HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-02 City Council (8)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
6
TO:.HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 2, 2001 CMR:183:01
777 BRYANT STREET: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL, AFTER
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD/HISTO.RIC REVIEW BOARD, OF AN
APPLICATION BY SUMMERHILL HOMES. TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A 30-UNIT, FOUR-STORY CONDOMINIUM
COMPLEX, SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED
SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT: AMF. FILE NUMBER
00-ARB-111.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning
and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 53,310 square-foot, four-story condominium
Complex, a subterranean parking garage containing 78 parking spaces, and related site
improvements. The building would contain 30 condominium units yielding an overall density
of 37 units per acre. The project would be located on the southwestern comer of Block A of
the property formerly owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF).
The site consists of one parcel totaling 35,540 square feet or 0.82 acres on the block bounded
by Homer and Forest Avenues and Bryant and Waverley Streets. The proposed building
footprint would be 15,364 square feet at grade, resulting in a site coverage of 43 percent. The
proposed building would be set back 15 feet from Homer Avenue and the existing building
CMR:183:01 Page 1 of 11
at 737 Bryant Street,’ and 16 feet from Bryant Street and the existing Williams House to the
east. ~ "
Parking would be on two subterranean levels and would provide 78 uni-stalls, including three
standard stalls and one van accessible stall. Each parking level extends about 10 feet below
grade. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from a single, two-way driveway on
Homer Avenue that connects to the parking levels. Pedestrian access would be provided from
two primary entries on Homer Avenue into the courtyards. Transit access would be provided
from existing bus stops on Channing and Homer Avenues and Ramona Street. Bicycle access
would be provided by an existing bike boulevard located along Bryant Street.
The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem interpretation of the Craftsman
Stucco Style that is intended to complement the design character of the adjacent
neighborhood. Building materials and features include beige stucco siding, sloping roofs,
front porches, divided light windows, and a dark composition shingle roof.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the
project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project has been reviewed by the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Architectural
Review Board/Historic Resources Board (ARB/HRB) at three meetings (July 12, 2000,
September 7, 2000 and November 2, 2000). On July 12, 2000, the applicant provided an
overview and history of all three projects on Blocks A and B. The ARB/HRB conducted a
preliminary review of the project on September 7, 2000. The ARB/HRB generally supported
the site planning, architecture and landscape components of the project, and were generally
in favor of the project contingent on several design revisions, including provision of
additional details on building materials and solar/shadow studies. The applicant incorporated
these details into the revised plans dated October 13, 2000. The Architectural Review
Board/HiStoric Resources Board reviewed the revised plans for the project on November 2,
2000. At the conclusion of the meeting, the ARB/HRB recommended 6-0 that the Director
of Planning and Community Environment approve .the project with the conditions contained
in the October 19, 2000 staff report subject to subsequent review of project details, including
building colors and materials, trash, lighting, roof materials, a sustainability study and
acoustical study. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the
project on January 25, 2001 with the conditions recommended by the ARB/HRB in addition
to three conditions required by the Director. These three conditions provided for a third party
architectural review of the project to ensure its consistency with the design approved by the
ARB/HRB as well as to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.
Public testimony regarding the project was also taken at each meeting. The concerns
expressed by the public focused mainly on the scale and massing of the building. A detailed
CMR:183:01 Page 2 of 11
summary of the project is contained in the ARB/H staff report dated October 19, 2000
(Attachment. D). Verbatim minutes from these meetings are also attached to this report
(Attachments E, and F).
DISCUSSION
On February 7, 2001, an appeal of the project approval was filed by Steve Reyna and Aysen
Kutlu (Attachment B). The appellant’s areas of concern are summarized below, and
responded to individually by staff. The numbering of the concerns and responses
corresponds to the organization of the appellant’s letter. Direct citations from the appellant’s
letter are shown in quotation marks.
ARB/HRB Review Process
1. Appellant Concern: The ARB/HRB "operated under conflicting directions
between satisfying the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) and perceived guarantee
from the Development Agreement. An example of this is how Staff and the applicant
stated that FAR \~as guaranteed."
Staff Response: At several of the ARB/HRB meetings, staff explained that
each of the non-single t~nily projects proposed within the SOFA area is subject to the
policies and standards in the SOFA CAP as well as the provisions in the
Development Agreement. Staff further explained that the Development Agreement
and the SOFA CAP \vere both approved by the city Council and found to be
consistent. Each project must comply with both documents.
2. Appellant Concern: "Significant elements of the standards for. review of the
ARB (PAMC 16.48.120) were not included in the ARB/HRB consistency review
standards." Omitted review findings include consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, and site development characteristics such as lot size, building coverage,
setbacks, building and height.
Staff Response: The process for review of projects by the ARB/HRB was
developed by the City Attorney and Planning staff to specifically address the intent
and procedures established in the SOFA CAP, ARB fmdings (PAMC 16.48.120) were
not included because the ARB/HRB review process is unique to the SOFA area and
differs from typical ARB project review. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
policies as well as review of site development characteristics such as lot size, building
coverage, setbacks, building and height are included in the ARB/HR_B staff report
(Attachment D).
3. Appellant Concern." Members of the ARB/HRB "stated objections about
constraints placed on their ability to have a full and proper design review, including
CMR:183:0i Page 3 of 11
references to having their hands tied. The members went on record describing the
project as incompatible while not having the freedom to vote on the design, only
details."
Staff Response: At the beginning of the process that was established for review
of the PAMF/SOFA projects, some ARB/HRB members expressed frustration at their
role in reviewing projects vis-a-vis the Development Agreement. Concerns involved
the ARB/HRB process and how it differed from the typical ARB process; and the
conditions of the Development Agreement. Alter several meetings, ARB/HRB
members became more comfortable with the process, provided valuable comments
and suggested revisions to all aspects 0fthe project including overall building design,
site planning, height, mass, articulation, fenestration, materials, colors, and
landscaping as well as building details such as porches, roof eaves, dormers,
chimneys, etc. Revisions included in the final set of architectural plans reflected, to
a significant extent, the design recommendations made by the ARB/HR.B members.
The appellant comment above describes comments by the ARB members that were
directed at the Block B condominiums, and not this project on Block A. This project
was recommended for approval with a 6-0 vote by the Board. ~
4. Appellant Concern." "An ARB member’s term expired in September 2000
making him ineligible to participate in the ARB/HRB joint board, thus rendering any
subsequent votes invalid."
Staff Response." Robert Peterson volunteered to serve on the ARB/HRB at its
inception and agreed to continue serving on the ARB/HRB following his retirement
from the ARB. Mr. Peterson was appointed by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment as Chairman of the ARB/HRB prior to the meeting on July
12, 2000. The Director accepted Mr. Peterson’s offer to continue his role on the
ARB/HRB alter September 2000 to ensure consistency- through completion of the
PAMF/SOFA projects.
5. Appellant Concern: "Project approvals are supposed to be acted on by the
Director within 3 working days of the ARB/HRB approval. The ARB/HRB voted to
approve the Block A AMF (Attached Multi-Family) project on November 2, 2000.
The Director signed the approval on January 25,2001."
Staff Response: ARB projects typically are approved by the Director within
three working days from the date of recommendation by the ARB. The SOFA CAP
does not specify a time frame within which the Director must make a decision
(Chapter IV, Section A1 .II "All otheruses" on page 84 of the SOFA CAP). The intent
of the SOFA CAP is to provide a review process that is unique to the SOFA area by
CMR:183:01 Page 4 of 11
having allnon-single family projects reviewed by a joint review board consisting of
representatives form the ARB and HRB. Because of community sensitivity to projects
in the SOFA area, staff retained a third party architectural consultant to review the.
plans for the condominium projects proposed on Block A and Block B after
ARB/HRB review was complete. The architect had several detailed suggestions for
improving detailed components of the buildings (such as porch columns and roofs).
As a result, the Director added two conditions to ensure that the building permit plans
are compatible with the architectural style envisioned by the ARB/HRB. The third
party review required additional time and resulted in the Director’s approval later than
the typical ARB approval period.
Project Deficiencies
6. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the PAMF/SOFA
policy framework adopted by the City Council on September 22, 19,97; to promote
high quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing
character of the area, including the scale of the development, the high degree of visual
interest, and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern."
Staff Response: The ARB/H staff report dated October 19, 2000 (page 10)
is quoted in the appellants’ letter as follows: "The FAR, mass and height of the
proposed project exceed that of most buildings in the vicinity." The appellants’ letter
¯ omits the following sentence in the staff report which reads: "However, they are
within that allowed by the SOFA CAP and are specifically provided for in the
Development AgreementI approved by the City Council for this site." The staff report
continues by noting that proposed revisions have improved the architectural design
of the building; the perceived mass and height have been softened in several ways by
the design and layout of the building on the lot; and all building frontages provide
pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, porches, and landscaping on the ground
floor and varied materials, window openings and building articulation on the upper
floors. On this basis, staff concluded that the project, as revised, was consistent with
the policies and standards contained in the SOFA CAP and recommended approval
based on the findings and conditions contained in the staff report.
7. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. ’Maintaining the physical qualities of the City is an overarching consideration,
incorporated in all parts, of the Plan...’ The larger scale, massing and height of the
AMF development does not promote compatibility and preservation ’ofnei ~ghborhood
character, as Policy L-12 requires. The 48-foot height of the Block A AMF is twice
that of the adjacent Williams House."
CMR: 183:01 Page 5 of 11
Staff Response: The ARB/HRB staffreport dated October 19, 2000 evaluates
the consistency of the project with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies (pages 2 and
3) as well as consistency with SOFA CAP policies (pages 3 and 4) and concludes that
the project is consistent with both policy documents. The staff report includes
findings for a minor exception to building height as required by the SOFA CAP
(Attachment C of the ARB/HRB staff report). Please see the staff response to
appellant concern # 10 regarding building height (below).
Also, the Council’s review of the Development Agreement on March 27, 2000
identified the Block A development as "...approximately 30-34 AMF condominium
units, four 4th floor units with an FAR of 1.5" (CMR:192:00)..
It should be noted that the proposed affordable housing project would be developed
to the same AMF standards (including density), design guidelines and SOFA Policies
as this project.
8. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP
policies. Specifically, Policy H-6 states housing types in the plan area should include
a range of densities and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles
and incomes. Twenty-nine of the 30 units are two bedroom and very similar in size,
thus targeting the same income bracket."
¯ Staff Response: The intent of Policy H-6 is to provide for a range of housing
types within the SOFA area, not necessarily within each project. The project would
provide 29 two-bedroom units and one single-bedroom unit. The unitswould range
in size from 1,139 to 1,775 square feet. The mix of units is limited by the space
available in the underground parking garage and .the SOFA CAP parking
requirements. The parking garage is limited to 78 parking spaces, 65 of which are
required by the condominiums and 13 of which are dedicated to the adjacent project
at 737 Bryant Street. The SOFA CAP parking standards require 1.25 spaces for
studios, 1.5 spaces for one-bedroom units, and two spaces for two-bedroom units.
Redistributing the mix of units would require additional parking-spaces. For example,
separating a two-bedroom unit into one one-bedroom unit and one studio would
increase the number of required parking spaces from two to three. Any corresponding
division of units would result in a proportional increase in required spaces.
Furthermore, Policy H-6 is addressed more completely through the implementation
of the entire Development Agreement with SummerHill Homes. This would include
the development of attached market rate multi-family units, as well as detached single
family units. Within this context, the types of residential units that would resultfrom
the implementation of the development agreement would include a variety and range
of condominiums, new single family houses, carriage units, rehabilitation of historic
CMR:183:01 Page 6 of I 1
houses and. below market rate rental units for families. Therefore, it is in conformance
with Policy H-6.
9. Appellant. Concern: "The project is not consistent with the SOFACAP AMF
Design guidelines." The project does not provide a variety of unit sizes. The height
of the building is four stories where four stories is only allowed under exceptional
circumstances.
Staff Response: AMF Design Guideline 4. l(e) states "The use of a variety of
unit sizes and floor plans is strongly encouraged,.." All projects designated AMF are
evaluated by staff for compatibility with this guideline and all other relevant design
guidelines in the SOFA CAP. The project is generally consistent with these
guidelines, but it does not provide a mix of units because of the constraints created by
the size of the parking garage and the SOFA CAP parking requirements. Please see
the staff responses to appellant concern #8 regarding the mix of housing units.
The four-story height is required to provide the three units on the fourth floor. That
portion Of the building that is four stories is minor in extent and enhances the design
of the project. Please see the staff response to appellant concern #10 regarding
building height (below).
The March 27, 2000 review of the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement
identified that the Block A development would have 4th floor units (CMR: 192:00).
10. Appellant Concern: " The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP
Attached Multi-Family (AMF) Development Standards." The development has a roof
height of 48 feet where the AMF standards limit height to a maximum of 45 feet.
Staff Response: The SOFA CAP provides for minor exceptions, in this case
building height above 45 feet, provided that findings can be made. Staff prepared
f’mdings for approval of this exception which were reviewed and recommended for
approval by the ARB/HRB (see Attachment C of the ARB/HRB staff report).
Portions of the roof of the fourth floor of the building exceed the 45-foot height
limit established in the SOFA CAP. The portion of the roof that exceeds the 45-foot
height is limited to the central portion of the building and encloses the three units
on the fourth floor. This portion of the roof extends to a maximum of. 48 feet in
height for approximately 15 percent of the total roof structure. Staff supports this
additional heightfor several reasons: 1) the excess height provides the opportunity
for a pitched roof, rather a flat roof, which is more consistent with the architectural
style of the building; 2) that portion of the roof that exceeds 45 feet is limited to 3
feet in vertical elevation and 15 percent of the entire roof structure and would only
be partially visible from the public right-of-way; and 3) the project is otherwise
CMR: 183:01 Page 7 of 11
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and SOFA CAP. Therefore, staff believes
that the intent of the SOFA regulations has been met..
Furthermore, while the issue of massing was raised by some of the HRB members,
the f’mal height was never raised as an issue. The ARB/HRB main focus of design
review was how the design responded to the pedestrian street level. The
developer’s architects made their major revisions to address this review in terms of
street scale, materials and relationship to the Roth Building and the museum.
11. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the Development
Agreement. The Development Agreement declares that ’the City. desires to obtain the
binding agreement of PAMF for the development of the property in accordance with
the provision of this agreement, the SOFA CAP, and the various approvals and
conditions related thereto.’ As described above, the project is not consistent with the
SOFA CAP, and is therefore not consistent with the Development Agreement."
Staff Response." Please see the staff responses to appellant concern #1
regarding the SOFA CAP and the-Development Agreement (above). The project is
also consistent with the Council’s review and direction of the Development.
Agreement and SOFA CAP (CMR: 192:00 and CMR:218:00).
12. Appellant Concern." "The exceptions approved were based on inadequate
findings."
Finding 1: Consistency with the SOFA CAP: a) Policy L-8 is a SOFA
Phase II policy, b) Policy H-l: The project provides 30 new housing
units, although it uses maximum FAR and heightwhile providing only
the minimum density required, c) Policy H-6 states that housing types
in the plan area should include a range of densities and should be
suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes. All
but one of the 30 units are two bedroom and similar in size, thus
targeting the same income bracket.
Finding 2: The exception does not relate to a minor feature.
Finding 3" An enhancement would not be achieved by the exception
that would not otherwise be achieved through reducing the mass of the
building.
Finding 4: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. a) Policy L-9
does not apply, b) Policy B-21 does not apply.
CMR:183:01 Page 8 of 11
Staff Response: Staff prepared f’mdings for approval of this exception which
were reviewed and approved by the ARB/HRB (see Attachment C of the ARB/HRB
staff report).
a) Finding 1: Consistency with the SOFA CAP: a) Policy L-8 is
included in the SOFA CAP Phase I document, but is subject to
modification and implementation in Phase II. Phase 1 of the SOFA
CAP calls for a mix of uses and includes a mixed use overlay on a
portion of Block C adjacent to the project site; consistent with this
policy, b) Policy H-l: The project does, in fact, provide only the
minimum density required (30 units per acre where the maximum
allowed is 50 units per acre; and c) Please see the staff response to
appellant concern #8 regarding Policy H-6 (above).
b) Finding 2: Staff believes that a three-foot exceedence of a total
allowable building height of 45 feet over a 15 percent portion of the
building is, in fact, minor and is consistent with the intent of the SOFA
CAP provisionsfor minor exceptions. The SOFA CAP (page 87)
indicates that an exception can be considered minor in scope when it:
1) involves only a small portion of the structure, 2) does not involve
major architectural features and 3) meets other requirements that may
be established by the Director of Planning and. Community
Environment. The three-foot exceedence represents less than seven
percent of the total allowable building height of 45 feet. That portion
of the building that exceeds the height limit is confined to only a small
portion of the roof (about 15 percent of the structure). The SOFA CAP
provides that the Director of Planning and Community Environment
sha!l make the determination of what constitutes a minor exception and
he has determined that this case is a minor exception.
c) Finding 3: Reduction of the building mass could, in fact, eliminate
the need for the height exception. Such a reduction, however, would
affect the coherency of the building design, particularly the pitch of the
roof at the fourth floor elevation which contributes to the Craftsman
style of the building. Reduction of the building mass also could result
in a loss of housing units. At its meeting of February 20, 2001, Council
members discussed the need for additional housing in the project
proposed at 800 High Street (in the SOFA Phase 2 area) and in the City
in general to improve the jobs/housing balance throughout Palo Alto.
A reduction in the mass of this, and other buildings inthe SOFA area,
would undoubtedly reduce neighbors’ concerns about bulk and mass of
new buildings. However, such a reduction would affect the positive
CMR: 183:01 Page 9 of 11
contribution made by this and other PAMF projects to the citywide
jobs/housing balance. Overall, the PAMF projects are proposing to
contribute 86 new housing units on Blocks A and B as well as 20 new
units on Blocks C, D, E and F.
d) Finding 4: a) Staffbelieves that the project is consistent with Policy
L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the
planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use
development. " The project proposes a multiple family residential use
which contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and
commercial, uses in the area, and contributes to a desirable
neighborhood character by including street trees and pedestrian
amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; b)
Staff believes that the project is consistent with Policy B-21 "Maintain
uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the
Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of
automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby
neighbortloods. " The project provides 30 housing units close to
Downto\vn services, transit, and local serving retail uses.
Appellants’ Supplemental Issues -- Block A AMF -- March 27, 2001
13. Appellant Com’crn. We have a supplementary issue to add to our appeal of the
777 Bryant (Block A AMF) application. This issue is summarized as follows:
-Required elements of the building were not counted when totaling FAR.
Staff Response The appellants have raised an issue regarding the calculation of
floor area in their communication entitled "Supplemental Issues Block A AMF
Appeal" (March 27, 2001), Attachment B. The appellants contend that two
stairwells on the third floor and a mechanical room on the fourth floor were not
included in the calculation of floor area for the building. The applicant and project
architects are aware of the City’s definitions for calculating floor area and would
revise building permit plans to comply with the applicable code requirements, as
necessary. These code issues do not constitute non-conformance with the SOFA
CAP, and therefore, are not grounds for reversing the director’s decision.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental revi6w under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared
for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EIR was reviewed and certified by the City
Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been reviewed in
CMR: 183:01 Page 10 of 11
comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staff has determined that the
current project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR and, therefore, no subsequent
environmental analysis is required. Copies of the EIR and the findings made by the City
Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the
Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Appellant’s Letter and Supporting Materials, dated February 7, 2001 and March 27, 2001
C. Letters from SummerHill, dated March 28, 2001, and Berliner Cohen, dated March 27,
2001
D.ARB/HRB Staff Report dated October 19, 2000 (including attachments)
E.Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of July 12, 2000 (Council Members only)
F.Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of November 2, 2000 (Council Members only)
G.Plans (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAl:
EMILY
Assistant City Manager
CMR:183:01 Page 11 of 11
Emerson St
H flh St
Alma St
|
m
D.
|
D
|
D
|
i
~,Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement
SOFA Key
March 27,2000
Attachment
CITY, OF PALO ALTO, CA-
CITY’ CLERK’S OFFICE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk 01 fEB -’/ P}t 5:18
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR. OF PLANN~iI~I~;i
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLIGATIONS)
To be filed in duplicate
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. 13.,.~ -!
Street Address "7 "7 "7" "" !~rj,),~ ,~,.
Name’of Property Owner (if other than appellant)
Property Owner’s Address. "7 "7’ ? ("’0 It’-~ ,’(~.’~.
Street" /
Zone District
City /" ZIP / -"/
The cieclslon of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated
(original applicant)
for architectural review was ~lOpr’~.~7/
(a’pl~roved/d e nied)
, is.hereby appealed for the reason.s stated
in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date ~F~’b, 7"/~O0 /Signature of Appellant
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Approved ’Denied
SUBMrFrAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans
2.Labels
3.Appeal Application Forms
4.LeRer
5.Fee
By:
By:
.~~
By:
By:
12189
NOTICE OF APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR A 30 UNIT
CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX AT
777 BYRANT
On November 2, 2000 the ARB/HRB reviewed and recommended approval of an
application.for construction of a 30 unit condominium complex on Block "A" of
the property formerly occupied by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Staff has
determined that the project is consistent with the policies, programs and intent of
the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP) provided that a
minor exception for building height is allowed.
The Director of Planning and Community Environment has reviewed the project,
the AP, B/HRB recommendation and has approved the project subject to the
findings and Conditions.
The approval of this project is granted in accordance Chapter IV Section A
"Review Procedures" of the Southof Forest. Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA¯CAP). The approval is for a "coordinated development permit" as specified in
Section 19.10.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become
effective eight working days following the mailing of this notice, unless~ an appeal
is filed as provided by as Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The project is located at 777 Bryant Street. Below is a briefdescription of the
application for the project. ’Plans,-findings and conditions are on file at City Hal
and may be ,reviewed weekdays, between 8 AM and 4 PM, at the Developmenl
Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue. For further information, please call Bhavna
Mistry at (650) 329-2441.
777 Br)’ant Street (File #00-ARB-111): Application for a Coordinatec
Development Permit and minor exception to building height for a 30 unit fou
story eond0minium e0mplex, subterranean parking garage and related sit,
improvements at 777 Bryant Street. Environmental Assessment: A-
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared subject to the Californi
Environmental Quality Act. Zone District (AMF).
You may appeal this decision by submitting ¯ written request to he (2it,/Clerk. "/’his request must: be received by
Clerk by 5:30 PM on February 7, 2001. If no ¯ppeal is filed With the Clerk by that time. the Director’s decision will be final.
If you wish to appeal ~his item, you may contact the Planning Department (329-244 l) for assistance, If you challenge this lar
use decision in ourL you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at an appeal heating or
wrinen correspondence ddiver~d to the City ot’Palo Alto. at or prior to the appeal heating.
Appeal of 777 Bryant (Block A AMF)Application 00-ARB- 111
Dear Council Members,
We agree with the intention and goals of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan
(SOFA CAP) including the housing density. However, the implementation does not conform
with the policies, programs or intent of the SOFA CAP.
Failures in the process prevented project deficiencies from being corrected.
As a consequence, we are appealing the Director of Planning’s decision to approve the
Coordinated Development Permit for the application by SummerHill Homes for construction
of a 30 unit four story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site
improvements at 777 Bryant Street with a minor exception to building height.
Our goal with this appeal is:
1.Get a decision based on a flawed process vacated,
2.Have a full and proper ARB/HRB review which will bring the project into
conformance with the policies, programs or intent of the SOFA CAP.
We believe a proper ARB/HRB review can result in a project that is compatible with the
existing environment and that we can all be proud to put our names on.
There is a special concern with this development as it gives away public land for private
development purposes. An easement on the Williams House driveway has been granted.
Our appeal is based on. but not limited to, the following reasons:
ARB/HRB Review Process Issues
s
Conflict in direction ¯
¯ While the SOFA CAP clearly states that "Compliance with both (Development)
Standards and (Design) Guidelines is required for approval of a development
project within the SOFA Plan Area", the review board operated under conflicting
directions between satisfying the SOFA CAP and perceived guarantee from the
¯Development Agreement. An example of this is how staff and the applicant
stated that FAR was guaranteed. When conflicting rules exist, the most stringent
applies. An applicant is not allowed to pick and choose which conditions they
wish to satisfy. For example, FAR (with or¯ without a development agreement) is
not allowed to override compliance with other development standards.
Truncated ARB/HRB Review Guidelines
¯ Significant elements of the Standards for review of the ARB (PAMC 16.48.120)
were not included in the ARB/HRB consistency review standards.
One of the justifications given for omitting 16.48.120 findings is "the finding has
been committed by the development agreement". (Aug 23, 2000 ARB/HRB
Memorandum, Attach. A, the very document which is titled "All Approvals shall
February 7,2001
Appeal of.777 Bryant (Block A AMF) "Application 00-ARB-I 11
be consistent with the CAP")
Omitted review findings include: consistency and compatibility with the Comp
Plan; site development characteristics such as lot size, building coverage,
setbacks, building height; the ability to make recommendations more restrictive
than Title 16 and/or Title 18 (PAMC 16.48.120 (c))
ARB/HRB members express dissatisfaction with process
¯ Members of the review board stated objections about constraints placed on their
ability to have a full and proper design review, including references to having
their "hands tied". As a consequence of this constrained process, the members
went on record describing the projects as incompatible while not having the
freedom to vote on the design, only details.
The ARB/HRB votes of record reflect only a vote on these details, and do
not reflect a vote of approval on the projects.
Review Process Violations
o Board member ineligibility
¯ An ARB member’s term expired in September 2000 making him ineligible to
participate in the ARB/HRB joint board, thus rendering any subsequent votes
invalid.
s Late Approval
¯ Project approvals are supposed to be acted on by the Director of Planning and
CommunitY Environment within 3 working days of the ARB/HRB approval.
The ARBPrlRB voted to approve the Block A AMF project on November 2,
2000. The Director signed.the approval on January 25, 2001.
Project Deficiencies
6.The project is not consistent with the PAMF/SOFA CAP Policy Framework
adopted by the City Council on September 22, 1997.
"Promote high quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing
character of the area, including the scale of development, the high degree of visual
interest; and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern."
¯"The FAR, mass and height of the proposed project exceed that of most
buildings in the vicinity." (staff report, October 19, 2000)
s The project is not consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010.
"Maintaining the physical qualities of the City is an overarching consideration,
incorporated in all parts of the Plan .... " (Comp Plan, page 1-3)
February 7, 2001 2
Appeal of 777 Bryant (Block A AMF)Application 00-ARB-111
¯The larger scale, massing and height of the AMF development does not promote
compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character, as Policy L-12
requires.
¯The 48 foot height of the Block A AMF is twice that of the adjacent Williams
House.
The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP Policies.
¯ Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities,
and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes"
29 of the 30 units are 2 bedroom and very simila~ in size thus targeting the same
income bracket.
The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP AMF Design Guidelines.
¯ The project provides housing units of effectively all but one the same size thus
failing to satisfy Guideline 4.1 (e) which calls for a variety of unit sizes to
support different family sizes, age groups, income level, etc.
¯The height of the building is four stories tall in violation of general SOFA
Design Guidelines where four stories are only allowed under exceptional
circumstances for architecture and design to achieve compatibility (SOFA CAP
Ch. H-D, page 19). No case has been substantiated for these exceptional
circumstances.
10. The
¯
project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP AMF Development Standards.
The development has a roof height of 48 feet in violation of 3.4 (e)(2) (45 feet
maximum).
11. The
¯
project is not consistent with the Development Agreement
The Development Agreement declares that "City desires to obtain the binding
agreement of PAMF for the development of the Property in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement, the SOFA CAP, and the various other approvals
and conditions related thereto." (Recital G)>>As described above, the project is
not consistent with the SOFA CAP, and is therefore not consistent with the
Development Agreement.
12. The exceptions approved were based on inadequate findings.
¯ Note: The application is for a minor exception. However, the violations of the
AMF Development Standard listed in item 10 above are major in character and
should be treated as such. The SOFA CAP lists four findings, all of which must
be met before a minor exception can be granted. The staff findings in all of the
four categories are inadequate as shown below.
Finding Requirement li Consistency with the policies of the SOFA CAP
Policy L-8 is a SOFA Phase II policy and as such cannot be used as findings
for a’ SOFA Phase I project.
February 7,2001 3
Appeal of 777 Bryant (Block A AMF)Application 00-ARB- 111
Policy H-l: "Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the
plan area, with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PA_MF
site". The Finding claims consistency because 30 new units are being added.
>>The project does provide 30 new units. It is worth noting that it uses the
maximum FAR and the maximum height while providing only the minimum
housing density required.
’ Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of
densities, and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestylesand~
incomes" >>All but one of the units are 2 bedroom and similar in size thus
targeting residents generally of the same income level and household size.
Finding Requirement 2: The exception relates to a minor feature and would
not be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity nor
detrimental to the public health, safety, general weffare, or convenience.
This development is detrimental to the general welfare due to the violations of
the daylight plane by the excessively high roof. A 3 foot height violation is not a
’minor’ violation (48 feet vs 45 fee0 and increases the project’s incompatibility
with the exisdng surroundings.
Finding Requirement 3: An enhancement is achieved by the exception in a
manner that would not otherwise be achieved through a strict application of
the standard
Staff asserts the necessity of exceptions in order to accomplish the design goals
of the SOFA CAP. The goals of the exception can be achieved, if, for example,
the building mass is reduced. This would achieve
"The purpose of the Attached Multiple Family (AMF) land use
category is to. provide for medium to high density apartments,
townhouses, or condominiums with site regulations which ensure
compatibility with the physical scale of the Plan Area but that
reflect current economic realities." (SOFA CAP, page 93)
Finding Requirement 4: The project is consistent with the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan
The Finding claims consistency with the Comp Plan by citing the following
Policies
Policy L-9 encourages the enhancement of mixed use areas. >>The AMF site
is primarily a residential neighborhood. It is generally understood that the area
closer to Alma is the mixed use portion of SOFA. This policy does not apply.
Policy B-21 states: "Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that
complement the Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation
of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods;"
>> Business use policies do not apply to residential developments.
February 7, 2001 4
Appeal of 777 Bryant (Block A AMF)Application 00-ARB: 111
As previously stated, we believe a proper ARB/HRB review can result in a project that is
compatible with the existing environment and that we can all be proud to put our names on.
We greatly appreciate Council’s attention to the community concerns outlined in this letter.
Respectfully,
Steve Reyna Aysen Kuflu
February 7, 2001 5
Overview of Block A & B Appeals
Apl~als have been filed: on the two condominium projects and the single family home development on the former
PAMF Clinic site.
The bases for the appeals are:
I) The constrained and conflicted review process
2) The resulting projects inconsistencies with South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP),
SOFA Development Agreement, SOFA policy framework, and Comp Plan.
3) The projects incompatibility with the.existing neighborhood
4) The multiple exceptions to zoning standards without adequate findings
Our goal is to have the approvals overturned, the process flaws cleared up, and the projects sent back to the ARB/HRB
review board for a full and proper review.
NOTE: If required condi.tions within a CAP or development agreement appear to.be in conflict,
the most restrictive apply. For example, FAR allowance cannot override daylight plane considerations.
Examples from the appeal !etters
Daylight plane standards have been set aside to allow maximum floor area ratio (FAR). For instance, the condominium
project at 325 Channing, which abuts the new public park, is designed to the maximum FAR (!.5) and height (45 feet).
Its.impact on the park is exacerbated by daylight plane violations being allowed.
Public land is being given away for private gain. An easement for emergency vehicles is bei.ng pr.oposed on the
Williams House driveway for the condominium project at 777 Bryant. As a result, the Condominium project is not
providing access on its own property and the size of the building grows prbportionately, without proper compensation.
The joint Architectural and Historic Review Board was given conflicting directions as.to what parts or the design they
were allowed to review. An example of this is that the Board was given direction that the size and basic design of the
projects were fixed: the Board could only review details
even though compatibility with the neighborhood is a requirement of the SOFA CAP. They felt the projects were
incompatible. This led to the great frustration of Board members about their constrained ability to have a proper design
review. One Board’member even discussed resigning from the Board because of feeling "handcuffed" (Story in the
Daily October 27, 2000).
An incompatibility example: 777 Bryant condominium project is 48 feet tall (3 feet taller than its zoning all6ws). Its
neighbor, the Williams House, is approximately 24 feet tall.
Supplemental Issues: Block A.AMF Appeal
Appeal of application 00-ARB-i 11
77"7 Bryant (Block A AIV~
.RECEIVED
001
r~n~ En~onrr~nt
March 27~, 2001
Dear Council Members,
We have a supplementary issue to add to our appeal of the 77"7 Bryant (Block A AMP) application.
This issue is summarized as follows:
~R.equired elements of the building were not counted when totalling FAR
Incorrect FAR
Def’med in PAMC 18.04.030 (65XA), Gross Floor Area "means the total area of all floors of a
building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, and including the following: (i) Halls;
(ii) Stairways: (iii) Elevator shafts; (iv) Service and mechanical equipment rooms; ...".
As is shown in the SummerHill plans, two stairways on the third floor and the mechanical room on
the fourth floor, at the least, are not counted in the total square footage.
Since the tallied square footage is at the maximum, any uncounted square footage is in excess~ The
plans must be reexamined, all missing square footage accounted for, and the building must be
redesigned to fit within the maximum allowed FAR. Exceptions to maximum FAR are not ’
permitted in AMP zoning.
Remedies
-Comply with the code. Review the plans and count all missing square footage. Redesign the
building to fit within the maximum FAR allowed.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
S teve Reyna Aysen Kutlu
Attachment
Summert-Iill Homes
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: 650 857 0122
Fax: 650 857 1077
March 28, 2001
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo alto, California 94303
RE: ARB/HRB Design Approvals
Dear Mayor Eakins and City Couneilmembers,
I am writing at this time to ask for your support to uphold the Planning Directors approval of our
designs for three residential projects included in the Sofa Plan. SummerHill has been diligent in
its effort to deliver an ambitious program of development and community benefits. The City will
no doubt benefit greatly through the dedication of parkland, affordable housing and historic
resource, not to mention the significant development of much needed market housing within a
very wide range of product types, Council understood, last year, that public/private cooperation
was necessary to make the program work at many levels, and that not everyone would get all
they may want. The objections heard in the appeals before you are the very same issues that were
addressed and concluded a year ago. I have included a letter written by the same attorney who
negotiated the legal terms of the Development Agreement on SummerHill’s behalf. His letter
specifically addresses the legal basis of three appeals before you.
At issue is whether SummerHi11 faithfully executed and articulated the agreed upon development
programs in a manner consistent with the plan. We believe this has been achieved. The process
of evaluation and public review has been exhaustive. SummerHill presented its designs at no
fewer than ten publicly noticed hearings before the prescribed AR_B/HR.B Committee.
Throughout this design review process, we have remained committed to improving our ideas,
pushing the quality of design to the highest possible levels, and being sensitive to surrounding
context and issues of scale without sacrificing agreed upon programmatic objectives. There were
numerous significant improvements made to our designs over the course of the past year.
SummerHi11 has been actively engaged in a very involved, process of architectural design and
approvals for its various projects within the Sofa I Area. The CAP Zoning and Development
Agreement which were unanimously approved by Council last March, have provided
SummerHill and City staff with very thorough guidance from which to work: In developing and
articulating the designs for the three projects currently under appeal, SummerHill has not
SummerHill Homes.
deviated from the specific program statements outlined in the Agreement. The proposed designs,
which have been approved by the Director of Planning, are very consistent with the plans
illustrated before you in December of 1999. The site plan, architecture, building massing and
density all match.
It is tempting to tamper with designs and question the validity of numerous physical trade-offs
that become inevitable. The CAP Guidelines wisely included latitude for design discretion and
minor variation from standards that prove too rigid to support the very best solutions. Apanel of
lay experts, both historic and architectural, debated at length our proposals. They made
suggestions relating both to style and massing. With the full support of staff, SummerHill
negotiated an involved and educateddebate through the course of these public hearings.
The following is a synopsis of the Minor Variations form the Sofa Development Standards that
were approved with our designs.
¯Block A Condominium
The building design includes a three foot increase to the maximum height of 45’i The
increase in height was proposed to Council more than a year ago and the motion for
approval specifically included an allowance for four stories on this project. Four stories
within absolute height to the building ridge of 45’ would not result in an attractive design
with a first floor elevated between two and three feet to allow for a limestone building
base and an enhanced sense of privacy along the street. Likewise an eave height of 35’ is
not possible with four floors of units and the selected architectural expression.
¯Block B Condominium
The side building setback along the park side of the 36 Unit park facing condominium is
10 feet pursuant to specific provision of the CAP Development Standards. The Standards
did.not specifically make provision for a modified Daylight Plane in this location. The
attic dormers and gable ends on this side of the building intrude into the daylight plane to
a minor extent. The presence of these dormers and attic bedroom elements was discussed
with council last year and resulted from a compromise not permitting fourth story units
on this site. The height limits have not been broken, and the proposed building section
matches a diagram shown to Council last February when we spoke of our intention to
include fourth floor dormer element. These elements were referenced in Mr. Beecham’s "
approval motion.
¯Block B Single family Homes
Suggestions made by the ARB/HRB resulted in minor variations from the standards, such
is the case with variation of the front yard setback for single family homes fronting the
pedestrian muse. Their direction was debated in detail and it was agreed that frontage on
a pedestrian way is different than.street frontage. The thought being that a more intimate
distance from the public way would be desirable. Variation also resulted from the need to
resolve apparent conflict between standards. This is the case with variation to side
setback and daylight plane affecting the accessory units and two of the garages on the
SummerHill Homes
single family site. Without Some flexibility in the standard, two of the ten accessory units
would be lost. These units are a required element of the design program.
SummerHill has been faithful to its vision and sacrificed considerable time and energy to a
lengthy public process. We believe that our projects along witla the host of Community benefits
that have been leveraged will be an enduring complement to this historic setting. We anxiously
look forward to the commencement of our construction as well as the park improvements and the
development of affordable housing. To further delay these approvals puts not only the spirit of
our agreement at risk, but also potentially undermines the fmaneial commitments SummerHill
depends upon to enable construction of much needed housing this year. We have endured a long
standing, minority of unfettered opposition based on the same issues that were heard and
defeated a year ago. Much has been done to ensure that this project will benefit the community at
large. We are confident that our projects will be of a quality that not only endures but will
become woven into the neighborhood fabric over time. Hopefully the architecture and housing
which it represents will be treasured for the residential revitalization of an area previously
subject to institutional intrusion.
Your support and swit~ action on this important matte c will be greatly appreciated and warranted.
Very truly yours
Richard T. Wurzelbacher
Vice President
SRNFORD A. BERUNER"
ANOREW L FN~ER
WILMAM J. GOINES*
ROBERT W. HUMPHREY’SR~J.PH J. SWNISON
PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY
JOSEPH E. DWOR~
SAMUEL L FN~B
ALAN J. PINNER
SAMUEL J, COHEN
FRANK R. UBHAUS
LINOA A. CALl.ON
JAMES P. CASHMAN
STEVEN J. C~SAD
NANCY J. JOHNSON
JEROLD A. RF.~’ONROBERT L, CHORTEK
JONATHAN D. WOLF
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
KEVIN Fo KELLEY
BERLINER COHEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www.berlin~r.com
WILLIAM F- ADAMS
MARK MAKIBNICZ
"II"IOMAS P. MURPHY
THOMAS M. GROSS
NADIA V. HOLOBER
MARK Vo ISOLA
BRIAN L SHETLER
JOLIE HOUSTON
JAMIE LEE BRANDSEILEEN P. KENNEDY
HARRY A. LOPEZ
JOHN F. DOMINGUE
SETH J. COHEN
PATRICK UN
JENNIFER J. CUNNINGHAM
KRISTIN GENC
DAVID D, W.M}E
TIFFINY C. EVANS, DENNIS J. LOPUT
BRIAN K. KEELEY
OF COUNSEL
HUGH L ISOLA"
STEVEN t HALLGPJMSON
ERJC WONG
NANCY L ERANDT
CHARLES W. VOLPE
March 27, 2001
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
City 6fPalo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
PaloAlto, CA 94303
Appeals from ARB/HRB Hearings
File Nos. 00-ARB-111, -112-113
April 2, 2001 Agenda
SummerHill Project
Dear Mayor Eakins and Councilmernbers:
This letter is in response to the appeals filed by Steve Reyna and Aysen Kutlu on the
above-referenced approvals by the combined Architectural Review. Board/Historical Review
Board. On behalf of SummerHill, we would urge that these appeals be denied and the
applications be approved as they were approved by the ARB/HRB.
In essence, the appeals attempt to. re-argue policy direction that was established in the
SOFA CAP and in the Development Agreement between the City of Palo. Alto and PAMF.
These policy issues were decided, however, after extensive public input and.many hearings last
year at the time the SOFA CAP. and the Development Agreement were approved. The SOFA
CAP. has established the policy direction for the City, and the Development Agreement gave
vested rights to the developer to build the project to the maximum density and intensity of uses
specified in the Development Agreement and the SOFA CAP. These issues cannot be re-opened
at this time without violating the Development Agreement.
The following is a response to specific numbered paragraphs in the various appeals. We
note. that almost all the numbered paragraphs are identical from appeal to appeal, so they will be
discussed jointly.
~,LFL511595.1
02-032709427013
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
Appeal Item No. 1: Conflict in Direction
The appellants argue that there are conflicts between the SOFA CAP and the
Development Agreement. This issue was put to rest when the entitlements were approved. In
fact, the City Council specifically found in the Development Agreement that the SOFA CAP and
the Development Agreement are compatible. Thus, paragraph 9(b)(i) in part reads as follows:
(i) Entitlement to Develop. As of the Effective Date,
PAMF has acquired and been granted the vested right to develop
the Project to the extent and in the manner provided in this
Agreement, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Project
Approvals, and in accordance with the Applicable Rules and
Subsequent Applicable Rules when required by this Agreement,
and City hereby finds the Project consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the SOFA CAP, and the Zoning Ordinance.
To the extent that there may be any elements of the Program
Development Statements set forth in Exhibits "D-I" through "D-
10" that have inadvertently not been included within the SOFA
CAP, the Parties intend that such components be deemed
consistent with and a part of the SOFA CAP so that they may be
approved in the exercise of the reasonable discretion of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Furthermore, the compatibility of the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement was
stressed throughout the negotiation of the Development Agreement, and was certainly the City
Attorney’s position. In other words, the City Council was to make the original neighborhood
compatibility, decision in their adoption of the SOFA CAP and in their adoption of the
entitlements and the Development Agreement for the project. Once those maximum intensities
of usage were agreed to, then the specific design of each element would still require City
approval, but the intensity of development could not be cut back through the design process.
Thus, the first full paragraph on page 25 of the Development Agreement and the two following
paragraphs cover this issue in great detail. They read as follows:
Any subsequent Discretionary Actions by City or any.
conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for such
.Discretionary Actions by City, shall not, without PAMF’s consent,
prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the
maximum density or intensity of development and other site
development standards set forth in this Agreement, unless City
determines it is necessary to protect against conditions which
create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the physical health or
safety of residents or users of the Project or the affected
surrounding region. [Emphasis added.]
(ii) Consistency with Applicable Rules. City finds, based
upon all information made available to City prior to or
concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, that there are
no Applicable Rules that would prohibit or prevent the full
~ALF~511595.2
03-032809427013
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembcrs
March 27, 2001
completion and occupancy of the Project in accordance, with uses,
densities, designs, heights and sizes incorporated and agreed to
herein. The Project Approvals anticipate the need for further
Discretionary Approvals by City, and such approvals shall be
reasonably conditioned and reasonably granted when consistent
with this Agreement.
(iii) Subsequent Discretionary Actions. With respect to
any Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval that is
required subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, City
agrees thaf it will not unreasonably withhold from PAMF or
unreasonably condition or delay any such Discretionary Action or
Discretionary Approval which must be issued by City in orde~ for
the Project to proceed to construction and occupancy. In addition,
no. condition shall, without PAMF’s.consent, preclude Or othenvise
limit PAMF’s ability to develop the Project in accordance with the
density and intensity ofnse and site development specifications set
forth in this Agreement nor othemrise conflict with any provision
of this Agreement, unless City determines it is necessary to protect
against conditions which create a substantial and demonstrable risk
to the physical health or safety of residents or users of the Project
or the affected surrounding region.
It is significant that these provisions allow development’ at the maximum intensity
contemplated by The Development Agreement and by the SOFA CAP as well as by the o~er
entitlements.. Furthermore, the ability of the City to cut back on that density would only be as. a
direct result of a "physical" risk. This is different than the normal standard employed for design-
review, which is the more general "public health, safety and welfare." My recollection is that
this issue was specifically discussed in this context, and the agreement reached was that the "
development at the maximum density permitted by the entitlements could not be restricted
simply on a general welfare standard. In other words, it could not be restricted simply because
of concerns about aesthetics or "neighborhood compatibility."
Appeal Item No. 2: Truncated ARB/HRB Review Guidelines
The ARB/I-IRB approvals properly note that certain findings have been made by the
adoption of the Development Agreement, and are not open for additional review at this time.
Appeal Item No. 3: ARB/I-IRB Members Expressed Dissatisfaction with
the Process
This is an opinion of the appellants and is not relevant to any issue in front of the
City Council.
Appeal Item No. 4: Board Member Ineligibility
Appeal Item No. 5: Late Approval
We assume that the.City Attorney will respond to these issues of alleged
deficiencies of City process.
~AI.F~511595.1
02-032709427013
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
Appeal Item No. 6:Iuconsistency with SOFA CAP Policy Framework
The fact that the FA.~ mass and height of the proposed project may exceed most
buildings in the vicinity was accepted by the City Council when it approved the SOFA CAP and
the Development Agreement.. With respect to the DHS houses, the appellants’ claim that they do
not "continue the character, scale, or f~ont setback pattern of existing residences..." is a matter of
opinion. The ARB/I-IRB, after numerous public hearings, came to the opposite conclusion.
Appeal Item No. 7: Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan
Appeal Item No. 8: Inconsistency with SOFA/CAP Policies
These again are matters of opinion. The appellants site Policy H-6 of the SOFA CAP~
arguing that each housing type should have a range of densities, etc.. However, there are and will
be a range of densities in the SOFA area, including within the various elements of this project
itself.
Appeal Item No. 9: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP. ~ Design Guidelines/SOFA CAP
DHS Design Guidelines.
This is the same argument as the previous paragraph, that the units in each of these
separate portions of the project must contain a larger variety of unit sizes.. This. is not required:by
the SOFA CAP, and contradicts the vested right of the developer under the Development
Agreement to develop at the maximum FAR (see response to Appeal Item No.-1):
Appeal Item No. 10: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP A.MF/DHS Development Standards
Theseparagraphs quibble over minor Variations and exceptions in design standards which
were approved by the ARB/HRB after extensive public hearings, and in an attempt to approve
the best possible project given the dictates of the SOFA CAP. and the density, of use allowed
under the Development Agreement. In some eases, small exceptions to standards have been .
required. This again is recognized under the Development Agreement, as paragraph 9(b)(i)
quoted earlier in this letter explicitly recognizes in providing for exceptions to be made in the
exercise of"the reasonable discretion" of the Director of Plauning and Community Environment.
Appeal Item No. 11" Inconsistency with Development Agreement
This is a circular argument that shouldbe ignored. These projects as approved are fully
consistent with the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement.
Appeal Item No. 12: Inadequacy 0fFindings
In this paragraph, the appellants attempt to re-argue the policies of the SOFA CAP by
putting a different spin on them, and alleging that findings of consistency should not be made.
This is no different than the earlier paragraphs alleging that these projects were inconsistent with
the SOFA CAP, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Develo ~ment Agreement.. This paragraph
¯~ALF~11595.1
02-032709427013
4
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
adds nothing new to the appeal. In fact, appropriate findings were made, and there is substantial
evidence in the record of the hearings to support them.
In summary, we urge the Council to reject this attempt to. revisit the.policies of the SOFA
CAP and revisit the agreements made by the City. in the adoption of the. Development Agreement
and other entitlements. These appeals should be denied.
Very truly yours,.
BERLINER COHEN
ANDREW L. FA.BER
E-Mail:
ALF:cem
cc: Rick Wurzelbacher
Frank Behest
Ed Gawf
Ariel Calonne, Esq.
~,LFL511595.1
02-032709427013
5
Attacnm~t ,-"
Architectural Review Board
Histo c Resources Board
2
Staff Report
Item No.
Agenda Date:
To:
October 19, 2000
Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
From:
Subject:
Chandler ,Lee, Planner Department: Planning
777 Bryant Street, 00-ARB-111 - Application by SummerHill Homes
for major Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
(ARB/HRB) review and recommendation to the Director of Planning
and Community Environment to allow construction of a 30 unit four
story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related
site improvements. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
recommend to the Director of Planning and Community Environment approval of
construction of a 30 unit four story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and
related site improvements, subject to the findings in Attachments B and C and the conditions
in Attachment D.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a 53,310 square foot, four story condominium
complex, a subterranean parking garage containing 78 parking spaces, and related site
improvements. The building would contain 30 condominium units yielding an overall density
of 37 units per acre. The project would be located on the southwestern comer of Block A of
the property formerly owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF).
The site consists of one parcel totaling 35,540 square feet or 0.82 acres on the block bounded
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summcrhi\blockamf.arb Page 1
by Homer and Forest Avenues, Bryant and Waverley Streets (see Attachment A ~ Location
Map). The proposed building footprint would be 15,364 square feet at grade resulting in a
coverage of 43 percent. The proposed building would be setback 15 feet fi:om Homer Avenue
and the existing building at 737 Bryant Street, and 16 feet from Bryant Street and the existing
Williams House to the east.
Parking would be on two subterranean levels and would provide 78 uni-stalls, including three
standard and one van accessible stalls. Each parking level extends about 10 feet below grade.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided from a single, two-way driveway on Homer
Avenue that connects to the parking levels. Pedestrian access would be provided from two
primary entries on Homer Avenue into the courtyards. No entries to individual units are
provided on either Homer Avenue or Bryant Street. Transit access would be provided from
existing bus stops on Channing and Homer Avenues and Ramona Street. Bicycle access
would be provided by an existing bike boulevard located along Bryant Street.
The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem interpretation of the Craftsman
Stucco Style that is intended to complement the design character of the adjacent
neighborhood. Building materials and features include: beige stucco siding, sloping roofs,
front porches, divided light windows, and a dark composition shingle roof.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the
project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting. -
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP).
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The project is consistent with the follOwing policies:
Policy L-9: ’~nhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and
zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. "
Consistency Review: The project proposes a multiple family residential use which
contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area. The
project contributes to a desirable neighborhood character by including street trees and
pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk, seating and landscaping) at ground level.
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\bloekamf.arb Page 2
Policy H-2: "Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriate locations."
Consistency Review: The project includes 30 residential units that will increase opportunities
for .scarce housing in the area.
Policy B-21: ’gdaintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the
Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses,
and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods. "
Consistency Review: The project provides 30 housing units close to Downtown services,
transit, and local serving retail uses.
¯ SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
The project is located within the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP)
area. Staff review of the project with the SOFA CAP policies is as follows:
Policy L-2:’Provide adequate open space through development of a new neighborhood
park within the area currently occupied by PAMF facilities to serve the
neighborhood and downtown. "
Consistency Review: The project is part of the former PAMF properties which collectively
contributed to the dedication of the two acre park to the City.
¯ Policy L-8:’Preserve and enhance the historically mixed use development pattern of the
South of Forest Area including residential uses. This mixed use development
shall include mutually compatible uses that.provide both vitality and
convenience for residents, businesses and visitors. "
Consistency Review: The project proposes a multiple family residential use which
contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area. The
project contributes to neighborhood vitality by including street trees and pedestrian amenities
(improved sidewalk, seating and landscaping) at ground level.
Policy H-l:’Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan area,
with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF sites."
Consistency Review: The project provides 30 new housing units.
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summerhi\bloekamf.arb Page 3
Policy H-6:’f-lousing types in the plan area shouM include a range of densities, and shouM
be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes."
Consistency Review: The project provides 30 multiple family units of varying sizes. The
project, together with the remainder of the PAMF properties, have contributed to the
provision of affordable housing by contributing towards the City’s acquisition of an
affordable housing site in accordance with Program H-2 of the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy T-7: ’Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level
parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and multiple family
residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible from
adjacent roadways."
Consistency Review: The project proposes 78 parking spaces all of~which would be
underground and not visible from public streets.
PolicyDC-3:’~lny new development.., shall.consider the replacement of any ’~nissing" street
trees at an interval of approximately 20 to 25feet on center."
Consistency Review: The project proposes new street trees which will be added to existing
street trees to provide a row of street trees at intervals of approximately 25 feet.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is consideredan incentive and guide for redevelopment,
rather than policy. It calls for maintaining the eclectic character and scale of the area,
improving landscaping and green spaces, encouraging private investment, and creating
usable open spaces and a gathering spot for the district. The proposed project is generally
consistent with the Urban Design Guide.
DISCUSSION
Project History
The site was recently.occupied by three buildings that were left vacant when PAMF relocated
to its new facility on E1 Camino Real. The site is designated for attached multiple family
(AMF) in the SOFA CAP. The City Council approved this zoning designation for this site
as well as for the remainder of phase I of the SOFA area in March 2000. The City Council
also approved a development agreement with SummerHill Homes for this site that allows
construction of multiple family uses up to the maximum limits allowed under the AMF
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockamf.arb Page 4
designation (1.5 FAR, 45 foot height at the peak of the roof and 35 foot height at.the roof
eave). Since Council’s approval, SummerHill Homes has submitted applications for a
¯ certificate of compliance to reconfigure this block (Block A) as well as parcel maps for the
other blocks formerly owned by PAMF.
The Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board conducted a preliminary review
of the project on September 7, 2000..(See Attachment F: Minutes from ARB/HKB meeting
of September7, 2000). The ARB/HRB generally supported the site planning, architecture,
and landscape components of the project and were generally in favor of the project
contingent on several design revisions (discussed under Significant Issues, below) most of
which the applicant has since incorporated into the revised plans dated October 13, 2000.
¯ Site Description
The site is a rectangular shape and consists of a single parcel of land totaling 0.82 acres
(35,540 square feet)with a 250 foot frontage along Homer Avenue and a 114 foot frontage
on Bryant Street. The site was recently occupied by a three medical office buildings and
related site improvements. The existing site slopes from the rear of the parcel to the two
street frontages. The site is surrounded by the Roth Building and the proposed public park
(across Homer Avenue), multiple and single family residential (across Bryant Street), the
existing 737 Bryant Street office building to the north-and the existing Williams House to the
east. The site is about 1,400 feet from the University Avenue Business District.
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, :Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size in shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:SummerHill Homes
Owner:SummerHill Channing LLC
Assessor’s Parcel Number:120-16-69, 71 and 72
Comprehensive Plan Designation:Multiple Family Residential
Zoning District:AMF (Attached Multiple Family Residential)
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fm fa\summerhi\bloc kam f.arb Page 5
Surrounding Land Use:North: 737 Bryant Street office building
South: Roth Building/Proposed Public Park
East: Williams House - Museum
West: Multiple & Single Family Residential
Parcel Size:35,540 s.f. or 0.82 acres
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project.relates to site planning, architectural design, landscaping,
subdivision and SOFA CAP zoning compliance.
Site Planning: The site plan calls for the condominiums to be surrounded with landscaped
setbacks _on all sides and served by two entryways on the Homer Avenue frontage. The
condominiums, private open space, and courtyards would be located on the four floors above ’
grade while all parking would be located below grade. The building faces Homer Avenue
but provides pedestrian interest along both the Homer Avenue and Bryant Street-frontages
¯ with ample fenestration, porches, landscaping and seating areas on the ground floor as well
as balconies, dormers and chimneys on the upper floors that provide building articulation.
The proposed building provides setbacks along both Homer Avenue and Bryant Street that
provide a pedestrian friendly experience along the public right-of-way. All four perimeter
areas would be landscaped to protect adjacent uses and provide visual interest from the street
frontages and public areas.
Architectural Design: The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem
interpretation of the. Craftsman Stucco Style that is intended to complement the design
character of the adjacent neighborhood. Building materials and features include: beige stucco
siding; gently sloping roofs; front porches; painted wood decks and guardrails; wood trim;
painted wood, divided light windows; stucco chimneys and a dark asphalt shingle roof. The
design features natural materials, ample fenestration and building articulation to provide
visual interest at all levels above grade. The applicant will bringa materials board to the
meeting.
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and two
interior open air courtyards. The Homer Avenue frontage features a row of accent trees,
public seating and a variety of plants and ground coyerwithin the 15 foot landscaped
setback. The project also proposes to plant new Ash street trees (Fraxinus Holotricha) to fill
in the row of three existing Zelkova trees along Homer Avenue within the public right-of-
way. The Bryant Street frontage features new Ash street trees to fill in the row of three
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fs oi’a\summerhi\blockamf, arb Page
in the row of three existing Zelkova trees along Homer Avenue within the public right-of-
way. The Bryant Street frontage features new Ash street trees to fill in the row of three
existing Zelkova and Maple street trees as well as a variety of plantings and ground cover
¯ within the 16 foot setback. The eastern rear setback (adjacent to the Williams House) would
be 16 feet wide and planted with a variety of accent trees, shrubs and ground cover including
special paving to attract pedestrian circulation between the courtyards and the garden in the
rear of the building. The interior side (north)setback ranges from 15 to 16 feet wide in
addition to a 40 by 55 foot garden with seating surrounding the two existing redwood trees.
The project proposes two outdoor courtyards that provide private pedestrian circulation
between Homer Avenue and the residential units. The courtyards face Homer Avenue and
includes a accent trees, special paving, raised planters with seats and a water feature (in the
eastern courtyard). The project also proposes two public landscaped seating areas along
Bryant Street and Homer Avenue. These seating areas would be surrounded with accent
trees, shrubs and flowers. The seating areas are intended for use both by building users and
the public. A Landscape Concept Statement is included in the attached Program
Development Statement(Attachment E)
There are 15 existing trees on-site 10 of which would need to be removed. The Redwood
tree located between the project and 737 Bryant would be preserved as would the two large
redwood trees and the tree of heaven to the rear of 737 Bryant in the location of the proposed
rear garden. The large double trunk Redwood tree located between the project and 737
Bryant street could not be saved because of its location on the proposed building wall where
the garage ramps, are proposed. As a replacement, the City is requiring two significant
Redwood specimen trees to be located along the northeastern perimeter of the site. Over 40
new trees are proposed on-site including those, that are proposed as replacements for those
removed. An arborists report has been submitted as part of the application and reviewed by
the City’s arborists. Overall, the City’s arborists have determined that the tree removal plan
is acceptable and the new landscape and street tree theme would be a positive replacement.
Subdivision: The project requires a subdivision map to divide the property, into 30 separate
air rights,Jcondominiums. Draft findings for approval of a subdivision are included as
Attachment B.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The following table compares the project to the existing AMF Attached Multiple Family
Residential District regulations established in the SOFA CAP.
S:\plan\pladiv\pamt~sofa\summerhi\blockamf.arb Page 7
Project Comparison With SOFA CAP Development Standards - AMF District
Dwelling Units
Density
Floor Area (sq.fl.)
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum Height
Daylight Plane
-side: Homer
-side: 737 Bryant St.
-rear (Williams House)
Proposed
30
37 units/acre
53,310 s.f.
1.5:1
45 to 48 feet
Setbacks
- Bryant St. (frout)
- Williams House (rear)
- Interior Side: North
- Street.Side: Homer
Open Space
-private
=public
Automobile Parking
-Resident Parking
-Guest Parking
Total Parking
+737 Bryant
Bicycle Parking
- resident spaces
- guest spaces
-intrusion < 20%
-OK
-intrusion < 20%
16 feet
16 feet
15 to 16 feet
15 feet
- provided
-10,056 sf(28%)
61 spaces
4 spaces
65 spaces
+ 13 spaces
38 Class I
3 Class III
AMF Zoning
37 61 units
30 - 50 units/acre
53,310 s.f.
1.5:1
45 feet
60 degrees @ 12’
-from property
line
-from property
line
-from setback line
15 feet
10 feet
10 feet
15 feet
- 100 sffunit
- 20 % of lot area
60 spaces
4 spaces
64 spaces
38 Class I
3 Class III
Comments
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso[’a\summerhi\blockam f.a~’b Page 8
Total spaces 41 spaces 33 spaces
Recycling Storage Provided Required.
* minor intrusions into daylight planes allowed for chimneys, dormers, eaves, etc. not to exceed 15 lineal
feet or 20 % of building length
The proposal meets all the development regulations of the AMF zoning district except for
portions of the roof on the fourth floor. The project meets all requirements of the Off-
Street Parking Ordinance.
Daylight Planes: The SOFA CAP establishes side and rear daylight plane regulations. The
side daylight planes are defined by a point 12 feet in height along each side lot line,
extending upward at a 60 degree angle into .the site. Because the Bryant Street frontage is
narrower than the Channing frontage, the Zoning Ordinance defines the front as Bryant
Street and the sides of the project as facing Homer Avenue and 737 Bryant Street. The rear
daylightplane is defined by a point 12 feet in height at the rear setback line (in this case
ten feet into the site from the property line at the Williams House), extending upward at
a 60 degree angle into the site. These daylight planes are shown on the plans. The project
meets the SOFA requirements for the both the rear and side daylight planes. Dormers on
the Homer Avenue side of the project, and to a lesser extent on the rear of the building,
extend into the daylight plane. Intrusions for dormers and similar architectural features
are allowed under the SOFA regulations provided that the horizontal length of all such
features does not exceed a total of 15 feet on each side or 20 percent of the building length.
Neither the Homer Avenue side daylight plane nor the rear daylight plane intrude more
than 20 percent of the respective building length.
Height: Portions of the roof of the fourth floor of the building exceed the 45 height limit
established in the SOFA CAP. The portion of the roof that exceeds the 45 foot height is
limited to the central portion of the. building and encloses the three units on the fourth.
floor. This portion of the roof extends to a maximum of 48 feet in height for approximately
15 percent of the total roof structure. Staff can support this additional height for several
reasons; 1) the excess height provides the opportunity for a pitched roof, rather a flat roof,
which is more consistent with the architectural style of the building, 2) that portion of the
roof that exceeds 45 feet is limited to 3 feet in vertical elevation and 15 percent of the
entire roof structure and would only be partially visible for the public right-of-way, 3) the
project is otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and SOFA CAP. Therefore,
staff believes that the intent of the SOFA regulations has been met. The SOFA CAP
provides for minor exceptions, in this case building height above 45 feet, provided that
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockamf.arb Page 9
findings can be made. Staff has prepared draft findings for approval of this exception (see
Attachment C).
Below Market Rate Units
Mixed use projects are typically required to provide either: I) 10 percent of total units as
Below Market Rate (BMR), or 2).pay an in-lieu housing fee for the commercial and
industrial floor area, whichever value is greater. The Development Agreement that was
approved by the City Council in conjunction with the project stipulates that the dedication
¯ by PAMF of an option on .60 acres of land for affordable housing satisfies the project’s
BMR obligations.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Significant issues for this project relate to site planning, landscaping, and architectural
design. J
Site Planning: .The site plan calls for the condominiums and the two interior courtyards to be
located on the ground floor and remainder of the units on the second, third and fourth floors.
Parking is located entirely on two underground levels. All of the units would have access
from the two entryways on Homer Avenue. No direct access is provided from the sidewalk
to individual units due to the configuration of the floor plans which locates the bedrooms
adjacent to each ground floor porch. The porches facing Homer Avenue, Bryant Street, 737
Bryant Street and the Williams House would serve as private open space for the residential
units while the interior courtyards would serve as common open space for the entire building.
The landscaped area surrounding the existing Redwood trees to the north of the building (at
the rear of 737 Bryant Street) would be available for use by residents and office tenants of
737 Bryant Street. The Homer Avenue frontage would provide a 15 foot building setback
from the property line and would feature a public seating and landscaped area. The Bryant
Street frontage and the rear (adjacent to the Williams House)would provide a 16 foot
building setback. There would be a 15 feet setback to the 737 Bryant Street office building
and an 18 foot setback on the north side behind the proposed garden. Private porches would
intrude five to seven feet into the setbacks on all four sides of the building. All four perimeter
areas would be landscaped to provide visual interest along the street frontages and public
areas~
Building Density, Mass¯ and Height: Overall project density is about 37 units per acre which
translates to a 1:1.5 floor area ratio (FAR) for the entire building. The building height ranges
from 29 feet at the bottom of the roofeave to 48 feet at the top of the central portion of the
roof ridge. The landscaped garden at the rear of the site provides a visual buffer between the
S :\plan\pladiv\pam fsof~\summe rhi\bloc kam f.arb Page 10
building and residential areas to the north. All four facades are provided with ample building
articulation. Visual interest is provided by numerous windows, roof overhangs, chimneys,
porches and balconies on all four facades. The FAR, mass and height of the proposed project
exceed that of most buildings in the vicinity. However, they are within that allowed by the
SOFA CAP and are specifically provided for in the Development Agreement approved by
the City Council for this site.
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening, two
landscaped interior courtyards and a rear garden. At the meeting held on September 7, 2000,
the ARB/HRB requested additional details on the building perimeters especially the interface
between the building and the Williams House. The landscape plans have been revised to
address these issues as follows:
Perimeter Landscaping: The applicant has revised the plans to replace the concrete garden
path in the rear garden with a granite material to enhance the texture of that landscaped area.
At the request of the Planning Arborist, the applicant has agreed to save the existing Tree
of Heaven in the rear garden. This will to help screen the building for the neighbors to the
north. The project also proposes two public landscaped seating areas: one on Bryant Street
and one on Homer Avenue. These seating areas would be surrounded with accent trees,
shrubs and flowers. The landscape architect will bring detailed drawings of the two seating
areas to the meeting.
Some ARB/HRB members expressed concems about the interface between the proposed
building and the existing Williams House to the east of the project. The Williams House site
features a large hedge on the property linebetween the two projects that effectively screens
the proposed building from view at ground level along the Williams House entry drive and
walkway. The eastern front setback on the project side is only five feet wide and would
provide a row of shrubs and ground cover along this interface. The City’s sight distance
requirements for driveways prohibit landscaping greater than 2.5 feet in height for the front
portion of this interface. The Transportation Division has indicated that the proposed site
plan .meets these requirements. The five foot setback limits the amount of perimeter
screening at this location. The eastern rear setback (adjacent to the Williams House) would
provide a 16 feet wide setback planted with a variety of accent trees, shrubs and ground
cover including decorative paving to attract pedestrian circulation between the courtyards
and the garden in the rear of the building. Given the site constraints, staff believes that
adequate landscape screening would be provided along this edge of the property.
A final landscape plan and irrigation plan will be required as a condition of project approval.
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summerhi\bloekam f.arb Page 11
Architectural Design: The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem
interpretation of the California Shingle Style. The applicant initially proposed a Spanish
Mediterranean style but redesigned the architectural theme to be more compatible with the
design character of the adjacent Professorville neighborhood. All four of the bui!ding facades
provide pedestrian interest with ample building articulation, fenestration, patios, landscaping
and eriixyways on the ground floor and varieii window openings, balconies and building
articulation on the upper floors.
At the meeting held on September 7, 2000, the ARB/HRB requested additional details on
building materials and solar/shadow studies. The building plans have been revised to address
these issues as follows:
Building Materials: The previous plans (enlarged building elevations) indicate a stucco base
material. The applicant has revised the plans to provide a light colored, rough textured
limestone base. This would enrich the texture at the street level and provide greater visual
interest. Although some ARB/HRB members suggested a greater variety of building
materials on the upper levels, the applicant has maintained the previous materials including
beige stucco siding; painted wood decks and guardrails; wood trim; painted wood, divided
light windows; stucco chimneys and a dark asphalt shingle roof. Instead of varying building
materials, the applicant has revised the plans to provide greater building articulation and
visual interest with changes to the building facade and balconies. The revised plans reduce
the balcony projections by recessing a portion of the balconies into the building mass on the
upper floors. Along the Bryant Street frontage, the plans have been revised to recess a
portion of the building wall to provide greater articulation along this frontage.
Solar Studies: The applicant has conducted a sun/shadow analysis for the project. The
analysis illustrates the shadows cast by the buildings on adjacent streets and properties in
March, June and December at various times of day. Photographs will be available at the
meeting. The studies indicate minimalshadow exposure cast by the proposed building onto
the adjacent Williams House. The applicant will bring the sun/shadow analysis to the
meeting on October 19,’2000.
Overall, these revisions have improved the architectural design of the building. However, the
scale, mass and height of the proposed building is greater than many of the older, existing
buildings in the area. The perceived mass and height have been softened in several ways by
the design and layout of the building on the lot. Although the site is 35,540 square feet (about
.82 acres) the building footprint is only 15,364 square feet resulting in a lot coverage of 43
S:\plan\pladlv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockamf.arb Page 12
percent. Most of the site"at ground level along the two pedestrian streets (Bryant Street and
Homer Avenue) as well.as the north and east sides of the property site is dedicated to open
space (the public seating areas along Homer Avenue and Bryant Street, the rear garden, as
well as the privateporches along the street), landscaping (in the courtyards as well as along
the perimeter of the site and the edges of the porches), and walkways (along the northern and
eastern edges of the site).
All building frontages provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, porches, and
landscaping on the ground floor and varied materials, window openings and building
articulation on the upper floors.
Based on the building plans and the proposed revisions, staff is recommending approval of
the project subject to the conditions in Attachment D.
An Architectural Concept Statement and a Landscape Design Concept Statement are
included with the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment E).
CONDITIONS
Draft subdivision findings (Attachment B), exception findings
conditions of project approval (Attachment D) are attached.
(Attachment C) and
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Notice of this ARB review of project requirements was provided by publication of the
agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility
customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
NEXT STEPS
Following ARB review, the project is will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City
Council review of the subdivision map.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ¯
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared
for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EIR was reviewed and certified by .the City
Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been reviewed in
comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staff has determined that the
current project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR and therefore, no subsequent
environmental analysis is required. Copies of the EIR and the findings made by the City
S:\plan\pladiv\p~tmfsofa\summerhi\blockamf.arb Page 13
Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the
Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall.
ATTACIIMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval of Subdivision
Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval of Exception to Building Height
Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Project Approval
Attachment E: Program Development Statement
Attachment F: Minutes from ARB/HRB meeting of September 7, 2000
Revised Plans, dated October 13, 2000 (Architectural Review Board members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes,. 777 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Henry Chaikin, BAR Architects, 1660 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109
Shari Van Dorn, Melvin Lee Associates, 1650 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared By:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
JohnLusardi, Current Planning ManagerManager Review:
(S: \plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockamf. arb)
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summe rhi\blockam f.arb Page 14
i
|
|
i
i
|
i
Phase 1
i
i
i
B
B
i
|i
i
a
|
|
i
i~’i
PROJECT SITE
Wavedey St
S~ffSt
ATTACHIV/ENT A
Bryant St
Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement
¯ .D:tGIoda D~3o fa\Wb032700C mrA~ta chS~a KwM |p.a I
SOFA Key
March 27,2000
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT
777 BRYANT STREET
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan and
that the objectives and goals of the Plan are substantially achieved; the project would be
consistent with the following SOFA CAP policies: Policy L-2: "Provide adequate open
space through development of a new neighborhood park within the area currently occupied
by PAMF facilities to serve the neighborhood and downtown" in that the project is part of
the former PA_M~ properties which eoll.eetively contributed to the dedication of the two acre
park to the City; Policy L-8: "Preserve and enhance the historically mixed use development
pattern of the South of Forest Area including residential uses. This mixed use development
shall include mutually compatible uses that provide both vitality and convenience for
residents, businesses and visitors"in that the project proposes a multiple family residential
use which contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the
area. The project contributes to neighborhood vitality by including street trees and pedestrian
amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; Policy H-1 :"Provide up to
300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan area, with residential use as the
predominant land use for the former PAMF site." in that the project provides 30 new
housing units; Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of
densities, and shouM be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes."
in that the project provides 30 multiple family units of varying sizes. The project, together
with the remainder of the PAMF properties, have contributed to the provision of affordable
housing by contributing towards the City’s acquisition of.an affordable housing site in
accordance with Program H-2 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Policy
T-7: "Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level parking
garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and multiple family residential parldng to be
either underground or otherwise not visible from adjacent roadways" in that the project
proposes 78 parking spaces all of which would be underground and not visible from public
streets; Policy DC-3: "Any new development ... shall consider the replacement of any
"missing" street trees at an interval of approximately 20 to 25feet on center" in that the
project proposes new street trees which will be added to existing street trees to provide a row
of street trees at intervals of approximately 25 feet.
The exception is related to a minor feature that will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the portion of the roof that exceeds 45 feet
is limited to3 feet in vertical elevation and 15 percent of the entire roof structure and
would only be partially visible for the public right-of-way the excess roof height is not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the roof form
is in the center of the building and would not affect the light, air or privacy of any adjacent
residential use.
The granting of the exception will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve
the neighborhood character of the project and preserve the existing or proposed architectural
style, in a manner that would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application
of the development standards and/or design guidelines in that the height exception would
erdmnee the appearance and design of the project by providing the oppormrtity for a pitched
roof, rather a fiat roof, which is more consistent with the architectural style of the building
which would be traditional, with a modem interpretation of the California Craftsman Style
that is intended to complement the design character of the adjacent Professorville
neighborhood.
The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; the project would
be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-9: "Enhance
desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create
opportunities for new mixed use development" in that the project proposes a multiple family
residential use which contributes to the mix of existing .residential, office and commercial
uses in the area and the,project contributes to a desirable neighborhood character by
including street trees and pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at
ground level; Policy H-2: "Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and
diversity in appropriate locations" in that the project includes 30 residential units that will
increase opportunities for scarce housing in the area; Policy B-21" "Maintain uses in the
South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district, allow for the
continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby
neighborhoods" in that the project provides 30 housing units clos~ to Downtown-services,
transit, and local serving retail uses.
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
777 BRYANT STREET
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20),
in that the proposed subdivision i.s compatible with neighboring properties and consistent
with the SOFA CAP; the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan policies: Policy L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the
planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development" in that
the project proposes a multiple family residential use which contributes to the mix of existing
residential, office and commercial uses in the area and the project contributes to a desirable
neighborhood character by including street trees and pedestrian amenities (improved
sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; Policy H-2: "Consider a variety of strategies to
increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations" in that the project includes
30 residential units that will increase opportunities for scarce housing in the. area; Policy B-
21: "’Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown
business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the
needs of nearby neighborhoods" in that the project provides-30 housing units close to
Downtown services, transit, and local serving retail uses.
The.site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed 30
condominium units are within the density range allowed by existing zoning and compatible
with the scale of neighboring multiple family buildings;
o The design of the condominium complex will not cause significant environmental impacts
in that potential environmental impacts have been mitigated by the measures contained in
the EIR prepared for the SOFA CAP and the project;
o The design of the condominium.complex will not result in serious public health problems,
would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in
development of multiple-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent buildings
in the neighborhood in that the project meets the development regulations and guidelines of
the SOFA CAP; and
The design of the condominium complex will not conflict with public easements for access
through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public
street for Vehicular access and utility service.
CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering,
Planning, Planning Arbofist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map
and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed
and appri3ved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map.
All construction within the City fight-Of-way, easements .or other property under City’s
jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and
Utility Department.
The subdivider shall coordinate with the Utilities Department to deter~x~ine all utility design
and c~.pacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable facilities.
All new construction shall have underground utility, telephone and cable service. The project
shall be limited to single service laterals for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall
have separate electrical service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department
before the Parcel map is recorded.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The
agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara
County Recorder and shall include the folio.wing agreements:
a)The subdivider shall be responsible for installing any required off-site improvements~
including utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public Works, and Planning
Departments. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of
guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney.
.b)The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City for the
location a~ad maintenance of required utilities. The required easements shall be shown
on the face of the Parcel map.
c)The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees shown for preservation on the site plan
and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans.
In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Development Agreement that was approved by the City Council in conjunction with the
project stipulates that the dedication by PAMF of an option on .60 acres of land for
affordable housing satisfies the project’s BMR obligations.
The final parcel map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval
of the tentative map.
7.The subdivider shall submit to Public Works Engineering one (1) permanent mylar with
.8.
reproducible set of "as built" drawings for the work in the City right-of-way.
The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in the
improvement plan submittal. ’ " ~
10.The subdivider shall construct public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the
project frontage of Homer Avenue and Bryant Street. The improvements shall meet the City’s
standard requirements and shall be to the City’s satisfaction.
(S:\plan\pladiv\pam fsofa\summerhi\blockamf, fnd)
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT.D
DRAFI" CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
777 BRYANT STREET (PAMF BLOCK A - 30 AMF UNITS)
General
The project shall be insubstantial conformance with the plans dated October 13, 2000, except
as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be
printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted.with the building permit application. The
revised plans shall reflect the following conditions:
a) Replace the concrete garden path in the rear garden with a granite material to enhance the
texture of that landscaped area and provide larger planter areas.
b) Replace the previously proposed stucco base material with a light colored, rough textured
limestone base.
c) The removed.street tree (#A18) in the fight-of-way shall be replaced with a 24 inch box
Frontier Elm (Ulmus ’Frontier’). The tree shall be planted per Public Works detail #503.
Irrigation shall be provided to al! new and existing trees in the form of bubblers mounted on
flexible tubing placed at the root ball edge. The treeshall be top-dressed with 3 inches of wood
chip mulch.
d) The courtyard planters and the two planter/seating areas along Homer Avenue shall be
designed to.provide adequate soil volume.
e) The two Redwood Trees and the Tree of Heaven in the rear .garden and all street trees shall
be preserved with tree protection measures suitable to the Planning Arbodst.
f) The specific mechanical units and their acoustical rating shall be selected to minimize the
protrusion of these units and require that they meet the City’s noise standards for residential
areas.
g) The EVA previously shown on the Williams House property shall be deleted. If an EVA on
the adjacent property at 737 Bryant Street is required by the Fire Department, the location and
dimensions of that easement shall be shown on the final plans and an easement obtained from
the adjacent property owner.
h) As a replacement for the large double trunk Redwood tree located between the project and
737 Bryant street, the applicant shall plant two significant Redwood or other specimen trees (60
S:WLANWLADIVWAM FSOFAXS UM MERH IXBLOCKAMF.CND
inch box) to be located along the northeast pathway area, to the satisfaction of the Planning
Arborist.
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit.
Utilities Electric
2. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and
private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
The new electrical service for the project shall be underground.
The applicant shall provide electrical load sheet, a full set of plans showing main and meter
location, switch board drawings and load breakdown for review and approval by the Utilities
Engineering Electrical Division. Depending on the load, anew padmounttransformer may be
required and, if so, the applicant shall dedicate a location and easements to accommodate the
transformer.
Public Works Operations
5.PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained.
All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall be
protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the
City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications
to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning
Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that
the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise
approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained:
at All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences
are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to
a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the
entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the
entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The
fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspectiort
of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be
done under the trees to be protected.(See Public Works Department’s standard
specification detail #505).
S :kPLANWLAD1V~AMFSOFA\S UM MERH I~J3LOC KAMF.CN D
b.No storage of. material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/ormeters including
a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will
be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition
permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
removed.
Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit
Fire Department
The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that
include the following: a) Compliance with Section 902 of the CFC (This may involve an EVA
on the adjacent property at 737 Bryant Street that is permanently established by an easement
and/or a concrete path provided on the north property line, subject to approval by the Fire
Department); b) Additional contamination discovered during the closure of the PAMF facilities
shall be mitigated prior to covering with new construction and shall be a condition, of the
demolition permit; c) Fourth story units require access to two exits. One of those two exit access
stairs shall be of enclosed, rated construction. The plans shall be revised to accommodate this
requirement;, d) The building type shall be revised to provide one hour fire construction and
adequate sprinkler systems to meet Code requirements; e) an approved standpipe system shall
be provided for the underground parking structure and the building above to the satisfaction of
the Fire Department. Standpipe systems require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau; f) a fire sprinkler system shall.be required which meets the requirements of NFPA-13,
as modified. Fire sprinkler system installation requires a separate submittal to the Fire
Prevention Bureau; g) Additional fn’e hydrants may be required in the vicinity of the building
in accordance with Appendix III-B of the 1998 California Fire Code (e.g., a yard hydrant to the
rear of the building); and h) elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gumey access based
on gurney dimensions of 24" by 82" plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel.
Planning/Zoning
S :~LANWLADIVWAM FSOFA\S U M MERHP, BLOCKAMF.CN D
3
10.
The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit.drawings
for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on-and off-site plan table areas out to the
curb must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division and Utility Marketing
Services Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan,
and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for.each project. These plans should be
prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and
irrigation Plans shall include:
¯ a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public
street trees.
b,Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
c.Irrigation schedule and plan.
d.Fence locations.
Lighting plan With photometric data. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent
visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillov~r beyond the perimeter of the
development. The lighting plan, photometric and specification sheets should be revised to
meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and approval.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
go All new trees planted within the public fight-of-way, as shown on the approved plans, shall
be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram #504, shall have a tree pit dug at
least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on
Landscape Plans.
ho Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for.trees specifying digging the soil
to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of
wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch.
Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees~ details on the irrigation plans
shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball
for each tree. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation
system shall be connected to a. separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover,
pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way
requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.
Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow preventer is adequately obscured by planting the
appropriate size and type shrubbery, . fitted with green wire cage, or painted dark green to
minimize visibility.
k. The Landscape Plan shall also include the following comments and changes:
11.
The plant palette lists Sophora and Albizia genus. Both of these are extremely messy and
should be avoided for the constraints of this project.
The size of all trees planted on site must be a 24 inch box minimum. Special feature
areas, such as the open areas in the Mews, may warrant larger specimens to enhance the
landscape.
Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in all planter areas shall show a uniform soil mix
to a 24-inch depth. Prior to planting, the contractor shall provide soils lab report to the
City Arborist verifying that the following soil mix has been delivered to the site.
a. Palo Alto Soil Mix by volume (pre-mix off site)
*65% sandy loam (mostlymedium to coarse grade)
*I5% clay
*10% 1/4-inch fir bark
*10% volcanic rock
*Fertilizer. Combine Osmocote 18-6-12 or equivalent at label rates per yard in
the 12-inch area surrounding each root ball.
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A T~’ee Protection and Preservation Plan for trees to
be retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Arborist. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained
in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on
all improvement plans, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no conflict
occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly arborist
inspections, pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any other measures
necessary to insure survival of the trees.
Key elements of this plan shall be printed on a separate Tree Protection Instructions Sheet
with the Project Arborist contact number. This sheet shall accompany any plans
submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm,
Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and
Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shall contain the Tree
Protection Report prepared by Walt Bemis, Project Arborist. This sheet shall clearly
show the tree protection zone, indicating where the fencing will be placed and denote all
trees to be retained and those to be removed.
12.
13.
All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shownon the
landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities
and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include publicly owned trees withl.n the
right-of-way.
Arborist Progress Report. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree
condition on a minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt
of the progress report during the first week of each month until completion at fax # (650)
329-2154.
14.Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building
Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before-demolition or
S:WLANWLADIVkPAMFSOFA\SUMMERHIkBLOCKBMF.CND.doc Page 5 of 12
15
¯grading or building permit wiII be issued, unless ot.herwise approved by the City Arborist.
Protective Tree Fencing: All street trees and on site trees to be retained, as shown on the
approved plans shall be protected during .construction to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply.
Type 1 Tree Protection. All existing trees to be retained shall be protected with
five-foot high chain link fences enclosing the entire canopy dripline under the
trees. Each fence shall be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts,
driven into the ground every 10 feet to a depth of at least 2-feet. The fences shall be
erected before construction begins and shall remain in place until final inspection,
except during work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the
trees to be protected.
bo Type II Tree Protection. For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the
planting strip shall be enclosed with the required chain link protective fencing in
order to keep the sidewalk and street open for public use.
Co Type 111 Tree Protection. Trees situated in a small tree well orsidewalk planter
pit, shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the
first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional orange
plastic fencing (which shall not be allowed to dig into the bark). During installation
of the plastic fencing, caution shall be used to avoid damaging any branches. Major
scaffold limbs may also require plastic fencing as directed by the City Planning
Arborist.
do S__~__~: A ’Warning" sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree protection
fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and shall state:
’PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING -.This fence shall not be removed without
approval. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine pursuant Section
8.10.110 of the PAMC.’-
16.Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning work on
trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the following:
at All work on Protected Trees shall be done in a manner that preserves the tree structure
and health,, pursuant to the Western Chapter of the International Society of
Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations
outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-1994 and Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public Works at
(650) 496-6974..
17. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application.
18. The project shall provide for trash and recycling to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto
S:WLANXPLADIVkPAMFSOFA\SUMMERHIkBLOCKBMF.CND.doc Page 6 of 12
Recycling Division and Department of PubIic Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The
applicant shall submit and implement a solid waste, management and recycl.ing plan, waste
management report for contractors and adherence to permit conditions, as stipulated in City
guidelines. Trash/recycling enclosures should accommodate one 95 gallon newspaper container,
a two cubic yard cardboard bin, four 64 gallon wheeled cart for (mixed paper, metal, glass, and
plastic) and a trash bin meeting PASCO specifications. The applicant shall provide PASCO
with unrestricted access to recycling and trash areas. The applicant shall consult with PASCO
on-service requirements for the underground location. The trash/recycling enclosure should
open full width from the center of the enclosure so that bins can be easily serviced. The
applicant shall recycle construction materials to the maximum extent feasible per City of Palo
Alt0 guidelines.
19.In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project
has been determined to meet the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement by dedicating
an option on .60 acres of land for affordable housing per the Development Agreement for the
project.
Public Works Engineering
20.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering,
including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate
that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
21.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The
applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building
permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the
final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building inspection Division
if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards.
The applicant shall submit a construction logistics plan to Public Works Engineering. Thi~ plan
shall address, at minimum parking, track routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision
of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall
conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and
the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto,
The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works
Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way.
The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for
pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction.
26.A detailed site specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water table
and basement construction issues.
27.In addition to the standard preliminary grading, drainage; and storm water pollution plan
(SWPPP) condition, the applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering and Operations
to discuss the use of-materials such as permeable pavers, special Sidewalk .and street treatments,
oil/water separators, and other items proposed and required for this project.
28. The developer/applicant is required to apply.for and receive approval of a Tentative Map for
subdivision into 30 condominium units prior.to submittal of a building permit.
Transportation
29.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080,
applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. All
landscaping in the middle of the garage ramp and to each side must be planted with groundcover
or shrubs with amaximum untrimmed growth height not exceeding 2.5 feet above the ’level of
the driveway (trees excepted). A statement to this effect must be included on the plans and
landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height
requirements. No berming or signs will be permitted in this area.
30.Bicycle parking facilities (make and model) must be specified on the site and landscape plans
and be chosen from the City’s list of acceptable facilities. The bike lockers in the parking garage
shall be provided for the users of the adjacent building at 737 Bryant Street.
Utilities Electric
31.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall
be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur
between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a.manner which respects
the building design and setback requirements.
32.The applicant shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Michael Blodgett
dated August 7, 2000 (attached).
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
33..The applicant shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Roland Ekstrand
dated August 11, 2000 (attached).
Building Inspection
34.The applicant shall submit to the Building Inspection Division.- 1) a completed copy of the
Project Review Checklist and calculations showing allowable floor area, type of construction
and occupancy pursuant to the UBC, 2) revisions to exit plan to comply with UBC
requirements; 3) remove corridor doors in corridors on all floors to meet City/UBC standards,
4) clarify symbol on plans referring to required building separation; 5) area of courts .may need
to be included in allowable floor area calculations per UBC section 5083; 6) revise building
S:~PLANkPLADIVWAMFSOFA\SUMMERHIkBLOCKBMF.CND.doc Page 8 of 12
construction type to meet UBC section 2308 limit of number of floors allowed with wood
framing; fireplaces.shall not be wood burning; 8) stair enclosures from fourth floor to exit
access shall be continuous.
During Construction
Utilities Electric
35.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
36. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling.
37.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public
Works before digging in the street right-of-way.
Planning/Zoning
38.All street trees shall receive monthly watering, a written log of each application, shall be kept
updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist
before final sign off is approved:
39.Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public right-of way, that overhang the site
shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Arborist.
40.
41.
The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that
are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
The following tree preservation measures apply to all existing trees that are to be retained:
a.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
b.The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering during all phases of
construction.A written log of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The
City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final inspection is
requested.
Police
42. All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise
Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that
construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
Public Works Engineering
43.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary.
Spillage resulting from hauling operations .along or across any public or private property shall
be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the
contractor’s expense.
44.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any
work performed in the public right-of-way.
45.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior .
approval of Public Works Engineering.
46.The developer shall require.its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for
storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa
Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division
shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property;
and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s
construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm
drains. The applicant a!so will be required to paint a "No Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo
near all drainage inlets.
47.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Prior to Occupancy
Planning/Zoning
The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning ,ir"~ivision, and call for ¯
inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the
approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been
tested for timing and function, andall plants including~street trees are healthy.
49.The P.lanning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape
Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and
functioning as specified in the approved plans.
Public Works Engineering
50. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired
compliance with Public Works approved standards. "
and/or removed and replaced in
51.Handicap ramps shall be installed at the comer of Homer Avenue and Bryant Street, and shall
conform to Public Works Engineering standards.
52.The unused driveways located on Bryant Street and Homer Avenue shall be removed and
replaced with curb and gutter.
53.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this
permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
After Construction
Public Works Water Quality Control
54.No wastewater (including equipment cleaning wash water, vehicle wash water, cooling water,
air conditioner condensate, and floor cleaning washwater) shall be discharged to the storm drain
system, the street or gutter.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
55.
56.
The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or
extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before
making any such change.
Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall
specify an in line loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the root ball at a point one-third
of root ball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other
shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City
of Pa!o. Alto (V-C)(o).
Planning/Zoning
57.Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well,maintained, watered,
fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American national Standards for Tree, Shrub
and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices (ANSI A300-1995). Any vegetation
that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner
within 30 days of discovery.
ATTACHM]~NT E
Project Narrative
Block A
AMF-Multi Family
TOTAL UNITS: 30
(30 Single level stacked flats)
7/31/00
The architectural design creates two courtyards. Units face
Homer Avenue, echoing the open court of the historic Roth Building
across the street. .The. courtyards serve to break up the mass of the
building at its major street exposure and create usable and gracious open
space for access to the .mainbuilding entrances.
The building is typically three stories tall, with the fourth story
being smaller in area and set back from the. existing buildings located to
either side of the property. The mass of the building is modulated to
create visual interest and to reduce the apparent scale of the project..
Grade level porches tie into the pedestrian scale of the
streetscape and .provide open space for the use of the owners.
Pedestrian passerbys will have the use of public seating along the Homer
Avenue frontage. Iron fencing and gates will preserve visual accessto
the building 6ourts. A garden area to the rear of the building features
mature redwood, trees which will be maintained in an informal quiet
setting for the use ofboth residents and office users in the adjacent
property.
The parking for these homes is located substantially below
grade and is typically not evident from exterior inspection. Garage entry
is located to the side street, in order to avoid creating a "hole" in the front
street fagade. This ramp location serves to increase openness, or setback,
from the Williams House side yard, to the East. Parking is a/so provided for
the adjacent commercial office at 737 Bryant.
Stylistically, the project is stucco style craftsman, to recoil
some of the details of the houses in the general neighborhood. Sloping
roofs, front porches and divided light windows define this style. Exterior
colors are warm beiges, varied to set apart the base, body and top of the
building. The roof is dark (composition shingle).
The SOFA Coordinated Area Plan approved by City Council
in March, 2000 set forth development standards and design guidelines
governing this project. This project is designed to comply with the
standards established in this document. The building program is at the
lower threshold of the permitted density, 30 units per acre, and does not
exceed an FAR of 1.5:1. Set backs are a minimum of 15’ on all sides..
Building height is generally in conformance with the
development standards. However, the building height exceeds a
maximum limit of 45’ to the ridge line by a distance of three feet at fourth
floor locations only. This exception is necessary to accommodate three,
fourth floor units located in the center portion of the building. The
additional height benefits the project in two ways. Firstly, the permitted
floor area can be achieved at a lower site coverage than would result if
the building were limited to three stories. In effect, the site area beneath
the redwood trees is set aside and remains untouched. Although these
trees are not protected, they are a valuable feature and serve to mitigate
fourth story, visual impacts. Secondly, the use of a fourth story in one
central area of the plan serves to balance the massing by adding
variation to what would otherwise be a fairly uniform roof line. The CAP
plan authorizes minor exceptions which benefit the, overall design.
The AMF design guidelines strongly encourage architectural
styles to be similar and compatible with the historical heritage of the SOF.A
area. Because the surrounding architecture is very eclectic, with a
multitude of styles reflecting a periods spanning from the mid l800’s
through the 1940’s with numerous contemporary contributions, there is no
predominant architectural expression. The design of this project, while
having no strong resemblance to any nearby structures, is designed to
blend with its surroundings, ta fit in nicely with traditional forms and
materials. As such, the craftsman style details are rich, but not over
¯ stated. The building is not trying to be a center piece or to compete for
attention. Likewise, the style is complementary to .its historical reference
with being either cheap or imitative of the details one would expect to
find in a plastered, craftsman style stru’cture of this scale.
Other features of the design which respond to the guidelines
are as follows:
¯Variety of floor plans and unit sizes.
(Plan provides seven plans for thirty units; 1140-1775 Sq. Ft.)
¯Walk along Homer should be inviting to pedestrians
(Open courts face Homer; low walls and porches front)
¯Variations in roofline. (see above)
¯Gateposts and tiellises marking the transition from private to
public.
¯Open porches, stairs and stoops.
¯Step back from lower.adjacent uses.
(Additional setback on Williams House side)
¯Roof forms should complement building mass and :style using
pitched roofs, dormers, chimneys and traditional residential
forms. Mechanical equipment screened from view.
¯Common open space is encouraged along major circulation.
(Open coOrts face Homer, elevated walks can also be seen)
¯Parking should be screened from view. Curb-cuts minimized.
(No visible openings into parking) .
OCT 18 ’BB 14:4~ MELVIN LEF ASSOC.-r
MELVIN LEE
¯ ASSOCIATES
ASLA LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
& PLANNERS
SENIOR
LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONCEPTS (Block A Multi-family)
The primary objective of the landscape design is to integrate the project into
the fabric and character of the existing neighborhood.
The strong street uee patterns already prevalent in the neighborhood will be
strengthened by filling in the existing street trees wherever they have gaps to
create the desired 20’ to 25’ spacing. In addition, the landscaping of the
courtyards, rear .garden and streetscape will provide a high quality garden
experience. A carefully woven layering and repetition of colors and textures
that repeat in a pattern through the landscape will help to weave the gardens
together and create a balance with the multi-family and single family projects
on block B.
We will also provide pedestrian resting areas to inviie interaction along the
street consisting of a seating area, low stone wall and overhead arbor with
vines. These elements will be repeated in the mews and along Homer and
Bryant streets at block A. The pedestrian resting areas will help create a
unifying character along the street tying the project together and inviting
interaction with the public.
The rear garden will provide a passive use area to enjoy the. large existing
Redwoods being preserved. The garden will feature species compatible with
the Redwood trees and includea decomposed granite garden path with
seating. Concrete walkways will provide connection between 737 Bryant and
the garage as well as between the multi-family courtyard and the garden.
One Redwood tree will need to be removed between 737 Bryant and the
project. This Redwood will be replaced with a 48" box size Redwood located
in the mews to help balance and extend the existing Redwoods to be
preserved there. "
The interior courtyards function both as circulation as well as passive use
meeting or resting areas for the residents. They also provide a garden view
from the units as well as from the sidewalk along Homer. The courtyard
gardens will feature raised planters with trees, colorful shrubs and ground
covers, and a water feature in the east courtyard. The enhanced paving will
be colored concrete with textured finish and smooth colored bands for
contrast.
ATTACHMENT
SOFA I ARB/HRB Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, September 7, 2000
1~:00 PM
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ARB/HRB Board Members:
Joseph Bellomo
Roger Kohler
Drew Maran
Carol Murden
Robert Peterson, Chair
Staff:
Ed Gawf, D’.trector
John Lusardi, Assistant Planning Official
Chandler Lee, Planner
Bhavna Mistry, Planning Technician
Diana Tamale, Office Specialist
The meeting consisted of a presentation from SummerHill Homes and Premier Properties
for the South of Forest Area Phase I area.
Roll Call: All Present except Makinen..
Staff’.. Complete Board’s discussion on Block A. Block C- short presentation, finish
conceptual discussion. Next meeting, September 20th, bring action items.
260 Homer and 819 Ramona, APN 120-28-13,
and DES
16,17, 25
Jim Baer:
share ramp
Building (FLB) is
Tradeoff with site
setback of the Roth
the ARB/HRB.The goal
model is
feet of commercial/office and
and ’gabled roofs. The
save trees but some are
the DA allows. The
are deep setback~
not point into
(2) Site plan and historic
Secretary
need to create a s~
At the last
issues: (1) Elevator at 725 Bryant gn because of being a
issue working with Staffto
Moving the French Laundry
Standards and what Staff had approved.
along the Bike Boulevard that meets the
was asked not to do Spanish revival by
massing model and not a stylistic plan. The
Agreement (DA) allowances of 30,000 square
uare feet of residential. Eliminated the mansard
a fiat roof. The model is in scale. Want to
so nee be removed. The building height is less than
garden between Whole Foods to the park. There
Homer and Bryant.~ermanent lighting on all buildings does
The garden is on Homer and is up 12 feet and is
not accessibh doors. We are asking whether are better site circumstances? Is
what is compatible? We don’t see a better ;ing in respect to the courtyard
e housing project.
Tom (’DES)" On Bryant the P,.oth Building is set 15 feet. Our building is set
ba~ 15 feet on the first floor and 1 more foot on the 2na floo more feet or~.the 3rd
Kohler: Ifma~ it lower, would be nice. Tend to agree with an eas~acing wall. Should
have some atten~on. W~uld be open. That’s worth considen’n~s~eing. Would not like to
.~ee cantilevered b’~ding FLB."" J ."
Murdea: Eve .rythih_~,q.n Homer is about comuatibilit~.,I~l~mer has a feeling of low ’
building. If you take H~. er aS an entity, 16 ~f~O ~¢~n the register. Its important that
whatever goes on here do’~ not tip the balance,,o~’th .e feel of Homer. Homer provides a
diverse area. Would like tore give more o~_imp~ession of a smaller scale. Concerned
about comer of Homer and R~ona-h~,,~t of walls. Like to see massing broken up.
Am seeing University Avenue. ~ ~ ’ ¯
Bellomo: Major concern is siting)~reak building up to integrate FLB by engaging
building into public realm. Fur~ntal issue- edge of Homer/Ramona and how a plaza
can be an open space~ic~rivate- respects neighborhood. Quiet, simple,
elegant building. Enj oyJ, l~ building. ~ncemed about plaza. Slender, deep- not so sure
how enjoyable it is. g. amo ’z.,d hal ay. .ovember t ough April - not used much..
Maran: In sup~~p esstM, n is that we won’t be seeing the building
because ofthe~,~ees. First 10’ of height are v~khat are going to matter because of view. The
eastern wa~~eas.t wall needs som’ekmore windows and needs to be more
g_o.od..’X "
K~epbacking to open up tI~courtyard. More comers can be
cl" t wall. Take.advantage of it. ~
Block A Desil~n 777 Bryant APN 120-16-071 and 120-15-069
SummerHill Homes, BAR
Rick Wurzelbacher: Need comments so can bring back more complete proposal in 30
days. Prepared for 2 weeks with Block B proposal. 1.5 FAR 30-50 unit/acre density zone.
In respect to DA, on variation to design from City Council. Building does have 4 stories
which breaks that requirement in the central portion. Otherwise in conformance.
Contextually, arrived at Style in order to enclave eclectic natm’, e of Homer streetscape.
Landed on stucco-clad craftsman which accents the bungalows in the area.
Henry Chaikin: Reduction of the number of units is 30. Balconies included in mass of
building.
Wayne Clipper: Use low wails. Use pattern of surrounding buildings. Continuity of
project with surroundings. In-filling trees. Increase street tree pattern as in SOFA plan.
More dense than SOFA guidelines. Use unifying patterns of paved and concrete.
Inclusion of pedestrian amenities. Provide resting places for community to interact and
enjoy landscaping. 2 large California Kedwoods. Create a passive use of the area. Quiet,
small scale interaction. Sustainability. Goal of SOFA project directs towards
development of downtown center. So, increase density of project makes people get out of
cars and onto street. Project is close to Caltrain. Southeast orientation is best for solar
gain. Because units are compact they will gain from orientation. Most sides of building
are screened with trees. Shrubs are placed so size doesn’.t require excessive shearing..
Shared open space. Patios and courtyards.
Public Comment
Pria Graves (2130 Yale): Concerned about the scale in relation to Williams House (WH).
Garage entry next to WH. Don’t want to see hedge remov.ed. Solor studies need to be
dnne .~a WI4 plant.~ are not affected. Courty. ard have more green. Don’t move ~ara~e to
Bry.ant. Redwood Tree on access to property. Removal of it would make it look odd.
Steve Reyna (840. Kipling): No low walls in SOFA.
Bellomo: Underground entrance?
Maran: Also need a green building consultant.
Kohler: Is there a sustainability handout or a website we. can pass out with all building
permits?
Attachment:I~etter from Daniel and Pamela Cunningham, 845 Waverley Street.
Letter from Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street.