo Alto. If this expansion is approved it is not just
a neighborhood problem, but will affect the whole city with traffic flow. I am not a fan of parking
garages for the following reason: if I had a daughter at the school I would not get stuck in a parking
garage or the traffic surrounding the school. I would drop my daughter off one block north of
Embarcadero or one block south of Churchill so I could rush off to work. I am sure others would do the
same. Our lives have also changed with COVID added to the picture. Would any of you let your
daughters take the train to school now with COVID in the air? Private cars might be the only option left,
which means more traffic. Construction will take five years. Hundreds of big cement trucks will have to
follow the construction route in Palo Alto, which is taking Alma, Kingsley and Embarcadero, or taking
other side streets close to the construction site. One outcome for the big construction project would be
lane closures. An example of lane closures due to construction is at Oregon Expressway. One lane of
Oregon Expressway is closed during the day, which has lasted for months. Traffic is a nightmare. Could
this happen on Embarcadero? Another disturbing aspect of this project is that Castilleja will continue to
teach classes in modular buildings while construction is going on. This could be a safety problem with
students, cars, trucks, bikes together. Future plans for this area, which was not addressed in the FEIR,
train crossings at Churchill. It should be looked at. Thank you for your time.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Ms. Yarkin. With this, I’d like to close the meeting to public
comment and give the applicant a chance to rebut comments that have been made. The applicant will
have ten minutes. However, I'm going to credit back against that three from Lorraine Brown’s
comments, which I interpreted as an applicant rebuttal in advance. Would the applicant care to rebut for
the remaining seven minutes of their time? I know we say Mary Leaddecker’s name on our list at first
and she removed it, I believe, because she is one of the applicants. But it’s up to the applicant to decide
if they'd like to speak. And if so, they have seven minutes.
Mr. Nguyen: Yeah, I see Mindy Romanowski has raised her hand. You can just unmute yourself and
speak if you're speaking on behalf of the applicant.
3.a
Packet Pg. 88
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Mindy Romanowski: Good morning members of the ARB and members of staff. My name is Mindy
Romanowski. I am a land-use attorney and I represent Castilleja School in this very long-awaited project
that we are very proud to have come before the ARB this morning. As we know, we are embarking on
the first of many important public hearings. We really look forward to hearing the comments from the
ARB. We know that you are tasked with making findings ultimately not today, but findings based upon
the seven itemized municipal code requirements and we do look forward to hearing that feedback and
getting to that feedback. Today we did here many constructive comments that we will take to heart as
we have done over the last five to seven years of meeting with neighbors. As the head of school
communicated, it has been 50 plus meetings with neighbors that have given us the ability to arrive at this
moment with this application. I want to make it very clear, however, that today we heard a number of
inaccuracies both in fact and in the law. Misquoted legal provisions and misquoted facts in the
neighborhood that have been identified. I do plan to submit a letter both to correct the record on the
facts and to provide the correct legal citations which support our project. I will include items like the
legality of the underground parking garage in an R1 zone when you’re operating as a non-residential use.
I will include items that address the legality of the final EIR, and whether it needed to be recirculated
when a project alternative was identified as having fewer impacts, and ultimately arrived at a conclusion
where there would be no significant or unavoidable impacts, amongst other things. I just want to clarify
that while I cannot correct the record on all of the items I heard within the last hour or so, we will do
that. I want to thank you for your time and get your very important and constructive feedback so that
we know where to go from here. We hear the direction and we can iterate appropriately. Thank you so
much for your time.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Ms. Romanowski. Do we have anything else from the applicant? If
not, then I’d like to bring this back to the Board. What I’d like to propose is that we ask any questions
we have now of staff or the applicant. Then we’ll take a short five-minute break and then we’ll get into
some Board comments if we could. Do we have any questions for the applicant from any member of the
Board? I would like to start, then, and ask the staff to please explain how the floor area is calculated for
the new building. These would be the current requirements. Is there any merit to the question about
whether garages are allowed underground not under a building? And isn’t there a 6,000 square foot
maximum floor area in R1 zone regardless of lot area? Could you please address those comments?
[Setting Up Presentation.]
Ms. French: This is the table I showed earlier. We have analyzed the situation with what is floor area
and what is not. The code is clear about whether it is a single-family residence. That’s different from a
non-single family residence in an R1 zone. There’s precedent for this and we analyzed it. The garage is
not considered gross floor area. It is square footage and usable. Parking is garages and carports, not a
below grade facility for a non-residential use. I don’t have the code sections in front of me but this is
showing on the screen what I prepared for this meeting to share what was going on with floor area. This
is not subject to the maximum house size. It’s not a house. I think you asked that question, Peter. Was
there another question you had?
Chair Baltay: What is the allowed floor area for this lot?
Ms. French: The allowed floor area is what has been allowed in the past through the conditional use
permit. After floor area ratio was instituted for residential back in 1998 this property became a non-
complying facility with regard to the floor area ratio that was instituted at that time. This has been out of
compliance with the 1998 floor area ratio regulations since that time. I don’t have the…
Chair Baltay: Amy, if the lot had never been built on what would be allowable square footage for a non-
residential use on this lot?
Ms. French: I don’t have the number that corresponds in this chart. It’s the floor area ratio for the lot
size. I don’t have it on this screen. I don’t want to just rattle off a number.
3.a
Packet Pg. 89
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Chair Baltay: I understand. It’s basically 30 percent of the lot area though in R1, isn’t it on a very large
lot.
Ms. French: It’s a formula that starts with a different ratio and then adds another ratio later. It’s not
precisely 30 percent. There’s lot coverage and then there's floor area ration. Those are different.
Chair Baltay: Okay, I was just trying to get a sense of how much bigger they are proposing than what
would normally be allowed on a property of this size.
Ms. French: They are proposing less gross floor area than what is on the property now in both the
project and project alternative, as you can see at the top.
Chair Baltay: Okay, very good. Thank you, Amy. Do we have any other questions for the Board for
applicants or the staff? No, I see none. Okay. I’d like to take a five minute break. When we return we’ll
ask Dave Hirsch to start us off on our discussions. I now see 11:11. Let’s say 11:16 we’ll start up again.
Let’s to be precise on that. Thank you everybody. Five minute break.
[Recess.]
Chair Baltay: Okay, are we able to get started again, Vinh?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, of course. If all Board Members could confirm that you're all here.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yes.
Mr. Nguyen: it looks like we have a full house. Yes, we can.
Chair Baltay: David, I've asked you to start a discussion if you don’t mind. You can go ahead whenever
you’re ready. Unmute yourself, though.
[Adjusting Audio.]
Board Member Hirsch: Thank you all for the variety of presentations, pro and con. They are really very
impressive and have brought to our attention, I think, a lot of the significant issues. Starting with some
of the plus sides on this project, I am impressed with the fact that finally the 1950’s building will be
moved away from the historic building. I can’t imagine how that was done in the first place but it was a
different time, I guess. Now that’s split the Gunn Building and the Administration Building is separate.
It’s a significant improvement and also it provides additional location for access to the campus center. I
am happy about that and I think that it’s an improvement that the Art Building is going to be demolished
and create a greater open space and a place where moving the maintenance down below in an
appropriate location. The garage and the issue of the garage, which of course will be a PTC issue as
well, is really probably more appropriately handled by that agency. However, it seems to be to be a
sensible idea from the beginning except for the fact that it maintained a significant amount of drop-off for
student body. I don’t think it’s an attractive was in which students can come to this building or to the
site, and I hope that it can be minimized. I emphasize that above grade could be easily more attractive
on… let’s see. It’s on Kellogg Street. Kellogg is, I guess for me, the biggest issue of the project. It’s an
incredibly long building and it is unrelenting. Even with nice textures and the varying window spacing,
it’s unrelenting. It really has no major… even though it has a drop-off at the building at that point that
that decision was made the building itself does not lend itself the way it is right now to entering the
campus or to become a major entry to the campus. I think that’s a very, very big mistake. If I go back
for a minute, it seems to me that there are two absolutes on this campus. One of them is the easement
and the utility easement which is a problem as was pointed out in section since you have to get under it
in order to get through to the campus. The other one is the Circle. The Circle will not be broken. It
seems that the Circle represents something to all Castilleja graduates. It has this incredible, kind of,
nostalgic value and it was obviously off-limits for the designers to touch it. It doesn’t represent anything
specifically architectural as far as I can see. It isn’t contemporary in its look and its usefulness to the
3.a
Packet Pg. 90
City of Palo Alto Page 31
campus, but it is very limiting to the way the whole campus has been developed now. Combining the
fact that the Circle is enviable and the campus building along Kellogg is so tremendously long are two
irresolvable problems in this whole scheme. I just don’t see that that six railroad car scheme of a
building, more than six, actually, is viable. I think the Kellogg building really has to be split and
something more profound made out of the entry to the courtyard from the Kellogg Street side. It isn’t
there now. The other aspect to this that bothers me a lot in the whole scheme of it is since the
limitations are so strong here, the Circle and the perimeter -- which, by the way, is used as a drop-off
point as well I'm told and car traffic can actually enter it, and I think the vans deliver students and faculty
to the inside of that space -- that function isn’t really serving the school as it could. I really see there’s
an opportunity to do something. I imagine the landscape designer was told you can’t do anything there
and I think if we gave them another chance they could do something much, much better than that Circle
by itself. In the very least, you could reduce the Circle. It doesn’t have to stay exactly enviably that size.
That’s part of my concern; half of it. The other part is that the program now increasing 100 students
causes you to go down to a cellar to make up for all of the additional space you'll need for this expanded
educational usage. It cannot be that you're bringing in enough light and it’s not natural light in any case.
Its borrowed light to make those spaces look as nice as what the drawing showed. By the way, it would
have been nice for us to see those drawings really presented in a way where we could understand how it
possible could work. But to me, at this point, the drawings that we saw today, which we didn’t really get
in the packet, they certainly were not emphasized appropriately. It is clearly something that we would
have to study further to see how it is possible to get enough light, enough borrowed light to make those
spaces below feel comfortable. Furthermore, you're putting spaces which are in a building that has
solved all the environmental problems but they have no natural ventilation. It certainly would be possible
if you were to have a smaller Circle to have a stretched out building in a way that it could grab some
natural light somehow from the outside. The cellar does not do sufficiently in my estimation. Another
issue that I have is that you’re coming through a deep tunnel from the parking structure to go to what?
You're coming up and you're actually bottlenecking the possible connection through to the athletic field.
It’s much tighter now. There’s a staircase up at that location where the garage is. There’s an elevator
up in the space between the administration building and the gym, which is a sufficient space for the kids
to go to the ball field and watch a game. It is now being really terribly restricted. Should that tunnel
have been carried all the way through to the center and the center you go down and then you connect
through directly to the garage. It would’ve made a real connection to the center of the campus both for
the kids who are coming and for the kids who are going back to be picked up, or for people simply going
to get to their car and leave the campus. In terms of the TBM’s, I think that’s terrific that it is so active
and that the school is so successful in arranging that. I find that’s pretty impressive if it satisfies the
community. It’s clearly going to be better now that there is a garage. I am not convinced that the
swimming pool will absolutely solve the sound problem. It’s placed down low next to the gym, next to a
solid wall in the gym and I can’t imagine that the sound doesn’t project out in all directions from… but
that’s a study which I think you'd have to prove to the community otherwise. If it doesn’t work it’s going
to be an annoyance and add to the complexity of the relationship to the community. In sum, I personally
can’t accept the building as a single building. I think it needs to be broken. The Kellogg face needs to
be broken, with possibilities of actually stretching the building out. Even on the second floor keeping the
entry at the Emerson Street corner underneath it and stretch the building closer to Emerson and pull the
building apart and create something dynamic as sort of a symbol of the school. All of the other entries
you're kind of sliding in from the outside, whereas this would be a very important entry direct into the
middle of the courtyard. I request that the school reconsider what they consider such an important
historic piece of the campus, the Circle in itself. Let the landscape designers provide something that is
more appropriate for school use. I think about the Stanford entry with a church and the front of the
Romanesque building. I think how wonderful that space is and it’s a great big space and there are no
cars. It is full paved in a very simple, wonderful way. It works for potentially large gatherings as well. I
think it’s possible to find a design for the center that is appropriate for today’s usage, and not specifically
a memory from the past. I’ll end with that.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, David. Why don’t we hear from Vice Chair Thompson next? Osma,
go ahead.
3.a
Packet Pg. 91
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Vice Chair Thompson: Thanks. Thank you to the applicant and thank you to all the members of the
public that gave us their feedback. I'm going to keep this quick because I know we’re probably going to
continue this and see this again, and we have another item on the agenda after this. In general, as far
as the architecture of the building I’ll respond to something Board Member Hirsch mentioned about the
façade along Kellogg. This was from a few other comments from the public as well. On first glance
when I visited the site, the existing façade along Kellogg is pretty unrelenting and pretty strong. When I
was comparing it with what we had in the packet, from I could make out at least at the time, it seemed
like an improvement. If you were going to have that massing, which already exists, the proposal here is
an improvement over what’s existing. I will say the renderings that were provided to us on page 9
through page 12 were really hard to use as a way of understanding what the building is actually doing.
It took a bit of gymnastics going between the elevation and the other little tidbits of axons that we had to
really understand what the façade of this building is actually doing. I think the presentation that we
received today from the applicant was a lot more helpful because I think in our packet we don’t have any
renderings where the trees are off. I will say that even in the presentation today when the trees were off
there was still this like ghost of trees, which is a little distracting. I think we really need to see what that
façade is for what it is when there are no trees because that will be what comes out. I think, also, the
other views that were chosen along the streets also didn’t really accurately depict how a person would
experience it. Like on Bryant Street, the view that was chosen was a little skewed to the point where it
was a little hard to understand. If the view had been a bit more straightforward we could actually see
how the façade changes. When we see this again I think I would like a bit more clarity on the design in
terms of the graphics. I can see a lot of work went into this on the site planning and things like that but
I think we are all here to judge what the building looks like in terms of aesthetics. I think a bit more
clarity on that would’ve been helpful. That said, from what I saw and what I can make out and even
after this presentation, I really think that the design is an improvement to the area. I like that there are
notes taken from the existing context. I like the parti diagram that you showed about looking at the
rhythm of the neighborhood and using the patterning of the façade to, sort of, respond to that. In terms
of the design, I’m actually all very much in favor of the aesthetic direction and the material choices, the
façade. Again, I was actually okay with the façade on Kellogg being flat just because that is what exists
right now. The proposal is an improvement over what exists right now. Could it break up a little bit?
Sure. I could see that being an improvement to connect to that Circle in the back. There’s kind of a nice
differentiation because this isn’t a residential building it shouldn’t look so much like a residential building.
I think right now that massing helps a little bit with that. I could go either way on that. A little bit of
improvement but in terms of what we have right now I think it is a really solid design. I’ll leave it there.
Generally in favor of the architecture of the façade on Kellogg. I could be open to seeing that change a
little bit. I dint really walk thought the middle of the campus so I am not quite sure about the Circle in
the middle and if that wants to change or not. I will refrain from commenting on that. In general, it
seems like more expanded space might be better but it depends. Okay, I will leave it there. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Osma, very intelligent words. Alex, how about you go next. Alex
Lew.
Board Member Lew: Thank you for everybody’s presentations. They were actually very well done today.
I will get to the preferred alternative but I do want to say that I opposed to the original scheme building
in the special setback along Embarcadero. I won’t go into all of the reasons but I think that I would not
support that. Regarding zoning, I guess I would like for staff to follow up with Jeff Levinsky’s comments
and letter. I did review the zoning codes last night. I would like clarity on that. I would also add that
the comp plan policy T-56 does strongly encourage below grade garages for all new developments. I
think we should all factor that in as well as to the actually language in the zoning code. On the site
plans, I too was troubled with the traffic circulation with the original scheme. I would like more
information on the preferred alternative. I just didn’t see enough information about how that would all
work. It does seem like it does have some benefits with regard to like trash pick-up being below grade.
I think the distributed drop-off has some sense too. I think that makes some logic. On landscape, I am
a lit bit troubled with the tree mitigation. It seems like there is a huge number of newly proposed Coast
Live Oaks that are required for mitigation. They are located really close together. They are located really
close to the building. I don’t think that that’s a viable option. I do understand that those are required
but I think we need to get actually get something that’s viable. They are really much too close together.
3.a
Packet Pg. 92
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Also, I was concerned about tree protection for existing trees that would be saved. It would be like 84,
85, and 87 which are next to the proposed pool. As well as tree 89 which is an Oak Tree at the electrical
transformer that was mentioned previously. Also, I would like more information on the proposed
retention of Redwood trees 115 to 120, which are in back of the Emerson Street houses because they are
so close to the garage. On the landscape design, I think the presentation today looked good but based
on the packet I did not have enough information to understand what all of the perimeter planting would
actually look like. I think that’s really critical to see if the modern architecture is compatible with the
more traditional neighbors. I think that the native plant palette proposed would meet our findings but I
really did not understand the actual design intents and how the plants would be placed all along the
perimeter. I also did notice that there is no planting proposal on the curb in the City ride-way planting
strips. I would like more information on that. Under architecture, I guess I would like some clarity from
staff about ARB findings for the R1 contact space criteria. We usually use standards for other zones. We
don’t usually use the R1 because we don’t typically review houses. I guess I will say I haven’t decided on
that yet. I would say that the architect has a good track record of combining modern architecture with
historic and traditional materials and proportions. They’ve done new buildings at the Hoover Pavilion as
well as some medical buildings at Welch Road at Stanford. They also did work on the Baldwins Building
with another architect on University Avenue. I think that they are very capable in coming up with
innovative solutions that are both modern and contextual at the same time. Again, for me it seems like
the building are a little more modern than I would like. For me, I guess my judgment on it would really
hinge on the landscaping. Maybe it would work possibly, maybe, changing the metal siding. I do
understand that’s its only an accent piece and I can’t really fault you if it’s just an accent piece there. But
when I was walking the site yesterday it did strike me that the buildings were a little bit more modern
than the neighborhood. But they are sustainable designs. I do have a question for the architects about
using a lot of clear wood or clear stained wood. It seems to me high-maintenance and you do need to
use a lot of chemicals to clean that. Also, I would like more details on the rain screen cedar shingles and
how you handle all of the edges of those, like all of the jambs and sills. Also, under the (inaudible)
design, I am interested in the foldable (inaudible) on the roof. I do want all of the support structures to
be screened if possible, especially if they are tilted up. I do understand we have limits by the California
Solar Act but I would like to get more information on the foldable (inaudible). On the construction
phasing, I guess I would like some comments from staff maybe at the next meeting. If I read the report
correctly, they want to increase enrollment midway through construction in trailers or in portables on top
of the new garage. That seems highly unusual to me. It seems to me for ARB for projects, the finished
product is the thing that is expanded and they are trying to get an enrollment increase before they
actually finish the building. I would like more information on that. It seems to me that we run the risk of
having permanent trailers on Embarcadero Road. It has happened on quite a few public and private
schools in Palo Alto. I think that would be very undesirable. I think my last comment is on construction
impacts. As a bicyclist in Palo Alto and in Mountain View, my personal experience is not good with those
big earthmoving trucks. I’ve had quite a few close calls with that. Several bicyclists have been run over
and killed in neighboring cities. I think what we have to do whatever measures are necessary and
whatever detours are necessary to prevent collision. Collisions that I am aware of are trucks turning right
in to the path of bicyclists who is trying to go straight. I think I really worry about kids not
understanding how trucks are moving, and how much clearance they need, and the blind spots. I think
that’s really critical. That is all that I have for today. Thank you, Peter.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex, wonderful. Grace, you’re next.
Board Member Lee: Thank you, Peter. I’ll just begin by a few appreciations. I just wanted to thank all
of the community members who are present at this meeting who’ve drafted communications to our Board
and shared it with us, as well as to City Staff who has really taken the time to walk us through this very
long historic project now since 2016. Also, I just want to shout out a thank you to out PTC and our HRB
and our Council. It is so wonderful that the city has this process of really going through with several
folks who will weigh in and hear from the community again and make their comments. I am going to
now proceed to just also thank the applicant for all that the applicant has done over the years, and for
providing the alternative. It is wonderful to have this opportunity to review the final EIR. City Staff has
been terrific in terms of focusing their staff report on how we might as a Board really focus our
comments on physical modifications to the site. To step back, I have been in the area since the 1990’s
3.a
Packet Pg. 93
City of Palo Alto Page 34
and before that. It is wonderful. This site in particular and this neighborhood is quite dear. I really
appreciate what we have seen just in terms of the materials and the comments and understanding the
importance of so many things: mature landscape, applicant or users and additions to the community over
time. In terms of really focusing -- and I saw this in the application today -- on sustainability as a guide.
Master plans are long in years and in implementation, and I appreciate how there is careful thought in
terms of planning for change but also not forgetting where we started. Thank you, Amy French, for
bringing some of that history not the presentation at this site. Having said that, I just want to switch
over now and talk about some of the edges. If we begin on the Embarcadero side, I had asked about
the modular and I understand this is a first showing and there is going to be more meetings but staff had
asked us to comment on the modulars. I did see the sheets from Modtech and the diagram in terms of
that site plan. Knowing the phases that are ahead I look forward to discussing this further and
understanding the findings in a more careful way in our next September meeting. With that schedule of
15 months, two months overlap, 15 months, and 20 months and then the ask in terms of how
operationally this all proceeds, it would be wonderful to… and I saw the setbacks are going to be
respected on Embarcadero but this question of just how do those modular classrooms during that period
of time… what is the site during that time. I’d love to know a little bit more and perhaps that will help
other bodies that the City has to evaluate the project. When we talk about that whole Embarcadero side
I just want to make the comment that when I look at the site plan and the master planning and the
thought that have gone into it, my first thought when I received the documents was exactly the third or
fourth slide that the applicant provided. It was, you know, where are the buildings? Where are the
setbacks? How do these buildings sit on the site? What are the edges? Where are the points of public
and private meeting? I am very happy to say that the buildings that are removed and the buildings that
are introduced really respect the setbacks. They are lower in scale. They actually provide entry points
that make a lot of sense. I also see that building underground is a terrific direction to move for this site.
I believe that that garage as well as the pool make a lot of sense in terms of design and reacting to the
program here, and just planning for the future. Having said that, as you turn and let’s say you go to the
Bryant Street entry I am very happy to see that there is an 80-foot setback, and there is landscape there.
Then as you turn the corner towards Bryant, we just want to make sure… and maybe that’s something
that shows itself in our future meetings in terms of where those points of entry occur. It would be great
to have an enlarged site plan so we understand the landscape, the dimensions. There are very important
points… they are nodes. They are vehicular, pedestrian and it would be wonderful to have those
enlarged plans I think, where those entry points occur on Bryant and also on Emerson. As we move
around the site a little bit further I just wanted to talk about where this keys into how the school
operates and this wonderful TDM that has been in place over the years. How the applicant and how we
understand that is going to be managed becomes important. Just what is the flow in terms of the
dispersed pick-up and drop-off. We understand there’s multiple and how many people are entering and
at which peaks times. For me, its how does that translate into the physical manifestation on this site? Is
there a thought in terms of comfort of the users in terms of that waiting time? That might translate to a
landscape solution. That might translate to some kind of a shade structure or seating even, so that we
understand where are those disperse points and how are they treated with landscape and architecture.
Coming around to the Kellogg, I really appreciate how my colleagues here on the Board have talked
about that longer elevation. It is the most talked about right there perhaps architecturally. Again, it is so
positive to see that the setbacks are maintained, the landscape is very mature. I thought it was very
compelling when the applicant actually showed the elevations with the slight trees and with the really
mature canopies that exist on the site. I appreciate and I wish it had been presented to us earlier.
Typically we receive a week beforehand. Some of that study of the closed and open, light and void… just
some of the concepts that you are working with from a very sustainable point of view how it is so
important to understand how the sun is moving around the building so they can design the photovoltaic
and where the shifts in the building occur. A few things: there are terrific opportunities on that Kellogg
side. I see that there is a drop-off point and there is an effort at some kind of a shade or a break in the
building there. There is also something with metal panels there. I would love to learn more in terms of
the choice of that metal panel. I am squinting and I am trying to understand how that palette comes
together and begins to be defined by the opens and voids, and be guided by the sustainability goals but
also doesn’t feel like one long plane. I think that in between meetings we will understand that better.
One of the queues that you might want to take a look at -- and I think that you probably have and it just
didn’t come across the presentation more -- is that wonderful Gunn Administration Building. When we
3.a
Packet Pg. 94
City of Palo Alto Page 35
look at that building, what I saw is there are some darker colors in the palette. There’s a dark green and
darker in tone and whatever it may be it tends to recede. There’s a little bit more depth. Maybe when
you come back there might be an effort to actually have enlarged elevations, they don’t have to be huge
pullouts, but maybe in specific places along Kellogg. This way we understand when one material
changes and another begins and just what is the view from the sidewalk. What is ir from across the
street? What is the pedestrian view? I just think for right now the scale of the elevation is just too
dichromatic for me to have a strong opinion in terms of how best to break it up. I do hope you give
some careful attention to the Kellogg Street elevation. That’s the east elevation. On the west elevation,
which is on the courtyard side, there is a little bit more. I think there is probably a lighter tone shingle,
and then the vertical siding, and with the railings and the balcony it is just… somehow I wish the east
elevation began to take some queues from the west elevation. I wanted to make some comments on the
landscape and this importance of the Circle. I appreciate Board Member Hirsch’s comments. Just having
been in this neighborhood and walked through the neighborhood and had the terrific opportunity to see
what’s inside I think that history is so important. I hope that the Circle is retained and celebrated. I
even saw that it might even show up in your phased plan. That there’s actually some place for the
students where that Circle is remembered. I know that you’re working with very… the dimensions are…
and the constraints; however, to think about the history of this place and also its future I actually really
appreciate the application here and the design because it does retain the history and builds upon it in a
way that thinks about the future with specific eyes on sustainability. I think that is a big gift to the City
Palo Alto and commitment. I just want to applaud you in that way. Moving forward I would love to see
more of that come through perhaps in graphics that are enlarged and more detailed so that we may be
able to comment in a more effective way. I’ll pass it on now.
Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much, Grace. Thank you, everybody. I am going to run through a
couple of comments. I find myself in agreement with much of what many of us have said. At the start, I
agree with Alex that the initial proposal is something I could not support. I could not support it because I
think that having a drop-off for a school underground in the way they had presented was just not a
tenable solution. I think it was just such an unpleasant way to enter into such a beautiful campus. It
just wouldn’t be suitable. Additionally, the way it would concentrate the traffic would be really hard to
work with. I am very pleased to see an alternate proposal put out there. I am not saying it’s perfect
right now but it is certainly something that might be able to gather my support. On a large scale when I
look at the circulation parking question, what I see as an architect, as somebody who knows the
neighborhood and who lives around here and passed by all the time, there's a question to me of where is
the front door? Where is the entrance? Where does this institution present itself to the public and what
I see is a whole series of small little places you sneak into the campus? A couple of entries maybe along
Bryant but it really seems to me to be lacking a way that you go in. It seems to me that this project is an
opportunity to do that. It seems to me that along Kellogg Street you might try to improve the
architecture by breaking up the massing of the buildings and maybe also put an entrance into the school
there. Or you have the opportunity on the other side to reinstitute the Melville right of way and put a
passage way through there where the kids then come in between the Chapel and the gym buildings into
the Circle. I'm just disappointed to see nothing. To see a continuation of what I call ad hoc educational
architecture. I think there’s an opportunity to do a lot more than that. I am hopeful that a little more
thought might be given to just where is the symbolic front door of the school. Where is the face you
want to march in and out of on the ceremony? I am disappointed that so far I don’t see that at all on the
plan. Then my next comment is regarding the building design. I have real issues with the way façade
along Kellogg Street is handled. I have been trying to put my finger on what it is because clearly the
building is set back, as Grace said, from the street. There is some mature landscaping there. It is even
less high than what’s there now. I don’t think the height of the mass of it is the problem but I think
there is something to the 400-foot-long façade that does feel unrelenting, as several people have used
that term. It might be that it has this continuous plate height in the middle and then a roof line that’s
exactly the same along 400 feet. It might be that as much as we like this, what I call warm
contemporary architecture… I think that is perfect appropriate I almost every neighborhood in town.
That’s when you're putting in one house amongst many. This is so much of this strong contemporary
architecture that it overwhelms the neighborhood. I think it’s actually inappropriate to let this building
basically redefine the character of the neighborhood, which is what I think it will do. As Grace pointed
out, very accurately, the existing Gunn Administration Building has a real character to it somehow that to
3.a
Packet Pg. 95
City of Palo Alto Page 36
me defines what I think of as Castilleja. That and the Birge Clark Building. I don’t see that much of a
queue in the new buildings. There is something about the texture and the sloped roof and the way the
shingles are integrated on the old building and the other buildings in the neighborhood that just seems to
be missing on the new structure. I think what David was saying about having the building broken into
two or three buildings or pieces so you have either a passageway through or a sightline through is
important. If you’re going to have a drop-off or an entrance on one façade I think you need a door or an
entry at the drop-off. You have to carry these architectural thoughts through to completion. It seems to
me like the drop-off was added after the long façade of the building was designed. Again, as Grace said,
I don’t have proposals how to fix that problem but I cannot support a single long façade on Kellogg as is
presented to us. I will acknowledge, as Osma said, that the new proposal is better than the old. I think
it is. The old building is 1960’s concrete dormitory. It wasn’t even designed to be a school. It’s a tad
too tall but I think, Osma, we can hold a higher standard in that. It’s not enough to just do better than
before. Castilleja has been around a long time, and they are a valuable member of our community. We
want them to do right by us. To really make this something that the next 100 years are going to look
back on and really feel good about, the way we do on some buildings on this campus and the way we do
with other institutions in town. It is reasonable to hold them to a higher standard than just make it a
little bit better than it was. I think that’s what we need to hold for. I would really like to see the
architects take a stab at rethinking the way that building is massed. Rethinking the way the roofline goes
up and down some, and maybe rethinking the style of it a little bit. I share Alex’s concern about the
landscaping. I just don’t think we have a complete enough package to really understand what’s being
proposed. I am concerned that the Redwood trees behind the existing houses are very close to those
garages and we all know that a 16-foot concrete is tough to build right next to a Redwood tree. It is
important to save those trees. I believe that stuff can be mitigated and dealt with but we’d like to see
more information about how that’s done. I just don’t see it in the package right now. I think we’d like to
see a better landscape design -- or more complete, perhaps, is a better way to put it. I’ll pick up on
Alex’s comments about the phased construction. I had been thinking about it from a point of view of the
impact on the neighborhood and the faster the better, obviously. It’s a big impact on the community
there but I think you he is spot-on when he says that these temporary structures have a way of
becoming permanent. I think we need to be very vigilant about that. That is the last thing we want to
see is a series of buildings stuck next to Embarcadero Road for ten years because the project has been
delayed, changed, modified; all these things can happen. It seems to be sensible just to say that the
increase in enrollment should be hinged on the project being completed. It is obviously not our call but
certainly that’s an opinion we can offer. On the environmental impact report, I can accept most of the
findings in there just fine. I think the traffic studies are very thorough and they did point out correctly
the issue on Emerson with the earlier design. I believe that will be mitigated with the distributed drop-
offs. I do think they are correct in pointing out that the swimming pool noise is significant and will need
to be studied carefully and made sure that it is not an impact on the neighborhood. A swimming pool
with girls playing water polo makes a lot of noise. Solid concrete walls echo and reverberate that sound.
It is possible it could become quite an annoyance to the community. It seems to me, however, that’s
something that can be studied and mitigated and managed. It’s not a big, big issue but it needs to be
thought through. Lastly, I will commend the applicant on their historic preservation moves just by
separating away from the Gunn Admin building and by preserving that Chapel you are doing wonderful
things. It is really the best way that they can help that other building by removing the one next to it so
it’s separated out. Those are my comments on seven comments that I felt were important. I think we’re
fairly consistent as Board actually what we’ve been saying. Does anybody else want to add anything?
Vice Chair Thompson: I just had a quick thing that I wanted to add.
Chair Baltay: Sure, go ahead, Osma.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think I didn’t mention it but I would also echo what you and Board Member Lew
mentioned about being more in favor of the alternate option for the schemes. I also wanted to make a
note to the applicant that I think one of the reasons that a lot of us are commenting on the Kellogg
façade is because I think there is a lack of clarity on what’s happening in each part along the façade. I
think because it is a little bit vague. I think the metal accent façade… Board Member Lew mentioned that
maybe that is not appropriate. Even in my brain I’m not quite sure how long that is, how much of an
3.a
Packet Pg. 96
City of Palo Alto Page 37
impact, is it really an accent or does it take up a considerable amount of space? I think those kinds of
things will help better make judgment. Lack of understanding sort of makes us make assumptions for
what that actually is and it doesn’t help us understand your design intent for that location.
Chair Baltay: It is true, to the applicant and staff, the drawings in the presentation that was initially
given to us was difficult to follow. I‘ve heard from every Board Member how challenging it was to figure
it out. It is a challenging project, everybody. There’s a lot of information here. There are a lot of parts.
The applicant can work on that. We’ve got to keep working on it. We’ll get there. Any other thoughts
from anybody? Comments additionally? I would like to chime in that I forget to mention that I do
support David’s comments about the underground building, the classrooms below grade. It is imperative
that those have good day lighting and we all know that’s possible. It needs to be designed and thought
through. I didn’t see anything in this package of drawings that convinced me that that had been
accomplished. I’m positive it can be done and we would like to… I think David is correct. Those spaces
need to be wonderfully light-filled spaces, even though they're down a level. We’d like to see evidence of
how that’s done. I’d like to then shift us on to process. The staff would like us to continue this to a date
certain of about a month from now. I will say that I am uncomfortable with that because I don’t see how
an applicant could respond quickly enough to the comments we’ve made to do that.
MOTION
Chair Baltay: I would like to make a motion that we continue this subject to comments made to a date
uncertain and leave it to the applicant and staff to decide when they think they're ready to come back to
us. I am going to make that motion. I’ll put it out there for a second, unless we have any other
comments.
Board Member Hirsch: I second that.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I have movement and a second. Does anybody want to address that? Amy French,
do you want to tell us is that okay with you?
Ms. French: That’s fine. I think the extent of the comments, which we’ve taken good notes are, would
lead a person to believe, and I'm imaging the architects are thinking the same thing, that they would like
additional time to prepare for the next meeting.
Chair Baltay: Yes, I would really like to be sure that we have ample time for everybody to study, to
understand, to digest. This is a very important project. While all want to be efficient with our reviews
and approvals, and staff time, it’s important to get this one right. So far we’re doing the right things.
With that, the motion’s been made and seconded. Vinh, can we have a roll call vote, please?
Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5)
No:
Absent:
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 5-0-0.
Chair Baltay: Wonderful.
Ms. French: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you to everybody, the public as well, for their comments and for being with this long
process. To the Board, do we have the energy to keep going on the next subject right away or does
anybody need a break? Let’s just get started. Jodie, we’re going to move right along to the next topic.
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]:
3.a
Packet Pg. 97
City of Palo Alto Page 38
Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural
Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space
and Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-use Building that Includes 102 Residential
Units and 1,803 Square Feet of Commercial Space With a Two-level Basement
Parking Garage. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The
Project Also Requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Code
Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at This Location and a Variance
From the Special Setback Along San Antonio Road for a Pedestrian Ramp. The
Applicant Also Proposes to Subdivide the Property for Condominiums. Environmental
Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was Circulated on July 31, 2020
Through September 14, 2020 and was Prepared in Accordance With the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More
Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us
Ms. Gerhardt: All right. Thank you. Sheldon Ah Sign is our project planner for this project. If we just
give him a minute to load up his presentation.
Chair Baltay: We’re going to move to action item number three, public hearing for 788 San Antonio
Avenue: recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the
demolition of existing 12,000 square feet of commercial space and construction of a four-story mixed-use
building that includes 102 residential units and 1,803 square feet of commercial space with a two-level
basement parking garage. Sixteen of the residential units would be below market rate. The project also
requires a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning code amendment to apply the Housing Incentive
Program (HIP) at this location and a variance from the special setback along San Antonio road for a
pedestrian ramp. The applicant also proposes to subdivide the property for condominiums. Environmental
impact assessment: an environmental impact report was circulated on July 31, 2020, through September
14, 2020, and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Chair Baltay: Do we have any disclosures on this one, please? I will disclose that I visited the site,
again, and looked at the material sample board. David, disclosures?
Board Member Hirsch: I looked at the sample board but did not visit the site this time.
Chair Baltay: Grace?
Board Member Lee: Visited the site as well as looked at the samples.
Chair Baltay: Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site and looked at the samples.
Chair Baltay: Thank you. And, Alex?
Board Member Lew: Yes, I did not visit the site this time. I did download two aerial photos from 1939
and 1965. I did read about the Flowers Growers Association that used to be on the site. I did visit the
material board at City Hall.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Okay, with that can we have a staff report, please? Jodie, I'm going to
turn it over to you.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. Sheldon Ah Sing, our consulting planner, will give the presentation.
Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Palnner: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. You have an awesome agenda
today. I am glad you guys are ready to go forward on this. I’m going to try to be as efficient as
possible. There’s a lot to unpack from this project but a lot of it has already been explain in the packet
for you. I’ll just give you a summary. The applicant’s also here with their presentation as well. We’ll talk
3.a
Packet Pg. 98
City of Palo Alto Page 39
about background of the product, a little bit of site context, the proposed project and why it include some
legislative amendments. Those are not subject to your review but it does provide a little bit of
background and context to help you with the findings for this development project. We’ll go over some
of the Architectural Review Board comments and responses that the applicant has made, present some of
the materials and then an overview of the EIR, as well as the recommendation and next steps for the
project. The project does include 18 parcels (inaudible) in size between Middlefield Road and East
Charleston Road will all but one of the parcels being on the east side of San Antonio Road. The eastern
boundary of these properties is the boundary between Mountain View and Palo Alto. The properties are
located across from the Greenhouse neighborhood. These properties are otherwise under separate
ownership. The two that are shaded orange are subject of the development proposal. That is at the
intersection of Leghorn and San Antonio. Those parcels are proposed to be merged and developed with
the mixed-use parcel. This proposal serves as a catalyst project for the overall program area. As
mentioned, the project does include a four-story recessed building and a floor area of a ration up to 2.0.
Based on the existing zoning and comprehensive plan, the project could not be built and, therefore, they
have these requests for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Zoning Text Amendment. The
project is also a subdivision, variance, and architectural review. Of all of those, architectural review is the
one that this Board… we’re asking for your recommendation to the City. We have the Environmental
Impact Report, which does include mitigation measures. There is one impact that cannot be mitigated
and that’s to a cultural resource. A little bit of background here. The project has had several meetings;
two of those meetings were prescreening meetings with the Council to discuss potential increases in
density and changes to the zoning ordinance. At those meetings, it was acknowledged that there are
some trade-offs between commercial space and housing, but overall the project should proceed to be
considered. The PTC conducted two previous meetings, one was a scoping meeting for the EIR back last
fall, and the other was last week and made recommendations on other entitlements. They otherwise
went forward on staff’s recommendation with some specific direction. Some of that was recommended
physical intersection improvement at Leghorn and San Antonio Road, as well as recommend the project a
robust TDM program, and recommend that the City Council undertake a corridor plan that connects the
land use and transportation along San Antonio. Again to reiterate, the whole package of amendments
did get a recommendation from the Planning Commission. It doesn’t change anything that were
describing today in regards to the design of the build. Then the applicant also participated in two prior
ARB meetings; one August of last year and as well as January of this year, which we’ve all summarized
those comments. Then the applicant has sponsored a community meeting a couple of weeks ago. For a
little bit of site context, the Middlefield Road and East Charleston are the major intersecting streets within
this area that includes transit connections to the area. San Antonio Road is 80 feet wide from curb to
curb and includes four lanes, and a landscape median with a left turn pocket. The attached sidewalks are
five feet in width. Bicyclists do share lanes. That’s a class 3 route. Most notably, the developments
along (inaudible) under construction now that is at 2.0 FAR. Then you have a (inaudible) mixed-use and
that is probably also in scale with the (inaudible) building as well. To the west of the project, it does
include the Greenhouse 228 condominium units that are within 3-stories on a 15 acre lot. These buildings
are over 150 feet away from the project site. Also to note, there are special setbacks along San Antonio
Road that are 24 feet, as well as special setbacks along Leghorn Street and that is a 15 foot special
setback. A little bit of context about the Housing Inventive Program. It was adopted to implement the
comprehensive size plan policies to promote additional housing production in the City with its holistic
approach that allows from additional floor area ratio, as well as lot coverage and (inaudible), and
streamline parking requirements. To note here, right now this program does include a maximum of 1.5:1
FAR for CS zoned properties along El Camino Real. The base CS allows up to 1.0. The maximum lot
coverage in base CS is 50 percent, whereas that could be waived by the HIP. Then also the base CS
allows up to 30 units per acre. The HIP program would waive that requirement also. As I mentioned
before, to implement this development project -- and also the development projects in this program area
to facilitate more housing -- there would be some amendments that are necessary and that are existing
to the Housing Incentive Program, as well as amending the Citywide definition of gross floor area, and
amending the City’s retail preservation ordinance. Graphically here you can see where these extensions
would be made for the HIP, and it would allow up to 2.0 FAR for projects with no maximum lot coverage.
Also, it would exclude the first 1,500 square feet of retail or retail-like floor area from the parking
requirements. For the project, it does include two parcels that would be merged. There are two existing
buildings on the site. One of the buildings at 788 San Antonio is determined to be eligible for listing on
3.a
Packet Pg. 99
City of Palo Alto Page 40
the State Historic Register. The project does include the four-story mixed-use building with 1,800 square
feet of ground floor commercial space at the corner. Likely, that would be a café style. There are 102
units, 32 studio units, 66 one-bedroom units, and I think four two-bedroom units. These arrange in size
from 500 square feet to about 1,200 square feet in size. Sixteen of these units would be allocated for
below market rate restriction. The project does include two levels of basement parking. Last time you
saw the project it had one level basement parking with stackers. Given the comments that were received
by the public they added another level and eliminated the stackers, and the (inaudible) is fully parked. It
doesn’t include any reductions or exemptions as to not take advantage of the 1,500 square feet street
line parking for retail. The primary access is from San Antonio Road for residents. This is the only
accessible access to the building that uses that ramp. The secondary pedestrian access is also off of
Leghorn Street. Vehicular access is from leghorn into the basement. Some of the comments at the last
meeting were regarding the elevations: that the residential lobby was a little big; that some of the
elements/frames around the building were too monumental; that the roof’s terrace soffits needed to be
made out of stucco; the facades needed to be designed to the same level all around the building, not just
San Antonio Road; consider using flush header windows as well explore breaking down the scale of the
courtyard, thinking about some privacy here. Then to think about the appropriateness of the landscaping
for the project considering that it is a 50-foot-tall building. Then also looking at those transportation
network company loading areas, as well as street parking along Leghorn Street; consider more there.
Then how the bicycle parking is proposed inside buildings that are secure enough and at a good location.
In response to that, the materials board was updated. It includes some smooth stucco, updated physical
board was also made as you’ve seen. I have some slides that will show you some of those markups.
The lobby is 1/3 narrower. The height of the space appears lower since the shade structure of the roof.
The terrace is pulled back. The residential balcony frames are also overhauled and simplified. They are
now all clad and the same clear heart redwood siding material. The frames around the corner tower and
the entry lobbies on retail areas are clad Corten steel. The layout of the frames is also redone. The
redesign shade structure of the roof terrace will continue with the triangle style motif. I’ve seen the
other elements of the building at the corner and vertical elements. Some of these wooden triangles have
also been omitted (inaudible) through the roof terrace. There are two temporary parking spaces 44 feet
in length shown on San Antonio Road for the TNC operators, as well as temporary loading and unloading
along Leghorn. There is also three parking spaces adjacent to the temporary loading zone. That loading
zone will also be available for trash and recycling pick up. The inner courtyard area is broken up into
three mini functions. You have the seating areas with curb benches and tables, six exercise stations, and
the proposed bike wash area. The courtyard’s functions are filtered through from the view from the unit
patios by means of long planters and seat walls. Also, the applicant has taken into consideration shade-
tolerant plantings. Most units now have floor to ceiling glass windows, and also glass guard rails at the
balcony to further open up the unit to views and light. The long-term bicycle parking is visible from the
outside through a glass wall. On the interior, there are areas broken up into six separate rooms and a
bike repair area. The area is also secured from the lobby. The next slide I’ll show you will be on the
evolution of the project from the prior two times as well as the current. This is the San Antonio Road
elevation. Comments from the first time was that it was too symmetrical. In January you can see where
it was emphasized on the corner there and then jacks down a little bit towards the northern part. The
palm trees were removed from the terrace. Then you can see the current. I’ll have the applicant explain
a little bit more about their program but the rooftop terrace has now taken more prominence on the
northern part of the building. Then you can see where the lobby is narrower and some of those ribbons
are also less prominent. From the corner perspective, you can see how that comes together. It takes
into account the Leghorn elevation, as well, and how the building has evolved. This elevation is the rear
of the building. This is fronting Mountain View. There's more particular detail here than there was in the
past and that was at the direction of the Board. Then this is the northern elevation of the building here
with the same level of detail, and you can see the roof terrace there. It has more prominence. In the
courtyard, the first iteration of the project didn’t really have very good detail of the courtyard but from
January you can see where they’ve included some of these programs into this area thinking it more
through for those that would be looking into this area and using this area. Here are the materials just a
little bit bigger in composition and how they're put into place. The applicant will go over those in more
detail. Here is some of the siding. Then, this is in more detail on how these would be applied by specific
examples. Then the materials put together. There were some comments in the past about how do these
materials work together on the project. You can see here that they have materials put together and their
3.a
Packet Pg. 100
City of Palo Alto Page 41
showing on the perspective drawings. Moving into the Environmental Impact Report, a notice or
preparation, and scoping meeting was between September 4 and October. That meeting was conducted
with the Planning Commission. The EIR is currently in draft in circulation form right now from July 31st to
September 14th. We’re looking forward to written comments that we may have from the public. The big
change in CEQA law is since July 1st, 2020, transportation impacts are now analyzed using Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and not by Level of Service (LOS). LOS is still being looked at on a City Operations level
through the comprehensive plan analysis but not through CEQA. There were a number of impacted
topics that included air quality, biology, cultural resources, geological soils, Greenhouse gas emissions,
hazards, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Mitigations proposed to reduce its impact to less than
significant except for cultural resources, as we’ll get into. The development of the project would result in
the demolition and removal of the two six-story commercial buildings on the site. One of those
structures may be eligible for individual listing through the California Register of Historic Resources. It
constitutes a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. There are four criteria and one of those
criteria’s prevents the project. That building is deemed to be associated with the California Growers
Association. It’s a long term representative of the importance of Japanese American floral culture and
the industrial cooperative in the Bay Area. The building was constructed in 1953. The apparent
significance for this building (inaudible) for this purpose is between 53 and 2002. That Growers
Association merged with the California Flower Market at that time. For the property to be eligible for
national or state designation, other criteria related to time period or method of construction, those
character-defining features that enable the property to convey its identify must be evident. We’re
identified some of those in the historic resource evaluation. The site does maintain integrity for location
setting and design materials, workmanship feeling, and association. Therefore, the building at 788 San
Antonio Road is eligible for listing, and, therefore, if proposed to be demolished constitutes a significant
impact. There are some mitigations that would be considered. Those include taking photographs and
interpretative website, but overall that doesn’t reduce the impact of the site. What the applicant is doing
beyond those conditions is including some pavement patterns that resemble the historic use of the site.
Those are those chrysanthemum paving patterns at the corner plaza, as well as within the courtyard
area. As I mentioned, we talked about this a lot at the PTC meeting but just for the context here
because you are evaluating the EIR to a certain extent, it wasn’t changed in the impacts CEQA
documents after July 1st from LOS to VMT. The VMT refers to the amount of distance of the automobile
travel that’s attributable to a project. One factor here that is weighed heavily is the imbalance of jobs to
housing in the area. The City did adopt screening and thresholds significance back in June and those
were applied here. The project could not be screened out based on those thresholds but further analysis
was necessary. Using the VMT tools that are used throughout the jurisdictions we had to find out that
the project was less than significant when it did not exceed 50 percent below the baseline. That VMT for
the baseline is 11.3 miles per resident. The VMT was found to be 11.19 miles per resident, therefore, it
less that that threshold and there is no significant impact. With respect to LOS and VMT, there are no
impacts from CEQA along this corridor. There are no LOS impacts within the City. There is one LOS
impact for an intersection in the City of Mountain View at Leghorn and Independence. Some of the next
steps here is to complete the CEQA process. We have a public comment period from July 31st to
September 14th. We have to respond to those comments that come in, make any revisions to the EIR if
necessary; that will constitute the final EITR. We have to schedule a meeting with the City Council, likely
we would be doing this in November. With that, we have recommendations to consider the draft EIR as
well as recommend approval of the architectural review to the City Council based on the findings as
subject to conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. Any questions of the staff?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I do have one.
Chair Baltay: Go ahead, Osma.
Vice Chair Thompson: You said there was a community meeting that happened earlier this month. Do
we know what the result of that community meeting was?
3.a
Packet Pg. 101
City of Palo Alto Page 42
Sheldon Ah Sing: Yes, Jodie and I were in attendance at the meeting. It was not something that we
facilitated. It was facilitated by the applicant and we were invited. The same people that received the
notices for any of the public hearings the City would send out were notified. There were about 13 or so
residents that did participate in the meeting. They did provide some comments. It was mostly about
transportation.
Vice Chair Thompson: I see. No comments on the façade for the building or anything related to the
architecture?
Sheldon Ah Sing: I don’t believe there was anything that was negative in any way or critical. I don’t
recall that. It was more questions about transportation.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Any other questions? Very well. Do we have the applicant here to make a presentation?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, I believe Eugene and Ted is here with us.
Chair Baltay: Great. Guys, if you could state and spell your name for the record. You'll have ten
minutes to make your presentation. Please go ahead whenever you’re ready.
Ted O’Hanlon, Project Manager: Thank you. This is Ted O’Hanlon, O T-E-D, O’-H-A-N-L-O-N.
Eugene Sakai, Architect: Eugene Sakai, E-U-G-E-N-E, S-A-K-A-I.
Ted O’Hanlon: I just wanted to make a quick introduction just to address a little confusion. Our intent
with this 102 unit proposal after construction is to lease it out and it be a rental building. Concurrently,
we are working on a subdivision map of the 102 units such that there could be an alternative at a future
date to sell the units as condominiums. That would like be ten-plus years out and it is very hard to
predict how that would happen. It just makes business sense to do that while we’re in this initial stage of
the planning for the property. I am going to turn it over to Eugene who’s going to really do the heavy
lifting on the architectural review. Thanks.
Eugene Sakai: Thanks, Ted. Vinh, would it be possible for me to share my screen as opposed to having
Sheldon?
[Setting up presentation.]
Eugene Sakai: Eugene Sakai for the applicant, representing Ted O’Hanlon and the ownership group.
This is the third time that we have the opportunity to present our project to you. We started this process
with the ARB a little over a year ago. As Sheldon pointed out, the project has devolved quite a bit
through your input, through the community’s input, through the City’s input and I think it has actually
improved substantially. I just wanted to thank everyone who’s on this call and people who aren’t on this
call for weighing in and giving us the opportunity to go back to the drawing board a couple of times and
improve the project. I’m going to use the time that I have just to quickly recap the general organization
of the building by running through the floor plans. Then I am going to spend the bulk of my time
showing specific responses to concerns that we heard at the last ARB meeting and how we have
responded architecturally, and in some cases with landscaping. On those points, I’ll start with the
building exterior changes as seen by the public from the street and from the Mountain View side and
then move on to the private courtyard. Then lastly touch on some plan views of site and floor plan
changes that we’ve made. As was mentioned by Sheldon, I think one of the biggest changes really not
visible from the street but functionally is the owner’s decision to respond to the community’s feedback in
concerns about stacker parking and to go with a two-level parking garage. I just wanted to briefly
explain how this is going to work. We are not taking the 1,500 square feet exemption for retail parking.
We’re actually completely parking on our 1,800 square feet of retail. That yields a demand of 20 retail
stalls. What we’re doing is we’re proposing those right at the first level below grade and ganging those
3.a
Packet Pg. 102
City of Palo Alto Page 43
parking stalls, as you can see here in light purple, as close to the elevator as we can. The idea is that
these retail stalls would be able to access this elevator and then by means of a double door system exit
directly out to the street along San Antonio. These retail parkers would also be able to use the stairway
to get up to grade and then right out to the retail level on San Antonio, adjacent to where the retail is.
We’re pretty pleased with this solution. The remainder of the first level parking is all for residents.
There’s a ramp down and then the lower level is basically all for residents as well. None of this parking is
in a tandem configuration; basically these are all individually, independently accessible spaces. On our
first level Sheldon touched on this briefly but I’ll mention it here graphically again. The San Antonio
elevation as shown on the left side of this plan view here, we have our lobby in the center of the San
Antonio elevation. We have our retail at the corner shown in lavender, and our bike storage. There are
really the three main key components of our ground floor program along San Antonio. The lobby is
designed to have transparency through it with glass on both sides so that you can actually see our
private landscape courtyard from San Antonio both as you’re driving, walking by, and approaching the
front door. Along Leghorn, we’ve actually maintained a ten-foot larger setback than is required. There is
a 15-foot setback along Leghorn. We’re actually providing 25 feet as to provide more landscape buffer
and just more relief from the size of our building along the street elevation. At the far corner of our site
is the entrance to our two-level garage here. As we move up the building, the program becomes much
more residential. Both the second and third floors are purely private units. Then on the fourth floor,
we’ve subtracted a significant number of units to create a stepping effect from the corner down towards
the north. So really our rooftop garden is sort of helping with the articulation along San Antonio and in
breaking down the scale and the mass of it. We have a combination of outdoor space and then an
indoor residence lounge, which can flow out on to this outdoor space by means of folding doors. From
here, I’d like to move on to specific ARB comments that we’ve attempted to address, and show you the
before and after effects of those comments. There was a comment by Commissioner Baltay, Board
Member Baltay I should say, about the frames and the frames being to monumental in scale and
inappropriate to a residential project. This is what Board Member Baltay was referring to previously. Our
revised design significantly reduces the frames. The other thing we’ve tried to do is make the building
less planer. I think conceptually the building was a series of simple planes with the frames more or less
attached on to them. We’ve tried to really breakdown the planes of the building by articulating the bays
using the balconies as negative space. Then once we’ve done that negative movement actually having
the frames, sort of, accentuate those balconies in areas where the residents can step out onto the
balcony and appreciate the warmth and the texture of the wood. You can see that the frames are still
there but they are much more subordinate to the overall massing and the articulation of the volumes of
the building itself. Board Members Lew and Thompson both touched on the fenestration approach of the
building previously. As you can see previously, we had the concept as sort of a punched window
approach with the frames being the dominant element. Those windows were really at a standard sill and
header height, not floor to ceiling. What we’ve done in conjunction of with the redesign was really run
the glazing from floor to ceiling where possible. In so doing, I believe that’s really helped articulate the
rhythm of the elevation. Where we have spandrels where floors occur, we are actually going to propose
spandrel glass so that the idea of a continuous window happens in conjunction with these white elements
here, which represent bedroom bays. Board Members Hirsch and Thompson both had concerns about
what we call the rear elevations. This would be the Mountain View elevation on the top and the north
elevation at the bottom. What we did in response to that was we carried the A-B rhythm of the
bedrooms and the balconies around to both of those subordinate elevations. We’ve also carried the
similar material palette along those two elevations as well. Board Member Lee has some astute
comments about the ribbon. Specifically, she suggested thinking about the ribbon as a space making
element, not just as a graphic; think about what it can do in terms of signifying entrances and corners.
We really looked at that very carefully in conduction with the overall redesign. We really feel that that
comment was well taken and we have really taken in to heart. The ribbon now, I think, has been
refined. It really runs from one street-facing elevation all the way around to the other. It really begins
to enclose and demarcate some of the more programmatic elements of the building, such as the bicycle
storage area, the lobby, the corner of the building, the parking garage, and even the fire exits along both
rear elevations. Board Member Lew had some comments and concerns about the scale of the residential
lobby and felt that it was an opportunity to make a separate design element. We took that to heart as
well. What we basically did was we tried to articulate the lobby and the unit above that as sort of a glass
hyphen. We also pulled back the rooftop terrace element, the canopy of that, which provides a little bit
3.a
Packet Pg. 103
City of Palo Alto Page 44
of shelter for the roof garden. We made that a subordinate element as opposed to before where it was
pulling forward. We have since pushed that back and it is handled a lot less massively now. Here you
can see how the ribbon really articulates the entry and divides the residential from above to the public
entrance below. There were comments about the overall material palette, specifically concerns about the
hardie board being not high-quality material, and then the overall palette not feeling very warm. We
eliminated the hardie panel altogether. We’ve retained cement fiber panel but we are using a high grade
of cement fiver panel, a product called Equitone, which you have all seen. We are going to articulate
that in sort of a triangular motif running the grooves of the Equitone in different directions. Then
continue that motif up to triangular [distortion]. I think in general we’ve also really attempted to warm
up the elevation. We sort of have a white neutral background and a grey neutral background highlighted
by the frames, which we’re proposing to do in clear stained redwood, and the warmth of the Corten
ribbon, both of which I think are much more articulated now.
Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Architect Sakai, you have now been three minutes over. How much more time
do you need?
Eugene Sakai: About two minutes.
Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s make it no more than that, please.
Eugene Sakai: Thank you. You’ve seen this materials board. I think overall we feel that our project
does tie in form-wise and scale-wise to recent projects. Here we have the Marriott, the Taube Koret, and
then a mixed-use building further along up near the San Antonio Shopping Center. The redwood was
actually inspired by the Baylands and its use of weathered boardwalks. We do anticipate that this
redwood would weather and we don’t anticipate it being shiny brand new. We actually want this sort of
weathered look to occur. The floral chrysanthemum pattern was already touched on but that is a
significant part of our landscape design, as was mentioned. Moving on to the private courtyard, we’ve
really attempted to activate that from the previous design, which is shown here. We know have a
distinct quiet seating area. We’ve deepened the planters alongside the residential units to provide more
privacy. Introduced organic forms as opposed to rectangular, and we’ve got some functionality with the
bike wash area and then actually an exercise area with some stationary equipment that can be used.
We’ve opened up the courtyard, we’ve pulled back these roofs on the fourth-floor balconies so that more
sunlight can penetrate, and we've used a lighter and brighter color palette. We’ve also revised our bike
layout. We brought more bikes to the glass and reorganized how those bike rooms work. Lastly, Board
Member Baltay had concerns about the functionality of our drop-off area, so we’ve changed that from a
duck out to basically these loading zones if you will. There is one each on Leghorn and San Antonio,
both of which are over 40 feet long. That’s it. Thank you very much.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Nice presentation. Do we have any questions for the applicant
from any member of the Board? David?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I have a question for them. The use of the Corten, could you describe that a
little bit? How are those pieces going to be put together? What are they?
Eugene Sakai: Like most metal products, they come in panels which lock together. In our packet, we
provided a few standard details of how these panels fold and lock in together. They will be mounted
over framed and waterproofed substrate. For all intents and purposes, they are essentially acting as a
rain screen. I'm not sure if that answers your question.
Board Member Hirsch: They come as panels that will be complete in turning the cornering? They're not
screwed through? They're hidden? Fastened?
Eugene Sakai: The fasteners are hidden but the panels typically do not turn corners. There are trim
pieces where the panels come together, 90 degree trim pieces that would also be made of Corten. They
are pretty innocuous once the building is up, especially at the scale of the building that we’re talking
about. No, the panels themselves do not turn the corner. There are trim pieces that do that.
3.a
Packet Pg. 104
City of Palo Alto Page 45
Chair Baltay: If I could chime in. Do you have any preliminary details on how those panels are put on
the building or how the corners are made in the drawing set we have now? Can you reference the detail
for us? It’s just a little hard for us to find them in the drawing packages.
Eugene Sakai: Sure, yeah. It was actually what we call a supplemental storybook that we put together
and submitted, which I am not sure if you have. Does this look familiar to you?
Ms. Gerhardt: No.
Eugene Sakai: Okay, I apologize for that. This was something we submitted a while back.
Male: (Inaudible).
Eugene Sakai: Let me see if I can scroll down. Here is sort of a look of kind of a Corten steel. Let me
see if I can find the detail. Another look here. You can sort of see at the borders how there's a little bit
of a trim piece. This is actually our own office building here. Let me zoom in. We’re very familiar with
the product. You can see at the corners there is a trim piece but it’s pretty innocuous. This is not our
office. This is a different building but you can see there is sort of a framing effect that goes on with a
90-degree corner but it’s pretty subtle. Let me see. Yeah, so you can see that the larger fasteners are
hidden, and then you have some very small rivets that fasten to the face. This really only occurs where
panels are too long and they come together, like at this instance here on our own building. That’s what
that vertical seam looks like. There would be some of these just because of the length of the rhythm.
There would be some of these. I think the maximum panel length is somewhere around 35 to 40 feet.
You won’t have too many of these but there would be some.
Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s keep moving along. Any other questions from anybody? Vinh, do we have any
members of the public that would like to address us on this issue? On this project?
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we do have two raised hands.
Chair Baltay: Okay, then I’d like to open the meeting to public comment.
Board Member Lee: Hi, Peter, I have just one quick question but I can do it after the public comment.
Chair Baltay: Oh, go ahead, Grace. It’s important to get that out.
Board Member Lee: Sorry, okay. I just wanted to ask the applicant… thank you for showing the
storybook since we didn’t receive it. The Corten steel panels typically have this lovely green rust over
age and over time and I just wanted to make sure in terms of your comments on the Corten what would
happen over time to that material?
Eugene Sakai: The Corten would rust -- I'm not sure if I'm still sharing my screen -- to a rich brown color
much like what I showed on our own office building. What we’ve seen is it gets to that point within
about a year and it kind of holds its color. It does darken as time goes by but really not that much. It
reaches this sort of dark brown color pretty quickly.
Board Member Lee: That’s helpful to know. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. Okay, any other questions from the board? Let’s move on then and
open the meeting to public comments. Vinh, if you could help queue up the first person, please.
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our first speaker will be a phone caller with the last four digits 5960. Then our next
and last speaker will be Rebecca Eisenberg. Can the phone caller with the last four digits 5960 can you
please identify yourself, and then you have three minutes to speak. Hi, phone caller with the last four
digits of 5960, are you there?
3.a
Packet Pg. 105
City of Palo Alto Page 46
Ms. Gerhardt: Vinh, is there anything special they need to do to unmute when they're on a phone call
like that?
Mr. Nguyen: It should be unmuted when I unmute them. I'm not sure if we’re having some difficulties
here. Let me try that again. Yeah, usually for a phone call they wouldn’t have to press anything. They
just have to start speaking when I unmute them.
Chair Baltay: Let’s go on to the next speaker, Vinh, and you can come back to them once more.
Mr. Nguyen: Sure, the next speaker will be Rebecca Eisenberg. Rebecca, if you could please unmute
yourself on your computer, identify yourself and you may speak for three minutes.
Rebecca Eisenberg: Hi, this is Rebecca Eisenberg again. It’s R-E-B-E-C-C-A, last name, E-I-S-E-N-B-E-R-
G. I actually just have a couple of questions, not comments. It has to do with basically the size of the
units that are being constructed. I first noticed that this project was under works at the Planning
Commission meeting last week. Forgive me if I just couldn’t find this information in the files. Of course,
like with most projects, there are a lot of them but I was very curious in particular about the size of these
units that are going to be, I guess, rented to the public, including the 16 that are going to be offered at
below-market rate. In particular, I think I saw if I remember correctly the earliest version of this
proposal had something like 64 proposed units. Then the version that first included the 16 below market
rate units increased the number of units up to 102 and within the same size of, you know, space. I
think, to me, it would be useful to know… I assume that the Architectural Review Board does the inside
of buildings as well as the outside. Given that these units are described as family units and that I think it
is intended that the 16 of them below market go towards delineated minimums of home production. I
wonder if there might be some sort of minimum size requirement with that too. For example, when I did
the math I came to the average size of each of the 102 units would be 600 to 700 square feet, which
doesn’t strike me as big enough for a family. Also given that especially the majority of the units I think
are going to be the one-bedroom with 66 one-bedroom, only four two-bedrooms, and then 32 studios,
which I assume are one room. Also, I had noticed references in the record as to the so-called micro-
units, which I guess are below 450 square feet. I guess our code allows micro-units not to have parking
requirements. I just think that it might be helpful to have a little bit more information about the inside
and the size of the units, as well as the outside since these are places that are hopefully going to help
house the many people who still desperately need housing in Palo Alto. And the final thing is I want to
say thank you so much for building housing. I know we all agree how much we all really need housing
and that the houses crisis is the worst it’s ever been in history, and that we have these State
requirements -- which, by the way, is one reason I brought up the 65 residential lots for Castilleja but
that was another thing. Anyways, I am very grateful when developers, like you all, actually do make sure
to stay true to our requirements. Really that’s it; just questions about the units inside. Thank you for
your attention and your time. Bye-bye.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Rebecca. Vinh, are you able to bring up the second caller, please?
Mr. Nguyen: Yeah, let’s give it a second try. Phone caller with the last four digits 5960, if you're there
can you please identify yourself and then speak.
Ms. Gerhardt: Vinh, I am seeing like a muted symbol. I wonder if they're on a smartphone and need to
unmute themselves?
Mr. Nguyen: Yeah, that’s certainly possible as well. If you’re on a smartphone can you please unmute
yourself? There should be a button that says unmute or mute at the bottom. You should also be getting
a prompt from Zoom as well saying that the host has unmuted you.
Ms. Gerhardt: I still see it as muted. I think there are some technical difficulties.
Chair Baltay: Let’s close the meeting to public comment and bring it back to the Board. Before we get
started, the applicant will have a chance to rebut the comments that were made. Maybe Mr. O’Hanlon
3.a
Packet Pg. 106
City of Palo Alto Page 47
would like to address the comment the neighbor mentioned about the size of your units. Would you like
to speak?
Ted O’Hanlon: Yes, thank you very much. The unit sizes range from approximately 500 square feet for
the studios. The one-bedrooms range in size from 600, or so, to 700 square feet. Then the two-
bedroom units have a range of 900 to 1,200 square feet. Industry-wide, the term multi-family is kind of
used interchangeably when we talk about either rental or for-sale condo units. Some considerations do
provide more of a family-style but the idea here is that it is multiple dwellings within a similar
development; not so much that we’re construing this to be a family-based development. We actually
went in the opposite direction as we continued along the way of what might be a good residential
opportunity here from larger configurations of units with one and two-bedroom units to really pushing
this more towards a single and dual occupant scenario with, again, really heavily skewed towards the
studio and one-bedrooms. I hope that is satisfying for Ms. Eisenberg and I’d be happy to talk with her
more about offline. Eugene, let us know if you have anything to add.
Eugene Sakai: Nope. You said it perfectly, Ted. Thank you.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you, Ted, for the definition of multi-family. It does not necessarily mean a family,
it just means multiple units. That you for that. Also, just to clarify that we do have accessory dwelling
units that can go down to, I believe, it’s 220 square feet. That’s truly the minimum size for a unit. As far
as the purview of the ARB, they really do not get into the interior of the buildings unless it’s related to the
organization of the building and circulation and things of that sort. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Jodie and Ted. Let’s bring this back to the Board for discussion
then. Perhaps, I could ask Grace to start us put today.
Board Member Lee: Thank you. Thank you to the applicant for that wonderful presentation. I’m sorry
that we didn’t receive the storybook. That is one piece that I didn’t receive. We can start there. But I
do want to take a step back and say how terrific that we are reviewing this project for rentals in the
Housing Incentive Program, and also the possibility of condos and the BMR’s in the future. My comments
are brief; full support of this project. Happy to recommend it for approval. In terms of the avenue for
that, I just wanted to make a couple of comments and I appreciate how you have actually walked us
through the beginning, and then the middle, and now the third hearing. There has been quite an
evolution in terms of -- very positive, in term so of how the edges are reading and how you responded to
fellow board members. A couple comments; when we talked about the material palette, my initial
thoughts when I went and saw the materials board and saw the move to the Equitone panel was just --
it’s just that I always hesitate at corrugated. In terms of that vertical element. I think it actually really
helps with the scale and works well with the Corten steel but I do want to talk about maintenance and
just how these panels and materials age. First off, the warmer palette, responding to comments, and
then the more simplified approach in each elevation very much in line with the way that I hope others
also approve. The one hesitation I had is when we go to the frames in terms of that Redwood. I
understand that it is something that is reminiscent of the Baylands and that it provides a terrific accent
and what’s even better is its space-making. You’ve actually created an edge and it comes inside and
creates the balcony there for the users. I’m a little bit on the fence there just in terms of knowing that it
will not age so well, and how it looks in relative to the other materials that might maintain their look with
age. I’ve just seen some developments where you just have one material and it’s an accent material and
it just doesn’t hold together well. I wanted to just bring it to my colleagues for discussions. And maybe
this is something that could be to subcommittee or maybe actually that is the way it goes to have this
warm aged wood with the other pieces of the palette but I just wanted to mention that. I am very happy
to approve this project. I appreciate the changes that… the revised landscape design in the courtyard,
and also including shade studies to know where shade will be and that you actually have active zones
and private zones. The one piece I did react to… and I think the chrysanthemum paving is very
appropriate here but I did notice the Japanese Maples, which provide such terrific seasonal color and will
do well in the shade, sometimes its good to have something evergreen that’s a vertical element just in
the time when the leaves drop. Again, I don’t have a strong feeling there. I think that it's much
improved and the landscape will do very well in the way that you’ve redesigned it. I guess the last
3.a
Packet Pg. 107
City of Palo Alto Page 48
comment that I wrote in my notes, and maybe this is not appropriate, but I thought that the bike ramp
was very long and wide. Of course, it’s going to be long but I just question the width, and that’s properly
because two bikes are going to passing each other. I'm not a bicyclist and so maybe that’s… I wonder if
you'd want to give more to landscaping with the width of that ramp and its prominence as part of your
entry landscaping. I believe my comments are very minor. I'm happy to move this project forward.
Thank you for the application.
Chair Baltay: Wonderful, Grace. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nguyen: Peter, if you don’t mind can I just chime in real quick? I just want to address the missing
storyboard book. I will take responsibility for that. We did have that originally included as part of the
staff report. Somehow there was a glitch and it didn’t make it in and I didn’t catch it in time. I will
upload that to the website right now and I will also email it to you guys as well.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Vinh.
Ms. Gerhardt: Vinh, I've already emailed it to the Board Members, so if you could just upload it to the
web that would be… thank you.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex, do you want to go next, please?
Board Member Lew: To the applicant, thank you for the revisions. I think this was a pretty dramatic
improvement and I can support the project today. I do have some concerns similar to Grace. I think
that they are minor and I think that they could be resolved. One is I think I have a very similar reaction
with the Redwood. I'm concerned that it’s going to weather on a faster cycle than all the other materials.
I was also concerned about the shellac finish. I was actually thinking that you would want something
that would last a long time. I wasn’t thinking that you wanted a weathered look. I have some concerns
with the Redwood is that Redwood today also has a lot of sapwood, which I think is not desirable with
regard to aesthetics, and also drought resistance. I think the Redwood would need to be (inaudible) to
prevent tannin stains. Then on the Corten, I did look up that particular manufacturer. I think that looks
good. In the past, the ARB has been concerned about staining from the Corten onto adjacent areas. We
do have some Corten on the Chipotle on El Camino near Page Mill Road. I did look at that and it does
have some staining at the bottom. It stained the concrete planters down at the base. It hasn’t really
stained the adjacent stucco areas. I think it’s potentially manageable. I guess I would say that other
Board Members have been really concerned about that issue. I don’t really have that much experience
with it but I will throw that out there. Second item is the signage for the retail space at the garage entry.
I've seen a lot of mixed-use projects in the South Bay as well as Emeryville and they usually are pretty
good about providing prominent signage so that people understand where to park. We have had
problems on the College Terrace Centre on El Camino in Palo Alto where there were a lot of public
complaints that they couldn’t figure out where to park and how to get down to the garage. The third
item is the bike wash area in the courtyard. I guess I would just throw it out there that for me it would
be okay for it to be in the garage. When you're cleaning bikes there’s lots of degreasers and latex tire
sealants and stuff, and it seems to me you wouldn’t want that on pavers in the courtyard but that might
be acceptable then in the garage. I would just throw that as an option for you. Then the last item that I
have is on some of the trees along San Antonio. I think you're proposing the new Blue Oaks to be mixed
in with some of the existing Southern Live Oaks that the City planted along there. I think I understand
that that’s you picking a native plant but I was thinking out loud and wouldn’t it make more sense to
make use a non-native species to match the rest of the street? From my point of view, the Southern Live
Oaks are non-natives but they are wildlife-friendly because they make acorns, which is a food source.
It’s a really important food source. Sometimes also when you use a non-native plant they're on a slightly
different timeframe as the native plants so that actually can be a benefit in some cases. I do support the
project. I think the massing revisions are good. I think the window revisions look good. The second
level of parking makes sense. I do support the project. That’s it.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. David, your turn. Dave Hirsch, you're still muted.
3.a
Packet Pg. 108
City of Palo Alto Page 49
[Adjusting Audio.]
Board Member Hirsch: Improved project. Much like my cohorts here have said, I think it’s coming along
very, very well. The Leghorn setback: I think we should be happy that you’ve done that and that there’s
planting in between and its better sighting of the building. I am very happy that there are parking spots
for people dropped off places both on Leghorn and San Antonio Road. I do wonder how you're going to
secure those if they're regular street parking spaces. Will there be signage saying ten minutes only or
how is that going to be done? Maybe, later on, somebody could answer that question. Jodie says we
really don’t talk about the inside but one thing that struck me that I thought might be an improvement --
I dare to say it and then you can choose to think about it anyhow -- is that the back of the lounge area
on the ground floor might include the elevator that gets you up to the fourth floor there. It’s more of a
midpoint in the building so you don’t have to get to The second elevator going to the far back of the
building there. That corner is more democratic to where everybody wants to go at the back of the
building. Maybe you would give some thought to that. That would animate that lobby area too. I don’t
think it would necessarily take away from the decks and the open space for the units that face that
courtyard. I think, by the way, it certainly is terrific that you are using the courtyard that way and that
many units are able to partake in that aspect of the building having a big open court like that. The
resident lounge on the top floor, I think that’s a tremendous improvement over what you had started
with up there. I think that space will be used. It’s definitely going to a building for younger people.
That open space will be constantly used. It’s planned in such a way that, as you say, step down the
building it's very nice as it sets down. The roofline now of the upper roof over the lounge area really
integrates all of that open space very well. I would like to ask somebody to put up the elevation of the
front of the building. Could we do that, Jodie?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Sheldon should have the presentation.
Board Member Hirsch: At the same time, if it's possible to put up the side of the building as well.
Probably the Leghorn side, which I think is quite nice. Okay, well that’s good. You can see around the
corner. Whether its Corten or not at this point, Alex’s point is really well taken. Whenever I've seen
Corten it discolors the ground concrete and it’s really not possible to get it clean. Now you may in your
office at your own building there have it in the planter or something down below and not have that kind
of a problem, but here there’s going to be a concrete pavement. Corten has its problems that way. I
suggest that you really look into it and see if some sort of a more finished panel wouldn’t work better for
something like that area. I'm concerned that you’re making… at one point I think I might have said why
don’t you just make something out of the corner or more of it out of the corner, and here you certainly
have. What you’ve lost in the process is the fact that those two-bedroom units, those really big unit --
although the bedroom has a deck to it -- doesn’t have any residential life to it at all up above. That
might be a problem on the first floor up but it certainly isn’t a problem further up. I think the building
would be improved by creating a more friendly feeling to that corner. It really almost looks too
commercial to me. Since the rest of the building has a really nice friendly feel to it, I think the corner
needs something more. Then secondly, if you could then show the face of the building all the way down.
Let’s see. Can you slide it over so I can the… the final one is further over. It's interrupted by our faces
here. Okay. That’s good. You are missing a great opportunity here to connect everything up I think.
The ribbon really ought to be more continuous. I really have a problem with this all of a sudden vertical
window and all of a sudden these interruptions, especially to the right side of the entryway to the
building. I think you have a chance to really integrate all of that together in some way. I don’t think I
should tell you how but if you connect up the right-hand ribbon with the entryway I think you will have
done it. At that point, the building will have been a success but it really will take reorganizing some of
the four-story elements as they break down to the three-story elements. I think you just need more
thought in the way those two connect to each other. I think the commercial space is now working pretty
well. The setback is going to work well. taking it around the corner is going to work well but not
connecting the end to the middle and sort of directing everything towards the entry of the building is a
mistake in my mind. The scale of everything up above… if it had more of the left side of the entry there
with the projections, etc., I think it would be a much better connection and a much stronger building. It
sort of does this asymmetrical thing all the way through. It kind of related asymmetrically to the right-
hand corner where the upper balcony just pulls you off to the left. That’s a dynamic that I think is a
3.a
Packet Pg. 109
City of Palo Alto Page 50
missing piece of this building here right now. What are we looking at when we’re looking at the white
portion of the building? I would certainly hope you could tone that down a bit. Even in the previous
project we just looked at, we had a problem with the contrast being altogether that strong. My feeling is
that it shouldn’t be all that strong. The whiteness of it is way too white for me. I would rather see some
earthy tones or some hint of an earth tone in the basic stucco look of the rest of the building there. The
all of a sudden there’s this intrusion of the cement fiber, and really all of sudden there’s another diagram
that’s this diagonal piece to it. I just don’t buy that. I think that the building… that’s an added element
that really does nothing for you. The vertical window bothers me. The verticality of everything on that
side doesn’t really work very well. Sorry, they're watering the next to me so there's an interruption with
the sound. That’s my biggest concern. I'm very happy with what you did with the scale around the
building all the front, back, side, you know, all of those sides. I think they work very well. Really, this is
the only area of the exterior of the building that I'm having a problem with. Let me just check my notes
here. The use of that lobby, I think you need an exercise room in the building this size. I would not put
that kind of usage into a big open space there. Can’t you wash the bikes outside somewhere as well as
maybe within that room… I mean it’s a big, big bike room. It’s a terrific facility for these people to get
around. I'm really in love with the idea of that but I think that washing a bike in the public or exercising
in the public… that should be a different kind of an area. And I repeat that I think it would be really
terrific if it had an elevator in the back of it for convenience sake but others have to agree with that idea.
I’ll leave it up to you to think about it. Patterning of some of the fiber cement is a problem. Connecting
the ribbon, and the metal issue as to whether Corten is really the right material. I’d like to see you think
about other forms of metal that won’t have a weathering problem but would also look good metal to
wood. I think that’s about it for me.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, David. Osma, it’s your turn, please.
Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. We can keep looking at that façade but maybe we can make them all
three with the way they were because I do have comments on that as well. Thank you to the applicant.
Thanks to my Board Members for their comments. Sheldon, I will ask you to maybe resize that picture
so that we can see all of them next to each other because a lot of what David said is a lot of what I
believe as well. I really appreciate the applicant taking our feedback on the three remaining sides, and
developing those to a similar level of detail. The only issue I had with that was on the east rear
elevation, which is actually probably not in your presentation, Sheldon. Oh, there it is. The far-right part
of that elevation, which I believe is the part that people would see driving through San Antonio going the
other way, that’s a very blank façade that looks like it just may have been forgotten in this development.
Other than that part the other three elevations seem like they were developed well. Actually, I don’t
think I noticed that initially because it was the same color as the paper. I just thought the elevation
ended where the lid ended. That’s something important that’s worth picking up. In general, it’s really
tricky because I really want to want to recommend approval of this but there are so many problems with
this façade that I’ll get into here in a second. I think Board Member Hirsch mentioned a lot of that; give
me a lot of pause. I mean, I want to approve this on principle; this is housing and we need housing but
aesthetically this project is very messy. The façade on San Antonio is very messy to the point where I
was looking back at these previous versions and thinking at least these previous versions had
aggressiveness to this. I could find myself in this moment more willing to approve one of these other
two versions more than what we have in front of us today. I think part of the reason is because the
cohesion is lost in this new updated version. In the other two, there was a real clear partis where the
ribbon, at least in January, has this connectivity. It has a similar thickness. There's this balance between
what's above the ribbon and what’s below. In the updated version the ribbon changes thickness and so
it has a different character and it doesn’t connect to the other parts of itself. It kind of loses steam and it
loses its position as this parti diagram for this elevation. It’s problematic to say the least. Then the other
issue is that there are way too many different materials. I think what that does is it sort of crowds the
aesthetic. I mean, you have Corten, you’ve got wood, you’ve got stucco, you're got cement fiber, now
you have spandrel, which I hadn’t noticed before but then you mentioned it in the presentation. It’s all
over the place. Something that was nice about the January scheme was that it was really simple. There
were three elements. There either was the perforated metal and the other things and that brought a
human scale, which I think I remember mentioning last time. I was really sad to see that go because I
don’t think that the cement fiber panel brings that level of scale that the perforated metal did, which I
3.a
Packet Pg. 110
City of Palo Alto Page 51
think is really important. Like that human scale element is important to in a façade. And what David
mentioned, the proportions are a bit whacky on this façade. There are some really tall skinny elements
that are juxtaposed next to some mid-sized, mid-proportioned, elements. I will say that the other three
facades that mentioned those proportions read really well especially in the context. I think those other
three proportions make a lot of sense, except, of course, for that white blank space that’s facing San
Antonio. But on the front here it’s a little hard to follow. I think a lot more work needs to be done here.
At the risk of belaboring my point a little bit too much, I think a lot of what Board Member Hirsch’s
comments sort of echo what I was saying. The proportions of the front of the façade of the building are
extremely problematic. They need a lot of work and I am not quite sure what to do because I know that
this is an evolution. I wonder if maybe some previous comments were not… I almost wish the applicant
had listened to some of the praise that we had said last time around and kept some of those things
because it sort of seemed like you threw the baby out of the bathwater and here’s something. I don’t
know that it really works. I will leave my comments at that.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. That leaves me wanting very much to get this approved today. I think
that as much as I agree with Osma’s sense and David’s sense about the design, I think it meets the
minimum standards, and there's a limit to which we can pushing for it. What I’d like to do is try to see if
we could get a subcommittee review, and perhaps address some of your concerns, which are legitimate
and maybe make it such a tad better. My only two real concerns going into this were that I think the
redwood frames are just a terrible idea. That will look bad before you finish building. It just isn’t viable.
There must be some other material that has a warm tone that will last a lot better. I’m trying to find my
notes here. Then I would like to see more construction details -- that’s a pet-peeve of mine -- of how,
for example, those Corten frames follow all those curves and angels and stuff. As I listened to David and
Alex speak, I think the Corten may just not be the right material. It’s complicated and it’s expensive. It’s
really tricky to use that material when you have so many corners inside and out and intersections and
stuff. Then the fact that it does stain and it’s all over the place is also a problem. You can achieve the
same design effect with any number of other materials. Even a painted metal would probably get you
there. Overall, I think the design does meet our minimum standard. What I would like to do is see if
someone’s up to making a motion to having this reviewed through a subcommittee. I’d like to see if Alex
or Osma, either one of you are interested in doing that with a clear list for the applicant.
Vice Chair Thompson: I have a question for the board.
Chair Baltay: Sure.
Vice Chair Thompson: How does the Board feel about this evolution as it relates to what was previously
viewed? I understand that we want to review this but is.. I’d like to hear the rest of the Board’s
feedback. Would it be viable to say something like closer to the January design might be more
appropriate for San Antonio than what is currently proposed?
Chair Baltay: I tackle that first, Osma. I didn’t hear the Board saying that, and I personally think this is
the best design yet by far. I think it’s got so many things going for it that’s much better than the
previous designs. I’d be reluctant to go back that way.
Vice Chair Thompson: I guess I mean just for the San Antonio façade. Not for the others.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I’m referring to the San Antonio façade. The back facades are improved but they
were terrible to begin with.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Board Member Lee: I’m happy to chime in.
Chair Baltay: Yes, go ahead, Grace.
3.a
Packet Pg. 111
City of Palo Alto Page 52
Board Member Lee: I am sorry that in my comments I didn’t address a couple of points and I just want
to make for the record, I believe the San Antonio elevation is much improved. It’s greatly improved and
in my mind ready to go. I feel like we should approve this project but I want specifically say that the
changes that they have made to the brow or this line that is a warm line right now in Corten, to me, is
much more effective in the way it turns the corner. I also feel like the corner is improved at that
important San Antonio/Leghorn with the retail below. I'm sorry I didn’t include in my comments but I did
want to chime in now.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. Does anybody else want to address Osma’s question about our opinion
of January to current on the San Antonio elevation? Okay. With that, I’m going to come back to my
thought, or hope, that we can get…
Vice Chair Thompson: I think Board Member Lew wanted to say something.
Chair Baltay: Alex, am I cutting you off?
Board Member Lew: My computer’s overheating so I turned off the video and I just turned it back on.
What I wanted to say is when I look at facades, especially long urban facades, I actually look for some
chaos and more elements than I would want than just looking at it on a piece of paper. That’s just based
on experience in working on big projects with long facades because I usually see that architects can
[distortion] too much and make it too much alike. I actually do look for more. I do recognize that the
San Antonio façade does look a little bit jumbled but I professionally prefer it that way.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. That’s very clear. Alex, are you interested in trying to make a motion for
us which incorporates… I thought you had a good list of corrections and maybe if you feel comfortable
picking up a few from Osma in the hopes of gathering five votes to sending this to a subcommittee?
Board Member Lew: I've been making a list. I guess my question is for the Board is really how strong
do we want to word it? Do you want to say that some of these materials shall be substituted with other
materials? Or are we saying consider using other materials?
Chair Baltay: I think the idea is that the subcommittee level will make that decision. I would make a
strong recommendation.
Board Member Lew: Okay, so were saying it’s to strongly consider.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think…
Board Member Lew: [Distortion].
Chair Baltay: The subcommittee will reject the use of redwood. I’m fairly certain of that. I don’t think
you need to even say that. The Corten could go either way. To me, it depends on the detailing and
when they resolve the question of staining. That’s what I’ve heard from the Board. I think we can trust
our subcommittee to check those items.
Vice Chair Thompson: Plus the cement fiber I would contest.
Chair Baltay: I think there's a number of items, so if we could just make a list of what were trying to get
to the subcommittee. Osma, would that leave you feeling better about it if we could put that stuff out
there?
Vice Chair Thompson: Better, yeah.
Chair Baltay: This is going to go to the City Council. It’s got a lot of people behind it. It’s a big deal kind
of project. Having strong support from the ARB is important. I want your part of this.
3.a
Packet Pg. 112
City of Palo Alto Page 53
Vice Chair Thompson: I really want to support this but I can’t also say that this is optimal for this
location in terms of aesthetics because…
Chair Baltay: Is there enough we can put on a subcommittee list that you might be able to put your vote
there? Would you like to make try to make a motion, Osma?
Vice Chair Thompson: This is too difficult I think.
Chair Baltay: I don’t want to force you. Whatever you think is your prerogative.
Vice Chair Thompson: It sounds like we’re asking for, sort of, a change out or at least considering
changing out the Corten, the wood, maybe the cement fiber panel. Then David did mention that the
white was too white. He was looking for more earth tones. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels
about that.
Chair Baltay: I think if we put those four as recommendations that the applicant can reconsider those
and the subcommittee looks at them… you could be part of that subcommittee even. I think that would
give you a good sense on that. I think you could also say recommend that the ribbon is a uniform
thickness. Over the front door it was thicker and that breaks the effect. You could ask them to study
that large vertical window. I don’t any of those things are problems for the applicant.
Vice Chair Thompson: That would help, I think, if the ribbon was a uniformed thickness.
Chair Baltay: Those are all very good points you’ve made.
Vice Chair Thompson: How did the Board feel about David’s comment about the corner and adding a bit
more residential liveliness to that corner? I thought that was insightful.
Chair Baltay: I'm just not sure how you get there quickly on that one.
Vice Chair Thompson: Looking at the plans, it looks like that corner is a living room.
Chair Baltay: It is a living room. That’s right.
Vice Chair Thompson: There is no outdoor space. Maybe a balcony would help or something that might
liven that corner.
Chair Baltay: There’s a balcony just to the left off Leghorn, which is an appropriate place for a balcony,
really. That’s a busy street there.
Vice Chair Thompson: Can we see a corner view, Sheldon?
Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Baltay, did you maybe want to do some straw pulls just to see how everyone’s on a
particular subject, or is it easier to talk it through?
Chair Baltay: I think I know how everybody’s feeling on it. I've heard Alex and Grace they are in favor
of the project, more or less, the way it is. I've heard David and Osma say they really would like to see
some changes. I’m the guy in the muddle. I want to get this approved today. I want to make whatever
changes we need to get the votes. Does anybody disagree with that basic statement?
Board Member Lee: I think that’s all good, Peter. I do want to mention that I don’t believe that we
asked the applicant for balconies on the corner at our previous meeting. I just want to be fair to the
applicant in terms of adding those asks when we didn’t ask that at a previous meeting.
Chair Baltay: Osma, can you see the balconies on the right-hand side? Those are the bedroom
balconies. It’s kind of a nice place for them.
3.a
Packet Pg. 113
City of Palo Alto Page 54
Vice Chair Thompson: I see them. Maybe the comment is not to add balconies add the corner but
maybe just to create more relief on that corner. It feels really flat in this view. Maybe the material
choice would add to that.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I'm looking for somebody to step up and make a list. I will do it if nobody else
wants to. Is that the preferred way to go?
Vice Chair Thompson: Alex, did you have a list?
MOTION
Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that the ARB recommends the project to Council with the
following six items return to subcommittee for consideration. The first is to reconsider the Corten
material, and/or provide details. Two is to consider a substitute for the Redwood material or provide
more information on the maintenance and life cycle of the proposed material. The third is to reconsider
the bright white paint and consider something more earth-toned or earth-toned. The fourth is to
consider making the ribbon item a uniformed thickness. The fifth one, I'm not sure how to word it, but I
would say consider making the corner more -- how do we want to say it?
Vice Chair Thompson: I would say consider adding visual relief on that corner or architectural relief.
Board Member Lew: All right. That could be maybe changing the cement board or something.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yes.
Board Member Lew: I will say this, there is a glad corner near my house just like this project and the
owners have put in these very elaborate cat towers. The fanciest ones I’ve ever seen and then the cats
it the in the corner all day long hanging out. I said six, but I think I only have five items there.
Chair Baltay: Alex, you had talked about the bicycle repair thing and the trees. Do you want to try to
put those in? I don’t know there's much dispute on those.
Board Member Lew: The bicycle wash is just an alternate, so there's an alternative option they could use
in the garage if they want to.
Chair Baltay: It’s fair to make that part of your motion.
Board Member Lew: That would be item number six in the motion. Then I think item number seven,
which is the Blue Oaks, I would say review that with Urban Forestry.
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Lew: I don’t know either way which one would be better. I don’t know if they’ve
reviewed it already.
Board Member Hirsch: I know there's a motion. Can we comment on it?
Board Member Lew: Somebody needs to second it first.
Chair Baltay: You need to second it first.
Board Member Hirsch: (Inaudible).
Chair Baltay: I didn’t hear that. David, are you seconding that motion? You can still add an amendment
to it after you second it.
3.a
Packet Pg. 114
City of Palo Alto Page 55
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, I’ll second it.
Chair Baltay: Okay. The motion is made and seconded. Does anybody have any amendments they
would like to add to that motion?
Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to make a comment that we talked about the ribbon being a specific width
dimension but looking at this image here we don’t need the ribbon at the top of the building do we?
That would be wrong. The top of this building has a thickness at the corner but a successful ending. It
does at the main entry as well. When you say the ribbon dimension, it’s only when it turns into a ribbon
vertically or horizontally but not at the top of the building or at the top of the entry.
Chair Baltay: I think what Alex is referring to, and what I was certainly mentioned, is just the thickness
of the ribbon over the entry lobby. It seems to be about twice the thickness of the same thing
everywhere else. Osma had pointed out that it just looked more haphazard that way. That’s what I
believe. Alex, is that what you’re referring to in your motion? Right here in the center of the current
drawing.
Vice Chair Thompson: They vary in thickness.
Chair Baltay: Yes, it’s true. They all vary but they ought to look at making them the same if they could.
That’s what the concept is. It seems like that could be done without too much trouble. David, does that
address your comment?
Board Member Hirsch: I just want to make sure that we’re not talking about the top over the
doorway/entryway on the second level or the one that goes to the very top of the corner coming around.
We don’t want that the same thickness.
Vice Chair Thompson: We do. That’s a comment.
Board Member Hirsch: No, I don’t agree with that. I wouldn’t second that motion. I don’t think the top
of those pieces should be the same.
Chair Baltay: David, it needs to be the same or be different?
Board Member Hirsch: No, I think it has to be different.
Chair Baltay: I see. Okay. The motion called for it to be the same. I think Alex is trying to address us
collectively. Are we better off just removing that from this motion or do we lose support because of that?
Board Member Hirsch: You lose my support because…
Chair Baltay: Guys, we want to put this to the City Council in a way that pushes housing forward in the
City. We want to give support and not quiver over things that are secondary. Whatever you think.
Board Member Hirsch: Wait a minute. It’s a balcony over the second over the entry.
Chair Baltay: That’s right.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s a balcony. If there's going to be a ribbon then it's going to have another
piece on top it if that makes it into a balcony. Is that what you're saying?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah (crosstalk).
Chair Baltay: There is going to be a safety railing on top of that, of course.
Vice Chair Thompson: It could have like glass or something else that’s not the ribbon.
3.a
Packet Pg. 115
City of Palo Alto Page 56
Board Member Hirsch: What about the corner?
Chair Baltay: I would think that the thickness of the ribbon be 12 or 18 inches. It should be the same
just so that it wraps the whole building all the way from one end to the other. Again, there might be a
parapet or waterproofing detail behind it. We’re not saying it absolutely has to be that way. We’re
putting a subcommittee out there to check these things. That’s all.
Board Member Lee: If I may, I believe we all feel very comfortable with a portion of our Board in the
subcommittee. Would it be possible just to use the word consider so that we are asking the design to
consider without a prescriptive…
Chair Baltay: That’s what’s in the motion I believe.
Board Member Lee: I just wanted to see if that might feel comfortable for David so that we can come to
a consensus here.
Chair Baltay: David, does that work for you?
Board Member Hirsch: That works for me.
Chair Baltay: Okay, great. Any other amendments to this motion, David and Osma? How about the
window?
Board Member Hirsch: The window in terms of a balcony or something?
Chair Baltay: There's a vertical window to the right of the lobby that is distinctly different than the rest of
the windows on the building.
Board Member Hirsch: I personally really hate that window.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I don’t know what to do about it. Consider alternatives for that window.
Board Member Hirsch: Any alternative that the architects could propose to the committee would be fine
by me.
Chair Baltay: Would one of you like to make a friendly amendment to add that to the motion?
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION
Board Member Hirsch: Amend the… I believe that’s a window into a staircase.
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s into the elevator lobby.
Chair Baltay: You could put a mullion pattern on it that lines up with the other ones.
Board Member Hirsch: I think it is a star itself at that point. I would say I would amend the motion to
consider eliminating the vertical window.
Vice Chair Thompson: Could we say consider an alternative to the treatment?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Whether that is elimination or maybe…
Chair Baltay: We have a friendly amendment to consider either eliminating or modifying the vertical
window to the right of the entry. The maker of the motion, Alex, are you okay with that?
3.a
Packet Pg. 116
City of Palo Alto Page 57
Board Member Lew: I will accept that.
Chair Baltay: David, you're the second. Are you accepting that?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Okay. Are there any other amendments? Then we have a motion that’s made and
seconded. Before we vote on it, I’d like to ask the applicant if they understand what we’re talking about
here. Either the architect or the owner, do you folks have any questions or concerns about what we’re
trying to do?
Eugene Sakai: This is Eugene Sakai. No questions. I just wanted to point out that there was a
reference to the east elevation being visible from San Antonio Road and it’s not.
Chair Baltay: Yes, we get that. We’re focusing on the main elevation here. We want to be sure that
what we’re doing is things you can put your heart into.
Board Member Hirsch: There’s a window just like this in the San Antonio Road… or in the east elevation,
sorry.
Vice Chair Thompson: here does that blank space happen?
Chair Baltay: I beg your pardon?
Eugene Sakai: It’s on the east elevation. It’s opposite San Antonio Road. It’s not visible from San
Antonio.
Board Member Hirsch: It’s not visible.
Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, I see. That’s on the other side. Okay.
Chair Baltay: That’s facing Mountain View squarely.
Eugene Sakai: The window on the front elevation on San Antonio, could we just be certain which one we
are discussing adapting.
Chair Baltay: Go back to the elevation, please.
Eugene Sakai: Is it the one to the right of the Equitone?
Chair Baltay: Yes, right where the cursor is now. That’s the window.
Eugene Sakai: Okay.
Ted O’Hanlon, Project Manager: That’s a stairwell window and we can certainly break that up. No
problem.
Chair Baltay: I would think that’s a straightforward enough adjustment. Okay. The motion is made and
seconded. Vinh, can we have a roll call vote, please?
Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5)
No:
Absent:
3.a
Packet Pg. 117
City of Palo Alto Page 58
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0-0.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2020
5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2020
Chair Baltay: Thank you, everybody. Wonderful. Thank you. Again, it’s going to be great to get that
one through. Can we quickly shoot through these last few items before taking a break? Does everybody
have the stamina to just get us there? We have a couple of minutes to approve.
Vice Chair Thompson: I really need to go but if it’s really quick then we can do it.
Chair Baltay: I’m trying to find my…
Vice Chair Thompson: I didn’t realize we had minutes.
Ms. Gerhardt: We have minutes for July 2, and July 16 that we’re asking approval for.
Chair Baltay: Jodie, I can’t find the agenda in front of me. What is the wording of the agenda item
there?
Ms. Gerhardt: It just says that its approval of minutes. It would be the draft Architectural Review Board
minutes for July 2, 2020, and draft architectural minutes for July 16, 2020.
Chair Baltay: Got it here. I have it now. Okay. First one is the mintues from July 2. I’ll move that we
approve those as submitted. Do we have any comments or any adjustments to that motion?
Board Member Lew: I have some corrections.
Chair Baltay: Go ahead, Alex.
Board Member Lew: I think the project planner one of them is Emily Foley. It’s spelled Faley, F-A-L-E-Y.
I think it should be F-O-L-E-Y.
Chair Baltay: (Crosstalk). Isn’t it, Alex?
Board Member Lew: It’s actually on both sets of minutes. On July 2 minutes, on page 12 I was speaking
in reference to Belomo’s office. In the minutes its spelled Paloma’s office. It should be B-E-L-O-M-O.
Then on page 13, I think in the minutes it says Mr. Nguyen and I think in that section it was actually me
who was speaking to the best of my recollection.
Ms. Gerhardt: I have those noted.
Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you.
Chair Baltay: Okay. The motion is amended to include those corrections. Do we have a second for the
motion, please?
Board Member Lew: Sure. I will second.
Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. Can we have a roll call vote, please, Vinh?
Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5)
3.a
Packet Pg. 118
City of Palo Alto Page 59
No:
Absent:
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0-0.
Chair Baltay: thank you, Vinh. Next item is the minutes from July 16. Alex, we have your correction for
Emily Foley spelling of her name. Is there anything else?
Board Member Lew: No.
Chair Baltay: I’ll move that we approve those minutes with that correction. Can I have a second,
please?
Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second.
Board Member Lew: Sure, I will second.
Chair Baltay: Moved and seconded. Vinh, can we have a roll call cote, please.
Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5)
No:
Absent:
MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0-0.
Board Members Questions, Comments or Announcements
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next item is Board Member questions, comments, and
announcements. Alex, can we push this off to our newt meeting?
Board Member Lew: Sure. There’s no news.
Chair Baltay: No news. Great. With that, we’re adjourned, everybody. Thank you very, very much;
wonderful to get through all of this. We’ll be in touch. Thanks, everybody.
Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you very much.
Adjournment
3.a
Packet Pg. 119