Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-12-01 City Council (3)
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 7 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:DECEMBER 01, 2003 CMR: 530:03 SUBJECT:800 HIGH STREET: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION REQUESTED BY PALO ALTO HIGH STREET PARTNERS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVEDMULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT [02-PC-02]. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision of March 11, 2003 to approve design changes the applicant was required to make as part of the Council’s decision to adopt an ordinance for a Planned Community (PC) zone change. In addition, staff recommends that the Council approve materials submitted by the applicant to satisfy the conditions of the Director’s approval of March 11, 2003, as described in this staff report. BACKGROUND On February 3, 2003, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact report and adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 4779) for the creation of a Planned Community district for 60 residential units including ten below market rate units, plus commercial space, open space, and below grade parking. Conditions of approval were attached to the Council’s decision, to increase the publicly accessible open space areas at Homer and Channing Avenues and to modify the building height and volumes along Channing Avenue. A second reading of the ordinance occurred on February 13, 2003. Plans dated February 10, 2003 were recognized in Ordinance No. 4779, Section 5 (Development Plan). The CMR:530:03 Page 1 of 6 plans included a reduction in both the number of Below Market Rate (BMR) units (from 11 units to 10 units) and in the total number of units in the project (from 61 units to 60 units.) The City Council directed staff to bring the approved plans, with revisions, to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). On March 6, 2003, the applicant presented revised plans received on February 20, 2003 to the ARB. The March 6 ARB staff report (Attachment D) contains a complete description of the revisions. The ARB recommended approval of the revisions to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, subject to conditions. A discussion of the review and the conditions is provided below. The Director of Planning and Community Environment accepted the ARB’s recommendation and approved the revisions on March 11, 2003. Ms. Joy Ogawa appealed the Director’s decision on March 17, 2003. A referendum petition to overturn City Council’s February 3, 2003 adoption of Ordinance 4779 was certified by Santa Clara County on March 26, 2003. The appeal by Ms. Ogawa was delayed until the decision on the referendum was known. A general election was held on November 4, 2003 that included the question on whether the Council’s decision to create a PC district should be overturned. The referendum was unsuccessful and the Council’s original decision became final. DISCUSSION Architectural Review Board Review and Recommendation to the Director Staff presented the revised plans to the ARB on March 6, 2003. The ARB staff report requested the ARB discuss the changes to the Homer Avenue streetscape. Staff recognized that the Council’s requirement to expand the publicly accessible open space was achieved in the revised plans, but at the expense of the Homer Avenue streetscape. Staff also recognized that the Council’s condition to reduce building mass near Channing Avenue had been achieved by reducing the massing at the southwest comer of the site from a height of 50 feet to three building volumes of 35 feet, 45 feet and 50 feet. An elevator tower was moved from this area to the High Street elevation, thereby increasing the length of the publicly accessible open space along Channing Avenue. The ARB recommended approval of the revised plans to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, with an additional condition to return to the ARB on a future consent calendar with studies and details as follows: ¯Provide a study of the publicly accessible plaza at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street that includes design details of the plaza layout, paving materials, and location of the elevator shaft. ¯Provide a study that includes the addition of retail space along High Street. CMR:530:03 Page 2 of 6 ¯Provide a solar study conducted at the Pacific Gas & Electric Energy Center that. describes the extent of shadowing to off-site private property and public ways. ¯Provide design details of the intersection between the roof and the exterior walls. ¯Review of building colors at the project site during an appropriate phase of the building construction. ¯Review of the video, "Social Life of Small Urban Spaces" by William White. Summary_ of Appeal The project was reviewed at the March 6, 2003 ARB meeting for compliance with the Council’s conditions to improve publicly accessible and private open space and reduce building heights and volumes along Channing Avenue. The Director’s decision applied only to design changes related to these conditions. The discussion of the appeal will focus on the four design questions of the project raised by Ms. Ogawa in her letter (Attachment C) rather than other program specific components that were not the subject of the ARB review. Inconsistency with the Homer Avenue streetscape: "the plan and design no longer relate to the streetscape of Homer Avenue. Both the HRB and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) approved a design and plan that kept the footprint of the historic Peninsula Creamers/Family Service Laundry Building, and limited the height of the building to 35 feet along Homer Avenue. The design and plan approved on March 11 by the Director no longer preserves the footprint of the historic building, but chops it in half. There is no longer any transition in height of the building along Homer Avenue, and is in unconstructive view- from Homer Avenue." Revisions were made to the Homer Avenue streetscape in response to the City Council’s direction to improve the publicly accessible open spaces at the Homer and Channing Avenue sides of the project. As a result of the revisions, the portion of the building with frontage along Homer Avenue was reduced so that the publicly accessible plaza could be expanded. Although this portion of the building would not replicate the existing Family Service Laundry Building, the plaza and the retail spaces add to the character of the neighborhood. It would be a designed and landscaped to promote pedestrian uses, which exist in other areas of the Homer Avenue district. The portion of the building at Homer Avenue would extend to 35’, which is consistent with the existing building on the project site. A stairway has.been moved closer to the street (approximately 24 feet from Homer Avenue). The ARB found that revision would not necessarily detract from the Homer Avenue streetscape. The taller portions of the building would be set back from the street and would contain design elements and features that would reduce the apparent impact of a larger structure closer to Homer Avenue. CMR:530:03 Page 3 of 6 Inappropriate Roof Forms: "The barrel-vaulted roof proposed in the plans approved by the. Director is inappropriate to this Homer Avenue area. As pointed out in the ARB staff report, it is essential that the architectural elements of higher locations of a streetscapes building be similar in character to the existing streetscape. Curved roof forms are barrel vaults do not occur in the Homer Avenue area are not appropriate for this project. The ARB’s conditions only asked for design details of the intersection between the roof and the exterior walls, and did not indicate the inappropriateness of this deviant roof form." The roof forms on Homer Avenue between Ramona and Alma streets are usually flat and sometimes gabled or hipped. Mansard roofs, domes, shed roofs and other curved roof forms are not typical for the area. The roof of the portion of the project immediately adjacent to Homer Avenue is flat, which is similar to the roof profile of the Family Service laundry building. Other portions of the roof throughout the project would contain curved elements. These curved roof elements would occur at the tallest portions of the building. The intent of these curved roof forms was to reduce the height of the roof structures at the areas closest to the streets. The ARB was not opposed to the curved roof forms. The ARB recommended that additional exterior wall and roof details return to the Board at a future date. Bad Location for a Public Plaza: "As pointed out by several speakers at the ARB hearing, the public plaza has been relocated to a cold, dark, windy comer that will not be sheltered from noise, dust, wind, and car fumes as was the previous version approved by the City Council." The publicly accessible open space areas at Homer and Channing Avenues have been revised to be more accommodating to pedestrians. The Homer Avenue space was originally designed to function as "courtyard seating" for an adjacent eating and drinking establishment or retail use. The redesigned open space area would be more accessible and connected to Homer Avenue than the previously designed space. Landscaping and seating areas would welcome pedestrians and provide areas to linger and rest. The Channing Avenue space has been lengthened (and slightly narrowed) and would provide similar areas to attract pedestrians. This comer outdoor space would complement a similar space that is planned for the development at 901 High Street, opposite from the 800 High Street property. The ARB was supportive of the changes to the publicly accessible open space areas. The ARB stated that by moving the Homer Avenue space to the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street, this space would become a more usable public space. CMR:530:03 Page 4 of 6 4.Narrow Sidewalk Adjacent to a 50-foot Building: "The design provides for only a 6-foot wide pedestrian walking area in the sidewalk adjacent to a 50- foot high building. This is not the type of pedestrian-friendly design called for by our Comprehensive Plan." The sidewalk along High Street would be six feet wide with no obstacles impinging on its width. Raised planter beds 3’ feet wide would be placed at locations closest to the sidewalk adjacent to three-story walls at the townhouses and 5’6" wide planters adjacent to four-story walls at the flats. The result is that at the pedestrian level and at levels above the ground floor, the building will articulate along High Street and the tallest portions of the building will be at the interior areas of the site. The ARB was supportive of the articulation of the building and landscaping along High Street. The ARB recommended that the applicant remm with a study for the placement of retail space along High Street. Although one board member had a concern about the six-foot wide sidewalk and the driveway ramp at High Street, the ARB was generally supportive of the design direction of this side of the building. Architectural Review Conditions of Approval Architectural review on March 6, 2003 resulted in a Director’s decision on March 11, 2003 to approve the Council-requested revisions with conditions (as described on Page 2 of this staff report). The applicant has responded to the conditions of the March 11, 2003 Director’s decision. The response includes the following items: ¯A study of the publicly accessible plaza at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street that includes design details of the plaza layout, pacing materials, and location of the elevator shaft. ¯A study that includes the addition of retail space along High Street. ¯A solar study conducted at the Pacific Gas & Electric Energy Center that describes the extent of shadowing to off-site private property and public ways. Staff reviewed a plan by the applicant to move the elevator/stairwell shaft to the location of the proposed publicly accessible open space area at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue. This plan would increase the area for retail space along Homer Avenue. Staff found that this proposal would not meet the objectives of the City Council to improve the publicly accessible open space area in this location. The solar study is contained with the project plan in Attachment F. The applicant has responded to the other conditions from the March 11, 2003 ARB meeting in the letter contained in Attachment E. Staff f’mds that the studies and details provided by the applicant satisfy the conditions of the Director’s approval. CMR:530:03 Page 5 of 6 Staff recommends that the Council review the information submitted by applicant and fred that this information satisfies the Director’s conditions of approval. The result of Council’s approval of these items would be that the project would not return to the ARB for the review of the conditions on the consent calendar. In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision of March 11, 2003 to approve design changes the applicant was required to make as part of the Council’s decision to adopt an ordinance for a Planned Community (PC) zone change. In addition, staff recommends that the Council find that the applicant has satisfied the Director’s conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City Council on February 3, 2003. PREPARED BY: STEVEN TURNER Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:/ STEVE EMSI irector of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:C~’~. ~~~) EMIL~ZfARRISON Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action Attachment B: Director’s Decision, March 18, 2003 Attachment C: Letter from Joy Ogawa, Request for Appeal, March 17, 2003 Attachment D: Applicant’s Response to Appeal, November 18, 2003 Attachment E: Applicant’s Response to the Conditions of Approval, November 18, 2003 Attachment F: ARB Staff Report March 6, 2003 Attachment G: Verbatim Minutes, March 6, 2003 ARB Meeting Attachment H: Project Plans and Solar Study (City Council Only) COURTESY COPIES Joy Ogawa Palo Alto High Street Partners CMR:530:03 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2003- RECORD OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 800 HIGH STREET: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION 02-PC-01 (PALO ALTO HIGH STREET PARTNERS, APPLICANT) At its meeting of , the Council upheld the March Ii, 2003, Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of architectural and design changes to a previously approved multi- family residential housing project and found that the applicant has satisfied the Director’s conditions of approval of March ii, 2003, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Background. A. On February 3, 2003, the City Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 4779) for the creation of a Planned Community district for 60 residential units including ten below market rate units, plus commercial space, open space, and below grade parking ("The Project"). B. Conditions of approval were attached to the Council’s decision to increase the publicly accessible open space areas at Homer and Channing Avenues and to modify the building height and volumes along Channing Avenue. The City Council directed staff to bring the approved plans, with revisions, to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) . C. The ARB held a public hearing on March 6, 2003 to review the revisions as directed by the City Council. The ARB recommended that the revisions be approved to the Director, and directed the applicant to submit additional information. D. Following the ARB’s review, the Director reviewed and approved the project on March ii, 2003. E. Ms. Joy Ogawa appealed the Director’s decision on March 17, 2003. F. On November 21, 2003, the applicant submitted information addressing the March ii, 2003 conditions of approval. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3.Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. A.The design, as conditioned, is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city,s Comprehensive Plan in that the project is consistent with the following policies and programs: Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations; Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality; Policy H-10: Encourage and foster diverse housing opportunities for very-low, low, and moderate income households; Policy T-I: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details; Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts; Policy L-5: Maintain the Scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their scale and size; Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use deve!opment; Policy L-II: Promote increased compatibility, inter- dependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multi-family buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street; Policy L-16: Consider siting small neighborhood serving retail facilities in existing or new residential areas; Policy L-25: Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area; Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces; Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays, and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human scale details and massing; Policy L-67: Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system; B.The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that it incorporates design features such as a reduced building height at Homer Avenue, an articulated and varied building face along High Street and public open space at the retail area and the public plaza at High Street and Channing Avenue. These design features reflect the context of the neighborhood and are intended to draw pedestrian activity to the area; C. The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the design accommodates the physical and programmatic needs of the residential and retail components of the project; D.The design is compatible with the character of the South of Forest Area in that the project promotes and enhances the existing mix of uses, supports the Homer Avenue retail corridor by incorporating retail and public plaza areas, and incorporates architectural elements that recall the light industrial character of the area; E.The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the residential and retail portions of the project include design elements that distinguish between the land uses on site while visually relating them to the mix of land uses immediately surrounding the site; F.The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the project will accommodate planned improvements to the roadways and utilities surrounding the site; G.The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that each land use is supported by adequate amenities to ensure the harmonious co-existence of the different activities on the site; H.The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that appropriate private and public outdoor space are provided for the residential units and a public plaza is proposed on the corner of High Street and Channing Avenue to promote pedestrian activity further south on High Street. Additionally, the public courtyard near the corner of High Street and Homer Avenue is intended to support the Homer Avenue retail corridor; I.Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles in that access to the underground and surface parking will not interfere with existing traffic and loading patterns in the area, all sides of the building are able to be accessed by pedestrians on designated walkways, adequate bicycle parking for the proposed land uses will be provided, and vehicular hazards have been reduced by widening the alley behind the project; J.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate to the design and function of the project in that they provide distinct visual clues to the land uses on the site, and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; K.The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms, and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment in that it enhances the streetscape and the surrounding pedestrian environment; 4 L.Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; M. The design is energy efficient and incorporates design elements including, but not limited to: Unit solar orientation promoting passive heat gain; Sorting, salvaging, and recycling of materials from building removal;~ SECTION 4. Appeal Denied. The appeal of Joy Ogawa is denied and the Director’s decision of March II, 2003 is upheld. SECTION 5.Architectural Review Approved. Architectural Review of final plans dated February 14, 2003, as required by Ordinance No. 4779, is approved for architectural and design changes, to a previously approved multi-family residential housing project. The City Council finds that the applicant has satisfied the conditions of approval of the March !i, 2003 Director’s decision. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney 5 PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: i. Those plans prepared by Jon Worden Architects titled "800 High Street", consisting of 17 pages, dated February 14, 2003, and received November 21, 2003. 6 Attachment B City of Palo Alto Department of Planning anti Community Enviornment Planning Division March 18, 2003 Doug Ross Curt Peterson Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC 909 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Subject:800 High Street, 02-PC-01; Corrected Version Dear Mr. Ross: In accordance with California Government Code Section 66020, this is to provide you with notice of the amount of development fees and a description of the dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the following development project approved by the City Council on February 18, 2003. The Council approval becomes effective on March 21, 2003, unless a timely referendum petition is filed before that date. The Council conditions of Approval included review of revised plans by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB recommended approval of the revised plans on March 6, 2003, with additional conditions to return to the ARB on consent calendar. Those conditions (to be reviewed by the ARB on a future consent calendar) are: ¯A study of the publicly accessible plaza at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street that includes design details of the plaza layout, paving materials, and location of the elevator shaft. ¯A study that includes the addition of retail space along High Street. ¯A solar study conducted at the Pacific Gas & Electric Energy. Center that describes the extent of shadowing to off-site private property and public ways. ¯Design details of the intersection between the roof and the exterior walls. ¯Review of building colors at the project site during an appropriate phase of building construction. ¯Review" of the video, °’Social Life of Small Urban Spaces" by William White. On March 11, 2003, the Director of Planning and Communit); Environment approved the changes to the plans reviewed by the ARB. This approval becomes final on March 18, 2003, unless a timely appeal is filed before that date. The approved project at 800 High Street (02-PC-01) is a zone change from the commercial downtown service with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S(P)) district to Planned Community (PC) zone, to allow the demolition of an existing +t 7,600 square foot Z-30 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10~0Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.3292441 650.329.2154 Printed with soy-based inks on !00% ~ecycied paper processed without chlorine building and to allow the construction of 60 Residential units, Approximately 1400 square feet ofneighb0rhood serving retail space, a subterranean parking garage for 63 spaces and a variance for a portion of the fourth floor that exceeds the City’s height requirement. The Council approved the project and rezoning by adopting the attached Ordinance, including by reference the approved development plans (as revised, reviewed by the ARB and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment). The fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed by the City in connection with your development project are described in your conditions of approval, also attached to this letter. Government Code Section 66020 provides that any project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Any protest regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project must be initiated not later than ninety (90) calendar days following February 18, 2003. Additionally procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. If you have any questions regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project, please call Steven Turner, (650) 329-2155. A specific development schedule was approved by the City Council, and is noted in the adopted Ordinance. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if granted, shall result in: a)The expiration of your right to develop under the PC district. The zoning administrator will notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building official of such expiration; and b)The zoning administrator’s initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in accordance with Chapter 18.98. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC district concurrently with the zoning administrator’s recommendation for a zone change. The Palo Alto Municipal Code does allow adjustments to be made to the development schedule without a public hearing, as long as the schedule is not extended by more than one year. Only one such schedule change can be made without a public hearing. Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule for this project, the Current Planning Manager will notify you in writing of the date of expiration. You may submit in writing a modification to the development schedule anytime prior to the expiration of the original development schedule. The Palo Alto Municipal Code also requires each PC district to be inspected by the building division at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created Should you have any questions regarding this City Council action, please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 329-2155. Sincerely, Steven Turner Planner Cc: Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Woody Gontina, Gazelle, LLC, 1450 Veterans Blvd., Redwood City, CA 94063 Jon Worden, 512 Matheson Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448 Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ian Irwin, 800 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2813 Joe Yarkin, 152 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Pamela Christensen, 788 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Herb Borock, RO. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Marlene Pendergrast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Palo Alto, 94306 Irwin Dawid, 723 Alma Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Ole Christensen, 801 Alma Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Jean McCown, 1717 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, 94303 PLANNING DIVISION -MEMORANDUM Date:March 18, 2003 From: All Interested Parties Steven Turner, Planner~ Subject:800 High Street; Revised Approval Letter The March 12, 2003 approval letter for the project known as 800 High Street has been revised to include the correct date when the City Council approval becomes effective. This date is March 21, 2003, unless a timely referendum petition is filed before the close of business on March 20, 2003. If you have any questions regarding this revision, please contact Steven Turner at (650) 329- 2155. Attachment C Joy Ogawa 2305 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 March 17, 2003 Honorable City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE:800 High Street (02-PC-01) - Appeal of the Approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment Honorable City Council Members, This letter accompanies an Appeal of the Director’s Approval of the above-referenced project at 800 High Street, and states my reasons for that Appeal. THE BMR AGREEMENT IS BEING VIOLATED The developmem plans approved by the Director are in direct violation of at least one express term of the Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement signed by the Applicants on January 29, 2003. On page 2 0f4 of the "Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Condominium Project at 800 High Street (02-PC-01)" dated January 29, 2003 (included as Attachment J for CMR 150:03) is stated the following: Designation of BMR Units: .... The BMR units shall be distributed on all four residential floors of the buildings. The development plans that, according to my understanding, were approved by the Director on March 11 show two BMR units to be located on level 1, four BMR units on level 2 and four BMR units on level 3 of the project. (These are the development plans provided to me by Steven Turner and stamped "Received" by the Planning Department on February 20, 2003). No BMR units are proposed to be located on level 4, the fourth residential floor. This is in clear violation of an express term of the BMR agreement. The citizens of Palo Alto have a right to expect that the staffwill act diligently to assure that al! the terms of the BMR agreement are adhered to. It is extremely troubling and disappointing to fred that less than 6 weeks after the BMR agreement was signed, the Director approved a development plan that clearly violates one of the express terms of the agreement. Page 1 OTHER INADEQUACIES OF THE BMR CONTRIBUTION The Comprehensive Plan requires that the "BMR units must be comparable to other units in the development." The BMR units for the project are to be clustered on the first three floors of one section of the building, the section closest to the electrical transformer substation and closest to the trash collection area. This is not "comparable to other units in the development." The project approved by the Council at the first reading of the ordinance on February 3, 2003 proposed only 12.40% of the residential floor area allocated to the 11 proposed BMR traits. This fell short of the 15% BMR requirement in light of the additional Comprehensive Plan requirement that the "BMR units must be comparable to the other units in the development." In order to be "comparable to the other units in the development," the BMR contribution should be at or near 15% of the total residential floor area. By the second reading of the ordinance on February 18, the BMR contribution had decreased fi:om 11 units to 10 units, with a concomitant decrease in percentage of residential floor area allocated to the BMR units to 11.18%. The project approved by the Director on March 11 increased the total floor area for the market rate units by 58 square feet, but the floor area for the BMR units remained the same. Thus the percentage residential floor area allocated to the BMR units further decreased to 11.17%. The BMR contribution has continued to decline with each version of the project presented by the Applicants, yet on March 11, the Director approved this deterioration in the BMR contribution. The one and two-bedroom BMR units are the smallest units in the proposed building (at 736 square feet and 852 square feet, respectively). All of the market rate units are larger than the two-bedroom BMR units. The three-bedroom BMR units, at 1238 square feet, are much smaller than the market rate 3-bedroom units, and are smaller than even 24 of the two-bedroom market rate units. This is not "comparable to other units in the development." The proposed BMR contribution was designed for the smaller 54-unit version of the project. I contacted the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), and was told that the currently proposed 10-unit BMR contribution was reviewed by PAHC only in the context of the 54-unit version of the project that Council eventually rejected. PAHC did not review or approve the proposed BMR contribution for the 60-unit project that the Director approved on March 11, 2003. THE PROJECT IS OF AN INAPPROPRIATE DESIGN Inconsistency with the Homer Avenue streetscape. As pointed out at the ARB heating by Beth Bunnenberg, a member of the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and by Karen Holman, a Planning and Transportation Commissioner (speaking as individuals), the plan and design no longer relate to the streetscape of Homer Avenue. Both the HRB and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) approved a design and plan that kept the footprint of the historic Page 2 Peninsula Creamery/Family Service Laundry Building, and limited the height of that building to 35 feet along Homer Avenue. The design and plan approved on March 11 by the Director no longer preserves the footprint of the historic building, but chops it in half. There is no longer any transition in height of the building along Homer Avenue, so that a 50-foot high structure now juts up only 33 feet away firom Homer Avenue, and is in unobstructed view from Homer Avenue. This is inconsistent with the recommendations of the HRB, the PTC and the SOFA-2 Working Group. Neither the HRB or the PTC had an opportunity to review the plans that were approved by the Director on March 11, and which drastically changed the design of the project along Homer Avenue. Neither of the two sets of plans approved by the City Council included this drastic change along Homer Avenue. Inappropriate roof forms~ The barrel-vaulted roof proposed in the plans approved by the Director is inappropriate to this Homer Avenue area. As pointed out in the ARB staff report, it is essential that the architectural elements of higher locations of a streetscapes building be similar in character to the existing streetscape. Curved roof forms and barrel vaults do not occur in the Homer Avenue area and are not appropriate for this project. The ARB’s conditions only asked for design details of the intersection between the roof and the exterior walls, and did not indicate the inappropriateness of this deviant rooffor~ Bad location for the Public Plaza As pointed out by several speakers at the ARB hearing, the public plaza has been relocated to a cold, dark windy corner that will not be sheltered from noise, dust, wind, and car fumes as was the previous version approved by City Council. Narrow sidewalk adjacent to a 50foot building. The design provides for only a 6-foot wide pedestrian walking area in the sidewalk adjacent to a 50-foot high building. This is not the type of pedestrian-friendly design called for by our Comprehensive Plan. LACK OF NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS Because the project that was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on March 6, 2003 was deemed by staffto be a "minor" project, nearby property owners and tenants were not sent notices of the public hearing. Thus, many neighbors were not aware of the ARB hearing, and did not have a meaningful opportunity to voice their opinions about the project that was presented to the ARB. For all of the above stated reasons, I am appealing the Director’s approval of the 800 High Street project. Sincerely, Joy Ogawa Page 3 Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC 909 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attachment D November 18, 2003 Steven Emslie Director of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA RE: Response to Consent Conditions Dear Steven; In response to your letter dated March 12, 2003 regarding 800 High Street, 02-PC-01, which stipulated several conditions that needed to be resolved. We submit the following: Condition: "A study of the publicly accessible plaza at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street that includes desig-n details of the plaza layout, paving materials, and location of the elevator shaft." Response: Several desi~mas were studied with respect to the elevator and stair shaft. Due to the layout of the garage parking spaces, the shaft must be located along the Homer Avenue frontage of the property. This did limit the options available. While moving the elevator shaft may have enhanced the retail space, the net effect was a diminishing of the public plaza in both size and character. The plaza would become smaller, less attractive and more private if the elevator shaft were to be moved out of the retail space. Therefore no changes have been made to the location of the elevator shaft. Condition: ’~A study that includes the addition of retail space along High Street." Response: We did study if retail could effectively be place along the High Street frontage at the Homer comer. It was determined that it would not be a successful design if retail space were placed on High Street because of the existing flow of pedestrian traffic and retail space along Homer Avenue. The Homer Avenue frontage, as designed, is the most desirable location for retail space. Condition: "A solar study conducted at the Pacific Gas & Electric Energy Center that describes the extent of shadowing to off-site private property and public ways." Response: A solar study was conducted on November 12, 2003. Please see the attached package. Condition: "Design details of the intersection between the roof and exterior walls." Response: We recall this intersection to be particularly applicable to the "towers" along Hitch Street, which previously were shown with no cornice. We now propose that these "towers" and other simple projections around the project shall have a simple cornice matching that on the existing Laundry Building - 6-8" tall and projecting 2" from the wall plane. Condition: "Review of building colors at the project site during an appropriate phase of building construction." Response: At the appropriate time, "Brush Outs" of all proposed exterior colors wil! be conducted in the field at the project location. Condition: "Review of the video, "Social Life of Small Urban Spaces" by William White." Response: Video has been reviewed. We believe this satisfies the remaining conditions of approval as requested. Please contact us if you have further questions or need more information. Regards, Ross cc: Steven Turner ¯Attachment E Palo Alto High Street Parmers, LLC 909 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 November 18, 2003 Steven Emslie Director of Plalming & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA RE: Response to Joy Ogawa’s appeal Dear Steven; tn response to your letter dated March 17, 2003 from Joy Ogawa appealing your decision regarding 800 HigN Street, 02-PC-01, we submit the following response: -"THE BMR AGREEMENT IS BELNG VIOLATED" -"OTHER INADEQUECIES OF THE BMR CONrTRIBUTION"’ Response: The BMR ageement was reviewed and accepted by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and Director of Planning and Community Environment and meets the intent and requirements of the pro~am. - "THE PROJECT IS OF AN INAPPROPRIATE DESIGN" -"Inconsistency with the Homer Avenue Streetscape." Response: After input from both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board, several design changes were made during the review process. The current plan incorporates the many positive comments and received unanimous approval from the ARB as a result. We feel the current desig-n successfully incorporates the Homer Avenue Streetscape. -"Inappropriate roof forms" Response: The "barrel vault" roof forms were introduced as a result of compliance with the 50 foot height limit. These roof forms received unanimous approval at the ARB. -"Bad location for the Public Plaza" Response: The punic plazas are tocated at the two comers of the High Street frontage. These locations are the most appropriate to help interact with both the existing retail at the Channing Avenue comer and the existing and proposed retail at the Homer Avenue comer. -"Narrow sidewalk adjacent to a 50 foot building" Response: The existing sidewalk along High Street is 7’ wide, including curb and street trees, resulting in an effective sidewalk of 4’ width. The proposed project provides for a continuous 3’ wide planter strip for a complete planting of 10 street trees, followed by a 6’ wide sidewalk with no obstacles impinging on its width, backed by planters of a minimum 3’-0" depth to a 3-story wall at tow~ahouses and minimum 5’-6" depth to a 4-story wall at flats. At all building entries, unit entries, driveway and plazas the sidewalk is wider than 6’. Living spaces are a minimum of 12’-6" back from the street at 3-story portions of the building and a minimum of 15-18’ back at 4-story sections of the building. "LACK OF NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS" Response: The March 6, 2003 ARB hearing was noticed and punished in accordance with City requirements for a minor hearing as unfinished business. Please review the responses given to the issues raised in Mrs. Ogawa’s appeal. We feel that they adequately address her concerns. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you might have. Regards, cc: Steven Turner Attachment F Architectural Review Board Addendum to Staff Report Agenda Date: To: March 6, 2003 Architectural Review Board From:Steven Turner Subject:800 High Street [02-PC-2] Department: Planning and Community Environment BACKGROUND This document, presented to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) as an addendum to the March 6, 2003 staff report, is to clarify staff’s support of the design modifications to the project. As stated in the staff report, the revisions generally respond to the direction given by the City Council in their adoption of the Planned Commumty zoning on February 3, 2003, and reconfirmed in the second reading of the ordinance on February 18, 2003. REVISED RECOMMENDATION Staff’s original recommendation, as outlined in the March 6, 2003 staff report, was to continue the review to allow City staff from the Fire, Public Works and Building departments to review the most recent plans, and allow the applicant to submit more detailed project information. The review has since taken place and the applicant has submitted additional information. It is the applicant’s desire, and staff concurs, to provide closure on the redesign of the project. Staff has determined that the materials submitted, along with the materials the applicant intends to bring to the hearing (color boards, models, etc.), are complete for the purpose of final architectural revie~a; by the ARB. As noted under the discussion section below, most of the items noted in the staff report have been addressed, and staff will continue to work with the applicant and City staff during the building permit process on technical issues. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this project. DISCUSSION On March 5, 2003, Building, Fire and Public Works staff reviewed and commented on the revised design. Issues were raised with regards to exit stairs, width of landscape planters adjacent to the driveway ramp, egress windows, height of the garage in the public right of way areas and right of way improvements. No substantive changes would be required that would affect final review and approval by the ARB. Project name/Address Page 1 Also on March 5, the applicant addressed the "additional information" items noted on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report, as follows: ¯Elevations in the ARB plan set include references to exterior colors and materials that will be on display at the ARB meeting. ¯The applicant has stated that the fenestration and other exterior appurtenances remain unchanged from the plans previously reviewed by the ARB. The applicant will bring the sample board and a model to the hearing for ARB review. ¯Bicycle racks are shown on landscape plan sheet L1.2 and lockers are provided in both garage levels, noted as "storage" areas on the plans. ¯The applicant has submitted a revised photo-metric plan, including lighting fixture specifications. The plan is at places for review. As noted on page 5 of the staff report, a conceptual gading and drainage plan has not been submitted prior to final ARB review. Staff from Public Works Engineering Division will review gading and drainage plans during building permit review. Building permit plans are reviewed by planning staff for consistency with the approved plans. Prepared by:Steven Turner, Planne~’~ Manager Review:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Project name/Address Page 2 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:March 6, 2003 To:Architectural Review Board From:Steven Turner, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:800 High Street [02-PC-2]: Application by Curt Peterson and Doug Ross of High Street Partners for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of architectural and design changes to a previously approved project, as required in the adopted conditions of approval, including changes to the size and orientation of open space areas, reductions of building volumes, and changes to residential and commercial space configurations. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared and certified by City Council on February 3, 2003. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): Review revisions to the development plan approved by City Council on February 3, 2003 and provide comment to staff and the applicant. Staff requests that particular emphasis for the review should be placed on the Homer Avenue streetscape. o Continue the project to a date certain so that the applicant may submit more detailed project information for ARB review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. BACKGROUND On February 3, 2003, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted a resolution for the creation of a Planned Community (PC) district, based upon the development plan recommended by the ARB, the HRB and the Planning and Transportation Commission, subject to the adopted conditions of approval. A copy of the resolution and conditions of approval are contained in Attachment A and Attachment B. The City Council directed the applicant to revise the plans in the following manner: 800 High Street Page 1 The publicly accessible open space at the Homer Avenue/High Street intersection and the Channing Avenue/High Street intersection shall be expanded. The private and common open space areas shall be expanded and improved. The building height and volumes along Channing Avenue should be modified, without increasing volumes in other areas of the building, to provide better compatibility with neighboring properties. PROJECT REVISIONS The applicant has made revisions to the project as required in the adopted conditions of approval (Conditions #1 and #2). A comparison of the project revisions to the City Council approved project are contained in Table 1, Project Data Comparison: Council Approved Plan vs. February 20 Revisions. The plans include the following revisions: Program Revisions A. The total number of units has been reduced from 61 units to 60 units. The number of Below Market Rate (BMR) units has been reduced from 11 units to 10 units. B. Retail space has been reduced from approximately 1,800 square feet to approximately 1,400 square feet. C. The subterranean parking garage extends to the centerline of the alley, whereas the Council approved project extended the entire with of the alley. D. Four surface parallel parking spaces have been added at Lane 8 West (alley). E. Primary entries to the building have shifted from the Channing and Homer Avenue sides of the building to two locations at High Street. General Project Design Revisions F. The private courtyards at ground level and the average private open space for each residential unit (decks and porches) have increased as shown in Table 1. G. The roof plan has been revised from the Council approved plan that contained a mix of flat roofs and gable roofs with dormer elements to a primarily flat roof system with barrel roofs at the tallest portions of the building. Homer Avenue Changes H. The publicly accessible open space area has shifted to the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street, with primary orientation on Homer Avenue. As a result, the revised plan has reduced the retail building frontage along Homer Avenue. I.The maximum building height is unchanged at 35 feet. However, portions of the forth story residential building mass (extending to a height of 50’) are now located closer to the street (21 feet from Homer Avenue vs. 61 feet as shown on the Council approved plan). J.The roof plan introduces barrel roof features to the Homer Avenue streetscape, where none currently exist on other buildings along the streetscape. 800 High Street Page 2 K.The building entry/elevator tower has been removed from this side of the building and placed on High Street. High Street Changes L. The main building entrances have moved to the High Street side of the building, and as a result, new building features and fenestration have been introduced at this side. M. The public court near the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue has been shifted to Homer Avenue. N. The roof plan, as previously mentioned, introduces barrel roof features to the High Street streetscape, where none currently exist on other buildings in the area. The revised roof plan is more symmetrical along High Street than the previous plan. Channing Avenue Changes O. The massing at the southwest comer of the project, originally extending to a height of 50 feet, has been revised into three building volumes of 35 feet, 44 feet and 50 feet. P. The building entry/elevator tower has been removed from this side of the building and placed on High Street. As a result, the publicly accessible open space in this area has been reconfigured. The overall length of the space along Channing Avenue has been extended, but the width of the space has shortened by approximately four feet. Lane 8 West Changes Q. As a result of the increase in the private courtyard areas, the separation between building volumes along the alley have increased. The alley side of the building also reflects the changes to the massing at the comer of Channing Avenue and Lane 8 West. R. The roof of the trash/recycling/stairway tower has been changed from a gable roof form to a barrel roof. S. As previously mentioned, four parallel parking spaces will be located.along the alley. Table 1: Project Data Comparison: Council Approved Plan vs. February 20 Revisions Market Rate Units Below Market Rate Units Total Unit Configuration Maximum Unit Size Average Unit Size # Units over 1,500 sqft. 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 50 11 One 1BR Ten 2BR 61 1 unit 38 units 22 units 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 50 10 Four 1BR Four 2BR Two 3BR 60 4 units 38 units 18 units 1,702 sqft. _+1,300 sqft. 20 units 1,702 sqft. _+1,300 sqft. 22 units 800 High Street Page 3 Public Parking Spaces Private parking Spaces Total Subterranean Access to Alma St. (underground) 63 (underground) 138 (two parking levels) 201 All parcels along 800 block of Alma Street (underground and alley) 67 (underground) 134 (two parking level) 201 City parcel only Configuration Area A. High Street B. Channing/High +800 sqft. +850 sqft. A. Homer Plaza B. Channing Park +1,100 sqft. _+1,100 sqft. Extent of Below Grade Construction Entire width of alley To alley centerline Residential Retail Circulation Total _+79,000 _+1,900 ±16,000 ¯ +96,000(±2.3 FAR) _+79,000 _+1,400 ±13,000 ¯ +93,000(_+2.2 FAR) Level 1 Courtyards _+7,800 _+8,000 Residential Decks / Porches +70 _+97 (average per unit) DISCUSSION Completeness of Revised Plans As the revised plans were received on February 20, 2003, Planning Division staff has not completed a throughout review of the revisions and comments from City departments that would normally review projects have not been received. In addition, the plans do not contain necessary information that would result in a complete review and recommendation by the ARB to the Director of Planning and Cormmunity Environment. Staff recommends that the following additional information be included in the plans before a final recommendation is made: ¯Descriptions of specific colors, materials and finishes printed on the plans, referenced to the project’s materials sample board that is retained by the Planning Division in the project file. ¯Elevations that show details of windows, doors, eaves, skylights, chimneys, rain water leaders, roof equipment and screens, and all other appurtenances on the building exterior. ¯Bicycle parking plan that indicates compliance with PAMC requirements. 800 High Street Page 4 ¯A lighting plan that shall contain photometric drawings and catalog descriptions and details of proposed lighting fixtures. Condition of Approval Compliance The applicant has presented the revisions outlined above in response to the conditions of approval adopted by the City Council on February 3, 2003. The conditions direct the applicant to make revisions to achieve the following objectives: improve the public and private open space areas, reduce building volumes along Channing Avenue and improve compatibility between the project and neighboring properties. Condition #1 specifically states that floor area removed to reduce volumes shall not be placed in another area of the building. The applicant appears to have successfully reduced the building volumes at Channing Avenue; however, the resulting reduction in floor area is predominately shown as a smaller circulation area. The residential floor area remains essentially the same, even with the removal of one residential unit from the project. The applicant should demonstrate that the removal of floor area in one part of the building has not increased building volumes or floor area in another. Additional conditions of approval that shall be addressed before the final ARB review include: Condition #43. Submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site nmoffto the nearest adequate municipal storm drain system and to identify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. Homer Avenue Streetscape Staff requests that the ARB provide review and comment on the revisions to the Homer Avenue streetscape. The relationship between the project and the Homer Avenue streetscape has been an important consideration throughout the design review process. The City Council has approved the demolition of the existing Family Service Laundry building, a structure that is potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Places. The ARB and HRB recognized that that removal of the building would result in a change to the character of the streetscape. The applicant responded by incorporating design features and elements that recalled the Family Service Laundry building in the new structure, specifically, the length of the building facade and retail areas matched that of the existing building as did the proposed window system and fenestration patterns. The proposed design that incorporated these elements was eventually approved by City Council on February 3, 2003. In response to the City Council’s direction to improve the publicly accessible open spaces, the applicant has submitted revised plans revised plans that include revisions that will further affect the Homer Avenue streetscape (revisions H, I, J, and K described above). The length of the fagade along at Homer Street has been reduced to accommodate the open space area, which has originally oriented on High Street, In addition, residential building volumes have been moved 800 High Street Page 5 approximately 40 feet closer to Homer Avenue than in the approved plans. The introduction of barrel roofs introduces design elements that are not found along the streetscape. Although the revised plan appears to meet the Council’s opens space objectives, as a consequence, the traditional character of the Homer Avenue streetscape has suffered. The following is a discussion of the contextual elements that help to define Homer Avenue, which should be considered with the revisions to the project. Homer Avenue Context In recent years the avenue has taken on the character of a village main street with a strong natural component due to the influx of residential uses with front gardens, retail shops, restaurants, and offices that now occupy the modestly scaled early 20t~-century buildings. Three defining elements of the Homer Avenue streetscape--the continuous street wall, the modest building heights, and the harmonious roof forms--relate to the proposed project changes on Homer. An Outdoor Room The character of the three-block section of Homer Avenue on either side of the project site (between Ramona and Alma Streets) is defined less by individual buildings than by the strong sense of spatial enclosure created by the relatively continuous flat street wall along the south side of the avenue. This street wall may best be observed from the northwest comer sidewalk at Ramona and Homer (next to the sand-colored group oftownhouses) and from the front entrance of the grocery market on the north side of Homer between Emerson and High Streets. From these vantage points one sees that buildings of pronounced character occupy every comer along the south side of the street, and that these buildings are able to maintain the sense of a continuous street wall along Homer in spite of the breaks in the wall produced by cross streets. Although the south side street wall is also interrupted by a mid-block parking lot for the grocery market between Emerson and High, the hedges that separate the parking lot from the sidewalk are trimmed to resemble architectural elements and succeed in suggesting a street wall element between the buildings. While the sense of spatial enclosure is less defined on the north side of Homer Avenue, it is provided to some degree by the line of street trees, by white picket fences, hedges, and by the presence of buildings of strong character on every street comer between Ramona and Emerson streets. The north side street wall is interrupted by a mid-block plaza next to the grocery market that has succeeded in becoming a public gathering and meeting place. Although the plaza comprises several negative elements--there is inadequate seating, there is little landscaping, the buildings surrounding the plaza on three sides exhibit large stretches of blank wall, and most of the plaza is used as a parking lot--people still congregate there. The space possesses two critical characteristics of a successful plaza: the enclosure of the space on three sides by buildings and on the fourth side by a hedge gives it the feel of an outdoor room, and there is a clear contrast between the plaza and the street which further defines the space. In sum, the three blocks of 800 High Street Page 6 Homer between Ramona and the T-intersection at Alma have the character of an outdoor room that provides a comfortable sense of shelter, orientation, and safety that has proven attractive to pedestrians. Cons&tent Building Height The sense of spatial enclosure on Homer Avenue that produces the walkable character of the street is enhanced by the close similarity of building heights on the avenue between Ramona and Alma. With one exception no building is higher than 35 feet at the roof peak and nearly all range in height from 20 to 25 feet. The exception is the 50-foot high flat-roofed storage building at the comer of Homer and High. Tall buildings are currently uncommon in the Homer Avenue neighborhood. The small number that do exist are set back from the avenue by one block with the exception of the four-story single room occupancy building to the north on Alma Street which is set back from Homer Avenue by 100 feet. Consistent Roof Forms The higher the location of the architectural elements of a streetscape’s buildings, the more essential it is to the unity of the street that those elements be similar in character. Therefore, the continued cohesiveness of a street requires including the street’s established roof forms in tall new construction. The roof forms on Homer Avenue between Ramona and Alma are usually flat and sometimes gabled or hipped (while on Homer east of Ramona the roofs are usually gabled or hipped and only rarely flat). Several flat-roofed buildings on Homer west of Ramona are edged with stepped parapet walls. Mansard roofs, curved roof forms at high locations, barrel vaults (except for the grocery market’s entry structure), domes, gambrel roofs, and shed roofs at high locations do not occur on Homer Avenue. In summary, the continuous street wall, the sense of spatial enclosure, and the shared character of the architectural elements that compose the existing Homer streetscape define a whole that is greater than the parts, and this whole constitutes Homer Avenue’s sense of place. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this ARB review of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared and certified by City Council on February 3, 2003. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Planned Community Ordinance, adopted by City Council Attachment B: Draft Condition of Approval, adopted by City Council Attachment C: Plan Sets (ARB Members only) 800 High Street Page 7 COURTESY COPIES Applicant/Owner: Palo Alto High Street Parmers, LLC, 909 Alma Street, Palo Alto,94301 Woody Gontina, Gazelle, LLC, 1450 Veterans Blvd., Redwood City, CA 94063 Jon Worden, 512 Matheson Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448 Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ian Irwin, 800 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2813 Joe Yarkin, 152 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Pamela Christensen, 788 Clara Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Herb Borock, EO. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Marlene Pendergrast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 Steve Reyna, 840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Palo Alto, 94306 Irwin Dawid, 723 Alma Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Ole Christensen, 801 Alma Street, Palo Alto, 94301 Jean McCown, 1717 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, 94303 Prepared by: Manager Review: Steven Turner, Planner Amy French, Manager of Current Plannlng~ 800 High Street Page 8 Attachment G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27’ 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6, 2003 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING 800 High Street 102-PC-2]: Application by Curt Peterson and Doug Ross of High street Partners for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and community Environment of architectural and design changes to a previously approved project, as required in the adopted conditions of approval, including changes to the size and orientation of open space areas, reductions of building volumes, and changes to residential and commercial space configurations. Environmental Assessment: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared and certified by City Council on February 3, 2003. And with that, Steven, would you like to introduce the project. Steven Tumer. Planner: On February 3, 2003, the City Council certified the Final Economic Impact Report and adopted a resolution for the creation of a planned community district for the project known as 800 High Street. Based upon the development plan recommended by the ARB, the HRB, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and subject to the adopted conditions of approval. The City Council directed the applicant to revise the plans in the following manner: That the publicly accessible open space at the Homer Avenue/High Street intersection and at the Channing Avenue/High Street intersection should be expanded. The private and common open space area should also be expanded and improved. Number two, that the building height and volumes along Channing Avenue should be modified without increasing the volumes in other areas of the building to provide better compatibility with neighboring properties. The project that’s under review today is in response to Council’s direction. Staff’s original recommendation to the ARB is outlined in the staff report was to continue the review to allow City staff from the Fire, Public works, and Building departments to review the most recent plans and to allow the applicant to submit more detailed project information. The review by City departments has taken place, and the applicant has submitted additional information regarding the design details. This additional information will be presented by the applicant at today’s hearing. In addition, a photometric plan for the project has been placed at the ARB members’ tables, placed there this rooming. There’s also a staff memo that accompanied that describing the changes that have been made. 35 Staff has determined that the material submitted, along with the materials that the applicant 36 intends to bring to the hearing, are complete for the purposes of a final architectural review by 37 the ARB. As noted under the discussion section in the staff report, most of the items have been 38 addressed, and staff will continue to work with the applicant and other City staff during the 39 building permit process on technical issues. Therefore, the staff is changing our 40 recommendation from continuance to approval on the project. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 This is a minor project, and the applicant may have up to five minutes to address the ARB. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Lee. Lippert: Susan. Susan Eschweiler: Yes, I will have to step down on this item due to conflict. Lee. Lippert: Thank you, Susan. And I just want to point out for members of the public, there is copies out there of an addendum to the staff report, correct? Steven Turner: That’s right, that’s at the table. Lee Lippert: Okay, great. And I should state for the record that I’ve been contacted by the applicant. And I should also state that I’ve received numerous e-mails regarding 800 High Street, both from, actually from the applicant as well as from members of the public. And just to state my own personal policy, because of the recent flap over e-mails, unless e-mails go through stafffirst and they’re made part of the public record, I do not read those e-mails. Those e-mails are immediately deleted and I send a reply to the sender letting them know that the e-mail has been deleted. So that’s my own personal policy. So with that, I guess we have a presentation. Doug, are you going to make the presentation today? Doug. Ross: Doug Ross of Palo Alto High Street Partners, 909 Alma. Given the time limitations, I’m going to turn the presentation over to John Warden, our architect, and Bruce Jett, our landscape architecture. Thank you. Jon Warden: I’m John Warden, architect for the project. We have two models before you. This is the one you saw at the most recent time that you have seen it, and this is the revised model that we’re proposing today. I’d just like to quickly talk about how we’ve tried to respond to the Council and the Planning Commission’s criteria for revision of the project. First and foremost... Lee Lippert: John, hold on a moment. I’m going to come down, only because... Jon Warden: Want me to move the model somewhere else? Lee Lippert: Well, they’re kind of far away from me. My eyesight isn’t that good. I’m just going to come down there. Jon Warden: First, the Homer Street public open space plaza which formerly was between the Homer portion of the building and the primary portion of the building in this small courtyard here has been moved out to the outward side to make it more publicly accessible, and so the Homer Plaza is now out at the outer edge of the building. City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Secondly, in response to concems about daylight plane issues with the protrusions of the building above the daylight plane - there’s certain places where it interrupted the daylight plane - we’ve tried to minimize those, turn the roof forms rather than having them projecting frontwards, gable front to the street, to wrap them down towards the street using the curved roof clear stories. That also allows us to get light and ventilation into the high volumes of the upper level living rooms all the way along and was originally a reflection of the clear stories in the historic building at the comer of Homer and High. Third, the elevator towers, in an attempt to move the mass of the building towards the center, rather than having elevator and stair towers at either end, we’ve moved the elevators to central locations within each half of the Homer and High building with the idea that now the primary public entrance to each half of the building is centered in each half of the building. The primary public entrance are those two points - come in, go up the elevator and onto the catwalk system that feeds the rest of the units themselves. We were asked to incorporate more roof decks. We’ve tried to do that. In a stacked townhouse locations around the building, we were asked to reduce the mass of the building at the Channing comer where formerly the building went to full height adjacent to the hardware store. So we’ve dropped the mass there using a townhouse over a flat configuration. We were also asked to have the BMR program reflect more the actual program for the units so that there’s a range of BMR unit sizes, and that has been done as well. On the alley side we’ve tried to reduce the mass of the trash tower element by moving the primary stairs that go to the roof to either end of the building and having only the secondary stair next to the trash tower. That allows us to reduce the trash tower itself and create more open space around it to create more of a strong break at the center of the project. So I think I’ll stop there and let Brace Jett, the landscape architect, talk the plazas. Brace Jett. Landscape Architect: Good morning. I’m Brace Jett with Bruce Jett Associates, landscape architects. I have some detailed drawings that I’d like to bring up for you to look at, or if we had an easel I’d set them up here. Shall I pass them around? Lee Lippert: There’s actually an easel that you can set up. 29 Bruce Jett: In the interest of time I’d like to focus on the comer plazas for you, starting with 30 Homer and High Street. This is the detailed plan and some section elevations illustrating what 31 you have in your packets as our design proposed for this comer. Starting from the comer is a 32 wide-open space. To activate the comer we have a small fountain and a seat wall bench that 33 allows people to orient themselves either inward towards this courtyard or outwards towards the 34 street, all designed to be at a very nice pedestrian scale and help scale this project at that comer. 35 Additionally we’ve continued to provide screening and in some cases we have more screening of 36 the building with planters up against it here that’ll both have benefits for the residents as well as 37 the public from both High Street and Homer. Continuing with this open public space, moves 38 into a street caf6 style arrangement open enough, oriented towards retail so that we can get - we 39 have four person caf6 tables and four three-person cafe" tables there. We took advantage of the City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 fact that the retail is shifted back to create this kind of space and orient people both towards retail here as well as out to the street so that this is a much more open and appealing comer. We also have continued to keep the two existing street trees there and added a third up towards lane 8. 5 Lee Lippert: Okay, thank you. We’ll have some questions. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Bruce Jett: Do I leave these right here? Lee Lippert: Yes, you can just leave them right there. Judith, you want to begin? Judith Wasserman: Okay. While you’re here, why don’t I ask my landscaping questions. Are those caf~ tables going to be open to the public, or are they going to have a sign that says, "for caf~ patrons only"? Bruce Jett: To my knowledge they will not have a sign limiting their use to caf~ patrons only. Judith Wasserman: Good. And then we saw this great video on public plazas just the other day. This seat wall turns out to be the perfect thing. Is that vertical rectangle also a seat wall, or is that a planter? Bruce Jett: This here? Judith Wasserman: No, that one, the darker one. Bruce Jett: It is a planter. It’s going to be high enough that people could sit on it, but not as comfortably as they would with a seat wall. We’re fighting - we’re right on the property line here. We want to make sure we’re providing enough space for the caf~ tables and circulation in and out. Judith Wasserman: Okay, so it’s going to be planted but it’s going to have a wide enough ledge that you could sort of perch. Bruce Jett: You could perch there, certainly, on both sides. Judith Wasserrnan: Has the landscaping of the interior courtyards changed since our last review as part of this redesign? Bruce Jett: The courtyards are very lively here, been enlivened by the fact that they got a little bit bigger. One courtyard is oriented such that there’s an entrance to the units that are above the retail there. They got bigger and we took advantage of the fact that we made them more garden- like in many ways. In my opinion they’re better than they were before, even - more garden space, they’re not so oriented towards the backs here. Working with the architects with the fenestrations and metalwork and gates and things like that across here, we’ve taken advantage of those opportunities. Each one still has a fountain, and we have more planting in there. City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 Judith Wasserman: The water features are pretty much the same as they were before? They were all different from each other, and they’re still different from each other? Bruce Jett: They’re still different from each other. The designs have changed to a certain extent, but they continue to use natural rock materials with water and more sculptural in fact, I think, than the past. Judith Wasserman: Great. And the Channing plaza, has that changed? Did that have a seat wall? I don’t remember very well what it had before. Bruce Jett: Actually, this changed I think in some other very nice ways. For one thing, we have more room moving along Channing. Judith Wasserman: Can you put it on the easel, Amy? Bruce Jett: Can the seat come up a little here? Judith Wasserman: Put it on the easel. It’s a little higher. Lee Lippert: Move it back. I think it’ll be fine. Judith Wasserman: If members of the public want to see it, there’s no rule that says they can’t come and look. Bruce Jett: What we’ve done here on the Charming plaza is we added.space. It got longer as it faces Channing. We increased the size of the planting area so that we have more of a garden-like feel along the edge here. And all along this edge is actually a bench-type seat wall, as well as adding into this oval feature another larger seat wall as well that continues that same elliptical sweep around there. Currently I’m envisioning both as having a wood seating area out of some very nice teak or something that’ll hold up to the weather and look very elegant. Judith Wasserman: Epee. Bruce Jett: Epee. I’m sorry, not teak. However, we wanted to soften that so that you’re not asked to sit necessarily on a concrete thing, but it wants to feel more comfortable over time and age and all that. Judith. Wasserman: Great, okay. So the courtyards are bigger. Okay, thank you; those are all my landscape questions. I have a couple of architectural questions for Mr. Warden. One question has to do with the BMRs and their location in the building. It appeared to me from the floor plans that they were all clustered together. Is that customary? Jon Warden: There’s some in this stack and there’s some in this stack, and there’s some here. Judith Wasserman: Okay, so they’re not clustered. Jon Warden: Well, they’re clustered in the sense that because we’re dealing in stacked flats, like units need to be on top of like units. It’s hard to have different things on top of different things. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Judith Wasserrnan: But that’s a vertical cluster. It’s not a horizontal cluster. Okay, I get it. Alright, thank you. And the other question that I had has to do with the Homer Street elevation and the formerly existing historical building. In your previous design you had a very creative and interesting response to the historical building. How has that changed? What is your response to that building in this current plan? Jon Warden: The primary changes that we move the plaza from the interior to the exterior. Consequently the building that’s along Homer Street is much shorter. It’s half as long as it used to be. In terms of the way the building is configured - trying to hold the strong cornice line that relates to the height of the historic building, working with the painted signs, trying to maintain the industrial sash and opening size that relates to the opening size that are on the historic building, keeping the building limited to 35 feet in height, and trying to reflect the general simple commercial character of the other buildings along Homer Street - those things are all the same, the difference being that the Homer Street building used to be as long as the historic building and now it’s not because the plaza is out to the corner. Judith. Wasserman: So your use of the proportions of the openings and ali that hasn’t changed. It’s just the building has gotten smaller. Jon Warden: That’s the same as it was before. Judith Wasserman: Great. Jon Warden: The proportions, the window types, the types of signage, those things are the same. Judith Wasserman: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. Lee Lippert: Drew. Judith Wasserman: I’m sorry, I’m supposed that I did hear from the applicant on the phone. Drew Maran: I also talked with the applicants at various times. John, can you sum up the changes on the building materials from the last time we saw it to this time? Jon. Warden: The building materials have remained the same as they were before. The materials board I think is up there somewhere. It’s a steel frame building now. I think that is a change from the last time that we talked. Not that that is expressed on the exterior, but it is a reflection of the quality of construction that we’re hoping to have. It’s stucco walls, the various colors of stucco are indicated with the adjacent trim color. The trim color is that color that’s weaving things back together again. The stucco itself, try to break the building up into its individual house forms as we talked about before. The window frames and the metal railings and the metal trellis elements at the top of the building are reflected in the two metal colors that are on the upper row of the little squares. And on the lower row is the stone face type that we’re going to be using for the stone face tiles that run along the base of the building, forming the planters themselves. They’re pre-cast concrete tops on top of all of the planter walls, forming a wainscot around the base of the building above where the planter adjoins the building itself, pre-cast sills when we have the projecting sills. And the pre-cast colors are also indicated on the materials board. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 6 1 We’re also using a flush trim detail where it’s a regularly defined trim with a contrasting color 2 and texture in certain locations. We’ve tried to vary the detailing a little bit based on - there’s 3 this "building type" with the trellis cornice that’s more of the historic building type. It happens 4 at the Homer side, and it now happens also at the Channing side. It picks up on the other side of 5 the building opposite itself on the corner adjacent to Larry’s Hardware Store. And that has fully 6 trimmed windows, the strong cornice band, the industrial sash-type base on the street front. 7 Then there’s a slight differentiation in the way the window trim is taking place and in the way 8 the trellises and things are handled between the clear story curved roof kind of buildings and the 9 corner, stacked townhouse type of buildings. Minor variations in how the window trim is 10 handled. We’re using banded window situation here, trying to create a window wall that wraps 11 around the corner. Here we’re dealing with individual windows that are dealing with the regular 12 trim around the perimeter. Standing seam metal roofs, built-up roof elsewhere. We’re still dealing with the solar panels on the flat roofs. Metal rails, flat bar at the top, steel rod fiat bar verticals. The cornice trellis are rectangular steel members, larger at the outside, smaller towards the inside, held up by brackets that are made of angle iron and flat plate. That’s all I can think of at the moment. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Lee. Lippert: At what point would you be standing and you would be able to see the curved roofs? Jon. Warden: Well, part of the reason for choosing the curved roofs is to minimize their profile from the street so that when they’re seen from below the roof curves away. And in order to get the clear story windows, rather than have a shed which would end in a point which would project up higher, the curved roof has the roof receding away as you look at it from a head on standpoint. So standing across High Street the roof would have less of a profile than if it were a straight shed. But certainly, standing across High Street here you’d see the curved roof in profile. And looking down High Street here you’d see the curved roof in straight on elevation. Lee Lippert: There’s no way, standing on the property or at the sidewalk surrounding the property, that you’d actually see any of the roof. Wouldn’t you just see eaves? Jon Warden: Predominantly, I think you’d see eaves. Obviously, if you get far enough away you’d be able to see some roof. But I think for the most part the roofs are not going to be... Lee Lippert: Isn’t it about 35 feet from grade to the underside of the eaves? Jon Warden: Yes, even a little bit more than that. It’s 35 feet to the top of this piece. Lee Lippert: So has this changed at all the shading studies that were done? Jon Warden: We have redone the shading studies, and they have changed in the sense that we are significantly lower at each end of the building. And the break between the buildings here is less blocked by any mass at this location. And our general profile all the way along the street is less because we don’t have as many projecting head-on elements coming out to the street. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Lee Lippert: I guess there are several different features to shading. One would be the extent to which natural light is allowed into the living units. How is that affected by the changes in the shape of the building? Jon Warden: Well contrary to here where essentially the roofscape was a roofscape, we tried to give the roofscape maybe a little more meaning that it had before and to incorporate, where we do have the sloped roof elements, to incorporate those in such a way that they are actually functioning clear stories with operable windows at the backside, bringing light into the upper level living rooms primarily. The volume of the curve is expressed on the inside of the house, and then there are clear story windows at the high end on each side. Lee Lippert: And another part of shading would be that the shade that it casts on the surrounding streets and buildings, how if at all does that change with this new configuration? Jon Warden: Well I think the lowering of the profile helps somewhat. If you look at the shading studies, obviously in the wintertime when the sun is low, everything is shaded. And I think one of the things, if I were to do it again, I would also show the shadows on the adjacent buildings in the shading studies rather than just showing the shadows here and you would be able to see that even very short buildings across the street for instance, are casting very long shadows in the worst case time. But we are able to get sunlight onto High Street in both the morning obviously and in the afiemoon for the bulk of the year. And then by breaking the building up in terms of its mass and lowering the ends, we’re able to get sun into the comer sections and into the center of the block as well. Lee Lippert: Is there any change to the sustainability program that was part of the last approval? Jon Warden: No, we are still conforming to that. The one minor change is that we’re using another checklist other than the leads checklist which is primarily designed for commercial buildings. We’re using a checklist that’s been developed out of Boulder, Colorado called the Built Green Checklist which is specifically designed for residential buildings. I have a copy of that if you’d like it. I brought it along. And that’s what we’re using as we’re going through the design development. It’s a point system similar to the lead system. And in addition to that it’s a reminder system at each phase in the project’s development of things that could be considered at this particular point. I found in my practice that often it’s one of those things where you look at some list of wonderful things to do and you think - Oh, man, I could have done that, but I didn’t think of it at the time. So this particular checklist I find very helpful in that regard. Lee Lippert: Yeah, I believe that was mentioned in the last application or review. The retail space went down from 1800 to 1400 square feet, is that right? Jon Warden: Yes it did. There’s been a whole series of neighborhood concems. Obviously you’re aware of them. There are a group of people, Oli in particular, who felt very strongly that there shouldn’t be any retail at all because it relates to surface parking. And then there were other people that felt that there should be more retail. The plaza itself shrunk the potential retail on the Homer Street portion, but we try to keep it large enough so that it’s still viable as a retail space and yet doesn’t compete for parking as much as a.larger space would be. In addition to that, on the alley side, there are four parallel parking spaces in addition to the two levels of a City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 garage, one of which is largely public. But there are four parallel parking spaces here, here, and then on the opposite side that would be available as well as retail space off the alley. Lee Lippert: What’s the change if any on the underground parking in terms of the extent to which it exceeds the property lines of the property? Jon. Warden: Well I think since we met the last time the determination was made that while the surface is held as public right-of-way the underground portion of the land, ownership goes to the centerline of the alley. So the garage extends now only to the centerline of the alley to the actual official property line of the property. So it extends halfway through the alley. In addition to that the building is set back five feet from the surface property line as well, expanding the alley width by five additional feet all the way along the alley. The garage extends underneath the sidewalk out on the High Street front out. Lee Lippert: Within three feet of the curb? Jon Warden: Yes. So three feet back from the curb. This allows us to get continuous street trees with real roots and real dirt out at the edge of the sidewalk. Lee Lippert: On that point, legally could you have extended the parking garage any further under the city sidewalk? Jon Warden: There are precedents for it going all the way to the edge. Lee Lippert: And you chose not to just for the street trees? Jon Warden: For the street trees, yes. Lee Lippert: And are there any other areas where the underground parking has been shaped so as to allow full height trees to grow? Jon Warden: Around the public perimeter of the project, obviously that has been done. But internally, all of the trees are happening within their own life support in planters. There are 30- inch deep planters all the way around the perimeter at minimum. Sometimes they’re higher than that. There’s also a significant planter over the top of the garage entry drive as you come down into the building where we hope to get a really good, strong major tree with the idea that you’re kind of going down into the underworld underneath the street. Lee Lippert: The underworld? Did you say the underworld? Jon Warden: The underworld. Lee Lippert: Is that a feature of this project we haven’t heard about yet? Jon Warden: I’m reading The Odyssey with my son. Lee Lippert: How big will that tree above the parking ramp, is that likely to grow 30-40 feet, or is it essentially a bush that gets contained at 12-15 feet? City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Jon Warden: We selected an Acern Agundo which is a native known for growing in the canyons throughout northern California and into the mountain regions. With 30 inches of soil I think we’re actually, by mounting up, we’re going to be over three feet of soil which is where 90 percent of a root’s mass normally occurs. We’re encouraged by having that much to work with. Normally over structures you rarely get up to that height. So we’re hoping that this tree will exceed 20 feet and with the right maintenance, soil conditions and all that, we could see it get as high as perhaps 30. Lee Lippert: Thank you. John, just to wrap it up. The colors on the exterior - how have they changed from our last review? Jon Warden: I must say I can’t remember exactly what we brought to you the last time because there’ve been so many meetings. Lee Lippert: It was only a month ago. Jon Warden: There was a time when we were trying to tone the colors down and temper them down, and this model reflects that. And it was recommended to us, I think by you, but it may have been somebody else, that we went back to the brighter colors as originally proposed in the first of the models. And the colors on the color board and the colors on this model reflect that brighter pallet. Lee Lippert: I’m not sure how to ask this question, but would the project team be amenable to considering color changes as they near completion? In other words, some shade adjustments, stuff like that, to... Jon Warden: Yes. In fact I think Lee Lippert: But how do we do that? This is a question to staff really. Is there such a thing as doing this similar to what we just did on the previous project with Hyatt where we asked them to conform but we actually hold up a pre-existing sample. Steven Turner: You could add a condition very similar to the condition you added to the Hyatt senior housing project where you could convene a meeting of the ARB out at the project site to review sample colors on the building. That would be appropriate. Jon Warden: We actually would like to do a field mock-up, and I’m sure you would agree that it’s awfully to choose colors months, years in advance underneath fluorescent light and everything else. So I feel it’s only with a field mock-up that you can actually finalize colors. And I would be more than happy to involve the ARB in helping with the selection. Lee Lippert: I’ll bet the stucco sub will love that one. That’s all the questions I have. Drew Maran Okay, I’ve got a couple of questions. Steven, in the staff report it indicates that the retail space is being cut from 1900 to 1400 but in the applicant’s documents it says 1800. Steven Turner: In the staff report it’s plus or minus 1900. I think their previous retail space was 1843 or -63 or something like that, so it was kind of rounded up. City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 Drew Maran: Okay, and represents a reduction of approximately 25% in the retail, correct, if I do my math correct? 3 Steven Turner: Yes, I would agree with that. 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Drew Maran: Okay. I have a question for Doug I guess. Doug, what precipitated the decision to move the retail space next to Oli’s as opposed to moving it in and making it where the first unit on High Street is? Dou~ Ross: Let me see ifI understand the question. Going back to our previous design over here where we had the... Drew Maran: You had the retail right on the corner and it’s like a game of chess. You could either move it back in one direction or to the side in the other direction. What was behind the decision to move it back towards Oli’s versus indenting it in down High Street? Dou~ Ross: Well, the Planning Commission was fairly direct in their desire to have the plaza at the corner as opposed to where we had it. So that was the large driving force for us. My associate Mr. Rapp over there had it there originally. I think people liked that, and that’s why we brought it back to that location. And we got the impression that the Council also desired that. So we were following their direction. Lee Lippert: John, did you want to say something about that? 18 Jon Warden: I think it’s really a holdover from where it was before. But where it was before was 19 determined because the desire was expressed early on that Homer be maintained as a retail street, 20 that retail functions continue to happen on Homer. That’s why the retail ended up on the Homer 21 frontage. And then as we pulled the building back in the retail remained on Homer. So it’s 22 really a holdover really from the way it was before. We didn’t have deliberate discussions of 23 should it go here, or should it go there. 24 25 26 27 Lee Lippert: My line of questioning is where that retail space is located really dictates the function of the plaza. And so I’m trying to get an understanding of how that plaza is going to work in conjunction with the retail space. You show some tables and chairs in the plaza area. But the connection between the two is very, very narrow. 28 Jon Warden: Well, there’s several things that affect it. Yes, it is very narrow. Part of what we 29 were trying to do is make sure that the plaza felt public and open. One of the concerns that was 30 expressed before was that the plaza had essentially been privatized and was a private space 31 masquerading as a public space. And so by putting it out on the corner it was a commitment to 32 keeping it open. And by minimizing the actual retail frontage onto the plaza it was a 33 commitment to keep the retail from dominating the plaza itself so fully that it really became the 34 retail’s open space rather than the public’s open space. So that was part of the discussions. 35 There’s nothing to say that the retail couldn’t be here or here. On this other side of the building 36 we have a stacked townhouse on top of flats in this same location. I think it’s just a question of 37 whether, as you walk down Homer, especially once the underpass and things are there, do we 38 want to maintain the frontage itself as a public space or as a private space which it would be if it 39 were a residence. City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Lee Lippert: Would you be - I guess I have to ask Doug because it’s not your building - Well, you are the architect and it is your building, but it’s not your building. Doug, would you entertain the retail space being the first unit on High Street? Is that a possibility? Doug Ross: Well, over the last 14 months anything’s been a possibility. And we may want to defer this question to the HRB, but I believe the HRB believes strongly that the memory we’ve held here to the old laundry building and that scale is important to stay on Homer, and that’s why we’ve kept the retail there. I think Homer is a much more traveled street than High is and with that underpass John was referring to, it’ll become more so hopefully. It’ll be kind of a gateway to this part of town. We could study it, but I think our preference is to keep it on Homer for a variety of reasons. Larry just reminded me that the primary garage entrance, the public entrance to the public level of the garage and the elevator that serves it is this far door immediately adjacent to the alley. So that’s the primary public entrance to the garage which publicizes that segment of Homer, too. Lee Lippert: Yeah, that was going to be my next question which is I was noticing that that elevator lobby is kind of far from the public plaza. Is there a way to bring it up closer to where the public plaza is? Doug Ross: Well, I guess for us it was a matter of- unless we did move the retail to where you’re suggesting we move it, that would then cut the retail off from the plaza itself. So the reason we have it here is it actually works well in the garage because that’s in a comer as opposed to in the middle of a run. But also it still allows the retail space to relate to the plaza. And I don’t think - it’s not that far and we hope that the public parking is actually serving this whole segment of Homer, these adjacent businesses as well as the grocery store and others. 23 Lee Lippert: Did you look at all at having any kind of stairs that came up near the plaza so 24 people park here in City Hall, they’re one level down and they can walk up the stairs. 25 Doug Ross: Well there is an open stair with light, windows at this comer. Having it at the comer 26 allowed us to have the windows. So we’re trying to keep the stairs as light and open as possible 27 so that people would feel that they could use the stairs safely and they didn’t feel dependent on 28 the elevator. There’s also a similar situation adjacent to the Harbor store on the opposite comer 29 where there’s a public entrance to the garage with a lighted stair going down. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Lee Lippert: Okay, well I’ll continue with my other questions. In your packet you show several arched openings. Where are those occurring on the building? Doug Ross: They are only in two places, some right here at the two public entrances to the building, these two protruding elements. Lee Lippert: Did you look at including those elsewhere on the building? Doug Ross: Originally, when we first brought it to you, actually there were more arches in the building and we were I think gently reminded not to be too historical, referring back to the Spanish revival tradition in the town and that this was a contemporary building in a City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 contemporary location and should reflect that. So we once had more arches and now we have fewer, and we’ve used them to dignify the two primary public entrances to the building. Lee Lippert: Okay. And on the rectilinear forms, the ones that are not punctuated by a quarter- barreled roof... Doug Ross: These guys? Lee Lippert: Yes - or the ones that have the trellage element that comes around it. How are you ending or terminating the parapet wall there? Doug Ross: There’s a little detail of the parapet wall at the cornice trellises. I’ve tried to use those at the lower elevations, and they would be seen from the corner up so that it gives a crown to the top. These two towers, we wanted a vertical emphasis, something to break up the fagade itself, but we didn’t want to give it too much emphasis, and so we tried to keep them simple. So they just sheet up to the sky and end as a simple box. Lee Lippert: So there’s not going to be any cornice or detailing around there? Doug Ross: Right now there’s no cornice. There’s a parapet wall obviously, but there’s no cornice. Lee Lippert: So it’s going to be just a straight shot up? Doug Ross: That’s the way it is right now, yes. Lee Lippert: Very blunt. Doug Ross: And the idea was complexity, simplicity, slightly more complex, a little bit simpler, more complex - to have this rhythm of more complicated, more simple, more squat, more vertical as you go along the street. And so it just felt best- and it’s certainly not the only way it could be obviously - but it just felt best to keep that relatively simple so that it was a vertical emphasis that didn’t call a lot of attention to itself. Lee Lippert: Can you point out the terminuses for your elevator towers, are they shown on your model? Doug Ross: They’re actually not on the model, but there would be a box right here. It comes up about three feet off, four feet off the top. We’re using an elevator with a side mechanism. Lee Lippert: And what about your roof screens for mechanical? How are they going to be... Doug Ross: There’s a three-foot parapet - contrary to the way the roof of the model looks, it’s just the way we built it, but there’s a three-foot parapet wall all the way around all the flat roofs with the exception of the two lower sections where we got the 3 5-foot height limit at either end. There the parapet wall is lower. And the mechanical will be screened by that and by the clear story towers. If additional screening is necessary, we’d certainly do it. City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Lee Lippert: And I’d asked the question I guess months ago on the alley side where you have the roll-up doors. What are you proposing? Doug Ross: You had asked for a more residential looking door, and we are willing to do that. It isn’t reflected in the model but I do have it in my notes and I do remember it. Lee Lippert: So it’s not going to be one of those... Doug Ross: It’s not a roll-up mechanical metal door. Lee Lippert: Okay, great. Okay, those are all my questions. Any follow-up questions? Okay, seeing none, we’ll return to the public - this is the time when members of the public may speak to this item. You have three minutes. And the first speaker I have is Beth Bunnenberg. Beth Bunnenberg: May I request that that be taken down, please. Thank you. Hello, I’m Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street. Today I’m not able to speak to you for the entire HRB because we have not had any opportunity to review this plan that you’re looking at today. And Chair Berenstein is unable to be here. So I’m speaking as an individual member of the HRB. But I’d like to review with you some principles that led to the design of that December 12 plan that we did approve. Now then, the newspaper notice says this is a minor hearing. The changes to the comer of Hamilton and High are not minor at all. Our two boards worked for a long time to reach a compromise, an understanding, for the building that is on the older model. You’ve talked about it’s 35 feet high and its horizontal length that related to the old building. Now then, suddenly we have a new design which neither of our boards have reviewed. In the past I’ve been impressed by Mr. Warden’s patience and creativity in responding to design problems. But this design has some very definite problems. First of all, the historic footprint of the family service laundry is lost. It’s chopped in half. The height of the setback is lost. This new plaza has a 50-foot building much closer to the street than it was before. It’s hard to calculate, but it looks like maybe a 35-foot distance now from the curb. You reach a 50-foot building whereas in the old plan it was about 61 feet. Suddenly there’s no transition height building in between the street and this tall portion. Also it is a long, narrow plaza so that the whole block of the building is closer to the street. We have also the barrel vaulted roof which was never seen as far as I know in earlier designs. As you know, a barrel vault presents a bigger volume. Now then if you’re looking down Homer street and looking at this building, you do see the volume of that curved roof. It is much more than a gable or a flat roof. The plaza - please let me complete this part - the plaza is on a cold, dark, windy comer. Are we creating another one of those in Palo Alto? It was just advised to revise to improve the quality and quantity of open space. In that wonderful video, at least they talked about a plaza which was between two buildings and therefore was protected from wind, from street dust, from track noise. It is possible to have a plaza as it was in the old model, more open but still protected. And neither of those are going to get much sun. So I hope that you will consider more return. Thank you. Lee Lippert: Thank you, Beth. The next speaker is Bob Moss followed by Lynn Chiapella. City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Bob Moss: Thank you. I will say, this design has some improvements over the old one, but it 2 still is seriously lacking. And if you look at the staff report, on pages 6 and 7, it gives you the 3 context and why this one misses the boat badly. I’ll just quote. "Consistent roof forms. The 4 higher the location oft he architectural elements of a streetscapes building the more essential it is 5 to the unity of the street that those elements be similar in character. Continued cohesiveness of 6 the street requires including the street’ s established roof forms in tall, new construction." Roof 7 forms on Homer between Ramona and Almar are usually fiat, sometimes gabled or hipped. 8 Several fiat roof buildings on Homer west of Ramona are edged with steep parapet walls. 9 Mansard roofs, curved roof forms and high locations and barrel vaults, domes, gambled roof and 5 0 shed roofs do not occur on Homer. Now they want to put it on here. A 50-foot building with a 11 curved roof is completely inappropriate. The two end buildings which are 50-feet tall should be 5 2 reduced to 35 feet and the roof should be fiat. And if this happens to reduce the total FAR of the 5 3 project, tough. There’s no reason to allow them to garbage up a historic district by putting in an 14 inappropriate design which is not correct for the neighborhood and for the community. There’s 5 5 no reason to have that roof size and that roof form in this area. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 Second, the overall relationship of the buildings to the neighborhood as Beth commented on is inappropriate. The plaza is larger, but it’s not going to be as useful or as friendly because of where it’s located. It should be sheltered. And in relation to the French laundry it would be perfectly possible and practical to take the existing building, modify it and make it a retail building and preserve most of the existing elements. I’ve seen that done in a number of cities around the world. There’s no reason why they can’t take the building, modify it, and make it work as a good retail site. The only reason for not doing it is money. They don’t want to spend a few dollars extra to give us a quality product and to preserve the historic building. So it’s not a question of design problems, it’s not a question of compatibility, it’s not a question of practicality. It’s pure bucks. And the ARB and the City should not be worrying about whether or not a developer makes more profit. And if he does make more profit, garbages up our community. So I urge you to insist on high quality design and something that’s compatible with what we have there today. Thank you. Lee Lippert: Thank you, Bob. Lynn Chiapella followed by Karen Holman. Lynn Chiapella: Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue. This to me is an improvement over the original building I saw some months or years ago, I can’t remember how many. And my concerns though are with public space, with public parking, and particularly with the retail parking. There’s only seven spaces for the retail, part of which is a caf~. So all seven spaces will go just for employees in caf~ alone. That’s very little parking. So are the four alley spaces public parking, street parking, for people to get in and out easily if they want to do a quick errand over there or make a quick stop? And on the public spaces, will they be marked in a way where from the street and below, the public knows they can use those, whether for retail parking, or is the City going to do a restriction. I can’t really figure out how the public is going to be notified these are public spaces. The next is I couldn’t determine the sidewalk width. And with massive 50-foot high buildings, I think you need to have some feeling of safety. I don’t feel safe on a little skinny sidewalk with a Ci& of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 huge mass of building looming over me, particularly when it’s in shadows or shade much of the day. 3 And the last thing I have is on the public open space and the public benefits. As you well know, 4 many of our public benefits disappear within the year - for example, a public plaza with a washing machine lady fountain. There’s no public plaza there as you well know. That public 6 plaza disappeared within a year. There’s nowhere to seat the public. There’s no way to even see 7 the fountains or the sculptures. The seats, when it’s too narrow, as you know, the tables get 8 pushed into the "public area," and the public can no longer access it. And it seems to me that if 9 you do not have a wide, spacious looking area that’s inviting to the public without looking like a 10 private area, this occurs more and more. It certainly has occurred in Palo Alto in live/work 1 1 spaces, in public plazas. There is no public area. So I urge you to take a look at the height of the 12 seat, the space the public always has access to without being crowded by retail or cafes or 13 whatever, pushing further and further into what is at this meeting and in the ordinance called 14 "public," because most of that turns into private space within a one year period. Thank you. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Lee Lippert: Thank you, Lynn. Karen Holman. Karen Holman: Good morning. Karen Holman, 725 Homer. I didn’t come planning to speak this morning, but then there you go. I’m also speaking as an individual, too, but with background on both the working group and on the Planning and Transportation Commission. I concur actually with some of the comments, and I haven’t even had a chance to read the staff report. I just skimmed through a little bit of it. I concur with several of the comments that Beth Bunnenberg made and some of the comments that Lynn Chiapella made about the comer plaza. Also, I don’t understand how this could be a minor review either, because this is the first time you have seen this model. It hasn’t come to you before. It also was not what was before the Planning Commission, and we review the project. The previous solution on Homer, based on working group and actually previous Planning Commission and working group recommendations, the previous solution on Homer was a much better solution with the 35-foot building there that did reflect the streetscape much better. The comer plaza, at the Planning Commission I did suggest that we still consider the interior plaza because the comer plaza I think does not relate at all to the streetscape of Homer Avenue. Some comments have been made previously about how it’s in shadow. That’s tree; the previous plaza would have been more like an outdoor room. And Ms. Wasserman and I were both at the public space viewing of the video the other day, and it talks about how people need to feel protected. There needs to be plenty of seating space, I know you’re going to address that. On the drawings over there at least, there are a lot of plants spilling over edges of the seating space, and that doesn’t work. People don’t go there. If this public space was off Homer and behind that original building that was there, people will find that space. Especially with such a shortage in this area, people find places to gather and collect. There’s a place - actually I think it’s Ideo on High Street above Homer on the west side of the street - that they use for their own purposes, and it actually acts as a pocket park for them, and it’s just some grass and some tables and it’s a great space. It could be designed better, but it’s a great space. City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 And the other thing about the plaza now being on the comer is that Homer Avenue now has this affront, if you will, and it’s an affront because it is Homer Avenue. And this 50-foot building, it appears with a 50-foot building at Homer. And again, that’s just so contrary to what both the working group and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended. I think those are my comments, and thank you very much. 6 Lee Lippert: Thank you, Karen. If there are any other members of the public that wish to speak 7 to this item, you may do so at this time. Okay. Seeing none, I will return to the board for 8 comments and action. Judith, why don’t you begin. Judith Wasserman: I’d like to ask just two questions before I make my comments. One is, how wide is the sidewalk on High Street at its narrowest point. Jon Warden: At its narrowest point it’s 14 feet wide. There’s a three-foot planter strip where the trees are, a six-foot sidewalk, and then a five-foot planter area. So the setback from the building at its narrowest point is 14 feet. Judith Wasserman: But the actual walking space is six feet? Jon Warden: It’s six feet, yes. Judith Wasserman: Okay. And how wide is the plaza from the building to the sidewalk? Jon Warden: Thirty-three. Judith Wasserman: So the setback of the tall building from Homer Street is 33 feet? Jon Warden: Yes. And we’ve tried to mitigate that somewhat by stepping down the tall building with the roof deck at that one comer. But it is a five-story elevation visible from Homer. Judith Wasserman: Okay, thank you. I’m not sure where to begin, because I think that this project has gotten so many mixed messages, especially about this comer. Everything else seems to be sort of okay and yeah, there are some issues about the roof forms and stuff. But this comer - nobody can really decide on what to do with it. Some people think that the historic building should remain there and some people think we should have a public plaza, and some people think if we put the plaza between the two buildings it’ll be fine and it’ll be public, and some people say no, it won’t be fine and it’ll be private. And I think basically, it comes down to us to make that decision. Nobody has reported on what the Council has said, so this has come back to us for approval because the Council has approved the PC and now we’re supposed to approve the architecture, is that correct? Did the Council give specific direction about the location of the plaza in the PC? Lee Lippert: They did not give specific direction. The Council approved the development plan that the ARB recommended for approval, and that included the full retail building along the front of Homer with the publicly accessible open space between the two buildings kind of tucked in. That’s what Council reviewed and approved. Their direction was, however, to expand and to Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 improve the publicly accessible open spaces. They didn’t give direction on exactly how that should be done, or where that open space should be located. But in response, the applicant has come back from hearing I guess City Council, Planning Commission, the various boards. They determined that most of those boards and commissions were moving in the direction of having kind of a comer publicly accessible open space, and that’s their response that they’ve presented to the ARB today. So the Council did not specifically direct them to put a comer park, a comer open space in that area. That is the applicant’s response. Amy. French, Manager of Current Planning: And Judith, also in the staff report is an attachment. There is the ordinance itself that shows underlined changes that the council did make, and there is a section on plazas, so it does give you the background on exactly what the Council said pretty much. Judith Wasserman: What page is that? Amy. French: Page 8 of the ordinance, which is attachment... Judith Wasserman: Yeah, I’ve got the ordinance I think. Okay, page 8? Amy. French: Yes, section 6, number 4. And this is page 8 of the ordinance which is attachment A. Judith Wasserman: I’ve got something else here. This is all about parking. Oh, the plaza, I’m sorry, there it is down at the bottom. "Open and accessible to the public, comfortable space for informal socializing without charge." But it could have restricted retail seating. Well, that’s vague. Okay. I know that you called on me first, Lee. I will say what I think, but I would really like to have some conversation among us here before we make any motions, because I think this is different from what we’ve seen before. It is not clear what the Council direction really means, at least to me. The Planning and Transportation Commission seems to be partially divided about some of these issues. The Historic Resources Board hasn’t seen it, and at least one member is upset. So I’ll say my bit which will not be conclusive, and I would really like to hear what you guys have to say and then talk about it. So that’s sort of different. So okay. Lee Lippert: Just as long as we do it in a structured way. Judith Wasserman: I’ll be as structured as I possibly can. I’ll deal with the easy stuff. I think, yes, let’s look at the colors on site. I’m sure that’s fine. I’m okay with the arches over the entries because they call out the entries as special places, and I do prefer the entries on High Street. I think that makes more sense than sticking them off in the comers where they were before. I think it alleviates some of the problems that I had and I think some of the other Board members may have had with the driveway in the middle because it also gives pedestrian entrances on that street. So I think that that helps a lot. I think that the landscaping is generally good, fine, in some places quite exciting and interesting. I think the Channing plaza has improved and that that has real potential for public use. It’s on the sunny side, it’s got reasonable seating, it’s got a nice’ feature. The way the landscape separates the housing from the seating I think is effective, that people will feel comfortable Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 18 2 sitting there withom feeling like they’re sitting in from of somebody’s window which I think is a critical item on a place like this. 3 Now the other plaza is going to be problematic no matter where you put it because it’s always 4 going to be dark. So there are going to be times of the year when people are not going to sit 5 there. The video that we saw - did you see parts of that, were you there? Somebody said that 6 you had come. Anyway, there were several of us who saw this video about public spaces. And 7 the critical thing seemed to be having places to sit and being available to the street and watching 8 street life. There were some other things - having trees and landscaping and nice features. The 9 sun was not the critical item. It was critical only in what they called "nippy weather." So I think 10 having the plaza on the comer, leaving aside the historical issues for a moment, but having the 11 plaza on the comer where it is accessible to the street and street life and other businesses I think 12 is more hopeful for the use of the plaza than putting it between the two buildings where ! think 13 that no matter what you do, it will always feel like a private place. And on your comment about 14 the IDTO space I think is well taken. It’s their private space, it’s not public space. I go by there 15 and the couple of times that I’ve been by there, I would never think of going in there and sitting 16 down. It doesn’t feel at all public, and I think that’s what you’re going to get if you put it in the 17 slot, especially when it’s going to be at least partially gated so the gate is open in the daytime. 18 The signals are the wrong signals. So I think in terms of actually using that plaza it needs to be 19 on the comer. Now I know that it really changes the nature of the response to the historic 20 building. And you know, in a way, that’s a policy decision because there are, if you read the 21 Comp plan, you know public open space is a value, historic resource preservation is a value, 22 lively retail environment is a value. You know, in my personal opinion about that particular 23 building, I would trade that for public space, that’s my personal opinion. I don’t know that that 24 can be construed as the value judgment of the City of Palo Alto. But here I sit as a member of 25 the Architectural Review Board. All I can tell you is for me, that particular building is of less 26 value than the possible use of this space. 27 The other item that seemed to me critical in the description of Homer in this staff report - and I 28 compliment the staff report on the lovely description of Homer ambiance, I thought that was 29 really written - one of the critical items is the street wall. And one of my questions was - How 30 has the landscaping of the plaza responded to the street wall? And it actually has responded 31 reasonably well in that the street wall is continued in the seat wall and the landscape pocket, the 32 planter. And I think that if the planting - I didn’t look up to see what was actually going to be 33 planted there and how - no barberries, please; no pyracantha. If you do it in something low and 34 soft, people will sit there. I would sit there just to be close to the flowers because that’s sort of 35 what I do. So count on me, on tusch on that planter. And I was thinking a lot, I even wrote 36 down- the problem with Caf~ Riacci - that plaza was supposed to be a public plaza with a oaf& 37 It has turned out to be a caf~ plaza. Nobody, even the people who started that business, had no 38 idea of what was going to happen to that restaurant. It was going to be a little coffee shop for 39 breakfast for the residents, and it turned out to be one of the most successful restaurants in Palo 40 Alto. I don’t know how you can legislate that, and I don’t even know if that’s a good or a bad 41 thing. But I think it’s a chance that we have to take. If you limit the number of tables - it’s 42 closer to City Hall, somebody could go and look, see if the tables have taken over the public 43 plaza. Nobody from City Hall goes down to Riacci unless they have a special reason. So a little 44 bit closer to the Vatican(?), so maybe we can get some better eyes on it. City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. I don’t know - I think six feet is a little small for strolling on a public sidewalk, but maybe it’s wider in some o .ther places. That’s sort of as far as I’ve gotten on this one. I really haven’t thought about the roof forms. I think it could be an issue, it may not be appropriate to have curved roofs here, but I would really like to, in a structured way, listen to the other comments and then maybe we could go around twice or something. Lee Lippert: Drew. Drew Maran: Thank you to the project team and to all the people who came out to speak on this project. I really want to thank everybody’s patience and reiterate that we’re all in this for the same reason. We want to improve the community and continue to move towards a vibrant and successful neighborhood. I’m in general support of the project. I’m in general support of the changes that have taken place on this project since the last time we saw it. I’d like to list a couple of things that I support and a couple of things that I still, or now, don’t like about the project in continuing the dialogue. I like the new plaza. It’s what I was asking for from the very beginning of the project, which is to open up that coruer as a previous version on this project for many years did, and suggest that the open plaza suggests people gathering and congregating, and I think that that’s a really good thing. On the other hand, I’m disappointed to see the retail space diminished in size or decreased in size. I’m also disappointed, as I was before, to see that the Channing end of the project still has no retail and continue to feel that that could be an important piece of this project. There are a lot of significant changes to this project in its architecture in a short amount of time. So I think as a procedural thing, what I would suggest is in order to keep the momentum on this project towards approval, I would suggest that items such as the curved roof, perhaps the archways, though it’s not an issue for me, and certainly the colors be conditioned within the approval so that again, the project can keep moving towards building permits. 26 I also would like to see another solar study done on the heliodon at the Pacific Energy Center, 27 just to make sure that we’ve taken into account all the different phases of the sun and how it 28 affects, more for energy performance on the apartments than anything else. That’s something I 29 would hate to see overlooked. The project has been very thorough up till now in terms of 30 approaching the sustainability program. I really applaud the effort to apply the "built green" 31 standards from Colorado. I think those are really relevant and helpful standards for residential 32 construction, and I think that’s a really good move. So I’d like to see that effort continued and 33 make sure that we don’t lose anything in the process of these changes, lose the thoroughness 34 that’s been part of the project approach up until now. 35 36 37 38 39 I’m still opposed to the driveway midway through the block, though I agree with Judith that the apartment dwellers’ entrances on either side help create more pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks and the streets of Homer and regret that we can’t move the driveway off the middle of the block. Again, it’s not an item that I would condition nor would I use it as a reason to not approve the project. City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 The colors - I think underlying alot of my concern about this project is just appearance. I think appearance has a lot to do with how friendly, how compatible, how much in context - all these different ways in which we describe new development or shudder about new development. I think we have some examples around town - and no offense to the people who were responsible for this example, but I’m going to use it because it’s been talked a lot about in offline conversations - and that would be the project on Ramona between Hamilton and Everett, the residential site of what used to be the Times Tribune building. And that to me is an example of a project whose lack of genuine materials and ersatz architecture has really led to it looking really crappy over time. I don’t think it looked very good to start with, but especially now as it starts to weather, it starts to look worse and worse. It’s an extremely subjective item that those colors now look even worse. They look very dated, and the project itself starts to look like what. a lot of new-age shopping malls look like five years after they’re built, which is very dated and the colors that evoke only a specific five-year period of time and not colors that hold up over time. How to achieve that, that’s something I think that architects have been struggling with for about 3000 years. That’s why I feel very strongly that we all need to get together with these colors as they’re really put in place, in other words, as the building goes up, and really take a look at these colors. I’m especially concerned long term about the burnt orange and the purple color. I think again, those might tend to look a little bit shopping mall-ish or Disneyland-like, and I think that what we’re striving for here is something that 50 years from now we won’t be even considering tearing down because it’s not something that we want to relish and preserve as a historic structure. Again, I think this is something I think we all have in common. I think the community and neighborhood experience of this building is largely determined by what at this moment, seem to be fairly small details. Things like a color board. We’ve got little three-inch squares of colors that are going to be applied by the thousands of square feet that can really make a huge difference. And small selections at this moment can make just a tremendous difference ten years from now when we look at this and say - Boy, that was an example of A) a development that really marked the future of Palo Alto’s growth and development, and it’s a good thing; or B) it marked the downslide ofPalo Alto’s growth and development, and it’s a bad thing. So those are really incredibly significant items, and I think that the combined efforts, especially of this team, to recognize the importance of those decision and not just to present them on a model, which is a great presentation but often not the true representation of the attractiveness of the building. So I really want to emphasize that point. As I said, I would make a motion - after this discussion is done - I would make a motion to approve the project with these conditions, and I’ll move it on from there. 35 Lee Lippert: Thank you, Drew. First thing I’d like to do is to try to clarify something with the 36 help of staff just so that we don’t disenfranchise anybody here. This is classified as a minor, but 37 I believe that the reason why it was classified as a minor is basically because the approval of the 38 project has been embodied in the City ordinance that the City Council has approved and we’re 39 really looking at details and elements of the project at this point. Is that not correct? 40 41 42 Amy French: That is correct. I want to further add that a set of plans that the Council did have before them when they approved it did show a plaza on the corner. So that is to clear that part up, too. Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Lee Lippert: And the standards of review are not changed, whether it’s a minor project or a major project. We really use the same standards, the 16 points that are embodied in the bylaws of this Board, correct? Amy. French: That is also correct. Lee Lippert: Okay. So the only difference is the amount of time that’s really given the applicant to speak about the project in which we’ve abbreviated their presentation to five minutes versus ten minutes, correct? Steven Turner: Yes. And a major project would also normally be - notice cards would be sent to proper owners within 300 feet of the subject property. But other than that the same newspaper noticing and posting of the agenda happens whether it’s a major project or a minor project. Lee Lippert: Okay, great. So that basically outlines what the differences are for those concerned members of the public. With regard to reviewing this project, what is the criteria by which it would go back to HRB and Planning Commission if it was deemed by the City Council that they wanted it to do so, correct? Steven Turner: That’s right. If the City Council had directed the project to return to the Planning Commission they could do so. But in reality the Council approved the project, requested that the ARB review the revisions and make a recommendation to the director. The Planning Commission wouldn’t necessarily make a recommendation to the director. They make recommendations to the Council. Lee Lippert: So the ARB is the board that would make the recommendation to the director. And the City Council took into account the recommendations of the ARB, the Planning Commission, and the HRB when they approved their ordinance, correct? Steven Turner: That’s correct. Lee Lippert: So all we’re being asked to do here is to basically review the details with regard to what the City Council requested and to either vote yea, nay, or condition. Steven Turner: That’s right. You’d be making a recommendation to the director on these changes. Lee Lippert: Lynn, is there anything else that you’d like to clarify? Lynn Chiapella: Steven’s correct in what he said. The Council not only adopted the ordinance, they also adopted the resolution which has these hundred some conditions. And they remanded this back to you because they had some changes that they wanted - they didn’t have a final set of plans. It had finally been approved and reviewed by the director after your recommendation. So if you have further changes - the principal changes, whether you approve a new set of drawings, because at the moment there is no approved set of drawings, there’s just two sets of drawings, instructions to you to please make a recommendation on what the best set of drawings is. Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 But it would be helpful if you have other conditions to think of them in the context of the resolution that already exists and they would either supplement or contradict those depending on what your recommendation to the director was. After he makes his decision, that’s appealable to the City Council. Lee Lippert: So the decision of this Board, or the recommendation of this Board, is relatively narrow and confined to architectural elements. Lynn Chiapella: It’s about design. The City Council has said that it wants the two floors of parking, that it wants this approximate number of units, that it is prepared to lose the historic structure, that it wants better open space and the last set of plans it looked at had the open space on the comer. But I think that that’s still something that we’re looking for your recommendation. Lee Lippert: I want to ask my colleague here. Judith... Lynn Chiapella: Excuse me; and they also did approve a smaller retail space than the original 1800 square-foot retail space. Lee Lippert: Does that help clarify things for you, Judith? Judith Wasserman: Yes, I think it does. It certainly helps clarify the City Council’s position which is apparently the last decision-making position here, and we’re dealing with the architectural details which is what we ought to be dealing with. Lee Lippert: Does that clarify it for you, Drew? Drew Maran: Yes. Lee Lippert: Okay, great. I feel a lot better now. I feel very pressured by both the applicant and the members of the public to act in their interests one way or the other. And what is happening is that the real issues are getting obscured in the mess here. And so I want to stick with the architectural issues, the design issues here. And just to state for the record, I’d rather take the fifth amendment, but I was also in on the video watching William White’s video on Seagrams Plaza and other plazas. And when I realized that I was subliminally being lobbied by staff I left the video because I had seen the video when I was in architecture school, but I really didn’t want to be influenced by that either. I wanted to go and make the right architectural decisions here. I think it’s a really good project, I think it’s a desirable project, I think it’s made significant progress. I am troubled by a couple of elements. They’re relatively minor. One is that the plaza I think is a peat idea, I think it works on the comer. But I don’t think it’s there yet. I think that it needs some work. And let me just tell you what I think that it needs some work on. I think the connection of the retail space and the plaza doesn’t work particularly well, and there’s a couple of things that could happen. Number one, look at moving the retail space to the first unit on High Street. I think that that will widen that connection with the plaza and make it that people really have to traverse that plaza and use that plaza in order to get to that retail space. Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 I think the frontage or the connection from the site adjacent to Oli’s doesn’t work particularly well. And I really want that strengthened. I also think that the third element that’s part of that plaza is how do people get from the parking garage up to that plaza. And I think locating it off to the side in the back alley doesn’t work particularly well. I really feel it’s important that some stairs or the elevator lobby come up adjacent to that plaza so that there’s some connection there. And there’s one other element that doesn’t work particularly well in the plaza, and I think that that should be looked at, is perhaps this is an oppommity to create a bulb-out on the corner there. The bulb-out will strengthen the pedestrian connection from across Homer Street and across High Street to the plaza area and actually make the plaza appear a little bit larger than it is and make it a little bit more friendly. The paving material in the plaza - it’s shown as being just city sidewalk concrete. One of the best things in Palo Alto is at Plaza Ramona where they’ve built a facsimile or a gesture towards the pattern that’s at the plaza at the top of- was it the Spanish steps in Rome? They’ve sort of replicated it in brick. They didn’t do a particularly good job, but it’s symbolic. And every time I walk my dog past that space I go - this is nice. And so I think that looking at maybe the use of some sort of texture or pattern - brick - the City has City standards for PCs that they’re allowed to use pattern materials there, and I think it’ll help make that space a little bit better. I’m not opposed to the curved elements, but I think that the design has become rather disjointed, and I think that what really needs to be looked at is how the capping of the building works all across there, and I’m not particularly in support of the rectilinear forms just coming up and ending bluntly without some sort of element at the parapet. And so I don’t have anything opposed to the curved, vaulted shapes, but I don’t think that the tops of the building is as successful as it could be and I think that that needs to be looked at. I really do like the arched openings. I think that they create a gesture as to where the entrance to the buildings are. I think that works. The color pallet, I think that that could be reviewed on site. I think that we need to see larger samples and my hope is that there be maybe the use of integral stucco. On the backside, along the alleyway, as I said before, the use of something a little more traditional in terms of rollup garage doors would be nice. And generally I think as I said, it’s a great project and I think that it should move ahead. And those are my comments. I have one other question for staff, and I guess that is there is a petition that’s circulating regarding 800 High Street. Whatever we decide here, the project’s been approved, is that not correct? Amy French: The project is approved. Any referendum would take place post approval. The project is approved. This is a detail, a condition of approval basically, to have this finalized. Lee Lippert: So our decisions have absolutely no bearing or weight with regard to that referendum, correct? City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 3 Amy. French: I think the applicants would like to see a decision from the ARB so that those who are out there reviewing the petition will know what the final building does look like and it can be definitive. 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1,4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Lee Lippert: Okay. Feel any better, Judith? Judith Wasserman: Yes. I think I’ve come to some thoughts about the rooflines, and I think I tend to agree with you that the rooflines have gotten perhaps excessively complicated. I was thinking of just a profile study of the roofline against the sky and sort of seeing if that could be cleaned up, tamed down, better related to the context - come back with it. I don’t think that would actually change the massing of the building or the overall project as a whole so that if it were a condition it would not necessarily be a condition that would require a continuance. So that was my feeling about the roof. I think I would respectfully disagree with you about the location of the garage stairs. I think that if they keep the retail at that place, then the garage stairs have to stay in that place. If they move the retail, then the garage stairs can move. And I do agree with you 100% about the plaza paving, that it needs to be a special paving. I think just continuing the sidewalk in there is really not appropriate. And I support Drew’s position, whatever he said. I remember agreeing with him. So if you would make a motion, then I think I could think about. Lee Lippert: Okay. Drew, do you have any other comments that you’d like to make? Drew Maran: No. Lee Lippert: Okay. Well with that, I’d like to respond to your comment with regard to the elevator. I see several opportunities for bringing up the elevator staff and stairs in other locations. I’m looking at the upper garage plan and basically, there’s a little element or area just between, I guess it’s at the angle between space 32 and 31, there’s an opportunity to bring an elevator shaft up in that area there. There looks like there’s opportunities for other parking spaces just east of handicap space #40. Somebody could park in between the columns there and still be able to turn to get in there. So it could displace... Judith Wasserman: That would come right up in the middle of nowhere. Here’s the... Lee Lippert: No, no; I meant displaced parking space. So in other words, a parking space could be moved in the underground parking and that would allow for an elevator shaft to come up somewhere else. Judith Wasserman: That’s what I’m saying, good. Lee Lippert: Right. So I think that there’s opportunities to bring that elevator shaft up in other locations. Judith Wasserman: You’re talking about this elevation? Lee Lippert: Correct. We’re talking about the one from the parking garage. City of Palo Alto Page 25 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Judith Wasserman: Right. This one over here. And that would - you wanted to bring it up more in the plaza, right? So you were thinking of bringing it up here. Lee Lippert: Closer to the plaza, or it could slide down and still be within the building. There are opportunities for moving that around. So my motion would be that we approve this plan with the following additional conditions: (1) that the plaza be restudied in terms of layout, paving materials and the location of where the elevator shaft comes up in relationship to the plaza; (2) the applicant look at the possibility of locating the retail space at the first unit on High Street; (3) that the roof terminuses be looked at so that there’s a more holistic design; (4) that a solar study be done for the project at the PG&E Energy Center; (5) I would suggest that they take a look at the William White videotape while the City still has it; (6) and that the colors be done as brush-outs on site for our review and approval; (7) and all these items come back to us on consent. Do I have a second? Judith Wasserman: I would second everything except the retail space which I still think belongs on the Homer retail corridor. Lee Lippert: Well you can’t do that. Judith Wasserman: I would second all the rest of it. Lee Lippert: You have to second the motion or not. And all that I’ve asked is that they come back with us, that they look at it. Judith Wasserman: That they look at it, yeah. Lee Lippert: And we come back. Judith Wasserman: Okay, they could look at it. I’ll second it. Lee Lippert: Okay, great. So we have a motion, a second. Steven or Amy, would you mind restating the motion. Steven Turner: There’s a motion by Board member Lippert, seconded by Board member Wasserman to recommend approval of the revisions as described in the plans dated February 20 with the following conditions: that the plaza along Homer, on the corner of Homer and High Street be restudied in terms of layout, paving, and elevator shaft location coming from the underground parking area; that the retail space adjacent to High Street be considered; that the applicant perform a study and/or details of the roof terminuses; that a solar study be completed at the PG&E Energy Center; that the applicant review the video regarding the design of publicly accessible open spaces; and that mock-ups of the colors are studied on the building as it’s being constructed. Lee Lippert: Great. Thank you very much. And before we take action, I just want to say something. I want to thank members of the public being here as well as the applicant, everyone’s persistence. I was listening to Paul Goldberger speak this week on Daniel Liebskin’s design for the World Trade Center that was recently approved, and he had a very illuminating City of Palo Alto Page 26 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 statement that he said. He said that -this is really what Lou Kahn said, it’s a quote from Lou Kahn - "Streets are rooms by agreement." And I think in this case, it really is important that both the community as well as the applicant embrace the notion that we all have to move together in formulating the right decisions here. So with that, we have a motion, a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. So it’s 3-0, 1-1. Thank you very much. CiO, of Palo Alto Page 27 Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC 909 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 November 18, 2003 Steven Emslie Director of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA RE: Response to Joy Ogawa’s appeal Dear Steven; In response to your letter dated March 17, 2003 from Joy Ogawa appealing your decision regarding 800 High Street, 02-PC-01, we submit the following response: -"THE BMR AGREEMENT IS BEING VIOLATED" -"OTHER INADEQUECIES OF THE BMR CONTRIBUTION" Response: The BMR agreement was reviewed and accepted by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation and Director of Planning and Community Environment and meets the intent and requirements of the program. - "THE PROJECT IS OF AN INAPPROPRIATE DESIGN" -"Inconsistency with the Homer Avenue Streetscape." Response: After input from both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board, several design changes were made during the review process. The current plan incorporates the many positive comments and received unanimous approval from the ARB as a result. We feel the current design successfully incorporates the Homer Avenue Streetscape. -"Inappropriate roof forms" Response: The "barrel vault" roof forms were introduced as a result of compliance with the 50 foot height limit. These roof forms received unanimous approval at the ARB. -"Bad location for the Public Plaza" Response: The public plazas are located at the two comers of the High Street frontage. These locations are the most appropriate to help interact with both the existing retail at the Channing Avenue comer and the existing and proposed retail at the Homer Avenue comer. -"Narrow sidewalk adjacent to a 50 foot building" Response: The existing sidewalk along High Street is 7’ wide, including curb and street trees, resulting in an effective sidewalk of 4’ width. The proposed project provides for a continuous 3’ wide planter strip for a complete planting of 10 street trees, followed by a 6’ wide sidewalk with no obstacles impinging on its width, backed by planters of a minimum 3’-0" depth to a 3-story wall at townhouses and minimum 5’-6" depth to a 4-story wall at flats. At all building entries, unit entries, driveway and plazas the sidewalk is wider than 6’. Living spaces are a minimum of 12’-6" back from the street at 3-story portions of the bnilding and a minimum of 15-18’ back at 4-story sections of the building. -"LACK OF NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS" Response: The March 6, 2003 ARB hearing was noticed and published in accordance with City requirements for a minor hearing as unfinished business. Please review the responses given to the issues raised in Mrs. Ogawa’s appeal. We feel that they adequately address her concerns. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you might have. Regards, cc: Steven Turner 2 Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC 909 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 November 18, 2003 Steven Emslie Director of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA RE: Response to Consent Conditions Dear Steven; In response to your letter dated March 12, 2003 regarding 800 High Street, 02-PC-01, which stipulated several conditions that needed to be resolved. We submit the following: Condition: "A study of the publicly accessible plaza at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street that includes design details of the plaza layout, paving materials, and location of the elevator shaft." Response: Several designs were studied with respect to the elevator and stair shaft. Due to the layout of the garage parking spaces, the shaft must be located along the Homer Avenue frontage of the property. This did limit the options available. While moving the elevator shaft may have enhanced the retail space, the net effect was a diminishing of the public plaza in both size and character. The plaza would become smaller, less attractive and more private if the elevator shaft were to be moved out of the retail space. Therefore no changes have been made to the location of the elevator shaft. Condition: "A study that includes the addition of retail space along High Street." Response: We did study if retail could effectively be place along the High Street frontage at the Homer comer. It was determined that it would not be a successful design if retail space were placed on High Street because of the existing flow of pedestrian traffic and retail space along Homer Avenue. The Homer Avenue frontage, as designed, is the most desirable location for retail space. Condition: "A solar study conducted at the Pacific Gas & Electric Energy Center that describes the extent of shadowing to off-site private property and public ways." Response: A solar study was conducted on November 12, 2003. Please see the attached package. Condition: "Design details of the intersection between the roof and exterior walls." Response: We recall this intersection to be particularly applicable to the "towers" along High Street, which previously were shown with no cornice. We now propose that these "towers" and other simple projections around the project shall have a simple cornice matching that on the existing Laundry Building - 6-8" tall and projecting 2" from the wall plane. Condition: "Reviexv of building colors at the project site during an appropriate phase of building construction." Response: At the appropriate time, "Brush Outs" of all proposed exterior colors will be conducted in the field at the project location. Condition: "Review of the video, "Social Life of Small Urban Spaces" by William White." Response: Video has been reviewed. We believe this satisfies the remaining conditions of approval as requested. Please contact us if you have further questions or need more information. Regards, Ross cc: Steven Turner JON "*-,~JORDEN ARCHITECTS Date:November ]4, 2003 Re:Heliodon Solar Study 800 High Street, 02-PC-01 Palo Alto, CA Attached please find images from a Solar Study of the 800 High Street model conducted on November ] 2, 2003, at the Pacific Energy Center in San Francisco. Please note the following information in each series of images: H~_.igh Street Views - June 21/Equinox (March & Sept. 21 )/Dec. 21 Images on each page illustrate sun angles at 8 am, 10 am & 2 pm for each of the above solar events. Shadows begin forming along High Street at approximately 2 pm in all seasons, extending across the sidewalk in the summer, across the street in the spring and fall, and shading neighboring buildings in the winter. Therefore, buildings across the street will be shaded after ] pm in the winter, 3 pm in the spring and fall, and 5 pm in the summer. However, the significant break in the middle of the building does provide sunlight to the street and sidewalk even as shadows lengthen. Homer/High Views - June 2 ]/Equinox/Dec. Images on the first page illustrate sun angles at 6 am, 10 am & 2 pm on June 21, which is the only season of the year when significant direct sunlight floods this north-facing plaza throughout the day. The second page illustrates the best sunlight conditions in the plaza for each season - winter in the early morning, mid-day in the spring and fall, and late afternoon/evening in the summer. Alma Street Views- June 21/Equinox/Dec. 21 Images on each page illustrate sun angles at ] 0 am, 2 pm & 4 pm for each of the above solar events. Sunlight illuminates the south-east-facing residence walls about 1 0 am all seasons, floods the courtyards by 2 pm except in winter (when the sun angle is so low even the required sound walls along the alley shade the courtyard floor) and strikes the north-west-facing residence walls around 4 pm. Afternoon sun appears to be maximized by the building’s configuration and courtyards’ orientation on this side of the project. 512 MATHESON STREET ¯ HEALDSBURG ¯ CALIFORNIA ¯ 95448 707 ¯ 431 ¯1894 PHONE ° 707 ¯ 431 ¯1690 FAX jO NV,~©R D E N(q’S BCG LOB AL. N E[ Heliodon Studies A Pacific Energy Center Factsheet Introduction The sun brings warmth and sparkle to architecture, but when its potential is misunderstood or not addressed, it may cause extreme discomfort for building occupants and excessive energy and retrofit costs for building owners. Throughout the history of architecture and technology, designers of the most comfortable and energy-efficient buildings have called upon ancient knowledge of the sun and its reliable paths across the sky. Societies have developed charts, graphs, sundials, even entire structures to study solar patterns and mark recurring solar events. The heliodon at the Pacific Energy Center is a relatively new addition to the archives of solar instruments. An effective tool for assessing shading and solar radiation patterns, the heliodon is made available to designers and building owners. What is a Heliodon? The heliodon, whose name is based on the Greek term for sun-machine, is an efficient tool for studying shading patterns, solar access and incident solar radiation. It consists of a machine \vith a table-top that can be tilted and rotated about different axes and an electric light source representing the sun. Adjusting for latitude, time of year and time of day, allows assessment of solar issues at any location and season. An architectural model is an effective tool for designing and evaluating shading devices, building form, courtyards, siting/orientation of buildings, location of landscape elements. Assessment of interior sun patch patterns is also possible. With only a small investment of time, a design can be tested, modified, and re-tested early enough in the design process to be able to modify the building’s details, envelope, and form to best respond to solar conditions. There is an important difference between shading and daylighting analyses’ shading refers to sun and shadowy while daylighting centers more around the light qualities and light levels in a space. Because the heliodon at the Energy Center is located indoors and relies on an electric light source, it cannot be used for daylighting studies. To assess light levels and light quality issues, the Energy Center provides other tools and methods. See the Daylight Photometry fact sheet for more information on daylight analysis and the Heliodon web page for details on the design and construction of the heliodon. Pacific Energy Center Factsheet: Heliodon Studies http:/iwww.pge.comIpec Page l June 21 8 am June 21 lOam June 21 2 pm ~ 800 Street Palo Alto, California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JON WORDEN ~ R C H I T E C T S Equinox 8 am Equinox 10 am Equinox 2 pm ~ 800 Street Palo Alto, California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JON WORDEN ARCHITECTS Dec. 21 8 am Dec. 21 10 am Dec. 21 2 pm Hig~ 800 Street Palo Alto, California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JON WORDEN ARCHITECTS June 21 6 am June 21 10 am June 21 2 pm High 800 Street Palo Alto. California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JON WORDFN ARCHITECTS Dec. 21 8am Equinox 2pm June 21 6 pm ~ 800 Street Palo Alto, California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JON WORDEN ARCHITECTS June 21 10 am June 21 2 pm June 21 4 pm Highh 800 Street Palo Alto, California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JON WORDEN J~ R CH ITECTS Equinox 10 am Equinox 2 pm Equinox 4 pm ~ 800 Street Palo Alto, California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JOIN WORDEN /~ RCH ITECTS Dec. 21 10am Dec. 21 2 pm Dec. 21 4 pm Hig_h_h 800 Street Palo Alto, California Palo Alto High Street Partners LLC JON WORDEN ARCHITECTS