HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-22 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Beth Bunnenberg, Roger
Kohler, Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Council Member Holman
Absent: Brandon Corey
Chair Bernstein: Good morning everybody and welcome to the February – I’ sorry, February? June 22nd
meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Shall the secretary please call roll?
Robin Ellner: I would also like to announce because there have been questions asked of me, we cannot
open the door behind -- leading in the conference room because there is currently another meeting going
on there until 11 o’clock.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you.
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is oral communications. I have one card from David Carnahan,
welcome David.
Mr. David Carnahan, City Clerk’s Office: Good morning, Chair Bernstein and Board Members. I am here
today to talk about Board and Commission recruitment. We are currently looking for seven people to
serve on the newly formed Storm Water Management Oversight Committee. This is a very important
Committee that is going to oversee the City’s expenditures of the stormwater management fee that was
passed by property owners back in April. The details for this Committee – Storm Water Management
Oversight Committee, we’re going to have seven openings. The first three terms are only for 2-years and
then we are going to have four terms that last for 4-years to create that staggering that we have typically
on Boards and Commissions. Applications are due August 1st at 4:30 PM and I’ll give you flyers.
Applications are available on the City’s Clerk’s website, www.cityofpaloalto.org\clerk. This Board meets or
this Committee is going to meet less frequently than most of the Boards and Commissions. Probably two
or three times in the first year and then once or twice each year thereafter. Assuming of course that
there are no issues that warrant further investigation. Any questions again, please contact the City’s
clerk’s office, 329-2571. Thank you and I’ll leave copies for all of you.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you, David. Ok, seeing no others.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Next would be any agenda changes, additions, and deletions?
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None today.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
MINUTES: June 22, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you.
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Chair Bernstein: Next is City official reports, Historic Resources Board meeting schedule and assignments.
I believe there are none.
Ms. French: Just to give a quick update. The next meeting we will have is July 13th. We will be having a
joint meeting with the ARB then, following the regular meeting with just the HRB. Then we only have two
items, one for the HRB and one joint meeting with the ARB and then you will be done. Just wanted to…
Chair Bernstein: Ok, that’s July 13th, ARB/HRB joint meeting.
Ms. French: We’ve already polled to make sure that we have a quorum.
Vice Chair Bower: What time is that?
Ms. French: 8:30, the unusual time for the HRB meeting. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Are you able to announce the – what the agenda item that would be?
Ms. French: The first – sorry, the first item is the General Use Permit for Stanford and that will be the
Environmental Review Document for that project. Then we will conclude the HRB alone and pick up the
ARB and do the 400 Channing Project, which you had already seen once.
Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you.
Study Session
2. Presentation and Discussion of the Stanford Research Park Framework for
Historic Resource Evaluation Prepared by Heritage Services Staff of Stanford
University’s Division of Land, Building and Real Estate
Chair Bernstein: Next then on our agenda is a study session and that is a presentation and discussion of
the Stanford Research Park framework for historic resources evaluation prepared by Heritage Services
Staff of Stanford University’s Division of Land, Building and Real Estate. Shall have Staff have an
introduction for us?
Ms. French: Yes, thank you. This is Amy French and I do have here from Stanford Laura Jones, who is
their archivist. She can tell you her precise title and historic planner and we have Tiffany Griego as well
from the Stanford Planning and Development Office; she can correct me there. The presentation is
regarding a framework document that was prepared at the City’s request. We have many Stanford
Research Park projects that come through here and being that the park is now over 50-years old, we
found the need to have some kind of overall context statement for the park. Without further ado, I’ll let
our guests speak, and they have a presentation.
Chair Bernstein: Great, hi and welcome.
Ms. Laura Jones: I am sorry. The slides don’t seem to be projecting at the moment. The important thing
that you need to look at are the maps and they are actually in your packet. I just have more great
historical photos that I didn’t use in the framework that are in the slide show. We may get it up, we shall
see. I am Laura Jones, I am the Director of Heritage Services and University Archaeologist at Stanford. I
City of Palo Alto Page 3
oversee historic preservation efforts on the University’s 8,000-acres, our campus in Redwood City and the
Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove. A couple of years ago we start – we sort of became aware that
the Research Park was hitting the 50-year threshold. It opened in 1954 and in the course of doing some
diligence work for Tiffany [Griego], the manager of the park, I started to review all of the historic
resources evaluations that are tenants we’re submitting to the City. I noticed that there were some, what
I call myths and misconceptions about the park, that were getting repeated in those evaluations. So,
there was some historical inaccuracies in the evaluations and these are well qualified consultants who are
picking them from newspaper’s articles and publications. It’s not that they invented these historic
inaccuracies but they repeat them and they form conclusions based on them. In conversations with Amy
French and Hilary, I said maybe we need to set the record straight about how the park was developed
and what it represented. They asked me if I would write this document, which I did with some help from
Julie [Cane], who is a very talented and rigorous historian who works for me. I am an archaeologist, we
can get a little fuzzy. There is a lot of uncertainty in archaeology and I really wanted to nail these facts
down so Julie helped me a lot with doing that. What we were – what I was going to talk about this
morning is the purpose of the document. It’s really meant to streamline your HRB process by providing
that historical overview of the development of the park, so that applicants don’t have to make that up
again every time they do it. It does that by providing this overview of the development of the park. It
addresses the myths and misconceptions and then it provides some recommendations about how the
criteria for listing on the California Register should be applied; based on my experience. Julie [Cane] and
I had done the evaluation of the AMPEX’s property in Redwood City and the Stanford Medical Center
Complex. We’ve don’t a lot of work in mid-century projects and so we used that experience to guide the
development of that framework. The first thing that I wanted to talk about is that the Stanford Industrial
Park, which was what it was called at the time, is just one piece of a very elaborate post-war
development boom that happens in Palo Alto; as you know. We have Edgewood Plaza, Alma Plaza, the
San Antonio/Charleston Corridor, the Stanford Shopping Center and the Eichler Neighborhoods. Post-war
development in Palo Alto was not all concentrated in the Stanford Industrial Park. So far, you don’t have
an overall historic survey and context for that period of time in the City but the Industrial Park is part of
that broader picture of what happens after World War II. If you go to – I talk about how the role of the
University in the development of the park in the document and the competing interests between Alf
Brandon, who just wanted to rent real estate and bring in income to support the operations of the
University and Fred [Turnmen] who wanted to form intellectual partnership between companies in the
engineering school. So, we talk about that tension a little bit in the document and it’s interesting but
what we are really talking about today is the bigger picture. If you go to page 22 in you packet, there is a
rainbow-colored map called Stanford Research Park Sequence of Development. It took quite a bit of work
to make the map. What we discovered, because nobody had done a general overview of this, is that the
park was developed in this chunk, right? So, the first chunk is the bright -- dark Orange up here, that –
where the first building opened in the park; Varian Associates. Then this brighter Orange – let me think –
Kodak, the old Kodak plant on Page Mill. So, they start along El Camino and they slowly start creeping
south up the hill and it happens in this sort of piece (inaudible) way. They would do a subdivision, annex
– each of these was a separate subdivision in annexation so they record the subdivision and annex it to
the City. Inside Stanford they had to have leased some of that – pre-leased some of that to afford to do
any of it so they’re constantly trying to develop the money to add more to the park. It develops in this
way and what’s important about that – I am sorry because I had some slides about it to show you. Is
that there are Research Parks – mid-century Research Park that were Master Planned in other parts of
the country. Research Park Triangle for example, IBM Almaden Valley, Bell Labs, so the – I’ve got some
pictures of a couple of those. I don’t know how do you go – how do you get to the next slide? Roll it? Ok,
I don’t use track falls. We can come back to some of those later but on the bottom and they are so small
but you’ll see that there are Master Planned Research Parks. The Stanford Research Park was not a
Master Plan Research Park. Sometimes in these HRE’s and the introductions, people will read marketing
material that Alf Brandon put out there about what a terrific plan he had for this park and it was setting
the standard in suburban industrial park for the whole country. When you read the literature about the
development of business parks, Stanford’s is noted in fact for having had no plan. As – when you get to
Criterion C and you are talking about the quality of landscape design and architectural design, it was --
it’s my opinion that the park as a whole is not an entity that has a unified plan. That’s what I am talking
about here because we were getting some HRE consultants who were saying that it’s associated with the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Stanford Industrial Park so it's significant. I think we need to be more careful and more rigorous than
that. That’s really what this was about. You’ll also see up there the often-repeated error that the Stanford
Industrial Park was the first University Affiliated business park. I think it’s actually the fourth or fifth in
the country. So, Alf Brandon liked to say it, it was good marketing, it’s just not true. It was also being
used to drive a finding that the entire Research Park was significant because it was the first one in the
country; it’s just not true. What the framework is suggesting is that we should be focusing on the
individual businesses and buildings that they are in and it provides some guidance on what are the
questions that I would ask. You’ll notice that there’s some more maps about the current conditions. Over
half of the park has been re-developed since its original development and there’s a map in there that tells
you the age of the structures in case you are curious about one of them. Then we get to the framework
and my recommendations about this. Under Criterion One Events, what we look for are specific
discoveries and inventions. What companies were in the buildings? What products were they working on?
There is actually an enormous amount of scholarly literature now about the history of Silicon Valley; a lot
of it. So, you go searching through that to see if products or people associated with this business have
been identified as being really important in shaping the technological revolution that happened in Silicon
Valley but you are looking for a specific product. You could be looking at the laser printer or whatever it
is. You are looking for specific products and specific inventions. We also have the issue of Criterion --
Consideration G in the National Register, Exceptional Significant, because innovation keeps turning along
in these enterprises and if they made a significant discovery or whatever we – you – somebody – some
scholar shows as significant. Whether it’s their computer mouse or whatever it is, right? If it happened
less than 45-years ago, it – there is a higher bar for whether or not you should consider it significant
because he has to meet the test of sufficient time passing to gain a scholarly perspective. We apply that
when we look at individual mid-century buildings; similarly, with Criterion Two persons. What I would do,
and I think most consultants eventually get around to doing, is you look at – for building that are built in
that first generation in the park, you want to know who those company founders were. What motivated
them and who are they? What relationship, if any, did they have with Stanford? Who where their
principle research Staff; we research them as well. The kinds of data we have, I put it in the report in
case people needed to know the – we have files on the early development of these properties because
they went through a Stanford design review process before they came to the City. I can coordinate that
with consultants and the City obviously has file about that too. Obituaries and achievement awards, we
look at those. Engineering in particular is a field that likes to give awards and so you go through these
engineering societies and did this engineer win an award? What was the award for and you drill down on
that. You are always looking for some evidence, other than your own opinion, about whether or not
something is significant. Once again, there is an exceptional significant threshold for living persons. So, if
you are still alive, the National Register in particular, views that you could still stumble and fall and do
something horrible – shades of say Bill Cosby or something, right? Where your legacy could be eclipsed
by something stupid you did in your 80’s and so it’s really asking that you try to wait until the sum of a
person’s life is complete before you judge them historically; there are exceptions to that. So that’s
another thing to think about when you’re – when we’re looking at this relatively recent period in time.
Then for architecture, the way I view the park properties, they are mid-20th century commercial
architecture. That’s not a surprise because most of the architects are commercial architects. I personally
would look at who the architect was, I’d compare the building to other buildings, I’d check and see
whether or not they were an elected fellow with the AIA or are they a Master Architect? Did they win any
awards? Is the building published anywhere? All of that stuff that tries to – all of that evidence that tries
to move it from a subjective opinion about whether I like the building – since I am not an architect, I try
not to do that, from some formal opinion about whether the building is a good design. I look for evidence
of a consensus about it and I think it’s also really important to do the rigorous exercise of comparing it to
similar properties. Let’s say it didn’t win an award but you can find examples of projects that won an –
commercial projects that won an award in that time frame. Does this compare favorably to those? That’s
actually how I approach architectural evaluation. With mid-century modern, it’s a little bit harder than the
more traditional architectural styles where you can get a list of character-defining features and just check
them off and go oh yeah, this is a great Spanish Colonial. Look at the raw iron lamp; it’s not quite like
that with mid-century. It’s more formal and a less decorative style and many of you who are architects
can apply a different approach to that but for me, I am always looking for scholarly evidence to support
that conclusion. Then, of course, you have to apply the seven aspects of integrity and you are familiar
City of Palo Alto Page 5
with all of those, I am sure. Once again, we have data at Stanford Real Estate in the property records,
the City has records that help trace the changes to a building over time. There was a really bad round of
visible exterior seismic bracing that happened. Other things have happened to these buildings and it’s
really important to be able to make a statement about whether or not something has integrity in the
HRE. So, that’s my overview. Let me go back real fast and see if there’s a picture that you really want to
see. I don’t think so, that’s fine. Do you have any questions?
Chair Bernstein: Yes, I’ll start with my first question Laura. Often on the trucks I see around campus it
will say the division of land, building and real estate. Why – so, I understand lands and buildings is part
of real estate, what’s the separate title of real estate? It says lands, buildings and real estate. I asked
some of the drivers and they weren’t – they didn’t have an answer for me.
Ms. Jones: Land, buildings and real estate, LBRE is what we call ourselves. There have been, over the
126-years of the University, different management structures for land and for a number of years our
commercial real estate divisions were separate from the University land management. About 10 – 2007
they were recombined under one Vice President Bob Reidy and so it’s all centralized now. So instead of
just – we were land and buildings and not we’re land, buildings and real estate.
Chair Bernstein: I was always confused because I thought land and building was real estate but they are
separate departments.
Ms. Jones: They are separate departments. Yeah, we Facility Operations, the people who maintain our
buildings. We have the Capital Projects, the people who build our buildings. We have the University – we
now have two planning offices, we use to have one. So, University Architect and Campus Planning led by
Dave Lenox and Land use and Environmental Planning under Kathrine Palter; Whitney McNair is the
Director of Land Use Planning and I am the Director of Heritage Services. We – it can be a little bit
confusing and we have five or six divisions of the University that actually manage land.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great.
Ms. Jones: So, it’s a big place.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thanks and another question that I had was on the Varian building built in 19 – or it
was given a lease in 1951. Oh, I saw -- it says was 1951 I thought? I saw – you said it was 1952?
Vice Chair Bower: 52 on the map.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, I was talking about when the lease was offered in 1951?
Ms. Jones: They actually start talking to Varian in 1949 but Varian is in San Carlos and they don’t actually
occupy that building, I think until ‘53 or ‘54.
Chair Bernstein: So, my question is when the lease started in 1951 and it’s a 99-year lease that brings
the year 2050, so 33 more years. Do you happen to know any of the terms of that lease? Can the
building be demolished, even though the lease would still continue? Is there any restriction of the lease
of demolishing buildings that you know?
Ms. Jones: I don’t know off the top of my head whether that would be included in the lease.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, alright, thanks. Those are my questions. Alright, Roger?
Board Member Kohler: I probably should have disclosed but I use to work up there at building number –
on Porter Drive in 1963 or 1964. We moved from Belleview, New Jersey in 1954, drove cross country to
this crazy town Palo Alto with my parents. My dad was a photographer printer and he worked for a
company called – oh gosh, my mind just went away. They started out in a little hut behind the Stanford
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Museum; in one of those little (inaudible) huts behind, which are gone now. Then they worked there for
– the building is gone. It was demolished last year or 2-years ago and so that – in that little area, that
corner, the building is already gone. They did wind tunnels studies and things like that. When Candlestick
Park was built, we went out and put little flags up all over the stadium and we were there all day. We’d
take a record – we’d record where their flags were going and of course if you ever went to Candlestick
Park before it was enclosed, one day it would be going this way. It would go around like this and then it
would also go down like that so the ball players had no idea what was going on. We also did studies out
on – anyway, I have some history there so it’s kind of fun. I went one – the other day -- I don’t know,
two or three months ago I noticed that the building was gone. It had been torn down so that building
has -- I guess had it’s his time and so it’s gone, is that – I was trying to understand what you – you are
trying to keep a record of all the buildings and everything that was there, is that correct?
Ms. Jones: We started, Julie and I, on this assignment of just trying to understand how the Research
Park was built and be relative – it being relatively recent history, no one had actually ever done this. How
were the parcels added and put it all on one map and try to understand it? The building projects and
their permits, those HRE reports are typically – I have written a couple of them but most of them –
buildings that Stanford doesn’t own, I don’t evaluate. So, they come into the Staff with a finding about
whether or not they meet the criteria or not. I have to say that I am really very interested in
documenting the buildings that are gone as well because I think it’s really important -- I think
documentation and recordation is really important. I know that our University Archivist, Daniel Hartwig
and I have been talking about that and I’ve talked a little bit to Steve Stieger about it. That we need to
make sure that – we collect company records from companies in the Research Park and archives so that
we really are recording that history. Whether the building is physically still there or not and as you’ll see,
more than fifty percent of them aren’t. I find myself fascinated by what Preformed Lines Products was
doing in Palo Alto and its connection to Stanford’s High Volt Lab and – I just gave a speech about this
last week. I think it’s important to record that history and to get memories and stories and documents
and photos from people who live in the community before they go away.
Board Member Kohler: We use to have a lot of the documents from my dad’s collections and things. I – if
you give us your contact, I can – there may be a few items around that might help that I can pass onto
you.
Ms. Jones: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Other Board Members? Board Member -- Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, thanks for putting all this together. I’m – in looking at your maps, which are
incredibly helpful, everything north of Foot Hill Express Way is more than 50-years old and you’ve nicely
documented what isn’t there and what is of the original stuff. Basically – probably [Varian] and HP
buildings are the only original ones of any significance – historic significance because of what was
developed there; I am sure there are others. As I looked at this, I thought this is a textbook case of a
historic district, even though some of the buildings have been removed. The history of this space in terms
of the industrial power of the United States in the computer industry is right here. This is the beginning
of it and this is where it eventually exploded to the rest of the world. Yet, what I am hearing from your
presentation is that you’re looking at this as not a district at all but individual spaces. So, that has a really
different impact I think, in terms of the way Palo Alto might look at redevelopment.
Ms. Jones: I think that’s true. I looked at it and I didn’t do a formal district analysis.
Vice Chair Bower: Sure.
Ms. Jones: You know it’s 13 pages long and it would be a much bigger job than that and frankly, I am
always leery of imposing myself on properties that the University doesn’t control. That Stanford is going
to tell you what’s going on here. The – I mean obviously I was thinking that question about is there a
significant concentration of resources, which is – that are linked by a theme which is what forms a
City of Palo Alto Page 7
district. Overall, when I look at the whole Research Park, I don’t think it has – I don’t think it – I don’t
think the whole Research Park is a district, both because of the piecemeal development and because of
the amount of redevelopment. Districts come in all scales and sizes; two buildings can be a district, right?
So, I have not researched the HP properties or Varian. I just haven’t done it so I don’t know the answer
to the question, is there a [Varian] district? I just don’t know that because it takes a lot of work but I was
trying to address the creeping belief that because there is an entity that we all call the Stanford Research
Park and because people believe that it’s really important in the history of Silicon Valley, that there must
be a district. I think it takes a lot more work than that to demonstrate that something is a district and in
my view, it’s too patchy for that. Now, that’s not the own professional point of view somebody could have
and I really – it would have taken a lot more work to actually analysis it as a district. I was concerned
that people were leaping to the conclusion that it must be a district without going through that rigor and
typically, a – we don’t even have – we don’t have a single listed historic resource there yet. So, it may
just be too soon because you need to have some historic resources to anchor a district and so it’s kind of
a chicken and an egg problem that way and that may evolve over time.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I think the HP building would probably be your anchor. It would easily be a
landmark building from its architectural standpoint and of course, the people who built it and the work
that was done there and the different way in which the Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard conceived of how
employees should interact. I am just remembering a book Bill and Dave, which was funded by the
Hewlett Foundation to give a history – to provide a written history of their partnership and they talk a lot
about that building. I think it won awards but at any rate, I guess my concern here is – by the way, I
appreciate all of the very thorough work you’ve done. I grew up here and I remember building those
buildings. I remember when we use to go up Page Mill Road and there was nothing there from El
Camino. It was just fields and cows – yeah, two-lane road. Not what it looks like now, obviously. I guess
my only concern is and the reason why I raised this issue about the historic district is Professorville in
Palo Alto has similar characteristics. A wide range of development over 50-60-years and we’ve created
that as a district – a historic district, even though the buildings are different ages, different styles –
architectural styles and have different characteristics that make them significant. I think that since this is
a document that planning is going to use to make decisions about replacing these buildings, which – and
that pressure of replacement, I think is going to increase because of the seismic structural requirement.
Those buildings were built at a time when we didn’t have engineering for earthquakes so that’s why most
of them have come – already come down and also, they’ve expanded. My point again is, I just don’t want
to lose the site of the fact that I think this is a significant development in Palo Alto and it ought to be
considered as a district every time a single building within this area is evaluated. Since we have never
evaluated, that I am aware of, any of the development in this Industrial Park, I’m just bringing this up as
a topic of discussion.
Chair Bernstein: Tagging off of Vice Chair Bower’s comment about districts. Laura, you mentioned there’s
no building at Stanford Industrial – Stanford Research Park, there are no buildings listed on any historical
register?
Ms. Jones: That’s correct.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so that’s a good point about a district not having any – there is nothing listed there.
My question is, for example, going back to the Varian building on El Camino near Hanson. If a building
owner wanted to demolish that, is there any review process from the City of Palo Alto, do you know for
that? Since it’s a non-listed structure.
Ms. Jones: Amy can explain.
Ms. French: Any time that we have a major application -- architectural review application, we would
require a preparation of a historic resource evaluation if the building is 50-years or older. So, that we
would receive payment from the applicant and go out and commission a consultant to do the work.
Chair Bernstein: That part of that review could happen even though a building is not listed on any historic
register then? Ok. That then could support some of Vice Chair Bower’s comment about a district – non-
City of Palo Alto Page 8
listing may not be the reason not to have a district if we wanted to pursue a conversation like that. Ok,
any other questions? Vice Chair – I mean…
Board Member Kohler: I don’t want to bore you again but this brings back memories of what people do
when they are younger. I was in the historic post-55 and we specialized in rock climbing and also, during
the summer, we specialized in climbing towers that are – all the lifts – what – have I lost my mind?
Cranes, you know throughout there where all these cranes. We use to climb them and put flags up on
top. My mom never knew that.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, and I have wondered many times about particularly the [Varian]
brothers because they to made some landmark kinds of inventions and it’s totally lost on most people
these days. They’ve heard of the bigger company [Varian] but not the very beginnings of it. That showed
a lot of intuitive and ingenuity and new ways of doing things.
Ms. Jones: I am a fan of the Varian’s too. Part of what the framework though asks you to do is when you
look at one of the [Varian]’s landmark inventions like the Klystron, which is what runs the linear
accelerator at Slack. They developed the Klystron in the basement of one of the buildings in the main
quad. They then go on to perfect it at Sphere Gyroscope in New Jersey during World War II. They come
back and start building it at an industrial scale in San Carlos, then they wind up in Palo Alto. What do
they do with it when they are in Palo Alto is the question? They can be historic under Criterion Two as
the inventors of the Klystron, by the way, no matter where they did it but if you want the event of the
invention to be why the building is important, you need to really figure out what did they do in Palo Alto?
That’s what the framework is suggesting, is that we really need to drill down to understand what
happened in Palo Alto in these buildings and it’s possible to do that. There is an enormous amount of oral
history out there. The Computer History Museum in Mountain View has a very active oral history
program, so does Stanford Historical Society. You can discover that but that’s what makes really great
local history. Is when you can say, it happened here and you can trace that out. That’s what I was
recommending that HRE consultants do. Is spend a little time actually investigating these companies and
their products and what they were doing while they were in the park.
Chair Bernstein: Alright.
Board Member Wimmer: I just had a quick clarification question. The potential historic value that you are
speaking of and that’s also reflected on your map, is anything older than 45-years. I just wanted to
again, clarify what the – where the 45-years old come from?
Ms. Jones: Amy can correct me if I am wrong but typically the threshold for significant is 50 but in a
planning context, the best practice is to evaluate things at 45 because they are in some planning window
of about to be 50. 50 is not actually what’s called a bright line for the National Register or the California
Register. The – it suggests that you really need to apply a higher standard to younger events and
buildings but 45 is best practice and what the National Register and California says is 50. It’s 50 with
some – a blurred edge.
Board Member Wimmer: Also, this is all Stanford owned land, is that correct or this is…
Ms. Jones: We own the land and ground lease it so I believe the tenants own the improvements.
Board Member Wimmer: I see.
Ms. Jones: They own the buildings.
Board Member Wimmer: So, when it comes times to remodel or demolish, that’s up to the tenant then.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Ms. Jones: Yes.
Chair Bernstein: Isn’t there some Sant Clara Country planning review also?
Ms. Jones: No.
Chair Bernstein: Oh no? Ok. Thank you for that information.
Ms. Jones: All of the land on the map was annexed to the City of Palo Alto. So, as most of you and we’ll
talk about it some more. I am coming back to talk to you about the general use permit and its historic
survey. The academic lands of the university and our residential – most of our residential lands are
governed by the Santa Clara Country Use Permit and the Board of Supervisors. Our commercial lands
were annexed to the City of Palo Alto so the Shopping Center for example and the Research Park in the
City.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok, that explains your comment. You said that Stanford has no control over these
properties but because the land is owned by the City of Palo Alto.
Ms. Jones: No, no. The City of Palo Alto exercises planning approval; zoning, planning, all of that. The
University owns the land and collects rent and the tenants make improvements. Occasionally, Stanford
buys back a property and redevelops it ourselves but we are treated the same as another tenant when it
comes to review at the City.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Any other – Makinen, did you have your – yeah.
Board Member Makinen: Well, no, just the question that came up about 45-years. I think that’s National
Park Service guidance. We used it in federal projects that I’ve been involved in too.
Ms. Jones: Yes, I agree. It is – I think it’s a pretty standard best practice is to evaluate things at 45 and it
does occur as a federal recommendation.
Chair Bernstein: On our recommendation for action today, it says to receive the presentation. Laura,
thank you so much for that and also, then for the HRB to provide comment on this document. Any other
comments or questions? Staff – Yes, Vice Chair Bower?
Vice Chair Bower: A question for staff, after this hearing, what does staff with do our comments?
Ms. French: Well, receive them and record them in the minutes. Beyond that, I guess as we look at
properties that turn over in the Research Park and we, as mentioned, commission a consultant HRE for
any building that’s proposed to be demolished, altered or what have you, we would certainly take your
comments into consideration. If there were any errors that you – I am just going to say typos because –
but that’s silly. If there was something that’s factual that you want to provide feedback, we have our
author here to receive that input.
Vice Chair Bower: Well, I am asking that question because the purpose of this hearing is to develop -- as
I understand it, it is to develop an approach to evaluating buildings that are going to be remodeled or
demolished or replaced. If this document, which is presented to us, is the one being used, then from my
perspective it doesn’t address the historic district strongly enough. I mean, in fact, the document argues
against a historic district and I understand that argument. I am not complaining about it but I think from
a City perspective and from a planning perspective, that needs to be considered. The historic district idea
needs to be considered in the evaluation and that’s not here.
Ms. French: It would only be by Council direction in my awareness that we would embark upon a work
program that would include going further than what the university has already done.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Vice Chair Bower: I am not suggesting going further, I am suggesting that evaluations of these properties
include an overall look at historic – an idea of a historic district so that they are not looked at as an
individual space or an individual building. It’s the thread – you pull the thread on the sweater and pretty
soon you don’t have a sweater, you have a pile of yarn and that’s how you undo a district. I understand
that it’s not a district, I am not asking that it be made a district. I want the idea of a historic district
evaluated and that’s within the context of this presentation, that’s all.
Ms. French: When we assign a consultant to prepare an HRE, what I hear you saying and correct me if I
am wrong, is that you would like that consultant to consider whether, in addition to this particular site
being potentially historic and if it’s historic eligible, what are the possibilities that it is part of a district?
Vice Chair Bower: Exactly. I think every time a project in this area is considered, it ought to have a
question answered is this – does this represent a district? That’s all.
Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman, you had your – oh. Beth, please?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I also think that this relates to our sort of struggle and need for a
context statement on mid-century modern architecture in general because it’s not just a problem with the
Research Park. It’s a problem with residences, business buildings that we review all the time and I am
not sure that we have a full context statement on that.
Ms. French: I’ll just say that we do not have a context statement for mid-century modern in Palo Alto.
Chair Bernstein: Hi, welcome Hillary and welcome Emily Vance too.
Ms. Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning: Good morning Chair…
Chair Bernstein: Good morning.
Ms. Gitelman: …and Board Members, if I could just say a few words. Hillary Gitelman and I am the
Planning Director. First, I wanted to really thank Dr. Jones and her staff for helping us by preparing this
framework document. What we were up against when we came up with this idea was that every historic
consultant who walked in the door wanted to write the history of the world from the beginning of time in
evaluating an individual project within the Research Park. One of our intentions was to kind of frame the
evaluations that we asked for and use it in evaluating individual projects within the park. The Board
Members are correct, one of the recommendations of the study or one of the findings of the framework is
that the appropriate focus is on buildings and their history and significance, rather than the Research
Park as a whole. I think your point is well taken that there may be historic clusters or districts within the
Research Park but I think at a higher level, we agree with the suggestion that we should be focusing not
on the park as a whole. If we – just a hypothetical, if we didn’t agree with that and we wanted to
evaluate the whole park, I think every report would turn into, as I said, an evaluation from the beginning
of time and it would just get excessive in terms of the amount of effort and work involved. We just didn’t
think that was warranted but I think the suggestion that a context statement is needed for this period
and that the historic district question, potentially about a subset of the park is one that should be asked
in the context of these evaluations. Very much appreciate that input.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, as far as the idea of a context statement for mid-century, how or who could start
to create a statement like that? Would that be a subcommittee of the HRB? Would that be City Staff?
Outside consultants?
Ms. French: Well, let me – you introduced her. Let me introduce Emily Vance, our Historic Planner; as if
she needs an introduction. I think most of you have met her by now but I just wanted to say that we had
prepared a draft grant application for a CLG grant and we didn’t move on it. We were busy with
Professorville and then we were working on the Eichler Guidelines but that could be something that we
go and seek some funds so that we can have a consultant to work with our professional Staff at some
City of Palo Alto Page 11
point in the future. We have a potential program here and that could be one of the tasks or efforts in our
program in the years to come.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so perhaps then Staff could look at that possibility of ensuing rather than later.
Council Member Holman?
Council Member Holman: Yeah, a couple of questions. I am very pleased that this has come forward. I
think it’s a great initiative. I don’t know what prompted it.
Ms. Gitelman: Well, again it was because of every consultant that we were working with, was struggling
with some kind of framing to help them complete the reports that we need to conduct our reviews. So,
we thought we could give them a leg up by providing this kind of direction.
Council Member Holman: Ok, good, so there’s nothing major going – that’s in the offing or anything?
Ms. Gitelman: Oh, no, no.
Council Member Holman: It’s just like the individual…
Ms. Gitelman: Just in the context of individual reports, we realized that everyone was struggling with this
question.
Council Member Holman: Well, I very much appreciate this. I don’t presume this is going to come to
Council?
Ms. Gitelman: No.
Council Member Holman: So, along with – especially Board Member Bower’s comment’s, I – Hillary, you
know this, I have issues with study session because the comments that the Board Members have made,
it’s like -- Amy has indicated how those comments are going to be captured but they are not going to be
in this document. There’s not an action item to amend the document in concert with – thank you, Laura.
With Stanford prepared document here and I don’t see that there are any – I don’t know – I presumed
that Staff worked closely with Stanford in preparing this but I don’t see any Staff comments about this or
how it was amended based on that. I have a couple questions for my own purposes in terms of education
I guess. Some of the – on packet page 18, it says proposed guidelines. So, they aren’t adopted
guidelines, these are proposed guidelines so it seems like there ought to be another iteration. Maybe this
should come back to the HRB one more time with the opportunity to comment? It’s a question and then
on packet page 20, it seems like, under Criterion Three, a question I have is that is says buildings more
than 45-years old should be evaluated as samples of the mid-20th-century commercial. What will be the
criteria – so, 1971 for instance, is 46-years ago. God help us all but that’s not mid-century modern so
how will those be evaluated? That’s unclear to me based on this document and then also it seemed like
the criteria seemed very, very high. It said to be a significant property for building the design should
represent a fine example of its style and period or represent an important contribution by recognized
master architect. That seems like a really high threshold. If I think about how our Palo Alto inventory was
put together, they were good examples of a style and retained integrity and other criteria but just
speaking to the architectural style. This seems like an exceedingly high threshold, just from my
information. Then something that was mentioned in the presentation was that if there are buildings by
the same architect -- if I understood it correctly, building by the same architect – would this project for
this building compare favorably with the award winners. Again, that seems like a really high threshold, as
opposed to being good examples of the period or good examples of a stockpile or something. It seems
like a really, really high threshold. So, I guess I am a little – and the maps, my God, they are fantastic.
These are excellent, excellent, excellent but I guess those questions leave some lack of clarity for me
about how it’s going to be used and an opportunity for the HRB to weigh in, for instance, on the district
aspect because when I look at the maps, it looks like – in comparing maps, it looks like a possibility for
districts. The budget discussion is coming to the Council on Tuesday and I had raised at Finance
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Committee if Planning and Transportation needed any additional budget to undertake something. I don’t
know how much money it would take to – now there is a grant opportunity to look at mid-century
modern but is there a way we could support this endeavor with some amount of budget funds in
considered in Tuesday’s Council discussion? There was a lot of things that I put out there. One is just to
kind of get them all out there.
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible)
Ms. Gitelman: Well, through the Chair, maybe Council Member Holman and I can talk offline about the
budget question, which doesn’t seem as directly related to this topic. On the subject of this framework
document, it was prepared by Stanford Staff, qualified professionals at our request and we asked them to
undertake this. We did see a draft and asked them to make some additions and changes. It functions, as
I indicated, it’s purpose was to provide some guidance and some kind of framing information to the
historian’s and architects who are preparing historic resource evaluations for our use. So, it’s not
immutable. I mean there is no reason why it can’t be changed. There is no reason why one of those
independent professionals couldn’t come to us and say, thank you. I reviewed the framework and in
evaluating this building as you’ve requested, I see these additional issues. I mean we want the people
who work for us as professionals, to exercise their independent judgment and use this as a tool. It’s
intended to be a tool and not a box that you can’t get out of. So, we appreciate all of your comments. I
think, probably we’re going to have professionals who raise some of the same questions and we will
modify this framework in the future if we feel we need to. To provide the support that helps our
professional consultants focus and believe the kind of reports that you and we both rely on when we
review projects.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Ms. Gitelman. I have a question on current processes, let’s just say a
building owner of – let’s take the example of the Varian building again, wants to demolish that building.
Then the City of Palo Alto would require a Historic Resource Evaluation for that proposed demolition, it
would come to the HRB or no?
Ms. French: To the extent that if the determination – the HRE determines that it’s a historic resource and
then there – it’s proposed to be demolished, then we have an EIR basically and that would be an
opportunity for the HRB to weigh in on the cultural resource section of that EIR. If it’s determined not to
be a resource, then there’s no obligation to bring it to the HRB. It’s straight ARB to the extent that what’s
– the building that replaces the building is compatible with the – if there were historic and there aren’t
currently designated historic buildings surrounding, we might ask the HRB to provide some input and
feedback on the replacement building’s compatibility. In this case, there are no listed historic resources.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so if it’s not a – so, if would come – let’s say it’s a Historic Resource Evaluation says
it should be a listed property but it’s not listed, it would still come to the HRB. HRB could then
recommend to the ARB no demolition, is that the process for that? If the HRB say looks, it's significant
and we think that it should not be demolished, then that’s the advice we would give to ARB correct?
Ms. French: Well, it’s technical advice you would give to the Director or Council in the case of an EIR. If
we are finding overwriting a statement of why this should be demolished because what’s coming is
necessary for Palo Alto or what have you, that the statement that needs to be made in a Council setting.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, I am wondering how often it is that the City asks the owner of a piece of property
to create criteria for evaluation of say a group of properties that the City will then use? It seems to me
that’s inviting the fox into the chicken coop and that’s an extreme example but these are all Stanford-
related buildings. Stanford doesn’t own the buildings but they own the land so Stanford’s come to Palo
Alto and created this series of criteria. As Council Member Holman points out, created a really high bar in
some cases and in fact, I think taken as a whole, this really will take almost every building in the
Research Park out of historic criteria. I am just thinking that this may be not the – I understand why Staff
City of Palo Alto Page 13
– why you wanted to have Stanford do this but Stanford is not a disinterested person in this and so I am
a little troubled by that. I am not making any comments about the integrity of the Stanford Historic
Office. They are superior people and have very, very excellent records so it’s not a comment about that.
It’s that if this is the document that the Planning Department is going to use, I think it should be – should
have been done by somebody who has no skin in the game when it comes to the properties.
Ms. Gitelman: I’ll thank you for those comments and I completely understand that perspective. In this
case, there are a couple things that I would just add. One is that we view Stanford as an important
partner in the Research Park because they play this role as the underlying landowner in many cases so
they are – we are evaluating and they evaluating the proposals that come in from prospective tenants or
existing tenants. The other thing is that they have the most information, the most historical data, and
information about what has happened in the Research Park that can be brought to bear on evaluations.
So, we thought it was important to invite their input and as I tried to communicate earlier, we don’t view
this framework as a straitjacket. We’re still working with professionals who are preparing our historical
resource evaluations and they are going to use their professional judgment in conducting their review. If
they see something in this framework that they disagree with or that they feel is taking them in the
wrong direction, they have the discretions to consult with us. Use their independent judgment and tell us
hey, we disagree or we think this other thing is true. So, this should be viewed as a tool, not a
straitjacket.
Vice Chair Bower: Of course, Stanford has always been willing to provide information and generously
willing for all projects that have been reviewed by me on this Board in the last 10-years and that’s
invaluable information. I just think there should be a sort of arm’s length transaction here and maybe this
could be the beginning of creating a criteria for evaluating these projects but not the tool. I think it needs
– I think this needs more work, based on what Council Member Holman pointed out the two – at least
two things. So, maybe we should agendize this and bring it back and we should explore it more and then
make a formal – make it into a formal City tool for evaluation, so this is a place where the historic
evaluation can start. Now maybe that is the way you are already seeing it but I’d like to get the Board’s
sort of stamp on it. Not just comments that get lost in minutes that never – while never seen by any
other people who do the evaluations.
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I guess we were viewing this as a more informal tool that we use at the Staff level
that would always be subject to the additional review and expertise by the consultants involved in
preparing the studies, which often you do see. If we turn this into something more formal with Board
comments and the like, then I think we are talking about something more different than we had in mind.
That we would probably have to involve the City Council in that review and it turns into a whole separate
work program and work effort. We can certainly talk about that but that was not really what we had
intended initially. We were trying to put something together that would help us and help our consultants
and wanted to share it with you as a matter of information, just because you see the reports. We weren’t
viewing this as a big new initiative that we were going to spend a lot of time and energy redrafting and
expanding.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, just as we learn with the process at times and the fact that sometimes
evaluations of projects – someone would come in and say we would like to have a project and it
happened that it came in maybe through the Development Department, not necessarily in through the
planning. It’s a real disservice to people not to warn them pretty early in the process that this could be an
unhistorical structure and it’s really sad if people have made huge plans and yet, we’re often told there is
not a project so we can’t deal with that. My recommendation would be to put it into the process early.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower, you thought – you made a comment about something coming back to
the Board. Do you want to expand on that or no?
Vice Chair Bower: I don’t think so.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Chair Bernstein: Alright, anything else? Ok, Dr. Jones, thank you so much for your presentation. Again, I
share Council Member Holman’s comment. These maps are just – they are fantastic. Thank you.
Action Items
3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN‐00147]:
Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to allow the Replacement of the
Junior Museum and Zoo Building With a New 15,033 Square Foot, One‐Story Museum
and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo with Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and
Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire Access, Accessible Parking
Stalls, Multi‐Modal Circulation, Storm Drainage Infrastructure, and Site Lighting. An Initial
Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act.
Zone District: Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning
Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.or approval of Minutes
Chair Bernstein: Alright, next on our agenda is an action item and I’ll read it. Public hearing/quasi‐judicial,
1451 Middlefield Road. Consideration of an application for Architectural Review to allow the replacement
of the Junior Museum and Zoo building with a new 15,033-square foot, one‐story museum and education
building, outdoor zoo and netted enclosure, and reconfiguration of and improvements to the existing
parking lots including fire access, accessible parking stalls, multi‐modal circulation, storm drainage
infrastructure, and site lighting. An initial study is being prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. Zone district is public facilities. Shall Staff have an introductory report of us?
Ms. French: Thank you, yes, Amy French here. I was here with you in January, January 26th to be
precise, with a preliminary study session on this project. Prior to that, it had been to the ARB the week
before and to the ARB after some significant modifications to the concept in March of 2017. I have a brief
presentation. Some of the images you saw last time – I think – we have a historic resource evaluation
now that looked at the Lucie Stern Center and some of the historic courtyards etc. One of the things that
I like about this image is that it shows the circular drive here, that was original and a kind of a what looks
like a lawn area out here. Then over here it shows in Birge Clark original center, there is no parking lot.
That parking lot came later in 1941 with the Junior Museum and Zoo. This is just the overview of the
campus or complex with the Lucie Stern, the parking that is there today and the Junior Museum and Zoo.
Of course, the Girl Scout House, otherwise known as the Lou Henry Hoover House. The characteristics of
the site, one-story buildings; and we have issues in the parking lot including circulation and parking and
storm drainage. This is what we see from Middlefield. The last session with the ARB – HRB, there were
comments asking can you consider a gable and so you will see the architect has prepared a presentation
showing the proposal. Again, these are just some images of the existing site. This is -- I look over here at
this Boy Scout facility and think that is a perfect spot for the bird bath. There is a bird bath that is on the
City property that is related to a Boy Scout leader; it’s in front of the Girl Scout house. Here we have our
children’s library that was also a Clark design. Then this – again, this image from last time shows the Girl
Scout House, which has been analyzed in the most recent historic resources evaluation called the
Rinconada. You have both historic evaluations in your packet. The most recent one, the Rinconada does
talk about the Girl Scout House and its significance and of modifications to the area. The – what’s
interesting is the Girl Scout House -- actually, the Girl Scouts of Northern California own the building, kind
of like the Stanford situation and the City owns the land and the City leases the land to the Girl Scouts.
These are some other images that I had last time. This is the scene shop at the back here, some very
significant oak trees on the site that are to be retained. Again, just kind of summarizing the Architectural
Review Board’s comments from January and the architect and applicant team took these to heart, came
back in March, the ARB supported the approaches and they came back with a formal application. The
applicant is going to summarize the HRB’s comments in their presentation. Here we have our Historic
Resources Evaluations, I made reference to these. The one that is just recent talks about the parking lot,
the Girl Scout House and some of the features of the Lucie Stern Community Center. It should be noted
City of Palo Alto Page 15
that the Rinconada long range plan is not yet a project application. That’s a longer time frame on it so –
but the analysis, the Rinconada HRE, does look at other parts of the park. So, we are not going to focus
on those other parts today because that’s not an application before us. Let’s see, we will be back to the
HRB, at least in the sense that we are going to provide the draft environmental review document; the
initial study, along with a modified historic evaluation. We’re tweaking it a little bit because there were
some references there that got a little confusing. So, we are going to come back to the ARB in July to
September time frame and then this is going to go onto Council. There was a change to the code that
suggested the Director forwards this type of project to the Council so that’s what’s going to happen for
final action on the CEQA document and the project. I am going to hand this over to Emily who is our
Historic Planner expert here on staff and let her speak to the nomination process and eligibility of the Girl
Scout House.
Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Ok, good morning Board Members. I just want to start off by saying
that ultimately, this project does not cause any significant impact to historic resources, even if the project
only partially meets some of the standards. We are in agreement with those findings but would like some
of the follow – oh, can you not hear me? Can you hear me? I’ll just scooch over. Can – is this better? Ok.
We would like some of these following concerns to be addressed and the report to include the following.
So, these are some of the issues that Staff brought up that we would like some clarification on. In no
specific order, there’s the rewording of the passage that mentions further analysis for clarity. We would
like that passage removed or to state very clearly that the analysis is presented in the following
paragraph. We would like clear language used to state whether the front yard of the Girl Scout House is
considered a character defining feature of the historic landscape and why it is appropriate for the front
yard buffer to be reduced but not eliminated. Just again, a little bit more clarifying language to call out
that specific area since that will be impacted and ultimately, we would like to include National Register
language in the final analysis as there is a high likelihood that the building will be listed in the future. I
think there is interest in getting it listed on a few local registers, including the California one, the National
and obviously the local. So, we want that kind of National Register language to be included in the final
report.
Ms. French: Then I have just on the screen here what is the nomination process should the HRB wish to
pursue nomination of the Girl Scout House. Again, the Girl Scouts of Northern California own the property
– the building sorry - and they would need to be involved with giving consent for us to move forward
with that. Excuse me, then, of course, the Council approves local inventory listings.
Ms. Vance: Yeah, just to point out that both for the California and National Register, I am sure that you
are guys are all aware that consent of the owner is not required necessarily but it cannot be listed over
the owner’s objection. I don’t think that is going to be an issue in this case.
Ms. French: Given that, the Girl Scout House is looked at as eligible under Criterion One and Two;
therefore, it’s eligible for the City inventory and so if the HRB would like to comment on that eligibility
piece of this, that’s not entirely what we are after today. We are after a look at the new formal
application but certainly, we welcome your comments on that. With that, I am going to load the
applicant’s presentation. John, did you want to comment while I do that? Ok, so Sarah Vaccaro – is it this
one? Let’s see, no. This one? No. Upper left?
Ms. Sarah Vaccaro: That’s it. The one that you were just on.
Ms. French: Ok, that says 318 PM.
Ms. Vaccaro: Go to the one on the left, is the actual (inaudible)
Ms. French: This one.
Chair Bernstein: I would like to start that since this is a quasi-judicial matter, some of the Board Members
– this a quasi-judicial matter so I would like to go down for each Board Members to disclose if there are
City of Palo Alto Page 16
any conflicts of having there been any other conversations with owners or applicants. Board Member
Bunnenberg?
Board Member Bunnenberg: I should say that I worked for the Junior Museum many, many, many years
ago. Maybe 40-years ago and received a small salary for teaching some art classes to children. Then
recently I visited the site and talked briefly with John Aiken and we talked a bit about house zoo
regulations had sort of changed over the years and also some discussion about a tree.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Kohler?
Board Member Kohler: Oh, I don’t know, over the years I’ve been there many, many times so I just – I
drive by it a lot on the way down here.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower?
Vice Chair Bower: I to have visited frequently, most recently with my grandson. I also sit on the Palo Alto
Stanford Heritage Board and Steve Emslie is a Member of that Board and he’s affiliated with the Junior
Museum. We haven’t had any conversations about it but just for public record, I have that association.
Chair Bernstein: I have visited the site and taken classes there. Makinen?
Board Member Makinen: I visited the site also.
Board Member Wimmer: I have visited the site as well.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Historic Planner Vance, what was the first comment that you made about
suggested rewording? I didn’t catch what you meant on your first rewording request.
Ms. Vance: I think it’s somewhere on page 62 of the report. There’s just a little bit of – oh, well I guess I
am not sure what packet page that is but there’s – yeah, there’s just a line that says further analysis –
page 110 of the packet. There is just a line that mentions further analysis is required. It was our
understanding that the paragraph immediately following that is that further analysis but we’ve had
comments from other Staff that would like the clarified. These are just some of the comments that we
wanted to bring up.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, just (crosstalk)…
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible) (crosstalk)
Chair Bernstein: … I am on packet page 110. Where is that?
Ms. French: The top paragraph.
Chair Bernstein: The top paragraph.
Ms. Vance: Last sentence, the very last thing.
Chair Bernstein: It says that because of the proposed JMZ project does not comply with all -- further
analysis is required.
Ms. Vance: The further analysis is that following paragraph.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I am not clear what you are requesting us to look at.
Ms. Vance: So, when you read this, it makes it sound as if further analysis is required in the future.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Chair Bernstein: Yes.
Ms. Vance: It’s not. The further analysis is the paragraph immediately following.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, I see.
Ms. Vance: Right and so there was a little bit of confusion regarding that sentence with some of the other
Staff members.
Chair Bernstein: I got it.
Ms. Vance: It’s a very simple little change.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. Good, thank you. Alright, hi and welcome.
Ms. Vaccaro: Can you hear me alright?
Chair Bernstein: Now we can, yes.
Ms. Vaccaro: Thank you Board Members for having us today. My name is Sarah Vaccaro and I am
representing CAW Architects. We are the architect working with the friends and the City Staff on this
project. We are excited to show you are updated design. We heard your comments in January, as well as
the ARB’s and feel like we have a stronger project to present to you today. This is the existing site as we
are all familiar with. The historic Lucie Stern, Category One Community Center, the Lou Henry Hoover
House which is up for historic significance and then this is the existing Junior Museum and Zoo building
and the adjacent outdoor zoo sitting in the Rinconada Park and the shared parking lot that sits between
them. This is a brief summary of the comments we heard from you all back in January. Our main
takeaway where that our project should better respond to the historical context of the Lucie Stern and
the Girl Scout House. We were strongly encouraged to explored gabled roofs, as that’s the predominant
roof form in the surrounding area on the site. As well as the residential neighborhood and so we’ve
looked at that very closely and have a revised proposal for you today. Overall, it was discussed that the
site organization has improved from the existing, however there were some concerns about the parking
lot edges as we get close to the Girl Scout building. As well as the JMZ so we’ve responded to that as well
and then the request for the HRE was fulfilled and outlined by Emily and Amy. This is our – the site plans
we presented to you back in January. Our building generally wrapped around the existing dawn redwood
and the pecan trees. It’s kind of complex gridwork of two different building forms with flat roofs. As I
said a pretty large parking lot that gets rather close to the buildings. So, we took a big step back after
January’s meeting and looked at the overall site organization and really tried to give the JMZ project a
stronger civic presence on this site to reflect the importance of the programs of this facility. We’ve
reorganized the lower half of the parking lot and our building mass to align with the Middle Field grid –
City grid. That allows us to create a strong axis point into the main entrance of the JMZ through the
parking lot and then a secondary access that connects from Middle Field to our entrance and then into
the park arrival plaza that leads into Rinconada Park beyond. With City Staff, we’ve also incorporated a
pedestrian/bike only path that comes in from this intersection, loops through the parking lot and then
connects into the park. So, really strengthening the pedestrian/bike paths on the site, as well as clarifying
and simplifying the parking lot circulation. This is our further developed site plan or our proposed project
today. As you can see, the building itself wraps around the dawn redwood tree, creating a strong
courtyard form that’s reminiscent of the Lucie Stern Center. Then we’ve created a larger courtyard form
as the entrance plaza here and that incorporates the dawn redwood – I am sorry, the pecan tree and
create much safer buffer between the JMZ entrance and the parking lot. We’ve also shifted this edge of
the parking lot further away from the girl scout building to further preserve that front yard context of the
historical building. All of this site circulation colemanites on this end of the park arrival plaza, that then
funnels visitors out into the park beyond. The Loose in the Zoo, which is the netted zoo enclosure is
sitting in relatively the same spot that you saw last time in the park here. This blue box is a future phase
building that I will speak about in a little more detail. The first phase is more of an outdoor education
City of Palo Alto Page 18
zone and then in the future, a building will be added at that point. Our design concept starts with the
JMZ mission and vision; to engage a child’s curiosity in science and nature. We’ve created this along the
secondary access a promenade that connects visitors from Middle Field to the JMZ entrance to the park
arrival plaza and gives children a really interactive experience with science and nature exhibits all
throughout that exterior plaza area. There’s opportunities for children to obverse a wind façade that
shows the movement and patterns of wind and understand physical sciences. There are opportunities for
children to jump, hop, skip, crawl like animals as they look into the animals within the zoo. Opportunities
for the kids to bridge over and climb into a bio-swell that will allow them to understand concepts of
natural water systems. Opportunities to engage with STEM and math concepts and walk through a
rainbow tunnel that illustrates concepts of light and color. Then also using kind of the edges of our
project to illustrate concepts of space and scale. We see the architecture – the building mass creating the
framework, the stage for these experiences and so our building takes a simple form and allows this
exterior promenade to tunnel through it. To bridge over the courtyard to engage with an entrance plaza
to create sheltered places for waiting and (inaudible). We’re proposing a taller gabled mass for the
exhibit Plaza – for the exhibit hall and then a lowered gabled mass that wraps around the courtyard and
steps down as it – along Middle Field to be respectful of the neighborhood context. This is our proposed
design for you. This is an aerial view from the parking lot so you can see we have our entrance plaza
here and we’ve extruded this structural steel system of the building out into the entrance plaza and
covered it with the wood slats to create kind of an entrance porch to engage visitors as they approach
the entrance. This is the main façade from the parking lot so you see the entrance here, this the dawn
redwood courtyard, this is the lower mass and then Middle Field is here. This is the pecan tree and views
into the zoo. This is the proposed feature building – the future phase building and then this is the Girl
Scout building on the other side of the park arrival plaza. Materials, we are proposing – as we are
proposing a gabled roof form so more of a traditional form. We wanted to make sure that our materials
reflect the contemporary time that this project will be built and so we’re proposing on the taller mass a
standing metal seam roof that seamlessly turns over the edge and becomes a vertical siding on this
building. We’re proposing that in an unnatural color. On the lower mass along the residential side of the
project, we’re proposing vertical cedar siding as the exterior cladding. With a tight eave that has the – a
tight eave that still allows for a shadow line in references kind of the neighborhood and then the standing
metal seam roof on this mass as well. We’re proposing accent features, details, skylight monitors that are
wrapped in a red standing metal seam material and then accents with that same red material around the
entrance and into the rainbow tunnel. The idea here is that the red use in a very intentional place to
draw the attention and create some interest on these facades and also reference the clay tile roofs of the
Lucie Stern Center in a respectful but compatible way. Then some of our fun materials, this is a children’s
center and zoo after all so we will have a wind facades that’s – actually, we are collaborating with a
public artist to design so that will be a piece of public art front and center on the project. We have our
rainbow tunnel so while there won’t be rainbow colors on the building, there will be rainbow light that
shines throughout that tunnel and that’s the prism on the material board; just a little bit of fun.
Throughout the site features, we are proposing laticrete concert walls and seat walls. These are – this
concrete that looks almost earth like so that will be seat walls, as well as portions of the zoo enclosure
and then this is the proposed zoo netting. We are also proposing to relocate the existing JMZ sign just a
little bit further down Middle Field from where it current stands adjacent to the entrance to the rainbow
tunnel. This is a clip from the HRE that just further emphasizes that the materials that we are proposing
today are compatible but of our time with the historical context on the site. This is the air – sorry, an eye-
level view of the entrance to the project from the parking lot, as well as that same main entrance
elevation here. This is the eye level perspective from Middle Field, as well as the straight on elevation.
For this elevation, we are proposing something a little simpler, a little quieter as it is along the residential
side of the project. So, we’re just proposing a big skylight monitor and windows where we need to bring
light – nature light into the offices and classroom spaces. Then really focusing the excitement and energy
on the entrance into this promenade and the rainbow tunnel and that’s further accentuated by the JMZ
sign. Just to note, there are many existing street trees so this façade actually will be somewhat filtered
by those street trees. Just a quick overview of the program of the project. We have the entrance plaza
that leads into the main exhibit hall. The exhibit hall branches out into the exterior Loose in the Zoo
experience and then also into the dawn redwood courtyard, which is a scene with Jurassic science type
experiences for the kids. The education classrooms, as well as collections hub wrap around this side of
City of Palo Alto Page 19
the project and then the back of house support spaces, connect the service entrance on Middle Field to
the zoo. This is the further developed floor plan off of that diagram. As I mentioned before, this is the
proposed future two-story building on the ground floor. It’s a classroom that will link directly into the zoo
and then on the second floor, it’s a butterfly and insect exhibit that will greatly enrich the visitor’s
experience to this project. This is a site floor plan of the zoo experience. So again, this outdoor zoo will
be fully netted but exposed to the exterior elements and there will be a lush tree landscape within it. As
well as animals and small mammals free to move about with the children and then there will be larger or
animals that need to be within an enclosure as well. The feature – the central feature of the zoo is faux
trees, almost a deadwood tree that rises up to support the netting structure and a portion of the future
phase is to add a tree fort on the second level within that tree structure. So, kids will be able to climb out
into the middle of the zoo and experience the birds at more eye level. This is a section – a landscape
section through the dawn -- so this is the dawn redwood tree; our building wraps around it. This is the
main promenade walkway and so this is where the promenade bridges over the bio swell. Children will
have the opportunity to step down into the bio swell and interact with the natural vegetation and water
when it’s there. Then is the paid experience for the visitor, where they also will be able to climb down
into the bio swell but walk along raised walkways that surround the dawn redwood tree and experience
exhibits emphasizing the Jurassic character of the dawn redwood species. This is our closing rendering.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Sarah. I just want to start by another suggestion for a revision is on your
message to engage a child’s curiosity. I could see an adult’s curiosity beside it. I mean this could be a – it
looks like it could be a really fun place to visit.
Ms. Vaccaro: That’s our goal.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, any – start with Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I have several questions about some of the things that are on the site right
now. Is there any plan for keeping or using the stump garden that’s the big – part of George the tree? I
don’t know. Staff may not know about George the tree but on Cowper Street, a huge tree was dying
through the center and looked like it was going to split. The neighbors were so upset about seeing
George go that they got together with the City, had meetings and agree that this stump would be saved
and that various other pieces would be saved. Then that – in a little bulb out in the street, George the
baby tree was planted and so you can see that if you go on Cowper Street very near Homer. Near the
Women’s Club, sort of across the street from the Women’s Club; George is seemingly doing well. Also, I
wondered about the very interesting structure that was actually constructed with straw and I think it was
Adobe soil, that is kind of a seating area right in the same place. The other thing is the little Josephine
O’Hara tree that is planted out near the sidewalk and it has a plaque and what will happen with those
things?
Mr. John Aikin: This is John Aiken, Senior Manager Junior Museum and Zoo. We love George, we actually
put him up on blocks so that he wouldn’t rot and we plan on salvaging George and having him part of the
new stump garden. In fact, on drawing L-1.4, references the new stump garden. The cob bench is much
more difficult to save. It’s all built out of salvaged concrete and as you say Adobe but that will have to be
torn down. Josephine O’Hare plaque, my understanding is that the tree is dead – is long gone but the
plaque still remains there and we can salvage the plaque and perhaps dedicate another tree to Josephine
O’Hara.
Board Member Bunnenberg: There is a little tree there (inaudible) (crosstalk).
Mr. Aikin: I think that tree was planted more recently.
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Board Member Kohler?
Board Member Kohler: The – this is a fabulous design, it’s incredible. I remember taking my kids to the
zoo all the time and we will be having a youngest arriving in our family next month, so we hope – looking
City of Palo Alto Page 20
forward to taking him there. I have a modest comment about the design of the buildings. The – all the
zoo design, all that is fabulous but your comment about our time is a little somewhat disturbing in a
sense to me. I‘ve worked on over 500 homes in Palo Alto and I’d say about a third of them are tile-roofed
homes and the rest are varying in things. Of that percentage, I don’t know maybe 15 or 20 are modern
homes. All the rest are very traditional and so to say our time – maybe for this use it’s ok but it’s right
next door to the Children’s Theater and all the tile-roofed homes and suddenly we have this ‘our time’
building. Which to me is – and say – as it goes on, the metal roof and this and that, it’s going to look kind
of clunky. I don’t see it fitting in with the neighborhood and all those homes in the neighborhood. That
it’s going to be a – it will look great in the beginning but as it wears out during the rain and the years, I
think people are going to drive by and say oh, there’s that old museum. It’s going to look – it just
doesn’t, to me, fit in with the Children’s Theater or the neighborhood and the tile roofs. I know tile roofs
are probably more expensive but everything else is fabulous and I am just concerned about the – you
look at the picture here, these…
Chair Bernstein: Which page, Rodger?
Board Member Kohler: Page 42, is one example, it’s just this whole lot of metal roof and the exteriors. I
understand why we doing it but I just – then you look next door the Children’s Theater and it’s two
different worlds. Now maybe that’s appropriate but I am just – it’s right on Middle Field Road so you are
going to be driving down what’s going to look like the old Quonset huts on Stanford and I am not so
thrilled about that. I don’t know to exactly say it’s bad or not, I am just finding it kind of jarring. You
drive down right past there and suddenly you are going to see this – I don’t know. People are going to
think we didn’t spend any money on it because it’s going to look like a garage, I think. That’s my – I
don’t know.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I’d like to say -- to follow Rodger’s comments and say that when I opened this, I was
thrilled to see the new forms. I think you captured what we were more concerned about when we came
before here – but when you came before us. I too share Rodger’s concerns about the metal standing roof
and it’s – again, I think there’s a notion right now that modern boxes are sort of our architectural theme
current – it’s a current theme. Yet, in the 40-years I worked as a residential contractor, I never once built
one of those and even though they’re somewhat popular in this community. I don’t see them in San
Francisco very often; some. I just don’t – I don’t think that’s a (inaudible) design trend and I guess that
the metal roof is – I understand the economy of that metal roof but in a way, it’s too harsh for me. So,
you did a great job of creating a form that I think relates very well to Lucie Stern and to the Girl Scout
Center. In particular, I want to thank you for page A-5.2, where you have called out the finishes with a –
and so I would like to now transition to that because I was confused by some of the tags. There is the
letter D, which is wood siding that – at the top of page that points to the roof and if it was really going to
be wood siding up on the roof, I think I would be much happier but I – it also says – I think it’s supposed
to be a standing metal seam roof. It – J, I think that’s the one; so, I am confused. It’s metal – it’s the J
notation that we should…
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct, correct. The metal standing seam roof is on that tall mass as well as the lower
mass.
Vice Chair Bower: So, the wood siding is on the face of the building that faces the parking lot and goes
all the way the Middle Field Roadside and I am not sure if it goes – does it go on the back of the building
as well?
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct.
Vice Chair Bower: So, the walls of the museum are effectively the wood – vertical wood siding.
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. All of the lower mass walls are wood siding. The taller mass has the metal seam.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Vice Chair Bower: Right. When you get to the other end, the open classroom, I can’t – I see in this vis –
in the picture you have up on the screen, there is actually a form there but on page A-5.0, there is
nothing there. It’s just a wall and so which is it? Is it this picture that you have up here?
Ms. Vaccaro: As I mentioned, this building that is represented here is a future phase building so the first
phase will be the vision that you are seeing in this packet.
Vice Chair Bower: So, we can review that when it is actually built. Is it not anticipated as part of this
project?
Ms. Vaccaro: It’s not currently funded. We’re hoping that it might be funded within the construction
phase of this project but at this point, it is not currently.
Vice Chair Bower: But we are not approving that today?
Ms. Vaccaro: I don’t believe…
Vice Chair Bower: Since there is no building there to approve?
Ms. Vaccaro: I don’t believe – that’s correct.
Vice Chair Bower: Ok, so let’s go to the wall that is shown on page A-5.0. It’s identified by letter C and
that’s the one that’s most – closest to the Girl Scout House. That’s a vertical standing seam metal wall, is
that right. We don’t have a sample of what that looks like? What the seam spacing is and there’s just a
piece of metal on our – so, I think I’d like to see that. I’d like to know what that’s going to actually look
like before we approve that, since that has a significant impact when you are approaching the museum
from the Girl Scout House, so the relationship is important. In general, I think you’re concept of activities
and layout of this building and the parking lot is superb; really well done. Again, I guess my only concern
is the metal roof and I am not sure that is a deal breaker but it is a concern.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: I would have to agree with the comments of my colleagues here. I think the
metal roof does not provide a good contextual, I would say marriage, but a contextual compatibility with
the Girl Scout building or the Lucie Stern building. I think it does provide more of a – like a garage type
look on it and I think it would be much better with some other material. Probably a natural material that
would provide better contextuality with the adjacent structure.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I think this is so exciting. I can’t believe that you are going to incorporate all of
that into one place and I think you are going to have to more parking or something because I think it’s
going to be so crazy popular or sell advance tickets or I don’t know. I guess – yeah, the last time we
reviewed this project, that was our – we wanted to see some kind of a link between Lucie Stern and this
building. I see that you’ve don’t that with the gable configuration of the building, which I think is positive.
I think also, we have to take a look at the exposure on Middle Field Road, which is – right now, on Middle
Field, just the end of the building is facing Middle Field but now we are extending the building along
Middle Field. So, you can look on sheet A-4.3 to see that expanse of elevation on Middle Field. I think the
exciting part of the building is off the -- front entrance that is off of the road, where you see the
courtyards and things like that. I am just wondering if this elevation on Middle Field gives you enough of
a sense of how exciting that space is. How exciting – I mean, I kind of – I like the little gable on the
tunnel entry. I mean that kind of gives it a human scale where this is the place to go in. I mean I think
that’s kind of an exciting feature. I am just wondering if there is enough going on, on that Middle Field
elevation. I guess I see your point about changing the roof color to red at that point. I guess that’s kind
City of Palo Alto Page 22
of a neat idea. I guess one of our concerns is how does it last? How are these things – are these timeless
choices that are going to last and are they going to age well when the building ages?
Chair Bernstein: I also will share the comments of my Board Members regarding the metal roofing and
here are some of my comments – I am looking for your name again. It’s Sarah, right? Thank you, Sarah.
I also – I am definitely pleased to see the gable structures. I am particularly in concert with Board
Member Wimmer’s comment about the Middle Field Road elevation. That’s probably going to be the
biggest public presentation of this before anyone enters the property. The idea that the bridge and
tunnel, fantastic idea to get that; a good focal point or yeah, visual attraction on Middle Field Road. With
the Secretary of Interior Standards, as you are familiar with, the idea of compatibility and differentiation,
that entry tunnel could be a really great place for differentiate and even more contemporary expression
of a kind of detail. Have that then – the background of that then be along Middle Field Road elevation
and when I see that much metal roofing, which is a pretty long piece of the material on the building.
Thinking about that, I’ve see and as you’ve seen too, if you go around Palo Alto you see a lot of older
structures having the metal standing seam, including new building having the metal seam and the
residential projects a lot. Talking to some other designers who have incorporated those materials on their
buildings, I ask them, why did you use that material and a common comment I hear is that it’s the
common – it’s the latest fashion. When I look at design project or designs in themselves, it’s certainly
easy to make something that looks good today; the current fashion will look good today. The question I
always ask on every project is will it look good tomorrow? So, will this fashion – if the metal roof is a
fashion – anyway, we can have different materials that last for a long time, tile roof or other materials
can also last a long time. Will this become dated when metal roofing has become out of fashion and
therefore, I said how does that relate to the historical resources on the property? I do share the same
comment about if there is some other material that we know will stand the test of time and relate to the
historical structures on the project. I think that will add more compatibility for this project to the other
structures on the property. The entry tower – the entry tunnel, again, how far can you take it to be
contemporary? To get that real excitement going and then so there would be and example of the
differentiate but to get the roofing to be compatibility would be my thoughts about that. Board Member --
Vice Chair Bower?
Vice Chair Bower: I have a question for Staff about the landscaping in front of the Girl Scout building. I
have a recollection that in the 70’s, that parking lot was reconfigured. I wonder if that landscaping is
actually – would be considered like historic fabric because it has changed, at least in…
Chair Bernstein: I think it’s for Roger.
Board Member Kohler: God, all the years I have been here, that’s the first time that’s happened.
Vice Chair Bower: I didn’t think they actually rang.
Ms. French: I guess that was rude.
Vice Chair Bower: Not at all.
Ms. French: Plantings from the 1970’s is what you were saying. Does that become historic? I guess
cultural landscape is what we are talking about here. Some of those older – Peter Jensen, our City
Landscape Architect is here and he has a sense for how old some of those plants are. I believe there
might be some flowering shade shrubs for instance, that might be older. Even older than the 1970’s but
there have definitely been some changes out there. There are definitely some protected trees out there
and some of those are to be retained. Peter, did you want to provide any answers to the David?
Mr. Peter Jensen, City Landscape Architect: Landscape Architect for the City of Palo Alto, good morning.
The landscape that is in the front now has definitely gone through some renovations over its time.
Currently, it exists as a kind of a crisscrossing of asphalt pathways and some kind of unstructured
planting areas. There are a few plants that are there mostly right up against the building façade that are
City of Palo Alto Page 23
probably 35-40-years old. Most plant material doesn’t live to be much older than that. There has been a
part that is closer to the parking lot itself that’s kind of been taking to – make a little native garden there,
which we are actually going to relocate in the park at some point. There is one heritage oak tree that,
again, is growing very closely to the actual Girl Scout House and that will be retained there. I think the
idea is to create a landscape buffer as there is there now. Of course, we will be using more native and
drought-tolerant planting material there, along with the front to access and kind of buffer the parking lot
from the front of the building. That is the idea but to also kind of highlight the front entry, which it
doesn’t do now. Basically, there’s no direct real connection to the parking lot and the entry to the Girl
Scout House so we want to make that alignment better. In this, I guess updated plan and the
reconfiguration of the parking lot, the parking lot does get closer to the façade of the Girl Scout House
but there is still a good substantial buffer there to provide some type of frontage to the space between
the parking lot.
Vice Chair Bower: I am asking because that’s one of the things that Emily had asked us to consider in the
analysis of the project on page 60 – well, it’s 110 of our packet. I am not seeing the historic significance
of that existing space as being significant. I mean, it’s been haphazard in my experience and I mean, I
don’t know. It just doesn’t strike me as being like an iconic space we would want to preserve. I actually
think the new parking arrangement will improve the look and even though it get’s closer, I think this is an
infringement on some historic landscaping that probably is better.
Mr. Jensen: No, I think that a – I would agree with your statement there, that is – it was kind of a
remnant of land that was left there between the parking lot and the Girl Scout House. It had really no
structure or design to it and I think we recognize that there is a buffer there and we wanted to maintain
that and not push the parking lot right to the building. So, there was none there so we did maintain the
buffer in that location and I do think, as you are saying, it does set up better now with the parking lot in
relationship to the other buildings and the connection to the kind of complex that is there now currently.
Vice Chair Bower: This new design, I have to add, is an enormous improvement in the way in which the
parking area related to the Lucie Stern buildings because it’s pulled it way back away from that. So, that
has the same – now from the parking -- this parking lot has the same kind of grandeur in space that you
have around on Melville/Middle Field Road. There is a compromise in everything and I just want – since
we are going to have to address this, I just wanted to be clear that there is nothing – the oak tree, of
course, is going to be saved and that’s significant. The shrubbery next to the building probably could
stay. I think the incursion of the – the encroachment of the parking area into that land – currently sort of
landscaped area probably doesn’t rise to the level of significance.
Mr. Jensen: Right.
Vice Chair Bower: I just wanted that to be on the record for the Council.
Mr. Jensen: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: I’m just looking at the parking area in front of the Girl Scout Building and I am
just thinking that – if that was like something other than like asphalt or concrete, maybe pea stone or
something, it would be less intrusive onto the façade of the Girl Scout building.
Chair Bernstein: You are looking on page A-1.1?
Board Member Makinen: A-1.1.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, and then are you talking about the paving material itself?
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Makinen: Paving material itself. The less hard material, maybe like light gravel or
something that would blend better with the landscaping in front of the Girl Scout building.
Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible)
Board Member Makinen: Well, I don’t exactly it will be but something other than concrete or asphalt
though. Maybe a more natural type of material.
Chair Bernstein: Mr. Jensen, yes?
Mr. Jensen: I think that we can explore the material that is there. From transportation’s look at it that
because we have made the connection basically from Kellogg, across Middle Field and made that whole
kind of bike connection that then relates to the park and brings people into the park. That when you get
to the point where you are basically between the Girl Scout House and the Junior Museum and Zoo, that
you have the opportunity then to – if you were riding a bike, basically ride in front of the Girl Scout House
and then get over to Hopkins. I think they would prefer to have paving there as far as concrete goes but
I think we can look at other materials. I mean, I think if we were going to make it a little bit more rustic,
that you would probably use a decomposed granite basically, out there along the front to aesthetically
give it the feel of the Girl Scout House. Which we can have more conversations about with Transportation
Staff to see if that is possible to do.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, something that is a little lighter touch than…
Mr. Jensen: Yeah and I think that we also tried to make the walkways in their a – they don’t have to be
specifically linear too. They can have some type of more free form or curvature to them so that it does –
it is a little bit softer for the façade there.
Chair Bernstein: I’ve seen on other developments the use of permeable asphaltic paving. I don’t know if
it’s permeable asphalt or permeable concrete but I’ve seen it on some of the Stanford property and it
looks kind of like pebbles but it’s fixed so that’s one way to get softer. Do you happen to know or Sarah
do you happen to know for the new parking surface, would be that be a permeable material such as
permeable concrete or permeable asphaltic concrete, do you know?
Ms. Vaccaro: Both. Let me go back to the site plan.
Chair Bernstein: A-1.1 we are looking at.
Ms. Vaccaro: Ok, so the parking stalls in the center of the parking lot, those will all have permeable
paving underneath it for stormwater treatment and management. So, the parking will slope to those and
the water will percolate through. The rest of the drive aisles will be impermeable paving.
Chair Bernstein: Right, ok, good, good. Certainly, any surface materials that will need to conform with the
American Disabilities Act too. Gravel may not – that would be something that would be addressed. Ok,
Board Member Bunnenberg?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Light on? Isn’t there a little fountain or the formation of a fountain there in
the front of the Girl Scout House?
Mr. Jensen: There is a – it’s actually a bird bath that is there. It’s dedicated to an actual scout leader – a
Boy Scout leader, not actually a Girl Scout leader. We don’t know exactly how it ended up in front of the
Girl Scout House and not in the Boy Scout area. We have been in conversation with a -- or we’ve reached
out to the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts and have made them aware that we would like to propose
relocating that closer to the actual Boy Scout area in the Lucie Stern Complex and re-dedicating the
fountain or the birdbath and given it, I think a more proper and more respectful location with either –
within their courtyard or somewhere in that location. That has not been determined yet, we are still in
City of Palo Alto Page 25
conversations about that but yes, it is still there. That will be still maintained on site and like I said, our
proposal is to relocate it closer to the Boy Scout area.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Can you (inaudible) about that large pecan tree that’s at the edge of the
asphalt area near the Junior Museum?
Mr. Jensen: So, it’s planned on being maintained in that location. We are going to work our hardest and
protect the tree as much as possible. I will divulge that the review of the pecan because it is very old for
the type of tree that it is. It is a high use area and it’s very large and that there is some concern about
the tree. I think we would like to again, work as hard as we can to maintain the tree through construction
and make it as safe as possible. That is our intention to have it stay there but it’s definitely going to take
definitely a little bit of work to…
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible).
Mr. Jensen: Yeah, to keep it in a state while construction is going on. The architects have done a great
job of moving back the structures and maintaining a good buffer around it. Right now, if you kind of
know, it’s really growing right up against the parking lot and the majority of its actual root zone is
covered by asphalt, which we are going to now expose and create a better kind of planting environment
for it, which definitely should benefit the tree.
Chair Bernstein: Before we move on, I would like to invite any members of the public to speak to us on
this agenda item. If there are members of the public that would like to come speak to us, you can make
yourself known. Seeing none, bringing it back to the Board and public Members. I’d like to ask the Board
if there are any other comments on expanding out a comment about the metal roofing that we saw from
the Middle Field Avenue. If you look on page A-5.0, there are metal standing roof seams showing
throughout the complex and if any Board Members have commented about expanding their concern
about metal on the other portions of the proposed building or is it just the Middle Field Road – Avenue?
Board Member Wimmer: I wanted to speak about that. I think this is a really challenging, I guess the
element of the building and I think this is – could be troubling for the applicant to have to switch gears. I
know that the Lucie Stern Center has the Spanish tile roof but the existing Junior Museum has a
composition shingle roof, I believe? At least that’s what it looks like in the photos. As well as the Girl
Scout House…
Mr. Aikin: Wooden shakes.
Board Member Wimmer: Wooden shakes, ok. So, historically it has a wooden – a wood shake roof. Would
it be more appropriate for the new building to have a wood shake roof? I mean – so, I guess we’re
saying that we don’t like the metal – the standing metal seam roof. Does that mean that they should
have a Spanish tile roof?
Chair Bernstein: I think if the HRB then can give the applicant some direction as clear as possible, that
would be …
Board Member Wimmer: That was why I was kind of thinking this. How – what – as a Board, what would
we prefer to see? So, I am not sure if the Spanish tile roof is a good solution because Lucie Stern is sort
of -- it’s an iconic thing and it should stand alone. Should it have the wood shake roof because that’s
what’s existing?
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: I need your light.
Board Member Wimmer: Has composition shingles.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Vice Chair Bower: No, not composition. Does the Girl Scout House have cedar shingles?
Board Member Wimmer: I am just looking at it in the photos.
Vice Chair Bower: I mean it looks like that from – although I may be – you can’t really see. What do you
think? I think it’s a wood roof. I don’t see the Junior Museum as a title roof building, frankly.
Board Member Wimmer: No.
Vice Chair Bower: Doesn’t strike me as being compatible.
Board Member Makinen: That’s more of the Spanish colonial revival style. This is clearly not that style.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I don’t want – I think Martin is absolutely right. We need to give some direction
since we seem to express unanimously that the metal roof is not something that we’re…
Board Member Wimmer: I was just trying to think of the merits of the metal roof. So, I do see that
there’s this red color or maybe that’s trying to emulate the Spanish tile. So, maybe that’s one of the
applicants…
Vice Chair Bower: But I think that red color is only on the tunnel …
Board Member Wimmer: Right.
Vice Chair Bower: …entrance and the rest of it is a light gray, which…
Board Member Wimmer: I mean what if they did more of the red because red pulls in the idea of the
Spanish tile? Would that make it relate? I don’t know.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Yes, are the wood shakes still permissible material for roofs now or from the fire
codes and all that?
Vice Chair Bower: You have to – my understanding is that you have to get a fire treated wood shake,
which cuts the life span of a shake in half. So instead of being a 30-year roof, it becomes like a 15-year
roof, which is why you don’t see them used on any new homes. You can get a higher fire rating out of a
comp. shingle. I don’t see comp. shingles on this either, which…
Board Member Makinen: Is there like a synthetic wood shake shingle that has the appearance of it.
Vice Chair Bower: No. Cal. Shake use – was a synthetic shake. They went out of business four times
before they finally died and they had a terrible product.
Board Member Makinen: I just think the metal roof makes it look like a warehouse or a garage. It just
doesn’t – it’s not appropriate for this type of structure.
Vice Chair Bower: Did you find a picture of what’s on the Girl Scout House?
Ms. French: (Inaudible)
Ms. Vaccaro: It does appear to be an asphalt shingle roof. It’s of a light brown color so it looks almost
wood like.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, so that’s what I am looking at here. Well …
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Board Member Wimmer: I mean, I think if it ended up being an asphalt shingle, I mean I guess that
relates to the residential – the neighboring residential roofs but this is a commercial building so…
Board Member Makinen: (Inaudible).
Board Member Wimmer: Well, it’s not residential, it is commercial. It’s a public building.
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible) different than commercial.
Board Member Wimmer: I think if we ask them to do a wood shake roof, that doesn’t seem appropriate
either. So, our other option is asphalt shingles, which is – I am kind of – I think we should take a second
look at accepting the metal roof. I think…
Board Member Makinen: No way.
Board Member Wimmer: I think it’s – look there is a metal roof out there. I can – I look through the
window and I look at the metal roof. You know, like that’s not so bad. I don’t know, I am just trying to –
I think a metal roof has the longevity to it. I think somehow maybe we can get that – get it to look a little
bit more compatible.
Vice Chair Bower: Sarah, if I could ask you a question. How did you come by the gray color for the roof?
What was the thinking in terms of your design?
Ms. Vaccaro: That’s a good question. We studied a range of colors. We did look at going darker and we
actually did look at going red with a majority of the metal, which I think is really compelling, especially as
it relates to the clay tile roof of the Lucie Stern. We just didn’t want to overwhelm you with too strong of
a jester so we settled on a more neutral color. We’re definitely willing to do – we could do color studies
of the metal colors if that would be beneficial to look at more of the red material. We could look at a
darker metal color, which is – it could recede a little bit more and not pop as much as a lighter color.
Then the color in the rendering is probably a little lighter than what we are showing on the materials
board. It’s a little bit more natural taupe range.
Vice Chair Bower: Is the cedar siding – that vertical cedar siding going to be stained?
Ms. Vaccaro: Yes, with a clear stain is our currently…
Vice Chair Bower: So, eventually that will silver out, so then we would have a silver wall with a silver roof.
Ms. Vaccaro: We can definitely do color studies if that’s requested.
Vice Chair Bower: I certainly sympathize Margaret, with your concern and I have the same concern. This
project should move forward.
Board Member Wimmer: What if we did a white stucco wall…
Vice Chair Bower: No, I actually like that wood.
Board Member Wimmer: …because that relates to Lucie Stern and then we have the metal…
Vice Chair Bower: That’s a really big design change so I mean, I don’t feel that I want to go there. You
know, maybe you are right, we do a color; we do a different color on the roof. Something that will – you
know a red color metal roof, even though I don’t like the metal, would at least relate to all of Lucie
Stern’s roof material. I don’t know, I am a little uncomfortable at this point because I don’t want to be
the architect; even though that is what we are.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, Beth?
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Board Member Bunnenberg: I have the question of whether – when you are speaking of a red roof, you
are not talking about a fire engine red roof. Are you talking about more of a Terracotta?
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, the color – it’s on the color board, which I think is a Terracotta look. It
would emulate the color of Lucie Stern.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Aw, because I to have questions about the metal roof. I just feel like it’s
completely out of character with the rest of the building. Are there any asphalt shingles that are of a
thicker quality that would give you some of the feeling of a shake roof but the protection for a fire?
Vice Chair Bower: No, not that much. No, asphalt shingles are only, maybe at max, a quarter of an inch.
They lap but…
Chair Bernstein: There are thicker ones though.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah but they don’t get to the three-quarter to one-inch thickness of a wood shake.
Board Member Bunnenberg: But what Martian is (inaudible)…
Chair Bernstein: There’s…
Vice Chair Bower: ½-inch?
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Bower: Anyway…
Board Member Kohler: Up at Tahoe, a lot of people have metal shingles that work out pretty well with all
that snow. They’ve been up there for years so that’s a possible option.
Vice Chair Bower: So, on our screens here you’ve got the sample color board and if you compare the far
top right corner color – metal color with the Lucie Stern tile roof color, that is pretty close. I mean it’s not
the same but this is a brand – the metal is a brand-new piece of metal and it will get dirty and darken.
Ms. Vaccaro: Trees will fall on it or tree litter.
Vice Chair Bower: I don’t know.
Board Member Wimmer: I mean, if you can just look at that Middle Field elevation and just try to use
your imagination and imagine it having just an everyday asphalt shingle roof on it, is that going to
improve it at all? I don’t know. I just think that’s just like so typical and sort of uninteresting and we’re
trying – this is an exciting building with a lot of textures and colors. I mean maybe – I guess at this point;
the metal roof isn’t really bothering me that much. I think it’s more appropriate to the building and
maybe we’re struggling with the fact that the building is placed where it is and we’re trying to make it
compatible with its surroundings. I think it’s – I think in terms of the use of the building, it’s probably a
wise choice.
Board Member Kohler: It may be that the color is part of the problem. It’s so light and doesn’t have the
substance that the surrounding roof lines have. It’s a very bright kind of result.
Chair Bernstein: Just another thought Sarah, is looking at the Middle Field Road elevation, it seems like
the two contemporary features would be the skylight monitor and then the bridge and entry tunnel.
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Chair Bernstein: So, just one thought I have is if somehow those two contemporary features can become
a little more outstanding in a way so that the comments you are hearing about – regarding the metal
roof become a little more subordinate to that façade. When I look at that drawing on A-4.3, the way the
rendering is that it looks like the metal façade is probably the dominant feature of that elevation. So,
somehow the – yeah, that monitor and the entry tunnel, to get that to be more dominate compared to
the – and let the roof become more subordinate somehow from a design point of view. Maybe that then
could address – that way just the metal is just a fact of material and that the – you had an initial – on
your presentation, you had an earlier concept drawing showing that entry tunnel to being a transparent
material. Can you go back to that? It’s one of your very early slides. That will be consistent with my
thought of what I am talking about right – there you go, right there. See the entry tunnel concept, you
had that light material there. I was extremely intrigued by that because that really set a very
contemporary tone. That diagrammatically it’s the entry point to there and it gives you that promenade
as you mentioned there. When I looked at that, I said well there’s – to me, that’s the answer. To let that
contemporary feature be the dominate feature and then let roofing, no matter what it is, be subordinate.
That would address my concern about that and I know that any kind of detailing that comes out of your
office is going to be really superb detailing. To really accentuate that feature, I think to me, that’s the
answer for Middle Field Road. Then whatever color the standing roof becomes well, then it becomes
appropriate so that it becomes not dominate but subordinate. The coloration can become the answer to
any subordination. That would be my suggestion for the – again, that concept really – there’s the answer.
Then I saw a little gable and it kind of lost some of the momentum I think, of your contemporary design.
Is it early enough in the process that your office can look at that particular aspect?
Ms. Vaccaro: It’s definitely something that we can study. What we were – the reason we went away from
this more translucent material is that in order to create successful rainbows, you have to have a darker
enclosure with specific lights but we could – I understand the comments to play up that break in the
building and accentuate it as a contemporary entry portal into the rest of the project.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, it really connects the rest of that site there too from the Middle Field point of view.
I think that’s – to me, that’s a really exciting idea.
Ms. Vaccaro: Yeah, we can definitely explore that part of that evaluation in the promenade to play it up
more. I agree I think we can study the colors of the roof. I think taking it potentially a little darker might
downplay it and allow the rest of the features to pop.
Chair Bernstein: You heard the initial comments of the HRB talking about the roof, roof, roof, which says
dominate, dominate, dominate. Well, get is subordinate and you can do that by the distraction of this
beautiful entry portal I think. I – (inaudible) – that’s a superior idea, I think.
Board Member Kohler: I am not sure I fully understand because the little – that entry feature right now
comes out and provides some protection while you are getting into the building and your – the previous
plan doesn’t – I don’t think – is that just open? I mean there’s no – this – what’s in the showing, is the
glass area that shown here, does that have a recessed or there’s a covered area inside before you open
the door to get in or is that it? Is the door right at the front of the building there?
Chair Bernstein: This is just a concept sketch.
Ms. Vaccaro: This is all exterior. There is no door within that tunnel.
Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok, yeah. Alright.
Ms. Vaccaro: It’s just an exterior passageway through the building.
Board Member Kohler: Well, then that could work.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Vice Chair Bower: So, I have a question about the roof. I guess as I am looking more and more at the
roof elevation – the elevation that shows the roof, the spacing of the standing seams seems to be
random and it turns out that that’s one of the things that bothers me. I assume that is intentional? That
some places are going to have narrow panels and others would have wide ones? I mean – or is that just
a fill?
Ms. Vaccaro: I am actually – I am glad you brought that up. It’s something that we didn’t get into but it’s
something that we need to further study but one idea with the standing metal seam is playing with a
different rhythm of the ribbing. So that we get some patterning and some potential rhythms of the JMZ
can use as an educational tool.
Vice Chair Bower: That just takes me right back to the sort of Quonset hut look. The randomness bothers
me more, I think. Even though it’s a very long space and sort of – I understand what your thinking is.
Board Member Kohler: Most people probably think it’s a mistake.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah and I – there is nothing in your – that comes out of your company – your design
company that’s a mistake.
Ms. Vaccaro: Thank you.
Vice Chair Bower: I don’t know how to move forward on this.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer?
Board Member Wimmer: I just think that conceptually with that tunnel idea that your entry with a gable –
with a red gable or whatever it is. I think that gable should continue through the building because that’s
a tunnel through the building. I don’t know why you don’t repeat that same gable on the courtyard side.
I think…
Ms. Vaccaro: Actually, it does and it’s one of our playful characters. Let’s see…
Board Member Wimmer: I don’t – it seems like that same red. I mean, I know its red in…
Ms. Vaccaro: …if you could go to page – where is it?
Board Member Wimmer: It’s just not reflecting in – I mean, I am thinking…
Ms. Vaccaro: If you go to Elevation 3 on A-4.2, it’s actually a partial section cut through the tunnel. So,
the concept is that the tunnel does, in that red material, does go all the way through that wing to the
building and on the courtyard side, the portal actually gets smaller so it’s of a more childlike scale. The
portal facets itself from a bigger entrance on Middle Field down to a smaller portal that lets out on the
courtyard side. So, it’s kind of a playful childlike experience as you go through this narrowing rainbow
tunnel. That red material does penetrate all the way through and then expose itself on the courtyard side
as well.
Board Member Wimmer: But on the interior or also on the exterior?
Ms. Vaccaro: It would just be an interior experience of that material.
Board Member Wimmer: I see. Then are there any photovoltaic roof shingles? Isn’t that something? Have
you considered any solar collection systems that might be an interesting roof element? That might…
Ms. Vaccaro: Photovoltaics were considered earlier on the project but we’re up against very tight budget
constraints at this point so we’re proposing to meet the code minimum of a PV-ready roof. So, it’s
City of Palo Alto Page 31
structurally designed to except a PV system in the future but we don’t currently have the funding to
include that at this point.
Board Member Wimmer: Maybe you could get that local company that makes those donate some. Just a
thought.
Vice Chair Bower: So, Chair Bernstein, if I could make a suggestion since we’re somewhat at an impasse
and we have to move forward. I would recommend that we create a subcommittee to look at the roof
colors and let three Board Members actually move the rest – just meet with Sarah and her colleagues and
figure this out. I think we basically like the design and the plan and I don’t see a way to get around this
right now.
Chair Bernstein: Then Sarah, would you – do you know if you’re – you and your team would be looking at
that entry tunnel to get that to be more dominant in form or it’s just our brainstorming, that’s all?
Ms. Vaccaro: We can definitely study it. We’re before the ARB next month so we would probably wait to
get their comments and take both Committee’s comments and respond accordingly.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, how’s the Board Member – Board feel about Vice Chair Bower’s comment about – or
do you want to wait until the ARB finishes their review? When are you meeting with ARB?
Ms. Vaccaro: July 20th.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Vice Chair Bower: Is it going to come back to us after they look at it?
Ms. French: Well, that was not the plan but if you’re concept of a subcommittee – I mean ideally, I would
think that we would have a – we have what we have for the ARB but we could also have an optional roof
color that the ARB could look at. If it could be looked at before then, I think that would be best and then
we don’t have to continue because this is…
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I don’t think – I don’t want this to be an endless loop. We need to – I’d really
like to visit this museum after it’s completed. So, if we did the subcommittee and worked with…
Chair Bernstein: Sarah.
Vice Chair Bower: … Sarah and her colleagues before the ARB meeting, which is a month away and that
would be -- so let the subcommittee make the recommendation and move it forward. What I really don’t
want have happen is that after we’ve spent a lot of time on this, the ARB says oh, we don’t like that. We
were doing this and that’s the end of it.
Ms. French: I think having the preference of the HRB, as far as color, to be compatible to help the ARB to
make that finding to be – on compatibility would be the best thing. So, I think that’s my recommendation
to the applicant, is that we work on this alternate color that could be looked at by the subcommittee in
the (inaudible). That would be my recommendation.
Chair Bernstein: I would like to…
Board Member Kohler: Of course, know the history of the fire station situation which totally got blasted
(inaudible).
Chair Bernstein: If we could entertain who would like to be on that subcommittee for the color of the
metal roofing? I am color challenged so I am not going to vote on that. Ok, so we got Board Members
Wimmer and Board Member Bunnenberg. Ok, that is enough too…
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Board Member Makinen: I am color challenged too.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so it will be Board Member Kolher, Bunnenberg and Wimmer would be on the
subcommittee and then to coordinate with Sarah and her team. Staff, how would we communicate – just
communicate – yeah, how should we…
Ms. French: We – I can – as the project coordinator planner, I can pull together – you know work with
the applicant to identify whether that – let’s say that company comes forwards with something and then
give you call.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Other -- Board Member Bunnenberg, yes?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yeah, in spite of our real focus and worry about this part. Overall, this is a
great design. This looks like it’s a magical place for children so congratulations. That, I think, is
something that, at least from my perspective, I hope you’ll take away.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, what I do want to do...
Board Member Kohler: I’ll second that.
Chair Bernstein: Ok and what I would like to do is read what we’ve been asked to do today. Review and
provide comments on the attached Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation, specifically the portions
related to the project’s scope. Then also the HRE addresses the significance of the Girl Scout House, also
known at the Lou Henry Hoover House and the site context. Provide preliminary comments regarding the
site improvements, which we – with respect to the Secretary of Interior Standards. I made reference to
compatibility and differentiation. Then provide input regarding the compliance with the architecture
review findings, particularly finding B2. Last – yeah. So, is that packet page 10 – page 162, let me turn to
that.
MOTION
Vice Chair Bower: Crafting a motion that includes all that is going to take us another hour but I am willing
to step forward. So, I would like to move that this project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for –
complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards and specifically does not cause significant impact to the
resources of the Girl Scout building. What’s the next one?
Chair Bernstein: Look at packet page 162, is it…
Vice Chair Bower: Oh, yeah, 162. I think that it does – also it does preserve, respect and integrate
existing natural features that contribute positively the site and historic character view – historic resource
areas. With the provision in this motion that the subcommittee work with Cody Wasney – Andersen
Wasney Architects to find some solution to the roofing problem that the Board has raised today. That
should the subcommittee recommendation be changed by the ARB, that then comes back to this Board.
So, if the ARB has a different idea of what our subcommittee wants, then this Board needs to look at that
idea because I don’t want another fire station experience with them. Did I cover everything for – from
Staffs?
Ms. French: That’s going – that’s workable.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, looking for a second?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Second.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Chair Bernstein: Ok, that’s been seconded. Any discussion before we vote on the motion? Ok, all in favor
signal aye? That passes unanimously with the six Board Members present.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0 WITH COREY ABSENT
Chair Bernstein: There is also the question that says something about doing a qualification – getting the
Lou Hoover House listed, I believe. Was that a question?
Ms. French: Yes, it’s an outstanding to do item that would be related to this. It’s not required for this
project of course but down the road, it would be great in a partnership situation. We haven’t been in
conversation with the Girl Scouts of Northern California yet about the HRE and the possibility of
nomination. So, that would be something that has to take place first probably before we come forward
with that.
Chair Bernstein: Does staff advise any action of the HRB to move that forward or would it take an HRB
comment to move that forward?
Ms. French: I think just a general support statement would be helpful.
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Just had a question from the Vice Chair. Should that be an agendized discussion,
rather than just a recommendation right now?
Ms. French: I think it doesn’t have to a formal anything, just a general statement of support, straw poll if
you want. We would eventually agendize after working with the Girl Scout Organization to put any kind of
nomination on your Board as a specific item.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I can make this statement of general support then for – to move forward with the –
to get the Girl Scout building listed, right?
Board Member Makinen: Yes.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, good.
Board Member Makinen: Are you going to make a motion?
MOTION
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, so I move that we advise the process to move forward.
Vice Chair Bower: Second it.
Board Member Makinen: Second.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, all in favor? Ok, thanks.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0 WITH COREY ABSENT
Chair Bernstein: Anything else of our list of recommended actions on this project? Good. Sarah, thank
you so much for the presentation. Again, you’ve heard good support for the project overall and I think it’s
going to be a really exciting thing to see that materialize so thank you so much.
Ms. Vaccaro: Thank you very much.
Approval of Minutes
City of Palo Alto Page 34
4. Approval of May 25, 2017, and June 8, 2017, Minutes
Chair Bernstein: Ok, next on our agenda is approval of the minutes from two different dates; May 25th,
2017 and June 8th. Any motions to approve or amend?
Vice Chair Bower: Chair Bernstein, I have some comments. I typically don’t make changes in the minutes
because these are verbatim. It looks like some robots transcribing this but I found a couple of places on
the minutes where I think a correction would make it clearer for somebody reading this later. (crosstalk).
Where did it go? Oh, there it is. So, on the minutes of May 25th, on page 7 under Board Member Corey, ‘I
have two questions. One is it wasn’t clear to me but this new garage’ and it says early for the Public
Safety Building. I think we said entirely for the Public Safety Building and that makes a difference in his
question. On page 10, the very bottom line, Board Member Makinen says ‘correct me if I am wrong but it
does look like there are solar arrays adjacent’ and I think Michael was referring to is that the solar arrays
are on top of the garage. I don’t think adjacent as what he was after. Page 13, in the middle paragraph
where I am speaking, there is a line ‘if you can find California Avenue area, is going to see the same kind
of pressure of’ and it says explanation and I think I said expansion. By the way, I started reading these
pretty casually and the longer – the more I got into them, the more carefully I was reading. On page 22,
in that paragraph where I am speaking, there is a line that says ‘I wonder whether every building that is
significant has to be excellent’ and there is the word ‘has significant has to be excellent’. So, either I was
saying has significance has to be excellent or every building that is significant. I am not sure how to
correct that. I think it should have been has significance. I don’t know – again, I am not meaning to be
picky about this but having recently gone through a lot of minutes from 6-years ago. It makes a
difference when you are trying to understand. By the way, on the last page 36, where we are now in the
motion that I made to approve the addition to the Eichler project. I think I said that I move to approve
the project as submitted with the expanded overhangs as we discussed and with the (inaudible); I think
was lintel. There was – did we add a lintel over one door?
Chair Bernstein: Yeah.
Vice Chair Bower: Ok because that’s also significant, so that’s it; my apologies to the transcriber.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, with those corrections, any other corrections before we vote to approve as
amended? Ok…
MOTION
Vice Chair Bower: I’ll move to approve these minutes.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Second.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, all in favor say aye? Thank you, that unanimously.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0 WITH COREY ABSENT
Chair Bernstein: Next, the minutes of June 8th. Any motion to amend or approve?
MOTION
Vice Chair Bower: I have no amendments. I’ll move to approve.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, is there a second?
Board Member Kohler: I’ll second.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
Chair Bernstein: I am looking to see – oh, that was about the Mills Act. Alright, all in favor signal aye?
That passes unanimously, thank you.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0 WITH COREY ABSENT
Chair Bernstein: That concludes out agenda today. Any other – are there any comments from Board
Members or Staff?
Vice Chair Bower: Oh, I have a comment. The Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Board met last night and has
decided to start publicizing HRB meetings, at least on their Facebook page. So that we can get cross
traffic and let people in the preservation community know that the HRB has meetings and that there
might be something of interest there. I think that helps both the HRB and PAST in their mission to do
this. So, I just wanted to make that – Board Members aware of that.
Subcommittee Items
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Any other subcommittee items or questions, comments, announcements? Seeing
none, we are adjourned. Thank you.
Adjournment