HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-25 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein, Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Beth
Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen
Absent:
Chair Bernstein: I’d like to welcome Members of the Board and members of the public and staff to our
meeting of May 25th of the Historic Resources Board. Would the staff please call roll? Ok, thank you so
much.
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: First on our agenda is oral communication. The public may speak to any item, not on the
agenda and 3-minutes per speaker. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to us?
I see none.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Next is agenda changes, additions, and deletions. I would make a suggestion to the
Board that based on our heavy schedule today, with members of the public and applicants present if we
move the agenda item of Mills Act to the last – after the public hearing of action five. Would that be
acceptable to the Board? Ok. So, we will move the Mills Act item which is agenda item number four, that
will be after agenda item five. Ok, great thanks. Any other agenda changes, additions or deletions? Ok, I
see none. Ok.
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule Assignments
Chair Bernstein: Let’s move to – the next on our agenda is City official reports, Historic Resources Board
meeting schedule assignments. I don’t believe we have any.
Study Session
2. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN‐00136 and 17PLN‐00135]: HRB Study
Session Supporting Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 sq.
ft. Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350
Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on Six Levels (Two Below Grade) with a
footprint of 37,075 sq.ft. and floor area of 149,500 sq.ft. The Public Safety Building Site
Would be Developed with Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking Spaces for
Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
MINUTES: May 25, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental
Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared; Formal Project
Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information,
Please Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org or Chief Planning Official
Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Bernstein: That brings us to agenda item number two; study session. I’ll read the description and
then we will ask the staff to give us comments or a report on that. Study session, item number two, 250
and 350 Sherman Avenue. HRB study session supporting preliminary architectural review of new
approximately 40,351-square feet Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a new parking
structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to contain 636 parking spaces on six levels (two below grade) with a
footprint of 37,075-square feet and floor area of 149,500-square feet. The Public Safety Building site
would be developed with three individual buildings and provide 167 parking spaces for use by the Palo
Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of
Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report is
being prepared; formal project application not yet submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For more
information, there is a contact at the public can take a look at. That’s the description and would staff
have a report or comments on this before we start? Thanks. Yes, excuse me for a second. Yes, Chair
Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I need to disclose that at – this is public record but I will do it here again. I was on the
2011 Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission. I participated in the Public Safety subcommittee that looked
at the need for a new Public Safety Building and I have spoken out at Council meetings in favor of this. I
just wanted to get that on the record.
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Ok, thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I want to,
before I begin, to first introduce our newest staff member, to my left, Emily Vance. She’s our new
Historic Preservation Planner at long last and I’m happy to have her here. Just by the introduction, I do
have on my right Matt Raschke. He’s the project lead for this project; the Public Safety Building and
parking garage in the California Avenue Business District at the address on Sherman. We have kind of an
interesting situation in that our code, our Municipal Code, does not require Historic Resources Board
review of projects on this site because of the – there is no historic resource – designated historic
resources on these two sites. There is, however, a historic resource adjacent to the parking garage site
and that’s the 350 Sherman site. It is the old Antonio’s Nut House, which was originally a Safeway Store
before it became converted to a different use. It’s interesting in that we have an Environmental Impact
Report that will be prepared and there’s a cultural resources section of that report and so I had made a
note that there was such a resource adjacent. So, the cultural resources section of the EIR should
address that and make mention of it. Then the opportunity for the study session is here. Likely this
project will not be coming back to the HRB but it is a City project and being that it’s a City project, having
the HRB’s input is helpful at this stage, where we have three options that are being considered by the
applicant team. They have a presentation so without further ado, I’ll let them present.
Mr. Matt Raschke, Public Works: Thank you, Amy. I’d like to introduce Mallory Cusenbery from
RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture to present the project. Mallory.
Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Good morning. Thank you for having me here. We are at the very early stages of
this project. It’s an early schematic design and data gathering and we are in the process of due diligence
program verification and preliminary design. It is a very early phase for us so the idea is we’re trying to
do outreach and get as much input and generate as much conversation to inform the early development
of this project. The time (inaudible) for this meeting is excellent for us to get further input on this. As was
– what I am going to do is I’m actually going to cruise through this at a very high level. Just to kind of
highlight the points. Please, slow me down or stop me if there is something that you want me to
elaborate on and then obviously, I can elaborate at the end if you have additional questions. As was
mentioned, this is two projects. I don’t know if you can see my cursor there. It is two buildings. This is
the Public Safety Building on the upper – I’m on the upper image. This is the Public Safety Building on
City of Palo Alto Page 3
your right and the parking structure on the left; on two separate parcels. The Public Safety Building is
three stories above grade, two stories of parking below grade, 47,000-square foot Police station, fire
administration, EOC, and 911 center. The parking structure is around 637 – 640 stalls, three stories
above grade, two stories below grade with an opportunity for photovoltaic panels of the entire top floor
above the third level of the parking structure. These lots officially are lot C6 and C7. C6 is the Public
Safety Building lot and C7 is the parking structure. The bounding streets are Park Boulevard, Birch
though the middle and Ash. Then Sherman is the primary frontage and Jacaranda is the divider.
Jacaranda Alley is the divider; it’s a one-way alley just to remind you and it’s a half block off of California
Avenue. Just for reference, we all agreed upon project north is up on this drawing. The two existing lots
are empty. They are parking lots that are empty of trees in the middle but have a perimeter of trees
around them. Jacaranda Lane goes back here and it’s all surface parking. It’s unusual surface parking,
because you actually have to leave the parking lot to go to another drive lane. You actually use the City
streets are part of your circulation. Photographs of the lots. They look relatively tree covered because
they have the perimeter of trees but they are (inaudible) trees in the middle and then you can see some
of the local buildings there. The Court House, that’s across the street, mixed-use residential and the new
Visa building over on the right. On the bottom, here you have some comparative heights. This is the
Court House, this is a mixed use residential, this is an office/retail and then this is retail. You can see that
this is the height of the parking structure with photovoltaics above it and this is the conceptual height for
the Public Safety Building. Now, some data, briefly, on the two sites. On the right is the Public Safety site
and just as a way of introduction for the Public Safety Buildings. It’s an essential facility and it also has
some high order of security requirements so the distance of the setbacks that you see are driven by
security setbacks. We try to prevent vehicles from getting to close to the building so there is a 25-foot
minimum security set back on all sides thus the setbacks. The – there are – the primary footprint is here
for the Public Safety Building three stories above and then there are a couple of one-story site buildings
here. This is a screened operational area here so you’re not going to see it. It will be walled and there
will be police vehicles and operations inside that. Then the main feature from a public standpoint is on
Birch. We are providing a very deep setback public plaza that we hope to have programmed with
activities; particularly on lunch time. Areas for people to eat and shade areas to sit, as well as operating
some of the – using some of the setback areas along Sherman for seating as well. Then the Public Safety
Building, which is a little cut off on this side. I don’t know if it’s cut off on the one that you’re looking but
the primary pedestrian entrance is off Birch. Primary vehicle entrance is off Sherman. The parcel pretty
much – it pretty much goes property line to property line with exception of about a 10-foot – 11-foot
setback on Birch. Antonio’s Nut House is here and the parking lot in front of them is right there. These
are some street sections. This is a cross section through Birch. You can see the three stories above grade
for the parking and then the row of photovoltaics. The height, get a little data, it’s 36-feet 8-inches to the
top of the guard rail and then maybe up around 46 – 45 or 46-feet high once you get to the top of the
photovoltaics, should they be installed. You can see the deep setback here on the Public Safety Building
of the public plaza. Then this is park, this is Sherman Avenue so you can see the Court House Across the
Street and the Public – I’m sorry. This is Sherman and this is the parking structure and then the Court
House and the Public Safety Building there. Again, these are all subterranean – this area here is a
subterranean component. The – Since we are early on in the phase, you are going to see some refined
drawings but the designs are not refined. These are just illustrations to get people – to get conversation
started. You can see the deep setback are with a lot of Plaza opportunity here and Antonio’s Nut House is
in this location. The parking structure is here. You see a generous perimeter landscaping of street trees.
Where we can get a double row of trees, we do and then a lot of shade and landscape opportunities on
the public plaza here. There’s a heavy emphasis on pedestrian movement so we understand the
movement of pedestrians for lunch time along Park, along Birch and along Ash. We’re trying to make
accommodations with shade and generous sidewalks in those areas. Assuming a little more passive use
on Sherman because the circulation is primarily in what we’re calling north/south direction. Now, we are
also sensitive to the scale of the garage. Particularly as it approaches Antonio’s Nut House corner so
Antonio’s Nuthouse, again as a reminder, is right here. This is Birch on your right and these are two
versions of the same plan. We’re trying to make street level adjustments to the parking structure so to
improve the pedestrian environment. You can see, we were directed to optimize the quantity of parking
so we’re trying to get as much parking spots. That’s why it’s (inaudible) the property line. However, one
consideration, we do have an arcade on the Ash Street which we have retained so there is a walk under
City of Palo Alto Page 4
arcade on Ash. On the Birch Street side, relative to this project that we’re discussing, the one opportunity
that we’re looking at is providing an exterior staircase so the one on the right is the alternate option; an
exterior civic staircase that goes up the side of the garage, allowing you to actually walk up and exit the
stair at different points in the garage, creating more of a civic opportunity for seeing people going up and
down. People then can exit or enter on the California Avenue side and walk that direction and then there
would be an opportunity for public art along that wall too. The idea is with what space that we have
available, we’re trying to make it a little bit more pedestrian amenable. Now in terms of the concepts, I
want to say that maybe concepts are even a misnomer. We have three attitudes—three approaches that
we’re referring to them as conversation starters. The idea is that we want to create kind of three
prototypes of how this project might face the City. Get input and then from there we would then actually
develop design concepts. There really – the idea is to kind of gather all of the idea together into one
approach and give it an identity and then get feedback on it. The first approach is we’re calling screening
greening and it’s an approach that’s based on the idea of downplaying the presence of the building by
using organic and informal approaches. For instance, we might have more organic materials like wood or
wood-like materials, rougher textures, stone line textures, maybe on the parking structure potentially
vines actually on the building, dense screening using landscaping. Again, the idea being to kind of take
the screening that we’re going to need to be doing from a security standpoint for the Public Safety
Building, where you don’t want a lot of vulnerable windows. Screen those windows but doing it in a way
that actually helps downplay the presence of the building. These are massing models. No windows are
shown, they are just massing models. Again, very conceptual, but it gives you an idea. For instance, this
is the entrance to the parking structure, the Public Safety Building here. Sample materials are on the
right and in all cases and in all concepts, you’re going to see that the goal is to make the parking
structure and the Public Safety Building work in tandem. So, they are sending a singular message of
more of a civic presence. In a way, somewhat, of a gateway towards Cal. Avenue but again, this one
using more organic materials and a more presence or organic screening. That would be concept number
one. The landscape design would then follow. You see more organic materials and more informal
development of the site components. The second concept is what we’re calling dynamic massing. This is
a different attitude. The first attitude was downplaying the presence of the building and softening it with
organic approach. The second approach is about having a more assertive building, a little more dynamic
massing. Allowing the building to assert itself and be a little bit more interesting visually. The color
scheme is based on a traditional Palo Alto building of like Terracotta and a white plaster color scheme but
done is more contemporary way. Then the volume of the building becomes more, like I said, dynamic.
Again, in the massing model you see here, the building has a stronger presence. Again, the garage and
the Public Safety Building are working in tandem. The garage has a large public art opportunity on
Sherman facing the Visa building here on this blank wall. As with the previous scheme, the site
development would build upon that building idea so you can see the plaza components would be more
blocky elements, more rectangle elements in concert with the massing of the building. Then the third
idea is —alright, so you have kind of the downplayed building, then a more assertive building and then
the third one we would call a little more serious. We call it simple civic and this idea is to take the
building and have a look that is a little more serious and a little more formal in its presence. Still
contemporary but it uses more vertical windows, a little more traditional proportion and it deep sets the
windows on the ground floor. (Inaudible) arcade and uses more traditional materials like brick. Even
though it would probably be pre-cast, we would try to simulate the idea of French limestone, which is
traditional civic material throughout the Bay Area. The massing model here – again, the parking structure
down here on the left and the Public Safety Building here on the right. Similarly, slightly more formal and
more serious landscape approach on the site development. So, that’s the big picture.
Chair Bernstein: Mallory, thank you so much. Now, I’d like to next ask the Board if there are any
questions at this point for Mallory or staff. Any kind of questions before we – then we will open it up to
members of the public before we make our comments about it but if there are any questions. Board
Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, so I just wanted to clarify the intent of the Public Safety Building is to
remove the police dispatch element from this building, which is down in the basement, over to that
City of Palo Alto Page 5
location. Is that also where the actual police officers are dispatched – is that where they will be housed in
this building until there is an emergency call and then they will be dispatched from this location?
Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Absolutely correct. It is a full replacement of the police station that’s right next
store so all police operations. So, police administration, command and control, patrol, various
departments, and investigations would all move over. As would fire administration, the office of
emergency service which is down here where the UFC is here and the dispatch function as well. I’m
clicking back to the site plan. There we go. Yes, so there are two levels of parking below the Public
Safety Building. One level would be entirely for patrol vehicles and the second level would be for staff
vehicles. Vehicles would be dispatched from here and I failed to mention that so I’m really glad you
brought this up. There are two ramps into the subterranean parking. With any Public Safety Building, just
to clarify, you cannot have just one ramp into the parking garage because should one ramp become
disabled, patrol vehicles need to be able to leave through a second so we have two sets of ramps. A two-
way ramp that enters and exits from Birch. The role of that ramp is primarily -- during the day to day
operations, primarily for personal vehicles. So, when you arrive at work and you leave from work, you
use that ramp and it goes down to the lower level, B2, for personal vehicles. It’s the backup ramp for
patrol – largely patrol vehicles would not be entering and exiting from that on a day to day basis. The
second ramp is on Sherman, two-way ramp right here. That would primarily be the ramp for patrol
entering – patrol vehicles entering and exiting the site.
Board Member Wimmer: I’m just wondering what the impact on that whole neighborhood – that sort of
sub-community is just because of that location because you have a barrier of the train tracks behind
Park. Then you have to travel down several blocks even to get El Camino so that’s going to be the main
emergency thro fair that’s not very wide. (Crosstalk)
Mr. Cusenbery: You mean impact traffic wise?
Board Member Wimmer: I mean I don’t know where – if there is an emergency here at this building and
you dispatch from that building, like the route of travel seems…
Mr. Raschke: Hi, Matt Rascke, Public Works. Primarily patrol is actually out on the field when the shift
starts. Patrol vehicles are dispersed throughout the City so the majority of patrol is already out on the
street so occasionally when there’s a specific emergency and some additional officers can be dispatched
from this location. That may occur but it’s not the majority of time when…
Board Member Wimmer: Ok, that’s actually…
Mr. Cusenbery: Unlike how it’s represented on television where cars go careening out of the garage every
time there’s a call.
Board Member Wimmer: I was worried about the impact.
Mr. Cusenbery: That doesn’t – they are already out on the field. Yeah, they are already out in the field.
There are only rare occurrences where they actually have to respond from the building.
Board Member Wimmer: Then my second question is would you phase this project? Obviously, would you
build the parking structure first?
Mr. Cusenberry: Yes.
Board Member Wimmer: Then, you’d build the buildings – ok.
Mr. Cusenberry: Absolutely, so the parking structure needs to replace the displaced parking before we
can start construction on the Public Safety Building so yes. After we get to a certain point of design
City of Palo Alto Page 6
approval, which is going towards later this year. The idea would then be to then fast track the parking
structure to get it going and then the Public Safety Building would lag at that point.
Chair Bernstein: Rodger.
Board Member Makinen: Yes, hi. Was there any consideration for an alternative exterior for this main
building beside another modern box?
Mr. Cusenbery: There were…
Board Member Kohler: Did you consider community centers style, traditional tile roof home – building
that blends in more with the background of Palo Alto? I mean, I do a lot of homes for new people; over
300 or more in Palo Alto. Ten maybe are modern so I don’t quite see the need for this to be – of course
without seeing the windows on the wall and everything, it’s hard to really know but it’s just – it may just
end up being another series of boxes that no one understands why they are there. Especially in a historic
district like this in a sense. Maybe it’s cost, I don’t know but I just – you have the opportunity here to –
even the old Police Department building is really quite elegant in a way so as a person who likes historic
homes, it’s just that you have the chance here to really do something special and yet it’s just going to be
another multi-box structure that people will drive by. Once they have seen it, there’s nothing else to look
at so just curious if this was a mandate from the City that it be a modern building.
Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you for the question and it’s an excellent question. What I will try to do is break it
into separate pieces to answer. The first is the box proportion, the shape that you are referring too. We
did early studies on the massing so we did a two-story massing, which is more spread out and this I
would call a more compact vertical massing. That was driven – the final decision on that was driven by
operations because what was happening – it’s a whole City block so what was happening when it was
spread out and became more broken down on a lower level. The Police Department was walking long
distances just to get to – between functions that they – I’m sorry. The police -- when it was spread out,
the Police Department was having a long – would have to walk long distances for functions that they do
every day. The vehicle orientation of the massing, three-stories and compact was the best operationally
because it put all the different departments that need to interact with each other very proximate. That’s
how we got the massing. From a stylistic standpoint, there has been no directive on style and I would say
that there’s been no decision on style. What we are doing, as I mentioned, presenting conversation
starters. At the very least the goal would be to invoke and where feasible, utilize the materials that are
precedence from – civic materials in Palo Alto. Your idea – your concept or your idea of the residents with
the local tradition is completely consistent and we would not go against that. Whether it’s contemporary
or otherwise, that has not been decided and we’re going to – as we get an attitude like I said, a general
consensus on an approach, then we will do stylistic and design options on those. Then the final point is
the materials. There are a few constraints that we have done public safety, which play a factor. One of
them is that the building needs to be ballistic—ballistic resistant so we are going to be steering towards
materials like pre-cast concrete by virtue of the fact that it is going to be – it’s going to provide a ballistic
protection that you need to have on a Public Safety Building. It has to be survivable after a major
disaster so we cannot have a lot of extraneous elements on the building that could cause damage to
individuals in the area; such as you mentioned, Spanish tile. There’s a big risk in an earthquake that
some of those will come flying off. You can’t have that happen on a Public Safety Building so we need to
be very cognizant of how durable the building is. So, that will play a factor as well but it hasn’t closed any
doors yet. All those doors are open.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member -- Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: Can you talk about the façade of the parking garage that faces the California Avenue
building because that’s our review here and how the parking garage –primarily the parking garage
interface or interacts with that one property on the corner, Antonio’s Nut house, which is on our historic
register. I see and like the foliage on your concept one which will soften a large box which is what a
parking structure has to be but I’m wondering what goes on the other side?
City of Palo Alto Page 7
[Mr. Cusonberry:] Thank you. An excellent question. I’ve put up the two zero zoomed in options that
we’re looking at on that corner. In terms of what our ambition is, our ambition is to make that corner as
it’s adjacent to Antonio’s Nut House, as visibly porous and inviting for pedestrians as possible. That’s
where the vertical circulation of the elevator is. That’s where the stairs will land and that was the
incentive of having the – if we do the alternate options of having a staircase kind of display toward
California Avenue on that side. From a qualitative standpoint, the idea is to have it feel less box-like and
more like a destination and more – with some interesting things visually. In terms of the actual design of
it, we’ve not made any progress on that. It’s just conceptual as you saw from the previous ones. I know
the models didn’t really show that side but it would be designed to meet that ambition. We’d like to show
the staircase one way or another. Have it be visually porous that you can actually – so the box breaks
down along that corner?
Vice Chair Bower: I think your concept is great and the Public Safety Building, which has a number of
security issues, work. All those security issues help to really reduce the impact on the neighborhood but
it’s the parking structure. I mean, if you were, for instance, were to adopt the first scheme and put the
same foliage on the Jacaranda Avenue side or I don’t know what that is. Avenue or – then that would
soften that building. It’s going to be fairly present.
Mr. Cusenbery: It’s going to be present, yes.
Vice Chair Bower: That’s the best way to put it so I’m just encouraging you to think of that side because
that’s really the interface. The other side that we’re seeing here, there’s a brand new two and a half,
three-story building so (inaudible)(crosstalk)…
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah and I would actually elaborate that there’s a – I completely agree and I would add
one more detail, which I failed to mention and that is not just the Nut House but also the alley that’s
right – a couple of buildings over. So, the idea of – on the alternate option is to actually have a little bit
of an arcade with covered bicycle parking to kind of direct you toward that alley. In general, at least at
the pedestrian level, trying to open it up as much as possible along Jacaranda and the frontage of
Antonio’s so that – again, a little friendlier on that façade.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: Yeah, I have two questions. One is – it wasn’t clear to me but is the new garage
early for the Public Safety Building? It’s not public at all, ok.
Mr. Cusenbery: It’s a completely public garage. Sorry, (inaudible)…
Board Member Corey: Oh, it is public?
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah. My apologies (cross talking) (inaudible)
Board Member Corey: (Inaudible) that’s a lot of parking.
Mr. Cusenbery: It is, it is, right. So, the public – the garage is – serves two primary purposes from a
parking standpoint. It replaces all of the parking that’s been displaced on the current lots, which are
public lots – public parking spaces. It adds significantly to that parking for the public because of the
changes that are going and the density of the area. It’s 100% public parking in the new structure and the
two-level sub terrain under the Public Safety Building, those are only police. Yeah, that’s the destination
so sorry I didn’t mention that.
Board Member Corey: Ok, yeah, no, that makes sense.
Mr. Cusenbery: It’s a lot of parking.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Board Member Corey: That is a lot of parking. Yeah, so that will be nice. On the – one other thing is and
there’s not really a view here but from California Avenue where people are walking, there are a lot of
pedestrian traffic. That area now, it’s – since everything is that one-story parking lot, it’s really kind of
void of anything on there. I’m trying to figure out what the angle of view from California Avenue would
be. I assume it would hit those buildings because they are three-stories and they are pretty hard to hide
because you don’t really see but it’s kind of like a – of just an off into infinity when you look now.
Mr. Cusenbery: That’s a really excellent point and I regret that I do not have the slides. We did a series
of three studies from a number of places, photomontages, on California Avenue and just to answer that
question, I did not put them in this show. I will for the next one but I’ll describe to you – it actually gets
back to the decision about the massing too. It’s actually one of our decision points that when we were
looking at a two-story structure which would cover the whole lot. We found its presence was much more
dominating from a number of views, particularly from California Avenue, because you would see it. You
would particularly see it coming down Park when the Court House is at an angle and you see the long
façade there but from California Avenue, a lot of view of it. When we did the massing studies and the
photomontages, the three-story compact building was nearly unseeable from – if that’s a word, from
California Avenue. You’d see a tiny little corner of it because it was set back from the intersections. You
wouldn’t see it at all because it’s set back on Birch significantly. The mass of the building is not – is
largely not apparent from California Avenue in this current massing. That's actually influenced – now, one
other point that I did not mention and it’s a little hard to see here but the one thing that will be visible –
this is an important point. Is that there will be a communication tower on the building and because it’s
visible, the intent is to make it a monopole, not a truss and it’s building mounted. It’s 135-feet from the
ground and you can see it in this rendering in the background here. It’s not in the package that you have
so this is thing – this is a work in progress and the tower studies were going concurrently with the
package that we were developing. So, the package you got didn’t have this in it and so the tower is here;
right there. You can see it partly here and partly on the back of the building here. We have located it
mid-block, again to minimize its visibility. You will see it from California Avenue but it will be a slender
monopole and that’s the exception.
Board Member Corey: That makes sense, thanks.
Chair Bernstein: I’ll get to Beth in a second but I just wanted to make a comment Mallory. I’m really –
you can see – first, of the wall, I want to thank you for coming up to us with the study session. You can
see there is a lot of interest so I am enjoying the good conversation about this. Thank you. Beth?
Board Member Bunnenberg: I have several questions of different natures. You do not list a jail as
something that would be incorporated in that Public Safety Building.
Mr. Cusenbery: Correct.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Is there one?
Mr. Cusenbery: A jail, per se, is not in the building. What the building has been what are called
temporary holding cells.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Holding, ok.
Mr. Cusenbery: It’s a 4-hour maximum duration. It’s used for processing prisoners and…
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Mr. Cusenbery: … it is located – the way that the building works is we have three stories above grade
and two stories of parking below grade. One-story of the Public Safety Building is actually in that first
level of the garage. We have a number of what we would call the more noxious functions for the police
station, are actually one-story sub terrain. So, the holding cells are on that first level of the garage and
City of Palo Alto Page 9
the property and evidence storage is on the first level of the garage. The stuff that has no windows, the
stuff that has higher security is underground. That – the process is that if you have a patrol vehicle that
had someone in custody, they would go down the ramp from Sherman into the basement, they would go
into a subterranean Sally-port where it would then be secured before the in custody leaves the vehicle
and then goes into the temporary holding. Then is processed and interviewed and whatever else they do.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, next question is did you ever consider a pedestrian bridge from the
Public Safety Building over to the garage structure?
Mr. Cusenbery: That – these are great questions. I love this. We actually considered a tunnel. At one
point, there was a tunnel connecting the Public Safety garage under Birch to the public parking structure
and there was more movement between the two structures. We determined that would be cost
prohibited and very complicated from a utility standpoint; the utilities on Birch. Then as it evolved, the
parking structure became strictly public so there’s no functionality for the Public Safety Building over
there. That precluded the need for the tunnel and probably similarly precluded the need for a bridge
because the public – the Police Department is not going to be using that at all. It’s purely for the public.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, then I wanted to talk a little more about your choice of color. You
mentioned the Terracotta color, which certainly is present in Palo Alto and you said a white plaster. Now,
then, in the rendering, it appears to be a stark white. Is that your intention or…
Mr. Cusenbery: Likely not stark white, yeah.
Board Member Bunnenberg: … did you consider a beige and I’m thinking about the buildings that are on
California? If you notice the – I think practically the only white one is that painted wall at the pizza place.
So that – to think more about a – tending to be more beige or mustard or something of that sort. Kind of
like the color of my tee shirt. Is that something that you could work with?
Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, on the dynamic massing, the goal would be too kind of resonant with precedence
in town so yes, absolutely. We’d be looking at some of the historic buildings and drawing from their
colors on that version. On the option one, the more organic option, certainly we would be using more
earthy tones so kind of the colors you are discussing would fall into that category so the answer is yes.
Now the white – the white – the reason for the white, as it’s currently represented, is to emphasize the
dynamic massing so that it’s a little more assertive. If everyone like – again, these are conversations that
started and if everyone said we really want this thing to be dynamic and really contrasting. We would
probably shift towards the white just to get that push but that’s not the feedback that we’re getting. I
think what you’re talking about in terms of the tamer colors and tamer tones, that is more likely the
direction that we are going to go.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yeah, I’m really concerned about a big white box. Yes, it would be eye-
catching but perhaps not in a good kind of way. That’s my concern.
Mr. Cusenbery: Right and the one that’s most tied to that look would be the third option where we’re
trying to get that French limestone, which is defiantly or (inaudible) white granite which are both kind of
traditional civic materials in the Bay Area. That would tend more towards white and more serious and a
little more austere. That would be the one where the color would be more tied to the scheme. The other
two schemes I think have more flexibility on the tones.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, then did you – so, will these white boxes, for instance, have
windows and…
Mr. Cusenbery: Oh, yes.
Board Member Bunnenberg: …on the second and third floor?
City of Palo Alto Page 10
[Mr. Cusonberry:] Yes.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I understand the security kind of thing.
[Mr. Cusonberry:] They will have windows. The windows of the – the primary basking in daylight is going
to come from a central – if you notice right here, there’s a central light well in the building. There’s
actually going to be a lot of light like an interior courtyard. The bulk of day lighting for the function are
going to come through that space. There are definitely going to be windows but they will be smaller
apertures because of the ballistic requirements. The goal is to make it maybe narrower and taller
proportions so that they still feel generous but there will not be large curtain walls. There will not be a
large glass building because that’s just not…
Board Member Bunnenberg: So, they do not look like gun turrets though.
[Mr. Cusonberry:] They will not look like gun turrets, no.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Little narrow…
[Mr. Cusonberry:] The goal is – right now the proportions that we’re drawing are roughly a 3-foot wide
window, vertical proportion. You can see it probably like in these. They’re – these are approximately 3-
feet wide so no, we don’t want them to ever feel – we don’t want this to feel like a fortress. That’s really
important and that’s a constant challenge for us in designing Public Safety Buildings but we never want
them to feel like a fortress.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I think – now then, there are certain things that are – that appear gray on
your renderings. What is that tone?
[Mr. Cusonberry:] Those represent – in scheme – the kind of options one the screening greening, that
would be a rougher textured, maybe stone like quality to it. Again, this under the umbrella of more
organic so earthier or woodier kind of materials. The gray in that way is representing a more stoneish
texture. Again, I say stone-ish because it’s likely that this is going to be pre-cast concrete as the base.
We would try to achieve those textures and this is – you’re actually looking at – for instance, this is
deeply textured concrete here. That’s kind of what we’re talking about. The grays on this one is, in fact,
would be cast in place concrete potentially or pre-cast. Those are the grays but again the – I would say
that these materials that we are showing are meant as triggers for conversation because we’re not
actually proposing a specific palette yet. Not until we get to hear people’s feedback.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright and I’m particularly hopeful that there will become more browns
because of brown – and I think your indications of Terracotta. That some brown as well would be a very
handle kind of or would be related to the things that are on California Avenue. Even if you don’t see them
from California Avenue, it carries some of the feels.
[Mr. Cusonberry:] Definitely. Definitely.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, thank you.
[Mr. Cusonberry:] Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Chair Bernstein. Just a couple comments. When I look at the garage
structure it a – corrects me if I am wrong but does it look like there are solar arrays adjacent?
[Mr. Cusonberry:] Yes, so the photovoltaic panels are represented here, as part of the model and they
would be relatively comprehensive across the top level. Then in the building sections – oops. They are
represented by the dashed line here.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Board Member Makinen: Do you know what – how much power they will supply? Will it meet the needs
to the building or some percentage of the needs?
Mr. Cusenbery: We haven’t done a detailed analysis yet but our hope – we have a couple hopes. One is
definitely to try to leverage them for as much as possible for the needs of the building. The second hope
is that they actually could provide a backup function in the event of an emergency. That you could
actually get redundant power through the photovoltaics but we have not done the detailed analysis yet.
It’s a lot of panels though so you’ll get a lot out of them.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah. The other thing that came to my mind was that buildings like Public
Safety Buildings are usually very sensitive as far as an intrusion of vehicles that may be carrying things
that you don’t want to have around them. Ramps and things that discourage vehicle traffic, they become
major architectural features on some of these buildings. Maybe you’re not showing it right here but that
will probably – the Safety Department will probably (inaudible) mandate some of those things on there to
exclude vehicles from getting close to these buildings – the Public Safety Building.
Mr. Cusenbery: Absolutely. Thank you for bringing that up and that is the idea. I want to remind
everybody that this – the subterranean parking on the Public Safety Building is property line to property
line so any planting that you’re seeing is actually on a deck because there is no soil below. The planting
areas that we’re showing as green are all raised planters and we’re leveraging those raised planters as
vehicles barriers as well because we don’t want to have a flat site and a bunch of security bollards. You
know, like an army of bollards around the whole site to make it look like a fortress. So, by having the
raised planters, we actually get double duty. You’ll see for instance on the perimeter – I’m going to try to
get my mouse there. Those – this is a raised planter and then these are raised seating areas along the
edge and this is the 25-foot standoff distance –setback distance. The goal is to actually keep vehicles
from getting any closer than 25-feet to the building and using the pedestrian amenities to achieve that.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, because of that – it’s a different type of architecture for this type of
building because you mandate the requirement to exclude vehicles from getting close to it.
Mr. Cusenbery: Well, and we don’t want this to look like what – in many of the facilities in Washington
DC when you see the security around them. Where they’ve had to retrofit the security and it’s just – we
want this to be a friendly, landscaped, pedestrian responsive environment and then we’ll just try to use
those to achieve the same goal.
Board Member Makinen: Well, I think some of those elements are going to be major features that impact
the architectural feeling of the building too. The sensitivity of those and how you handle those.
Mr. Cusenbery: Well, you can see a few examples here so for instance, some of these are just president
photographs but you see these raised areas can achieve what are our goal is. These are photographs of
other projects but you can see that they can provide the barrier and also be visually interesting and
pedestrian responsive. That’s the goal but you’re absolutely right. It’s a significant factor on the character
of the perimeter.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah. Ok, thank you.
Chair Bernstein: I just have a process question on the – a question for staff. On the report summary on
packet page 6, it says that HRB Members should refrain from forming or expressing opinions either in
support or against the project. Any clarification on that?
Ms. French: This is part of a template form for preliminary study sessions. In this case, you are free to
comment freely because this is not going to be coming back to you; this project.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you for that. Next, I would like to open up the hearing to members of the
public who would like to speak to us regarding this project. Are there any members of the public who
would like to speak? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Board for comments or opinions. Board Member
Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I think – so we won’t have been seeing this project again, is that what you said,
Amy?
Ms. French: That’s correct. You will have an opportunity to comment on – as a member of the public on
the draft EIR that is being prepared. There was a scoping session and there is – was a notice of
preparation so that comments on what should be studied were received – and then were received.
(Inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Board Member Wimmer: I guess in terms of our Board, meaning even though we aren’t seeing it again, it
would be nice to see further studies between the impact of the parking garage as it is in elevation and a
street view next to our historic resource. I know that there are some streetscape views in our packet but
that specific streetscape view wasn’t include, which is probably what we would have wanted to see; how
– see the Antonio’s Nut House and how it looks in elevation. Also, just to the applicant and I just look on
-- for instance on the floor plan view of the parking garage at that corner as it faces the Nut House. It
would just be nice if you could somehow – if there is any way that you could better respond to the –
being adjacent to the Nut House. I don’t know. In – revise the opening of the pedestrian access to and
from in that upper corner because I know in front of the Nut House there is a small parking zone. Maybe
if we could unify that or make it look like it was intentional instead of just this is our parking structure
and doing our own thing and we know you’re doing your own thing. I know that’s a bad way of
describing it but to better respond in that specific area, that would be nice.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, just on the subject of that parking lot. Some time ago in 1979, there
was a pole out front and apparently, a woman lost a bet to Tony and had to sit up on top of this pole for
several days. So, nutty things have gone on there and it also is kind of a haven for Stanford students and
people who really like to play pool. So, it has its own little history.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I guess I should state that my office was on Cambridge Avenue for seven or
eight years and also my rock n’ roll band use to play in the Nut House there. It was really quite – it’s a
very important area of California Avenue and I have a lady whose still trims what hair I have left is a
block away. She’s been stressed out because there’s nowhere to park and so all the people who own and
work on California Avenue can’t wait to get the parking resolved because it’s a real problem. In fact, I
sometimes have to drive around and park several blocks away. It’s pretty important and a huge change
to Palo Alto. I mean this is a big deal so the whole area of that has been changing rapidly and to see this
response is good by the City of Palo Alto. I’m looking forward to parking there someday.
Chair Bernstein: Mallory, thanks for the – your presentation and the concepts one, two and three. I’ve
got some comments on each of those, please. On concept one, the screening greening, my comment is
that I – my opinion is that would become visually tiring to see a building that’s kind of masked in
greening – in screening. I think there’s an opportunity because of the existing building that you clearly
showed in your presentation, the articulation of a lot of the fenestrations of those buildings. There’s a lot
of – you see a lot of fenestration of (inaudible), windows, (inaudible), windows. There is certainly a
pattern there and I think if we – if the building ends up being this screening option, we would lose that
kind of articulation of architectural detail. That’s – I would not select concept one from my point of view
on that. On concept two, dynamic massing, the idea of the materials that you’re presenting in concept
two or – what was your phrase? Concept or a feeling of concept. Yeah, the conversation of the concept
of conversation. The material that you listed there, I think to provide better compatibility of materials and
City of Palo Alto Page 13
that was evoking the traditional historic Palo Alto landmarks of light colored cement, plaster, and
Terracotta. That coloration I think, will work. I also think the dynamic massing conversation makes it
more compatible with the neighborhood pattern. Just as I mentioned of all the articulation of fenestration
on other buildings there. I would select that concept. As far as the simple civic, again, it’s the white or
light-colored materials. I think that would get kind of visually uninteresting and that might be kind of
tiring to look at also or at least not so interesting. I would vote these concepts – I would choose the
dynamic massing one with my idea for more compatibility with the neighborhood here. There was one
mention by -- in our Board conversation earlier about the modern and blockiness; perhaps was one word
used. So, including the building eligible for National Register, The Nut House, that’s also kind of a block
mass structure also. I think the dynamic massing, I think is compatible in that sense in terms of massing.
Ok, yeah. Any other -- Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, because I had more experience on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission
concerning the Public Safety Building, all of the design elements that you’ve discussed actually make that
building, I think a better building than what would have landed on that site had it not been a Public
Safety Building; the increased space and your screening. I have a different opinion than Martin has about
the garage. I think the foliage helps to soften the impact of what is a very big box and over time, that
changes. There is maintenance issue there but nonetheless, I think that visually changes with the
seasons and helps to, again, camouflage it. I’m concerned about Jacaranda Lane becoming Jacaranda
Canyon by two large buildings. The Public Safety Building again is set back for safety and they will be
doing some work there to screen it. There is actually more space opposite the Public Safety Building then
there is opposite the parking. I think that any effort you can make to soften that particular side with
some materials that will absorb some sound; that would be helpful to the residents. I suspect that the
California Avenue area is going to see the same kind of pressure of explanation that downtown has
because that’s now pretty much the last area that you can expand in. I’m not concerned about the size of
these building because the Court House sets a perfect bad example of what we did in 1960 and I don’t
think that’s seismically – I don’t think they can upgrade that to meet the current standards so I think at
some point that building will have to be replaced. These buildings will be, in two important ways, a shift
of our policing and fire control function to the center of Palo Alto. This particular site represents almost
the dead center of the City and it has very easy access to El Camino, to Alma and to Page Mill or Oregon
so those are major arteries that allow our police and fire services to actually move faster to the City.
Obviously, Foot Hills Park area is excluded from that so whatever you can do. I like that second option
with the garage and opening that up. I think that will help with the parking lot at Antonio’s Nut House
and I look forward to seeing this conversation move forward quickly since we definitely need both of
these buildings.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: I’m a new – I appreciate all the work that you guys have put into this. I also agree
with David. I think parking lots are tough generally because we didn’t have parking lots 100-years go so
they kind of stick out there. The ones that I have seen that have some sort of green on them, I think it
really does help to soften those. I just wanted to say that I also liked the screening greening concept,
especially for the parking garage because I think that will help it blend in more with the neighborhood.
There are a lot of trees and vegetation out there now so it’s kind of makes it a little less apparent to look
at. Thanks very much.
Chair Bernstein: Mallory, I’ve got one other idea that I like that you presented and that was the – on the
corner closest to the back of Antonio’s Nut House. The idea of that displayed entry stair; I think that’s a
great gesture. So as – because their right between, I think it’s Birch and – is it, -- Nut House is on the
corner of Birch, right? Yeah. So, we’re – as people – there’s a parking lot between Birch Street and
Antonio’s Nut House so that means people are lingering there. That would be a good chance for people
to see that display so I think that’s a really wonderful thing to do. Also on the – using the plaza design
shown in your concept one, where there are a lot of different angles. I think that’s a really nice relief
from any kind of boxing and massingness that might be perceived from these two buildings. I’ve seen
that often in Chicago where the public areas are – you have the rectangular buildings but the public plaza
City of Palo Alto Page 14
is similar to your concept one area. I think that makes a nice little softening and nice human scale
gesture so that combined with that displayed entry way supports – I like your other phrase. You said
visually porous at that corner. So, if we end up with the – heading more in the screening greening
direction, still keeping that one corner where that displayed entry stair is and keeping that visually
porous, I think that makes a good compatible connection between California Avenue and particularly the
National Registered eligible building. Any other comments from Board Members? Ok. Alright, I believe
that would – any other conclusions from staff before we conclude?
Ms. French: No, I thank you for your input, as do the applicants. This is going to the ARB next week on
June 1st so I’ll convey the – a quick summary to the ARB of your comments.
Chair Bernstein: Excellent. Great and Mallory, thank you so much. Wonderful. Excellent. Good. Alright,
that concludes this agenda item. Thank you, Matt.
3. 640 Waverley Street [17PLN‐00105]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to
Discuss a Preliminary Architectural Review application for a Mixed Use Building to
Replace Two Structures on a Downtown Site Determined Ineligible for Listing as Historic
Resources.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, we are ready for our next agenda item and I’ll read that description. This is a study
session for 640 Waverly mixed-use project study session and I’ll read it. Historic Resources Board study
session to discuss a Preliminary Architectural Review application for a mixed use building to replace two
structures on a downtown site determined ineligible for listing as Historic Resources. Shall staff have an
introductory report for us?
Ms. French: Yes, so this application is a Preliminary Architectural Review so the time is right for a study
session by the HRB. This is another project where it’s not going to be coming back as a formal to the
HRB because there is no – it’s been determined that the structures on the site are not eligible for a
register – Historic Register based on the work that’s been done by several historic consultants. This is
coming to you with the desire, and the applicant has voluntarily come forward, because it’s an important
area of downtown and it’s an area that is changing on this very street. The Urban Design Guidelines do
refer to this kind of changing area that’s going from the downtown proper into a residential area. So, this
is a transitional area – so there are some potential treatments along the street. There is a P, right?
CDCP? So, there is a P zoning combining district that goes with this so pedestrian friendliness is
important. As is the compatibility with the adjacent buildings and of course, there are two very different
buildings on each side. To the left, as you look at the existing structures, is a listed City inventory historic
resource. I believe it’s a Category two and that was remodeled within the last decade, and is there to
stay. Then the building to the right, which is nearing completion I guess; it’s under construction. That
went through an architectural review process all the way up to Council. We don’t have – staff does not
have a presentation of the design images but the applicant does. We’ll be showing that to you. Again, the
goal of this session is just to provide input on the proposal, to assist staff in assessing the compatibility of
the project with the adjacent historic resources at 650 Waverly and you know the relevance of the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. This is what the Architectural Review Board is attuned to doing and
they have a finding, finding 2B, regarding compatibility. We’re looking towards bringing this to the
Architectural Review Board on June 15th for Preliminary Review and then we’ll be conveying the minutes
of this meeting to the ARB so they can see what the HRB had opinions about. Again, you can express
yourself freely on this one because it’s not going to be coming back to the HRB. Thank you. Let me
introduce Graham Owen, the project planner, and – if you wanted to add anything more on this and then
call up the applicant for the presentation.
Mr. Graham Own, Project Planner: I didn’t have anything further to add. Yeah, this will be going to the
ARB on the 15th of June so we welcome your input.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I’d like to welcome the applicant to address us, please.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Mr. Ken Hayes: Thank you, Amy. Good morning Chair Bernstein and Members of the Board. My name is
Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architect. Can you hear me?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Get close to the mic.
Mr. Hayes: Seems like you couldn’t hear me. Good morning, my name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group
Architects and I’ll be making the presentation on behalf of our clients who could not be here. They are
out of the country but James Lyn and Clarissa Shen would have liked to have been here. Hopefully, they
will be at the ARB meeting in two weeks. I’d like to thank Amy and Graham for helping us bring this
application before you. The site is a difficult to see the site on this slide. Can it be made brighter by any
chance? No, ok. It’s a mid-block, 50 by 105-foot site and it is adjacent to an existing Category two
historic structure. There are two structures on the site itself as Amy has said that have been determined
to not be eligible for any kind of historic listing and they’ll be demolished. The – let me find my cursor.
This is the site here. The Category two historic building to the south was remodeled in 2006. It probably
came before some of you. The – probably the first half of the site of the house is the original and they’ve
added about the same amount of square footage to the rear of the house. To the north, if you will, of the
site; here, is that new four-story mixed-use building under construction. Behind the site is the City’s
parking lot on Gilman Street; it’s an open parking lot. The surrounding sites or the zoning is all CDCP so it
has that pedestrian overlay. It is next to the PF zone which is the parking facility, the post office, etc. and
also a street away or parcel away from high-density RM40 zoning but we are all surrounded by the CDC
pretty much. This is just a figure ground study just to show how the – the ARB likes to see these
diagrams. That they understand how the massing of the figure shows compatibility or not with
surrounding buildings and so this is intended to display that in the site. I don’t see the cursor. Is it up
there? Oh, yeah, there it is. Ok, yeah, it’s hard to see. So, the site is right there so it’s consistent with the
development intensity, I think, around it. Existing site views; this is the property here. This will be
demolished. There’s a building behind this that will also be demolished. The four-story mixed use building
here obviously. The historic house is located to the left here, to the south. I’m getting a glare off that
screen but a real challenge and how we fit in with both of those two very different styles of architecture
massing from a two-story building to a four-story building. That was our challenge. The program is to
include the construction of a new mixed-use residential office building. Including about 5,200-square feet
of office space and a single-family home for our clients, who intend on living there. The building will step
back as it raises to recognize the existing house and the scale of the house to the south and to create
opportunities for an outdoor living because essentially, we’re covering the site almost with the building so
we want to create outdoor living spaces. Imagery that we’re working with is sort of these clean modern
forms of deep recessed, an abundance of glass, quality lasting materials. These – some of these images
are also used at the (inaudible) for the four-story building next door but this idea of this eyebrow tracery
that wraps the building is very apparent in the building to the north. That’s an element that we’d like to
carry into the new building to help relate it and then this here is just an idea of these outdoor living
spaces for our clients and their young children. This is the streetscape. You can see the historic building
here and then the four-story building here and then it steps back down to two-stories. There’s actually, I
think a five-story building here to the left on the corner which we are not showing. Not quite part of the
immediate context. This is a view of just maybe the first 20-feet of the site just so that you can see both
simultaneously. I would like to point out first the historic building plan is setback probably 3-feet from the
property line. Maybe a little bit more but we’re at 12-feet to the first part of our building and about 16-16
½-feet to this part of the building here where the glass is. So, it’s about 16 1/2 – feet there and about
12-feet to the part above so we’re trying to step back. Also, creating the driveway on that side of the
building to again, create some open space between the historic Category two building and our project.
Let me walk you through this. We’re trying to align the main part of the building. You can see with the
red line with the porch of the historic building next door. I think it helps with the transition and it also, I
think helps with the transition from a more urban downtown to the more residential zoning district to the
south of the site. That alignment is something that was a conscious effort. Then the idea of trying to
create a front porch, which we think is important to get eyes on the street but also to relate to the
historic building next door and so this yellow part defines that porch that projects about 5-feet off of the
main façade of the historic building. We’re doing a similar thing with this element in front at a little bit
City of Palo Alto Page 16
larger scale but that piece is pretty much separated from our building which is set back to create a porch
and then on that second floor, it’s actually an outdoor terrace for our clients – for the home above. Then
we the organization of the façade of the historic building which is divided kind of like into this (inaudible).
It’s a three bay – three equal bays, kind of a classical order. We’ve taken that and elevated it in the
façade – the main façade of the building. Not unlike the main façade or how the porch relates to the
historic building which also has this same kind of proportion. In fact, the portion is identical on how we’re
dividing that main window into their living room into these three vertical bays to create some settle
relationships and derivation. Then we have some general alignments. I’m sorry, first the transition. We
have been working with the neighbor at 650; the Category two building and we’ve reached an agreement
with him. He’s in support of the project. He’s actually written a letter that we’ve provided to staff. I’m
sorry that it wasn’t in your package but we’ve worked with Rodger [McCarthy] now for about 2-years to
arrive at a solution that is acceptable to him in terms of light and air and the massing because he has a
lot of windows on that side of the home. This shows this transition that we’re really trying to create
between the four-story building and how it steps down to our three-story building and then further down
to the two-story historic home. We’re in fact taking the reference of the sloped roof of the historic
building because we feel like that’s more residential in nature and using it for the third floor of our
building. So, we took that sloped roof form and incorporated it on our building. Then we have general
alignments like the porch railing aligns with the railings – I—hopefully you can see it on your monitor. I
can’t see it up there because of the glare but we have these important alignments that I think help create
again, the relationship between the various buildings; again, the alignment of the main floor with our
second floor. The alignment with this tracery that runs around the building; I think is important and so
we’re doing that with our porch element out in front. This is a blow up now of that front façade so you
can see the materials that we’re thinking would be lots of glass to let light in. The ground floor is
intended to be commercial space. There is a level below grade and I’ll show you that in a second. The
residential components will be wood siding and then we’re looking at concrete and metal – that helps a
little bit.
Ms. French: Does it?
Mr. Hayes: A little bit. Yeah, thank you, Amy. This is the side of the building that faces the four-story
building next door. There are about 12-inches between the two buildings so this, in fact, won’t be seen
by anybody but we’re trying to take the roof up and over the back side of the building. This is the side of
the building that faces 650 Waverly. So, everything from about here forward is between 12 and 16 1/2 -
feet back from the property line. This portion here is closer to the property line at about 20-inches but
that’s also about where the transition occurs between the addition and the original building next door.
So, we didn’t really see any impacts there but trying to keep this part of the building pushed away and
the zone in between is, in fact, our driveway. Then this is the back of the building that faces the public
parking lot. I believe there’s a 5 or 6-foot fence there that we’re not showing at this point. This is a
residential balcony. This is all residential and then this will be the commercial space here and then there’s
a commercial space below. The ground floor here has the driveway located there. This would take you
into where we have the residential parking so the residents will be fully parked. They will have a
turntable in the garage where they can drive in forward, turn the car around on the turntable and drive
out forwards so as to not to create a kind of traffic issues here on the street. We have in the front of the
building a sunken garden that this glass line here, that I showed you aligned with the porch here,
extends down into the garden level where we intend to have trees planted and other vegetation for the
benefit of not only the people passing by but also for the inhabitants of the commercial space in the
basement. The same thing happens at the back of the building so we’ve added a sunken garden at the
rear of the building as well. The entry to the residential portion is the furthest on to the left. They would
walk in that and they would have access to the elevator. The entrance to the commercial portion would
be here in the front, where we have kind of a covered porch and then that porch extends back as a
covered protection back to the residential entry. Moving up in the building, this is the second-floor living
room, dining kind of kitchen – kitchen – living – I’m sorry, family room, an informal area of the house
spills out to a rooftop terrace here. The family room sort of divides that terrace from another terrace
towards the rear. We have a work room and a project room located at this level, along with the kitchen
that sort of interacts here. We envision that this wall could probably open up but it’s intended to live to
City of Palo Alto Page 17
the outside. Then the third-floor steps back further. It overlooks a larger living room space with the glass
that wraps the corner. Three bedrooms and then the master bedroom has a private balcony. On both the
second floor and the third floor, we would envision heavy landscaping –excuse me, heavy landscaping on
this side for privacy concerns. For buffering reason which is also something that’s important when
adjacent to these other residential uses. Then I have some 3-D views that are in your packet as well. I
think there are two options in your packet. We realty prefer I think this option as opposed to the flat roof
option just because we think it helps a little bit with the transition to the residential because it just
conveys, I think more of a residential feel with the sloped roof. This gives you an idea – this is the
sunken garden in front. We envision that being planted so there would be trees coming up potentially,
enhanced paving here, the office entry is there and the residential entry would be down the sidewalk
here. This is this porch element out in front that really kind of starts to relate to this element here. It is
separated from the window in the back. It isn’t – it’s intended to be a porch to reinforce that edge out in
front. When you walk out to where this person is standing on the balcony, you’re in fact underneath it. It
might be a little bit more difficult to understand this view but it’s above from the south. The historic home
is in the foreground and it shows the second-floor terrace in the middle there that opens up from the
kitchen. The third-floor terrace on top of the family room there, which opens into where the master
bedroom is, and then to the right here, you can see the porch element as it wraps. This is the front
terrace, the sloping roof of the four-story building behind and these are dormer like elements that define
the two bedrooms that are one the third floor. We felt like that helped break down the scale a little bit
and picks up on some of the dormer elements. Not copying them but the notion of a dormer and having
the mass of that roof broken up a little bit. Then this is a view from the rear. Here’s the historic building
here. This is, in fact, the modern addition to the historic building which is here in front. Then a view from
the street with the whole composition, shown there. So, we’ve always envisioned this as a kind of a duet.
This project fell way behind in the process but way back these had, at one time, been planned together.
Although working with the neighbor here at 650 Waverly, it has really changed this building in between; I
think for the better because it does tend to transition I think, a lot better than we had before. That is the
end of my presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions you have. I am excited to hear
any comments also so thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Ken. So, we’ll start with a question for the applicant or staff and then open it
up to members to the public. Then we will continue on with our – bringing back to the Board. Yes, Board
Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I just have to disclose that the building on the right side was – I did the
initial studies for the owner and has it grew beyond what my expertise was, it turned over… (crosstalk)
Mr. Hayes: I forgot about that.
Board Member Kohler: … it turned over to Ken, who is used to this kind of stuff. I just wanted to look at
…
Mr. Hayes: Thank you for pointing that out. I had actually forgotten that.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg, you have your light on.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Let’s see, I would like to step back a bit and think again about this smaller
building that is on the property now; actually, there are two. One is 19 – I mean – 19…
Mr. Hayes: 1904 I think.
Board Member Bunnenberg: …1094 and the other one is 1908. Our downtown guidelines talk about the
transition from the business district to homes – residential homes and I’m thinking about the other part
of that, which is the transition from homes to businesses. 1904 is 10-years after Palo Alto became a City.
There are not a whole lot of buildings of that age left and 1908 is quite early so that – I would like to
recommend a fuller study of whether that is, in fact, is not an important building because we talk about
City of Palo Alto Page 18
the frequent statement is something that was once common and is now rare. To me, this feels like a
certain case where the small houses were common because it was where the residential part was
starting. Now, there is are not many of them left so I would like to respectfully ask for more thought in
that area. I think that the setback that even currently exists with the 1908 structure, is a very welcome
green break in that block. It sounds like you are increasing that, rather than decreasing. Is that correct?
Mr. Hayes: I think that’s correct. It may be about the same. Yeah, I think we probably are a few feet
further back. So, we’re going to align with the porch of the historic building to the south and that is
further back than the existing 1908 house.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Then the setback that is there. I – to me, it still doesn’t feel like a full
transition from the very beautifully restored yellow historic building. I don’t know if you’ve ever
considered a peaked roof rather than a slanted roof?
Mr. Hayes: I think it’s probably in our achieves somewhere. I think that in the end, trying to blend both
the buildings – this evolved from having it as a flat element to a sloped element. I could certainly pull
back out what we had before. I’m not sure if it – well, it becomes a little problematic but I could certainly
look and see what we have on that. It’s not something that we’re promoting now but that’s …
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, I think those are my questions for now.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, I am having trouble finding the overall height of your building. I see on the
sections that we can see where the floor levels are.
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, we’re about 39-feet to the peak of this roof here.
Vice Chair Bower: I guess my question is, is there a reason why the first floor – the second floor needed
to be 14-feet above grade – above your finished floor level at the – this is …
Mr. Hayes: So, it’s commercial space. Whether it’s retail at some point or office space. Those are the kind
of heights that are more in demand I think and they make sense with the mechanical systems. That also
aligns with the building next story.
Vice Chair Bower: But you’re the third floor is at the level of the peak of the roof on the historic house
next store. Isn’t it 26…
Mr. Hayes: Correct, 26-feet. Correct. Right.
Vice Chair Bower: So, you’re building another whole store above that which gives – I mean, I am asking
these questions because, in terms of compatibility, this volume is significantly larger. I mean, it doesn’t
even stop remotely close to the top of the historic building.
Mr. Hayes: Well, it’s also stepped back quite a way. I don’t have that dimension in front of me…
Vice Chair Bower: I’m not…
Mr. Hayes: …from the – right. It moves – I’m talking about moves back from Waverly. I should point out
that on the left-hand side of the historic building is a…
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I know.
Mr. Hayes: … huge building.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, 19…
Mr. Hayes: If you look at it all in context.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, 1970s mistakes but we don’t – hopefully don’t want to make more mistakes. We
want to do better.
Mr. Hayes: That was one of the reasons that we went to this sloped roof because it allowed us to lower
the plate height of that third floor. So, the third-floor plate height is about 8-feet, which is a normal home
so if you walk into the master bedroom, the plate height is at 8-feet. Before we had it flat, it was taller
than that so this also helped to lower that third floor. So, it’s about 8-feet above the – so what, it’s 34-
feet as opposed to 26 at the floor line and then 34.
Vice Chair Bower: Ok, great. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: I had two questions, one is that I’m trying to – you had that slide earlier that
showed the hipped roof and the going upwards and that slant. It is -- from this picture and several other
of these pictures, it doesn’t look like it lines up. I’m trying to get a better view of that.
Mr. Hayes: You’re referring to…
Board Member Corey: It was really early.
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, right here.
Board Member Corey: That one.
Mr. Hayes: This guy.
Board Member Corey: Is that – does that slope up? Does that angle change or I’m just trying to – maybe
it’s just the angle change.
Mr. Hayes: No, well this angle – yeah, I don’t think we’re matching the slope of the historic building.
Board Member Corey: Right. Ok.
Mr. Hayes: If that is your question. We’re not. I think we’re less of a slope. If we match the slope, it
would jack the roof up even higher so we were lowering that down but it does not match up. I think the
existing house is probably four and twelve; the historic home.
Board Member Corey: That’s what I assumed, yeah.
Mr. Hayes: I think we’re three and twelve.
Board Member Corey: Three and twelve, ok. The second question kind of and maybe this is a question
for the City. So, if we add this big office retail space at the ground, what’s the parking situation like
because it’s now with what the structure is now. I assume there’s not really any strict parking
requirements; whereas – it seems like we added one spot of the residents.
Mr. Hayes: So, the residential is parked per the requirements of 1852. The commercial parking is in the
loop, because of the size. We would be paying in the loop for the parking for the commercial. It’s –
there’s 5,200 and so that’s 22 spaces I think or 21 spaces. Correct? Yeah.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Corey: Ok.
Mr. Owen: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Graham, we need your mic on. We can’t hear you.
Mr. Owen: My apologies. So, 23 spaces are proposed for the entire development, 21 of which would be
paid in the loop so just the two for the residential.
Board Member Corey: Ok.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I would like to echo the concern of Board Member Bower about nowhere
on your drawings has it – has any reference to the heights of the proposed building. I think we also need
to be reminded of the height of 636. I know that’s not the subject property but I do think that you need
to include the heights of that building. Does this newly proposed project max out the property in terms of
what your allowable floor area allowance is?
Mr. Hayes: It does for the commercial…
Board Member Wimmer: Is it maxed out?
Mr. Hayes: For the commercial component, I believe that it does, 5,200. Maybe we are 10-sqaure feet
under. For the residential competent, I don’t think that it does.
Board Member Wimmer: Alright, was it like close or is it…
Mr. Hayes: Let me look at the – if should be in your drawings as well.
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah. Is it on the front page?
Mr. Hayes: On A-0.4, there’s 4,400 – approximately 4,500-square feet of residential so that’s about 750-
sqaure feet less than what we’re allowed so it’s not maxing the whole development out.
Chair Bernstein: I have a question. Picking up on Board Member Bunnenberg’s comment regarding the
historic determination for the existing buildings there, I see that the evaluator of the building structure
object record is Stacy De Shazo. Is that hired by the City or is that hired by the applicant?
Ms. French: That was hired by the applicant. So, let me just give a little history on the analysis. The
applicant came in with a historic resource evaluation. Matt Weintraub, our prior historic planner was here,
had a look at it, gave some feedback and said it was not adequate. Then there was peer review by …
Mr. Hayes: Dudek
Ms. French: Dudek, out – the Cities consultant. So, Samantha Murry of Dudek; she helped – assisted with
that peer review of that original report and then the applicant came back with this final report basically,
that addressed those comments. Came to the same conclusion but provided a more robust study as had
been commented by the City’s hired consultant as necessary. Then, yes, Ken?
Mr. Hayes: May I add one more thing? So, the first consultant was PAST Consultants. When we received
the feedback from Dudek on the initial evaluation, we went back to that original consultant and he had
left the area so he was not working in Palo Alto any longer; so we had to find a new historic consultant
and that’s when Evans and De Shazo was hired by my client. Evans and De Shazo did the report and took
in the consideration of the feedback from the original historic consultant’s report and Dudek’s feedback,
City of Palo Alto Page 21
prepared their report and then that was subject to Dudek’s peer review and there were some comments
that Dudek made and we had addressed those and that’s the report that you have, that was included in
the packet. All the reports that we’ve had come to the same conclusion.
Chair Bernstein: Does the City’s historic consultant agree that the building that they elect merit for
preservation?
Ms. French: Yes, they agreed with the conclusion and just asked for a beefier study.
Chair Bernstein: A question for staff or for perhaps Graham. It says here that – on page – packet page
104, the applicant has been advised that a single family residential unit is not a permitted use in this
district. Yet, we’re seeing a single-family residence proposed. How do we respond to that unpermitted
use?
Mr. Owen: So, at this point the application in a preliminary review so no formal action is requested for
the ARB component of this project but the staff has reviewed it almost as if it were a formal application.
During that initial review, we did our code compliance review and one of the things that we were looking
at in particular is that the CDC district allows mixed use and multi-family as one of those permitted used
but single-family is not expressly authorized in the zoning code as a component of a mixed-use project
that can be included in the CDC.
Chair Bernstein: So, should we be looking at a project that has a non-permitted use?
Ms. French: Well, your role here is that you’re looking at a mixed-use building that’s come forward and
there are no requirements for the HRB to weigh in on zoning compliance. Again, we’re just looking at the
compatibility aspects and relationships in context.
Chair Bernstein: So, is it possible – thank you for that. It’s possible that this project may – as presented
may never happen because of its non-permitted?
Mr. Owen: At this point, with this project, we’re not asking for a formal recommendation for the Director
to make a decision on the project at this point. You know, if there’s – there are certainly ways in which
the project could change. Of course, there’s also – there’s always the possibility that there are zoning
code amendments – that go in line with this project, to further clarify what the zoning would be or
excuse me, what the permitted usage on the site would be.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, sure. I appreciate that and also, it adds living units downtown, which is good for
the environment, so there’s certainly community benefit for having residential use in downtown. I agree
with that idea. Ok, alright. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I had – for another area to think about in terms of the historic standing
of that building. Apart of the report was the replacement of whatever window was on the front, with a
larger – not picture window but a bigger pane of glass. Which in some ways is not surprising for a
building of this age, but then, it talked about the fact that the small building no longer had the integrity
of the surrounding building. The little buildings – it’s not the little building’s fault that those buildings are
gone and so I do have some concern about the historic report on that basis.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I’d like to bring members of the public if – oh, one other question, please? Board
Member Makinen, sorry.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, thank you, Chair Bernstein. I think the project does have an impact upon
the historic house – the yellow house that’s adjacent to it. This project clearly is dominating as far as the
neighborhood goes, including the project that is currently being built. It kind of sets the tone for it but
that house, the yellow house, is a Gustav Laumeister house. One of the more significant builders and
City of Palo Alto Page 22
architects in Palo Alto and I think this project does have an impact on a contextuality of that house and
its setting. It sits there by itself now, with nothing else around it that relates to it. It’s totally alone.
Mr. Hayes: You’re talking about the yellow house?
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, the yellow house, yes.
Mr. Hayes: I don’t understand. There are buildings on both sides of it. The yellow house?
Board Member Makinen: Yes.
Mr. Hayes: Aren’t their buildings on both sides?
Board Member Makinen: Yeah.
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible)
Board Member Makinen: I think the project just has another contextuality issue that wasn’t there before.
That’s my main point.
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it’s a challenge for sure.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I’d like to open up the – this portion of the meeting to the public. If any members of
the public would like to speak to us on this proposed project or this proposal? Seeing none. Move it back
to the Board for comments. Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, I appreciate your efforts to bring this before us. I know it’s not required. I share
Michael’s concern about the historic building, the yellow house, being overwhelmed but the building next
to this -- at what? 640? 636? The one that’s been under construction for the last 25-years; that’s even
worse. I mean that overwhelms the entire neighborhood so anything that’s better than that would be
better than nothing. I still think the whole – this new building that we’re looking at today is overwhelming
and I’m not sure that there’s anything we can do about it but I think that needs to be said. Also, I have a
problem with the updated historic evaluation. Under the – on page 143 of our packet, which is page 33 of
this report. Under a discussion of whether the structure has a particular representation of an architectural
style or way of life important to the City. They say that this is obviously a vernacular bungalow and is a
very typical house built from the early 1900’s to about the 1930’s in Palo Alto. We are losing these
buildings at an incredibly rapid rate and one of the conclusions here is that it is not and I’m quoting here,
an excellent example of a representation of this bungalow style. I wonder whether every building that is
– has significant has to be excellent. There are many buildings that represent a combination of styles and
craftsmanship that aren’t the best but still represent a significant statement in our architectural history.
Second, on the next page under six, the structure on the site contains elements demonstrating
outstanding attention to architectural design and detailed materials of craftsmanship. Again, there’s an
opinion in that next paragraph. In the paragraph that says neither the building is designed with elements
that demonstrate outstanding attention. When you use a superlative as your method or your level of
comparison, almost nothing qualifies. These reports obviously, are intended to move a project forward. I
don’t think this report – I can give you another example in the report. Back on page 155 where they talk
about there were significant changes to Waverly Street and the surrounding blocks and use that as
another example of how we – this has an insignificant building and doesn’t rise to the level of protection.
If we were to measure every block – if we were to say that any block that changes no longer would
qualify any house on it to be protected. I think we’ve eliminated a huge housing – a number of buildings
in the City and most Cities. I’m troubled by the way this report was done. I think that it’s overstating the
insignificance of these buildings. The windows that have been removed could easily be replaced. That’s
what we call removing non-compliant features and installing ones that are compliant. It’s done all the
time in historic districts so I just think the record ought to reflect that these are not insignificant buildings
City of Palo Alto Page 23
and even though the street has changed and there’s a significantly larger building just two properties
over. I think that’s not really reflected in the report.
Chair Bernstein: I agree with Vice Chair Bower’s comments on the report. So, the official report for this –
in our packet is the historic preservation conclusion recommendations from a provider of service that is
not the City’s consultant. We don’t have the City’s consultant’s report in front of us. Is there a City
consultant’s report?
Ms. French: Yes, I originally had that attached to this report but it was removed as – just provided the
final. That could be mailed to you so could see the chain of how things progressed. There were a lot of
reports back and forth.
Chair Bernstein: I also agree with Vice Chair Bower’s comment about when superlatives are used to be
the measure. Yeah, I think that would eliminate a lot of existing Category structures because a lot of
them are not, I would say, excellent examples. Then when there’s also a comment in this – Ms. Shazo’s
report saying, but many things have been removed already so what’s the significance? Well, you know,
that’s not a good measure of importance. I’m also troubled with the fact that our – the official report here
is just showing – that report, at that level of wording. Regarding the purview of our Board regarding with
compatibility issues with adjacent historic structures, I’m referring to 650 Waverly Street, that’s the
Category two structure. In fact, it was 2003 where I moved to – made a motion to have that Category
two and it was seconded by Vice Chair Rodger Kohler at the time. That was in 2003 so 14-years ago that
happened. That building has been historic for a significant timeframe. Looking at the character – defining
an aspect of the Georgian Revival Category two structure, you’ve got the pilasters on the side of the
frame and so that creates a certain rigid frame appearance there. Then you have the nice little porch
detail in the middle. There’s a certain symmetry about that. Ken, thank you for coming to us for a study
session. We really appreciate that and I also want to commend you on 636 Waverly Street. I looked at
that building and that design, by itself, I truly believe it’s masterful. The way – I mean, if you look at –
forget about the context issue but the way that you did the – it’s quite masterful. Then the proposal for
640 is certainly compatible with that; no question. That’s high, highly successful but from the HRB’s point
of view, we have a Category two structure over here. I am not seeing the compatibility of the 640
proposals with the 650. You mentioned some good conversational starting points of how do you get that
– the framing of the front porch concept? I think that’s a really excellent way of – as an opportunity for
compatibility. Therefore, it becomes the scale of that so you – I know that’s common for you to put the
horizontal lines across. That’s also a good analytic tool to understand relationships. The – what’s the
phrase that you used for the concrete ribbon? There was a phrase that I think you used.
Mr. Hayes: Just the tracery.
Chair Bernstein: Tracery, yeah. If you use that if that can somehow relate more to the Georgian
proportions of height and width and the scale of that and the massing of that. That can get a little more
compatibility. I’m just not seeing this to be compatible at all with the Georgian style house there. You can
use modern techniques and you’re a genius of doing that. It’s the scale, dimensions, and just more visual
techniques to get it more compatible. I just don’t – I don’t see the compatibility there and that is our
charge. That combined with the – again, the quality of the historic report that’s been mentioned by three
Board Members here. I’m concerned that we’re not getting compatibility, which is part of the – I believe
that’s going to be one of the findings languages for the ARB I think; compatibility. Let me see if I can find
that wording.
Ms. French: Yes, it’s in the report.
Chair Bernstein: Yes, I saw that.
Ms. French: I’ll give you the packet page.
Chair Bernstein: 169.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Ms. French: Ok.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah. I’ll just read that for our conversation. So, architectural review findings, that’s
attachment D, packet page 169. It says that the project has a unified and coherent design that
preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the
historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant. I do not see how this drawing
that we have now contributes positivity to the historic character of the Category Two structure. I don’t
see how that finding can be made. If there’s any revision to the proposal, you’re hearing some comments
from the HRB. Go ahead – I mean, using the modern architectural language, I have no issue with that
but it’s the scale, massing and I mean, how creatively can that happen and still address your – the clients
design for this. Those are my comments.
Mr. Hayes: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: You’re welcome to respond, I would – please welcome.
Mr. Hayes: I think I pointed out we were trying to relate and it was really about the alignment in plan
and alignment in elevation in my mind. There’s nothing more massive about what I see with the tracery
than what I see with the fascia line of the historic home. That’s what we are relating to so that 26-foot
piece relates to that – the white band of the historic building. I thought that we were pulling it off
actually so I am very surprised by that comment but I’ll take it to heart. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Let’s see – I’m sorry. Board Member Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: Michael, what’s your phrase that you use about the effective area of impact or
something. I …
Board Member Makinen: Potential effect?
Vice Chair Bower: What is it?
Board Member Makinen: The area of potential effect.
Vice Chair Bower: Right, the area of potential effect. It’s a federal phrase. Michael could speak more to it
but when I look at this, I have the same response which is the two buildings now are overwhelming the
Georgian historic building and that’s where I have trouble with compatibility.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, next steps. So, we have our comments.
Board Member Wimmer: I don’t know if we’ve…
Male: But are there more…
Chair Bernstein: Oh, I’m sorry. Your light? Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I think the existing building that’s under construction right at 636 is really
abrupt. You drive down that street and it’s just like – I don’t think the elephant in the room really
describes what the building is doing on that street.
Mr. Hayes: I agree.
Board Member Wimmer: I think it’s very insensitive to the street and it’s kind of incentive to the
immediate surroundings and it’s kind of insensitive to the community of Palo Alto because there are a lot
of residents in Palo Alto who have voiced their concern. They are being upset about the fact that the City
City of Palo Alto Page 25
of Palo Alto would allow such a building to be built. I think we have to balance what the property owners
want and you’re a very talented architect and you’re trying to satisfy what your clients want. You found a
way to do that under the parameters of what the City of Palo Alto allows and that’s what that building is.
It’s – you’ve designed it for what your clients asked you to do. You’ve passed it through the City but
there some disconnect because the community is not responding positively and we see that this building
is not compatible with its surroundings. I think there’s some kind of – something is out of balance. Then
with this addition or excuse me, this new structure. The same owner, is it the same owner?
Mr. Hayes: No, no, no, no, no.
Board Member Wimmer: Same architect. It looks like – I mean it’s clearly an addition to the existing – the
building that’s being built. I mean this building clearly ties into it. It has the same materials and it’s the
same style. You know this tracery is – you’re following that so to me, this is an addition to the building
that is being constructed now that so many people have a problem with. When you are showing this –
the existing building at 636 and the historic Georgian building at 650, I see that your new proposal at 640
is – it’s a transition. You’re trying to respond to the historic building by going from the very tall abrupt
incentive building to a historic building and saying hey look, I’m in between. If we just put our hand over
the existing building being built and just analysis the 650 and the 640, I don’t see any compatibility at
there at all and I know that you’re saying that you’re lining things up and you’re saying that this new
building has a front porch. I don’t see anything that looks like a front porch there, to me. That looks like
an addition to a flawed building that’s at 636. Then, I hear you saying that you know the neighbors and
they are being supportive. I don’t know why they would be supportive but even if they are supportive of
this, supportive of this, they are just stewards of that building for a certain period of time. They are not
going to own 650 forever so we have to look at 650 forever. We have to figure out what is compatible
with that building for beyond the time that we’re all here. Even if he doesn’t have a problem with it
personally, that doesn’t really effect or impact my response because he’s just the steward of that building
and we should look at the building as an intracule part of Palo Alto’s history. I mean, obviously, I don’t
think it’s compatible. I know that we did not, as a Board, review 636. It didn’t even come to us and I’m
not sure why. I guess it’s because it’s not right next to a historic resource. Maybe it could have come to
us, I don’t know but I think you’re just continuing an abrupt, insensitive effort and as Martin just read the
requirements of what the City is looking for here. It’s looking for respect and I think this is continuing an
insensitive disrespect and I’m sensitive to you because I know that you’re just trying to make things
happen. I have – I’m in the same business.
Mr. Hayes: I was thinking that this actually – this proposal actually justified the building at 636. It helps it
reduce in scale, it gives it a little more confirmation and then how do we transition that to the historic
building and that’s where this notion of creating the alignments, creating the front porch, recessing the
building back so that it related to the plan of the historic building or ways of doing it without trying – we
know we don’t want to copy the historic building. It sounds like we have a difference in aesthetic
direction. We typically work in a more modern aesthetic and so I wouldn’t see a building here that
pretends to be a Georgian Revival building. I don’t think…
Board Member Wimmer: I understand that.
Mr. Hayes: …that does anything for the historic building. When in fact, keeping something distinct gives
that much more prominence, I think, or gives the historic building a little bit more of a frame.
Board Member Wimmer: I think also that maybe there is a lesson that we can learn here. I mean, Palo
Alto is transitioning. We’re tearing down some of these older, smaller properties. The property values are
so immense that we have to provide buildings like this so that owners can maintain their property values.
There’re a lot of factors that come into play but I just think that – you know, maybe downtown, maybe
we need a historic guideline for downtown. I know the ARB is really sort of heads that effort to guide
what happens downtown. I just think that maybe it’s stronger guidance maybe by the City. Maybe it’s to
guide the applicants in a stronger way that we don’t have these abrupt, insensitive – because now it sets
City of Palo Alto Page 26
a president. So, now other people are going to continue that same – maximize it and I just hope that we
can just learn from it and just be more sensitive for future applications.
Mr. Hayes: Can I ask a question?
Chair Bernstein: Oh, please do, Ken.
Mr. Hayes: Do you – I mean, for this to work for my client. They need three-stories and so do you not
see a three-story building on this property? I mean that’s the question that needs to be asked. I hear
people saying or members saying massive, too big and huge impact. Three-stories is not very tall but is
that the issue? I mean, I know that we just heard from Board Member Wimmer about the style and so on
but regardless of that, from a massing standpoint. Where do we stand with three-stories because I don’t
know if anything less that that will work?
Chair Bernstein: I can respond to that or other Board Members can also. The prescription is not the
solution of massing. It’s a – you can have a four-story building that – so, it’s all perception and that’s
where the genius of your design can come in. It’s what’s the perception of the massing so no prescription
of a height, no prescription of stories. I don’t find that as a measure so it’s just the detailing. Ken, when
you mentioned things aligning. I’m looking on your page A-0.2 and this is responding to your comment
about (inaudible). Let me know when you have it.
Mr. Hayes: I have it here, yeah.
Chair Bernstein: So, you’re talking about alignment so I see the tracery on 640. That’s not lining up with
any significant -- what’s that lining up with?
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it looks like it’s lining up with the second – the third floor of 640 or 636, right?
Chair Bernstein: Oh, yeah. That little dormer. No, oh, oh, I thought it was …
Vice Chair Bower: 650.
Chair Bernstein: I was looking…
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I miss spoke it looks like.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, so that tracery, that’s not lining up with any significant feature of 650.
Mr. Hayes: So, that could help actually, lowering that.
Chair Bernstein: Yes, exactly. So, you get the – I agree. Then the tracery element near the front door of
640, that’s not relating at all to 650. That was part of my comment is how do you get the massing of 640
in more relation to 650, the Category two structure? I made a little thought to myself about this so 650
has the pilasters framing it. If your tracery, which is a modern detail, the way that you designed it; if that
can somehow act the same way, you still get your contemporary expression and you’re still doing the
tracery issues. Getting the heights so that prominent tracery mass is visually and perceptually equal to
what’s going on to the historic structure. That’s stepping toward the compatibility and then the third
floor, if somehow – it’s a good think that you’re looking at how do you make that compatible with 636
Waverly because that’s just part of our visual world also but if there is something more dominate with
your tracery in terms of height somehow, so that it relates to the frame of the 650 of the pilasters and
then the strong pediment (inaudible)…
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I see what you are saying.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Chair Bernstein: … now there’s a direction there. Then your architectural modern details and how you’ve
related that to your 636 so that the block has that kind of compatibility. You are right in your words that
it’s a challenge and how fortunate that your clients have you as an architect.
Mr. Hayes: Well, thanks.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so those are the comments.
Mr. Hayes: Well, thank you very much. That’s why we wanted to come before you so I appreciate it.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, good. As far as the next step, Amy, for this project. Do the comments get
transferred?
Ms. French: Yeah, so we’ll hopefully get the minutes turned around and provided to the ARB in their
packet that goes out in a couple weeks. Then, of course, they would submit a formal – after hearing
comments from the ARB, then they would have the opportunity to submit a formal application to address
the comments that they’ve heard.
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Any other comments for HRB before we conclude? Board Member Brandon, or
Corey?
Board Member Corey: Yeah, one other question. So, the distance between this building -- I was thinking
about Margaret's comment about how these buildings kind of complement each other. Is the distance
there mostly so there can be a sloped roof with that daylight plane? I’m trying to understand whys it so
slows up against 636, (inaudible) 640?
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, so the setbacks are zero in the downtown and so it’s matter of trying to maximize our
square footage as simple as that. Then we’ve setback at the front so there’s no parking below our
building but the building next door does have parking below it. It starts to dictate where that wall above
goes as well. It’s a matter of just trying to – it’s a 55-foot wide lot so it’s…
Board Member Corey: Yeah. No, I understand. I’m just trying to understand that maybe breaking that up
a little more might help. I mean, yeah, of course, I’ve heard from all the neighbors and people downtown
that nobody is thrilled with 636 as far as that abruptness out there. This is kind of like it’s almost making
it a bigger building so I see what you’re trying to do there. I’m just wondering if that may help since it
does seem to compliment that building rather than something separate.
Mr. Hayes: I was think that it actually helps it fit in, in my opinion; the 636 building by having this
transition. If there is anywhere to put a tall wall, it would be against 636 as opposed to the historic side
so that sort of biased everything over to that side.
Chair Bernstein: I’ve also heard from downtown residents that have similar questions that Board Member
Wimmer mentioned. A question I would get – probably – I’ve gotten about a few residents downtown
saying how could the City allow the project at 636 to occur? They say how can that happen? Anyway,
that’s feedback that I’ve been hearing on the street.
Mr. Hayes: The feedback that I heard here today was that some people love it, some people don’t.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, any other comments before we conclude? Alright, Ken, thank you so much for your
explanation of the project and the Board, thank you so much for your comments. Ok, that concludes this
project. Yes? Ok. Are the Board Members opening to maybe a 10-minute recess? We’ve been sitting for a
while. Ok, we’ll break for about 10-minutes and come back. Ok, thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
4. Mills Act Discussion
Ms. French: Just coming back and before we get to our next item, I would like to say that we are looking
toward the summer and having a few meetings and I want to know your schedules. Whether are you are
in town or not in town? A couple of dates that we’re focusing on; June 22nd we have two items, the Junior
Museum and Zoo has their formal application on file now, and we have also, the Stanford General Use
Permit; it is going to be having an Environmental Impact Report, so leading up to that, there are some
studies that are being done and so we have Stanford coming forward and a member of our staff is doing
a staff report about that. That’s a target date, June 22nd, so two items for that date. Then, looking
towards July, we are going to be talking about a context statement or framework for the Stanford
Research Park so looking towards one of those two dates in July. I believe it’s the 13th and the 27th of
July, the two possibilities there. If you could take a look at your calendar, I’ll have Robin send out – get
specifics on that, as far as who's available, do we have a quorum and that sort of thing. I bring this up
because there’s a possibility that our last item today is a good candidate to postpone, given the hour and
we can look at one of those dates. Either a date certain – I would want you to make a motion on that…
Vice Chair Bower: Can we deal with…
Ms. French: Certain or uncertain.
Vice Chair Bower: Can we deal with that now?
Ms. French: I think you could.
Vice Chair Bower: I mean, we have all but Michael.
Ms. French: Yeah, it’s a check in right now. I think it’s a check in.
Vice Chair Bower: So, I would like to propose that we postpone the Mills Act Discussion until a date
uncertain and then Amy if you could have – do a poll.
Ms. French: Right.
Vice Chair Bower: We could do it, I guess you said June 8th or I’m on – I’m less enthusiastic about doing
it on the 22nd if we have two significant projects that are going to come before the Board because that
puts it into a three-hour meeting and it’s difficult to have a conversation at the end of that much
materials. My proposal would be to do this on June 8th.
Ms. French: Ok, if you’d like to suggest a date certain, you can do that.
Vice Chair Bower: Right, so that would be my suggestion. Does that have to be a motion?
Ms. French: Yeah, I would say so.
MOTION
Vice Chair Bower: Ok, then I’d like to move that we postpone the Mills Act discussion until June 8th or a
convenient time for Board Members after that. That’s the next scheduled meeting?
Ms. French: It is scheduled. We have not advertised that meeting. The ad, I guess would have been due
if we had a new project to advertise but this is not new so it would be a continuation of this item.
Vice Chair Bower: Well, if it works. If the mechanism is available to us to advertise, then that would be
my motion.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Chair Bernstein: I’ll second it. Ok.
Vice Chair Bower: Discussion?
Chair Bernstein: Ok, all in favor? OK, thank you.
MOTION PASSED 5-0 WITH MAKINEN ABSENT
Vice Chair Bower: Can we add Michael’s vote when he comes back? Is that acceptable?
Ms. French: I don’t think it’s necessary to just continue it. It’s fine.
Action Items
5. PUBLIC HEARING: 303 Parkside Drive [16PLN‐00395]: Historic Resources Board
formal review of an update of the pool and deck, and the construction of an
Approximately 1,800 square foot community room to be located between the pool and
park on the existing Green Meadow community center site within the Green Meadow
National Register Historic District. The project includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
amendment request. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA. Zone District: R‐1
(8,000)(S); Single Family Residential with 8,000 sf minimum lot size and Single Story
Combining District. For more information, contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, that brings us to agenda item number four. I’m sorry, agenda item number five
today and that is 303 Parkside Drive, Green Meadow community center project. 303 Parkside Drive,
Historic Resources Board formal review of an update of the pool and deck, and the construction of an
approximately 1,800 square foot community room to be located between the pool and park on the
existing Green Meadow community site within the Green Meadow National Historic District. The project
includes a Conditional Use Permit request. Environmental Assessment is exempt from CEQA and shall
staff have a report for us.
Ms. French: Yes, so the last time you saw this was back in December of last year and we had a report at
that point from our historic consultant, John Rusch of Page and Turnbull. He has since reviewed the
revised plans and provided a report. I believe it’s on your – in your packet. I’ll tell you what page number
in a moment. Let’s see, I’ll just tell you now because I think I am finding it. Let’s see, the memorandum
from – is page 228 so that came just last week; May 17th. The applicant had provided a response to the
feedback from the HRB study session and that’s packet page 224. We have looked at the project with
respect to the Secretary of Interior Standards. It’s interesting because the landscaping – a Tommy
Church design landscaping of the park became a topic. It’s very fascinating to me, having past studies
and so we’ve done our table of analysis for Secretary of Interior Standard compliance. I know the
applicant has a presentation and then staff. Again, we’re here with Graham and if – Graham can let you
know but I believe this is going to the ARB but it doesn’t have a date.
Mr. Owen: No, given the size of the project, it’s 1,900—square feet. Technically, it can be handled at the
staff level unless a hearing is requested. At this point, it’s a Conditional Use Permit, as well as an AR
which are both staff level reviews unless there’s a hearing.
Ms. French: Yes, I forgot that – so, this is the public hearing for this item – for this project as a formal
hearing. We look for the HRB input – staff would be making the AR findings on behalf of the Board, given
the minor project, so we look towards the same compatibility kind of findings, as far as the architectural
review and then the Secretary of Interior Standards, which had been looked at. We have a presentation
and then we’ll seek your feedback.
Chair Bernstein: Hi, welcome.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Ms. Sherry Listgarten: Hi, thank you for having us. My name is Sherry Listgarten so I am a neighborhood
– I’m a neighbor who lives in Green Meadow and I’m representing the neighborhood. This is Joe
Mendoza and he’s an architect with (inaudible) firm. I think most of you were here for the study session,
which was really useful. Michael, I don’t think you were so if there are context questions, just ask and I
can help address them. So, we’ll go – do I have a clicker? Do I use this? Ok, so – Oh, and this also, ok.
Just – I’ll go over a little bit of context so Green Meadow is an Eichler neighborhood in Palo Alto. Part of
that is a shared, about 3-acre lot. There’s some buildings there, which we use as a – we rent some of
that out to a school. We use some of it as locker rooms and stuff and there’s a pool and there’s a park.
The community got together and for the past 3-years we have discussed that we need to update the pool
which is very well used. Also, build a clubhouse, which doesn’t exist right now, to act as a community
center for the neighborhood and more year-round activities. A key goal of ours is to attract new
demographics. Not must families with young kids but also older people, people without kids, singles, etc.
who live in the neighborhood and we want everybody to be using this shared facility. So, lots of
discussion around this. The neighborhood is extremely, extremely supportive. We just met a few weeks
ago so the neighborhood is very aware of this. The plans have been circulated and we’ve had lots of
meetings about it. The cost is high. I don’t know how familiar you are with this but the cost of building in
Palo Alto is insane and so we had to raise – it’s costing more than we thought. We had to go back to the
community and say, are you still supportive? It’s going to cost this much and they all said yes. Lots of
enthusiasm and we’re hoping to start constructing the day after Labor Day. That’s just some context on
this. I was told by Graham to focus mostly on the feedback that you gave us so I’m not going to go over
– it’s not an overview of the project but here’s what we heard from you guys and here’s our response to
that, the feedback that we heard from you and also from Jonathan Rusch, who’s not here. There was lot
of feedback on the fenestration to make it more regular, more compatible with Eichlers and a lot of you
guys were like let’s get some more light into this building so we did that. We are much happier with the
windows the way that they are right now and we’ll show that. Some of ten points that we have to adhere
to that you emphasized where that the new building needs to be differentiated from the original and also
subordinate to the original. So, we have some more feedback on that on how is it differentiated and is it
subordinate enough? There were some concerns that because the new building is higher, it may not be
subordinate. Then the refuse enclosure is that there’s no good place for it. We looked at a bunch of
places and we’ll go over that but it’s big and it’s ugly and it’s whatever so we’ll go over that a little bit.
There were also some more minor points on like siding should be horizontal or vertical, the tilt of the roof
and also – what is that last thing? Oh, the overhang of the bathroom rings so we’ll go over those as well
but we want to hit the four main points as much as we can. Also, please interrupt me if you have any
questions. I’m just going to keep going. On fenestrations, we redid the windows a lot. We added
clerestory windows, we added transoms over the doors, we added side lights, we added skylights in the
hallway and in the shower. So, there’s a lot lighter now. This shows the elevations now – the main
elevation. I didn’t make room for the side elevation but they are very much redone and in keeping with
today’s Eichler and historic Eichler patterns; it’s not identical but in keeping with that. Next, on
differentiation, one thing that we want to emphasize is that the original buildings that are on this
property are all entirely CMU. So, they are off white and they are CMU and there’s not a piece of wood in
them really, on the buildings and so the new building is all wood. It’s brown wood so it’s, very different in
materials from the existing but it’s compatible in that some of the newer fencing that was added is also
brown wood. It actually fits in really and also with the park. You can see some of the other differences
here. The perimeter is going to be a near black metal, the gates that kind of separated the clubhouse
from the pool. So, it’s compatible but it’s not identical because all of the metal on the existing buildings is
like an avocado green kind of thing. It fits in but it is very easily easy to extinguish. Subordination is a
difficult one. The obvious thing is that clubhouse has no street presence. Basically, it’s not – it doesn’t
have an address, you can’t see if from a street but you can sort of see it from Green Meadow Way across
the park but it’s small and it back there. In that sense, it’s very subordinate because the Parkside Drive,
you see all the main buildings and it’s the main entrance. You can’t even see this from the main entrance
but there was some discussion about whether we wanted to sink the building. The height of most of this
building is 9-feet and that’s the same of the height of the original buildings but because the park is 30-
inches taller, give or take a few inches, the building appears 30-inches taller. The overall height is the
same but the elevation is higher or something like that. We considered sinking the building but we
City of Palo Alto Page 31
regretted it very strongly and very quickly for a couple of reasons. One is that a key goal of ours is to
integrate the park with the pool and to be able to expand the use of the club house out into the park.
When that is sunk, it makes it much more difficult to do so. For examples, we have these dining patios
and we can extend the dining patio out into the basketball court for example, if they are all at an even
level. Another thing is that we would have to have a lot of railings around because of the sunkenness and
that seemed to interfere with kid’s ability to bike in and roller blade and this is what they do in that park.
It’s a great sort of kidney shape and they just go around and around and around and it would just get in
a way of that. In addition, the views – we want to have this nice view from the club house and if it’s sunk
you don’t get that. You see a wall and then the landscape around the clubhouse is really nice. We’re
actually investing decent amount of money into that and it enhances the park and if you sink the
clubhouse, you sink the landscaping along with it and then you just don’t get that. I think for a lot of
reasons we really don’t want to sink the clubhouse. We think that the building is subordinate enough to
the existing building because it’s placement basically and the lack of street presence. The refuse
enclosure, so this was an interesting one. A lot of constraints on where to put the refuse enclosure so
obviously, it has to be near a street or a parking lot so the trash truck can get in. It needs to be where
most – near (inaudible) where most of the trash is generated. We have a bunch of easements on the
property also, which we discovered along the way so we can’t put it on top of an easement. We want the
neighbors to be comfortable with it and (inaudible)? Oh, yeah, there’s just something that you guys
mentioned. You don’t want the refuse enclosure to be in the way of the view of the historic buildings,
which we agree. All of theses – it’s hard to get them all answered yes so, I’m going to share a bit about
that. We did focus on the parking lots. This site doesn’t have much in the way of street presence on
other streets. There’s a little bit on Green Meadow Way but it’s a big park there so we weren’t
comfortable putting a refuge enclosure right at the park side and similar on the other side, On the creek
side entrance. There’s a nice excluded, there’s some benches and a whole bunch of plumb trees and
some olive trees and it’s a nice area. Sticking a big trash enclosure there would really be a shame. We
made a map and it’s a little bit hard to see. I don’t know if you guys have print outs but maybe Graham,
you send them electronic copies of this so you can zoom in. We considered a bunch of places and we
picked A, because the pros where most outweighed by the cons. The biggest con of putting it in A – so A,
is kind of the in the back of the parking lot. This is pretty much where the dumpsters are today. The
neighbor is fine with there being a trash enclosure there. It doesn’t block much in the way of circulation
or anything like that. The only thing is that it blocks part of the view. Now, the view fortunately there, is
not of the buildings. It’s just of a part of the wall but you know, that’s – everything else either on an
easement or it’s towards the front of Park Side which means that it’s even bigger and kind of blocks more
of the view. There was a nice place in the back corner but we’d have to actually remove a part of the
historic wall around a building that we’re not touching right now. So, we thought that would be even
more invasive putting it there. Although, at the end of the day we could probably hide it better. There’s
another place on the other side but it’s too far from where the trash is actually generated. Plus, it’s near
a new neighbor and that would raise some concerns. Nothing perfect but we do think this is the best fit.
Some other feedback that we heard was vertical versus horizontal siding. There was a point made that
the property has a very horizontal sense to it and that’s true. All the buildings are kind of low and flat and
so maybe we would want a horizontal siding to emphasize that but because of the windows and the
windows are so vertical, the horizontal siding we thought, would be very broken up. We also like the
vertical for a few reasons and one is that you remember it’s dark brown. It kind of echoes the trees. It
fits in nicely with the park to have vertical siding and then the other one is that the fencing that’s around,
that it kind of echoes, also has vertical stripes in it. So, because of the trees and the fencing and because
of the fenestration interrupting the horizontal siding, we think that vertical is a better fit. The next
question was – oh, yeah, the roof. Oh, yeah, so this is an interesting point that you guys raised. You
were talking about the character of the great room and show the roof of that great room be – right now,
most of the building is 9-feet and the great room is 12-feet. It’s like a little pop up horizontal. You could
also angle – I think angle the great room like that and that was actually one of the drawings that
[Kobzen] initially provided. This would be higher; this would be like 14-feet instead of 12-feet and this
would be a little lower at 11-feet. We ran the two options by the neighbors and the neighbors preferred
the horizontal. It’s a little bit lower, it’s a little bit more the horizontal sense so that’s that. We would
prefer to stick with that if that’s possible. The overhang on the bathroom wing, I actually think we should
added it now. We had omitted it to get a little bit more sky because it’s kind of a narrow passage on that
City of Palo Alto Page 32
side of the building but – and some of the Green Meadow houses don’t have overhangs but they omit
them on all three sides of the box; not just on one side. I think that’s an oversight and I actually think
we’re going to add the overhang on the bathroom wing back. I don’t know if you remember all this but
assuming you remember it so that what I said makes sense. Ok, I think that’s the end of the presentation
and we’re open to questions.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great, Sherry. Thank you so much. Yes, Rodger? Are you going to tell us about
(inaudible)?
Board Member Kohler: What’s that?
Chair Bernstein: I bet we’re going to hear a good story from you.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, it is. I have to disclose that 30 or 40 years ago, I spent a lot of time at this
park with our two kids and it’s just a great place and I’m glad to see it getting fixed up. What else would
you like me to say? You want something else? I don’t know. Actually, a former four-time mayor – two-
time mayor Mike Cobb lives about three houses away on one of the streets that dead ends into the Park
Way.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, let’s start with questions for staff and applicant and open it up to the public and then
bring it back to the Board. Go ahead.
Vice Chair Bower: Really a quick question. I notice that there is passive even on the bathrooms. Am I --
are those new? Is that a new addition to the project or were they there the last time we saw this?
Mr. Joe Mendoza: I think they may…
Board Member Bunnenberg: Use the mic.
Mr. Mendoza: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: We have to have your comments record.
Ms. Listgarten: You can go use the mic.
Mr. Mendoza: Oh, ok. They may – to be honest, I am not sure because they weren’t there originally and
then we put them in there at some point. It may have been after but I don’t remember.
Vice Chair Bower: I found them – it’s the only thing that I saw in this set of plans that I thought was just
startlingly non-complaint or incompatible. I know that that’s a very standard kind of vent for a 60’s
building and I’m not really being critical of it but might I suggest you consider using solar powered roof
fans, which have a low profile, they cost nothing and they probably have a 20-year life span. They work
whenever the sun comes out and until the sun goes down so they are constantly pulling air out. They
have no noise. They are about 3 – well, the last time I put them in they were about $350 a piece but it’s
a one-time expense for the life of your roof -- by the time you are replacing the new roof. It’s truly the
profit that I’m concerned about and frequently what I see on older buildings with these – I don’t know
what you call those vents but people go out there with garbage bags and cover them because they leak
in the winter. So…
Mr. Mendoza: Yeah, that’s…
Vice Chair Bower: I don’t think that would be a very attractive addition to what I think is a very attractive
project so consider that. That’s a minor issue.
Ms. Listgarten: (Inaudible)
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Mr. Mendoza: Yeah, that is great feedback, yes that is.
Ms. Listgarten: We will definitely look at that.
Chair Bernstein: Other questions for staff or applicant? Ok, seeing none. Ok, I’d like to open it up…
Board Member Kohler: Do we get free passes for a swim and (inaudible)?
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, just buy a house. Maybe they are not free even for homeowners.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I’d like to open it up to members of the public and they can speak to us on – for this
project. I see no member of the public. Bring it back to the Board for comments. Yeah, -- excuse me,
Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I just wanted to comment on the horizontal siding versus the vertical.
Interestingly enough, my next-door neighbor has started a project on his garage and he thought he
would be using the horizontal siding but he discovered that by the time he cut out for windows, it would
make a kind of ugly pattern. He went to the vertical and it really looks very nice and it matches with the
openings that need to happen. In fact, I think I pushed for the horizontal but now have seen a sample
that it works better the other way. Otherwise, I feel like it’s quite a nice project and very commendable
that the neighborhood has come together to do this. It’s a growing need for neighborhoods to have a
place to get together.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, so I think I was the one who commented about the overhang last time and
that’s the first thing that I noticed I saw this again. I was like where is that overhang because I just feel
like it – without it, it just looks like its missing so I…
Ms. Listgarten: You’re right. We’ll change that.
Board Member Wimmer: I vote for spending the extra….
Ms. Listgarten: It was my fault that it was omitted.
Board Member Wimmer: I agree with Board Member Bower about those vents. That’s going to ban eye
sore if you have those big crown vents. I think that’s – then on your color pallet, it looks like your
painting all the facia boards ink black, is that too harsh?
Ms. Listgarten: It’s a soft black actually. So, it’s not pure black. It’s like a grayish black.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok. Just as long as it doesn’t look – because I don’t know if that black trim on
Eichlers, is that common? I think it’s – I don’t know. I would just take a second look at that. I think black
might be – black is very popular now with windows. Are the window trims going to be black as well or
what are the window trims?
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, so the window trim and the fascia are going to be near black, as well as the metal
fence.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok.
Ms. Listgarten: The metal fence, yeah.
Board Member Wimmer: Well, that sounds like you’ve got a pallet going there. Then, I just – on that
north elevation which is the one that’s facing the basketball courts, I think number two on page A-3.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
You’ve got a sliding door and then a swing door. I mean I’m not a fan of the swing door. You have a
swing door facing the pool and I think I asked that last time if there was a reason – a special reason why
you had that door.
[Mr. Mendoza:] (Inaudible)
Ms. Listgarten: Egress.
Mr. Mendoza: (Inaudible)
Board Member Wimmer: So, the swing door…
Mr. Mendoza: Unless it’s an electric (inaudible).
Board Member Wimmer: You have egress. So, the swing door coming from the poolside, that’s in
swinging so that’s why you have to have one out swinging? Yeah, because those are…
Vice Chair Bower: Can you speak into your microphone?
Mr. Mendoza: Oh, sorry. Yes, it’s for code requirements for egress.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok, so I would at least put the lintel on top of that door window system like you
have on the other…
Mr. Mendoza: Oh, yeah.
Board Member Wimmer: You have a lintel system, I think above all the doors in the community room.
Mr. Mendoza: Yes.
Board Member Wimmer: It looks like it’s miss – it would be nice to see that there.
Ms. Listgarten: Here’s it’s an (inaudible). This is constant with this and this. So, we actually looked at that
and it’s not there.
Chair Bernstein: We need to have your voice recorded.
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, sorry.
Board Member Wimmer: Just a comment. You can take a look at that.
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, we’ll take a look at it but the other solid doors all have a transom and a sidelight.
So, this is echoing that same thing. The sliding doors have that fascia board above but the swinging
doors have a transom and sidelight. So, this was on purpose this way.
Board Member Wimmer: I just think it looks like it’s missing because it’s the same dimension. Even if it’s
a swing door instead of a sliding door, the fact that it’s the same dimension and the same composition. It
just seems like you should copy that detail but it’s just minor. That’s my opinion.
Ms. Listgarten: These are also higher. Yeah, we’ll look at that. We’ll look at that again.
Board Member Wimmer: Then it looks like you have a snack bar with a double hung window so I think
you need to look at when you lift the lower sash of that double hung – like if someone who's 6-feet tall
whose serving coffee, they are going to be looking into the window. I don’t know if you have a different
City of Palo Alto Page 35
window solution there but something to think about. I mean just for successfully use of the building, that
window looks like it needs just a little…
Ms. Listgarten: So, you’re saying that the bar would be in their line of…
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, because you’re lifting the bottom sash – like if you have someone who's
5-feet…
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, we’ll have to check the height of that.
Board Member Wimmer: … they’d be looking out the window. Anyone my height, I’m going to be looking
at the window.
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, yeah.
Board Member Wimmer: I’m unfortunately tall so that’s why. I think that was all my comments. Yeah.
Otherwise, it’s looking nice. Oh, wait, I have one more comment. Sorry. On the site plan – I’m sorry. On
the site plan, there are the French doors that off the pool. They just look off center to the stair. You
know you have this sort of stair that goes up to the pool house. It just looks like the stairs are – it seems
like the stairs need to be centered on that door system.
Ms. Listgarten: They should -- we had centered it before.
Mr. Mendoza: (Inaudible)
Board Member Wimmer: Sorry, those things just…
Ms. Listgarten: I don’t know what happened there.
Board Member Wimmer: Because it just feels like that’s just…(crosstalk)
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, it should be centered. I agree.
Board Member Wimmer: You’re coming up so it needs to be…
Ms. Listgarten: Let’s look at it.
Board Member Wimmer: …sort of thought out.
Ms. Listgarten: Because this use to be centered, right? On the stairs. Remember we had that feedback.
Mr. Mendoza: Yeah, it’s (inaudible). You are correct. I will center it. (Inaudible)
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, maybe this needs to get pushed this way.
Chair Bernstein: Right, yeah. Sherry, you mentioned the idea about should the community room be
lowered 30-inches. I would say not lowering it. I like your response to that and that is from the main
presentation of the property, you don’t see the elevation up there so it’s not – I don’t find that
distracting. So, no need from my point of view to lower that 30-inches.
Ms. Listgarten: Ok, thanks.
Chair Bernstein: I also support Board Member Wimmer’s comment. Yeah, show the overhang on that
bathroom wing. It looks like it’s missing…
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Ms. Listgarten: We’ll definitely put there, yeah.
Chair Bernstein: … if you don’t do it. Yeah. Also, I support Board Member’s comment on that back
elevation and yeah, to put in another fascia piece above there because everything else is equal in terms
of overall dimension so more consistency that way, rather than showing the difference. Other Board
Members comments?
Board Member Kohler: I think you need to get going if you’re going to open up in July.
Ms. Listgarten: I know. No, no, no, no. We’re going to start construction in September so we’re hoping to
get the building permit in the next week or two.
Ms. French: If I can ask, this is a formal hearing on a project that is seeking approval and I would ask
that the HRB make a motion and second and vote with a clear direction towards if there are any
conditions of approval that require modifications. That would be helpful.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, I wanted to – I thought we were just asking questions but if we are doing
comments. I want to compliment you on the thoroughness in which you have addressed all of the
questions that we had. I like all of your decisions. Every single thing you did, I think made this project
better and it was already a good project. Thank you for looking at the garbage enclosure. That was my
question. I think you did a much more thorough analysis than I have seen in a lot of projects and I think
again, your decision was great so congratulations. I look forward to seeing it when it’s built.
Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, ok.
Chair Bernstein: Looking for a motion.
MOTION
Vice Chair Bower: I move to approve the project as submitted with the one – let’s see, with the expanded
overhangs as we have discussed and with the (inaudible) over that one door…
Ms. Listgarten: And the vents.
Vice Chair Bower: Oh, and change your venting on the top. (crosstalk)
Ms. Listgarten: (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Bower: Just eliminate – don’t eliminate the venting but just don’t use those particular ones. I
think you will find that the solar ones are real – just exactly what you need.
Chair Bernstein: We need your microphone on, please.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Could we add the (inaudible) for meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards
that’s included in the staff report.
Vice Chair Bower: Right, and let’s see. That statement would be also that this project meets the Secretary
of Interior Standards for modification or addition to historic properties. Is that…ok.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Second.
Vice Chair Bower: That’s my motion. Complicated and dysfunctional as it is. Is there a second?
City of Palo Alto Page 37
Chair Bernstein: Ok, do I have a second?
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second that.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Bower: Many seconds.
Chair Bernstein: Ok and then there was a comment by the applicant and the architect that – yeah, you’ll
centerline the stairway with (inaudible). Ok, any discussion before we vote on the motion. Ok, all in favor
signal aye. That passes unanimously from the Board.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0.
Vice Chair Bower: Thank you so much.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you so much. Very good.
Ms. Listgarten: Thank you for your feedback. It made it a better project. We really appreciate it.
Chair Bernstein: Very good.
Approval of Minutes
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) approval of minutes so I see we have none.
Subcommittee Items
Chair Bernstein: Subcommittee items, none.
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Board Member questions, comments or announcements? Yes, Board Member – Vice
Chair…
Vice Chair Bower: I would like to make Board Members and the public aware of the fact that the city of
Palo Alto has now added a link on our web page to the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage web page, which is
extensive amount of information about historic properties on the Stanford Campus in Palo Alto and in the
general area. It’s a very good research tool and – sorry – and our history. Excuse me. So, in conjunction
of that, we would like to make everyone aware of the fact that Palo Alto Stanford Heritage does walking
tours of Palo Alto neighborhoods and they had one recently in the Crescent Park area. On their website
again, you can find the dates of the other areas that they explore and they are really great walks. As
Martin can tell you, because he’s led some of them.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I think that’s our concluding issue and we are adjourned. Thank you.
Adjournment