HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-24 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein, Vice Chair Bower; Board Member Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg,
Roger Kohler, Brandon Corey, Michael Makinen
Absent:
Chair Bernstein: Good morning everybody and welcome to the August 24th meeting of the Historic
Resources Board. Would staff please call roll?
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: Thank you and first on our agenda is oral communications. The public may speak to any
item not on the agenda and I see – any members of the public who would like to speak on anything not
on the agenda? I see none.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Next is agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Are there any changes, additions or
deletions?
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Well, one thought is that we do have Phil Bobel here in the
audience at the moment and perhaps we can start with that one; that would-be number two. To
rearrange that and have that go as number one; Phil has a meeting at nine.
Chair Bernstein: That sounds good.
City Official Reports
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is there any city official reports?
Ms. French: No, reports to report.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so if the Board is in favor – oh, welcome, Brandon and welcome Michael.
Ms. French: Should be noted that Board Member Makinen and Corey arrived and they are present; full
Board participation today.
Chair Bernstein: Welcome, thank you.
[The Board moved to item number two]
Study Session
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
MINUTES: August 24, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1. 375 Hamilton [17PLN-00224]: HRB Study Session for Preliminary Architectural
Review Application for a New Five-Story Parking Garage with One Basement Parking
Level with 1,709 sf of Ground Floor Retail, Bike Storage and 330 Parking Spaces Located
on a 29,164 s.f. Surface Parking Lot. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). Environmental
Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California
Environmental Quality Act and a Scoping Session was Held. For More Information
Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Bernstein: Next, agenda item number one; 375 Hamilton Avenue. HRB study session for Preliminary
Architectural Review Application for a new five-story parking garage with one basement parking level,
ground floor retail, bike storage and parking spaces. The zone district is PF (Public Facilities).
Environmental assessment is an initial study has been done and a scoping session was held. Comments
from staff, please.
Ms. French: Yes, good morning. I have brief presentation and then so does the architect who’s been
contracted by the City to go through this study session regard the three potential options, which I’ve put
up on the screen; this is Amy French by the way. We’re here for a study session and there have already
been some meetings on this. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a scoping meeting to
look at what topics would be studied in the CEQA document that’s underway. The Council met in April to
discuss the method by which the building can encroach or otherwise modify the zoning code standards
for the public facilities zone. So, this application will involve a legislative request to modify four public
parking facilities in the zone district standards in the public facilities zone. We are having this meeting
today with a study session and then on the 7th we will go to the ARB to have a study session with them;
again, early review of three concepts. We will proceed with the environmental review that’s expected to
be gone through this fall, as well as going to the Planning and Transportation Commission with this
zoning standards text amendment. Of course, this application – once it’s a formal application will be
subject to City Council review and approval. We’re looking at the context of this proposed building, it’s a
vacant parking lot today. It’s next to a very tall building at the AT&T building and three nearby resources;
that’s 526 Waverley, the sport shop which is a Birge Clark building, the US Post Office across the street of
course and the 510 Waverley which is also a resource. We’re looking at some feedback on three design
options and just to clarify the HRB’s role in this process is that again, early input in this study session
format. We will be sending the draft EIR once prepared to the HRB and the cultural resources section will
be of interest and seek comments on that. Then we’re – your role is also to assist staff in getting to
review the compatibility of the building; that’s architectural review finding 2-B. Just a couple pictures, I’ll
leave the rest of the presentation to the applicant but these are the three nearby historic resources; the
510 Waverley, 526 Waverley in an earlier time, and 380 Hamilton the Post Office. Here’s another – the
thing about the Post Office that’s significant is because it was an exemplarily design keeping with the
Mediterranean influence architecture in Palo Alto and the Stanford campus. So, it was a rare attempt to
design a local Post Office building in keeping with the popular regional style. That’s what I found on the
National Register which you have in your packet from there. Again, AR – preliminary views, we’re
interested in these topics and also to let you know that there is an Urban Design Guide for downtown
that focuses on the Hamilton District. We’re looking at an active district with civic institutional buildings
around this point. The tall building at the corner is certainly part of what is in the Downtown Urban
Design Guide looking at pedestrian links and pedestrian friendly uses. The issue with the setback here is
it’s a special setback along Hamilton Avenue and so there is an opportunity which the applicant can
present today but to continuous this wider sidewalk, the bulb out, and stretch it across the vehicular
entrance here to the proposed garage. The garage itself, the front wall is proposed to be 2-feet from the
property line, which is here. With that, we’ll close it out and let the applicant bring their application.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, welcome.
Mr. Ken Hayes: Thank you and good morning Chair Bernstein and Members of the Board. My name is
Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects, we’ve been to working together with staff and Watry Design and
the design team on program verification and how does it fit on the site. Also on the three concepts that
City of Palo Alto Page 3
we want to review with you this morning. I’ll be making the presentation but the rest of the team is here
if there are any questions for the parking garage experts. The project site is about 29,000-square foot
parcel. I think we’re all familiar with it, we walk across it all the time on the corner of Waverley and
Hamilton. Here we have turned it slightly but you can still see the sites filled in there in the pink. It’s
across the street from, as Amy explained, the Post Office, Category One historic resources, as well as the
National Registry. This is a historic building here which is the [phonetics] [Decarokes] building and I
believe it’s a Category Three. We have the – next to that is the Victorian which is a Category Two and
then next to that we have the Palo Alto Bike Sports Shop which is a Category Three. This property is
zoned PF, the property next to it here is zoned PF, the Post Office is zoned PF and the rest of these
properties in here are primarily CDCPGF for ground floor use restrictions; retail like uses to enhance the
pedestrian experience at the sidewalk. There is a one-way alley called Lane 21 right here that you can
enter from Waverley and it’s one-way in this direction and then it feeds out this way to Bryant. That alley
provides access to the backs of the existing buildings and also provides egress from the backs of the
buildings that face onto Waverley. So, the backs of these buildings here are – they have an alley behind
them, in addition to the parking lot that’s there so they’ve got facilities back there; trash services, egress,
as well as windows for their building. These are some existing picture, the AT&T building here defined
and kind of looks like a mid-century building that looks like it had an addition at one time. This is all brick,
has a real strong brick base with planters and then the block of the building sort of sits above that base.
We found that it’s about 75-feet tall so it’s 50% taller than the building that we are proposing next store
for the parking lot – parking garage, excuse me. This building is interesting in that it’s got a very unique
way of how it defined the windows in that façade and they have kind of punched through the wall
membrane in a 3-dimensional way, which we found interesting; it’s not something that you see all the
time. This is the All Saints church right across the street, a poured in place concrete building. I guess
what’s most remarkable about it is that it has lots of open around it and it is formed concrete. The – I
keep losing my cursor. The 400 Hamilton building which is on the – kiddy corner corner and is a brick
masonry clad building that’s kind of in this post and beam sort of style and it has an entry court on the
corner here that then leads into the main entry to the building. Then we’re all familiar with the Post
Office across the street with its main entrance here and a secondary entrance located here. What’s
notable about it other than its historic is it has a wonderful arcade in front and it has a nice syncopation
that defined by those arcade elements. Just a blow up of that, you see the main entrance, there’s rod
iron detailing around the windows just to the right of the entrance; the three is blocking it. It’s to back
that big oak tree is not here still that was in that historic photograph. Then there are windows here and
then on this gable form it has as it wraps the corner that is covered with rod iron detailing. Then this is
the Waverley façade, Thai Pan Restaurant here, which is a two-story building that is kind of mid-century
Merk and Teal like (inaudible) in chrome and Prolific Oven for a nondescript retail building and then we
have our historic Category Three building here and our historic Category Two building located there. The
program from Council essentially is a four-story, five-level because we’re going to park on the roof,
parking structure with one underground basement level. The goal is 330 cars plus one car to make up for
the vehicle that currently parks behind the assessment roll indicates that this 84 – lot 84 is assigned one
parking spot and it’s behind the building and they access it from the alley. So, we’re going to have 331
cars to make up for the one car that would be removed and then about 1,700-square feet of retail
located on Waverley. I didn’t note it here but also a bicycle storage facility which would be located here
and access off the sidewalk this way. Then trying to get a common trash facility at the back of the
parking structure so that this whole area can really be cleaned up. So, it’s not separate individual trash
recycling facilities for all those buildings but be concentrated it in one building. Our site constraints in
terms of setbacks, we have a zero setback on this side here defined by that red line. That’s a fire wall,
solid all the way up to the parapet of the roof. On the opposite side, we have a 16-foot setback that’s
self-imposed but it has practical reasons of being able to allow vehicles to come into the alley to service
the trash enclosure. It also allows us to have unprotected openings on this side of the parking facility,
which is important for ventilation. We’re not mechanically ventilating the upper stories so it needs to be
open. The same thing applies to this property edge along Thai Pan and in fact, Thai Pan has windows on
that side of the building so this will allow light and air to still penetrate into those windows but it’s a 10-
foot setback so giving us unprotected openings on our side. So, these are constraints that are real
important for how the building is going to function and then there’s that 7-foot setback – special setback
along Hamilton that Amy articulated that will have to be removed. We have 65 ¼-feet required to get the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
parking to work in this dimension. Did you see that little – that dimension to come one right there, and
we in fact have 66-feet so we have 3-inches or I’m sorry, 9-inches more than we need so we’re just
squeaking by. On this dimension, here because it has a ramp incorporated in it right here, we need 87
½-feet and we have 90-feet basically across that dimension. So, all in all, it gives us a little bit of an edge
along Hamilton that we can treat architecturally but if those dimensions change, the parking will be
impacted. We won’t be able to provide the goal that Council laid out at 330 plus 1. An open parking
garage has an additional constraint that each tier of parking, 40% of the wall perimeter area needs to be
20% open and it needs to be on opposing sides so you can get breezes that come in through the garage.
So, that starts to speak to how we can clad the building. Especially since the left-hand wall is a solid wall
all the way up so we get no ventilation benefit on that wall. Here’s this 2-foot zone that or 2 ½-feet
perhaps, along Hamilton that we can have some architectural treatment and we’re going to have the
one-way alley there. We’ll have the main entrance located here, which is approximately the same place
that one entrance is to that parking lot currently. Then there will be a way in and out at the back of the
building so opposing CDS so that you could drive through and out the back. Pedestrian access, we’re
going to create this pedestrian alley; might as well. We have to be offset from those buildings anyway so
that will become a pedestrian alley that could link the backs of these buildings together. It leads – I’m
sorry, then on the corner do the same thing, have a pedestrian space there. It’s not big but has a place
where vertical circulation can come down and it’s also reminiscent of what’s happening at 400 Hamilton;
some place just sort of as you walk in to greet you as a fore court. These are vertical circulation elements
so elevators and stairs, so this leads to an elevator and stair here, that’s open. At the corner here, this
elevator and stair is sort of celebrated at the corner. All of these elements that I have just described are
consistent throughout the three concepts. So, the in and out access to the garage, the pedestrian access,
the vertical circulation. It’s our intent that we want to make this pedestrian friendly so all the way along
the base of the building here, we’re thinking that we would have seating and that sort of thing and it
would be a great place to look at the historic Post Office across the street. We also want to provide retail
continuity so all these retail spaces and then that would be the retail space on Waverley. So, it provides
continuity on Waverley that brings you to the pedestrian plaza space but then along Hamilton, we would
have opportunities for plantings, for bench seating, that sort of thing. Alright, then I have some images
that just reference and they are in our packet – excuse me, I just pulled a couple out. What’s important
here though is I think the richness of the detailing; it’s a parking garage but it can still be a wonderful
piece of architecture. So, I liked some of the aspects of these garages here, the rich detailing, the deep
recesses, the screening elements of mesh that kind of creates this ethereal sort of feel, provides the
ventilation, and provides an implied skin to the building. The idea of a stair coming down to a pedestrian
space for instance, here. This is parking garage in Claremont, California and then this is over at Stanford.
This comes down and there’s a public space if you will, out in front of the building located here. What’s
also important about parking garage design is that you have clear way finding, alright? Every one of you
I’m sure, could point out where the stair elevator towers are on these buildings and so it’s important that
those elements be clearly expressed and we think that from a safety standpoint, having them open
makes a lot of sense as well. So, you’re not going into an enclosed stair tower, you’re basically on
exterior balconies as you traverse down from the upper floors. We’re thinking similar to this in terms of
that corner where that stair is. You can imagine coming down and looking across at the Post Office from
a perspective that you’ve never seen before could be fun. It’s also great for security as well, you can see
people and what’s happening; no one is going to be hiding there. Some other imagery, this is the hotel –
I always forget the name – thank you, The Epiphany using some kind of a screen to create an edge to
the building or skin to the building. These are ideas with some kind of a louver element to create some
recess but allow for the ventilation. This is a blow up of what a perforated metal screen might look like.
This is like a metal fabric not unlike the garage over on High Street where there’s metal fabric used and
then this is also a metal fabric or a perforated metal with – what we found interesting here is that it
reminds me of the AT&T building next door so keep that in mind as you look at these concepts today.
What we didn’t show here but it’s in your packet is perhaps some kind of a perforated brick screen that
wouldn’t be used on upper levels of course but perhaps at the lower level. How do we conceal the
parking and create an interesting space at that ground floor is something that we’re very concerned
about? It’s my opinion that you really take in the first two floors of a building when you’re on the street in
front of it. When you are across the street, that’s when you really see the height of a taller building so it’s
important that those first two levels I think be highly considered. We’re calling concept one and the idea
City of Palo Alto Page 5
is that the block of the garage itself is defined by some kind of a mesh or a perforated metal. We’re going
to gap that from the AT&T building here, this is the Hamilton façade, with about a 20-foot wide gap to at
least provide some relief and some syncopation opportunities for landscaping. You could have a tree in
there or some kind of a covering that would climb up the wall but this option then takes – where’d my
cursor go? There is it, this option takes the syncopation that you might see across the street or that you
do see across the street in the Post Office. So that starts to conform the ground floor of this building and
we create this syncopation where we could have seating in between. We could have plant material
perhaps located here that could climb up the wall but this syncopation then would be reminiscent of
across the street and it ends at the corner. On the Waverley side, that’s signified – this element is two-
stories and it lines up pretty much with the top of the Post Office so we have the drawings of the Post
Office. We’d like to line that up and so on Hamilton, this edge would pretty much line up with the ridge of
the Post Office. As you go down Waverley, we have the retail ground floor located here and this is Thai
Pan. So, we would match the parapet of the Thai Pan building and be a little reminiscent of its front
façade but probably match the material and the rhythm of what we’re doing here so it’s reads as a
comprehensive singular building so we’ve got some 3-D views of this. This is looking at the Post Office on
the left, the pedestrian fore court would be located here, ground floor retail and we could define that by
canopies but the stair element would be located here and the elevators right behind it. You can see as
how you look down the street, what you really notice is this line here and then the lines of the Post Office
so that’s that relationship that we’re trying to create. This is the AT&T building now on your left and
you’re looking in the other direction on Hamilton. The main entrance to the garage is located here and
here’s the gap that I was talking about. Basically, where we could have come landscape planters, trees,
perhaps vines but the idea is that we gap the building from the AT&T building to create some rhythm.
The main entrance there and then you see the arcade as it runs down the street. The wall above is then
defined by this – some kind of a mesh or perforated metal and then bench opportunities – I’m sorry,
bench opportunities here and other landscaping. We’re running the canopies that you see on Bryant
Street – I’m sorry, on Waverley Street around the corner. Here’s Waverley and we’re taking that canopy
line across the front of our retail and it’s basically, probably 10-feet of glass essentially across the front of
the retail space. Then that wraps and it goes down the alley and it would be great to have windows as
well that looked into the retail space as you start down that alley. Then at the end of the alley, the
terminus would be the stair tower, the elevator etc. so that’s consistent in all of these concepts. The
upper story skin, this perforated metal or fabric, basically stops in line with where this transition ends;
right about there, just before the ramp as it starts to ramp down. Just another a view, the same. The
next concept picks up on the – that concept really sort of develops some features of the Post Office. This
one references maybe a little more strongly the building immediately adjacent to it; the AT&T building.
The AT&T building, as a I explained earlier, was the block that sits on that brick base and so the idea
here is that the garage is defined by, again some kind of a perforated skin in these panels that are
vertically oriented to again, provide some rhythm and it may relate to the Post Office as well in terms of
rhythm in a subtle way. On the ground floor, we’re thinking that we could celebrate the metal work and
rod iron that you see on the Post Office across the street, here is a way – on the ground floor here, as a
way of screening the parking at the ground floor. We could have benches in front, we would have
landscaping in front but we would to have some artisan perhaps involved in the creation of that metal
work on the ground floor. We think that could be an interesting linkage to the neighborhood. So, let me
go to the – I’m sorry. Then this is the Waverley elevation and instead of relating to the Thai Pan building
as a two-story element, we said ok, the retail is really just one-story, let’s define it as one-story. So, it
wraps across here and as it comes into the plaza it transforms a little bit and I’ll show you what I mean
by that. Same view looking at the Post Office on the left of Hamilton, stair tower handled a little bit
differently but it’s still at that corner with the elevator now facing – the doors facing us. The stair comes
down and then it cascades into this public space at the bottom so again, you’re not in an enclosure. You
come down and you can’t wait to get to the bottom and then the – this post or this beam rather that
comes across from the façade of the retail, would extent and it would sort of be a free-floating beam and
becomes a post and beam expression out on that corner. That’s reminiscent of what’s happening on the
400 Hamilton building, although it’s a brick post and beam building. We don’t know what this material is
yet, we’re really just talking about massing right now. It may be brick, I don’t know but that’s the idea on
the corner. Same view from the AT&T side, it’s all the same, there would be trees and vegetation in here.
We have the entrance in the same place but then we – in that fabric above, we start to be expressive of
City of Palo Alto Page 6
these poke through extruded windows and we’re showing them in a random way. It might make sense
that they say something about the garage function on the inside so that you get certain views out of
them as you are driving down the aisle but it would provide interesting shade and shadow across the
face of the metal mesh or the perforation or whatever that happens to be. Then this celebration of this
artisan metal work would occur here with some kind of opportunity for bench seating and plantings and
that sort of thing in front. So, you’re sitting there, again looking at the Post Office. The view from
Waverley and you can see we’re not lining up with the Thai Pan top but we are trying to take this line
through of the retail canopies and we would have canopies along here as well that would project out
onto the sidewalk to provide pedestrian amenities; shade and that kind of thing, protection. Again, this
skin would wrap the corner, as well as this post and beam vocabulary here would wrap the corner and
draw you down that pedestrian alley and it terminates just like the other one. This gives you a different
perspective of how this structure kind of separates itself from the building and defines that plaza space;
kind of court yard space. We could incorporate opportunities for landscaping, seating and that sort of
thing. It’s not a big space so you can’t have benches and all that, it’s more like sitting on a wall probably.
Then the last concept, again defining the block of the garage but instead of a mesh or metal skin, the
way that we’re getting the transparency for ventilation and so on in this option and also some depth, is to
use some kind of fins like the Stanford garage, that are perpendicular or at various angles to the wall of
the garage. We’re thinking that those fin elements could actually pick up the color of the terracotta tile
roofs that you see at the Palo Alto Sport building, that you see at the Post Office across the street. Then
additionally, this kind of becomes a bit of a hybrid, we would again go back to this two-story piece that
faces the Post Office that has this rhythm of columns. Then in each of those bays there would be a bench
and we’re thinking you could have some kind of a perforated brick screening or we could look at the idea
of this metal rod iron art work that would provide some screening into the parking because you don’t
want to look right into the parking but we’ve got to get the ventilation requirement figured out and so
that’s how this option works. The stairs turn a different direction, the elevator doors now face inward.
The last one I showed you those elevator doors faced the intersection and then the stair was turned 90-
degrees. The Post Office is on the left and then you can see this idea of how these terra cotta panels –
not – terra cotta colored panels would relate to the Post Office etc. The view from the other direction and
then as it turns and then we’ve gone back to the two-story element here to just reinforce that sidewalk
edge. Then the glass expression for the retail actually might be taller here and become a guard rail at the
second tier of parking so to give that retail more prominence, as opposed to it feeling squished. It’s not
big retail, it’s 1,700-square feet, it’s about 28-feet deep I think and then that would wrap the corner.
Then a view of how that could look so this is much more open let’s say, on the corner in this option.
These could also be doors in all of the concepts; in and out this way, as well as this way. So, doors along
Waverley, wrap the corner, this could open up to this small outdoor space. I think that’s it, yeah, so we
look forward to your feedback. We’re excited about where we’re headed and want more information.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Board Member
Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) This is a question probably for the architect, I was concern that
your drawings didn’t quite go far enough in looking at that alley between 510 Waverley and the next
building because that little Queen Ann architecture 510 has an amazing little store in it called 510. It’s a
great adaptive reuse of a historic structure to provide ground floor and I think it’s also Dalton Reality that
is in there but to have a little store that has succeeded in this very unusual location. My concern is that
building has a bay that sticks out into the alleyway and I’m wondering what kind of protection both
during construction and everyday usage, how are you going to protect that little building? There was a
huge Pepsi truck in there this morning and there was a foot between that bay and the Pepsi truck, not
every driver might be that careful.
Mr. Hayes: During construction, there’s going to need to be – before we put a shovel in the ground,
there’s going to have to be a logistic plan and a property protection and tree protection plan put
together. I would imagine that we’re probably not going to be using that alley but I don’t know yet, for
construction purposes but from – after construction and ongoing – I mean the main access to the garage
City of Palo Alto Page 7
won’t be that way and I don’t know without having car counts and that sort of thing, how many vehicles
they would plan on or think that would enter that way off of Waverley. I mean…
Board Member Bunnenberg: (inaudible)
Mr. Hayes: I mean it is a one-way alley and so if those buildings need to be served, the trucks are going
to need to get in there. Right now, I guess they would come in and then turn behind the buildings – can
you – if you look at the – I believe now they would come in there and then you can drive down here and
into the parking lot and turn and get out either this way or this way. I don’t know how we would regulate
the trucks if they need to get in. We’re going to have to have garbage trucks that in there too as well to
service the trash facilities. They do it now, they have been doing it for a long time. Is it damaged? Did
you see it damages today? Was the Queen Ann building obviously damaged? Is the building damaged
now?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Board Member Kohler is asking whether the building is damaged now. It’s
questionable, on the very edge of that bay that there might have been some damage at one point but it’s
not clear and there are some metal posts that hopefully keep…
Mr. Hayes: There are bollards there now?
Board Member Bunnenberg: …that there now.
Mr. Hayes: That is there now.
Board Member Kohler: I can contribute to that as the building on your map that says historic Category
Three that runs up the University Avenue, which is next to this historic building that Board Member
Bunnenberg is talking about…
Mr. Hayes: Right, this is the [phonetics] [Décorokes] building.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah and it was – we’re in the – I was with Mike Moyer and Ken [Agway]
Architects and I was on the second floor for – I worked there for a couple years and that – you could see
the trucks go in and out of there all the time so nothing has changed and I was there 20-some years ago.
It’s just part of life, that’s the way it is.
Mr. Hayes: We haven’t considered anything additional at that point right now. I’m not sure what else we
could do. I don’t think we can close the alley down, I mean they need to get back there. We would not
be increasing traffic in that direction because of its – this is one-way that way so any vehicles that left,
would go out this way. I don’t know how many would come in this way.
Chair Bernstein: Any other questions?
Mr. Hayes: Very few is what we’re hearing.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: I – I’m sorry, two clarifications, one is so the 7-foot setback on the sidewalk, can
you explain that again? I wasn’t quite…
Mr. Hayes: This – Hamilton Avenue has a special setback that runs on both sides of the street for several
– many, many blocks, all the way down to Alma Street. We’ve done other projects along Hamilton where
we had to – we got a variance to eliminate this special setback because many buildings don’t respond to
it currently. It was not ever really know why it was put in there, it was years and years ago that they did
it. So, we just pointed out to staff that there is a special setback there and I believe they are trying to
resolve that with – in terms of the texted amendment or something to the PF zone, correct?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. French: Yes, I can answer that question. The – there are two public parking structures coming
forward. The other one you have already seen – excuse me – on Sherman Avenue and the Sherman
Avenue project has included in their application a request to modify the zone district standards for the
public facilities zone for parking garages – public parking garages. That will be coming forward with that
application and will apply to this one as well. Public parking garages I should say, in downtown and the
California Avenue district; only those places.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer – oh, I’m sorry.
Board Member Corey: So, you won’t –so there won’t be a 7-foot setback, is that what we’re saying?
That’s…
Ms. French: The Council – sorry, the Council will have the decision to approve a zoning ordinance
amendment removing the requirement for a 7-foot setback for public parking garages in the special
setback in downtown and Cal. Ave.
Board Member Corey: Then it would be a regular – the standard setback so you could put the sidewalk.
Ms. French: Then – yes, then that allows this project and the other one on Sherman to meet the setbacks
for public parking garages in a PF zone.
Board Member Corey: So, what would the setback – I just – because we talked about benches or seating,
is it going to be – I’m just trying to figure out how…
Mr. Hayes: So, Board Member Corey if I may? If the setback – if we were restricted by the setback, we
would either lose this whole row of parking or this whole row of parking.
Board Member Corey: Got it.
Mr. Hayes: That’s a decision that the city needs to make.
Board Member Corey: And if you are, what would – how far back would it sit?
Mr. Hayes: The 7-foot setback would essentially align with the AT&T building so the AT&T buildings, it
appears is the 7-foot special setback. This building is if built to the property will be proud of the AT&T
building but if we push it back, we’re going to lose – there’s a tradeoff and we envision this colonnade
sort of look there. So, the face of the columns would be on the property line let’s say and then it would
have a 2 ½-foot recesses where the benches would occur in between.
Board Member Corey: That’s what I missed, thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, Board Member – ok, go ahead and then Board Member Wimmer.
Vice Chair Bower: I’d like to point out that one of the things that Mr. Hayes has denoted on the plan
that’s up on the screen is the sidewalk would apparently bulb out there, which matches the sidewalk at
the intersection across the street from the AT&T building. That’s a very wide section of Hamilton and
pulling the sidewalk out into the street actually mitigates I think, this diminished setback. There’s no
reason why you can’t do that because it provides a bus stop, which stops there now, a space and then it
kind of makes a nice transition out.
Mr. Hayes: We should question whether we want a bus stop there.
Vice Chair Bower: Well it’s the companion to the one going the other – that goes – the buses turn down
Waverley – go down Hamilton, turn down Waverley and then come back.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Mr. Hayes: I just wanted to point it out now because I don’t want it to haunt the project later. If the
building is – if the building comes out to the property line, I don’t know –we got the survey after we had
done a lot of work and we didn’t really know exactly where the property line was relevant to the curb
line. Now we know, it’s decided here and so this sidewalk has been pushed out; you’re right Board
Member Bower and we’ve pushed it back in here too about where it is today. I think this dimension here
– do we know that dimension? Is it like – is it 7-feet? So, the sidewalk right here is about 7-feet, now it’s
also the place where we have the plaza so that helps you feel like there’s more room there but it feels a
little tight, in my opinion.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer, your light was on earlier.
Board Member Wimmer: I was going to ask about the pedestrian walkway between the Chinese
restaurant and the proposed structure as it L’s back toward (inaudible). Is that an easement? I mean is
that -- or that’s just a voluntary dimension?
Mr. Hayes: It’s voluntary but it’s code mandated from a building code stand point in order for the garage
to have unprotected openings on this edge; we need to be 10-feet from the property line.
Board Member Wimmer: Is there a reason why it’s wider in the back? Is that…
Mr. Hayes: For functional reasons; there’s going to be vehicles back there, we’re going to have trash
pickup located here and also windows on the backs of these buildings that are there. So, by having a
wider space, we can use the center line perhaps, of that alley as an implied property line so that we’re
not impacting the windows on the back of primarily Thai Pan.
Board Member Wimmer: What is your proposed overall height of your structure because…
Mr. Hayes: We’re 49-foot 10 inches to the top of the railing. The stair and elevator enclosure go – I think
the elevator goes about 15 or 17-feet above the roof deck and the roof deck is probably at 45 or
something.
Board Member Wimmer: So, the absolute (crosstalk)...
Mr. Hayes: (Inaudible)
Board Member Wimmer: …overall height?
Mr. Hayes: Sixty – to the top of the elevator 60 – 45 so 62.
Board Member Wimmer: Sixty-two feet?
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, at the elevator only.
Board Member Wimmer: Oh, and what is the allowed maximum height in this district for a commercial
building?
Ms. French: Fifty feet to the parapet and then elevators can protrude 15-feet above that so I guess 65
would be the limit for the elevator, whereas 50-feet is the limit for the top of the building.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, any other questions for staff or the applicant? Board Member Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I’d like to start by saying that this is an excellent presentation. This is a really tough
site to put all of these things in. I wanted to – what’s the current car count again on this? I mean you
have a mandated car…
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Mr. Hayes: The existing parking lot?
Vice Chair Bower: No, no, I mean your building.
Mr. Hayes: Three hundred and thirty-one.
Vice Chair Bower: Three thirty-one and the Council mandated 3 or…
Mr. Hayes: Three thirty plus one.
Vice Chair Bower: Plus, one, ok.
Mr. Hayes: Ones for the other – yeah, right.
Vice Chair Bower: So, you had said in your presentation and it’s up on the screen again, you needed 87
½-feet to make this work and you have 90, that’s a 3 ½-foot…
Mr. Hayes: Two and a half foot.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, there – this is very tight for a garage, I understand but I’m thinking – when I
saw this for the first time I thought well, maybe this garage will be occupied by autonomous. Thus,
taking out the human need for a lot of space and I can foresee it in a moment in time when that could be
the case. Then the need for a little more space and there isn’t a little more here and it might not be so
important. Where I am going with this is in your proposals one and two, you’ve got that horizontal line at
the – I like that two-story line. It’s different – proposal one has a two-story line but it stops before you
get to the corner and yet it picks it up and goes across the Hamilton side. I think that’s a very astute and
sensitive architectural feature toward – as it related to the Post Office building, which really is
overwhelmed by the AT&T building, which by the way was – didn’t have those windows in it originally; it
was just box.
Mr. Hayes: Oh, is that right?
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, it was a switching station and…
Mr. Hayes: I didn’t know that.
Vice Chair Bower: …whenever they remodeled it in the 70s to make it look better if you can imagine that
descriptive term, they added those. They -- it was a little different, they had horizontal high windows but
anyway, I think that line, that horizontal line, if it continued all around from the Thai Pan Restaurant
through – to the corner and back down is perfect sizing technique for the existing buildings. It’s almost
impossible to have a five-story building really relate very well to two-story buildings. So, I think that’s a
really significant detail.
Chair Bernstein: So, we’re going to –before we have comments, I think we want to open it up to the
public and then – so we make sure we hear their input.
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Any other questions for staff or -- Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: I had one question regarding the width of the parking stalls. Is it – are you
using a standard width or are you using a reduced width?
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Mr. Hayes: I think we’re 8 ½-feet, which is Palo Alto’s standard. There’s three, 8 ½, 9, 9 ½ but I believe
we’re 8 1/2.
Board Member Makinen: Eight and a half?
Mr. Hayes: Yes.
Board Member Makinen: On some of these they squeeze the parking stall down to – it makes it extremely
difficult to get in.
Mr. Hayes: As the stall gets wider, the isle gets narrower so I believe we have 25-foot aisles, 8 ½-foot
stall.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bran – Corey.
Board Member Corey: How does that relate to the current lot?
Mr. Hayes: Probably doesn’t, those are probably non-conforming.
Ms. French: Well with diagonals (crosstalk) – those are diagonals so that – all those dimensions go out
the window when you start doing diagonal.
Board Member Corey: I was just – I heard like 86 or 87 and is that because of the diagonal because it’s
really tight to get into that current lot. If I’m hearing correctly, it’s something like six times the size with
the number of floors and if you say six times eighty-seven that seems like a lot more.
Mr. Hayes: But we lose area on every floor because of the ramp, because of the setbacks we’ve got and
so on. Ninety-degree parking is the most efficient so if you can fit in ninety-degree parking with –
dimensionally, that’s what you want to go with because it gives you the higher yield than diagonal
parking.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Chair Bernstein. I just had one other question and it kind of leads
into a comment but I’ll pose it as a question. Did you ever consider a façade for the parking structure
that was more in keeping with the Spanish/Mediterranean Revival style? Something like the President
Hotel? Something that would be more contextually compatible with the Post Office and the adjacent
historic buildings.
Mr. Hayes: Thank you, great questions. Part of the program is calling for a naturally ventilated garage
and to get an actually ventilated garage, as I explained earlier, you need to have basically forty percent
of the perimeter wall area on each tier needs to be twenty percent open. We’ve already lost so much wall
area because of the fire wall on that one – on the AT&T side, we have a solid wall all the way up so we
can’t get any ventilation there. So, then the burden of the ventilation is that it needs to be distributed on
the remaining walls so they need to be very open. We’re just squeaking by I think, right now in terms of
the code requirement. We knew from the beginning that you couldn’t go that direction so that’s why
we’ve tried to draw other elements in; color, metal work, the massing and the syncopation. Plus, I
believe that the architecture should be expressive of the day that it’s built and that’s today, not 1928.
Chair Bernstein: Corey, you had your light on.
Board Member Corey: I’m just trying to understand why that couldn’t – I was kind of – I was thinking
along the same things that Michael was. I was trying to understand why those two couldn’t be
compatible? Why you couldn’t incorporate some of the style, some of earth – besides the earthly tones
but also some of that type of brick plaster tile into something without…
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Mr. Hayes: Oh, you could.
Board Member Corey: Ok, but…
Mr. Hayes: We could draw all that stuff. I would agree but it’s just that in terms of trying to get a…
Board Member Corey: I just don’t see what that has to do with the open ventilation. I’m not sure – you
could have that style of openness…
Mr. Hayes: That’s what we’re drawing.
Board Member Corey: Oh, ok.
Mr. Hayes: I understand completely that you are saying. We haven’t – we’re not that level yet, we’re at
overall massing and so think that we could do a Presidents Hotel kind of mass with smaller openings that
look like windows, we would need to change the program. We would need to go to a ventilated garage
and so that wasn’t our mandate.
Board Member Corey: No, I wasn’t suggesting – maybe Michael was but I was suggesting is – would you
be able to have a design like this and still try to keep some of the styles of that Mediterranean? Even with
having those openings and having it be a non-ventilated garage; (inaudible).
Mr. Hayes: I think if we take the premise that the upper floors need to have a very transparent ventilated
kind of look to it, I would look too – I’m – that’s what I’m trying to convey in some of the concepts is that
the color of the tile roofs, the syncopation of the arcade, the artwork or artistry of the metal work. We
could certainly pull tile, we can pull the artistry from that Mediterranean style and incorporate that I
think, quite nicely in whatever we do here. I don’t necessarily see that we have room for a sloped tile
roof and that kind of thing but if you’re suggesting let’s dig deeper into the Mediterranean architecture of
the Post Office and pull details from that or look at the Toy World – not Toy World, Palo Alto Toy – Sport
– Toy Sport, we could pull elements from that; I think that’s easily doable.
Board Member Corey: That is what I was suggesting. I certainly wasn’t suggesting a tile roof but maybe
Michael was.
Chair Bernstein: We have questions from Board Member Makinen and questions from Board Member
Bower. Makinen?
Board Member Makinen: Well, just one further comment on this.
Chair Bernstein: We’re doing questions and then (inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Board Member Makinen: Oh, questions? Ok.
Chair Bernstein: … open it to the public first and then we can make our comments. Board Member
Bower, you have a question?
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, there are two boxes on your drawing that exhaust; one is on the upper left
corner of the building in the L and the other one is in the upper right.
Mr. Hayes: We do have one level of ventilated garage and that’s the basement level and so those shafts
serve the ventilating – ventilation requirement for the subterranean level.
Vice Chair Bower: So, they are on the basement plan and they are on the second-floor plan. They up to
the second floor and that’s the way you get your ventilation out?
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Mr. Hayes: Correct. We have to be so many feet above ground plane; ten or something like that.
Chair Bernstein: I’d like to open up the public hearing to members of the public who would like to speak
on this agenda item. If any members of the public would like to speak? Seeing none so bring it back to
the Board. Ok, now we’re open for comments. Any other additional – now comments for the applicant; I
see no lights.
Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: I mean I think – yeah this is quite an undertaking and it’s well needed for all of us
who’ve buzzed downtown to see the Planning Department or somebody and there’s nowhere to park. So,
you have to drive around forever and in fact, I’ve gotten – I didn’t understand how to use the parking
permit for our meetings and I got two permit (inaudible) from the police people – tickets, right, that’s the
word. I’m getting too old for this but anyway, I think this is quite clever. My overall reaction is that I think
I would – I like -- I tend to like option one and three. Option two, I just find the little boxes randomly
placed looks very odd to me so either one or three is or a mixture of both, I don’t know but that’s – I’m
tending toward -- that’s pretty good where there’s a lot of – it makes sense that those two plans really
work out well. Number two, it looks like you’ve put up the dart board and you know, let’s put a window
there and a window there.
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it’s very arbitrary right now.
Board Member Kohler: Other than that, I mean it’s something that everybody needs and maybe you can
have it done next year, what do you think?
Mr. Hayes: Or sooner.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I agree with Board Member Kohler that one and three would be more
to my taste. I’m wondering if the – if dirt and blowing objects are any problems with metal screens and
could you consider openings in the screen that are big enough to let this go through rather than sticking?
Mr. Hayes: I’m sorry, I missed the first part of your question. Can we have something in the metal panel?
Board Member Corey: She’s referring to the mesh screens.
Mr. Hayes: So instead of having the mesh screen, can you have or you have the mesh screen with other
kinds of openings in it?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes.
Mr. Hayes: That’s something that we could potentially explore. We would need to make sure they are –
that people wouldn’t fall through the openings and so that they were – that would define a certain height
probably of openings. So that might be a hybrid between option two because we do have openings but
they are very architectural but we could perhaps look at openings like we have in option two but they're
smaller and more delicate and then they are placed in the mesh; that might be interesting.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower, your lights on.
Vice Chair Bower: So, I’ll go back to the 87 ½-feet and 90-feet and the reason I was asking that is that it
seemed – as I mentioned earlier, I like the second-story horizontal line that lines up with the other
City of Palo Alto Page 14
buildings. I’m wondering if, above that, the other floors could offset or step back a little bit. If you have –
well, so the question is, if you actually have 3 ½ more feet and even take a 1 ½-feet of that, you get the
kind of effect that Birge Clark used on the University Arts Center building where it’s one building but it
looks like it’s four depending on where you’re standing on the (inaudible)…
Mr. Hayes: I think we have 2 ½-feet.
Vice Chair Bower: Maybe it’s irregular.
Mr. Hayes: This is Michelle Windler with Watry.
Ms. Michelle Windler: Just to make it more clear, the 2 ½-feet is to the face of concrete and some of the
architecture that you are showing is in the 2 1/2 -feet at the base two-stories so then it does have a
setback…
Vice Chair Bower: Above it?
Ms. Windler: Above that two-story to the screen.
Vice Chair Bower: Oh, ok, well…
Mr. Hayes: (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Bower: Again, I like the concept but I’m a little concerned about having a screen that’s one
plain and kind of creates again another box; the AT&T building, I think is horrible.
Mr. Hayes: But what Board Member Bunnenberg just suggested might be a way of working with the
mesh but put openings in it that are of a different scale.
Vice Chair Bower: Right. Also, it’ occurred to me as I was looking at these, you’ve got trees in shadow in
front of the building and I presume after this building is complete, trees would come back. There aren’t
any trees really right now on that Hamilton side until you get to the entrance on Hamilton of the parking
lot. There are a couple of mature trees and I think they go but the trees would help soften at least a
couple of stories of the building. I’m assuming from Waverley, when you are on the other side of the
street looking back at that pathway behind the buildings – next to the buildings, that if that were really a
green scape as you are showing on the last page, that actually kind of mitigates the whole view of it;
softens it. It’s tough – like I said, I think it’s a really well-considered design in a really tough space. By
the way, the garbage men come in from Hamilton, park behind the Prolific Oven and then turn left and
go out. I haven’t seen…
Mr. Hayes: They go out to Bryant?
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, that’s the wider walkway. I can’t imagine any garbage truck coming in from
Waverley, it’s just too hard to make that turn and they do a lot of crazy stuff in there. So, just –it’s a very
constricted space now. Is – one other question, is there a sense that this is going to be a gated parking
lot or is that just an option because I noticed two spaces go away.
Mr. Hayes: Michelle Windler again.
Ms. Windler: Hi, we’ve been asked to allow for the future possibility of putting gates in as everyone is
looking at parking all over the downtown but those are just allowances for future gates and yes, two
spaces would go away at the alley side if you implement those gate (inaudible).
Vice Chair Bower: Well, anyway congratulations, I think this is the best of tough stuff. I’m, by the way, in
agreement with Roger and Beth. Option two with the boxes, not (inaudible).
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Bernstein: Option – which option are you preferring?
Vice Chair Bower: Option two which had the boxes that kind of mimic the AT&T building.
Chair Bernstein: Which one do you prefer?
Vice Chair Bower: Oh, I would prefer a combination of one – basically, number one but with the line
continuing across and not stopping short of the corner.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Chair Bernstein. I think the option two is – I think you described it
as being sympathetic to the AT&T window buildings. In my opinion, the AT&T building looks like a jail
and I don’t think you should – I hate to say it but those things aren’t really windows at all. They are just
after thoughts that I think were put in and I think to further that design theme would be a disaster. So, I
would definitely favor one or three. My other comment would be with your great skills of famous Palo
Alto architect, I would like to see if you could incorporate some features that are sympathetic to the
Spanish/Mediterranean Revival style that exists on the Post Office and some of the other historic
buildings in the area.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I’m sorry but I am having a real adverse reaction to this application. I don’t
think that it’s at all sensitive to the surrounding historic structures at all. In a residential scenario, we
have something called a contextual setback and so if you look at the Post Office, there’s a little bit of
lawn in front of the Post Office on both the Waverley and the Hamilton sides. At the All Saints Church,
you see a little bit of lawn in front of that where the building is set back. I know this is a commercial
district, it’s not a residential district, therefore lawns are probably unusual but I think the fact that you’re
trying to push the structure all the way to the property line and the idea that there is a 7-foot setback
and that you are already drawing a proposal that completely dismisses that; assuming that you are going
to get a variance. I don’t know I just – I know we have a parking problem and I know we’re trying to
solve it but I just don’t think that this is a good idea. In fact, it’s very massive, it’s very tall and then the
fact that you’re putting the stair and the elevator right on the corner. I think if this building was in the
middle of the block between two already tall buildings, I think I would be a little more adaptable to the
idea but this is a major corner and you’re pushing it to the very limit and you’re making the highest
portion of this structure right at the corner. I just I don’t – I don’t know, maybe can you go down a
couple more floors. I think it’s too tall, I think if – you need to come down a level and maybe you can
have two basement levels of parking and bring the whole structure down one level. I just – I think it’s
really insensitive and I’m not in support of it at all and I don’t think it has any sensitivity to any of the
historic buildings around it.
Mr. Hayes: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey, do you have anything else?
Board Member Corey: Yeah, I do. I share some of Margaret’s concerns; not as much on the height but I
am concerned about the setback and that being out all the way on the corner there. I think that area and
a lot – the fact that – I mean especially the Post Office and those buildings being set back actually does
help. I’m not as concerned about the height from a massing perspective but the fact that it’s just right
out there and it’s in front of the other buildings on the corner is just – is a big concern. From a design
perspective, kind of going back to what Beth said earlier, my preference over here is actually designed
one without the mesh. So, ignoring the historic – taking off my historic hat for a moment and I don’t
know what my other Board Members think about this but I always find any enclosed parking garages kind
of dingy and I really like to have that openness. I know there’s also something to be said here about
City of Palo Alto Page 16
maybe covering the cars so maybe there’s – maybe an option would be that if you have to have the
mesh, to have it up to cover the cars but then leave an opening there or try to incorporate some of the
Spanish/Mediterranean styles and have it so that it covers the cars to some degree but it leaves it nice
and open. Any time when you pull the light out of a parking garage like that – it’s like the basement
floors, I never like to park in the basement floors of parking garages because they are just very dingy.
So, having that above ground parking and covering it up is odd so again, maybe we could incorporate
some of that Spanish style and try to make it more open.
Chair Bernstein: I’m in favor of option one, Ken and the reason is on option one you’ve got the two-story
structure with the openings that are reminiscent of the Post Office pattern so I appreciate that. The fact
that, based on your renderings, that there’s a two-story structure there and that it kind of emphasizes
the fact that it’s a two-story presentation rather than four-stories so I think that helps with the scale.
There is a lot of massiveness on that side of Hamilton Avenue, so the height I don’t find that to be an
issue but the fact that the first two floors have that articulated colonnade reminisces the Post Office, I
think that’s good. As far as the compatibility with some of the Spanish detailing that you see on the
street, my thought was for the stair tower on the corner to have something reminiscent of Birge Clark’s
iron work going up the stairs there. So, you’ve got your contemporary structure of the Post Office – I
mean the parking structure itself and you have your circulation around the corner, have that kind of lacy
iron work as Birge Clark did on his style. I think that they could be a relationship and you still have your
contemporary parking structure there. That would be my comment to give it some kind of compatibility
with the historical neighborhood. Any other comments from the Board? Ok, this is just a study session
and then this will be the last time we see this project. Any other comments from staff that’s requesting?
Ms. French: Yeah, the – this is technically the last time you’ll see it but it’s not the last time for your input
because we will be – once the environmental document is prepared that talks about the formal design
aesthetics and the cultural resources section. You will have the opportunity to provide comments on that
document as respects to the formal application.
Chair Bernstein: I was taking a count here and it looks like there were three comments for some form of
option three and then there were six comments in positive of option one.
Mr. Hayes: That’s been very, very helpful, thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you.
[The Board moved to item number three]
2. STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. Bayshore Road, Discussion Regarding Former
International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) Property
[The Board heard this item first]
Chair Bernstein: So, let’s move to a study session then number two, which is 2601 E. Bayshore Road. A
discussion regarding former International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) Property. Shall staff or – I’m
sorry, Vice Chair Bower?
Vice Chair Bower: I need to disclose that I’ve been out to visit this site with Phil Bobel and maybe half a
year ago just for the record.
Chair Bernstein: Great so shall staff have any comments for us?
Ms. French: Just to again, note that we don’t have anything filed or pending in the Planning Department
for this site. The Historic Planner Emily Vance and myself did do a site visit and so we were enthralled by
City of Palo Alto Page 17
the place. We then prepared this report with the help of Phil Bobel who is here and has some comments
for you. I don’t really have a presentation other than the report that we’ve prepared.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Bobel, do you feel like – would you like to make any comments to us?
Please.
Mr. Phil Bobel: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Alright, so let me pass this out to people and these are from the Daily
Post that had the picture about it. Let me pass this out to the members of the public and staff and HRB
Members.
Ms. French: I might just fill the time by saying what is report basically says is our recommendation is if
you want to discuss this property and decide whether or not to add a mention of this topic to the
potential topics for next Monday’s meeting. We do have a staff report that we shared with the Board
about Monday’s meeting with the Council and it’s got two key agenda topics but this is something that
you may want to consider adding to your discussion with Council.
Chair Bernstein: Excellent, thank you. Alright, the – Board Member Bower?
Vice Chair Bower: I’m not sure what the procedure is for this but I’d like to share my experience out
there at the Bay Lands when I went out with Phil to look at the property. I was – there’s a remarkable
amount of damage and vandalism; that aside, the building is largely intact except for the glass in the
windows. Although there are several windows that were specifically and uniquely crafted for the high
voltage power lines to go through the glass into the building to power the Claustrum – I think it’s maybe
not Claustrum (inaudible) but the transmission devices. Several of those devices has also been – are still
there but they have been opened, vandalized, smashed up but a couple actually remains enough intact to
be a working example or at least a visual example of what they look like. I think it’s a remarkable
opportunity for to take a pretty obscure site and building and save it from demolition. I did see in the
newspaper a couple months ago some thought that maybe the building would be demolished, which I
hope will not occur. It seems to me that this is building that could be used in a manner similar to the Sea
Scout building, which was also extortionary vandalized in its neglect – during a period of neglect but it’s
now been completely renovated and is back in its original condition or maybe better in fact. So, I’m
hoping that by bringing this before the Board, we’re able to move forward a plan to renovate this building
and I’m encouraged that the Public Works Department who is going to cover the openings and put up
some kind of security fence so that the vandalism won’t continue.
Chair Bernstein: I like Amy French’s suggestion that we bring this up when we meet with the Mayor and
Vice Mayor for topics for Monday’s joint HRB/City Council meeting. I also do see that – in the report that
Dames and Moore evaluated the property and found it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
So, I guess the question for Council when we meet at the joint meeting is to see if the Council has any
interest in proceeding with the -- or the – first to learn the process for that to become actually nominated
and be put on the register.
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Yes?
Board Member Bunnenberg: May I have a turn?
Chair Bernstein: Yes.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I’d also like to note that this building was very important for a number of
years in bringing in merchant ships that didn’t have all of the modern technological devices and this old
station could contact their radios and talk them into the bay. The other important thing to think about is
City of Palo Alto Page 18
that this was one of the repeater stations that sent the message about the disastrous attack on Pearl
Harbor, that was the beginning of our real involvement in the second World War. So, that it does have
quite a history and so I would strongly recommend.
Chair Bernstein: I also passed out, there is another similar kind of building in Redwood City, it’s on Radio
Road, and this was owned by radio Station KGEI, which is K. General Electric International; interesting.
So, this was I – International ITT and then this is also General Electric International and they were also
involved and the building still exists also. That was also another way of communication from the war in
the Pacific to the mainland. There are at least two buildings like that, that are still in the Bay Lands that
are still existing so there’s an opportunity for expanded history to continue. Any other comments or
suggestions by the Board? Ok. Alright, any other issues to bring up on this topic before we move ahead?
Any questions or comments – alright. Council Member Holman, welcome.
Council Member Holman: Yeah, clarification on something you said Martin which is to ask the Council if
they had interest, isn’t it the – Amy, isn’t the process for the HRB to make a recommendation and bring
the recommendation to Council? If we could just get clarity on the process.
Ms. French: So, because we have a joint meeting on Monday with Council and we already have some
kind of topics there, the recommendation here today was hey, if you want to just bring it up and that this
is also something you’re interested in or what have you. You could say well, we could begin the process
of something and get a quick dialect. I don’t know if there’s a way to have a quick dialog about this but
it’s just an option for them to also tact that onto the discussion for Monday. I don’t know what the way to
introduce it or bring it along.
Chair Bernstein: Why don’t we just take a little hand vote right now. Are HRB Members in favor of having
this move forward as whatever the process would be, to have this actually listed on the Historic Register?
Ok, it’s unanimous. Ok, good.
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Would it be appropriate to have a – we could even make a motion to that?
Ms. French: I think – I mean we have – you know I guess you could say the straw poll suggests that
you’re in favor of nominating. We have a presentation for Monday and we could include a bullet for this
piece to say that you’re looking for Council support to proceed with a process or some kind of thing
there.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, good. Alright, Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Would you wish to proceed with a nomination?
Chair Bernstein: I’m open for that.
Board Member Makinen: A motion?
Chair Bernstein: Let’s see, we want to make sure we’re following the correct process. Does there need to
an application first before or how’s – what’s – I’m not clear on the process.
Ms. French: We are the owners to typically the owner and City Council represents the owner, the owner’s
concurrence is needed to nominate it’s – the owner’s property. So, it the Council thinks it’s a good idea
then they can say yes, we think we want to nominate ourselves.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, so this is a study session so I guess in study sessions no formal actions happen,
is that correct as a study session? Yeah, ok. So, on Monday we’ll hear the opinion from the Council on
Monday and then that can inspire the next action on the HRB.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Ms. French: So, if you – you were kind of making a motion to do a straw poll and we think that is
probably appropriate prior to Monday’s brief discussion on this. To get confirmation of direction or what
have you to take the next step and that could be defined.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, very good. Alright, thank you. Board Member Makinen.
MOTION
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I’d like to make a motion that we – the Board favors the nomination of
the telegraph station for the National Register.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Second.
Chair Bernstein: Let’s see, are we ok – is this an ok process because we don’t have an application yet?
Ms. French: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: So, I suggest that the motion be that we agree to bring it up to Council on Monday.
Board Member Makinen: We’ll I hear you but I think they would like to know what are feeling is on it
before we meet with them.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, let’s go ahead and vote on that. All in favor, say aye. Ok, there you go, thank you.
MOTION PASS UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
Chair Bernstein: Anything else on this agenda item? It sounds like our vote is then actually to encourage
that it’s going to be speaking with the Council.
[Board moved back up to agenda item number one]
3. STUDY SESSION: Historic Resources Board Review of a Proposed
Reclassification of the Birge Clark Designed 1927 Building at 526 Waverley in
Downtown Palo Alto, from Category 3 on the City's Historic Inventory to
Category 2, Prior to Application for Preliminary Architectural Review for
Historic Rehabilitation and Potential Upper Floor Addition for Residential Use.
Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource
Rehabilitation
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is a study session for a historic designation for 526 Waverley. Study
session review of a proposed reclassification on a Birge Clark design building, 1927, from Category Three
to Category Two. Any staff comments?
Ms. French: Yes, I’ll just say that we do not have an application for designation or upgrade, I should say,
from Category Three to Category Two. This came about with the conversation that we had with the
owner and Randy Pop who is here in the room, regarding the possibilities for this building that the owner
recently acquired. I’ll Emily answer questions or describe next steps as far as based on what the HRB’s
comments are, thanks.
Chair Bernstein: Emily, welcome. Oh, I thought the – ok, great. Alright, this is a study session and let me
just ask, are there any members of the public who would like to speak to us on this? Seeing none. Board
Member comments regarding this project – this study session. Board Member Bunnenberg.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Bunnenberg: I would like to see some really careful thinking in terms of being able to
reclassify this from a – the Palo Alto Sports and Toy from a Category Three to a Category Two. Clearly
over the years, particularly, there have been changes in the ground floor spaces as needs came along
and this happens a great deal to many buildings. I would like to see the possibility of returning it to the –
more of the original state and returning the iron work and seeing if we couldn’t make it possible to be a
Category Two.
Chair Bernstein: Alright. Historic Planner Vance.
Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Good morning everyone. That’s a great point Board Member
Bunnenberg about restoring it to an earlier state. So just a little background on the project before we
dive into maybe some more questions. We all know that there are essentially, -- the National Parks
Service has four treatments for historic resources; that would-be preservation which is kind of
maintaining the building the way that it is. Rehabilitation which is what we mostly see which involves
additions and adaptive reuse. Reconstruction, which is totally new construction and then this situation
would be restoration. So, that the – essentially the project would be returning the building to a specific
period in time and removing any appropriate addition or alterations so this would be considered a proper
restoration project, which we don’t really see as many of those. I just want to clear up exactly what the
project would be doing. They haven’t determined what time period of what features they want to remove
or add. Currently, due to all of the alternations and the state of the building, it would more than likely not
meet the criteria for Category Two. However, with the project and all of the work that they are planning
on doing and with the careful guidance of the HRB and staff, it very well could meet two. So, we’re here
to discuss the feasibility of it meeting the criteria for Category Two.
Ms. French: I might add on packet page 87, there are two images of this building. One with some kind of
widened people at the bottom that look like there – it’s from an earlier age. It has some iron work on the
window on the second floor and then the one above, which is also reflected on the screen here, that we
had in the past – in the last item.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower -- Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I was puzzled by this as a study session item because if – I don’t know where this
building is going. I read on –sorry, on page 99 under criteria for designation that there are five different
items. I think three, four and five actually might be – this building might be able to meet those and of – if
the 70’s changes were reversed and if you read the ARB meeting notes that are a part of our packet, I
think this is the poster child note for why the ARB should never ever make a decision about a historic
building. The aluminum windows, the removal of all the iron work, changing the historic porticos that
come into the building, where all deemed to be compatible. I can’t understand how an aluminum window
is compatible with the steel windows. I can’t understand how a window on the second floor can become
– can be compatible with the existing doors that were on that second floor. This is just dysfunctional, I
think in part of our City process and I bring it up because we’re – we’ve just made – we’ve just had a
discussion about the parking garage and it’s the last time we’re going to see it and it’s in the midst of a
historic district that we have some jurisdiction over and this project happens to be right next to it. If the
owner of the building where coming to the HRB to reverse those items that have been installed in place
of an original item, this building is close enough, I think to its original state to come back to a significant
maybe Category Two building. I don’t know how we – I don’t really understand what our input is
supposed to be here today because we don’t really have a proposal. It’s just that they want the Category
Two designation I presume for tax purposes because it helps them. I don’t really understand that. I
guess the motivation and where the project is going would make it easier for me, as a Board Member, to
determine whether it was going to be eligible.
Chair Bernstein: Maybe if we would either hear from staff or – I see Mr. Pop sitting in the audience. Any
response from staff yet for Mr. Bower’s comment?
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Ms. French: I’ll just say before they or come to the mic, that we did have a brief meeting with the new
owner and his architect regarding a possible addition of residential units on the upper floors. In our
downtown, you are allowed to have a mixed-use project with FAR (floor area ratio) or gross floor area for
residential and gross floor area for commercial. That they combined and it makes the building larger so
one of the purposes is they are looking into putting some residential units above the existing building. So,
they can describe that thinking that they are having. They are in exploration mode, they haven’t drawn
up any drawings and shared those with us but if you’d like to hear more from them.
Chair Bernstein: Mr. Pop, would you like to speak to the Board, thank you.
Mr. Randy Popp: Good morning, Chair Bernstein and Members of the Board. Thank you very much for
entraining us here today. Pardon me?
Ms. French: (Inaudible)
Mr. Popp: Closer to the mic, ok. Is that better? Ok, great. I think we’re excited to discuss enhancing the
designation of this great little building with you today and I’ll just start by noting that the history of the
new property owner, the [phonetics] [Schwartz] brother’s pre-dates this building. It was actually one of
the reasons that the Hoffacker family them to carry on the building for them. The goal of enhancing and
maintaining the historic fabric of this City is something the [Schwartz] brothers have been very involved
in and the same is true for this building. It’s been modified as we know but we would seek to return and
restore some of the characteristic elements that are desirable and we’re not sure what those are yet. We
really are just in an exploratory mode here and are trying to understand what might be possible for this
building. Balancing the constraints of the zoning and other regulations with what might be possible if it’s
designated as a Category Two and we’re able to achieve some additional square footage which would do
a couple things for us with this building. First of all, the interior ceiling heights while probably appropriate
at the time the building was built, are much less than desirable today and so our initial thoughts, and
really this is very, very much in concept at this point, is that we would maintain the architecture at the
front of the building, enhancing the characteristics, returning back some of the more historic elements,
the iron work, some of the forms and shapes of the entries that have been removed over time. I couldn’t
agree more with Vice Chair Bower in regards to his comments on the Architectural Review Board and I
feel that I have a right to say this having been Chair for a couple years at the Architectural Review Board
that you’re spot on about that and these kinds of decisions need to be made at the HRB. We want this to
be more consistent with history. There was a really great retail use in this building for many years and it
was a great value to the community and a commercial use that was in there initially with the real estate
business that the family ran. The first two floors of the building would be maintained in that format and
the idea here is that pushed backed -- recess back closer to this new parking garage that you’re looking
at that will achieve almost a 50-foot height. We’d like to insert some residential use in the building. That
there would be a few residential units that would be placed here that would allow for people to live
downtown, less use of cars, and all the great benefits that provides. Also, give us the opportunity to
maximize the use of this parcel in a sensitive and thoughtful way. Our goal here is to just really hear your
thoughts about potentially returning the framework of this building and some of the detailing back to
either the 1948 or potentially even back to some of the 1927 characteristics. At the same time, adding a
really valuable and desired use of the downtown.
Chair Bernstein: What difference would your – would it be for your project if this was a Category Two or
Category Three?
Mr. Popp: Under the current zoning regulations and Amy, I’m going to ask you to help me with this a
little bit because I don’t have all the numbers in front of me today. I didn’t – we’re just studying but
Category Two building comes with some bonus square footage that you gain for FAR which would allow
us to add that residential to this space. If we don’t have that, it’s essentially restricted by what a lot of
people call the shrink wrap rules and the square footage that’s in place, stays in place and this partial
mezzanine that’s there could be reconfigured but it would not allow us to add any square footage to the
building in any way. Honestly, doing a restoration like this and adding these elements back to the
City of Palo Alto Page 22
building comes at a cost and so we’re trying to balance what the possibilities are between restoring a
building, adding these elements back, creating some development but not in any way talking about what
the maximum might be. I think a lot of projects come forward and they go right to the limits and what
we’re talking about here is a reasonable approach and something that would be sensitive to the context
and the character. There’s the Victorian next door, the area in which it lives and certainly, the context of
this new garage changes things a little bit but from Waverley Street, not very visible.
Ms. French: Can I add to that just a little bit? So, with the findings for such a bonus of 2,500-square feet
or something like that, for historic rehabilitation only and furthermore, the 2,500-square feet is not
necessarily to be applied in full on the project site but that bonus could be transferred off to another site
in the commercial downtown. These are sellable transferable development rates and I just thought I add
that to the discussion.
Vice Chair Bower: I – in thinking about this and looking at the materials in our packet again, I’m
reminded of the building right across the street here that use to be – I guess it’s real estate but I can’t
remember the name of it. Blue (inaudible)(crosstalk) Café…
Mr. Popp: (Inaudible) Cornish and Carry.
Vice Chair Bower: Inside the Palo Alto Sports Shop most of those columns and the adornment of the
columns still exist. They didn’t do much inside and the mezzanine is still there and it might not be very
useful but a proposal that came before this Board to undo the remodeling and to preserve those
elements while you’re adding to it, I think I could be very supportive of because getting this building –
this is an important building. The Hoffacker family have been here a very long time...
Mr. Popp: Almost 90-years.
Vice Chair Bower: …and I got my first bicycle from Palo Alto Sports Shop. It was -- and as criteria number
four says, this is a structure connected with a business which was once common but is now rare. I mean
we don’t have small buildings like this and that’s what makes Palo Alto downtown, I think unique and it’s
important to preserve that character. With your statements here today, I think that makes it much easier
for me to understand where you are going with it.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I think I’m sitting here looking at this and suddenly I remember my history.
Way back when, when I first got into this world and architecture, I went to several AIA meetings and I
ended up sitting next door to Birge Clark at two different meeting and sitting right next to (inaudible). I
don’t know how much longer he lived, I don’t know but I talked to him a little on and off and he was a
very nice gentleman. He had a huge impact on Palo Alto, of course, so I – anything that can bring back a
building that he was involved in, to me is worth the effort. I appreciate the thoughts that are going on
here.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Yes, would your proposed restoration project return the building to what I see
on page 97, figure number two, original Birge Clark drawing? Is that your intent?
Mr. Popp: Sorry, my agenda isn’t the same numbering as yours. So, yeah, that’s the original 1927
elevation drawing of the building when it was originally constructed. I would tell you that at this point,
we’re early in the process. We are attracted to that and there’s a lot of value in that to us but there’s a –
there are some slight modifications between that and the 1948-time period as well that might be a
possible – we just don’t know. I’m sorry. I’ll just explain, we’re not sure what the right answer is today
but what we’re looking for is feedback from you (crosstalk)(inaudible) what’s important.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Board Member Makinen: The first thing that you need to do is to find the period of significances for the
building and then you want to restore it back to that period of significances. If we don’t have an
agreement on what the period of significance is.
Mr. Popp: I would refer to the Historic Planner for some help with that. It’s apparent to us that the
historic period for this building is both the 1927 original construction date and then there’s also a 1948
period where there were some modifications made as the businesses changed. It’s not clear which of
those would be the one to reflect back to or would be reasonable to go back too with some of the
changes that have already occurred but we’re open to discussion about this.
Board Member Makinen: I think we’d have a clear understanding of what the period of significance that
you want to restore it to before we could make a commitment.
Chair Bernstein: I like Board Member Bunnenberg’s comment about – so the building looks like it is right
now, then there’s the period of 1948 and 1927. We don’t have an application in front of us to see what
direction that’s going to be going so it’s a good question that Board Member Bunnenberg asked about.
Any other Board Members? Ok, this is a study session, let’s see, so Mr. Popp you’ve heard comments
from the HRB about concern about the level of bringing it back to some of the other periods detailing. If
the building is going back into some of the features from the period of significances, I’m hearing that
there’d be probably support from the HRB on that. For you to move ahead though, you need to be able
to apply for a Category Two, that’s really your next step right….
Mr. Popp: That’s correct.
Chair Bernstein: …to move ahead on the project?
Mr. Popp: We would need to file a formal application and then come have a more formal hearing with
you at that point but we wanted to really just get the feedback from the Board whether or not this idea
of elevating the building to a Category Two and trying to return it back to a period of historic
significance; whatever the right date for that would be, is desirable.
Chair Bernstein: For an application to change from a Category Three to Two, the application is only to
request the change. It’s not going to be presenting any design changes, right, so that’s a good puzzle.
Can the Historic Planner offer any guidance on – we don’t – it’s not going – it’s going to be an application
just to change without any application of what the changes will be or what material changes would be.
Ms. Vance: Right, so again, this was just to kind of explore the options of or the feasibility of eventually
evaluating it once there are – I think plans would need to be in place. That might a discussion that we
have as staff as to whether we want to elevate it before it even – before it’s ready essentially. Before
they have done any of the restoration work so I would not be in favor necessarily of elevating it before
work or plans are in our hands.
Chair Bernstein: I understand the challenge from the applicant of how you’d like to get those benefits in
place, of course. The Board looks at what is the existing state of the resource and that’s the HRB’s point
here. So, a study session means no action is taken, is that correct? Board – Council Member Holman or
Historic Planner Vance, please.
Ms. Vance: I just want to reiterate that I’m very much in support of this project. I think it’s a great
restoration project, I think it would bring that building back to its former glory, getting rid of some of the
inappropriate changes over the years. Then again, with the addition of housing downtown, this is a really
wonderful project and so we will be working with the applicants to make good decisions regarding the
period of significant, we will be kind of help guide them but not necessarily choose for them. So, I just
want to reiterate again, it’s a very good project.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Council Member Holman: So, as some of you know, I’m kind of a process nerd and it seems to me that
for the applicants to benefit and appreciate their intention and I know your reputation, certainly of Mr.
[Shank] as well, and the [Schwartz] family and their preservation efforts in the community; that’s much
appreciated. Procedurally, it seems to me that the next step should be that the applicant should do an
HRE, determine what the period of significance is and decided what level of restoration they want to go
to. Then it seems to me that would be critical for the HRB to have as an action item what their – what
the proposal is going to be then from the applicant before you can make any recommendation about
elevating from a Three to a Two. Otherwise, it’s what Board Member Bower said earlier, it’s like you don’t
know what you’re approving so your procedural conundrum here for everybody but there has to be
something that makes a logical sequential sense too.
Chair Bernstein: Would that include a study session of just proposed changes to the building?
Council Member Holman: I’m never much of a fan of study sessions because there’s no written – there’s
no motion, there’s not much of a record. This Board has talked about your comments being ignored by
the ARB, for there to be comments (inaudible) decisions and conclusions, there need to be action items,
not just study sessions. Study sessions are good for preliminary but – now the parking garage – this just
– me speaking as a Council Member and wanting to know later down the road, for instance with the
parking garage or this or whatever, I would want to know what the HRB’s opinion was. With study
sessions, I have no idea so like I’m supposing that the parking garage is actually going to come back to
the HRB as a project to review and not just the environmental document because otherwise, the ARB
doesn’t have any thought really of knowing what your real comments are, neither does the Council when
it gets there.
Chair Bernstein: Can another possibility be that at one HRB hearing, agenda item one is – let’s see,
during the same HRB meeting, have an application for reclassification and an application for your
proposed project. Mr. Popp.
Mr. Popp: I’d welcome that, I think that’s a great idea. This is classic chicken and egg and we’re trying to
figure this out and I'm just talking to John here and we’re both in agreement that we’d like to put
together some proposal based on the discussion that we have staff about what the period of significant if
for this building and get something in front of you so there’s at least something for you to evaluate in the
right way. You can use that as information in that initial discussion and then if we could immediately roll
into a discussion about what the proposal would be, that would be very helpful. It’s time and so we’re
trying to move through the process in an efficient way and if we were able to essentially have a back to
back discussion with on item clicked off and then the next, that would be very helpful.
Chair Bernstein: That way in one meeting, the applicant knows – that also give the HRB and members of
the public a view of what the thoughts are for possible changes to the existing building. So, we’re still in
a study session so no motions. Alright staff, any other comments on this topic?
Ms. French: No, comments from staff.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, HRB Members, any other comments on this? Mr. Popp – hi, welcome.
Mr. John Shank: Hi, John Shank with the Schwartz brothers. I just wanted to thank you all and thank
staff for getting us in front of you as quickly as they have. We are excited at this – at the prospect of
this. Then as Randy was delicately saying, a part of our conundrum of the multi-leg stool here that we’re
trying to play with is the fact that once we bought – because wonderfully it’s been owned and operated
(inaudible) the building and restored by the Hoffacker family. When they sold it was because they wanted
to be done with their business so we have a vacant building, which creates a financial conundrum of its
own and we’re choosing to not lease it. To preserve this opportunity because once I lease it, I can’t start
opening up the facades and tearing the front doors off it; it becomes the tenant’s property in a way while
the lease is in effect. So, we’re going to do that, we’re going to continue to do that and we’ll work to
figure out with staff and with you all what’s appropriate and what can we do. I won’t even say it because
City of Palo Alto Page 25
I don’t want anybody to think that I’m meaning there’s an if you don’t hurry, we won’t do it. We want to
find a way to do it together, there are just some realities that if for whatever reason it takes forever,
we’re just going to lease it. The [Schwartz] have been here since the 1890s and if we have to put a
tenant in for a while, we’ll still figure it out, we’ll just do it after that tenant sort of thing. We just – we
really love the downtown, love retail and want to support it and do the right thing, which I think the
Officer’s understood in picking us to – even off the market, hey, [Schwartz’s], would you be interested in
owning our building? So, we look at ourselves as being caretakers for the next century basically, which is
a little unique but again, I want to thank you all for your consideration.
Chair Bernstein: Your welcome and yeah, the [Schwartz’s] have been a significant family in the City of
Palo Alto so that’s why I suggested that we look at an application for change and then see the – some
proposal thoughts on what the change – that way within 45-minutes, the applicant can have an answer
from us. Alright, anything else on this topic?
Mr. Popp: Thank you for your time.
Chair Bernstein: Your welcome, thank you.
4. CC/HRB Meeting Final Discussion Topics
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is – we’ve done one, two, three – ok, next number four is a
discussion of topics for this Monday’s joint HRB/City Council meeting. Shall staff have any comments on
this agenda item?
Ms. French: Yes, we have not met with Mayor and Vice Mayor, although we’ve tried. So, what we’re left
with and I did mention that I forwarded it to the Board here the staff report that both the Board and the
Council have received for Monday. There’s a focus on basically two upcoming potential projects and
getting the Council to weigh in on those. Today, you added let’s have a mention about the ITT building
so that will now be added to the PowerPoint. We’ve got a several slide PowerPoint that staff has prepared
for Monday for the HRB to present basically. So, we’ll tweak that with the ITT building as a bullet and
then maybe there’s a – the Chair and the Vice Chair can – we will meet with them or have a phone
conversation with an email and discuss perhaps the two of you could tag team that presentation along
with staff. That’s what we are kind of thinking.
Board Member Wimmer: I have a quick question or comment. So, since we so rarely have these joint
meetings, do we want to discuss project work that is going to come our way anyway or do we want to
discuss internal things that are Board works – non-project related efforts like the Mills Act…
Ms. French: Well, the Mills Act…
Board Member Wimmer: …the Historic Inventory because I know that we – David has done a lot of
research and talked about trying to get the Mills Act back and reinstated and that one of the things that I
think we thought that we might want to discuss with the Council.
Ms. French: It’s one of the two projects. So, when I say the two projects, the potential projects to have
Council weigh in is one is the Mills Act program, the other is the Modern Ere Context Statement.
Board Member Wimmer: Oh, so that the ITT building would be…
Ms. French: The third one.
Board Member Wimmer: … like an example of what we want to do in that modern context is that...
Ms. French: No, no, I hadn’t thought of it that way. It was just we had written a report to the Council
that said that we’re coming to you with this joint meeting and there are two potential projects that we
City of Palo Alto Page 26
would like the Council to basically provide direction to staff to do as part of our work program. So, to
have the Council say yah or nay on these two projects. The third is to do something about that ITT
building that is nominated or what have you and that it’s – that would be the kind of third potential
project to talk about. How governance goes and how everything else, there’s -- we did mention in the
report to them that these were things that had been discussed over the last couple years; these other
things. We’ve been doing training, we’ve been doing discussions about governance etc. but it’s kind of
not ripe. We haven’t finished our discussion on that and the other thing that I wanted to mention in there
is that the concept of having the Categories Three and Four be eligible for some of these incentives. I
spoke with Director Gitelman about this and we had a conversation about how that could come forward
as part of the next zoning code update. Just run with that and let the Council know that’s part of the
what we’re doing to bring that forward. So, I don’t think we have to have a big conversation with the
Council about that because I think we’re just going to go ahead and wrap that into our annual update.
Chair Bernstein: Are you suggesting don’t bring that up at the joint Council meeting? The Three and Four
wrapping…
Ms. French: To the extent that the interest is in having home improvement exception benefit of additional
floor area for Three’s and Four’s and to the extent that the basement finish floor at 3-feet above grade –
above 3-feet above grade, that the basement would not count as floor area for Three’s and Four’s as
well. Those two specific changes, gross floor area, and the HIR had been identified and forwarded to our
advance planning team that are preparing the next round of comments – the zoning code changes; the
annual code changes that we do each year. So, they are on the list of potential code changes to the
zoning code.
Chair Bernstein: So, it may not be necessary to bring it up at Monday’s joint meeting then.
Ms. French: Right, unless you want to second that effort, you know to say we understand this is – will
make its way to you.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, because Council will need to vote on that.
Ms. French: Planning Commission would review those and Council as well and of course, we can share
the ordinance changes with you before they go to the Planning Commission as well; you know the draft.
Chair Bernstein: Is HRB, we’re in support of that?
Board Member Kohler: My experience with the Council meetings is it’s just a group of people that get
together…
Chair Bernstein: Excuse me, Roger, I just want to ask that one question. Is the HRB…
Board Member Kohler: What I’m just trying to say is that I have found the Council meetings really not
that great. I mean to have this list of things and we end of not talking about hardly any of them and the
Council kind of takes over. I mean maybe there’s a way to get it set – we seldom hear what they have to
say about all our list is what I guess I’m trying to say.
Ms. French: If I might interrupt, just – sorry. We do have a PowerPoint presentation and it is going to
give the HRB the change to highlight these two projects and a slide on our accomplishments, this kind of
thing. I mean we will be able to present and what the Council chooses to talk about and to direct us, we
can’t control but we do a controlled 5-10-minutes of presentation that they will receive.
Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Last time this was discussed, I did suggest that some of the more successful
joint meetings I’ve seen are when the body, the Board or Commission that presents to Council, asks
specific questions that you want responses too. So, that the Council can do what they want to but if you
City of Palo Alto Page 27
ask specific questions and you’re looking for a response then that could be helpful. I was curious if – I
don’t know if anybody has met -- the Chair, the Vice Chair has met and what the HRB’s role is going to
be in this. The reason I was struck with it was because the – this again, I’m just speaking as a Council
Member here more than a liaison to you guys or maybe more, it seems that the HRB is passive in the
language here. So, it’s like the staff did this and brought it to the HRB but what did the HRB do? So, I’m
just hoping in the presentation that HRB presenters, whoever you are going to be, will talk more
proactively about what you’ve done and there are several other things you have talked about too but
anyway, that’s it.
Ms. French: I would just add to that, just to say that packet page 110 which is the staff report that
Council has received, there is a note about the HRB having formed subcommittees to talk about some
things like governance. So, in the report, it does mention that you’ve been proactive in forming a
subcommittee over to – the Chair and Vice Chair might want to highlight that activity as part of the things
that have gone on.
Board Member Wimmer: I’m just an assuming that the Chair and the Vice Chair are going to be the
spokes people for the Committee in general…
Vice Chair Bower: I might not even be there, I’m just kidding.
Board Member Wimmer: …because in the past, I know that we’ve had the – we’ve reviewed the
PowerPoint before the meeting so maybe we haven’t had the chance to do that this time and I know
we’ve refined the PowerPoint but this – I feel like we’re a little unpracticed. I just – I don’t know, I hope
that – I don’t know. I would assume that you guys are going to head the meeting in terms of response
and presentation too – regarding our Committee, I’m hoping.
Chair Bernstein: So, we were thinking that there was going to be a pre-joint meeting with Mayor, Vice
Mayor and Chair and Vice Chair; that hasn’t been scheduled yet.
Vice Chair Bower: Probably won’t.
Ms. French: Yeah, time is running out so I’m no longer hopeful on that score but I – we do have this
draft PowerPoint that doesn’t include the ITT. I will get it onto our screen here if you give me 5-minutes.
Do you want to take a brief break or talk about any other Board business?
Vice Chair Bower: I have to get up, I can’t sit anymore.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I ‘m wondering whether we have thought about talking about single-story
overlay. I get a number of calls from the public saying aw, they’re building this huge thing next to me,
behind me, it’s overlooking my private backyard. Some of these are the Eichler developments and so
have we considered that as a possibility?
Ms. French: Can I jump in on that? So, the singles already overlay process, we’ve definitely spent 2016
with four such applications, two of which were successful and two of which were not, due to the erosion
of support from owners in the neighborhood after they had initially thought it was a good idea, they
decided against it later. So, the Council has directed us to prepare Eichler Design Guidelines and so we’re
right in the midst of that and we will be coming to you first to share those with you, followed by Planning
Commission and Council and of course, there’s a workshop for the public among that list. We’ve been
very actively working on those. As far as other changes to the zoning code regarding single-story
overlays and how to help that be a better process because it suffered in that year with this problem of
support erosion. This is another way of effort – another zoning code update item that would follow –
potentially follow on the Guidelines that are coming first.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Chair Bernstein: Let’s see, will there be any communication between the staff and HRB Chair and Vice
Chair before Monday’s 5PM meeting? Do you know? If not, just…
Ms. French: Well, we haven’t set up a meeting with the two of you because we have had been hopeful
and now no longer but maybe I should hope last for another hour or so but giving that up, yes, we
should probably decide to meet today or Monday; later today. We are not in the office tomorrow, it’s the
city’s (inaudible) Friday.
Chair Bernstein: I’m available Monday.
Vice Chair Bower: Monday is better.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Alright, good. In response to Board Member Wimmer’s comment then
there would be a chance for Chair and Vice Chair to formulate more precisely our conversations that they
are going to be. Where is the meeting at 5 PM with the joint Council?
Vice Chair Bower: Is it here?
Ms. French: Council Chambers, here.
Chair Bernstein: Council Chambers, thank you. We’re all sitting up here together, is that how that works?
Vice Chair Bower: That’s the way it worked last time.
Chair Bernstein: Cool. Maybe there will be some members of the public that are coming. That’s a
publicized meeting, right? Yeah, good.
Ms. Vance: While we wait for Amy to pull up the presentation really quick, I just want to let everyone
know that our Eichler outreach community event that was on the 15th was a wonderful success. We had a
large turnout, lots of children there making paper modern homes and coloring the Eichler coloring sheets.
Monique Lombardelli who make the documentary, Joseph Eichler People in Glass Houses, was there to
present the film and then did a little Q&A. We updated the public on the progress of the Design
Guidelines. Overall, it was just a really wonderful successful evening and I know some of the Board
Members attended and I appreciate your attendance there. Oh yeah, and our Council Member was there
as well. Again, it was a really successful evening and I was really proud of all the work that everyone put
into it.
Vice Chair Bower: What was the reception to the guideline concept in that meeting?
Ms. Vance: Positive, inquisitive, and people seemed to be – it really wasn’t so much a discussion about
the guidelines themselves. We were really there for – there were a lot of people talking amongst
themselves, neighbors sharing stories, that sort of thing.
Vice Chair Bower: The first meeting that I attended there were two – probably three camps. It was the
distinctly leave me alone camp, there was the very distinct I want total control and no change camp and
then there were people in the middle that I couldn’t get a sense of the numbers but the vocal parts were
the no’s and the yes’s. So, I’m just wondering if that’s…
Board Member Kohler: I can – I’ve had two experiences recently where my clients just gave up. They just
did not want to do -- the Eichler people there are just – who want Eichler’s to say exactly the same with
no change. These two clients just finally gave up, they were going to try to move because they want to
do a home with their own choice and they are not – when they bought the homes there were not quite
these many rules that are going on. They were just very, very unhappy so there’s probably a very wide
range of boats there because technically, Eichler’s are basically tinder for a fire; they are all wood.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Ms. French: I’m going to jump in because we don’t have Eichler’s on the agenda but I will put an Eichler
update on the agenda in the near future. Maybe even before we come – so you’re abreast of the project
before we come with the actual guidelines. So, we do have a PowerPoint on the screen here. This is the
draft that has not yet been finalized and we do have the accomplishments in the last year or so.
Professorville Guidelines, we finished though and Council adopted those. Eichler Design Guidelines, we
got approval to do them and now we’re in the midst of doing them and we will be bringing that forward
to Council in probably early January or February of 2018. We have the Mills act, we had several study
sessions on this and had a subcommittee and we’re going forward with that request to make that part of
our work program. The ADU historic – so the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance was passed with special
consideration for Eichler’s and historic. We will be bringing forward Eichler specific ADU concept as well
with the Eichler Guidelines. Then the historic bulletin that the Board wrestled with in 2016, that helps
guide staff’s work and then we had trainings and the retreats. We have some other events that we’ve
been working on and projects. We are poised to have the website updated, we have done a lot of work
with – by we, I should Emily and the intern Gigi, just did quite a bit of work but you don’t see it yet
because we have to wait for a general website update citywide but soon. We are – just last Friday had a
meeting about – a kick off meeting for the upcoming Palo Alto located CPF conference in May of next
year so we’re busy participating in that. This community event that Emily told you about, we’ve had
several workshops for the Eichler project. Then we just had the intern just finish and she was – that was
a great boom to the historic preservation program. We’d like to do more internship opportunities to help
with our work. Then next year we’ll have National Preservation Month and Emily is ready to go to
participate with the other local groups past and (inaudible). Again, we have a couple slides so one for the
Mills Act, the fact that we had study sessions and we’ve been talking in subcommittee, looking at what
might be the first for a pilot program to come forward focused on residential. Maybe at some point
looking at small mom and pop commercial, I don’t know, and then an educational component. We have
our Modern Context Statement that is the other potential project that we would like Council’s support to
move ahead with a potential CLG grant to work on that. So, here are some bullets that Emily put down
and then, yeah, that’s the last one. So, if you want to go back and talk – give feedback on any of these
slides to add to and then, of course, we could input another slide about the ITT building.
Chair Bernstein: This looks good.
Vice Chair Bower: Can I suggest that we take all acronyms out so…
Ms. French: No acronyms.
Vice Chair Bower: … CPF, write that out, California Preservation Foundation.
Ms. French: Excellent.
Vice Chair Bower: Also, what you say the May – if you go back a couple slides, it’s on that same slide.
National Preservation Month in May of 2018. I mean its significant that it’s in 2018, we have the whole
State preservation community coming to Palo Alto.
Ms. French: Yes.
Vice Chair Bower: We understand this stuff but I don’t think that all Council Member’s will.
Ms. French: Great, those are great additions.
Vice Chair Bower: Then the other thing is Context Statement is meaning full to us, it’s not going to be
meaningful to most of the Council Members. I mean Liz and of course, Council Member Holman would
understand this but I’m not sure about some of the newer ones. The CLG Grant, what’s that mean? So,
I’m not being critical here but I’m trying to make the information that you want to convene more
transparent so that the Council can – new Council Members would understand it.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Ms. Vance: Yes, so it was my understanding that you don’t want just a bunch of words on your slide
show so anyone who would be giving the presentation on this particular page would go into more detail
about what a Context Statement is, what CLG Grant actually means. Obviously, we can write out what
the acronyms are but it seems like a lot of text we’re running out.
Vice Chair Bower: I think Emily, we’re not going to get to have that much time. Realistically, we’ll get this
passed – I mean this will roll through and we might get to talk about the three items we have but Council
has their own issues and agendas and while we want to talk to them about what we’re doing, it tends to
move in the direction that Council Members want to take it. So, we have a really limited amount of time
and we’re not going to be able to describe all this stuff. So, just getting the names out is probably
enough and if some Council Member wants to come back later and follow up on that, then they will have
something to talk about.
Council Member Holman: Can I – again speaking as a Council Member, it’s like Council Member’s want to
hear from you all. This is your opportunity to talk with the Council and inform the Council of what you’ve
been up too; this Board. So, Council Members can fill the hour, there’s no denying that but I think if you
don’t follow what staff has said here in terms of explain – it doesn’t have to be a lengthy description but I
think if you don’t put some meat on the bone, Council Members are going to go in what Roger said, is
like any old direction. I think it’s up to you all to frame the conversation and if you just do the bullet
presentation, which is perfect and appropriate to have but if you only do that, I don’t think you’re going
to much out of this meeting.
Chair Bernstein: Amy, could you – I know that it will help me, can we have printed pages of these bullet
points in front of us because that’s going to be – that way I can make (inaudible) one hundred percent of
the time rather than just on the screen.
Ms. French: Yes.
Chair Bernstein: If you could bring that on Monday or whenever we -- what time we meet on Monday,
that would be great.
Ms. French: Sure, and we can later today send those out to you by email so any of you can print your
own…
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great.
Ms. French: …before Monday.
Chair Bernstein: Anything else on this agenda item?
Board Member Corey: Can you also send the PowerPoints out as well? I don’t…
Ms. French: Yes, that’s what I meant by sending it – emailing it to you was what we are showing you
today only fixed acronyms.
Board Member Corey: It was just the bullet points.
Approval of Minutes
5. Approval of Minutes of August 10, 2017
Chair Bernstein: Ok, they’re not in this? Ok, we’ll redo – there are no minutes in our packet today so we’ll
talk about those minutes at another meeting; the August 10th is not in our packet.
Subcommittee Items
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Chair Bernstein: Ok, any other items on the – subcommittee items? None.
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Board Member questions, comments, and announcements? None. Then – oh, Board
Member Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I’ll move that we adjourn.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, approved. We adjourned, thank you.
Adjournment