HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-11 City Council Agenda Packet
1 01/11/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
January 11, 2010
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
THE FOLLOWING CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD WITH THE CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu,
Dennis Burns, Russ Carlsen, Lalo Perez, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott,
Darrell Murray, Joe Saccio)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Managers’ Association (Sworn)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly
Morariu, Dennis Burns, Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray,
Marcie Scott, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
2 01/11/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly Morariu,
Russ Carlsen, Lalo Perez, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray,
Joe Saccio)
Employee Organization: Local 521, Service Employees International
Union (SEIU) - SEIU Hourly Unit
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly
Morariu, Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Marcie Scott,
Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio)
Employee Organization: Local 521 Service Employees International
Union
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees
pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kelly
Morariu, Russ Carlsen, Sandra Blanch, Darrell Murray, Marcie Scott,
Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio)
Employee Organization: Local 1319, International Association of
Firefighters
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Karen Holman for
Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Planning and
Transportation Commission
ATTACHMENT
3. Proclamation for the 25th Anniversary of Gamble Garden Center
3 01/11/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
ATTACHMENT
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 07, 2009
December 14, 2009
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
4. Review and Acceptance of Annual Status Report on Developers' Fees
for Fiscal Year 2009
CMR 108:10 and ATTACHMENTS
5. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C07116703 with C-
Way Custodian Services to Increase the Annual Compensation Amount
by $52,192 for a Total Annual Compensation Amount of $577,820 to
Provide New Custodial Collection Services at Selected City Facilities for
the Remaining Two Years of the Contract
CMR 105:10 and ATTACHMENTS
6. 2ND READING Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section
18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to
Change the Classification of Property Known as 2180 El Camino
Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to PC
Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900
Square Feet of Floor Area for a Grocery Store (Intended for
JJ&F Market), Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight
Affordable Residential Units, with Two Levels of Below-Grade
4 01/11/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities for the College
Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement
Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the
35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment into a
Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue; and Approval of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
(First reading December 7, 2009—Passed 8-1, Kishimoto-No)
ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT
7. 2ND READING Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 16.18
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt
a New Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local Energy Efficiency
Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by
the 2008 California Energy Code
(First reading October 19, 2009 – Passed 8-0 Barton absent)
CMR 113:10 and ATTACHMENT
8. Request for Referral of an Application to Rename Lytton Plaza to the
Parks and Recreation Commission Subject to the Provisions of City
Policy 1-15 – Facility Naming and Renaming
CMR 110:10 and ATTACHMENT
9. Approval of a Three Year Term Contract with G&K Services in the Total
Amount of $465,000 for Uniform Rental and Laundry Services
CMR 115:10 and ATTACHMENT
10. Adoption of Two Resolutions to Incorporate a Side Letter with the Palo
Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA) to Allow Deferral of the FY 09-
10 Negotiated Salary Increase and Extend the Term of the
Memorandum of Agreement for One Additional Year and correct the
2007-2010 Salary Schedules: (1) Amending Section 1601 of the Merit
System Rules and Regulations Regarding the 2007-2010 Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA), and (2) Amending the Compensation Plan for
5 01/11/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Police Non-Management Personnel (PAPOA) Adopted by Resolution No.
8779
CMR 117:10 and ATTACHMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials,
Council Matters, and Unfinished Business
11. PUBLIC HEARING Approval of the Acceptance of Citizens Options for
Public Safety (COPS) funds in the amount of $100,000, Pursuant to
Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, Relating to the
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund, to Consider the Police
Chief’s Request to Purchase Computer Forensic Software, Global
Positioning System Devices, Radio Earpieces, Remote Area Lighting
Systems, Patrol Team Operation Kits, Replacement K-9 Unit, and
Additional Funding for the Crime Scene Evidence Collection Vehicle
(continued from 12/14/09)
CMR 462:09 ATTACHMENT
12. PUBLIC HEARING Approval of a Request for On-Site Use of 1,146
Square Feet of a 5,668 Square Foot “Double Bonus” from a Proposed
Historic Rehabilitation and Seismic Retrofit and Record of Land Use
Action, to Increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of a Property Listed on
the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as a Category II Historic Resource and
on the Seismic Structures Inventory as a Seismic Category II Building,
Located at 661 Bryant Street Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.070
CMR 116:10 and ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT
13. PUBLIC HEARING on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of
Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated
6 01/11/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
CMR 103:09 and ATTACHMENT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN TO
A SPECIAL MEETING AS THE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO KAREN HOLMAN FOR
OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Karen Holman has served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Planning and Transportation
Commission for over eight years from August 2001 to December 2009; whereupon she served as Chair for 2
years from August 2006 through August 2008, and served as Vice-Chair from August 2005 through August
2006; and
WHEREAS, Karen Holman has actively provided insightful input and thorough analysis for significant land
use policy recommendations; including the Zoning Ordinance Update, the South of Forest Area Coordinated
Area Plan Phase 2, the Stanford University Development Agreement, the Single Family Individual Review
Guidelines, and the Baylands Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, Karen Holman has advocated for a fair and transparent process for Planning and Transportation
Commission review of all items brought before the Commission and, in doing so, helped restore the public trust
in the City review process; and
WHEREAS, Karen Holman, as Chair of the Commission, structured efficient meetings and enabled effective
public discourse, and established Planning and Transportation Commission subcommittees to work on various
methods of improving City processes, such as evaluating requirements for Planned Community zonings and
exceptions and variances and improving staff and Commission effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, Karen Holman has been a consistent and strong proponent of preserving the character of the
community and individual neighborhoods by requiring conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and all
City regulations and supporting compatibility of new construction, provision of private and common open space,
and retention of existing housing, particularly older, small units; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to acknowledge and thank Karen Holman for her efforts to improve
this community through her substantial dedication as a member of the Planning and Transportation Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully
records and extends its sincere appreciation and the appreciation of the community to Karen Holman for her
faithful and excellent service rendered to the City.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: January 11, 2010
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________ __________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ___________________
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
25th Anniversary of Gamble Garden Center
WHEREAS, the year 2010 is the 25th anniversary of the Palo Alto City Council decision
to allow a non-profit organization to take over the 2 ½ acre property that Elizabeth F. Gamble
gave to the City and create a community garden; and
WHEREAS, the Garden Club of Palo Alto took the lead to form a non-profit corporation
named The Gamble Garden Center to manage the property as a public garden and
horticultural center, including the full funding of annual operations and improvements; and
WHEREAS, The Gamble Garden Center then raised over $1,000,000 from private
sources for the renovation of the buildings and gardens which was unprecedented at the time
for non-profits using City property, and has continued to manage the Gamble property
without financial support from the City; and
WHEREAS, Gamble Garden has become one of Palo Alto’s treasures, open every day of
the year, free of charge, where citizens of all ages can find a wealth of garden related
educational programs, activities and resources, along with a beautiful garden oasis for
observation and relaxation; and
WHEREAS, hundreds of volunteers work tirelessly to provide the amenities and services
for the education and enjoyment of members of our community and to preserve and maintain
the property as a window into the City’s historic past.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, PATRICK BURT, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf
of the City Council do hereby endorse and thank Gamble Garden Center for their 25 years of
dedicated service to the community.
Presented: January 2010
______________________________
Patrick Burt
Mayor
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JANUARY 11, 2010 CMR:I05:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C07116703 with C
Way Custodian Services to Increase the Annual Compensation Amount
by $52,192 for a Total Annual Compensation Amount of $577,820 to
Provide New Custodial Collection Services at Selected City Facilities for
the Remaining Two Years of the Contract
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C07116703 with C-Way Custodian Services
(Attachment A) in the amount of $45,372 for changes in garbage service and the addition of
recycling and composting collection service plus $6,806 for additional services. The amended
total contract amount would be $502,440 for basic services and $75,367 for additional services
for the remaining two years of this contract.
BACKGROUND
On November 6,2006, Council approved Contract C07116703 with C-Way Custodian Services
to provide custodial services at selected City facilities (CMR:405:06) and authorizes extension of
the contract for up to a five year period. This contract includes standard custodial services
including garbage collection. Employees at these locations service their own recycling by taking
it to a central location for collection.
C-Way has been under separate contract (S07117170) to provide recycling collection services of
central bins at city offices in the Civic Center, Municipal Service Center Building C, SCADA,
Development Center, 100511007 Elwell Court, and 300 Hamilton Ave. This contract ended on
June 30, 2009 and has been extended on a month to month basis to take advantage of the new
composting service offered under the Green Waste contract. Public Works staff has embarked
on a new program to encourage recycling and composting at City facilities. This program will
further Zero Waste goals of reducing items placed in the garbage. Under this new program, solid
waste collection services will be replaced by recycling collection to reflect City's staff s shift
away from solid waste usage. In addition, composting bins will be placed throughout city
facilities and will be collected along with recycling bins at an additional modest cost. A summary
of the City's new Zero Waste program is contained in Attachment B.
CMR: 105: 10 Page 10f3
DISCUSSION
October 20,2008, Council approved a contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto (CMR:416:08) to
provide solid waste, recyclable materials, organic materials, and yard trimmings collection and
processing services. This contract, effective July 1, 2009, added composting service for
commercial customers, thus providing the opportunity for greater compost and less garbage
service at city facilities. Since the implementation of the Green Waste contract, the City's Zero
Waste staff has provided outreach and training'to educate all city staff on the importance of
following proper disposal practices to assure the highest amount of material is recovered through
recycling and composting and that only the remaining materials will make it into landfills. City
staff now generates recyclables in the greatest quantity, followed by compostables, with garbage
in the least amount. Due to the shift in the type of waste generated, the focus of services shifts
from managing garbage to effectively managing recycling at individual work stations.
Amendment No.2 consolidates collection services provided under the twoC-Way Custodian
Services contracts. By combining the two contracts, the savings realized from discontinuing
trash pickup at workstations will be used toward increased recycling and compost collection
costs, resulting in a net increase of $45,372 annually.
These contract changes will allow a shift from garbage collection to standardized recycling
collection at individual work stations and central collection locations, along with compost
collection at central locations, at all serviced facilities. As a result of this shift, additional
contract services will be required for the collection of central compost, central garbage, restroom
compost, and restroom garbage collection at all locations serviced by the contractor.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for this amendment are available in the Public Works Department, Zero Waste Operating
Budget.
POLICY IMP ACT
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
21065 of the Public Resources Code.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C07116703
Attachment B: City Staff Zero Waste Program
PREPARED BY:
MIKE WONG
Supervisor, Facilities Management
PREPARED BY:
Mana~r,.Faci1ities Maintenance and Proj~cts
CMR:I05:10 Page 2 of3
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
CMR: 105: 10
Ii-1.:RJ)-
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
Page 3 of3
ATTACHMENT A
AMENDMENT NO.TWO TO AGREEMENT NO. C07116703
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
C-WAY CUSTODIAN SERVICES
This Amendment No. Two to Agreement No. C07116703
("Agreement") is entered into January 11, 2010, by and between the
CITY OF PALO ALTO ("CITYII), and C-WAY CUSTODIAN SERVICES, a
California Corporation, located at 1885 Bowers Avenue, Santa Clara,
CA 95051 ("CONTRACTOR").
R E CIT A L S:
WHEREAS, the Agreement was entered into between the
parties for the provision of custodial services; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in. consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. The section entitled "COMPENSATION" is hereby
amended, to read as follows:
"COMPENSATION" for the full performance of this
Agreement: CITY. shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to
accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full
performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if
any: the total maximum lump sum compensation of Five
Hundred Two Thousand Four Hundred Forty dollars per
contract year ($502,440).
The City has set aside the sum of Seventy Five Thousand
Three Hundred Sixty Seven dollars per contract year
. ($75,367) for Additional Services.
SECTION 2. The following exhibit(s) to the Agreement
is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to
this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
a. Exhibit "A" entitled "Scopell •
b. Exhibit "B" entitled "Fee Schedulel/.
SECTION 3. Except as herein modified, all other
provlslons of the Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent
amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
1
0912149000050 Amend.agt
Rev. July 31,1998
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date
first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
Director of Public Works
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHmIT "A":
EXHmIT "B":
0912149000050
SCOPE OF WORK
FEE SCHEDULE
2
C-WAY CUSTODIAN SERVICES
BY'.~~GC
Name: C..?b~ SQk yO~!5
Amend.agt
Rev. July 31, 1998
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
A. WORK PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY STANDARDS
Contractor's custodial effort must conform to the following standards in all areas covered by
this contract. If any activity or job task has been omitted, contractor must so notifY the City's
Project Manager immediately for resolution.
1. Workmanship and Quality Level
The City of Palo Alto requires the highest level of quality in custodial maintenance.
All work must be performed by experienced janitorial personnel supervised by the
Contractor. The Contractor must provide management and technical supervision
through competent supervisors as required to implement modem methods and newly
developed janitorial procedures.
The Contractor must be responsible for the skills, methods, and actions of his/her
employees and for all work done. The Contractor must perform the work herein
provided for under the direction of and to the satisfaction of the City's Project
Manager. The Contractor must cooperate with the City's Project Manager to enable
him to determine the Contractor's conformity with these specifications and the
adequacy of the work being performed. The Contractor must give hislher personal
supervision to the work as required in addition to his assigned resident supervisor,
and be available for consultation with the City's Representative.
2. Equipment and Materials
The Contractor must, at all times, furnish and maintain sufficient equipment and
materials as necessary to perform the work of this contract. Such equipment and
materials shall be subject to inspection and approval of the City. Under no
circumstances will non-motorized carpet sweepers be allowed.
3. Supplies
The Contractor must, at all times, use only environmentally friendly "green"
chemicals and supplies which meet the standards of the City's sustainabilityprogram
at the City'S facilities and are subject to the approval of the Project Manager. Zinc
floor finishes are not permitted under any circumstance. All paper products, (i.e.
toilet tissue, hand towels), must be 100% recycled and chemical free.
Compostab Ie Plastic Bags must be used in compost bins and must meet the following
standards: Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), non Genetically Modified
Organism (GMO) preferred, www.bpiworld.org http://www.bpiworld.org/BPI-
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 1
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Publici Approved/l.html
B. SCOPE OF WORK
Contractor must furnish the following services at the designated frequencies at each of the
listed facilities. Each servicing must include all duties listed. Contractor shall supply and
stock all required products at each facility with each servicing. Section 0 identifies location
of collection bins, type of bins , number of bins , liner requirements and service frequency, at
each facility.
Facility: Animal Services Buildings
Location: 3281 East Bayshore Blvd.
Total Square Feet: 5,657
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Monday through Friday)
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime andlor any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Frequency: Monday through Friday
Type of Service: Entire Facility
. Empty all recycling containers once per week on Mondays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Frequency: Monday through Friday
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Freqnency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip .and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Freqnency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuff with a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Freqnency: F our Times Annually
Facility: Arastradero Gateway Facility
Location: 1530 Arastradero Rd.
Total Square Feet: 969
Servicing Frequency: Once per Week
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Empty all garbage and
compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and compost containers to be
kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be replaced immediately
when needed Empty and replace with new liners all sanitary napkin receptacles.
Replace and refill, as needed, all dispensers and containers. Damp wipe toilet
partitions and all wall areas showing any stains, spots, grime and/or any abuse in
general. Remove any graffiti immediately from any surface as it appears, as well
as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors
and properly dispose of all trash items. Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant
cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops, changing stations, toilet bowls and
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3
Scope
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. Pour one gallon of water down each
floor drain. Secure facility after service.
Weekly
Meeting Room
The sealed cement floors of the main meeting room (432 square feet) are to be
mopped, stripped and resealed.
Frequency: Quarterly
Facility: The Art Center
Location: 1313 Newell Rd.
Total Square Feet: 26,441
Servicing Frequency: Six Days per Week, (Tuesday through Sunday)
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime andlor any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Frequency: Tuesday through Sunday
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Mondays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 4
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
set alatm.
Frequency: Tuesday through Sunday
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Frequency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Baylands Interpretive Center
Location: 2775 Embarcadero Rd.
Total Square Feet: 3,600
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Monday through Friday)
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 5
Scope
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Facility:
Location:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors; Secure facility and
set alarm.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Monthly
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled and linoleum floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility
SprayBuff with a high-speed buffer all tiled and linoleum and floor areas.
Monthly
Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Four Times Annually
Children's Library
1275 Harriet St.
Total Square Feet: 3,264
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 6
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Servicing Frequency: Seven Days per Week
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Frequency: All items daily, trash pickup, dispenser filling and any required surface
cleaning twice daily.
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Frequency: Daily
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Frequency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 7
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and table top surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean trash and debris from fireplace. Clean exterior entranceways
removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Children's Theater
Location: 1305 Middlefield Rd.
Total Square Feet: 17,619
Servicing Frequency: Six Days per Week, (Tuesday through Sunday)
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Frequency: Tuesday through Sunday
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Frequency: Tuesday through Sunday
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 8
Scope
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Facility:
Location:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Monthly
Entire Facility
Clean all counters and table top surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways reJl}oving all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from walls and
floor surfaces.
Four Times Annually
City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave.
Total Building Square Feet: 104,893
Total Parking Square Feet: 251,508
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Restrooms ~ Complete servicing, including Police Department.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Clean all compost and garbage containers
when necessary.
Monday through Friday (PD, between 2~5pm; Non-PD, after 6pm)
Entire Facility, including Police Department.
Empty all central garbage and central compost containers each service day and
replace liner with proper type, size and depth. Clean all central compost and
central garbage containers when necessary. Facility includes cafeteria and break
rooms.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 9
Scope
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Facility:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Monday through Friday (PD, between 2-5pm; Non-PD, after 5pm)
Parking Garage -Elevator lobby entrances, plaza, and stairwells.
Empty all recycling and garbage containers each service day and replace liner with
proper type, size and depth. Clean all containers when necessary.
Monday through Friday
Police Garage (Forest side).
Empty all recycling each service day once per week on Tuesdays or Thursdays
and replace liner with proper type, size and depth. Clean all containers when
necessary.
Once per week.
Cafeteria -Once per week on Tuesdays or Thursdays, 1. Collect polystyrene
peanuts and deliver to UPS for reuse, 2. Collect and bag plastic bags, then place in
recycle bin in A-level recycle closet
Once per week.
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Once Annually
Entire Facility, (restrooms, hallways, elevators and lobby areas only)
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility, (restroom, hallway, elevators and lobby areas only)
SprayBuff with a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Monthly
Garage Areas
Sweep and damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaner) all stairwells, landings,
and elevators. Wipe down the elevator walls with proper disinfectant cleaner.
Remove any trash found in these areas. Empty and replace liners in all trash
containers.
Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays
College Terrace Library
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 10
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Location: 2300 Wellesley St.
Total Square Feet: 5~050
Servicing Frequency: Six Days per Week, (Monday through Saturday)
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Monday through Saturday
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Monday through Saturday
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 11
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Community Theater
Location: 1305 Middlefield Rd.
Total Square Feet: 33,716
Servicing Frequency: Six Days per Week, (Tuesday through Sunday)
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Restrooms / Showers-Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. All
shower areas are to be kept free of mildew, hair, dirt and soap scum. Clean and
disinfect all floor mats, benches and tiled areas. Pour one gallon of water down
each floor drain.
Tuesday through Sunday
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 12
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
trash items on aU non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Frequency: Tuesday through Sunday
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Frequency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuff with a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Development Center
Location: 285 Hamilton Ave.
Total Square Feet: 10,700
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Monday through Friday)
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime andlor any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti irhmediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 13
Scope
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. Pour one gallon of
water down each floor drain.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Empty counter garbage, all central garbage, and central compost containers each
service day and replace liner with proper type, size and depth. Clean central compost
and central garbage containers when necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including
any stairwells, offices, and open space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper
disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all trash items on all non-carpeted floors.
Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings. Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from
glass on entry doors. Secure facility and set alarm.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility.
Empty plan set recycling, counter and central recycling containers each service
day and only kitchen and desk recycling containers once per week. Clean
recycling containers when necessary. Replace central recycling liner with proper
type, size and depth. Recycle cardboard to cardboard recycling dumpster.
Recycle blueprints to recycle collection bin at outside location. Transport
polystyrene "blocks" and "peanuts" to specified containers located at the Civic
Center.
Check the designated collectorlhauler garbage containers located outside the
building, to see if cardboard is present. If cardboard is present, flatten if needed,
and recycle on site to recycling dumpster .
Monday through Friday.
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 14
Scope
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Facility:
Location:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Monthly
Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Four Times Annually
Downtown Library
270 Forest Ave.
Total Square Feet: 8,741
Servicing Frequency: Seven Days per Week
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime andlor any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
All items daily, trash pickup,-dispenser filling and any required surface cleaning
twice daily.
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Mondays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Daily
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 15
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Type of Service: Entire Facility .
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Frequency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Foothills Park Interpretive Center
Location: 3300 Page Mill Road
Total Square Feet: 5,035
Servicing Frequency: One Day per Week
Type of Service: Restrooms -
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms once per week on
Fridays. All garbage and compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with
proper liners, which must be replaced immediately when needed
Frequency: Once per week.
Type of Service: Entire Facility.
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Replace central
recycling liner with proper type, size and depth. Clean recycling containers when
necessary. Empty all central garbage and central compost containers once per
week on Fridays and replace liner with proper type, size and depth. Clean central
compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when necessary.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 16
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Frequency: Once per week.
Facility: Golf Course Restrooms
Location: 1875 Embarcadero Rd.
Club House Restrooms
Total Square Feet: 900
Frequency: Seven days a week, twice daily
(once between 11:00 am and noon, once at dusk)
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Field Restrooms
Total Square Feet:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Clean compost and garbage containers when
necessary. Empty and replace with new liners all sanitary napkin receptacles.
Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and containers. Damp wipe toilet
partitions and all wall areas showing any stains, spots, grime andior any abuse in
general. Remove any graffiti immediately from any surface as it appears, as well
as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors
and properly dispose of all trash items. Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant
cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops, changing stations, toilet bowls and
urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. Pour one gallon of water down each
floor drain. Lock restrooms doors after final daily service.
242
Seven days a week
Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all trash and waste containers in all restrooms. All waste containers to be
kept lined with proper liners, which must be replaced immediately when needed.
Empty and replace with new liners all sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and
refill, as needed all dispensers and containers. All soap dispensers require an anti
bacterial hand soap. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any
stains, spots, grime andior any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately
from any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep
all chrome fixtures clean. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops, toilet bowls and
urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 17
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Facility: Golf Course Workshop
Location: 1875 Embarcadero Rd.
Total Square Feet: 2,288
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Monday through Friday)
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Restrooms / Showers -Complete serVicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as !'spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. All shower areas are
to be kept free of mildew, hair, dirt and soap scum. Clean and disinfect all floor
mats, benches and tiled areas. Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on'Thursdays. Replace central
recycling liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and
central compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size
and depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 18
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Frequeucy: Four Times Annually
Facility: Information Technology
Location: 300 Hamilton
Total Square Feet: 969
Servicing Frequency: One Day per Week
Type of Service: Entire Facility.
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Friday. Replace central
recycling liner with proper type, size and depth. Clean recycling containers when
necessary. Transport "peanuts" to specified containers located at the Civic
Center.
Frequency: Once per week.
Facility: Junior Museum
Location: 1305 Middlefield Rd.
Total Square Feet: 5,856
Servicing Frequency: Seven Days per Week
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 19
Scope
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime andlor any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
All items daily, trash pickup, dispenser filling and any required surface
cleaning twice daily.
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Fridays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stailWells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Daily
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Monthly
Entire Facility
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 20
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Landfill Office and Toll Booth
Location: 2380 Embarcadero Rd.
Total Square Feet: 1,488
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Monday through Friday)
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. Pour one gallon of
water down each floor drain.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Thursdays. Replace central
recycling liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and
central compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size
and depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 21
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Frequency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuff with a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc; Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Facility: Main Library
Location: 1213 Newell Rd.
Total Square Feet: 26,582
Servicing Frequency: Seven Days per Week
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime andlor any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
All items daily, trash pickup, dispenser filling and any required surface
cleaning twice daily.
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Mondays. Replace central recycling
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 22
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Frequency: Daily
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Frequency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and table top surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean trash and debris from fireplace. Clean exterior entranceways
removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Mitchell Park Library
Location: 3700 Middlefield Rd.
Total Square Feet: 10,678
Servicing Frequency: Seven Days per Week
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 23
Scope
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms.· All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners an
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs, II etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
All items daily, trash pickup, dispenser filling and any required surface
cleaning twice daily.
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Tuesdays. Replace central recycling
liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and central
compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size and
depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Daily
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Monthly
Entire Facility
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 24
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Facility: Municipal Service Center Buildings (A,B,C, & SCADA)
Location: 3201 EastBayshore Rd. & 3241 East Bayshore Rd.
Total Square Feet: 76,634
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Monday through Friday)
Type of Service: Restrooms / Showers -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. All shower areas are
to be kept free of mildew, hair, dirt and soap scum. Clean and disinfect all floor
mats, benches and tiled areas. Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Freqnency: Monday through Friday
Type of Service: Entire Facility (including shops and fueling station)
Empty all inside central garbage and central compost containers each service day and
replace liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all outside central garbage and
central compost containers once per week and replace liner with proper type, size
and depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility.
Frequency: Monday through Friday
Type of Service: Entire Facility (including shops, outside areas, and fueling station)
Empty all recycling containers once per week. Replace central recycling liner with .
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 25
Scope
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Facility:
Locations:
Frequency:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
proper type, size and depth. Clean recycling containers when necessary.
Monday
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility
SprayBuffwith a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Monthly
Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Four Times Annually
Building B Exercise Room
Disinfect all equipment with proper cleanser. Detail vacuum between and under
Weight benches and machines.
Twice Annually
All Park Restrooms
Rinconada Park 777 Embarcadero Rd.
Mitchell Park 600 E. Meadow (two sets)
Peers Park 1899 Park Ave.
EI Camino Park 100 EI Camino Real
Greer Park
Baylands Park
Byxbee Park
Hoover Park
Stanford Fields
1098 Amarillo Ave.
1785 Embarcadero Rd.
2380 Embarcadero Rd.
2901 Cowper St.
2700 EI Camino Real
Seven days a week
511 sq. ft.
1,363 sq. ft.
1,046 sq. ft.
272 sq. ft.
597 sq. ft.
843 sq. ft.
568 sq. ft.
500 sq. ft.
1,080 sq. ft.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 26
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all trash and waste containers in all restrooms. All waste containers to be
kept lined with proper liners, which must be replaced immediately when needed.
Empty and replace with new liners all sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and
refill, as needed all dispensers and containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all
wall areas showing any stains, spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove
any graffiti immediately from any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc.
Clean mirrors and keep all dispensers and fixtures clean. Sanitize changing
stations. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items. Damp mop floor
areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops, toilet bowls and
urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. Pour one gallon of water down each
floor drain. Lock restroom doors after daily service where applicable. All park
restrooms are to remain open during daylight hours.
Facility: Rinconada Pool Office and Shower Rooms
Location: 777 Embarcadero Rd.
Total Square Feet: 3,585
Servicing Frequency: Seven Days per Week
Type of Service: Restrooms / Showers -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner.
All shower areas are to be kept free of mildew, hair, dirt and soap scum. Clean
and disinfect all floor mats, benches and tiled areas. Pour one gallon of water
down each floor drain.
Frequency: Daily
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Thursdays. Replace central
recycling liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 27
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
central compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size
and depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Frequency: Daily
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Frequency: Twice Annually
Facility: Utilities Offices
Location: 1005 &1007 Elwell Ct.
Total Square Feet: 16,157
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Monday through Friday)
Type of Service: Restrooms I Showers -Complete servicing.
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains, counter tops,
toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. All shower areas are
to be kept free of mildew, hair, dirt and soap scum. Clean and disinfect all floor
mats, benches and tiled areas. Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Empty all central garbage and central compost containers each service day and
replace liner with proper type, size and depth. Clean central compost, central
garbage, and all recycling containers when necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors
including any stairwells, offices, and open space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 28
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all trash items on all non-carpeted floors.
Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings. Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from
glass on entry doors. Secure facility and set alarm.
Frequency: Monday through Friday
Type of Service: Entire Facility.
Empty all central recycling containers two times per week on Tue$days and
Thursdays and recycling containers at individual workstations one time per week
on Tuesdays. Replace central recycling liner with proper type, size and depth.
Check the designated collectorlhauler garbage containers located outside the
building, to see if cardboard is present. If cardboard is present, flatten if needed,
and transport material to designated recycling container.
Frequency: Tuesdays and Thursdays
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Frequency: Twice Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Four Times Annually
Type of Service: Entire Facility
SprayBuff with a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Frequency: Monthly
Type of Service: Entire Facility
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Facility: Water Quality Control Buildings
Location: 2501 Embarcadero Way
Total Square Feet: 12,400
Servicing Frequency: Five Days per Week, (Sunday through Thursday)
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 29
Scope
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Frequency:
Type of Service:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Restrooms / Showers -Complete servicing.
Empty all garbage and compost containers in all restrooms. All garbage and
compost containers to be kept cleaned and lined with proper liners, which must be
replaced immediately when needed. Empty and replace with new liners all
sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and refill, as needed all dispensers and
containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all wall areas showing any stains,
spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove any graffiti immediately from
any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc. Clean mirrors and keep all
chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly dispose of all trash items.
Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean sinks, drains; counter tops,
toilet bowls and urinals with brush and disinfectant cleaner. All shower areas are
to be kept free of mildew, hair, dirt and soap scum. Clean and disinfect all floor
mats, benches and tiled areas. Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Empty all recycling containers once per week on Thursdays. Replace central
recycling liner with proper type, size and depth. Empty all central garbage and
central compost containers each service day and replace liner with proper type, size
and depth. Clean central compost, central garbage, and all recycling containers when
necessary. Vacuum all carpeted floors including any stairwells, offices, and open
space areas. Sweep, damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaners), and dispose of all
trash items on all non-carpeted floors. Remove cobwebs from walls and ceilings.
Refill towel dispensers. Clean marks from glass on entry doors. Secure facility and
set alarm.
Monday through Friday
Entire Facility
Wash all windows, interior and exterior.
Twice Annually
Entire Facility
Strip and refinish all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Four Times Annually
Entire Facility
SprayBuff with a high-speed buffer all tiled, linoleum and wood floor areas.
Monthly
Entire Facility
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 30
Scope
Frequency:
Facility:
Location:
Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Clean all counters and tabletop surfaces removing all graffiti, pen and pencil marks,
dirt, etc. Clean exterior entranceways removing all dirt, cobwebs, etc. from wall and
floor surfaces.
Four Times Annually
PARKING FACILITY "Q"
400 Block of Higb St.
Total Square Feet: 48,000
Type of Service: Garage Areas
Sweep and damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaner) all stairwells, landings,
and elevators. Wipe down the elevator walls with proper disinfectant cleaner.
Remove any trash found in these areas. Empty and replace liners in all trash
containers.
Frequency: Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
Facility: PARKING FACILITY "J"
Location: 520 Webster St.
Total Square Feet: 148,000
Type of Service: Garage Areas
Sweep and damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaner) all stairwells, landings,
and elevators. Wipe down the elevator walls with proper disinfectant cleaner.
Remove any trash found in these areas. Empty and replace liners in all trash
containers. Remove trash from complete facility including parking areas,
sidewalks, and ledges, around bike lockers and in storage areas. Clean and
sanitize any area that may have urine, human waste, blood or vomit. Sweep and
remove trash from sidewalk and around facility. Clean the alley between facility
and businesses.
Frequency: Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays
Facility: PARKING FACILITY "S/L"
Location: 445 Bryant St.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 31
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Total Square Feet: 229,380
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all trash and waste containers in all restrooms. All waste containers to be
kept lined with proper liners, which must be replaced immediately when needed.
Empty and replace with new liners all sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and
refill, as needed all dispensers and containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all
wall areas showing any stains, spots, grime and/or any abuse in general. Remove
any graffiti immediately from any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc.
Clean mirrors and keep all chrome fixtUres clean. Sweep floors and properly
dispose of all trash items. Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean
sinks, drains, counter tops, toilet bowls, changing stations and urinals with brush
and disinfectant cleaner. Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain. Lock
restroom doors after daily service.
Type of Service: Garage Areas
Sweep and damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaner) all stairwells, landings,
. and elevators. Wipe down the elevator walls with proper disinfectant cleaner.
Remove any trash found in these areas. Empty and replace liners in all trash
containers. Clean and sanitiz-e any area that may have urine, human waste, blood
or vomit. Sweep and remove trash from sidewalk and around facility. Clean the
alley between facility and businesses.
Frequency: Seven Days a Week
Facility: PARKING FACILITY "R"
Location: 528 High St.
Total Square Feet: 93,930
Type of Service: Restrooms -Complete servicing.
Empty all trash and waste containers in all restrooms. All waste containers to be
kept lined with proper liners, which must be replaced immediately when needed.
Empty and replace with new liners all sanitary napkin receptacles. Replace and
refill, as needed all dispensers and containers. Damp wipe toilet partitions and all
wall areas showing any stains, spots, grime and/or any abuse in generaL Remove
any graffiti immediately from any surface as it appears, as well as "spitballs," etc.
Clean mirrors and keep all chrome fixtures clean. Sweep floors and properly
dispose of all trash items. Damp mop floor areas with disinfectant cleaner. Clean
sinks, drains, counter tops, changing stations, toilet bowls and urinals with brush .
CITY OF PALO ALTO· GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 32
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
and disinfectant cleaner. Pour one gallon of water down each floor drain. Lock
restroom doors after daily service.
Type of Service: Garage Areas
Frequency:
Sweep and damp mop (with proper disinfectant cleaner) all stairwells, landings,
and elevators. Wipe down the elevator walls with proper disinfectant cleaner.
Remove any trash found in these areas. Empty and replace liners in all trash
containers. Clean and sanitize any area that may have urine, human waste, blood
or vomit. . Sweep and remove trash from sidewalk and around facility. Clean the
alley between facility and businesses.
Seven Days a Week
D. CITY REPRESENTATIVE
The contact for the Contractor with the City during the life ofthe contract shall be with the
City's Project Manager: Michael Wong, (650) 496-6989; 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo
Alto, CA 94303. Email: michael.wong@cityofpaloalto.org
E. MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS
1. Codes
Work and materials must conform to the requirements of:
a. Safety Orders -State of California, Division of Industrial Safety
b. State Fire Marshall
c. OSHA Regulations
2. Work Scheduling and Performance
Times of servicing are to be determined by the City's Project Manager.
3. Parking
Contractor may utilize existing public parking space as required and available.
4. Building Deficiencies
Contractor will report any building deficiencies, (water or power outages, broken
locks, etc.), to the City's Project Manager no later than the next business day.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 33
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
F. SECURITY
Contractor will be issued keys to all facilities requiring access under this contract. Contractor
shall lock all facilities after the work is completed, unless otherwise instructed in writing by
the City. Contractor shall not duplicate keys. Contractor shall return or account for all issued
keys at the end of the contract or upon contract termination. Failure to return all keys issued
will result in deductions from final invoice of all costs to the City in order to rekey the locks
on those facilities. Contractor shall provide to the City's Proj ect Manager a current listing of
all personnel to whom keys have been assigned, including key identification and home
address of said personnel.
G. INSPECTION
The City's Project Manager, or his designee, will inspect all facilities covered under this
contract at least once each month. There will be no prior announcement of inspection tours
by the City.
H. SUPERVISION
Contractor must maintain at least (1) Supervisor who will monitor job performance of
Contractor's custodial staff to assure performance to required standards and be available to
the City's Project Manager at all times. This person must be able to communicate in both
written and verbal form with the City's Project Manager.
I. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR
The City assumes no responsibility whatsoever for loss or damage of equipment owned or
operated by the Contractor, his agents or employees. The entire responsibility for any and all
injury to the public, to individuals and to property resulting or indirectly caused by the
performance of the work hereunder must rest upon the Contractor, and he/she agrees to
indemnify and hold the City free and harmless from and against any and all liability, expense,
claims, costs, suits and damages arising out of negligence on the part of the Contractor.
J. PROPERTY DAMAGE
Any private or City property damaged or altered in any way during the performance of the
work under the contract shall be reported promptly to the City, and must be rectified in an
approved manner back to its former condition prior to damage at the Contractor's expense.
K. CONTRACTOR'S CONTACT
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 34
Scope Exhibit A
SPECIFICATION CITYWIDE CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Contractor must provide the City's Project Manager with telephone numbers of all
supervisory personnel related to the contract.
L. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Contractor response time to emergency cleaning must be within two (2) hours of notification
of said condition.
M. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL
Contractor must submit to the Project Manager for approval, a list of all equipment and
materials to be used in any City facility, prior to beginning of work to this contract.
N. BUILDING ALARMS
All building alarms must be activated once Contractor's staff has left and the facility is
vacated. Any false alarms caused by the Contractor, that are responded to by the Palo Alto
'Police Department, are subject to a service fee which will be deducted from the Contractor's
monthly invoice.
O. COLLECTION SERVICE DETAIL
See spreadsheet below.
CITY OF PALO ALTO -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS 35
Exhibit B for Amendment #2
Fee Schedule
C-Way Custodian Services
Current
Facility Contract Price
Animal Services $821
Arastra Gateway $300
Art Center $2,309
Baylands Int. Center $513
Children's library $1,248
Children's Theater $1,590
City Hall $1,924
College Terrace Library $667
Community Theater $1,590
Development Center $1,283
Downtown Library $975
Golf Course Clubhouse $1,149
Golf Course Workshop $616
Jr. Museum $1,488
Landfill Office $718
Main Library $1,898
Mitchell Park Library $1,436
MSC Buildings $2,411
All Park Restrooms $3,571
Rinconada Pool $1,385
Utility Offices $2,945
Water Quality Buildings $1,796
300 Hamilton $0
Parking Lot Q $616
Parking Lot R $1,770
Parking Lot SIL $1,890
Parking Lot J $1,180
Monthly Total $38,089
Increase for
Additional
Collection
Services New Price
$0 $821
$0 $300
$0 $2,309
$0 $513
$0 $1,248
$0 $1,590
$2,880 $4,804
$0 $667
$0 $1,590
$72 $1,355
$0 $975
$0 $1,149
$0 $616
$0 $1,488
$0 $718
$0 $1,898
$0 $1,436
$769 $3,180
$0 $3,571
$0 $1,385
$0 $2,945
$0 $1,796
$60 $60
$0 $616
$0 $1,770
$0 $1,890
$0 $1,180
$3,781 $41,870
ATTACHMENT B
0) ......,
en
CO en S 0)
0 C)
c: s....
0) CO 0> N-C 0
-oU 0
C\I s.... 0) CO ...
() LO
== --I-~
o c: ---I s...
I-0) w (I) ..c en en E 0.-(I)
0) -~ (.)
"""'-0 Q) en 0 0 ......, ......,
>< en
0) ::J
zU
s....
::J
0
Purpose
• Participate fully in services provided by GreenWaste to
do our part in assisting the community in its Zero Waste
and Climate Protection goals.
• Shift custodial service at employee work stations to
focus on the discarded material we generate the most of
-recycling.
• Create uniformity throughout City Facilities.
en I
(]) -.c co +-' en
0 c.. .
E (])
C)
CO 0 CO u .c
0 s.... s....
0 CO
(!) en C)
(]) (]) -..c: .c +-'
CO c: -u .-
~
(]) s....
0
Z
,I
en
Q)
()
.~
Q) en
co ---c o
I ' en
::l
t)
en
(J) en :c •• (J) ca
'+--...... (J) o.cenC)
c: ~ 0 ca o (.) c..c .-~ E L... t5 (.) 0 ca
(J)(J)()C9 -0:: -o • () . .
What is Recyclable?
• Paper (e.g., newspaper, magazines, mail, books, cardboard,
paper boxes)
• Glass (e.g., bottles, jars)
• Metal (e.g., empty cans, foil, scrap metal)
• Bagged Plastic Bags, Film Plastics (e.g., pallet/shrink wrap,
shopping bags, bags from products packaged in bags)
• Plastics (e.g., bottles, containers, shelving, baskets, toys)
• Electronics (e.g., anything with a circuit board that it is no
issued by IT)
• Pallets (not in blue bin, but placed in designated areas for
pick-up)
Recyclables
(Blue Bin)
Old
• Employee transported to central location.
• Various and improvised recycling
receptacles at deskside.
New
• Uniform recycling receptacle at deskside.
• Custodial service at desk 1 xlwk.
Compostables
(Green Bin)
What is Compostable?
• Food: vegetables, fruit, grains, meat,
bones, dairy, dough, coffee grounds/filters,
tea bags
• Food-soiled paper: waxed cardboard,
paper towels/napkins/plates/cups/take-out
containers, bio-plastic compostable food
service ware
• Landscape/plant trimmings: grass, leaves,
pruning's, flowers, untreated lumber and
wood chips
• Starch-based bag liner
• Employee places their compostables in
the centrally located container within their
work area.
• Container is lined with a compostable bag
and serviced 5x1wk.
Garbage: What's left over?
• Chip bags
• Candy wrappers
• Latex/non-latex gloves
• Plastic sandwich wrap
• Broken dishes
• Rubber
• Styrofoam® (e.g., blocks, take-out containers, cups,
plates)
• Beverage boxes/pouches (e.g., Capri Sun® pouches,
juice/soup/soy milk boxes)
• Animal waste
Old
• Custodial service at desk.
• Large lined garbage can.
Garbage
New
• Replace garbage can with unlined mini bin.
• Employee places contents of mini bin in central
garbage can. Central garbage serviced 5x/wk.
Bathrooms
• Existing garbage receptacles will be converted to collect
compostables (e.g., paper towels) and be lined with a
compostable starch-based bag.
• A placard will be placed on the compostables receptacle.
• A small, lined garbage can (the cans formerly at
employee work stations), will be placed in each
bathroom to collect garbage (e.g., feminine hygiene
products, diapers).
Head Start
• Roll-out has begun to locations or groups not impacted
by C-Way contract:
-MSC Exterior Waste Stations: August
-RWQCP: August
-Fire Stations: September
-MSC Fueling Station: November
-Cubberley: December
-Next: Lucie Stern Community Center, Mitchell Park
Community Center
Outreach and Education
To Date
• New Employee Orientation
• City Climate Protection Team
• City Green Team: Palo Alto Staff Goes Green Campaign
(April-August 2009)
• At least 40 Presentations to more than 700 employees
since May 2009
Outreach and Education
Prior to Roll-out
• Acknowledge City staff for current efforts -positive
reinforcement.
• Assessed the needs of the diverse work groups by
visiting all 28 facilities.
• Purchase of bins, labels for work areas, development
of educational materials, coordination with Green
Waste on service levels, custodial service
coordination.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outreach and Education
Roll-out
CMR for amending PW Facilities Custodial Contract goes to Council January 11! 2010. Roll-out of
service changes can begin when Purchasing finalizes contract changes. Ron-out will be phased-in
over a couple of months.
Administrative staff, City Green Team, Climate Protection Team, custodial staff and enthusiastic
employees will be tapped to assist with communication, answering frequently asked questions
and being the "eyes and ears" feedback loop to the ZW Program.
Each work group will have a point person to help facilitate communication between ZW and
employees.
Work group scheduled for roll-out will be contacted via email a couple of days in advance of roll
out to their work area.
Roll-out occurs after hours,when possible. Employees receive a brief memo, educational posters
and a "sweet" thank you (Le., chocolates).
ZW sends email after roll-out summarizing what has transpired and returns the morning after roll
out to answer questions.
FAQ
Outreach and Education
Post Roll-out
• Monitoring (e.g., work area, garbage enclosure)
• Feedback to work groups
• Share success stories and tips from employees,
kudos featuring employees or groups
• Ongoing and refresher education, available for
staff meetings.
• Light-hearted educational campaign
Commitment
• The Zero Waste Program is committed to working with
all facilities and staff to provide the tools for this
component of our Zero Waste effort and we
acknowledge that diverse and variable work functions
may require varied solutions.
• Zero Waste is a Council directive and we look to you to
emphasize that all staff fully participate.
• We are reachable by calling x591 O.
en c o --I ' en
Q)
::::J a
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 11,2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
SUBJECT: 2nd Reading Approval of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property
Known as 2180 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to
PC Planned Community for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of
Floor Area For A Grocery Store, Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight
Affordable Residential Units, With Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking
Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and
Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo
Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment Into A
Minimum Setback on Oxford Avenue; and Approval of a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP).
The City Council approved this Planned Community (PC) Ordinance at their December 7, 2009
hearing. The ordinance reflects the changes that the Council made to modify Section 4(b) of the
PC ordinance. This section is titled "Special limitations on land uses."
The following language was added:
• A signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the tenant and approved by the
City Attorney, shall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits on the site.
• The grocery tenant, ifit is a party other than John Garcia (DBA JJ&F) shall be subject to
the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto, and shall not be withheld unless the City
reasonably finds that such proposed grocery tenant is not likely to be comparable in
quality of products and services as JJ &F as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009.
• The grocery store space shall remain in continuous operation as a grocery store.
"Continuous" shall be defined to include brief closure for ordinary business purposes.
The square footage of the outdoor market area was also clarified. It was previously referenced in
Section 4(b )(9) of the PC ordinance that the outdoor market area was "approximately 2,000
square feet." The total has been amended to specify that it will be "2,447 square feet." This
condition has been moved from #9 to now being #12 due to the addition of the three new
conditions added by the City Council.
Per Section 9 of the PC ordinance, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was approved by
City Council on December 7,2009. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
for the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the MND, has been prepared and
provided with this memo (Attachment B). The MMRP provides detail related to the
implementation of the mitigation measures the City Council approved as part of the MND.
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment A: PC Ordinance
Attachment B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. ---
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The
Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known
as 2180 EI Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) District to PC Planned Community for a Mixed
Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Floor Area For A
Grocery Store (intended for JJ&F Market), Other Retail Space,
Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, With
Two Levels Of Below-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface
Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and
Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign
Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot Height Limit,
and to Allow Encroachment Into A Minimum Setback on
Oxford Avenue.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1.
(a) Carrasco and Associates c/o Linda Poncini ("the Applicant") on behalf of The
Clara Chilcote Trust c/o Patrick Smailey ("property owner") formally applied on
October 18, 2007 to the City for approval of a rezoning application (the
"amendment") from CN 'Neighborhood Commercial' to a Planned Community
(PC) district for a site comprised of four parcels located at 2180 EI Camino Real
(the "Subject Property") to accommodate the uses set forth below.
(b) The City Council, after du1y noticed pu~lic hearings held on July 13, 2009 and
July 27,2009 initiated the amendment process, and forwarded the project to the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for review and recommendation,
to be followed by Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and
recommendation, and then final review and final action by the City Council.
(c) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held on October 14, 2009, reviewed,
considered, and recommended approval of' the revised Initial Study draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the
Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject
Property to Planned Community to permit construction of the proposed project
located as shown on 'Exhibit A,' attached to this document and incorporated by
reference. Draft conditions of project approval 'Exhibit B' attached to this
1
091223 syn 8261209
NOT YET APPROVED
document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review
and comments.
(d) The ARB, after a duly noticed public hearing held on November 5, 2009,
reviewed the project design and recommended that the City Council approve the
project with associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.'
( e) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held on December 2, 2009,
confirmed their approval of the project and conditions of approval (Exhibit B).
(t) The City Council, after a duly noticed public hearings held on December 7, 2009,
and after due consideration of the proposed project, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the analysis of the project by City staff, and the modification of tJ!e
proposed conditions recommended by the PTC and the ARB, finds that the
proposed Ordinance is in the public interest and will pronlote the public health,
safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth.
(g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses
proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general
districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for
the Project; and (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of
the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise
attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts, as set forth in Section (4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted,
and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies and proposed
designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning
Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from "CN Neighborhood
Commercial" to "PC Planned Community __ ."
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that
the project (the "Project") as depicted on Development Plans dated October 22, 2009,
incorporated by reference, comprises a mixed-use development that includes the following
components:
(a) The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 57,900
square feet of new commercial and residential space. The commercial space
would include 8,000 square feet for a grocery store, 5,580 square feet of other
ground floor retail space, and 38,980 square feet of office space;
(b) Eight (8) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 5,340 square
feet;
6
091223 syn 8261209
NOT YET APPROVED
(c) Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels;
(d) Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces;
(e) 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter;
(f) A landscaped plaza at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue;
(g) Removal of street trees along Staunton Court, and Oxford and College Avenues
and planting of new street trees within the sidewalk area;
(h) Removal and replacement of some or all street trees along El Camino Real in tree
wells;
(i) Automobile driveways on El Camino Real, College Avenue and Stanton Court
providing access to· parking lots and an area for loading and deliveries. Access to
the below grade parking would be provided from the Camino Real driveway.
SECTION 4. The Development Plan dated October 22,2009, and any approved
supplemental materials, for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (P AMC) 18.38.090, shall be subject to the following
permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development
standards, parking and loading requirements, nl0difications to the development plans and
provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and
incorporated as "Exhibit B" .
(a) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited as
follows:
091223 syn 8261209
Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b):
(1) Multifamily Residential
(2) Professional and General Business Offices (excluding medical offices)
(3) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores)
(4) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in and Take-out services)
(5) Personal Services
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
(1) Farmers Markets
(2) Businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (such businesses shall be operated in
a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors,
lighting, or other nuisances from any source during those hours)
7
NOT YET APPROVED
The following conditionally permitted uses are only permitted within the areas
designated as office space on the development plan:
(1) Banks and Financial Services
(2) Commercial recreation
(3) Private clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations
(b) Special limitations on land uses'include the following:
091223 syn 8261209
(1) A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist
within the development for the useful life of the improvements;
(2) The grocery store shall be a neighborhood serving grocery store that
provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a
neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience
mart facility;
(3) A signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the tenant and
approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted prior to issuance of any
building permits on the site.
~(4) The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office
tenant occupancy.
81(5) The below-market rate housing shall be occupied not later than 120 days
after the first occupancy of the office building. No more than 50% of the
office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy of the housing.
(6) The grocery tenant, if it is a party other than John Garcia (DBA KK&F),
shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto and shall not
be withheld unless the City reasonably finds that such proposed grocery
tenant is not likely to be comparable in quality of products and service as
JJ&F as it existed and operated on Decenlber 7,2009.
(7) The grocery store space shall remain in continuous operation as a grocery
store. "Continuous shall be defined to include brief closure for ordinary
business purposes."
f.B(8) No medical office shall be permitted within the development;
~(9) The office uses within the project shall not exceed 38,980 square feet;
f7j(10) The 5,580 square feet of area designated as "Other Retail" on the
development plan shall not be converted to ground floor office space; and
~(II ) The "Other Retail" space may be occupied by retail uses, personal service
use, or eating and drinking services only.
~(12) Use of the outdoor market area as shown on the project plans as being
approximately 2,000 2,447 square feet shall be limited to grocery related
uses only.
8
NOT YET APPROVED
( c) Development Standards:
Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for
the Plruuled Community (PC) zone district (Chapter 18.38), and as modified in
Section 4(a) and (b) above.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirenlents:
In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in PAMe 18.52 and
18.54, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program has been
incorporated in the Development Plan to allow reductions in parking
requirements. The TDM is shown in 'Exhibit C' and is attached to this document
and incorporated by reference. The final TDM plan shall provide for
implementation and monitoring as provided in the conditions of approval.
( e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations:
Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development
Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any
new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site
development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) -(c) above shall require an
amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor
change as described in PAMC 18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the
modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process.
Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment
to the PC ordinance, except that conversion of designated office space to retail
use shall not require amendment.
(f) Public Benefits:
Development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned
Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by
application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The
Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and
in excess of those required by City zoning districts:
(1) Provision of an 8,000 square foot neighborhood-serving grocery market.
(2) 4 Below Market Rate housing units.
(3) A contribution of $5,000 dollars for tree planting within the EI Camino
Real median.
(g) Development Schedule:
091223 syn 8261209
The Project is required to include a Dev~lopment Schedule pursuant to PAMC
18.38.100. The approved Developnlent Schedule is set forth below:
9
NOT YET APPROVED
Construction of the Project shall commence on or before December 2012, unless
extension(s) are granted. The total time for project construction and occupancy of
spaces is three (3) years, or by December 2015.
SECTION 5. Council approves the Architectural Review application, fmding that:
(a) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city's
Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Resolution No. , Adopting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land
Use Designation for 2180 EI Camino Real From Neighborhood Commercial to
Mixed Use. The proposed mixed use development containing office, residential,
retail and commercial uses is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation;
(b) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the
proposed buildings are designed to meet the EI Camino Real Design Guidelines
and be sensitive to the lower scale residential neighborhood beyond;
(c) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the project has been
designed to be pedestrian friendly, provide additional bike and vehicular parking,
attract people to the project and provides unique amenity spaces;
(d) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character. In this case, the building
is not within an area of unified design character or historical character;
( e) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas
between different designated land uses in that the project includes the proposal to
locate the two story residential component across from the existing residential
uses on Staunton Court to create a transitional buffer between the existing
residential uses and the proposed commercial buildings;
(f) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in
that the proposed buildings and other project improvements would blend well
with the existing off site improvements by proposing to break up the proposal in
to multiple buildings with varying heights to control the mass and scale;
(g) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create
an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants,
visitors and the general community in that the proposed design reduces
neighborhood traffic by placing the garage entry on EI Camino, improves the
economic viability of the grocery market by placing it at the visible comer of EI
Camino, brings light into the below grade parking structure with a large open
bamboo garden, locates the commercial buildings away from existing residential
uses, and provides landscaped open spaces;
10
091223 syn 8261209
NOT YET APPROVED
(h) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
function of the structures in that several open spaces are provided to
accommodate the various uses that may occur at the site. These spaces include
the garden square at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford A venue, the roof
top gazebo at the vegetated green roof and the arcade and open area at the comer
of Staunton Court and College Avenue;
(i) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the
project in that the proposal includes a large trash storage area, ample areas for
bike parking, and an underground vehicle parking area;
G) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the driveway to the underground garage
has been designed such that vehicles existing the garage are level with the
sidewalk such that the drivers view of pedestrians is not impeded, extra bike and
vehicle parking spaces have been provided and there are pedestrian pathways
provided to allow access through the project;
(k) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. The
site is already developed and contains some mature trees that would be removed
to accommodate the proposed podium over the below grade parking. The trees to
be removed will be replaced with new plantings including"approximately 41 new
street trees around the perimeter of the project, a bamboo garden that would grow
up through the center of the parking structure, various potted plantings throughout
the project, and trees and plantings within the proposed garden square.
(1) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function in that the proposal includes
many detail elements to ensure the proposed architectural style is appropriately
expressed;
(m) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant
masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a
desirable and functional environment in that landscape elements have been
incorporated wherever they could over the concrete podium. There are planters at
entry locations and the fronts of the buildings, there is a large bamboo garden
growing up through the center of the project, a vegetated green roof over the
grocery store, and a garden square;
(n) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought
resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in
that the proposal includes many plant species that perform well within this
environment;
11
091223 syn 8261209
NOT YET APPROVED
(0) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient,
water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high
recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in
determining sustainable site and building design:
(1) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and
natural ventilation;
(2) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce
heat island effects;
(3) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
( 4) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and
permeable paving;
(5) Use sustainable building materials;
(6) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water
use;
(7) Create healthy indoor environments; and
(8) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments.
(P) The design incorporates many of the above mentioned green building measures
including photovoltaic panels on the roof and a green roof. (see LEED and Build
It Green checklists, Attachment G)
The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, to:
(l) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
(2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city;
(3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and
improvements;
( 4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in
adjacent areas; and
(5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and
variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.
SECTION 6. Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) are approved as follows:
(a) Height Exceptions for the proposed roof top gazebo and the architectural signage
spire above the grocery store, which would exceed the 35 foot limit by five feet
and ten feet, respectively, with an additional seven feet of height for the metal
pole atop the spire, rising to 52 feet.
(b) Setback Exception to allow portions of the building along Oxford Avenue to
encroach into a ten foot setback; specifically, to allow a 7'9" encroachment for
the second floor of the grocery store building and parts of the first floor" and 3' 6"
encroachment for the recessed first floor areas as set forth in the project plans.
12
091223 syn 8261209
NOT YET APPROVED
(c) DEE Findings:
091223 syn 8261209
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same zone district, in that, although the
adjacent parcel on Oxford Avenue is not occupied by a residential use, its
zoning is residential and forces the imposition of a more restrictive
setback requirement upon a portion of the site. The intent of the more
restrictive height and setback regulations is to ensure that the new
commercial development is sensitive to the nearby residential uses. Being
that the adjacent use is not residential the need for the sensitivity is
diminished.
(2) The granting of these Exceptions will enhance the appearance of the site
or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and
preserve an existing or proposed architectural style in a manner which
would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the
minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standards for review set forth in
this Chapter, in that (a) the height exception for the gazebo would allow
the construction of a shade structure that would provide an amenity space
on the roof top and this space would provide views over the vegetated roof
and would serve to help increase awareness of green roofs; (b) the height
exception for the signage spire allows for the provision of a stronger
element for the grocery store building to give the building more
dominance at the corner, improving the significance of the building in this
location; and (c) the setback encroachment improves the design of the
streetscape in this location since the project faces the E1 Camino Real
commercial strip and employing a similar urban setback and sidewalk
along Oxford Avenue preserves the continuity of the design, such that
implementation of a ten foot setback and landscaped yard at this corner
would appear odd in relationship to the use of a hotel across the street.
(3) The Exception is related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity, and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in
that (a) the height exceptions are for minor architectural elements that
improve the architecture, do not contribute to the bulk and mass of the
structure, and are not in close proximity to residential uses such that they
would have a negative impact upon them; and (b) the setback
encroachment occurs opposite a residential zone but no residences would
be impacted by encroachment since a hotel is located opposite the grocery
store building and the encroaching wall of the grocery store building
would be across the street from the back side of the hotel and even with
the encroachment, a generous 14' -5" wide sidewalk would be provided.
2
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 7. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant
shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents
(the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third
party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance
or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation)
reirnbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The
City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.
SECTION 8. Acceptance by the applicant. If the Applicant does not accept the
Proposed ordinance in writing prior to second reading of the ordinance and within 30 days of the
Council's adoption, the question of the appropriate zoning of the Subject Property shall be
referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their consideration and
recommendation, which may include the CN zone, the CN zone plus various overlays, a newly
crafted zone applicable to Neighborhood Centers or such other zone as the Commission deems
appropriate. ./
SECTION 9. A nlitigated negative declaration (MND) for this project was prepared
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for
a 30-day period beginning on October 9, 2009. The City Council approved the MND at its
meeting of on December 7, 2009.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
091223 syn 8261209
9
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date
of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
091223 syn 8261209
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
10
2180 EL CAMINO REAL, PALO ALTO
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure/Conditions of
Approval
Aesthetics
A-1. The project shall include
automatic night shades or other
system such as motion sensors and
timers for the office windows at the
rear of the building. To prevent night
time glare from impacting adjacent
neighbors night shades (or alternative
system) are to be installed on the
windows to ensure light does not shine
out of the windows facing the
neighboring residences.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
G-1. Prior to any excavation the
applicant shall prepare a site specific
Health and Safety Plan that conforms
to the requirements of Title 29 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (VFR)
Section 1910.120, the California
General Industry Safety Order (GISO)
and Title 8, California Code of
Regulation (CCR) Section 5192.
G-2. All employees and
subcontractors involved in
excavation of potentially
contaminated material shall be 40
hour Hazardous Waste Operations
and Emergency Response
2180 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto
Mitigation Monitoring Report
Action Required
Installation of the
night shades
Preparation of site
specific Health and
Safety Plan
Applicant to provide
training, staff verify
that employees are
certified.
When Monitoring
Monitoring Frequency
to Occur
At the time of Once at final
final inspection
inspection unless
prior to complaints are
building final received that
the shades are
not working
Verify that Once at plan
plan has check
been
prepared
prior to
building
permit
issuance
Prior to the Once, prior to
commencem excavation
entof
excavation
Responsible Initial Date
Department
Planning Staff
The applicant,
Planning staff,
Fire
Department
staff
Planning Staff
page 1
Comments
I
» -I > r')
::I:
~ rn
Z
-I
0;1
Mitigation Measure/Conditions of
Approval
(HAZWOPER) trained and certified.
G-3. Soils shall be field screened,
tested, and properly profiled during
redevelopment to determine
appropriate reuse or off site
disposal.
Noise
K-1: The proposed mechanical
equipment shall be evaluated to
ensure compliance with City of Palo
Alto noise limit regulations.
Measures such as equipment
selection, equipment placement
(location), and or the addition of
barriers or enclosures shall be
employed to ensure that any new
noise producing equipment is in
compliance with the City's noise
ordinance.
The following condition related to noise
was also added to the PC ord.:
The applicant shall comply with
applicable provisions of Palo Alto's
noise ordinance, both during
construction and following construction,
for the life of the project as per Chapter
9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
and pursuant to PAMC Section
18.23.060, requiring an acoustical
analysis at the time of building permit
issuance, and demonstration and
certification that it complies with the
2180 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto
Mitigation Monitoring Report
Action Required
Testing of excavated
soil
Study the noise level
of the selected
mechanical
equipment and
adjust the equipment
selection, equipment
housing, or
equipment location
accordingly to
ensure no noise
impact will occur
Study noise after
equipment
installation
When Monitoring Responsible Initial Date Comments
Monitoring Frequency Department
to Occur
During Once Planning staff
excavation
Review Continuously Planning,
acoustical and indefinitely. Police
analysis prior The project Department,
to building shall always be and code
permit subject to enforcement
issuance, compliance staff
and prior to with the noise
final ordinance
inspection.
page 2
Mitigation Measure/Conditions of
Approval
Noise Ordinance prior to fina,"
inspection. Any new noise producing
equipment shall be placed as far away
as is feasible from any existing
residential sites and as close to EI
Camino Real as is possible.
TransQortation and Traffic
0-1: Cal Trans must approve the
proposed curb cut on the EI Camino
Real for the driveway to the
underground parking garage.
0-2A Transportation Demand
Management (TOM) program must be
submitted by the applicant and
approved by the Transportation
Department prior to submittal of a
building permit application. The
TOM program shall outline parking
and/or traffic demand measures to
be implemented to reduce parking
need and trip generation. Measures
may include, but are not limited to:
parking cash-out programs,
provision of EcoPass (VTA) or Go
Pass (Caltrain) for office tenants,
shared parking, enhanced shuttle
2180 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto
Mitigation Monitoring Report
Action Required
Ensure confirmation
that Cal trans has
approved the curb
cut location prior to
building permit
issuance
Implementation of
the TOM program
Review of report
When Monitoring Responsible Initial Date Comments
Monitoring Frequency Department
to Occur
Before or Once at Planning staff
during the building permit
building plan check
permit plan (verify that Cal
check Trans has
process approved prior
to building
permit
issuance)
Subsequent Yearly report Transportation
to occupancy submitted to Division staff to
the City of Palo review report.
Alto
Transportation
Division
page 3
,~~~
Mitigation Measure/Conditions of
Approval
service, car sharing, providing
priority parking spaces for car
pools/vanpools or green vehicles,
vehicle charging stations, additional
bicycle parking facilities, or other
measures to encourage transit use
or to reduce parking needs. The
program shall be proposed to the
satisfaction of the Director, shall
include proposed performance
targets for parking and lor trip
reductions, and indicate the basis for
such estimates, and shall designate
a single entity to implement the
proposed measures.
Note: The TDM plan has been
provided and includes the following
measures:
Provision of two care share vehicles on
site;
Designated vanpool/carpool parking;
Onsite transportation information
boar/kiosk;
Onsite transportation coordinator (part
time);
Additional secure bicycle parking
spaces.
2180 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto
Mitigation Monitoring Report
Action Required When Monitoring Responsible Initial Date Comments
Monitoring Frequency Department
~~~ Occur
page 4
City of Palo Alto 7
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 11, 2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 113:10
SUBJECT: Ordinance Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and
Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local
Energy Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements
Covered by the California Energy Code, 2008 Edition.
DISCUSSION
The attached ordinance was introduced and approved by the City Council on November 2,
2009 by a vote of 8-0 (Councilmember Barton abstaining). As explained to the City Council
in the CMR accompanying the ordinance (CMR 267:09), the ordinance was required to be
transmitted to the California Energy Commission for its review and approval prior to final
adoption by the City Council. The Commission approved the ordinance as submitted at its
Regular Business Meeting on December 16, 2009. A copy of the Commission's Resolution
approving the ordinance is attached.
The ordinance is now submitted for a second reading by the City Council. If adopted, it will
be filed with the State Building Standards Commission and enforcement will begin on the 31st
day following Council's adoption, February 11, 2010. ()
PREPARED BY: {j)1II!!{ I. JJtt/Ji;;
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 113:10
LARR Y I. PERLIN, PE
Chief Building Official
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director
Planning and Community Environment
Page 1 of2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending
Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18, Establishing Local Energy Efficiency
Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements Covered by the California Energy
Code, 2008 Edition.
2. California Energy Commission Resolution No. 09-1216-1e.
CMR: 113:10 Page 2 of2
ATT ACHMENT 1
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. __ _
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing
Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending
Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.18 Establishing Local Energy
Efficiency Standards for Certain Buildings and Improvements
. Covered by the 2008 California Energy Code
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION L Findings. The City Council finds that: .
1. The City of Palo Alto's (City) Comprehensive Plan sets forth goals for preserving
and improving the City's natural and built environment, protecting the health of its residents and
visitors, conserving water and energy, and fostering its economy; and
2. The City Council has identified Environmental Protection as one of its top three
goals, and energy efficiency is a key component of environmental protection; and
3. The City's Climate Protection Plan, adopted by the City Council on December 3,
2007, states that natural gas and electricity use within the City accounts for approximately
310,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, or 42.5% of total annual City-wide
emissions; and
4. The provisions of California Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act)
require actions on the part of State and local governments to significantly reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions such that statewide GHG emissions are lowered to 1990 levels by 2020 and
80% below 1990 levels by 2050; and
5. Local government, by itself, cannot fully address all of the challenges posed by
climate change and comply with the mandates of AB 32; and
6. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emISSIOns, and
construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG
emissions that contribute to climate change; and
7. On June 2, 2008, the City Council adopted regulations for the incorporation of
green building techniques and materials in private residential and nonresidential development
projects (Green Building Regulations), Ordinance No. 5006; and a resolution revising those
standards was introduced to Council on October 19, 2009; and
1
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
8. Building Standards Code establishes building standards for all occupancies
throughout the State; and
9. Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides that a city may establish more
restrictive building standards if they are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological or
topographical conditions; and
10. Based on the findings contained in this Ordinance, the City Council has found that
certain modifications and additions to the California Building Standards Code are reasonably
necessary based upon local climatic, topographical and geological conditions; and
11. In accordance with the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards,
including California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1 and 6 (Standards) all residential and
nonresidential development must meet or exceed the energy efficiency requirements contained
therein; and
12. California Public Resource Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) authorizes a city to adopt
and enforce increased energy efficiency standards, provided that a determination is made that the
local standards are cost effective and they are approved by the California Energy Commission;
and
13. On October 19, 2009, an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code,
2008 Edition was introduced to the City Council; and .
14. It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to amend the 2008 California
,Building Energy Efficiency Standards as described herein; and
15. City staff has prepared a new Chapter 16.18 to Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, Local Energy Efficiency Standards; and
16. On March 23, 2009, the City hired Gabel Associates, LLC, an expert in the field
of building energy analysis and Energy Code compliance, to assist the City in preparing a study
and proposal for local amendments to the 2008 California Energy Code, and said study
demonstrated the cost effectiveness of these local amendments; and
17. The City will include the Gabel Associates study in an application for
consideration by the California Energy Commission in compliance with Public Resources Code
25402.1 (h)(2); and
2
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
18. The modifications to the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
required by this Ordinance are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geologic and
topographic conditions, specifically:
a. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only municipal utility in
. California that operates City-owned-utility services including electric,
fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater services, and as such, the
City Council is uniquely concerned that CP AU be able to provide reliable
power to Palo Alto residents and businesses, especially in periods of peak
energy demand.
b. Summer ambient temperatures in the City during the months of June, July
and August can reach over 100 degrees, creating peak energy load
demands that can cause power outages, affecting public safety and causing
adverse local economic impacts.
c. The total square footage of conditioned habitable space within residential
and nonresidential buildings in the City is increasing and using more
energy and resources than in the past.
d. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and
heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in
rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk
Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, arid Highway 101.
e. Reduction of total and peak energy use as a result of incremental energy
efficiency measures required by this Ordinance will have local and
regional benefits in the cost-effective reduction of energy costs for
building owners, additional available system energy capacity, and a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; and
19. In order to maintain and advance the energy efficiency standards adopted herein,
it is in the best interest of the City to revisit this Ordinance prior to its expiration, ensuring that
local energy standards meet the goals of reducing energy consumption, thereby saving on energy
bills and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions; and
20. The study conducted by Gabel Associates, LLC has concluded that the energy
efficiency measures contained in this Ordinance are cost-effective. The City Council hereby
adopts the conclusions of the study and authorizes its inclusion in an application for
consideration by the California Energy Commission in compliance with Califomia Public
Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2). Upon approval by the Califomia Energy Commission,
this Ordinance shall be presented to the City Council for final adoption.
3
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.18 of Title 16, "Building Code," is hereby amended by
repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.18 and enacting a new Chapter 16.18 to read and provide as
follows:
Chapter 16.18
LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND
IMPROVElVIENTS COVERED BY THE CALIFORl'lIA ENERGY CODE, 2008 EDITION
Sections:
16.18.010
16.18.020
16.18.030
16.18.040
16.18.050
16.18.060
16.18.070
16.18.010
Purpose.
Definitions.
Buildings Covered.
Compliance.
General Compliance Requirements.
Solar Photovoltaic Energy Systems for Multi-Family Residential
Construction and Nonresidential Construction.
Expiration.
Purpose.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto
residents, workers, visitors and the environment by minimizing the use and waste of energy in
the construction and operation of the City's building stock. The Ordinance sets forth minimum
energy efficiency standards within the City of Palo Alto for certain types of residential and
nonresidential new construction and renovation, and should be used in conjunction with both the
City's Green Building Regulations, located in Chapter 18.44 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, and the City's Green Building Standards for Compliance, adopted by City
Council Resolution. This Chapter is intended to amend the 2008 California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards, as specified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts '1 and 6
(Standards), adopted by the City at Title 16, Chapters 16.04 and 16.17 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Compliance with the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards is
required even if the increased minimum efficiency standards in this Chapter do not apply.
16.18.020 Definitions.
(a) For purposes of this Chapter 16.18, words or phrases used in this Chapter that are
specifically defined in Parts 1, 2 or 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations shall have
the same meaning as given in the Code of Regulations. In addition, for the purposes of this
Chapter 16.18, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings indicated herein:
(b) "2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards", or "California Energy
Code", shall mean the Standards and regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission
4
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
contained in Parts 1 and 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as such standards
and regulations may be amended from time to time.
(c) "Energy STAR Portfolio Manager" (Portfolio NIanager) shall mean the program
managed by the US. Environmental Protection Agency that offers' an energy management tool
that allows an applicant to track and assess energy and water consumption of a building project.
Tracked projects receive an energy performance rating on a scale o'f 1-100 relative to similar
buildings nationwide.
(d) "Green Point Rated" shall mean a residential green building rating system developed
by the Build It Green organization.
(e) "HERS Rating" shall mean the California Home Energy Rating System, a
statewide program for residential dwellings administered by the California Energy Commission
and defined in the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase I
provides field verification and diagnostic testing to show compliance with Title 24, Part 6, of the
2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase II includes whole-house
home energy efficiency ratings for existing and newly constructed homes.
(f) "LEED®" shall mean the "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" green
building rating system developed by the US. Green Building Council.
(g) "Multi-Family Residential" shall mean a building containing three or more attached
dwelling units.
(h) "Nonresidential" shall mean a new or replacement retail, office, industrial,
warehouse, service, or similar building(s).
(i) "Nonresidential Compliance Manual" shall mean the manual developed by the
California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.l(e) of the Public Resources Code, to aid
designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the state' s 2008 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards for nonresidential, high-rise residential, and hotel/motel buildings.
(j) "Proposed Design" is defined in the Residential and Nonresidential Compliance
Manuals developed by the California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.1(e) of the Public
Resources Code, to aid designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the
state's 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for nonresidential, high-rise
residential, and hotel/motel buildings.
(k) "Rebuild" shall mean home improvements or minor additions to an existing
structure that do not maintain 75% of the existing roof or exterior walls.
(1) "Residential Compliance NIanual" shall mean the manual developed by the
California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.1(e) of the Public Resources Code, to aid
5
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the state's 2008 California
Building Energy Efficiency Standards for low~rise residential buildings.
(m) "Single-Family or Two~Family Residential" shall mean a single detached dwelling
unit or two units in a single building.
(n) "Solar Photovoltaic Energy System" shall mean a photovoltaic solar collector or
other photovoltaic solar energy device that has a primary purpose of providing for the collection and
distribution of solar energy for the generation of alternative current rated peak electricity.
(0) "Standard Design" is defined in the Residential and Nonresidential Compliance
Manuals developed by the California Energy Commission, under Section 25402.1(e) of the Public
Resources Code, to aid designers, builders, and contractors in meeting the requirements of the
state's 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for nonresidential, high-rise
residential; and hotelfmotel buildings.
(p) "Time Dependent Valuation of Energy (TDV Energy)" shall mean the time varying
energy caused to be used by a building to provide space conditioning and water heating and, for
specified buildings, lighting. TDV Energy accounts for the energy used at the building site and
consumed in producing and in delivering energy to a site, including but not limited to, power
generation, transmission and distribution losses. TDV Energy is expressed in terms of thousands of
British thermal units per square foot per year (kBtu/sq.ft.-yr.).
16.18.030 Buildings Covered.
(a) Nonresidential Construction.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all nonresidential construction (including
Mixed Use and other development) for which a building permit has been applied and accepted as
complete by the Building Division on or after the effective date of this Ordinance for:
, 091014 syn 6050795
(1) New construction greater than or equal to 5,000 square feet, including
additions to existing buildings.
(2) New construction between 500 square feet· and 5,000 square feet,
including additions to existing buildings.
(3) Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations greater than or equal to
5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of at least two of
the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water system, or
lighting system.
(4) Tenant improvements, renovations or alternations greater than or equal
500 square feet with greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in
a single unit, that are not otherwise covered under Section 3 of Table A of
the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for
Private Nonresidential Construction".
6
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Residential Construction.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all residential construction for which a
building pennit has been applied and accepted as complete by the Building Division on or after
the effecti ve date of this Ordinance for:
(1) Multi-family new construction of three or more attached units.
(2) Multi-family renovations or alterations greater than or equal to 50% of the
existing unit square footage that include replacement or alternation of at
least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water
system, or lighting system.
(3) Multi-family renovations, alterations, additions, and/or rebuilds to
individual units greater than or equal to 250 square feet with greater than
or equal to $100,000 in building pennit valuation in a single unit.
(4) Single-family or two-family new construction greater than or equal to
1,250 square feet.
(5) Single-family or two-family existing home additions or rebuilds greater
than or equal to 1,250 square feet.
(6) Single.:.family or two-family existing home renovations, rebuilds and/or
additions between 250 square feet and 1,250 square feet, with greater than
$100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit.
Subject to the foregoing limitation, applicability of the residential or nonresidential sections of
this Chapter shall be detennined in accordance with either the Residential Compliance Manual or
the Nonresidential Compliance Manual, as appropriate for the proposed occupancy.
16.18.040
Inspection.
Compliance Required to Receive Building Permit and Final
The Chief Building Official shall be charged with enforcing the prov1slOns of this
Ordinance. A building permit application subject to the provisions of this Chapter shall not be
issued a building permit by the Chief Building Official unless the energy compliance·
documentation submitted with the permit application meets the requirements of this Chapter. A
final inspection for a building permit subject to the requirements of this Chapter will not be
approved unless the work authorized by the building permit has been constructed in accordance
with the approved plans, conditions of approvals, and requirements of this Chapter.
16.18.050 General Compliance Requirements.
7
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
In addition to the requirements of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards the following general compliance requirements shall apply to all building permit
applications subject to this chapter:
(a) Nonresidential Construction.
091014 syn 6050795
(1) New construction greater than or equal to 5.000 square feet, including
additions to existing bUildings. The performance approach specified in
Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design
is at least 15.0% less than the TDV .Energy of the Standard Design.
Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of LEED's
minimum energy prerequisite as described in Table A of the "City of Palo
Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nonresidential
Construction and Renovation."
(2) New construction between 500 square feet and 5.000 square feet,
including additions to existing buildings. The performance approach
specified in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of
the proposed building is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the
Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute
achievement of LEED's minimum energy LEED prerequisite as described
in Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for
Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation."
(3) Tenant improvements, renovation or alterations greater than or equal to
5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of at least two of
the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water system, or
lighting system. Energy efficiency beyond 2008 California Building
Energy Efficiency Standard minimums is not required for projects covered
by this section.
(4) Tenant improvements, renovations or alternations greater than or equal to
500 square feet with greater than $100,000 in building permit valuation in
a single unit, that are not otherwise covered under Section 3 of Table A of .
the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for
Private Nonresidential Construction." The applicant shall attain an Energy
STAR Portfolio Manager Building Energy Performance Rating prior to
the issuance of a building permit, although achievement of a particular
rating is not required. Compliance with this Section shall constitute
achievement of the Building Energy Performance Rating described in
Table A of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for
Compliance for Private Nonresidential Construction and Renovation."
8
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Residential Construction.
091014 syn 6050795
(1) Multi-familv residential new construction of 3 or more attached units. The
building permit applicant must determine whether the building is low-rise
or high-rise as defined by the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, and then use the appropriate approach as described below:
(i) Low Rise (3 stories or less). The performance approach specified
in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the
proposed building is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of·
the Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute
achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite
for new "Multi-Family Residential" construction, as described in
Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for
Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation".
(ii) High Rise (4 stories or more). The applicant shall model the
building envelope and mechanical system of the Proposed Design
consistent with the 2008. Title 24 performance method rules. The
applicant shall demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed
Design is less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design by the
percentage (%) required for minimum energy performance
specified in the 2009 GreenPoint Rated new "Multi-Family
Residential" construction guidelines. Compliance with this·
Section. shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's
minimum energy prerequisite required for new· "Multi-Family
Residential" construction as described in Table B of the "City of
Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private
Residential Construction and Renovation."
(2) Multi-family renovations or alterations greater than or equal to 50% of the
existing unit square footage that include replacement or alteration of at
least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, hot water
system, or lighting system. The building permit applicant shall determine
whether the building is low-rise or high-rise as defined by the 2008
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and then use the
appropriate approach as described below:
(i) Low Rise (3 stories or less). The performance approach specified
in Section 151 of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency
Standards shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the
Proposed Design is at least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the
Standard Design. Compliance with this Section shall constitute
9
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum energy prerequisite
for new "Multi-Family Residential" construction, as described in
Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for
Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation".
(ii) High Rise (4 stories or more). The applicant shall model the
building envelope and mechanical system of the Proposed Design
consistent with the 2008 Title 24 performance method rules. The
applicant shall demonstrate that the mv Energy of the Proposed
Design is less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design by the
percentage (%) required for minimum energy performance
specified in the current GreenPoint Rated new "Multi-Family
Residential" construction guidelines. Compliance with this
Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's
minimum energy prerequisite required for new "Multi-Family
Residential" construction as described in Table B of the "City of
Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private
Residential Construction and Renovation."
(3) Multi-family renovations, alterations, additions, and/or rebuilds to
individual units greater than or equal to 250 square feet with a building
permit valuation greater than or equal to $100,000 in a single unit. The
applicant shall attain a HERS II rating prior to issuance of the building
permit, although achievement of a particular rating is not required.
Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of the HERS
Rating requirement as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto
Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential
Construction and Renovation". Compliance with this Section is not
required until January 1, 2011.
(4) Single-family or two-family residential new construction greater than or
equal to 1,250 square feet. The performance approach specified in Section
151 of the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be used to
demonstrate thanhe m V Energy of the Proposed Design is at least 15.0%
less than the mv Energy of the Standard Design. Compliance with this
Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint Rated's minimum
energy prerequisite for new "Single-Family and Two-Family Residential"
construction, as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green
Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction
and Renovation",
(5) Single-family or two-family residential additions or rebuilds greater than
or equal to 1,250 square feet. The performance approach specified in
Section 151 of the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards shall be
10
NOT YET APPROVED
used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Proposed Design is at
least 15.0% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design.
Compliance with this Section shall constitute achievement of GreenPoint
Rated's minimum energy prerequisite for new "Single-Family and Two
Family Residential" construction, as described in Table B of the "City of
Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private
Residential Construction and Renovation".
(6) Single-family or two-family renovations, rebuilds and/or additions that are
between 250 square feet and 1,250 square feet, and that have greater than
$100,000 in building permit valuation in a single unit. The applicant shall
attain a HERS II rating prior to issuance of the building permit, although
achievement of a specific HERS II rating is not required. Compliance
with this Section shall constitute achievement of the minimum energy
requirement as described in Table B of the "City of Palo Alto Green
Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction
and Renovation", This Section has an effective date of January 1, 2011
16.18".060 Solar Photovoltaic Energy Systems for lVlulti-Family Residential
Construction and Nonresidential Construction.
Ca) Installation Criteria and Energy Credit. The installation of any solar photovoltaic
CPV) energy system must meet all installation criteria of the California Energy Commission's
Guidelines for California's Solar Electric Incentive Program Pursuant to Senate Bill 1. An energy
credit from solar PV energy systems may be used to demonstrate compliance with the general
compliance requirements of this Ordinance when evaluating LEED® energy performance. This
credit is available if the solar PV energy system is capable of generating electricity from
sunlight, supplying the electricity directly to the building, and the system is connected, through a
reversible meter, to the utility grid. The methodology used to calculate the energy equivalent to
the photovoltaic credit shall be the CECPV Calculator, using the most recent version available
prior to the permit application date, which may be found on the web site of the California Energy
Commission, at www.gosolarcalifornia.org; or shall be another Senate Bill 1 compliant method
as approved by the California Energy Commission.
(b) Documentation. In order to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
this Section, a permit applicant may be required to submit supplementary forms and
documentation in addition to the building drawings, specifications, and standard energy
compliance (Title 24, HERS and Energy STAR Portfolio Manager) report forms, as deemed
appropriate by the Chief Building Official.
16.18.070 Expiration.
This Chapter 16.18 shall expire upon the date that the State's 2011 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards take effect.
11
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such
declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Efforts to Enhance Local Compliance. Given that the purpose of this
. Ordinance is to adopt stricter local energy efficiency standards for the construction of new
buildings within the City, the Council further recognizes that the adoption of new standards
without additional education and training for City staff responsible for enforcement of the
standards could diminish compliance and potentially undermine the efficacy of th~ Ordinance.
Therefore, in order to ensure greater compliance and enforcement of the applicable energy
efficiency standards, better equip staff and provide a greater resource to the City's building
community, the City will seek additional education and training opportunities for staff in the
areas of energy standards, technology and Energy Code implementation and enforcement.
SECTION 5. Environmental Compliance. The proposed Ordinance preserves and
enhances the environment, in that it would set forth minimum energy efficiency standards within
the City of Palo Alto for all neW residential and nonresidential construction. In accordance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), "[CJEQA applies only to
projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it
can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a
significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." Staff has determined
that the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review.
II
II
/I
II
/I
II
II
II
/I
II
/I
12
091014 syn 6050795
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effective on
January 1, 2010 or on the 31st day after its adoption, whichever is later, provided that the
Ordinance has also been approved by the California Energy Commission by that date, and shall
be published or posted as required by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deputy City Attorney
091014 syn 6050795
13
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning & Community
Environment
Director of Utilities
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO: 09-1216-1e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE ENERGY RESOURCES
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION: California Energy Commission approval of the City of Palo Alto's locally
adopted energy standards for residential and nonresidential newly constructed buildings
and additions and alterations to existing buildings to require greater energy efficiency
than the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards:
WHEREAS, the City of PalO Alto has submitted an application to the Energy
Commission for approval of a local ordinance with energy efficiency requirements
meeting or exceeding those required by the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards;
and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 25402~1 (h){2) and Title 24, Pari 1, Section
10-106 establish a process for local governments to apply to the Energy Commission
for approval to adopt new versions of Building Energy Efficiency Standards that require
aclditiona1 energy efficiency measures or set more stringent energy budgets; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto submitted an application to the Energy Commission
that meets all of the documentation requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code
SectiDn 25402.1 (h)(2) and Section 1 O~ 106; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto has made a written commitment to actively enlorce
compliance both with the updated locally adopted energy standards .and the 2008
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and
WHEREAS, the Energy Commission commends the City of Palo Alto for seeking to
achieve additional demand reductions) energy savings and other benefits exceeding
those of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that on December 16, 2009 the Energy Commission
approves the City of Palo Alto's locally adopted energy standards, and tl1at these local
standards may be enforced by the City of Palo Alto.
Dated: December 16, 2009 STATE ENERGY RESOURCES
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Karen Douglas, Chairman
CMR:110:10 Page 1 of 3
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 11, 2010 CMR: 110:10
REPORT TYPE: REFERRAL TO COMMISSION
SUBJECT: Request for Referral of an Application to Rename Lytton Plaza to the Parks
and Recreation Commission Subject to the Provisions of City Policy 1-15 –
Facility Naming and Renaming
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the provisions of City Policy and Procedure 1-15 (Attachment A: Naming City-
Owned Land and Facilities), staff recommends that Council refer the application for the
renaming of Lytton Plaza Park (Attachment B) to the Parks and Recreation Commission for
review and recommendation back to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 2004, Council adopted recommendations of the Policy and Services Committee to
revise and expand the City’s Policy for naming and renaming City-owned land and facilities
(CMR:217:04). The expanded policy included criteria for the naming of new parks and facilities,
separate criteria for the re-naming of parks and city-owned facilities, procedures for the
submission of names for facilities, and an application form whereby submission of names would
formally be presented to the City Council for consideration. The purpose of the naming/renaming
policy is to ensure that City-owned land and facilities, when named for individuals, are persons
who have made significant contributions or performed services deemed to have been of major
importance to the community.
In regards to the renaming of parks or facilities, the policy establishes:
“Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. City policy is not to change the
name of any existing facilities or City-owned land, particularly one whose name has City or
regional significance, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Further, the City will
consider renaming to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have
made major, overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet
unrecognized.”
CMR:110:10 Page 2 of 3
Subsection 2(A)3 of the policy (Renaming Suggestions) prescribes that the City Council shall
initiate the renaming process by referral of the public or staff request to rename a park or facility
to the commission or committee whose sphere of influence is most closely associated with the
facility in question. In this case, the request to rename Lytton Plaza Park would be referred to the
Parks and Recreation Commission for consideration.
Once the referral is made by the City Council to a specific commission or committee, the
commission will receive comment and evaluation of the new name that is to come from the Palo
Alto Historical Association.
DISCUSSION
Staff has received the attached renaming application for Lytton Plaza Park from Charles Keenan
as a member of the Friends of Lytton Plaza Park, LLC. Mr. Keenan and the friends have
suggested the name of the Plaza be renamed “Thoits Plaza” in recognition of the outstanding
contributions the three generations of the Thoits family have made to the Palo Alto community
and more specifically, in recognition of the leadership Warren Thoits provided in establishing the
fund raising campaign for the recent renovation of the Plaza.
According to the policy, the criteria for renaming a park or facility are:
“City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed for an individual(s) under the following
conditions. Where the individual:
1. Has made lasting and significant contributions to the protection of natural or
cultural resources of the City of Palo Alto, or
2. Has made substantial contributions to the betterment of a specific facility or park,
consistent with the established standards for the facility, or
3. Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of commensurate types of
recreational opportunities within the City of Palo Alto.”
Staff has reviewed the application from Mr. Keenan and the Friends of Lytton Plaza Park, LLC
and feel that the contributions of Mr. Thoits to the renovation of this specific park, together with
the outstanding contributions of the Thoits family over the years to the enhancement of
recreational opportunities in Palo Alto through their significant community philanthropy, are
compelling enough to merit further consideration of the renaming application by the Parks and
Recreation Commission, together with advice from the Palo Alto Historical Association.
If the Parks and Recreation Commission conclude the application for the renaming of Lytton
Plaza meets the criteria set out in the City’s policy, the Commission will receive comments from
the public and will vote to refer the renaming recommendation back to the City Council for
action.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: City Policy and Procedure 1-15 (Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities)
Attachment B: Application for Renaming City-Owned Lands (Lytton Plaza Park)
CMR:110:10 Page 3 of 3
PREPARED BY: __________________________________________________________
GREG BETTS
Interim Director Community Services
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ______________________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
COURTESY COPIES
Friends of Lytton Plaza, LLC
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE
CITY MANAGER
JANUARY 11, 2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: RESOURCES
CMR:117-10
SUBJECT: Adoption of Two Resolutions to Incorporate a Side Letter with the Palo
Alto Peace Officers' Association (PAPOA) to Allow Deferral of the
FY 09-10 Negotiated Salary Increase and Extend the Term of the
Memorandum of Agreement for One Additional Year and correct the
2007-2010 Salary Schedules: (1) Amending Section 1601 of the Merit
System Rules and Regulations Regarding the 2007-2010 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), and (2) Amending the Compensation Plan for Police
Non-Management Personnel (PAPOA) Adopted by Resolution No. 8779
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recolllinends that Council approve two resolutions to implement the attached side letter
agreelnent between the City and the Palo Alto Police Officers' Association (PAPOA) to
allow melnbers to defer the 2009 salary increase for one year and extend the tenn of the
2007 -2010 Memorandum of Agreelnent ("MOA") for one additional year.
BACKGROUND
During final preparation of the FY 09-10 budget, it becalne clear that the City was facing a
General Fund deficit and this prolnpted the City to approach the labor groups, including
P APOA, to discuss cost saving alternatives. One suggestion was to defer the ilnplenlentation
of the 2009 salary increase of six percent negotiated in the current MOA. The P APOA Board
was willing to work with the City and agreed to approach their membership with the salary
deferral proposal if in return, the City agreed to roll over the Melnoranduln of Agreelnent for
one more year, providing a new expiration date of June 30, 2011.
DISCUSSION
The P APOA melnbers were supportive of the proposal to delay the ilnplementation of the
negotiated 2009 salary increase, but they raised some questions which staff has worked to
resolve over the past several nlonths. After thorough review, P APO A informed the City that
eighty of its Inembers have agreed to voluntarily defer their negotiated six percent salary
increase scheduled to take effect July 2009. Their six percent increase will begin to be paid
CMR: 117-10 Page 1 of2
in the pay period including July I, 20 I O. The attached side letter amends the current MOA to
allow for this voluntary salary deferral and extend the tenn of the contract for one additional
year, through June 30, 2011. In addition, the cOlnpensation plan resolution also amends the
2007 -20 I 0 salary schedules to COITect errors that were subsequently discovered in the
schedules attached when the plan was adopted in 2007.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Deferring iInplementation of the July 1, 2009 salaf'j increase that was negotiated in the 2007-
2010 PAPOA MOA results in the following annual salary savings in FY 2010:
General Fund Savings
Base
Regular Salary and Overtilne Expense
Benefits Expense
Total Salary and Benefits Savings
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This request does not represent any change to existing City policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Impact to FY 09-10
$644,195
$124,494
$768,689
This is not a project under the California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
fo .... Resolution Alnending section 1601 of the Merit Systeln Rules and Regulations
1. Exhibit A: Side Letter to the 2007-2010 Melnorandum of Agreelnent
B. Resolution Alnending PAPOA Compensation Plan
1. Exhibit A: Side Letter to the 2007-2010 Memoranduln of Agreement
2. Exhibit B: 2007-2010 Salary Schedules with Corrected Salaries
PREP ARED BY: Sandra T .R. Blanch, Assistant Director, Human Resources
Marcie Scott, Human Resources Adlninistrator
D PARTMENTHEAD: ~.C-C~ ------~, ----~--------------------------
RUSSELL CARLSEN
I-Iulnan Resources Director
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: --~~~~--~~-----------------
J
CMR: 117-10 Page 2 of2
**N APP *
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and
Regulations Regarding the 2007-2010 Memorandum of
Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Peace Officers' Association, to Allow Members to Defer the
2009 Salary Increase for One Year and Extend the Tenn of
the 2007-2010 ~v1enl0randunl of Agreenlent ("~v10A") for
One Additional Year
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1.
amended to read as follows:
Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations is hereby
"1601. Memorandum of agreement incorporated by reference. That certain
memorandum of agreement by and between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto
Peace Officers' Association, consisting of a Preamble and Sections 1 through 50 and
Appendix A, for a term commencing July 1,2007, and expiring June 30, 2010, as
amended to allow deferral of the 2009 salary increase for one year and extend the
tenn through June 30, 2011, is hereby incorporated into these Merit System Rules
and Regulations by reference as though fully set forth herein. Said n1emorandun1, as
amended, shall apply to all employees in classifications of police officer trainee,
police officer, police agent, and police sergeant, except where specifically provided
otherwise herein.
In the case of conflict with this chapter and any other provisions of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations, this chapter will prevail over such other provisions as to
employees represented by said Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association."
SECTION 2. The Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") incorporated into the Merit
System Rules and Regulations by Section 1 of this Resolution amends the MOA incorporated into
the Merit Rules by Resolution NO.8778 by incorporating the side letter set forth in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The changes provided for in this resolution shall not affect any right
established or accrued, or any offense or act committed, or any penalty of forfeiture incurred, or any
prosecution, suit, or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this
resolution.
/ /
/ /
/ /
100104 sh 8261231
**NOTYET VED**
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental ilnpact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Director of Administrative Services
Director of HUlnan Resources
100 I 04 sh 826123 I 2
* YET *
"A"
Side Letter to the 2007-2010 Memorandun1 of Agreelnent
100104 sh 826123 1
SIDE LETTER TO THE 2007-2010
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
AND
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
WHEREAS, on Decenlber 17,2007, the City Council approved a Men10randlun
of Agreelnent ("MOA") between the City of Palo Alto ("City") and the Palo Alto Peace
Officers' Association ("PAPOA") (collectively referred to as the "Parties") for the period
of July 1,2007 through June 30, 2010; and
WHEREAS Sections 7(a)(3) and 7(b)(4) of the MOA provide that the City shall
increase the salary range for all classifications in P APOA by a total of six percent (6%)
effective with the pay period including July 1, 2009 (the "Increase"); and
WHEREAS, the City Inade available the pay raise as scheduled; however, facing
a budget deficit of Inore than $10 Inillion for fiscal year 2010, the City approached the
labor groups, including P APOA, on or around May 2009, to discuss alternatives to
implementing the Increase given the City'S budget challenges; and
WHEREAS, to help address the City's budget challenges, P APOA and the City
have agreed to enter into this side letter agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, PAPOA and the City as follows:
Section 1. Subsection (t) IS hereby added to Section 7 of the MOA (Salary
Provisions) to read as follows:
(1) Voluntary Deferral of Fiscal Year 2009-10 Salary Increase. In recognition of
the City's budget challenges, melnbers of P APOA have voluntarily agreed to defer the
salary increases agreed to in this MOA for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, which are set forth
in Sections 7(a)(3) and 7(b )(4) (the "Increase") and shown on the salary schedule for the
2009-10 fiscal year (Attachment A). P APOA has provided a list to the City of the
individuals who have agreed to defer the Increase. The effective date of the Increase for
the employees who have elected to defer the Increase shall be deferred to the pay period
including July 1,2010.
Section 2. Section 49 of the MOA (Duration) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Except as expressly and specifically provided otherwise herein for the
retroactive application of a specific provision(s), this Memorandun1 of
Agreement shall become effective upon ratification by both parties hereto
and remain in effect through June 30, 2011."
Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association City of Palo Alto,
'\ -7 '. By: \.MJ.. .... !',. \"/-.. -;\-.-:...
'0
SUbje~t to c~. OU. ncil.~pproval By:1) ~----=-=,= -
Date: '\ ._J l-"YV l ' Date: 1/71/(..) 1 /··------
Approved as to Form:
Byal!t£~~o;;-
** **
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending the 2007-2010 Compensation Plan for Police
Non-Management Personnel (Palo Alto Peace Officers'
Association) Adopted by Resolution No. 8779 to
Incorporate a Side Letter Agreement to the 2007-2010
Memorandum of Agreement with the Palo Alto Peace
Officers' Association, to Allow Members to Defer the 2009
Salary Increase for One Year and Extend the Tem1 of the
2007-2010 Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") for
One Additional Year and Correct the 2007-2010 Salary
Schedules
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the
Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management Personnel,
adopted by Resolution No. 8779, is hereby amended to (a) incorporate a side letter to clarify to
allow melnbers to defer the 2009 salary increase for one year and extend the term of the 2007-
2010 Memoranduln of Agreement ("MOA") for one additional year as set forth in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and (b) correct the 2007-2010 salary
schedules as set forth in Exhibit "8," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to
implement the amended compensation plan as set forth in Section 1.
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
II
II
100104 sh 8261232
** **
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environn1ental Quality Act and, therefore, no environn1ental in1pact asseSS111ent is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Adlninistrative Services
Director of Human Resources
100104 sh 8261232 2
** **
EXHIBIT" A"
Side Letter to the 2007-2010 Memorandum of Agreelnent
100104 sh 8261232 3
SIDE LETTER TO 2007-2010
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE PALO ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
AND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
WHEREAS, on Decenlber 17, 2007, the City Council approved a Melnorandunl
of Agreelnent ("MOA") between the City of Palo Alto ("City") and the Palo Alto Peace
Officers' Association ("P APOA") (collectively referred to as the "Parties") for the period
of July 1,2007 through June 30, 2010; and
WHEREAS Sections 7(a)(3) and 7(b)( 4) of the MOA provide that the City shall
increase the salary range for all classifications in P APOA by a total of six percent (6%)
effective with the pay period including July 1, 2009 (the "Increase"); and
WHEREAS, the City nlade available the pay raise as scheduled; however, facing
a budget deficit of more than $10 Inillion for fiscal year 2010, the City approached the
labor groups, including PAPOA, on or around May 2009, to discuss alte111atives to
inlplenlenting the Increase given the City's budget challenges; and
WHEREAS, to help address the City's budget challenges, PAPOA and the City
have agreed to enter into this side letter agreelnent.
NOW, THEREFORE, PAPOA and the City agree as follows:
Section 1. Subsection (f) IS hereby added to Section 7 of the MOA (Salary
Provisions) to read as follows:
(f) Voluntary Deferral of Fiscal Year 2009-10 Salary Increase. In recognition of
the City's budget challenges, melnbers of PAPOA have voluntarily agreed to defer the
salary increases agreed to in this MOA for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, which are set forth
in Sections 7(a)(3) and 7(b)(4) (the "Increase") and shown on the salary schedule for the
2009-10 fiscal year (Attachment A). PAPOA has provided a list to the City of the
individuals who have agreed to defer the Increase. The effective date of the Increase for
the el11ployees who have elected to defer the Increase shall be deferred to the pay period
including July 1,2010.
Section 49 of the MOA (Duration) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Except as expressly and specifically provided otherwise herein for the
retroactive application of a specific provision(s), this Memorandum of
Agreement shall become effective upon ratification by both parties hereto
and remain in effect through June 30, 2011."
Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association
Date: --~rL~~----------__ _
Approved as to Form:
B,f11kt~~~
** **
"B"
Corrected Salary Schedules, 2007-2010
100104 sh 8261232 4
2007 -PAPOA COMPENSATION PLAN
Effective 6/23/2007
Class No Titile
611 Police Agent 48.49
612 Police Agentll nter 50.99
613 Police AgentlAdv 49.4 52.09
614 Police Agent-Bilingual 48.38 50.92
615 Police Agentll nter -Biling 50.87 53.55
616 Police AgentlAdv-Bilingua 51.97 54.70
Trainee-Bilingual 35.15 35.15
lice Officer-Bilingual 44.83 47.18
lice Officer-Inter-Bili 47.06 49.54
lice Trainee 33.49 33.49
lice Officer 42.69 44.94
622 Police Officer-Inter 44.83 47.18
623 Police Officer-Adv 41.36 43.53 45.82 48.22
624 Police Officer-Adv-Biling 43.41 45.70 48.11 50.64
625 Police Off Training-Bilin 40.46 42.59 44.83 47.18
626 Police Sergeant-Bilingual 48.98 51.55 54.27 57.13
627 Police Off Training 38.52 40.55 42.69 44.94
628 Police Sgtllnter-Bilingua 51.54 54.26 57.12 60.12
629 Police SgtlAdv-Bilingual 52.71 55.48 58.41 61.48
631 Police Sergeant 46.65 49.10 51.68 54.40
632 Police Sgtll nter 49.10 51.68 54.40 57.26
633 Police SgtlAdv 50.22 52.86 55.64 58.56
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2008 -PAPOA COMPENSATION PLAN
Effective 6/22/08 -3.5%/5% COLA increase w/market adjustment including 9% PERS reversal per MOA
Class No Title Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
611 Police Agent $39.32 $41.38 $43.56 $45.85 $48.27
612 Police Agentllnter $41.35 $43.52 $45.81 $48.22 $50.76
613 Police AgentlAdv $42.23 $44.46 $46.80 $49.26 $51.85
620 Police Trainee $36.34 $36.34 $36.34 $36.34 $36.34
621 Police Officer $36.42 $38.34 $40.36 $42.49 $44.73
622 Police Officer-Inter $38.26 $40.27 $42.39 $44.62 $46.96
623 Police Officer-Adv $39.11 $41.17 $43.33 $45.61 $48.00
627 Police Off Training $36.42 $38.34 $40.36 $42.49 $44.73
631 Police Sergeant $44.11 $46.44 $48.87 $51.44 $54.15
632 Police Sgtll nter $46.44 $48.87 $51.44 $54.15 $57.00
633 Police SgtlAdv $47.49 $49.99 $52.62 $55.38 $58.29
Class No Title Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
614 Police Agent-Bilingual $41.28 $43.46 $45.75 $48.16 $50.69
615 Police Agentllnter-Biling $43.41 $45.69 $48.10 $50.64 $53.30
616 Police AgentlAdv-Bilingua $44.35 $46.67 $49.13 $51.73 $54.45
617 Police Trainee-Bilingual $38.14 $38.14 $38.14 $38.14 $38.14
618 Police Officer-Bilingual $38.26 $40.27 $42.39 $44.62 $46.96
619 Police Officer/Inter $40.17 $42.28 $44.50 $46.84 $49.31
624 Police Officer-Adv-Biling $41.05 $43.21 $45.49 $47.89 $50.41
625 Police Off Training-BHin $38.26 $40.27 $42.39 $44.62 $46.96
626 Police Sergeant-Bilingual $46.32 $48.75 $51.31 $54.02 $56.87
628 Police Sgtllnter-Bilingua $48.74 $51.30 $54.01 $56.86 $59.84
629 Police SgtlAdv-Bilingual $49.84 $52.47 $55.22 $58.14 $61.20
CITY OF IALO
2009 -PAPOA COMPENSATION PLAN
Effective 6/20/2009** -3.5% COLA increase wi 2.5% Market Adjustment
Class No Titile Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
611 Police Agent 41.72 43.90 46.21 48.64 51.21
612 Police Agentll nter 43.87 46.17 48.60 51.16 53.85
613 Police AgentlAdv 44.80 47.17 49.65 52.25 55.00
614 Police Agent-Bilingual 43.79 46.10 48.53 51.10 53.77
615 Police Agentllnter-Biling 46.05 48.47 51.02 53.72 56.55
616 Police AgentlAdv-Bilingua 47.05 49.51 52.12 54.88 57.77
617 Police Trainee-Bilingual 40.46 40.46 40.46 40.46 40.46
618 Police Officer-Bilingual 40.59 42.72 44.97 47.33 49.82
619 Police Officer-Inter-Bili 43.18 44.85 47.21 49.69 52.32
620 Police Trainee 38.55 38.55 38.55 38.55 38.55
621 Police Officer 38.63 40.67 42.81 45.08 47.46
622 Police Officer-Inter 40.59 42.72 44.97 47.33 49.82
623 Police Officer-Adv 41.49 43.68 45.97 48.39 50.92
624 Police Officer-Adv-Biling 43.55 45.84 48.26 50.81 53.47
625 Police Off Training-Bilin 40.59 42.72 44.97 47.33 49.82
626 Police Sergeant-Bilingual 49.14 51.72 54.44 57.31 60.33
627 Police Off Training 38.63 40.67 42.81 45.08 47.46
628 Police Sgtllnter-Bilingua 51.71 54.43 57.30 60.32 63.48
629 Police SgtlAdv-Bilingual 52.87 55.67 58.58 61.67 64.92
631 Police Sergeant 46.79 49.27 51.84 54.57 57.45
632 Police Sgtll nter 49.27 51.84 54.57 57.45 60.48
633 Police SgU Adv 50.38 53.03 55.82 58.75 61.84
**The effective date of the Increase for the employees who have elected to defer the Increase
shall be deferred to the pay period including July 1, 2010.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE CITY COlTNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JANUARY 11,2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMlTNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR:116:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Approval of a request for on-site use of 1,146 square feet of a
5,668 square-foot "double bonus" from a proposed historic
rehabilitation and seismic retrofit and Record of Land Use
Action, to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of a property
listed on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as a Category II
historic resource and on the Seismic Structures Inventory as a
Seismic Category II building, located at 661 Bryant Street. This
request is authorized pursuant to PAMC 18.18.070.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report addresses an application for the adaptive reuse· as offices of the fomler
First Church of Christ, Scientist, originally constructed in 1916, including historic
and seismic rehabilitation of the building and site in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and in conformance with
the seismic analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. Because the building is listed as Category lIon the Historic
Inventory and as Seismic Category lIon the Seismic Structures Inventory,
approval of historic and seismic rehabilitation plans will allow the granting of a
combined historic and seismic Floor Area Bonus ("double bonus") whereby the
building may increase its floor area by 5,000 square feet or 50 percent of the
existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits. Because the applicant for the 661 Bryant Street
project is proposing to use part of the "double bonus" on site (and the remainder as
Transferable Developnlent Rights), Municipal Code Section 18.18.070(b)(8)(A)
requires Council approval of such on-site use. The project proposes nl0difications
of historic windows, addition of an ADA-compliant handicap ramp in front of the
building, interior remodeling for an open office layout, addition of aI, 146 square
foot office mezzanine to the former church auditorium rotunda, and a
comprehensive landscape plan. On September 2, 2009, the HRB recommended
that the Council find that the project as conditioned conlplies with the Secretary's
CMR:116:10 Page 10f5
Standards for Rehabilitation on the exterior and in the interior. Staff recommends
approval of the request.
RECOMMENDATION
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff recommend that the City Council approve
the request for on-site use of 1,146 square feet of "double bonus" floor area at 661 Bryant
Street (in the form of a new office mezzanine in the auditorium rotunda of the former
Christian Science Church) by making the two required findings cited in Municipal Code
Section 18.18.070(b )(8)(A):
1. "The exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the u.S. Secretary
of the Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings' (36CFR Section 67,7); and
2. The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be inconsistent with the
historic character of the interior and exterior of the building and site."
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A), documenting these findings.
BACKGROUND
The requirement that the City Council review the use of the double floor area bonus on
significant (Category 1 and II) historic sites was established in the Municipal Code in
1995, and was part of the ongoing evolution of an ever stronger development-based
historic incentives program in Palo Alto. By 1976, when provisions supporting historic
preservation first appeared in the Comprehensive Plan, there was already a call for the
creation of historic incentives. It was recognized that regulation alone would not cause
inlportant historic buildings to be preserved in good condition and repaired; a system of
rewards and incentives was also needed. By 1986, with the creation of the Downtown
CD zone, the strongest historic preservation incentive that has been established so far
the Floor Area Bonus-was included in the new Downtown zone regulations.
The Floor Area Bonus program initially restricted historic-seisnlic properties to a single
Floor Area Bonus for either historic or seismic rehabilitation even if both rehabilitations
were carried out. The single Floor Area Bonus allows a Category I or II building to
increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet (or by twenty-five percent of the existing
building, whichever is greater) without having the increased square footage count toward
the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit. By 1995, the Floor Area Bonus incentive had been
considerably strengthened to require, not just encourage, comprehensive rehabilitation of
buildings, and review by the HRB of the project rehabilitation plan under the federal
Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. Property owner incentives had also been
strengthened by exempting bonus floor area from parking requirements-a major new
incentive-and by allowing bonus floor area to be transferred (sold) wholly or partially
off site as Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), thus providing flexibility on how
bonus floor area can be used to raise funds for rehabilitation. Finally, in 1995, the
"double bonus" was created that cOITlbined historic and seisnlic bonuses into a single
CMR:116:10 Page 2 of5
incentive that generated 5,000 square feet of FAR-exempt floor area (or 50 percent of the
existing building, whichever is greater) which can be used on-site or as TDRs.
Since 1999 the Floor Area Bonus program has been further strengthened by requiring
applications to include a Historic Structure Report (HSR), prepared by a qualified
consultant according to federal standards, to guide the development of the rehabilitation
plan. In addition, owners of properties receiving a Floor Area Bonus must enter into a
protective preservation covenant ensuring retention of the property's historic character in
perpetuity.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approved project plans include modifications to the exterior of the building and the
site, and interior alterations including the addition of the 1, 146 square-foot mezzanine to
the rotunda (Attachment B). Exterior modifications include replacement of the historic
opalescent glass in five windows that cannot be seen from any public space (and cannot
be seen in the principal interior spaces), and the replacenlent of historic tinted glass in
twenty-two windows in the 1930 addition. Nine of these twenty-two windows cannot be
seen from public spaces. The historic side steps up to the arcade entry porch of the 1930
addition will be replaced by a new ADA access ramp with open railings. All other
exterior features of the former Christian Science Church will be preserved and
rehabilitated. The patio and landscaping plan will preserve the original design feeling of
a building mounted on a raised platform. The approved plans incorporate all the HRB' s
recommended conditions of approval (listed on pages 37-40 of Attachment C).
The most significant proposed interior alteration is the construction of a 1,146 square
foot mezzanine within the auditorium domed rotunda to provide additional office space.
In order to comply with the Secretary's Standards the applicant developed strategies to
reduce the visual impact of the mezzanine and to retain a sense of the spatial volume of
the rotunda: the mezzanine would have a seventeen foot-wide circular opening in its
center so that the top of the dome may be viewed from the main floor, and the
mezzanine's inner circular railing and several office walls would be transparent glass to
allow angled views from below of the upper rotunda and dome. Also, to provide
additional sense of the rotunda's volume, the mezzanine would be set in by more than
two feet from the rotunda wall. This "floating mezzanine" would be supported by
columns and by narrow struts connecting the mezzanine to the rotunda wall. The new
mezzanine would not be visible on the exterior of the building and would not cause any
exterior alteration. The applicant's historic consultant has provided a photograph of the
existing domed rotunda (Attachment E), and the project plans contain on Sheet A 4.01 an
elevation drawing of the proposed mezzanine and on Sheet A 2.02 the mezzanine floor
plan (Attachment B).
Other interior building modifications include the replacement of a number of small
spaces in the former Sunday-School area of the 1930 addition with an open office plan,
and the replacement of the sloping floor in the former church auditorium with a flat floor.
CMR:116:10 Page 3 of5
DISCUSSION
In 2008, ECI Three Bryant, LLC, acquired the vacant former Christian Science Church at
661 Bryant Street with the intention to reuse the building as ground-floor offices, as
allowed by the site's CD-C(P) zone. The applicant developed four primary project goals:
a light-filled interior with views to the outside, an open office layout design,
comprehensive accessibility beyond the minimum requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and the construction of a mezzanine within the former church
auditorium rotunda in order to create additional office space. Significant historic issues
emerged early in project review. The former church is a Category 2 building on the
City's Historic Inventory, and as described on pages 5-6 of the HRB staff report
(Attachment D), is one of the most important historic Mediterranean-style buildings on
the San Francisco peninsula. It is also nearly unaltered from its original construction in
1916 (the Sunday School-Reading Room addition dates from 1930 and is also nearly
unaltered).
Certain character-defining historic features of the former church presented difficult
challenges for the proposed office reuse, including thirty-two opalescent glass windows
that reduced interior light levels, and the exterior steps to the two arcaded entry porches
that were inaccessible to handicapped persons. Staff s detailed evaluation of the primary
project issues is presented on pages 11-13 of the HRB staff report for the Septenlber 2,
2009 meeting (Attachnlent D).
HISTORIC RESOlTRCES BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 2, 2009, the HRB conducted a public hearing on the project; the verbatim
HRB minutes, which include a summary of the motion prepared by staff, are in
Attachment C. The HRB staff report, on pages 1-4, recomnlended that the rehabilitation
plan would comply with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation if it were revised to
incorporate twenty-four recommended conditions of project approval. One proposal that
generated much discussion by HRB members at the September 2, 2009 public hearing
was the removal of the opalescent skylight in the center of the auditorium dome.
Although it was acknowledged that the ornamental skylight is original, the HRB
concluded that the skylight's renloval was acceptable (provided it is stored) if more light
would be gained in the auditorium from the exposed lantern windows above the skylight.
The HRB unanimously voted to recommend approval of the project including the
deletion of one staff-recommended condition (# 15, HRB staff report), the modification
of five-staff recommended conditions, and adoption of eighteen staff conditions. The
vote was 5-0 ofHRB members present.
Public Comment. At the Septenlber 2, 2009 HRB meeting, a longtime Christian Science
Church member spoke expressing support for the office project, and providing historical
information on several character-defining features of the building. He encouraged
retention of the opalescent glass windows that can be seen from a public street.
Architectural Review Board Review and Recommendation. Because the project did not
propose an exterior addition to the building, and because the fa~ade changes were
considered minor, the Architectural Review was conducted at the staff level and was
CMR:116:10 Page 4 of5
focused on the proposed site plan. The project was found by planning staff to meet all
applicable Architectural Review standards in a manner that was also consistent with the
Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation. The Architectural Review application approval
letter, dated Novetnber 12, 2009, incorporated in its findings for approval all the historic
conditions of approval recommended by the HRB (Attachment F).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed adaptive reuse of the former Christian Science Church building as
commercial office space will result in increases in property tax revenues since the
religious use was tax exempt. Office workers will patronize downtown businesses and
increase pedestrian activity on Bryant Street.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommended action furthers the Comprehensive Plan goal and policies encouraging
the conservation and preservation of Palo Alto's historic buildings.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project has been found consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and, therefore, is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environnlental Quality Act (CEQ A) Guidelines, per Section 15301.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Project Plans received 1115/09 and Applicant's Project Description (Council Members
Only)
C. HRB Verbatim Minutes 9/2/09
D. HRB Staff Report, 9/2/09
E. Photo of Existing Domed Rotunda
F: Architectural Review Application Approval Letter, 11112/09
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:116:10
n~J2..<lQ".D
DENNIS BACKLlTND
Historic Preservation Planner
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Page 5 of5
Attachment A
ACTXON NO. 2010-01
RECORD OF THE COUNCXL OF THE CXTY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTXON
FOR 661 BRYANT STREET: HXSTORXC REVXEW APPLXCATXON, 09PLN-00116,
(BLAKE REXNHARDT, APPLXCANT)
On January 11, 2010, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved a request for on-site use of 1,146 square feet of a 5,668
square-foot Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Floor Area
Bonus from a proposed historic rehabilitation and seismic retrofit
to increase the floor area of a property listed on the Palo Alto
Historic Inventory as a Category II historic resource and on the
Seismic Structures Inventory as a Seismic Category II b~ilding,
making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The Council of the City of Palo
Alto (UCity Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On May 27, 2009, Blake Reinhardt, in behalf of ECI
Three Bryant, LLC, applied for major Historic Review, minor
Architectural Review, and a Combined Historic and Seismic
Rehabili tation Floor Area Bonus (UCombined Bonus") regarding a
project for historic and seismic rehabilitation and adaptive office
reuse, including a 1,146 square-foot interior addition utilizing a
portion of the Combined Bonus, of the former First Church of
Christ, Scientist (UThe Project").
B. The Project proposes to utilize a portion of the
Combined Bonus on site which requires that the City Council approve
the Project by making two findings cited in Municipal Code section
18.18.070 (b)(8)(A):
1. UThe exterior modifications for the entire
project comply with the u.S. Secretary of the
Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings' (36CFR Section 67,7); and
2. The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not
otherwise be inconsistent with the historic
character of the interior and exterior of the
building and site."
C. Following staff review, the Historic Resources Board
(HRB), at a duly noticed hearing on September 2, 2009, reviewed the
exterior and interior design of the Project and recommended
approval based on the Findings cited in Section 3 of this Record
and subject to the historic Conditions cited in Section 4.
1
D. The Planning and Community Environment project Planner
(" Proj ect Planner") conducted minor Archi tectural Review of the
exterior Proj ect design, in behalf of the Archi tectural Review
Board, on November 12, 2009 and recommended approval based on the
Finding ci ted in Section 3 of this Record and subj ect to the
Conditions cited in Section 4.
E.
Director of
approved the
November 12,
request for
decision was
26, 2009.
The Project Planner, acting as designee of the
Planning and Community Environment, tentatively
Project with the recommended Finding and Conditions on
2009 which initiated a fourteen-day appeal period. No
a director's hearing on the proposed director's
received and the decision became effective on November
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines,
per section 15301.
SECTION 3. Findings for Approval
Historic Review
The action of the Historic Resources Board on September 2,
2009 includes two recommended Findings of Project approval:
1. The proposed rehabilitation of the former First Church
of Christ, Scientist at 661 Bryant Street meets the
definition of "his~oric rehabilitation" set forth in
Municipal code 18.18.030(b)i and
2. The proposed historic rehabilitation plan as presented
in the applicant's "Written Project Description"
document, dated August 13, 2009 [Attachment E of HRB
staff report], and in the "Recommendations" listed on
pages 45-46 of the Historic Structure Report by Cody
Anderson Wasney, dated July 2009, will comply with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings with respect to preservation of
character-defining features and with respect to the
compatibility of new features, subject to Conditions.
Architectural Review
The approval of the Architectural Review application
(09PLN-00116) is based on the Finding that the Project is
consistent with design guidelines adopted by the Architectural
2
Review Board, and that the applicable design Findings set forth in
Municipal Code 18.76.020(d) have been met.
SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance
with the plans received on November 5, 2009 except as modified
to incorporate these conditions of approval. The plans are on
file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
2. A copy of this letter shall be printed on any plans that are
submitted to the City for a building permit, if required.
3. Upon determining that the project has been completed as
approved, the applicant shall secure a written certification
from the city which shall state the total floor area bonus
utilized at the site and the amount of remaining floor area
bonus which is eligible for transfer to another site. This
certification shall be recorded in the office of the County
Recorder.
4. The owner of the si te shall enter into an unsubordinated
protective covenant running with the land in favor of the
City, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, to assure
that the property will be rehabilitated and maintained in
accordance wi th the Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings together with the
accompanying interpretive Guidelines for Rehabili tation of
Historic buildings, as they may be amended from time to time.
5. The Historic Rehabilitation Plan for 661 Bryant Street will
comprise Part 5 of the "Written Project Description," dated
August 13, ·2009, and submitted by ECI Three Bryant, LLC and
also the repair items listed in the "Recommendations" section
of the Historic Structure Report prepared by Cody Anderson
Wasney, dated July 2009, pages 45-46.
6. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied
to all eligible aspects of the historic rehabilitation of the
site and the building exterior and interior when needed to
preserve character-defining features.
3
7. The historic and seismic rehabilitation, restoration, and new
construction at 661 Bryant Street shall be based on the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabili tation and on a consideration of recommendations
provided in the Department of the Interior's uPreservation
Briefs" #9 (UThe Repair of Historic Wooden Windows"), #18
(URehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings: Identifying
and Preserving Character-Defining Elements"), #22 (UThe
Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco"), #24 (UHeating
Ventilating, and Cooling Historic Buildings"), #32 (UMaking
Historic Properties Accessible"), #33 (UThe Preservation and
Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass"), #41 (UThe
Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation
in the Forefront"), and uPreservation Tech Note: Specifying
Temporary Protection of Historic Interiors During Construction
and Repair."
8. The existing opalescent leaded glazing of the all the windows
of the 1916 church building shall be preserved in place with
the exception of those windows numbered 35, 36, and 37 on
Sheet A3. 02 of the proj ect Plan Set, and those windows
numbered 60 and 61 on Sheet A3.03 o,f the Plan Set. Those five
windows shall be placed in storage and their opalescent glass
may be used as replacement glass in the windows preserved in
place if needed.
9. The upper rotunda opalescent glass windows which are currently
faced with non-historic clear plastic on the exterior to
protect against leaks shall be evaluated by a qualified
historic consultant, selected by the City as possessing
expertise in the repair of historic leaded stained glass, to
determine the technical and economic feasibility of
rehabilitating the windows so that they do not leak, thus
allowing the plastic facing to be removed. If such
feasibility is determined, the repair of the windows shall be
added to the applicant's Historic Rehabilitation Plan. If the
expert consultant opinion concurs, alternative metal framing
material may be considered for use in the repair of the
windows.
4
10.AII the opalescent glass exterior lighting fixtures of the
1916 church building shall be preserved in place, and the
glass that will replace missing opalescent panes in the
exterior lighting fixtures shall be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Planner prior to installation.
11.The tinted glass of the tall arched window of the staircase
foyer of the 1930 church addition (window # 17 on Sheet A3.00
of the Plan Set) shall be retained.
12.The tinted glass shall be retained in the round windows of the
1930 church addition (windows # 22, 23, 24, 25, and 47 on
Sheet A3.00 of the Plan Set). All other tinted window glass
in the 1930 church addition not cited in Conditions # 7 and 8
may be removed and replaced with clear glass.
13.The geometric mural on the upper wall of the Bryant Street
fa~ade of the 1930 church addition, and the plain painted
panels of the upper left side of the addition shall be
maintained and preserved because they are replications of the
original painted designs of the addition, as shown clearly by
photos of the addition taken in 1930.
14.The three large bi-folding doors between the main entry foyer
and the auditorium shall be preserved in place as proposed.
15.The opalescent glass skylight of the church auditorium may be
removed provided that it is placed in storage.
16. The wood wainscoting of the church auditorium shall be
preserved to the extent feasible, as determined by the
applicant in consultation with the Historic Preserva'tion
Planner, including the sloped-floor wainscoting by means of an
adaptive detailing of the base of the wall at the new level
floor.
17.The adaptive reuse treatment of the large arched opening above
the existing stage area of the auditorium shall be reviewed by
5
the Historic Preservation Planner. The existing organ pipe
screening within the arched opening may be removed.
18.The exposed wood beam ceilings of the staircase foyer, the
former Reading Room, and the second-floor hallway of the 1930
addition shall be preserved and rehabilitated where needed.
19. The large hanging metal lighting fixture of the staircase
foyer, which appears to be original, shall be preserved and
repaired as needed.
20.The fireplace and the original wood built-in cabinets of the
former Reading Room in the 1930 church addition shall be
repaired as needed and preserved.
21.The architectural and design details of the proposed
transformation of the former Reading Room and the adjacent
office into a single room shall be reviewed for adequate
retention of the former Reading Room's historic character by
the Historic Preservation Planner.
22 . The final design, materials, finishes, and colors of the
proposed auditorium mezzanine, including the supporting
columns and the glass railing around the perimeter of the
central opening of the mezzanine (shown on Sheet A2.02 of the
plan Set) shall be submitted for review by the Historic
Preservation Planner.
23.The final materials and colors for the exterior of 661 Bryant
Street shall be submitted for review by the Historic
Preservation Planner.
24.AII new exterior lighting including the style, materials, and
color of the fixtures, and the light bulb types, shall be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner.
25.The Director of Planning's letter of project approval,
including the approved conditions, shall be printed on one of
the ini tial sheets of the Building Permi t Plan Set (final
construction plans) .
6
26.The Historic Preservation Planner shall review the Building
Permit Plan Set for consistency with the Director of
Planning's project approval based on the recommendations of
the Historic Resources Board.
27 .. The staff-ARB project approval shall be valid for a period of
one year from the original date of approval. In the event a
building permit (s), if applicable, is not secured for the
project within the time limit specified above, the staff-ARB
approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect.
Public Works Engineering
28. ENCROACHMENT: Sheet A2. 01 shows a new brick planter curb
extending about 2 feet into the public right-of-way (ROW)
along Forest Avenue. Consider removing the curb from the ROW
or making it flush with the concrete sidewalk so as not to
create a tripping condition.
Include in plans submitted for a building per.mit:
29. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized
"Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be
included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public
Works at the Development Center or on our website.
30.STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public
right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street
trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of
street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist
(phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the
plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City
requirements.
31.WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate 9ny
work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as
sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals.
The plans must include notes that the work must be done per
City standards and that the contractor performing this work
must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at
the Development Center.
32.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If the project will be creating or
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface, the
7
applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and
proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit
application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land
Developments form and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on our website.
33.SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan
set that says, "The contractor using the city sidewalk to work
on an adjacent private property must do so in a manner that is
safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must
be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of
sidewalk open and safe for pedestrian use."
Fire Department
34.Install a monitored NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system throughout
entire building.
35.A valid Certificate of Use and Occupancy permit is required.
water Gas wastewater Engineering
36.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo
Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands (water in fixture
units/g.p.m., .gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture
units/g.p.d.) .
37.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility
construction. The plans must show the size and location of
all underground utili ties wi thin the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers,
fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts,
sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
38.Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete
bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing
water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l'
horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete
base to existing. utilities as found in the field. If there is
a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases
shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet
field conditions.
8
39.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any
auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled
water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
40.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibility includes all costs associated with the design
and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility
mains and/or services.
41.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next
upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an
approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0.
The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown
on the plans.
42.Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed
30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a
detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
43.Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
1. The pump(s} be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less.
2. The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at least
20' from the City clean out.
3. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time
not exceed 20 seconds each cycle.
Prior to issuance of a building per.mit
44.Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC,
or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant's expense.
45.The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees
associated with the installation of the new utility service/s
to be installed by the Ci ty of Palo Al to Utili ties. The
approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
46.Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and
gas meter shown on the plans.
47.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be
installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the
location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter
shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water
9
service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and
landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto
water efficiency standards.
48.An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow
preventer device) is required for all existing and new water
connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans.
Inspection by the utili ties cross connection inspector is
required for the supply pipe between the meter and the
assembly. The applicant shall provide the City with current
test certificates for all backflows.
49.An approved RP detector backflow is required for the existing
or new water connections for the fire system to comply with
requirements of California administrative code, ti tIe 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. RP detector backflows
shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the
property line. Show the location of the RP detector backflow
on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection
inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City
connection and the assembly. The applicant shall provide the
City with current test certificates for all backflows.
50.A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new
gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must
conform with utilities standard details. Gas meters are not
allowed in planter areas, and below operable windows.
51.AII existing water and wastewater services that will not be
reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities
procedures before any new utility services are installed.
52.AII utility installations shall be in accordance with the City
of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
Electric Utilities
General
53 . The applicant shall comply wi th all the Electric Utili ty
Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan
review.
The following shall be incorporated in submittals for building
permit
10
54.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must
be included with all building permit applications involving
electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the
preliminary submittal.
55.Industrial and large commercial customers must allow
sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and
Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering
fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric
service requested.
56.0nly one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
57.This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of
the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved
by the Utili ties Department and the Archi tectural Review
Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16.
58.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing
padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and
interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the
City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities
Easement for facilities installed on private property as
required by the City.
59.The customer shall install all electrical substructures
(conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to
the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall
be according to the City standards and shown on plans.
Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
60.Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on
the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board
and Utilities Department.
61.AII utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers,
and any other required equipment shall be shown on the
landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict
will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In
addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a
manner that is consistent with the build,ing design and setback
requirements.
62.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors
and other required equipment according to the National
Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities
Rule & Regulation #18.
63.Projects that require the extension and or relocation of high
voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite
11
electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must
be coordinated with the Electric Utility.
64.Any additional facilities and services requested by the
Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard
facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The
Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the
additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership.
utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Deputy City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared by Lundberg Design ti tIed "661 Bryant
Avenue Palo Alto, CAn, consisting of eighteen pages, dated November
3, 2009, and received November 5, 2009.
12
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MINUTES
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
ROLLCALL:
Board Members:
Wednesday, September 2,2009
REGULAR MEETING -8:00 AM
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hanlilton A venue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staff:
Attachment C
David Bower, Chair
Natalie Loukianoff, Vice-Chair
Roger Kohler
Cathy Siegel, Advance Planning Manager
Dennis Backlund, Hist. Pres. Planner
Diana Tamale, Admin. Associate
Patricia DiCicco -absent
Beth Bunnenberg
Michael Makinen
Martin Bernstein
PlTBLIC HEARING PROCESS
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows:
• Announce agenda item
• Open public hearing
• Staff recommendation
• Applicant presentation -Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the
Board.
• Historic Resources Board questions of the applicant/staff
• Public comment -Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three
(3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item.
• Applicant closing comments -Three (3) minutes
• Close public hearing
• Motions/recommendations by the Board
• Final vote
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available fronl the secretary of the Board. (None)
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. (None)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Approval of minutes of HIstoric Resources Board meeting
of July 15, 2009.
Historic Resources Board Action: Board Member Bunnenberg moved, seconded by
Board Member Loukianoff, to approve the nlinutes as presented by staff.
Vote: 6-0-0-1 (DiCicco absent)
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearing
1. 661 Bryant Street [09PLN-OOI16]: Request by Blake Reinhardt on behalf of ECI Three
Bryant, LLC, for Historic Resources Board review and recommendation regarding plans
for a proposed historic and seismic rehabilitation for office reuse of the former Christian
Science Church, which was constructed in 1916 and is listed on the City's Historic
Inventory in Category 2. The project includes (1) a new ramp in front of the church to
provide access compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (2) a proposal
to replace the opalescent glass in the first floor church windows and the majority of the
tinted glass in the 1930 church addition with clear glass, (3) a proposed 949 square-foot
circular mezzanine within the rotunda nave, (4) selective alterations to finishes and
spaces in the interior, and (5) a conlprehensive new landscape plan. Approved historic
and seismic rehabilitation plans would generate a cOlnbined floor area bonus of 5,668
square feet which may be used on site and/or in the City's Transferable Development
Rights (TDR) program. Zone District: CD-C(P).
(Board Member Loukianoff recused herself due to conflict of interest.)
Chair Bower: This is the project at 660 Bryant Street, and I will just read you the application
from our Agenda:
The request is by Blake Reinhardt on behalf of ECI Three Bryant, LLC, for Historic Resources
Board approval and recommendation regarding plans for a proposed historic and seismic
rehabilitation for office reuse of the fomler Christian Science Church which was constructed in
1916 and is listed on the City's Historic Inventory in Category 2. The project includes: 1) A
new ramp in front of the church to provide access compliant with the Americans for Disabilities
Act, 2) A proposal tO'replace the opalescent glass in the first floor church windows and the
majority of the tinted glass in the 1930 church addition with clear glass, 3) a proposed 949 square
foot circular mezzanine within the rotunda nave, 4) selective alterations to finishes and spaces in
the interior, and 5) a comprehensive new landscape plans. Approved historic and seismic
rehabilitation plans would generate a cOlnbined floor area bonus of 5,668 square feet which may
be used onsite and/or in the City's Transferable Development Rights Program in Zone District
CD-CPo
I guess we would like to hear starting from the staff first with your report, Dennis?
Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner: Yes, Thank you very nluch, Chair Bower. The
project is large and complex, as reflected in the plans that were in your packet, and therefore the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Board's deliberations may be covering a nUlTlber of items. Therefore, what we would like to do
in the Staff Report is to try for brevity on this and to sum up just the essential issues and why
those issues are there.
First of all,' the Christian Science Church, as we know, and as was pointed out in the biography
of the architect, Elmer Gray (and other commentary in the Staff Report and the Historic
Inventory Form that cited the central place of this church in the character of the downtown), it is
a major landmark of the City. It is also very nearly unaltered, and the proposed use is an
adapti ve reuse that requires a number of things for that use.
I think an Applicant for an office use would need to make a number of changes because the
building is essentially an asselTlbly space, and then the other half is intended for Sunday School
services and other ritual activities focusing on children.
An adaptive reuse is going to be an adult use and so there is a great difference there in the
Sunday School addition. Then, in the assembly space, offices as we know are an arrangement of
a number of small spaces that are divided for office workers as opposed to an assembly space.
Therefore, with those two factors, we are looking at a number of changes. Also, office design
has evolved over the years and now there is a very popular open office design that tries to open
up an entire area. In a way, it's like continuing or creating an assembly-type of space above all
of the cubicles because it is open, but then at the floor level it is divided into all of these spaces
which is a different character than a large asselTlbly space for a congregation.
An open office design is what is requested for this building along with a couple of major factors
in the application for office reuse which is a request for historic preservation and seismic
incentives. Those consist of bonus square footage that can be used on site or in the Transferable
Development Rights Program, or a kind of mix-and-match .combination of the two, which is
proposed by this project, a little less than 1,000 square feet proposed for a mezzanine in the
rotunda dome area of the building. Then, likely the rest would become Transferable
Development Rights (TDRs) later on.
What those incentives require is, for the seismic part, this will be handled by the Building
Division for the engineering questions involved to meet a particular building regulation that the
seismic rehabilitation will bring the building up to the 1973 code. That lies fairly far back in
time, but the building regulation has never been changed for the purpose of the incentive. Any
Applicant can voluntarily do more in certain areas, but as long as they meet the 1973 code, as
determined by the Chief Building Official and Assistant Building Official, then they would be
eligible for this bonus square footage.
The other part of the incentive is an historic rehabilitation plan, and that was laid out in the
Applicant's project description, which included the final two (2) pages of that project description
in Attachment E, where it lists various things that are going to be repaired.
There were a few very minor items in addition to this list that were set forth in the Historic
Structure Report. So we recommended, as a condition, that the rehabilitation plan would include
what is in the Applicant's project description, which has a number of repair and rehabilitation
items, and also those repair iten1s that were recolllffiended in the Historic Structure Report.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
We felt that a conlbination of the two would meet the City's general standard for histolic
rehabilitation, specifically in the Municipal Code wording "to remedy all the known
rehabilitation needs of the building." So we did recommend the project on that count.
One factor about the two (2) incentives working together with an allowance of 25% of the
existing square footage of the building (or 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater) the greater
was the 25% of the building because it's a rather large building, bringing the grand total of 5,668
square feet. Those two (2) bonuses were redefined in recent years in the Municipal Code to be
considered one (1) single bonus that is called a Combined Bonus, seismic and historic working
together in one single entity.
When one is applying for that combined entity, then there is a requirement that the project will
be reviewed by the City Council. The Council recognized that they are granting a lot of square
footage. Whether used on site or in TDRs, it's going to create impacts on the downtown in
overdevelopment somewhere and then, also, it will increase the parking deficit.
The Council debated that. They said to help save major landmark buildings (and particularly
major landmarks that have seismic problems; this building is a significant seismic hazard
Category 2 for seismic) that they would accept those inlpacts in the downtown provided that they
have a chance to look at the project, too, in addition to design review boards and decide whether
the exterior and interior would meet preservation standards.
We initially recommended that you are recommending to the Architectural Review Board,
farther down the road, the findings of both boards that will become a reconlIDendation to the City
Council. And the provision for interior review is set forth in the Municipal Code. It's quoted in
the project description what the provision in that the interior will be consistent with historic
preservation standards.
The Council set that standard in 1987, very definitely, when they adopted the Secretary's
Standards for Use for all Historic Review in the City.
The project is also subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is
discretionary due to the discretionary nature of Architectural Review Board design review,
which this project requires. Under CEQA, they follow the Secretary's Standards also. So the
Secretary Standards would be the basis for the building, inside and out.
The Council wanted to look at the interior if reports involved in the process cited any significant
features on the interior. That was part of Council's recognition that a combined bonus can create
large development impacts on the downtown, going beyond zoning and increasing the parking
deficit. So they wanted to look at the building as a totality as well, and that is the reason for the
interior citations in the Conditions of Approval.
Because there were 24 conditions, I am not going to go through those. The Board had the packet
for several days and may have raised questions on some of these, and so we will leave that to the
Board's questions to Staff and the Applicant.
But, basically, we tried to go over the plan sort of inch-by-inch in the demolition plan and the
proposed first and second floor plans among other sheets, inch-by-inch to try to nlake sure that
we would not miss anything. We said that we recommended that the project be approved
City of Palo Alto Page 4
because the rehabilitation plan for repairs appeared sufficient to us. The final decision belongs to
the Board. And also because we recognize that it will be seismically upgrading a building that is
somewhat of a hazard, particularly according to the building division in the rotunda. In a major
earthquake, there is the possibility that it could collapse inward due to the nature of the structure.
It survived Loma Priata quite well. The building had only a few cracks in the plaster that were
cosmetic, but that was a 7.0, and if there was an 8.3, or sonlething, then there is a different
scenario ahead for this building.
So one point that I think of when the Applicant presents the project, they have been working
right up to the present on further updates on the Seismic Rehabilitation Plan, but in initial plans
that Staff had with the Building Division, they did agree that it is very, very difficult to
seismically update that rotunda and do it in a way that would be historically acceptable. The
typical way would involve a fair amount of demolition and rebuilding that we don't want to see.
It could show on the exterior, which is unaltered, and we want to keep it that way.
Therefore, the Building Division said, of course, the design and comments and approvals of the
HRB on the mezzanine belong to the Board and not to the Building Division, but they did point
out that a proper mezzanine would have the affect of bracing the rotunda and the carrying an
pressure to collapse inward down through the mezzanine, down the columns that support it, and
into the concrete foundation that those columns will have.
So, in a way, the columns sort of function as kind of an interior vertical sort of flying buttress
type of scenario. Nevertheless, it should be compatible with the building.
The entire seismic upgrade is a task where the Building Division has already agreed that they
will work with Planning staff to assure that there will not be negative impacts on the building.
We recommended and are supplying the Applicant with a preservation brief that is "Seismically
Rehabbing Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation in the Forefront," and that the Building
Division has agreed that they will work with Staff throughout the project to make sure that
preservation is kept in the forefront.
There are always alternative ways to do things in seismic rehabilitation and we will work on this
continually to ensure that the alternatives that keep preservation in the forefront will be what is
followed.
We gave you an attachment for the accessibility of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
ramp. We recommended that the ramp be an open ramp with open railings rather than a concrete
wall on the principle expressed in Attachment H, where the Federal Government says, "The goal
is to provide the highest level of access with the lowest level of impact."
Another large issue because there are so many of these features, is approximately 38-40
opalescent glass windows. The plans show certain ones to be preserved. The project is
proposing the replacement of opalescent glass with a similar divided approach in clear glass
panes instead for 27 windows.
There was one citation in the staff report that said 25 windows, and I am sorry that is a typo.
There are 27 of these windows on the ground floor, all of which are proposed to have their
City of Palo Alto PageS
opalescent glass removed.
We didn't count the basement windows. Those are lesser impact, but they do have opalescent
glass in them, although I think a couple of panes have been replaced.
But, of the ll1ain windows, there are 27 on the ground floor. We pointed out that about five (5)
of them cannot be seen either from the street (and you cannot quite make out that there is
opalescent glass there because the window is too deep-set in the wall) and also you can't see it
from the auditorium if one is thinking of a unified look to the interior. There are about five (5)
of them that actually serve restroom and office space in the back, yet nevertheless they continued
the theme of this art glass, opalescent glass, in those windows.
We invited the Board in their site visit that you always do for your packets to kind of stand on
Forest A venue and try to make out how many of which windows could be seen from the street,
and then make your decision. The Board is not restricted only to windows that can be seen from
the street, but just so that the Board would differentiate the two (2) in their decision-making. We
invited a site visit while you had your packets.
So those are the main issues and staff is available for your questions. We recommended 24
conditions because we believe that with those conditions the project would meet the Secretary's
Standards throughout the proposal, inside and out, but the decision belongs to you.
Thank you very much.
Chair Bower: At this point, do we want to ask questions of Dennis, or move on to the Applicant
and do questions all at once. I guess we will do questions all at once, so let's hear from the
Applicant.
John Hamilton: My name is John Hamilton. I'm the Managing Partner of Elnbarcadero Capital
Partners. We're the sponsor and owner of the project. We maintain an office both at 1301 Shore
Way Boulevard in Belmont, or really Redwood Shores, and then also at Embarcadero Corporate
Center which is in Palo Alto directly next door to Ming's which is in an office building we also
own. We have other properties in Palo Alto including 100 Hamilton, just down the street at
Hanlilton and Alma, and until very recently we owned 3408 Hillview and 3495 Deer Creek in
Stanford Research Park. The latter building at 3495 we had a dramatic remodeling of the entry
of the building. If you all go by there, hopefully you will like it. It's a heck of a lot better than it
used to be.
I used to live at Ramona and Forest, all of one block away, and so I'm very familiar with this
building, walking by it almost every day. And for as long as I've been Palo Alto and the Bay
Area, certainly I've admired the building. I think it's a charming shell of a building. I never saw
it get much use and obviously it has had rather diminutive use in recent years, but it is clearly a
great shell of a building with a lot of potential. Finally, we have the opportunity to see if we, with
your oversight and permission, we can have it rehabilitated for adaptive reuse, have it become
vibrant, and sustainable. It has a lot of potential, but to have it be converted to something with
sustainable vibrant use we do need to make some changes.
We appreciate all your feedback from our hearings, both here and then the walk-throughs, with
some very insightful comments from you all. Based on your feedback we have made some
City of Palo Alto Page 6
reVISIons. Some are significant towards the middle including, as Dennis described very briefly,
we reoriented the entry ramp from the comer of Forest and Bryan and deleted the handicap
access to the main entrance, orienting all of that entry experience to Bryant, mid Bryant, at the
face of the building.
Additionally, with the opalescent glass, we have designed a scheme where we would keep it on
the upper levels, but to make sure that we have sufficient natural light and have the assembly
spaces and the rest. Dennis did mention that they did have offices in there too, and of course this
was an administrative building for them as well. We need clear, but tinted glass, throughout the
lower levels just to have it really comfortably inhabitable by humans, and have it be a good
effective efficient comfortable workspace for folks.
We appreciate all your feedback, and we've made those changes. To help us overall in the
redesign of the interiors, primarily, we have engaged both Monty Anderson, who has significant
experience in Palo Alto and elsewhere on historic preservation. He has been a great guidance
counselor for us, and architects Ollie Lundberg and Rod Barazneki(?),both of whom have had
significant experience in historical preservation and rehab.
Ollie was the lead architect on the Presidio Social Club in the Presidio of San Francisco, and also
in the Ferry Building in San Francisco. He was the architect for the Slanted Door Restaurant, if
any of you have been there, and nlany other projects. We were very fortunate to have him join
our team and especially with his experience with indoor/outdoor spaces.
The one part, living in Palo Alto, that I never liked about this building, is the plazas. They
couldn't be much more unattractive. I think it's a hodge-podge of landscaping and brick levels
and so we are very excited about re-ordering that experience and having it actually be available
for population by folks reading a book or having a cup of coffee or whatever.
1'd like to tum the microphone over to those folks to take you through our plan, our thoughts, our
review of the historical issues related to that building and then, either as part of our presentation,
or if you would prefer later, we would like to go through our comments on the 24 conditions,
most of which we are fine with, but several of which we either clarifying comments we'd like to
share with you, or we disagree on some level with several of those comments. So at your
direction we will engage in that discussion, but right now if we could have Monty followed by
Ollie share with you our vision by having this become a really fantastic place to work.
Thank you.
Chair Bower: Thank you. Monty, you are next.
Mr. Anderson: Good morning. Monty Anderson, principal of Cody, Anderson & Wasny
Architects. This is a terrific building. It has really been untouched, practically. We don't see
this very often. In my experience in the downtown, most of the Birge Clark buildings, or
buildings that we have worked on, have had significant changes to them over time. So the fact
that this remained in a single use really sort of helped preserve the building intact. Now, the
challenge is to weave in a new use because that use has left. I think what you are going to
probably debate today really are the impacts.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
I think this project has done a wonderful job of maintaining and utilizing its goals, incorporating
its goals and keeping itself intact with this building. The mezzanine inside the great rotunda
space, I think, is a really brilliant move because you do two things. You can add some square
footage which helps make the project more profitable, but that move can be the seismic
strengthening of that great space. So I think that the design architects have come up with a really
wonderful way to try and deal with two things: 1) developer goals, and 2) historical
preservati on.
This building is really in need of somebody to conle in here and give it this kind of an attention
for seismic rehab. This building is a seismic hazard. It's hard to believe because it looks so
beautiful, but the great space that creates this building is also what it's greatest threat is. It's a
large spanning wooden structure and it has survived the Loma Priata Earthquake, but the San
Francisco Earthquake was 10 times more powerful and lasted for 1-1/2 minutes .and not 15
seconds, so there is a significant worry with this building, especially it's prominent location in
the downtown.
This project really sets it up for the next hopefully 100 years with seismic strengthening. New
mechanical electrical systems will replace outdated systems. Galvanized plumbing will be
replaced with new plumbing. Electrical, which you know is very dated, will be upgraded by this
project to reduce the risk of fire.
So I think I'm going to leave it Ollie, who is the design architect, to really kind of talk about his
scheme here, but we've enjoyed being a part of this. Staff has worked tremendously hard in their
research and in working with us. We've had many, many meetings together to try and hash out
the big issues of this project.
On our own staff, Natalie has worked very hard in trying to really craft a fine HSR (Historic
Structure Report) at the very beginning of this project to help guide the design team and help
identify the key features of the building for them.
Mr. Lundberg: Good morning. My name is Ollie Lundberg from Lundberg Design. I first would
like to point out, because it's sometimes lost, but I'm actually quite fond of this building. I think
it's a handsome building. It sort of reminds me of my dog, actually. It's not the sleekest, sort of
cleanest structure around. It's a little chubby, but I think it has a lot of character, and it's
certainly my goal to make sure that we keep that.
Our design for the building is pretty straightforward in temlS of what we are proposing here and
I'm not going to go through it piece by piece. You can ask questions on any parts you want.
On the landscape area, I think that we feel that the exterior landscape plaza is not according to
the original design. It has been modified over the years. It is not a particularly welcoming
space, particularly from the street. It provides no particular amenity in terms of seating, shade or
any of that.
So we've tried to address all those issues in addition to obviously trying to provide disabled
access to the building. In working with Dennis and Staff, and trying to come up with a solution,
I think we've hit on a good solution where the plaza respects the original design to the front
doors. It allows the cascading steps down from the rotunda to remain the dominant feature. The
plaza is held up slightly from the street level, providing a slightly raised sort of area of
City of Palo Alto Page 8
protection. ' We've provided some seating. We've provided some new trees for shading. We've
increased the amount of paved area and area that can be used. We provided planting in the area
to soften it.
I know that Dennis feels that the concrete walls to the ramp should be replaced by open rails. I'd
like to address that. There is no historic precedent on this site for and open railing system, and in
the current code we would have to provide a maximum of 4-inch spacing. In reality, we are
going to end up with something that is a version of a model railing even if we tried to make it
look historic.
Our feeling was that concrete was an original material in this design. It was the edge of the old
planter beds, and I'n1 worried about the busy-ness of an open railing which is why we didn't
propose it. The concrete wall has some scale because the ramp goes up, and one possibility that
I've just thought of today is we might want to introduce a slight planting bed in front of it to
allow some planting in front of the concrete wall, so that from Bryant Street it would soften it
visually. This would just occur behind the benches, so that is what we would like to recommend
there.
On the interior of the building, to n1ake this work for office use we need to, as much as possible,
open it up. It is our goal to make this an open office plan. We don't want to fill this with a
bunch of closed offices. We have designed a mezzanine that literally floats within the space as
much as possible and doesn't touch the old exterior walls. We are really only touching them to
the point where we are trying to strengthen them, and that is really with struts back to it.
Our design, I believe, is an opportunity for this building, and I think that we can save it. We can
make this building very strong through the work that we are doing, and I think that's very
important. If this building remained as it is, I think it is in danger in a significant seismic event.
So much of what you see in terms of our proposal for the plan is the process of opening this
building up. There are some points in the 24 points where perhaps we are in disagreement in
terms of Staff's feeling that elements should remain, what rooms should have what sort of walls,
and where we've removed walls. I think that we can discuss those point-by-point if you like, but
that's our intent in terms of the design, is to try to open up the building as much as possible, to
make it flexible, to n1ake it work for the new use.
The third issue that I think is really important to this project is the issue of natural light. As you
know, a space for worship, a space for reflection is a very different type of space from an office
space. There, I think the architect's intent was to create a place of repose, of quiet, of a very
subtle light, and certainly they accomplished that.
The quality of light in that space, if you g~ into it, is quite nice for that kind of use, but in office
space it provides almost no natural daylight at all. We would have to put in significant artificial
light, which you know there is the obvious non-green aspect of that, and I think also this is not a
particularl y pleasant kind of light. If we can introduce natural light into this space, I would like
to do so.
Our original proposal was to remove all of the opalescent glass and, honestly, as an architect I
would prefer that. I think that the quality of light in the space, the play of light off of the old
forum would be far more dramatic, far more interesting and it would solve some problems that
City of Palo Alto Page 9
exist in the current glazing. The big, sort of round, windows in the main rotunda have significant
problems with them. They are too big for a leaded glass window. They are failing due to their
own weight. The church placed acrylic over them which I think we would all probably agree is
not the most sensitive solution, but it's probably the most effective solution in keeping them
from leaking.
Those windows, if they are left as leaded windows, will continue to deteriorate. And we could
rebuild them, but if we rebuild them out of leaded glass, they will do the same thing. They
should be replaced with steel-framed windows. Obviously, we would like to keep the
proportions of the windows the same, as much as possible, and,l think that can be done with
steel, but in the process of doing that, and removing these windows, I would like to consider
changing those to clear glass due to, I think, the improvement to the space.
The other thing is that there is an existing interior skylight in there which is a pane that is put
below the copula and covers up the copula from the interior. We don't believe that this is
original, and I would like to remove that. I think there's a very dramatic light effect from that
copula if that is removed, bringing light into the center of that space, which I think
architecturally would be wondelful. Honestly, I think it exposes a part of the building that has
never been exposed before, which I think is sort of a great architectural opportunity. So I would
like you to consider that as well.
In some of the minor points, at the end, there are issues about interior wainscoting, interior wood
detailing and things like that. It is certainly our intent, wherever possible, to leave this intact. In
some cases, we are renloving some of this because we are proposing to open up the spaces. In
some cases, like in the main rotunda, the seismic upgrade is going to involve realistically
removing the interior finishes in that space. Those walls will have to be ply-wooded, either on
the inside or on the outside, and we know we don't want to touch the outside. They've got to be
turned into shear walls, seismic diaphragms, and that's the only realistic way to do that.
In addition to that, we are going to have to provide steel frames. It is very unlikely that
wainscoting is going to come off in such a way that it can be reused. We will limit the amount
that we have to remove. Believe me, I don't like spending money on seismic upgrade any more
than I have to either, but I think realistically much of this will be damaged in that work.
So I guess our attitude would be that we would like to save whatever we can. We recognize the
importance of it, but given the trade-off between the exterior and the interior, I think that we
want to focus the seismic upgrade on the interior so that it doesn't have an impact to the exterior.
Then, we want to be sensitive in terms of repairing and replacing where we can, but I don't think
we want to recreate a sort of false historic fa<;ade if we have to remove it. I think, then, our
proposal would be to return it to just a simple white wall in reality.
I think that's it. Thank you.
Chair Bower: Great, thank you. I guess we will hear from the public. I have one request for
comment and that's Pat Barrett. Welcome back.
Public Comment
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Mr. Barrett: Thank you. For the record, my name is Pat Barrett. I'm a Palo Alto resident, and I
have been a member of the church across the street that we are discussing since the mid 1960s.
So I am somewhat familiar with the physical plan, having had to wrestle with some of the
archaic mechanisms and electrical facilities in there. And, from my familiarity with the building,
I applaud the creative, adaptive reuse that is being proposed to the building. As has been
conmlented, it is not simple to take a building intended for an asserrlbly of people with sonle
office space and repurpose that assembly area into a good usable office space, and so I applaud
what is being done.
I really only want to address a few of the architectural details and perhaps give a slightly
different perspective on some of those details. I've looked at the Staff recommendations and I
think they have proposed some nice trade-offs, but there are some architectural details that I've
always thought were fun and nice, but really don't get view by the public or don't contribute to
the overall impact of the building that can go.
And, in fact, one thing that struck me in the discussion this morning was the opalescent
windows. I think those that are viewed by the public from the outside and would be seen in the
main areas, and the inside, really do contribute to the character of the building. I think my
experience in the building, while it is worship service, also during worship service you have to
be able to read things like hymnals and church bulletins and the other things that are part of the
celebration of the service. During the daytime I found that there was a great deal of light, not
particularly in the main asserrlbly area. I do recognize that some of that will be cut down by
having the mezzanine in there, and I think the mezzanine is a creative solution to what is a
recognized difficulty with the big domed area for seismic reasons, but I would encourage, at least
in the areas that can be seen, preserving the original opalescent windows.
Those are hard to find, and in fact someone conlmented that there were blank spots or replaced
glass panes in the basement. That's because where we found the glass to fix broken windows
was by taking it from the basement, where those windows are mostly hidden by grids, and if you
want to take all of those out, I don't think the public will notice some of those, and there are
some interior ones that Staff commented on as well would probably fit in that same category.
There was just a comnlent this nlorning on open railings. We didn't have a lot of railings but
there are wrought iron hand railings coming up from the street to the plaza and then from the
plaza up to the porches, and I don't know whether there is any merit in considering them, but
there is some railing use in the building.
The interior skylight originality was questioned. So far as I know, that is original. I have
checked with members, and one menlber who is still with us whose experience in the church
goes back to the 1930s, said that was definitely there in the 1930s, and when my wife and I were
going through all the church files, cleaning them out, we found lots of documents on various
changes that had been made at various times. I don't recall seeing something that referred to
putting in a skylight in the rotunda. I do recall climbing up in their once. It is quite an
interesting process going between the inner and outer domes and there are electrical lights up in
there, and we had to replace the light bulbs once in a while, because during evening services we
used those lights to shed light from the skylight.
The wainscoting. I recognize that is a difficulty in taking off wall finishes to put in shear walls.
One of the characters, and one of the "wow" factors of the building we found as it was being
City oj Palo Alto Page 11
shown to prospective buyers was the wainscoting. So even when leveling the floor, and you've
got to level that floor in order to make a good useful office adaptation, and some wainscoting
would have to be put in on the bottom where the sloped floors are leveled, but I would hope too
that as many of those planks could be preserved and put back in. You won't find that stuff again.
That's wood that's gone from our forests. It's good first-growth wood that really I think is one
of the key characters of the inside of the building, so I certainly would encourage continued use
of the wainscoting.
I think that really sums up the comments I have. I'm happy to answer any questions that I can
just from my years of knowing the building. Again, I want to say I really support a creative
reuse of the building and understand that some of the features have to be updated in ways that
will make it a modern usable building.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I had a question, in particular, about the kind of lighting up in that
little lantern, and in talking particularly with that member who remembered back to the '30s.
Did she have any particular expertise in lighting? Did she know about the lighting of the church,
even recently?
Mr. Barrett: Well, in the lighting of the church, there are actually several different kinds of
lighting fixtures. The main lighting in the rotunda area is indirect lighting which was one of the
original features, so far as I know. It was originally incandescent bulbs and about eight or ten
years ago we replaced all of those incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. The wonlan to
whom you refer, who easily fits senior citizen, was the one who got up on the unlpteenth-foot
ladder and replaced each one of those incandescent bulbs with a compact fluorescent bulb.
Then there are the hanging fixtures which are clearly not original. Those are ones that I believe
were put in during the last 1950s remodel of the building where actually the wainscoting was
saved from a fate many buildings suffered in the 1950s, and that is getting painted white. There
were two interior decorators who proposed painting the entire interior white, including all of the
wood, and fortunately a wealthy merrlber came in and said, "No, here, I'm going to fund the
remodel of the building," and it got some sort of oriental touches, or some lovely oriental
wallpaper. There are these round blue fixtures that got put in. There was oriental furniture
which has sense been removed, but saved all the beautiful wood, including the beautiful wood in
the entryway to the Sunday School, which has this exposed beam ceiling next to the staircase
that goes to the upstairs office rooms.
Does that answer your question?
Board Member Bunnenberg: One further question, did she make any comment about what the
lighting was, way up in the lantenl? Was it a chandelier, or what kind of lighting was way up?
Mr. Barrett: You mean in the rotunda area?
Board Merrlber Bunnenberg: In the top of the dome?
Mr. Barrett: In the top of the dome, so far as I know from talking with her, it's always been that
opalescent glass, and then there are incandescent light fixtures above that to provide light conling
through the opalescent glass at night or at times when there isn't sufficient light coming in from
the little windows in the copula.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Bower: Anyone else with a question for Mr. Barrett? I guess not at this moment. Thank
you.
So I guess that we are now at a point where we could have a Board discussion of how we want to
formulate this.
We skipped over our question and answer session for the Board, so let's do that now and then the
applicant will have an opportunity to make a final statement.
Michael do you want to start?
Board Member Makinen: I have one question, and this is probably directed more towards
Dennis and the City staff. Can you refresh me on the precedent with the Zion Church and the
situation with the opalescent glass in the Zion Church that we reviewed some years ago.
Mr. Backlund: Thank you Board Merrlber Makinen. Are you asking if there is a precedent for
that type of glass in Palo Alto, or could you rephrase that?
Board Member Makinen: Well, what the outcome of that review was. I know we reviewed that
project and the ramifications on the glass.
Mr. Backland: Oh, that was the ANIE Zion Church, and that had kind of a textured amber glass
with intricate dividers and that was reviewed by the combined ARBIHRB because it's in the
South Forest Area Master Plan, and the Board voted to have the glass in those windows
preserved in all the windows. Those windows were all restored as we can see today.
Board Member Kohler: I have a couple things. I have to leave at 10:30 for an Individual
Review meeting on site, which I cannot miss, and then the other question I had was, Staff, when
we went and visited the building, I remerrlber that I was not aware that we were going to be
involved with interior approvals of the inside of the church. That was not made clear to us, was
it? I'm trying to remember.
My point is, when I walked through the former church, I was not reviewing it as these were
things inside that we were going to have to discuss and comment on whether they were to be
preserved or not, and I guess my point is, now we are being asked to comment on the
wainscoting and various other items as to whether they should be preserved or not, because I
didn't go in there thinking that was part of our purview because in the past we've always looked
at the exterior of buildings.
So my comment is, I am not sure that I' n1 going to be prepared to comment on that because I
didn't really look at it very carefully without any of that in my mindset to review that as part of
the project.
Mr. Backlund: Well, I think we would leave it to the board members as a group to comment
how you saw those meetings. When we attended those meetings we went around and tried to
listen to comments to compose Minutes that are in the Staff Report, or a summary of those site
visits, and the board n1errlbers were looking both at the interior light issues, and there was a fair
amount of questions and conversations about wainscoting. We laid out dimensioning for how
City of Palo Alto Page 13
big the rotunda opening to be to try to judge if that would be sufficient to preserve views of the
donle. There were tours into the former reading room for the fireplace and those features, and
upstairs a lot of questions and commentary about the built-in cabinets, and also some of the
lighting fixtures that were there, whether they were old or whether they were new. Our
interpretation of all of that was that the board members were touring the interior features, which
we thank you very much for your email.
-You mentioned that it may have been that Staff was saying that the interior would not be
commented on. But the direction was that, since this was not a notice meeting, and the board
members were not a quorum so that was legal, but still the board members should only ask
questions about the interior and should not make comments or draw conclusions in the presence
of other board members. That was what the item about not con1ffienting was, to stay with
questions and things.
Now, it is true that when the packets went out it was after the site visits, and the board members
had seen the earlier set of plans that are similar in a lot of ways to what was in your packet, and
those were available before those site visits. But the current plans , well, the packet went out
after those site visits had taken place, so it's possible that questions arose on some details for
board members that could not be seen because the building was locked. There was one issue
where we asked board members just to go up to the doorway into the addition and look at the
stairwell foyer through the door, because it's all completely visible from the porch, to get an idea
of any historic issues on the preserving of that stairwell room.
Otherwise, some features like the wainscoting could not be inspect close-up again, and there
aren't very many interior issues that appear. There are a lot of Conditions of Approval, but not
too many interior issues actually appear there. It's mostly about the stairwell foyer that could be
seen through the door and the reading room that's visible, at least in the later afternoon, beyond
that. And, the rotunda where the mezzanine is going to go, and the wainscoting and how the
opalescent glass looks on the interior, those really are virtually all of the issues. The opalescent
skylight was looked at pretty carefully and comnlented by board members, at least according to
the notes that we took.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, the difference was that we were commenting on how interesting it
was, but having a Staff Report in hand to tour the inside and all of your conlments about what
should be saved and what shouldn't be saved was not available. So I didn't go through there
understanding that we had to rule on all of the interior conditions that are being asked to be saved
or not, and that is what I'm trying to say. It's a different mindset when you go through there
with a list that, okay, we are keeping the wainscoting, or not, and the very list to me, I'm
uncomfortable proceeding based on trying to comment on all these things when I didn't really
look at them in that sense.
Maybe I just blew it, but that was not my feeling, because I don't remember at the beginning, or
before we went in, that you said either way you have to look at these following items because
they are in my Staff Report and we're going to recommend that they stay, or not stay. You did
not say that though.
Mr. Backlund: The site reports did occur right after the Study Session for which we didn't write
a Staff Report, so the Staff Report wasn't prepared.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Board Member Kohler: So how do we read your mind and know that you were going to have all
of those in the report, so that's my point. I'm uncomfortable approving this today without going
back, and with your list of what you are recommending. Myself, I don't think that it's fair to the
Applicant, and I don't think that it's doing a good job. I don't know how the other board
members feel.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I agree with Roger that it is a very complex project. I did
understand that there would be some interior things that would need to be looked at and
considered and so I felt like I was looking, but I can understand that probably at that point we
didn't have a full list of all of the things to think about, but I felt nlore comfortable with ,the staff
report that it was things that we certainly had opportunity to look at, but it's conlplex.
Board Member Kohler: Well, here, bi-fold doors. I didn't look at the bi-fold doors. I noticed
they were there, but I didn't take any kind of look at them. I mean, that's just one of the many
items here. I didn't have a checklist.
Board Member Berstein: Dennis, on your page 3 of 17 under the 24 reconlnlendations. Item No.
15, I just want to identify where on the floor plan just so I understand that correctly. It says "the
north wall of the significant staircase foyer of the 1930 additions, see plat sheet Al.0 1." Is that
the little room where it says "existing pendant light to remain" because I'm looking on page
Al.Ol. You talk about a north wall with a significant staircase that contained arched openings.
Is that the little room where it shows on the plan "existing pendant light to remain," and is that
the stairway foyer you are discussing?
Mr. Backlund: First, looking at the stairwell foyer, I think that one sees the staircase that goes up
to the second floor at kind of the bottom of the room there. Then, if you just draw a line up until
you run into the first wall.
Chair Bower: Dennis, excuse me, Mr. Romberg, do you have the floor plan that we could be
looking at it. It's a public hearing so we ought to be able to record what we are talking about. I
actually had the same question. I have a couple of other reference questions so it would be
helpful.
Mr. ROlTlberg: We can pull that up on the screen.
Chair Bower: I'm just trying to identify, when Dennis made a recommendation of not moving
... right there where the arrow is.
Mr. Romberg: Right there, this is where Demlis is recommending that piece of wall remain, and
we are showing with the dotted [line] that it be removed.
Chair Bower: Great. I just wanted to be clear on that recommendation.
Mr. Backlund: One of the situations I had pointed out in the Staff Report was that, if one went
up to the porch and looked through the glass door, one sees the stairwell foyer that we regarded
as the most important space after the rotunda. This is a room with four (4) walls, and the fOUlth
wall is that north wall, and it goes up two (2) stories high. The whole foyer is two (2) stolies,
and it has one of those round tinted glass windows in it. It is actually an exterior wall of the
church at the top half, and so we were speculating, I think, with kind of a clear authority that
City of Palo Alto Page 15
when it's shown on the demolition plan as being demolished, what's being demolished is the
enclosing wall at the bottom with the little arches in it. What you would be retaining would be
the columns that hold up that part of the room. The upper part of the wall, where the round
window is, is also the exterior wa11 of the church.
The Applicant can clarify, but we took it that only the bottom half was going to be removed, just
the fill-in area between the structural columns, and we were recommending that that particular
wall with its arched openings be preserved in order to give the stairwell foyer the character of a
room that has four (4) walls, rather than a room with three (3) walls and the fourth area is opened
up into the offices.
Board Member Berstein: Okay, next Item No: 18 on the 24 things, I'm thinking it should be a
different word, but you will tell me since you are the author of that. On 18, it says "the fireplace
and the original wood built-in cabinets of the former reading room shall be repaired, if needed
and preserved." I'm wondering if you meant "as needed and preserved" since this is a
recommendation.
Mr. Backlund: Yes, we mean "as needed." The reason I put "if' is that during the site visit
some people had looked at them closely, and they 160k in really terrific condition.
Chair Bower: Martin, let nle since we are on that. There are references to the reading roonl, and
when I look at the floor plans of both the proposed and existing, I do not see that designation
anywhere. I'm assuming that this reading room is the conference room, is that right?
Mr. Backlund: Yes.
Chair Bower: Okay, so the plans say conference room, and the repol1 from Cody Anderson is
reading rooms. I want to be sure we are looking at the same spaces. So that's 18 and it's also
19.
Mr. Backlund: It says reading room in the Historic Structure Report and also there is a location
where that north wall is ta1ked about in the Staff Report but not in the Conditions.
Chair Bower: But I was looking at the plans. Every version of the plans, I didn't see any.
Mr. Backlund: It's called "conference room" there, yes, and that means the "historic reading
room."
Chair Bower: Right. "Conference," in my English language understanding is different than
"reading."
Mr. Backlund: Oh, yes it is.
Chair Bower: I just want to be sure we are looking at the right space.
\
Board Menlber Berstein: Will sonleone point out, where is the readiOng room on this plan?
Mr. Backlund: It's the lower left rectangular room that is original.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Board Member Berstein: One other question for Ollie, please. Thank you for your presentation,
but just to clarify, did I hear you correctly that you are recommending that the opalescent glass in
the rotunda be removed?
Mr. Lundberg: No, in our current scheme we have shown that as being retained, but there is a
point in Dennis' list, Number 5, which discusses them being currently covered with plastic, and
I'd like that removed, and the windows restored. I think the point there is that, if we are going to
do that and which I would like to do, it involves rebuilding those windows. And, I think at that
point, they are brand new windows, and it's sort of a guess how they are going to come out. I
don't know if the opalescent glass is going to survive the removal of that. It's a delicate process.
They are not in very good condition right now. Honestly, if you wanted to save the opalescent
glass as it is, the best thing to do is probably leave the plastic because it does protect thenl. I
don't particularly like that solution. I would prefer that we rebuild them, but I think realistically
if we do that we are probably looking at clear glass or something different than the existing
opalescent glass.
Board Member Berstein: I'nl100king, and for the monlent we will put on hold the eight (8)
comments that Dennis wants us to consider as a board, but of the 24, I see about 25% of them are
standard items like the Planner should be involved in your decision-making about colors. About
25% of them are glass. Then there are these other ones that make up the other 50%.
I guess what I anl interesting in knowing is what conditions of these 24 items that you find
problematic, because if you don't have problems with some of them, then we don't need to talk
about them. I'nl interesting in hearing from you what your issues are with the 24
recommendations.
Mr. Lundberg: Sure, and I'm happy to go through these, and I can probably summarize fairly
quickly. The first three (1,2 and 3) itenls we have no problenl with.
Number 4 and 5, which I sort of consider as one, we have discussed, which was the opalescent
glass. I think the opalescent glass is a different issue from the tinted glass. The opalescent glass
presents a different issue from the tinted glass. The opalescent glass really cuts out a lot of the
light. Admittedly, most of the opalescent glass is in the original structure. The tinted glass is not
in the original structure; it's in the addition, which we considered historically less important and
that's why we proposed removing that and replacing that with clear glass. I think we can live
with that, it that's really considered important that that stay interpretation that it is important for
that reason, and I'm talking about Number 7 and 8.
Number 9, which is the concrete walls on the ramp we've talked about, but that one I believe that
the sinlple concrete walls, adnlittedly, I'd like to soften thenl a little bit with planting, but I think
that's a better solution than a railing system. The existing wrought iron railings that are out there
now are just handrails. We can't just do a handrail there. We have to have a guardrail. It would
be very different in character. The concrete walls provide a structure that we can attach a
handrail to but the handrail would not be visible from the street.
Number 10 and 11, we are both fine with.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
On Number 12, which is the interior glass lens or skylight, we would like to remove this. I think
architecturally that will make the interior of that building far more interesting if we can expose
the cupola up to that feature that was put in the building and make it a part of the new design.
Nunlber 12, on the wainscoting, I don't disagree with the importance of that wainscoting, but I
think we do have an issue with the seismic upgrade, and I think we'd be fine in trying to save as
much as we can, but we have to be realistic in some cases that this is going to get damaged and
may not be able to be replaced or saved, but I think we are more than happy to try to retain as
much of that as we can. I think it really is a question of where it is damaged or where the
profiles of the walls change, and they may have to change because of steel going in or whatever.
Do we want to recreate something that's false historicism, or do we just accept the fact that we
have changed it and changed the trim characteristic at that point? That's what I would propose
we do.
Board Member Berstein: Are you talking about where a steel column is coming down?
Mr. Lundberg: Correct, or a steel brace. We nlight have to have, or we know we are going to
have to have some steel in there to reinforce this, and we know we are going to have to put
plywood. All of that wainscoting we know will have to come off, but we can obviously save
some of it. Where we are leveling the floor, you've got a different condition already. We can
patch underneath it. Does that make sense? I don't know, but we are open to that discussion, I
suppose.
Board Member Berstein: You might be flexible about taking paneled sections out, putting
plywood on walls, and then where the columns come down, basically doing some treatment at
the columns, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Lundberg: Right, and I think where we dramatically alter the profile of the wall, it either
comes out of plane or there are columns now where plaster is conling off of it. I would
recommend that we trim that out in a more modem expression, not necessarily, and I mean we
might do a version of wood, but I don't think that I would recreate what is there now. I think
we'd try to do something that is compatible with the existing, and we obviously want it all to
work.
Board Member Berstein: In the Secretary of the Interior's Standards' language, I think it is
"respectful but differentiated materials," I believe.
Mr. Lundberg: Right, which I think is exactly what we would like to do. Monty knows more
about that.
Number 14, this starts getting into issues of the screens that were for the old pipe organ. We've
also got issues about the old stage which we want to remove. There are a bunch of true
characteristics there that aren't going to apply to anything that is being done in the new building.
We are not going to have a stage, obviously. There is no pipe organ. The pipe organ is gone.
Keeping those elements, to me, nlakes no sense. I honestly don't find them particularly
attractive, and I think they are a little bit clunky. I think they were put in later, if you look at
them in relation. They were probably put in when the organ was done or they may have been
redone. It's not really fine woodwork, and I would propose that those be removed. It's not
City of Palo Alto Page 18
important to us, but I think if you look at it, and I think Mr. Kohler's point about going through
and understanding these points and really looking at it, I think if you look at that piece, you will
find that it probably is not, in my opinion, an important piece of the woodwork.
Chair Bower: I think in the Cody Anderson report, I think it's Figure 25, there is a frontal
picture of that. Dennis, is it the arch that you are concerned about, or all of it?
Mr. Backlund: Yeah, there is an existing arch there with some area behind. We were not
recommending to preserve anything that is there related to the organ or the screens. It was only
the arched opening, and how is that going to be dealt with as part of the original architecture, and
we knew that would be emerging as the project developed.
Mr. Lundberg: And we are fine with that.
Chair Bower: So the material below the arch is not at issue here, then, is that right?
Mr. Backlund: No.
Chair Bower: Okay, so it's just the art.
Mr. Lundberg: Then I probably misunderstood.
Chair Bower: Well, it needed clarification. Okay, and I'm sorry for the interruption.
Mr. Lundberg: The staircase, we have discussed. We, of course, would not be demolishing the
portion of the wall that is the exterior or the window above. Right now, there is one opening
going through that wall and then there is another part that is framed and has some arch feature in
it. Our proposal is to just replicate the one opening with another opening next to it. We think it
would look compatible.
Honestly, we think it would look like it was always that way. I don't think that the room will
feel like it no longer has four walls. The upper wall is still there. There is a column between the
two openings. It's still a sense of enclosure but visually it will open it up more into the office
space and function better as a reception area for the building. This, on some level, may end up
becoming the main entrance to the building because this is where the ADA access is now coming
in. Depending on how it is leased out, though, we have to look at the possibility that this will
become the front door.
Number 16 through 19, we are okay with those. And 20 through 24 we are okay with.
I guess one point Blake is making is that in our changing of the interior plans, in the staircase and
these other areas, we've gone back to the old drawings and tried to respect the old structure. In
some cases, some of these were actually open before, according to the drawings that have been
closed in later. So much of our opening up, and you can see sort of remnants of columns and
things, and then dotted walls have been removed, those columns we believe are there. They
were in the original structure, and in some cases of course you know this was added in, I believe,
two phases.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
There was a coul1yard, in part, in the middle and those were window openings that opened into
it. So, on sonle level, we are peeling back old additions and kind of getting back to what I think
is a nlore original structure, and we're trying to sort of respect that and I think that is sort of just
a point to be made.
In terms of the other eight (8) points, number one, the corridor adjacent to the reading roonl,
Staff wants it to remain. We would like to open up the plan. So that is our reason for getting rid
of that. Again, the plan just becomes far more flexible if we can open it up. We don't disagree
with trying to keep the woodwork because that is part of the character of all that space, and I
think we would find sensitive solutions for that. It's a detail issue. Obviously, we haven't
addressed that at a detailed level at this point.
Built-in cabinets, again, where there is fine woodwork I think, yes, we want to leave those. That
is mostly bookshelves and maybe some lower cabinets. For the most part, the cabinetwork in
this building is not original and not important, in my opinion. Again, I think if you walk through
and look at it, it's very easy to determine what is, and what isn't.
Interior doors with opalescent glass which are restroom doors, I don't think we have any problenl
leaving those. That's not where our restrooms will be, but we can leave those doors. We kind of
like them. Wood stage and organ pit, you know, I think that has to get completely remodeled.
Obviously, it is not remaining. I would suggest that we don't do anything that is, again, what I
would consider falsely historic. I think we just need to remodel it as best we can and do exactly
what the Secretary of Interior Standards state.
Wood folding doors in the auditorium, we can leave them. There is absolutely no use for them in
our plan. I would probably recommend we remove them and store them because they will just
be in the way. They won't be ever be utilized in this current use, but they certainly could be
saved if in some future use their might be use for them.
Sunday School booths, we agreed and Staff agrees we need to renlove them. Ceiling fixtures, in
the Sunday School area, those figures don't work for office use. They're not part of the original
building. They may be part of the addition. I would ask that we be allowed to remove those
because we need to put in ... part of this rehabilitation will be obviously to complete the
replacement of all of the electrical and mechanical systems. We would like to put in energy
efficient lighting and we would propose to, except where we do historic fixtures, do modem
fixtures that clearly differentiate from the historic and that would be the same for the last one.
Chair Bower: Let me go back to Number 5 briefly. I'm looking at your plan and I know that
those doors don't really function in your plan, but what would be the problem of simply folding
them back and leaving them.
Mr. Lundberg: None, and we can do that if you prefer that. We can store them, essentially, right
there.
Chair Bower: I could conceive of a time when somebody might actually want to close them, and
depending upon use, but since they are original doors, apparently.
Mr. Lundberg: You never know, maybe for a party they will need them.
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Bunnenberg: I have several questions. You refer to the handicap ramp and that
that door might become the main opening to the building. Have you considered using that
clerk's office, or a part of it as a tucked away single handicapped bathroom to make it available
to anyone who comes in that way and then maintain your other major bathrooms back as
planned. Would that help anything? Would that save some space?
Mr. Lundberg: I'm not sure it would help anything. The intention is to make, of course, the two
new bathrooms handicap accessible. We will be required to have both men's and women's, so
we will have to have two. Having a bathroom that close to the front, I don't know that would
help us any. I think the issue about the front door will end up probably being resolved depending
on how the building is leased out, and clearly from the exterior, the entrance is going to lead us
into the main rotunda. This is the dominant stairs. People are going to walk in there. There is
going to have to be a reception function there, but it may also happen that because the ADA
access is now going to the Bryant Street door that that becomes a major entrance, and depending
how the people in the building use it, that may be where most of them come. I think when guests
come to that building they will always walk into the rotunda because the architecture is all
designed to make you think that and we certainly are not trying to change that.
Board Member Bunnenberg: And in terms of looking at the portion of the building that faces the
Landing Chateau, which is the large apartment building, have you ever considered replacing one
of the doors with glass to give you some clear? Do you need both of the doors on that access
way?
Mr. Lundberg: One of the doors opens in to the main auditorium space and we could consider
adding glass to a door there. That would add a little bit of light. The problem is, and I like the
idea and so I think that's an interesting idea to add some light, but the thing about the
architecture of that main space is that you want the light to come from above. You want to light
the big dome. That's the drama of that space, and certainly adding the mezzanine, although
we've left a gap around the edge and we have a hole around the center, that will block some
light, but the quality of light coming through those openings would be very dranlatic and that's
what I would like to have. You know, bringing the light into the lower level would light the
lower level, but it doesn't really emphasize the drama of the big dome and that's the great
excitement in terms of the architecture and I would like the natural light to reinforce that, I
suppose.
Board Mernber Bunnenberg: You might keep it in mind, and you might also think about the
back door any lighting for your stairs.
Male Speaker(?): There are also some security considerations, not only privacy, but breaking in
because that is the prime ...
Board Mernber Bunnenberg: That's not the prinle or well-watched entrance, I realize that, but
just as a thought. One of the suggestions, Number 6, or comments on the condition, I did speak
with Karen Holman who is the project director for the Palo Alto History Museum and yes, in
fact, they would be very interested in one or more of those little Sunday School booths. They are
really a very important historic component, and that of course is a nonprofit organization.
Mr. Lundberg: I am also positive I can provide those to you.
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Board Member Bunnenberg: So you think that it's not a problem there.
Chair Bower: By my tally here, the issues in this 24-item list of conditions that you have a
difficulty or problem with are 4 through 9, 12, 13 and 15, which is significantly smaller than the
24 nurrlber. Maybe then, since we don't have a disagreement about those items, we could just
discuss the ones that you have a problem with since you have heard, more or less, how we feel
about this, and then maybe we could finish this today. Dennis, do you have a comment?
Mr. Backlund: Thank you, Chair Bower. As we looked at the list and looked over the
commentary the Applicant has made, really the most problematical matters are exterior, the
ADA ramps and how the railing will be on that and then the opalescent glass in the windows.
The main interior issue is the opalescent skylight. There is some discussion about whether that
north wall should be more enclosed with the smaller arch or less enclosed through opening it up,
but that question and the skylight are the only interior issues that I see. The rest of the big ones
are exterior.
Chair Bower: Maybe we should, as a Board, I think actually Roger has another 60 minutes, and
I think we could probably do this in less tin1e than that. Even if you break the problematic areas,
we have glass and then we have a few of these other items. I'm comfortable with the discussion
we have just had about the additional eight (8) items based on what you talked about. We can
also talk about those. Maybe what we could do is a round of comments and questions from the
Board about these 4 through 9, 12, 13, 15 and the one or two items on the other list.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Perhaps I should start with what I consider as one of the very main
issues, which is the opalescent windows and the fact that they are significant features of this
building, significant characteristics, they are original and all my reading of the guidelines for
preserving and rehabilitating historic buildings, I see the Secretary of the Interiors Standards as
always saying save the original windows, repair as necessary, don't replace with another color.
It's quoted in your report that they need to preserve and maintain the window frames, sash and
surrounding surfaces, removing all the cleanup that you can do. It is not appropriate to change
the historic appearance of the windows through use of inappropriate designs, materials, finishes
or colors, and noticeably changing the sash depth or reveal the refractive and the color of the
glazing or the appearance of the frame. Those are all not recommended, and so I very strongly
see and feel that certainly a n1ajority of those windows should be saved, particularly those that
are very, very visible to the public. I think it might be appropriate for the Board to discuss
whether there are some out of the view of the public and whether those would serve any purpose
to add light into that rotunda.
Chair Bower: Maybe what we can do is just focus comments on just doing the exterior glass,
and we will try to group those conditions that Dennis and Staff have created, and let's talk about
how we feel as a Board, come to son1e consensus and n10ve on. The ran1p is really the other
issue that is significantly different here, and then there are a couple of these other smaller iten1s.
Board Member Berstein: Thank you, Chair. Items 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the recommendations
regarding the glass, I support those recommendations. I walked by the building again a couple of
days ago and I really feel that an historically significant feature of the exterior is the opalescent
glass viewed fron1 the public. I tried understanding, and I do understand the architect's concern
of natural light. I understand your concern of office space and what the quality of light is in an
office space. It is an adaptive reuse, and part of the reuse refers to the needs of the occupants
City of Palo Alto Page 22
which is office space. I' n1 still looking at, if we are looking to get some benefits of an historic
structure, this significant feature needs to be maintained and I really see from an historical point
of view that this glass is necessary to remain. That is my view on those comments on Items 4
through 8.
Board Melnber Kohler: As an architect, I fully understand the need for all the light inside. I
mean, I'm always arguing with clients when they take windows out, but I have to admit the glass
is a huge element of this building that really pops out at you. Now, I would probably, and I think
that David mentioned it, if some of the glass that is not seen by the public right-of-way is not
seen, I would probably be somewhat okay with that. I can see the argument that it should all
stay, but I think that the two rear and side views I'm not sure would have to stay there, but the
front is really, I n1ean, I'm really tom as a historian. It really should stay. As an architect they
really should open it up. And I don't know if there is any way to do a combination, but I'm
really tOTI1 about that. I would have to probably argue that at least the windows facing Forest and
Bryant would have to stay the opalescent glass.
Board Member Makinen: My comments pretty much echo my other fellow board members. I
think the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are pretty specific on the proper treatment for
historic windows as Beth has outlined. I don't know how you can get around that language with
some other interpretation. The other precedent that we deliberated upon was the AME Zion
Church. They were required to maintain their opalescent glass, so I think we have a precedent
here. We have the Secretary of the Interior's Standards that say you shall retain and preserve as
n1uch as possible under this property, so it is an important character-defining feature. I can see
your point that if you have an office environment you are going to want clear glass for your light
in there, but it flies into conflict with this other standard here that as a Board, we are charged to
uphold the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. This is what we are asked to be interpreting on.
I say there is no way I can see that we can get around it without supporting the retention of the
opalescent glass.
Chair Bower: My comments would basically nlirror that. I went back over the weekend and
looked at the glass. Again, I guess I feel the same way Martin and Roger do. Light in a building
and in an office environment is important but that is a piece of the fabric that is hard for us to
allow to be removed. I feel less strongly about Number 8 which is the tinted glass in the
stairwell. It seems to me that does not meet my requirement of character-defining features. I
don't feel as strongly about that and, as the Board knows, I tend to be a proponent of modem
energy efficient glass because I think to allow these buildings to survive, they have to be as
modem and updated as we can get them, otherwise they are not going to make it another 100
years, but I guess it sounds to me like the Board's consensus is that opal glass should remain.
Now, I would say that I would modify that to some extent and see how much support there is on
the Board in that, any place that there is not an obvious public visual presence of that glass, I
think we could allow that to be changed out, save that glass for repairs and use something else
that is more energy efficient or appropriate for those spaces. I think we need to, if the Board
feels that is something they can support, we ought to define that.
Board Member Bunnenberg: In that public use I would like to suggest that the windows on the
landing chateau that face into the rotunda to the large assembly room, would need to be saved to
maintain the continuity from the interior, so that there are several over there that are very visible
City of Palo Alto Page 23
including a group of three (3) that you can even see from the clear glass doors. Would you
include those, as well, as from the public.
Chair Bower: Yes absolutely, because fronl within the auditoriunl if you change out anything in
there, it would really have a negative inlpact on the space. But I'm thinking of any glass that is
basically on the eastern side of the building from the auditorium all the way around to basically
the comer on Bryant. I am not sure, and I can't remember what is on this wall of the 1930s
addition that is on the north side.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Chair Bower, 1 see that you are looking at a section of the floor
plan. Maybe for the rest of the public we can somehow.
Chair Bower: We need another floor plan on the monitor.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Or maybe an elevation would be more helpful.
Chair Bower: Mr. Lundberg, could you put the floor plan back up so we can show. Mr.
Hanlilton, do you want to make a comment?
Mr. Hamilton: A proposed compromise, perhaps for your consideration as if, again, to have this
be a viable space rather than a space that would not function ideally as an office space, if we
were to remove and store the opalescent glass windows on, just again, the lower level so that if
any time in the next. As you say 100 years or the following 100 years, someone would want to
restore this for whatever adaptive reuse at that time, we would be more than willing to have that
accommodation so that we would preserve those elements for future generations.
Chair Bower: Okay, we can consider that. So, to go back to my earlier conlment, it's the left
hand side of that drawing, in the 1930s addition, and I can't remember what the glass is on that
side.
Mr. Backlund: It is all tinted glass, in fact, all of the glass on the addition is tinted glass.
Wherever on the building you see opalescent glass it's the 1916 original and Staff had only
called out for your discussion just a couple of instances of the tinted glass. One of them was that
tall arched window, mainly because of interior issues because it helps give a decorative quality to
the stairwell foyer, and then also the little round windows at the top which can be sonle seen
from the stairwell foyer, and those are very small and are less of a light issue.
Chair Bower: Okay, those are Plan Page A3.00.
Board Member Bunnenberg: They're on the Bryant side.
Chair Bower: You can see it on that elevation, just so we know what we are talking about.
Female Speaker(?): Excuse me, I just wanted to point out in the Plan Set, the elevations. I think
there's like four (4) sheets of different elevations of the building and each window has a little
number by it, and then there is a box that says "existing window type" and it describes whether
it's opalescent, clear or the tinted glass.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Bunnenberg: Window Number 17 which is the arched window, that's A3, and
then the four (4) little round windows up above that. I'd like to note that, even when the
photographs of the when the building was/when the addition was built, those windows were
darker and they worked with the painting that was done around it, and I believe the painting was
one thing that was not a problem for you to leave. But, in ternlS of nlaintaining that early, early
feature, and it's gotten historic status at this point, and I feel that Window 17 is a very significant
art use of glass and should be maintained as colored.
Chair Bower: Does anyone else want to make a comment on glass before we move on.
Mr. Anderson: Window 17, on the stairwell, that's the one you and I looked at together, right?
Beth Bunnenberg: Right.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, we're fine.
Beth Bunnenberg: So you are fine, and isn't that the one that you're calling out, Dennis, Number
17?
Mr. Backlund: Yes, it is.
Mr. Anderson: I just wanted to offer up too that sometinles in proj~cts, when you cite the
Secretary of the Interior treatment standards, you are absolutely correct. It says, you know, it
gives you do this, don't do that, but often times you have to make judgments in historic projects
too for the new use that often times are in conflict with significant features. So you have to
weigh it, and the Standards use words like "minimal change," and kind of they say "no change,"
they say "minimal change." The job is to determine "minimal." I think the mitigation being
offered up potentially for this use is sonlething that I think is worthwhile. The sashes are held in
with two hinges. They are easily removed intact.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards have moth-balling recommendations. We've done that
with entire buildings and pieces of buildings as well. It maintains reversibility. If somebody
needs or wants to return this and the sash material has been safely stored on site, then there is
always the ability to do it. But, I am very sympathetic in this project to the conflict. It's a single
conflict that has arisen between office and worship, and it's the quality of the light inside this
building and one is appropriate for worship and one is really not desirable for office. I think that
is something to consider.
Board Member Kohler: The windows around the front, I did not notice, do they operate? Do
they open?
Mr. Anderson: They are casement windows, I believe. I think several of the quatrefoil windows,
too, also operate, and there are early pictures showing those being in a horizontal open position.
I think that is one of the reasons why the one operable window has failed is that when it is in the
horizontal position, the weight on the window is even greater and so it tends to pull on that
caning and pull these windows apart. While this project is proposing to preserve those quatrefoil
windows, there is a significant issue with those windows. In tinle, this will have to be dealt with,
so if it's not on this project, the Board will probably see it sometime down the road. I think a
mitigation on this point is something worth considering.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Board Menlber Bunnenberg: I guess I respectfully disagree and feel that taking out existing
features that are firmly attached to the building and storing them is not ... in my view, you have
created a problem and then said, well, we are mitigating it by storing them. I would not see that
as an appropriate action.
Mr. Anderson: I don't think we are necessruily creating a problem here. I think that this is a
project that creates a lot of solutions for this building.
Chair Bower: Right, I want to move on, because I think we have the sense of where we are
going here. I want to talk about Number 12. I'm going to skip Number 9 for a moment. This is
another glass issue; it's the skylight. What's the Board's feeling about this?
Board Menlber Bunnenberg: Again, I support saving the skylight since it is a long existing
feature, if not an original feature. We don't know, but I support saving that skylight.
Male voice: Could we reference that with a window number in the report?
Board Member Bunnenberg: It's not a window number.
Chair Bower: I think it's show on Page A4.01.
Board Melnber Bunnenberg: Yes, and it's a little dotted line. It's the top item.
Chair Bower: It says "existing skylight to be removed, is that what you are referring to?
Board Member Berstein: My comment on that, I'm in support of the architect, Ollie, and his
comment on that about removing it and letting the visible cupola light show. I think it's going to
help the natural lighting situation coming in. There is also a precedent of that, or a form of a
precedent, at the Stanford Theater. There was a lower ceiling in that lobby area. This is the
Varsity Theater on University. When that was removed, they discovered a whole lot of great
architectural detail up there, including a medallion and all that, and this really enhanced and
made the ceiling spacing feel taller. So·I'm in support of Ollie's comment to remove that.
Board Member Makinen: I would agree with Martin.
Board MeIilber Kohler: I didn't sense a great deal of light coming in at the time that I was in
there, so I support removing it, or storing it maybe.
Chair Bower: I have the sanle feelings. It is not clear where this comes in, in this building, and
for the same reasons I'm willing to give that up as a light enhancing device.
Alright, let's go to the ramp, and I think I'd like to start here for a second. We are only moving
up 12 inches, aren't we? What is the vertical distance?
Mr. Lundberg: No, we are going up 36 inches.
Chair Bower: The elevation is ...
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Mr. Lundberg: Which is the problenl. Below 30, I don't need it, but above 30, I do, so part of it
I wouldn't need a guardrail, but part of it I do.
Chair Bower: Even though it's two separate ramps, you don't think we could get ...
Mr. Lundberg: No.
Chair Bower: Each ramp, has to be ... yeah.
Mr. Lundberg: Well, we could ... the problem is, we kind of ramp up very gently to the main
plaza area, but from that to the next one is the 36-inch difference. It's actually 48 total, and in
our old scheme in the original we raised the plaza level to avoid that, but in this case we don't do
that for obvious reasons.
Chair Bower: It's a difficult solution. My problem is that when you put that concrete wall up
there, it basically blocks the view of the building. I don't know what the best solution is here.
Male Voice: One of the earlier walk-throughs, I had made an alternate suggestion. I don't know
if it actually got to you, Ollie, but if you look at Plan Set A3.00 it basically involves an at-grade
lift. You have a door and it would be put in where Window 18 is, and that would take you up to
the floor level of the interior, and that would do away for any types of ramps. Such a lift was
pointed out and used in Building 23 at Moffett Field by Carnegie Mellon, and so it is kind of
transparent to the outside appearance of the buildings, and you do sacrifice the one window and
replace it with something that looks sinlilar to that window.
Mr. Lundberg: Yeah, we considered that. You know, honestly I find those lifts not very
attractive.
Male Voice: This would be an interior lift. It would not be on the exterior. It would be inside
the building, near the door.
Mr. Lundberg: Oh, you enter, I see, you go and cut a hole down in the lower level. I get it. I
think we'd have to create additional ramping inside. Well, no, you would do the lift. Yeah, it
would, and I guess that is a consideration, but it would obviously alter the exterior. I realize that
anything that we are doing, on some level, is altering this, but we were trying to keep the
alteration in to the landscape portion of the plan and not alter the actual fa~ade but, yes, that is a
solution.
Male Voice: Well, the benefit of this is that it pulls that modification away from the principal
part of the build.ing to a lesser significant part of the building. It has minimal impact upon the
exterior.
Mr. Lundberg: Right, yeah, that's true. I think that I agree with you that I wish those ramp walls
were not as tall as they were. We could consider trying to come up with a design that lowered
them and then provide maybe a different treatment on the higher portion of them so that visually
they just don't reach so high. Obviously, we've got the requirements that they have to be 42
inches off of the ramp level, and we also have a handrail in there. It's tricky.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Board Member Kohler: But it doesn't necessarily have to be straight. You could step up, I
supposed.
Mr. Lundberg: The wall could profile the ramp and that reduces it. Again, we were trying to
make the treatment read less like ramp by leaving the top of the wall just level. I do think if we
did a plantar there and provided ivy, something that would grow on it and made it more of a
landscape feature it would read less aggressively than it does now.
Board Member Berstein: Ollie, just thinking out loud only, and you are the architect for this, so
what is your comment, and if you need to think further about it. Per Roger's comment, if the left
side of the ramp wall and then maybe some appropriate point where at one-third point it drops
down. You still have the wall, just reduce it, because you only need that height at the left end
and not the right end.
Mr. Lundberg: Correct.
Board Member Berstein: And just step it down so you are not making it an architectural
statement of a stepping ranlp, but gentle enough for the architecture of the building.
Mr. Lundberg: I think that's a good idea. I think that we could maybe step it twice so that you
basically had three heights and reduce the scale of it. The problem with exactly profiling the
ramp is that it just looks like a ranlp, but if we stepped it, we have some stepped characteristics
in the landscape in general so I think that would reduce the scale and would be a good solution.
Board Member Berstein. I was just thinking, because I walked by this just a couple of days ago
too, and I tried to imagine that. It's horizontal. You've got windowsills of the windows beyond.
You've got soft landscaping. These are all very successful things to do. You do have steps on
the building and steps in the landscape. I think that can be a successful solution.
Mr. Lundberg: I agree.
Board Member Berstein: It would satisfy my concern of having such a tall wall at the right side.
I also agree don't do a sloping top because now you are introducing a ramp element that is
foreign to the property.
Chair Bower: Let's move on to Number 15 which is the north wall and the foyer stairway. As
Roger pointed out to me a minute ago, when you look at the original plans there are different,
and as you pointed out to us, those arches probably were not there originally. My feeling here is
that,since it is ambiguous about what was original and what's not, that I would be willing to let
you go ahead and take thenl out, but Board Melnbers?
Board Menlber Berstein: I support what Chair Bower just said. The fact that the upper levels
will still be there, and that the windows would still be there, I'm fine with that.
Board Member Kohler: I agree with that as well.
Board Melnber Makinen: I concur.
Board Member Bunnenberg: [affirms]
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Chair Bower: Number 15 is resolved. The last item is the wainscoting.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I would like to suggest that we really have not discussed the
seismic, and adding mezzanine in, and I think we should make some questions and comments on
that.
Chair Bower: We can do that right here because I think that enters into this discussion about
whether the wainscoting stays or go. Do you want to start?
Board Member Bunnenberg: I have probably a number of questions about the mezzanine. What
would the flooring be on the mezzanine.
Mr. Lundberg: The finished flooring on top, or the view from underneath?
Board Member Bunnenberg: The view from underneath.
Mr. Lundberg: The view from underneath would appear to be plaster. It might be actual plaster
or veneer plaster, but it would be compatible with the sort of plaster finish of the dome.
Board Member Bunnenberg: And so it is a solid floor and not a see-through, even on the
corridor around?
Mr. Lundberg: Correct.
Board Member Bunnenberg: And the walls between the offices are what?
Mr. Lundberg: The walls between the offices would be solid. The exterior would be glass. Sort
of the exterior wall that is interior to the dome itself would be glass so you would see through it.
We provide privacy between the offices, but visually they would be open, both from the center of
the circulation space to the outside.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Do they have ceilings?
Mr. Lundberg: They don't.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay, so it would be kind of like looking up through a windmill?
Mr. Lundberg: Yeah, a fallen down windmill. A segmented orange slice or something, yeah.
Board Member Bunnenberg: A windmill kind of shape, but with the hole in the middle.
Chair Bower: Wouldn't it be more like looking at a doughnut. A doughnut hole.
Mr. Lundberg: A segmented doughnut.
Chair Bower: Right, you are not going to see the walls from below.
Board Member Bunnenberg: But you would see the glass walls at some angles probably.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Chair Bower: Maybe, but it's the proportion of the hole in the middle.to the larger diameter.
Board Member Bunnenberg: To the outer that you basically would be looking at, which would
naturally obscure quite a bit of the dome, unless you were standing in the middle.
Mr. Lundberg: Yeah, no question, it obscures a portion of the dome. Obviously, we are
introducing the floor space. What we looked at very carefully was trying to determine the
proportion of that mezzanine to that space. While we are not leaving the space as it. was,
obviously, which is a big open space, the experience of the dome would still be available from
the lower floor and not just the upper floor. So, when you are down below, as you approach the
donle, you see the gap around the edges which will allow you to look up the walls and see the
dome sort of disappearing beyond.
Then, as you go to the center, you would obviously reach the center and I think if we remove that
interior skylight it will actually be more dramatic than it was before. You will have sort of a
heightened sense of verticality being in that space, in part, because you can see we gain almost, I
believe, 12 feet of height in the interior there when we do that, but also you have this sort of
exaggerated perspective now because of the doughnut. Architecturally, I think it will be quite
beautiful.
Board Member Bunnenberg: About how high, or how much space is there, above the top wall of
the office at the top of the dome? Just an estinlate.
Mr. Lundberg: You can see in the section, but the walls in the office only go up about halfway
in the dome space, so I believe those walls are about eight (8) feet and then there is another eight
(8) feet to the dome surface itself. Above that, and again if we remove the skylight, you have
almost 12 feet above that, so it's a big space and the intent of the design of the nlezzanine is to
make it appear modest in comparison to the grandeur of the main space.
Chair Bower: Do you know what that height is, the building height?
Mr. Lundberg: The overall building height? [answer given in background as 47 feet], plus or
minus a quarter of an inch.
Board Member Kohler: I was just going to say that all of this dome talk and things going inside
flashes back 40-some years ago when I was at Expo '67 and the dome with all the work inside it.
It's similar. It's a much smaller scale, obviously, but I think it's a pretty clever solution myself.
Chair Bower: In regards to the wainscoting, it seenlS to me that, and I actually agree with
Roger's comment, I think it's a pretty clever use. It's going to transfoml the space, but that's the
nature of this kind of thing, but I don't think it's an unattractive one. But I do think that the
wainscoting is a pretty important feature in there. It seems to me you have an opportunity with
those steel supports and those structures to actually use that as a way to take the wainscoting off
and put it back in there and then you could do some adaptive use around those and thus
differentiating. So the impact of the wainscoting, which is pretty substantial in my opinion, does
not need to be removed or elinunated. I would encourage you to try use that approach and save
that as much as you can, and this would allow you to basically cut those panels out at those
supports.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Mr. Lundberg: Well, we will have to remove all of it, because they will get ply-wooded, as well.
Now, I think we probably can remove it in sections, or we would certainly look at that, because
if we have to remove it piece-by-piece it will be more d.ifficult to save it. I think we are willing
to do whatever is possible. I just, and honestly until we get into it, we are not really going to
know, but there is no intent, I think fronl our point of view as the architects to destroy this. We'd
like to save as nluch as possible, and part of it is going to be dictated by the seismic solution
which we do not have finalized at this point. We've been working with the structural engineer.
There are obviously a number of options but I don't think that any of us want to see a whole
series of exposed brace frames inside this space, so I think the plywood on the walls is part of the
solution. I think that in the end it is visually going to inlpact the space the least and our hope is
that the steel as well can be hidden at least, if not in the wall, at the edge of the wall. But, when
it gets to the edge of the wall, and I think realistically that's where it's going to happen because
it's going to require new foundations and everything else, we are going to end up with a different
feature.
I think what you describe, Mr. Bower, is probably exactly right that the existing wainscoting
probably can be saved up to the point of those. We can probably replace it, and then at that point
we'd come up with a different solution because we are now out of plane. We've got something
different, and we would probably treat it a different way. We might still put paneling. We might
put something that is compatible with the wainscoting. We may even do our own modem
version of a wainscoting, so that they don't jump out from each other, but I don't think that we'd
try to recreate it at that point.
Chair Bower: No, I don't think so either.
Mr. Lundberg: And of course we have the sloped floor issue which we have to level.
Chair Bower: I can think of adaptive ways to deal with that, and that's just to thicken the wall
down there so that it looks like the wainscoting is sitting on maybe a foundation, and that just
allows you to preserve it somewhat.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I would agree, the wainscoting is an important feature and it
should be preserved.
Board Merrlber Bunnenberg: I would also concur that the wainscoting is important. I'd like to
stress the fact that in the process, as you begin to really look at this, you refer to the Historic
Preservation Planner, before 'you decide to throw this out and put in new wainscoting.
Mr. Lundberg: I'm pretty sure we are not allowed to throw anything out without Dennis'
approval.
Mr. Backlund: Just so the Board is aware on the wainscoting in Condition No. 13 on the
wainscoting. At the end of the condition, we noted that some wainscoting in one of those wings
of the auditorium is sloped at the bottom to match the floor, so there is that difficulty about those
two rows of wainscoting.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Board Member Makinen: Just another thought, if there is difficulty in removing the wainscoting
and preserving it, before the decision is made to demolish it, I think Dennis should be called over
to determine if it really is potentially not possible to save it. It needs to be confirmed by the
Planner.
Chair Bower: I think that the way, when you read the last sentence in No. 13, that that would
cover that particular circumstance. I think we are covered there. We are 20 minutes to the end
of the n1eeting, and so let's move forward with composing a Resolution.
Let me just summarize what I think we have, as a Board, discussed, and then have some
consensus on. We don't' have any issues with 1,2,3,10,11,14 (after it is clarified that it's the
arch we are interested in), 16, 17, 18,19,20,20,21,22,23 or 24. Those issues are, I think,
without contention so we would include those as written in our Resolution.
Items 4 through 8, it seems pretty clear that the Board feels very strongly that the glass needs to
be preserved. I'm not sure about Number 8 and whether we are just going to ask to preserve
windows 22 through 25 and 17, and I think that's my understanding of it, and 47. It's another
example, 47. Are you making a note of this, Dennis?
Mr. Backlund: The arched one and all the round ones.
Chair Bower: Right, the arched one and all the round ones should remain.
Board Member Kohler: I guess I'n1 trying to think about the option of saving the windows
downstairs. I agree totally that they should stay; however, I'mjust trying to reuse this building
in a viable sense. I think I can really fully understand the need for those to be clear glass, so I
guess I'm wavering on that point.
Male Voice: If the Board is discussing this, I can respond to your comment. If they are removed
and stored, then they will not be part of the public's view of that historic feature, and they are not
put in for 100 years, that's three (3) generations of the public that will not see that historic fabric.
Chair Bower: And there is no guarantee that they will even be saved. You can have them stored
and then they can be thrown away.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yeah, well, we know what happens.
Chair Bower: Well, let's assume that they would be saved, but my point is that won't be visible
to the public and so that part of the historic fabric is not being experienced by the pUblic.
Board Member Bunnenberg: And I believe that it would significantly impair the integrity of this
building.
Chair Bower: Okay, I think we don't need to discuss this more. I'm just trying to clarify.
Male Voice: Chair, you gave some window numbers for restoring and retaining windows. I
want to be sure that Dennis has the numbers for those. I've got those same numbers here.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Mr. Backlund: If you are speaking of opalescent, there are five (5) windows and they are on
Sheets A302 and A303, and they are opalescent windows that are not visible from the street, and
/ they are not visible from within the auditorium. I'm not making a recommendation, but just
citing that windows with those characters are 35, 36 and 37 on PageA302 and 60 and 61 on
Sheet A3.03.
Male Voice: Okay, I was going to give you the numbers of the windows that I think need to be
retained as opalescent and then anything that is not listed there would not be part of this. Those
windows would be 4,5,6,49,29,59,9 through 16,50 through 54. Now, I want to be sure that I
didn't miss anything. I can't quite see what is going on, on the porch. I don't remember
anything on the main entry porch.
Mr. Backlund: On the curved entry porch, there are two (2) of them within the porch arch.
Male Voice: Is that 55 and 56? There are two numbers here, but I think one of them is 56. You
can just barely see on A3.01.
Mr. Backlund: 55 and 56.
Chair Bower: Yes, those are 29 and those are Numbers 6, 49,29,4 and 59,5 and 6,29 and 30.
I'm sorry, 1,2 and 3 as well. Okay, so maybe what we can do is just ask the Staff to confirm
that it is the window in the lantern, the windows in the cupola and the windows from Bryant and
Forest, and then any window that is in the auditoriunl would be retained. And"then, as far as I'm
concerned, the windows listed as 60, 61 and 35,36 and 37, those can be removed and stored as
replacement glass.
Mr. Backlund: Okay, as I hear the Board, except for those five (5), the other ones should be
retained.
Chair Bower: I think that's the consensus. Alright?
Board Member Bunnenberg: So that means we are removing the ones on the back and side that
are not in view of the public?
Chair Bower: That's correct.
Mr. Backlund: Three (3) rear ones facing Landing Chateau and two (2) rear ones facing that
little rose garden, that is all enclosed. Two (2) of them there, I mean.
Chair Bower: I want to move forward because we now have 12 minutes. On Item No. 12, the
consensus is that the skylight can be removed and stored. On the ramp, Item No.9, the ramp
sides would be reduced in scale, I think, is what we talked about, as nluch as possible, and sloped
or stepped so their impact is reduced. Not sloped, stepped. And Item No. 13 is the wainscoting
would be retained, that the mezzanine floor that is being added is appropriate. We don't have a
problem with that as designed or proposed, and that the wainscoting be retained as much as
possible with some kind of an adaptive detail down at the bottom to deal with the sloping issues.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Board Member Bunnenberg: And then all the conditions that were listed that were to be
reviewed with the Historic Preservation Planner. There are number of those things about the
seismic, about the color, about the color, about the materials.
Chair Bower: Right, those are not in contention.
Board Men1ber Bunnenberg: Those are not in contention, but that provision is very important.
Chair Bower: Right, it's No. 20, and there is no issue there. Okay, so I think that summarizes all
the Items, doesn't it.
Mr. Lundberg: I have only one issue which is the issue about the Number 5, the large windows
that have the plastic over then1. I think we'd like to rebuild those windows. I don't think any of
us want that plastic over those. I would like to propose that we match them as closely as
possible, but that we don't match them in kind.
In other words, the existing design doesn't work. I'd like to build them out of steel to the
proportions as close as possible to the original design. We would use the opalescent glass as
much as possible. I mean, we may have to use some of the panes we are taking out, and we are
certainly going to try and take them out without breaking them.
The intent is to use that glass back in those windows per your recommendation, but there is
always the chance that son1ething may go a little awry. I don't believe so, and we have some
additional glass from what we are ren10ving. If we run into a problem, we may need to look at
some additional windows to get glass for that. I don't know how easily this glass cuts. The sizes
will be slightly different, and it will have to be cut. We can water jet cut it, so it may be okay,
but I am just raising the issue.
The other option is to leave it as is with probably new plastic, but plastic as the solution, and I
think we need to decide which one of those we want to go with.
Chair Bower: Okay, we have two (2) minutes, really, to talk about this. That's it.
Board Merrlber Bunnenberg: I would favor keeping them and putting plastic on them rather than
starting to rebuild because I think the chance of loss is great.
Board Member Makinen: I concur with that, repair in place. Don't replace.
Board Member Berstein: I agree with that approach, which is to keep it safe by adding a new
piece of plastic on it.
Board Member Kohler: I agree. Ijust don't know what to say. I agree with that.
Chair Bower: I would be the lone voice. I want the glass there. I don't care what the frame is
because that is not the important detail for me, but if the Board feels that we should retain them
and put plastic over them, I'm willing to go along with that, but I think the plastic is an
impediment, actually, in enjoying them. I don't think these windows are ever going to be open
because they are not accessible, and so I wonder why we are going to ask that something be
retained.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Board Member Kohler: I would say if they are willing to rework them and do it the best they can
with it, I'd prefer that over plastic.
Mr. Backlund: What would be possible is a consultant experienced with historic glass to review
the feasibility of rehabilitating these windows because I don't think that they have been
evaluated by anyone who is expert. We know what the problel)ls are, but we don't know what a
professional would find as a solution.
Chair Bower: Okay, so if this would be acceptable to you, ask to have somebody evaluate them.
But if they can't be repaired in a reasonable nlanner, and reasonable I would underline here, then
they can be reduced as closely as possible with modem frame materials using the same glass,
would that be acceptable?
Board Member Bunnenberg: But I would still want this also reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Planner.
Chair Bower: Right. I'm assuming that Item 20 would cover that because Itenl 20 says "the
Planner," so the Planner is going to review materials and colors and so forth. So if we need to
make it a specific notion or note here, that's fine, but I think it covers it. Okay, so I think we are
covered on that.
Mr. Lundberg: I think that's a good solution.
Chair Bower: Alright, is that a good enough summary for us to move forward? I'm assuming,
since we are very short of time here, that if you want to make another 30-second pitch, I'm open
to that, and will give you an opportunity. Otherwise, we would like to a vote here and get this
done with.
Board Member Makinen: Let's make a Motion before Roger has to go.
Chair Bower: Okay, one more comment.
Mr. Hamilton: It's not really a comment. I just want to make sure that there was mutual clarity
on this. I sort of got loss on all the numbering of the windows, and is there an opportunity to, or
are you comfortable that you know what all the windows are, by number that they are talking
about?
Male Voice: It's very few windows, but it's basically ones that are not visible from the
auditorium or from the exterior.
Mr. Hamilton: But the tinted versus the opalescent.
Chair Bower: No, tinted ones were not included except for five (5) specific ones.
Mr. Hamilton: And the one over the stairwell which I agree.
Chair Bower: So, the stairwell, the five (5) snlall.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
Mr. Hamilton: Yeah, I'd just express our disappointment because I would suggest or offer t6
you that if your home and office, or wherever you reside, your windows were opalescent, I don't
think that you would like that. I do not think that you would find that to be a productive, healthy
work environment, visually appealing or efficient, and I'mjust sorry that you have decided not
to allow us to have clear glass on the lower level only that would afford folks living in that
environment, working in that environment to have a better quality of life. I think that's
unfortunate, but thank you for your consideration.
Chair Bower: Thank you. I think at this point we will close the Public Hearing and move to
Motions, and we have five (5) nrinutes.
Board Melnber Makinen: Well, I think the Motion should be based upon summation of all of the
points we covered. I don't know if anybody has a condensed version of that.
Chair Bower: Let me make the Motion, and even though I'm Chair, since I summarized this. To
repeat, the Items in the Staff Report that are nUlnbered, of the 24 Items in the Staff Report, we
will accept as unchanged Items 1,2,3,10,11,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 and 24. In Itenl No.
14, we will include that to be specifically the arched opening over the organ and not the organ or
millwork below. In Item No.4 through 8, the opalescent glass that will remain will be the
opalescent glass in the exterior, viewed from the exterior, and any glass from the intelior of the
auditorium visible inside, will remain, and I've already given all of these numbers. I can give
them to Staff again so that it is clear, and we can go over it by window. Itenl No.5, we just
discussed.
We will ask for preservation of the window, or the appropriate preservation is to look at those
windows and determine if they can be repaired, and if not they will be replaced in kind in the
same design, the same glass, with modem framing materials. Item No. 12, we would modify it
to say that it can be removed, but we'd like the skylights stored. Item No.9, the ramp should be
stepped to reduce its scale and bulk wherever possible. Is there anything else? I think that was
it. Item No. 13, which is the wainscoting in the mezzanine, and wherever possible retain the
wainscoting and work it into the support for the mezzanine and any other structures. I think
that's it.
Board Member Berstein: We should include in that Motion a comment that with these
comments that the project does meet the Standards for Rehabilitation.
Chair Bower: Right, and thus the floor area credits would apply. Okay, so that is not a
particularly articulate Motion, but it is a lot of nlaterial.
Board Member Berstein: Should there be any issue that the ones that we are already in
agreement between the Applicant and us, that those should be included in the Motion too.
Chair Bower: Yeah, the first list of numbers.
Board Member Bunnenberg: What is No. 15?
Chair Bower: No. 15, we agreed to delete.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
Mr. Lundberg: I'm sorry, do you need to make any statement about the other eight (8) points as
well. I think we are in agreement, but I think we need to.
Chair Bower: I think in the discussion we've had, we've gone over it, and your comments, at
least, I think we are reassured by, so we don't need to consider that.
Mr. Backlund: One last comment. We do have a videotape of this meeting, and we review that
extensively in doing the Minutes, rather than our notes. So I feel we cannot go wrong.
Chair Bower: Okay, so do I hear a second for that Motion.
Board Member Makinen: I'll second it.
Chair Bower: Miniscule discussion? I don't think so.
Board Member Berstein: What I'm thinking about is that we are looking at an historic building
and there have been some suggestions of mitigations of some of the issues. What I'n1 thinking
about of older buildings, such as those that I would experience in Europe, where through the
generations a lot of these issues of natural light, for example, windows. They have been
preserved for 500 years, 700 years, and those are still considered landmarks of beauty and
Western standards, maybe not Eastern, but certainly Western standards of beauty and cultural
stability. So, yes, we understand. I n1ean, I understand your concern about the current use right
now, but on the Historic Board we have to think longer term than current uses. So that is my
support for the Motion of keeping the specifics of the glass and in looking at the history of
buildings that are hundreds of years old and how they have been maintained.
Board Member Kohler: I just have another small comment. I am really reluctant about requiring
you to keep the stained glass, but the overwhelming precedent of the Secretary's Standards, rules
and requirements and that kind of thing. However, we are in a room here which has these
curtains that are never opened, and it's kind of like just what we were talking about. h1 n1y
building the folks in the upper front, they used to be lawyers, and they moved out, but even the
current people there, they never open their drapes at all either. They always ... so, I get tom
when I would like the windows. I don't like curtains at all, but there are a lot of people
apparently who prefer not to be able to see outside. Maybe it distracts them fron1 working, so
okay.
Chair Bower: Alright, shall we put this to a vote. Alright. The motion and second, so all in
favor of this motion.
[Five ays, one abstained due to conflict of interest, one absent]
Chair Bower: No opposition, so it passes unanimously. Thank you for all of your hard work.
I'm sorry we couldn't be more accommodating, but I think we did a good job of meeting some of
your concerns.
SUMMARY OF THE HRB MOTION ON THE 661 BRYANT STREET PROJECT
Historic Resources Board Action: Bower moved, seconded by Makinen, to recommend to the
Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (1) that
City of Palo Alto Page 37
the proposed rehabilitation of the former First Church of Christ, Scientist at 661 Bryant Street
meets the definition of "historic rehabilitation" set forth in Municipal Code 18.18.030(b), and (2)
that the proposed historic rehabilitation plan as presented in the applicant's "Written Project
Description" document, dated August 13,2009, and in the "Recommendations" listed on pages
45-46 of the Historic Structure Report by Cody Anderson Wasney, dated July 2009, will comply
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings with respect to preservation of character-defining features and with respect to
the historic compatibility of new features, provided the project, presented in the Plan Set
prepared by Lundberg Design and dated July 17, 2009, and received by the Department of
Planning on August 11,2009, is revised to incorporate the following twenty-three conditions of
project approval.
1. The Historic Rehabilitation Plan for 661 Bryant Street will comprise Part 5 of the
"Written Project Description," dated August 13, 2009, and submitted by ECI Three
Bryant, LLC and also the repair items listed in the "Recommendations" section of the
Historic Structure Report prepared by Cody Anderson Wasney, dated July 2009, pages
45-46.
2. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied to all eligible aspects of
the historic rehabilitation of the site and the building exterior and interior when needed to
preserve character-defining features.
3. The historic and seismic rehabilitation, restoration, and new construction at 661 Bryant
Street shall be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation and on a consideration of recommendations provided in the Department of
the Interior's "Preservation Briefs" #9 ("The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows"), #18
("Rehabilitating hlteriors in Historic Buildings: Identifying and Preserving Character
Defining Elements"), #22 ("The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco"), #24
("Heating Ventilating, and Cooling Historic Buildings"), #32 ("Making Historic
Properties Accessible"), #33 ("The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and
Leaded Glass"), #41 ("The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation
in the Forefront"), and "Preservation Tech Note: Specifying Temporary Protection of
Historic Interiors During Construction and Repair."
4. The existing opalescent leaded glazing of the all the windows of the 1916 church building
shall be preserved in place with the exception of those windows numbered 35,36, and 37
on Sheet A3.02 of the project Plan Set, and those windows numbered 60 and 61 on Sheet
A3.03 of the Plan Set. Those five windows shall be placed in storage and their
opalescent glass may be used as replacement glass in the windows preserved in place if
needed.
5. The upper rotunda opalescent glass windows which are currently faced with non-historic
clear plastic on the exterior to protect against leaks shall be evaluated by a qualified
historic consultant, selected by the City as possessing expertise in the repair of historic
leaded stained glass, to determine the technical and economic feasibility of rehabilitating
the windows so that they do not leak, thus allowing the plastic facing to be removed. If
such feasibility is determined, the repair of the windows shall be added to the applicant's
Historic Rehabilitation Plan. If the expert consultant opinion concurs, alternative metal
franling material may be considered for use in the repair of the windows.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
6. All the opalescent glass exterior lighting fixtures of the 1916 church building shall be
preserved in place, and the glass that will replace missing opalescent panes in the exterior
lighting fixtures shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner prior to
installati on.
7. The tinted glass of the tall arched window of the staircase foyer of the 1930 church
addition (window # 17 on Sheet A3.00 of the Plan Set) shall be retained.
8. The tinted glass shall be retained in the round windows of the 1930 church addition
(windows # 22, 23, 24, 25, and 47 on Sheet A3.00 of the Plan Set). All other tinted
window glass in the 1930 church addition not cited in Conditions # 7 and 8 may be
removed and replaced with clear glass.
9. The proposed level-top design of the polished concrete walls component of the exterior
ADA ramp system (depicted on Sheet A3.02 of the Plan Set) shall be revised to provide a
gently stepped-down design for the walls.
10. The geonletric mural on the upper wall of the Bryant Street fa~ade of the 1930 church
addition, and the plain painted panels of the upper left side of the addition shall be
maintained and preserved because they are replications of the original painted designs of
the addition, as shown clearly by photos of the addition taken in 1930.
11. The three large bi-folding doors between the main entry foyer and the auditorium shall be
preserved in place as proposed.
12. The opalescent glass skylight of the church auditorium may be removed provided that it
is placed in storage.
13. The wood wainscoting of the church auditorium shall be preserved to the extent feasible,
as determined by the applicant in consultation with the Historic Preservation Planner,
including the sloped-floor wainscoting by means of an adaptive detailing of the base of
the wall at the new level floor.
14. The adaptive reuse treatment of the large arched opening above the existing stage area of
the auditorium shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner. The existing
organ pipe screening within the arched opening may be removed.
15. The exposed wood beam ceilings of the staircase foyer, the former Reading Room, and
the second-floor hallway of the 1930 addition shall be preserved and rehabilitated where
needed.
16. The large hanging metal lighting fixture of the staircase foyer, which appears to be
original, shall be preserved and repaired as needed.
17. The fireplace and the original wood built-in cabinets of the former Reading Room in the
1930 church addition shall be repaired as needed and preserved.
18. The architectural and design details of the proposed transformation of the former Reading
Room and the adjacent office into a single room shall be reviewed for adequate retention
of the former Reading Room's historic character by the Historic Preservation Planner.
19. The final design, materials, finishes, and colors of the proposed auditorium mezzanine,
including the supporting columns and the glass railing around the perimeter of the central
opening of the mezzanine (shown on Sheet A2.02 of the Plan Set) shall be submitted for
review by the Historic Preservation Planner.
20. The final materials and colors for the exterior of 661 Bryant Street shall be submitted for
review by the Historic Preservation Planner.
City of Palo Alto Page 39
21. All new exterior lighting including the style, materials, and color of the fixtures, and the
light bulb types, shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner.
22. The Director of Planning's letter of project approval, including the approved conditions,
shall be printed on one of the initial sheets of the Building Permit Plan Set (final
construction plans).
, 23. The Historic Preservation Planner shall review the Building Permit Plan Set for
consistency with the Director of Planning's project approval based on the
recommendations of the Historic Resources Board.
Vote: 5-0-1-1 (Loukianoff abstaining due to conflict of interest, DiCicco absent)
OTHER BUSINESS .
Chair Bower: Roger, you are leaving. Alright, so we are now through with that portion, so we
are on to other business. Staff?
Mr. Backlund: No, we don't have other business.
STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Bower: Okay, no announcements?
Mr. Backlund: There was just noting to you about the staff review of 175 Byron, and we tried to
explain clearly why that was a very exceptional situation that we don't anticipate will ever be
repeated again.
Chair Bower: That's fine, we had a hearing about that earlier this year. So I think that your
comments here in our written material suffice, unless someone has a question. I don't hear any
questions.
CORRESPONDANCE
We don't have any correspondence, Diana?
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS
And no other announcements? So the next meeting date, good question?
Mr. Backlund: The next meeting date has not been set yet because we have not cleared the next
projects.
Chair Bower: Okay, so at this point I think we can adjourn the meeting. The meeting is
adjourned.
[End of recording]
ADJOURNED: 10:30 AM
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection in the 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94303,
during normal business hours.
City of Palo Alto Page 40
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations
to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City's
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City's ADA Coordinator at
650.329.2550 (voice) or bye-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org.
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956.
City of Palo Alto Page 41
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
September 2,2009
Historic Resources Board
Dennis Backlund
Historic Preservation Planner
Attachment D
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
661 Bryant Street [09PLN-00116]: Request by Blake Reinhardt on
behalf of ECI Three Bryant, LLC, for Historic Resources Board review
and reconlmendation regarding plans for a proposed historic and seismic
rehabilitation for office reuse of the former Christian Science Church,
which was constructed in 1916 and is listed on the City's Historic
Inventory in Category 2. The proj ect includes (1) a new ramp in front of
the church to provide access compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), (2) a proposal to replace the opalescent glass in
the first floor church windows and the majority of the tinted glass in the
1930 church addition with clear glass, (3) a proposed 949 square-foot
circular mezzanine within the rotunda nave, (4) selective alterations to
finishes and spaces in the interior, and (5) a comprehensive new
landscape plan. Approved historic and seismic rehabilitation plans
would generate a combined floor area bonus of 5,668 square feet which
nlay be used on-site and/or in the City's Transferable Development
Rights (TDR) program. Zone District: CD-C(P).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend to the Architectural
Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (1) that the
proposed rehabilitation of the fomler First Church of Christ, Scientist at 661 Bryant Street
meets the definition of "historic rehabilitation" set forth in Municipal Code 18.18.030(b),
and (2) that the proposed historic rehabilitation plan as presented in the applicant's
"Written Project Description" document, dated August 13, 2009, and in the
"Recommendations" listed on pages 45-46 of the Historic Structure Report by Cody
Anderson Wasney, dated July 2009, will comply with the Secretary of the Interior's
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 1 of 17
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings with
respect to preservation of character-defining features and with respect to the historic
compatibility of new features, provided the project is revised to incorporate the following
conditions of project approval.
1. The Historic Rehabilitation Plan for 661 Bryant Street will comprise Part 5 of the
"Written Project Description," dated August 13, 2009, and submitted by ECI Three
Bryant, LLC and also the repair items listed in the "Recommendations" section of
the Historic Structure Report prepared by Cody Anderson Wasney, dated July
2009, pages 45-46.
2. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied to all eligible
aspects of the historic rehabilitation of the site and the building exterior and
interior when needed to preserve character-defining features.
3. The historic and seismic rehabilitation, restoration, and new construction at 661
Bryant Street shall be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Rehabilitation and on a consideration of recommendations provided
in the Department of the Interior's "Preservation Briefs" #9 ("The Repair of
Historic Wooden Windows"), # 18 ("Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings:
Identifying and Preserving Character-Defining Elements"), #22 ("The Preservation
and Repair of Historic Stucco"), #24 ("Heating Ventilating, and Cooling Historic
Buildings"), #32 ("Making Historic Properties Accessible"), #33 ("The
Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass"), #41 ("The
Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation in the Forefront"),
and "Preservation Tech Note: Specifying Temporary Protection of Historic
Interiors During Construction and Repair." (Staffwill provide these documents to
the project applicant.)
4. The existing opalescent glazing of the 1916 windows, a historic character-defining
feature of the church, shall be preserved in place to the extent determined by the
Historic Resources Board to be required for compliance with the Secretary's
Standards for Rehabilitation, principally the language of Standards # 1, 2, and 5.
5. The upper rotunda opalescent glass windows which are currently faced with clear
plastic on the exterior to protect against leaks shall be rehabilitated so that they do
not leak, and the plastic facing shall be removed.
6. All the opalescent glass exterior lighting of the 1916 church building shall be
preserved in place, and the glass that will replace missing opalescent panes in the
exterior lighting fixtures shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner
prior to installation.
7. The tinted glass of the tall arched window of the staircase foyer of the 1930 church
addition shall be retained because it enhances the decorative and ceremonial
character of the window and the foyer.
8. The 1930 tinted glass shall be retained in all the small round windows of the
church addition because the primarily decorative character of the round windows,
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 2 of 17
one of which on a wall of the staircase foyer, is enhanced by the decorative
character of the tinted glass.
9. The proposed polished concrete walls component of the exterior ADA ramp
system shall be deleted from the project and replaced by an open railing system in
order to comply with the cited goal of the Secretary's Guidelines for Accessibility:
"to provide the highest level of access with the lowest level of impact." The final
finishes and colors of the ramp surfaces and the railings shall be submitted for
review by the Historic Preservation Planner.
10. The geonletric mural on the upper wall of the Bryant Street fa<;ade of the 1930
church addition, and the plain painted panels of the upper left side of the addition
shall be maintained and preserved because they are replications of the original
painted designs of the addition, as shown clearly by photos of the addition taken in
1930.
11. The three large bi-folding doors between the main entry foyer and the auditorium
shall be preserved in place as proposed.
12. The opalescent glass skylight of the church auditoriunl shall be preserved in place,
cleaned, and repaired where needed.
13. Examples of the wood wainscoting of the church auditorium, a historic character
defining feature, shall be preserved around the main foyer entry doors, and around
the former stage area (some of which would need to be lowered to the new Hoor),
and elsewhere, if feasible, after the floor is leveled (the sloping wainscoting may
be removed). Emerging wainscoting issues during project planning and
construction shall be referred to the Historic Preservation Planner.
14. The adaptive reuse treatment of the arched opening that currently holds the organ
pipe screening shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner.
15. The north wall of the significant staircase foyer of the 1930 addition that contains
arched openings (depicted on the "Existing Ground Floor Plan on Sheet Al.0l)
shall be preserved, not demolished as shown on the "Demolition Plan" (Sheet
A1.02), in order to preserve the existing character of the foyer as a room enclosed
by four walls.
16. The exposed wood beam ceilings of the staircase foyer, the former Reading Room,
and the second-floor hallway of the 1930 addition shall be preserved and
rehabilitated where needed.
17. The large hanging metal lighting fixture of the staircase foyer, which appears to be
original, shall be preserved and repaired as needed.
18. The fireplace and the original wood built-in cabinets of the former Reading Room
shall be repaired if needed and preserved.
19. The architectural and design details of the proposed transformation of the former
Reading Room and the adjacent office into a single larger room shall be reviewed
for adequate retention of the former Reading Room's historic character by the
Historic Preservation Planner.
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 3 of 17
20. The final design, materials, finishes, and colors of the proposed auditorium
nlezzanine, including the supporting columns and the glass railing around the
perimeter of the central opening of the mezzanine (shown on Sheet A2.02 of the
plan set as 17'-2" in diameter), shall be submitted for review by the Historic
Preservation Planner.
21. The final materials and colors for the exterior of 661 Bryant Street shall be
submitted for review by the Historic Preservation Planner.
22. All new exterior lighting including the style, materials, and color of the fixtures,
and the light bulb types, shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner.
23. The Director of Planning's letter of project approval, including the approved
conditions, shall be printed on one of the initial sheets of the Building Permit Plan
Set (final construction plans).
24. The I-Iistoric Preservation Planner shall review the Building Permit Plan Set for
consistency with the Director of Planning's project approval based on the
recommendations of the Historic Resources Board.
COMMENTS ON THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Staff requests that the HRB determine if any of the recommended Conditions of Approval
need to be modified for adequate compliance with the Secretary's Standards for
Rehabilitation, or if additional Conditions of Approval should be provided. As the HRB
reviews the project, staff recommends that the Board consider the statement in the
Introduction to the Secretary's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings that loss
of a building'S character can often be caused "by the cumulative effect of a series of
actions that would seem to be minor interventions."
Staff did not include certain period features of the building interior in the Conditions of
Approval. Staff requests that the HRB comment on the features and on staff's rationale
for excluding them from the Conditions. The features are:
1. The historic corridor adjacent to the former Reading Room and Clerk's Office
(referred to as the Conference Room and Office on the plans) which is proposed
for demolition, as shown on the applicant's Demolition Plan, Sheet A1.02 of the
plan set. Staffwas undecided whether this corridor with its arched entry was a
primary significant space or a secondary space. The corridor can be partially
viewed by HRB members through the glass entry door to the staircase foyer of the
1930 addition, and staff recommends a site visit.
2. The historic built-in cabinets in the offices, identified as the Work Room and the
Board Room on page 25 of the July 2009 HSR (see Attachment A), on the second
floor of the 1930 addition. Staff found the built-in cabinet (and also the built-in
window seat) in the Board Room to appear significant, but staff also concluded
that the two upstairs rooms were secondary spaces with little potential to be
regularly viewed by the public.
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 4 of17
3. The historic interior doors with opalescent glass panels. The doors appeared
significant but are located in a rear area of the interior of the 1930 addition
containing secondary office and bathroom spaces.
4. The historic panelized wood stage and organ pit in the church auditorium. Staff
concluded that these features would be incompatible with nlany adaptive reuses of
the building, and that the loss of these features may be mitigated by significant
interior preservation elsewhere.
5. The historic wood folding side doors of the auditorium. Staff understood that
these doors, which would partially fill the doorways, are proposed for removal in
order to enhance the openness of the proposed office space.
6. The historic children's Sunday School booths. The booths are a significant
indicator of the original use of the building, but staff concluded that they had little
or no potential for incorporation into any adult adaptive reuse of the building.
Staff recommends that one or more booths be made available to the future Palo
Alto History Museum to illustrate the history of religious life in the city, or that all
the booths be made available to a local Sunday School.
7. The metal and textured yellow glass hexagonal ceiling light fixtures in the Sunday
School area of the 1930 addition (depicted on pages 22 and 23 of the July 2009
HSR). Staff concluded that the type ofyeUow glass in the fixtures is characteristic
of the 1950s, and although the fixtures are likely more than 50 years old, they did
not appear critical to the primary historic character of the building.
8. The metal and glass ceiling light fixtures in the former Reading Room: Staff
found these fixtures to be somewhat over-scaled for the size of the room, and
although the design of the fixtures is generally traditional, details of the design and
the finish of the metal appear to date from the 1950s or 60s, not from the 1930
period. Therefore, staff concluded that the fixtures were not critical to the primary
historic character of the building. Replacement fixtures should be highly
compatible with the significant historic character of the former Reading Room.
THE HISTORIC BUILDING
A Significant IIistoric Resource
In 1979 a survey was conducted by the California Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO)
which included 661 Bryant Street. As a result of the survey, the building was assigned
the "Status Code" of"3S" which means "Appears eligible for NR [National Register] as
an individual property through survey evaluation." In 1980, following a professional
consultant's survey of Palo Alto's period buildings, the City Council created the Historic
Inventory composed of the significant buildings that the consultant (Beach and Bogosian)
had recommended for designation, and appointed the Historic Resources Board to review
projects affecting the Inventory according to the provisions of the newly approved
Historic Preservation Ordinance. At that time, the First Church of Christ, Scientist was
designated as a Category 2 "Major Building," which is defined in the Ordinance as
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 5 of 17
follows: "Major Building means any building or group of buildings of major regional
importance, nleritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an
architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A
major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is
retained." The Historic Inventory form notes that an authority on Mission Revival
architecture considered the church to be "the best exanlple of Mission Revival
architecture in this area (see Attachment B). The Inventory form also notes that the
church is "an imposing architectural contributor to the downtown Palo Alto landscape."
The auditorium section of the building was constructed in 1916, and while its two
impressive columned arcade entries convey a strong Mission Revival character, the
octagonal rotunda structure conveys an Italian Byzantine character that originated in such
Early Christian buildings in Ravenna, Italy as the church of San Vitale, ca. 526-47 AD,
and several octagonal red tile-roofed baptistries (see Attachment C).
An Important Architect
The architect, Elmer Grey (1871-1963), wbo did most of his California work in Pasadena
and the Los Angeles area has become increasingly celebrated as his most famous
buildings (the Beverly Hills Hotel, the Pasadena Playhouse-the official state theater of
California-and the Henry Huntington Art Gallery-designed with Myron Hunt and
home to Gainsborough's Blue Boy-have become more and more iconic (see Attachment
D). Elmer Grey has also become increasingly noted for his contributions to the
architecture ofCalifonlia's Arts and Crafts culture, and in 1997 one of the state's leading
architectural historians, David Gebhard, professor at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, wrote a chapter on Grey for Robert Winter's anthology, Toward a Simpler Way
of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California. The Historic Structure Report by
Cody Anderson Wasney notes that there is only one other Grey building in the Bay Area
besides the church in Palo Alto, the Livingston Jenks House in San Francisco (1905).
The 1930 Addition
In 1930, a stucco and red tile roof Spanish Colonial Revival addition was built on the left
fa9ade of the church. The architect of the addition may be unknown (the architect is not
mentioned in a somewhat lengthy article in the April 18, 1930 issue of the Palo Alto
Times that describes the new building). But the addition has some distinctive features in
the exposed beam ceilings in several locations including the impressive staircase foyer
with its great arched window, and the former Readers Room with a fine fireplace
somewhat reflective of the Craftsman period. On the exterior there is a geometrically
pattenled mural at the eave that continues around to the left fa9ade where plain color
panels are used. Based on testimony of a church member, the mural is a replication of the
historic mural clearly presented in old photos (see Attachment A, page 28), but which had
been painted over in the 1950s. In the 1970s, during a cleaning of the wall, traces of the
original mural were found which provided a model for the accurately dimensioned
replication seen today.
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 6 of 17
A Higb Degree of Historic Integrity
The Christian Science Church has had very few alterations in the last 50 years. The
principal alteration to the street-facing fa9ades of the church occurred in 1995 at the
secondary arcade when two opalescent glass windows were changed to clear leaded glass
that used the same pattern and dimensions of panes and lead dividers that are found on the
opalescent glass windows. The project was approved by the HRB and ARB on the
condition that the proposed lead tape glass dividers would be revised to genuine leaded
glass. The altered windows which are rather high on the wall and shaded by the soffit of
the arcade and obscured by the heavy arcade columns are not prominently visible from
the street. Also, the clear leaded windows flank a clear leaded glass double entry door,
and the closely similar look of the windows to the doors somewhat softens the fact of the
alteration. Also, several small opalescent round windows in the lantern above the church
rotunda have been changed to vents. This alteration also is not prominently visible from
the street due to the height and small size of the round windows.
In summary, the former First Church of Christ, Scientist is an almost unaltered building
of regional importance that is also an exceedingly rare Northern California building by
the noted architect Elmer Grey, and an important contributor to the character of Palo
Alto's downtown. Because the project is proposing preservation of most of the exterior,
staff is recommending approval of the project, but also because some major character
defining features are proposed for removal from this major building, such as a substantial
amount of ornamental stained opalescent glass, and several important interior features,
staff has attached a number of conditions to the recommended approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Summary
The applicant is proposing an adaptive reuse of the former First Church of Christ,
Scientist as an office building with associated site alterations for compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Exterior Alterations
On the exterior the project includes provision of an ADA-compliant ramp to the
secondary arcade porch. Also, the opalescent glass is proposed to be removed from 25
windows at the first floor level to provide increased daylighting and views to the outside
fronl the interior, but the wood window frames and nletal hardware would be retained,
and the lead dividers would be preserved and repaired or replicated. The opalescent
windows at the upper rotunda level would be preserved and rehabilitated in order to
eliminate leak problems that have led to two of the rotunda windows being covered on the
exterior with a type of plastic to prevent moisture intrusion. The small opalescent round
windows in the lantern would be repaired and the round vents would be reversed to
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 7 of 17
sin1ilar stained glass if feasible. The property would also be provided with a
comprehensive new landscape plan.
Interior Alterations
The applicant's Written Project Description (see Attachn1ent E) presents only proposed
alterations to the exterior except for a sentence on page 3 that refers to the proposed
addition of a mezzanine in the rotunda area of the auditorium. The alterations to the
interior are presented in the Project Plan Set (see Attachn1ent F). In the interior several of
the historic or period materials, finishes, and spaces would be replaced with a new
primarily open office environment. The most significant alteration to the interior is a new
proposed circular mezzanine in the rotunda that would have an approximately 17-feet-in
dian1eter opening in the center to provide views from the first floor that would reveal the
original height and volume of the rotunda. The mezzanine would be accessed by a new
semi-circular staircase located near ~he area of the existing organ pit and stage. The
sloping floor of the auditorium would be replaced by a flat floor to make office use
possible, and the two existing restrooms adjacent to the foyer of the curved entry arcade
of the church would be converted into a copy room and a kitchen. (The applicant has
recently suggested verbally that the opalescent glass in the two windows that would serve
the new copy room and kitchen may be preserved, and an applicant decision on the matter
may be in place at the time of the HRB meeting. In the 1930 addition nearly all of the
existing walls and Sunday School booths would be removed in order to create open office
space and ADA-compliant restrooms. Also, the former Reading Room and the adjacent
office would be combined into one larger room. Most of the tinted glass in the 1930
addition would be replaced with clear glass inserted into the rehabilitated existing frames
and mullions.
Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan
Municipal Code Definition of "Historic Rehabilitation": In order to gain a historic floor
area bonus, the applicant's proposal to rehabilitate the building must be consistent with
the definition of "historic rehabilitation" set forth in Section 18.18.030(b) of the
Municipal Code, which reads: "As used in this chapter, 'historic rehabilitation' n1eans
returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible
an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property
which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values. 'Historic
rehabilitation' shall remedy all the known rehabilitation needs of the building, and shall
not be confined to routine repair and maintenance as determined by the director of
planning and community environment."
Staff has recommended that the proposed historic Rehabilitation Plan is adequately
consistent with the Municipal Code definition of "Historic Rehabilitation." Some of the
principal threats to the long-term survival of a historic building are leaks, faulty plumbing
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 8 of 17
and electrical systenls, and pest intrusions. The applicant's Rehabilitation Plan (which
comprises Part 5 of the "Written Project Description," see Attachment E) addresses
potential electrical, plumbing, and leak problems through comprehensive building
inspection, identification of leak locations, and a pest inspection. The applicant also
proposes the repair of specified historic features including exterior lighting, stucco,
specified opalescent glass windows, and the rehabilitation of many window frames and
mullions. Because there are a few additional rehabilitation details in the
"Recomnlendations" on pages 45-46 of the Historic Structure Report by Cody Anderson
Wasney, staff has recommended in Condition of Approval # 1 above that the
Rehabilitation Plan shall comprise Part 5 ofECI's "Written Project Description" and the
repair "Recommendations" on pages 45 and 46 of the Historic Structure Report
(Attachment A).
Proposed Seismic Rehabilitation Plan
The applicant is also proposing to seismically rehabilitate the building so that it is
consistent with the structural standards of the 1973 Seismic Code. Such rehabilitation
would provide a major protection of the building in the long term, but this rehabilitation
will be reviewed and approved primarily by the Building Division, rather than the
Planning Division. However, there are likely to be ongoing questions to the Historic
Preservation Planner, who has recommended in Condition of Approval # 3 that the
seismic rehabilitation be partly based on the recommendations in the Department of the
Interior's Preservation Brief # 41: "The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping
Preservation in the Forefront."
Proposed Removal of Historic Fabric
Several primary historic character-defining features of the building are currently proposed
by the project for removal:
• The leaded opalescent glass in 27 windows at the first-floor level of the church
(some of the windows on the alley off F orest Avenue are joined to form double or
triple windows).
• The opalescent glass skylight at the center of the rotunda auditorium ceiling.
• The wood wainscoting of the church auditorium (which also forms part of the
historic door and window franles).
• Part of the north wall of the staircase foyer (the extent of demolition of the wall is
not indicated on the Demolition Plan, Sheet A1.02).
• The metal hanging lighting fixture in the 1930 staircase foyer.
New Construction
The primary impacts from new construction appear to be the following: (These will be
discussed in more detail in the "Staff Evaluation of the Project" section below).
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 9 of 17
• The replacement of a number of enclosed spaces in the interior by large open
office spaces. Staff did not recommend that the small spaces be preserved because
a number of these spaces facilitated the ritual use of the church by children and
there does not appear to be any potential for reuse of these spaces by secular adult
activities. Staff does believe that one or two of the Sunday School booths would
provide valuable display items at the future Palo Alto History Museum.
• The proposed exterior ADA ramp to the secondary arcade porch.
• The proposed mezzanine in the church rotunda auditorium.
HRB STUDY SESSION OF July 15, 2009
At the commencement of the Study Session, staff requested, per Study Session policy,
that the HRB Members make individual, not collective, comments, and pose clarifying
questions to the staff and applicant. Staff also requested that Board Members individually
communicate to the applicant project items of concern under the Secretary's Standards for
Rehabilitation.
The Board Members focused almost entirely on the two exterior issues of the ADA ramp
and the proposed removal of the opalescent glass. Regarding the ramp, Board Menlbers
were shown an initial ADA design which included two ramps serving the two columned
arcades of the 1916 church. Board Members all found that the visual impact of this
version on the building and on the site resulted in significant impacts on the historic
character of the property. The Board Members were generally supportive of the revised
ramp design that included one ramp only which sloped up to the secondary arcade porch.
In order to reach the porch floor the side steps of the arcade would need to be demolished
and replaced by the ramp, but this appeared to be an unavoidable impact of providing
ADA access, and the removal of the relatively narrow side steps appeared to be an
acceptable impact. However, several :eoard Members found that the polished concrete
railing walls of the revised ramp system would be a dominant feature on the site that
would compete with the church. The Board Members supported a more transparent
railing system.
Regarding the removal of the opalescent glass, one Board Member expressed serious
concerns that such removal could comply with the Secretary's Standards, and quoted a
passage in the Secretary's Guidelines for historic windows that recommended against
"Changing the historic appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate designs,
materials, finishes, or colors which noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal, and
muntin configuration; the reflectivity and color of the glazing, or the appearance of the
frame." Another Board Member found the opalescent glass to be "one of the few really
decorative features of a basically simple building." No Board Member expressed support
at the meeting for removing the opalescent glass, but several Board Members requested
the provision of a site visit so that the level of light transferred to the interior through the
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 10 of 17
opalescent glass could be initially assessed, and the potential impact of the revised ADA
ramp could be judged.
HRB SITE VISITS TO 661 BRYANT STREET
Two site visits on different days were conducted for the HRB at the former Christian
Science Church. Each site visit was attended by a non-quorum of three Board Members
(the seventh Board Member did not participate due to conflict of interest). One group of
three Members attended on July 22,2009, and the other group of three attended on July
24, 2009. At the beginning of each site visit, staff requested that Board Members
individually view the site and ask clarifying questions of staff and the attending applicant
team. The HRB Members were asked not to voice conclusions on any project component
and not to discuss the project with other Board Members on site.
The Board Members at both site visits viewed the opalescent glass windows from the
interior, and learned that they were hopper windows that could be opened several inches.
At the July 22 site visit the Board Members attempted to visualize the effect of the
proposed ADA ramp on the site, and asked questions about the proposed rotunda
mezzanine. Staff laid a tape measure on the Rotunda floor to clarify the relation of the
17 -foot wide circular opening in the mezzanine to the diameter of the Rotunda. At the
July 24 site visit there was more focus on the opalescent windows as well as the tinted
windows in the 1930 addition. There were also questions about the built-in cabinets in
the former Reading Room and the second-floor Work Room and Board Room. There
were a number of questions about the interior lighting fixtures also. Staff and two Board
Members visited the small basement that houses mechanical equipment.
STAFF EVALUATION OF THE PRIMARY PROJECT ISSUES
Exterior Issues-The ADA Ramps
Apart from ADA ramp issues and opalescent window glass issues, the project would
preserve intact the great majority of the exterior architectural features of the building,
including the distinctive forms of the arcades, the Rotunda and Lantern, the walls,
window openings and frames, the roof features, the leaded glass doors, and aspects of the
building site including brick pavements. Therefore, staff has recommended conditional
approval of the project.
Staff supports the general placement of the revised ADA ramp as likely the best solution
to a difficult access problem stemming from flights of historic steps at both entries. The
principal remaining impact is the system of proposed polished concrete walls to which the
railings would be attached (see Attachment G for a depiction of polished concrete). The
"Secretary's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" states in the
"Accessibility" chapter, "The goal is to provide the highest level of access with the lowest
level of impact" (see Attachment H). Following the Secretary's Guidelines'
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 11 of 17
recommendation, staff recommended in Condition of Approval # 9 that the concrete wall
proposal be deleted from the project and replaced with an open railing system for the
ramps, and that the details of the railings and ramps be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Planner. Regarding the proposed concrete planters, although they will not
have high walls, staff does not recommend the installation of any materials of potentially
modem industrial character in front of the church due to the building's urbane and
traditional Mediterranean character. The concrete planters may need to be custom
finished to achieve compatibility with the character of the building.
Exterior Issues-The Opalescent Window Glass
In Condition of Approval # 4 staff stated that the opalescent glass of the church windows
is a character-defining feature of the building and recommended that the HRB detemline
the extent of opalescent glass preservation (in place) that would be required for project
compliance with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically Standards 1, 2,
and 5 (see Attachment I). Opalescent glass is a type of art glass which is briefly
described in an article by the firm Collectics Antiques (see Attachment J). To use the
language of Standard 5, the opalescent glass is an example of craftsmanship that
characterizes the property and it should be preserved. The "Windows" chapter of the
Secretary's Guidelines for Rehabilitation observes: "As one of the few parts of a building
serving as both an interior and exterior feature, windows are nearly always an important
part of the historic character of a building" (see Attachment K). Consequently the
Secretary's Guidelines describes as "not recommended" the following action: "Changing
the historic appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate designs, materials,
finishes, or colors which noticeably change the sash, depth of reveal, and muntin
configuration; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or the appearance of the frame"
(italics added). The HRB may wish to view the opalescent glass windows along the rear
alley church fa9ade from F orest Avenue to determine which windows can be seen from
the street and which are obscured. Also, on the interior of the church, not all the
opalescent glass windows are visible within the auditorium. Five of them are located
behind the stage wall, in rear restrooms, and rear office spaces, specifically the opalescent
windows numbered 35,36, and 37 on the plans (see Sheet A3.02, Drawing 2) and 60, and
61 (see SheetA3.01, Drawing 2). If any opalescent glass window is approved for
removal, staff recommends that there be no attempt to remove opalescent glass from the
surrounding caming but rather that the entire window be removed (glass and lead caming)
and appropriately crated for storage.
Interior Issues-The Opalescent Skylight
Staff has seen no conclusive evidence that the skylight does not date from the early period
of the church. Because it is the primary accent feature of the rotunda dome, and is made
of the same opalescent glass as is found throughout the rest of the church, staff
recommended in Condition of Approval # 12 that the skylight be preserved in place.
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 12of17
Interior Issues-The Auditorium Wainscoting
The panelized wood wainscoting is one of the two or three most visually dominant
features of the buildings most important interior space. Therefore, its preservation
throughout the auditorium would normally be mandated. However, the wainscoting
conforms to the existing sloping floor in certain locations, and staff concluded that sloped
wainscoting could not be adapted to a new floor that would need to be flat for this office
project and probably would need to be flat for many adaptive reuses in the future.
Therefore, staff recommended in Condition of Approval # 13 that examples of the
wainscoting be preserved in key locations, including the areas around the auditorium's
main entry doors, and the area that would be seen first when one enters the auditorium,
namely around the former stage area. Nevertheless, the final configuration of the new flat
floor is not yet known and that configuration could result in significant issues regarding
the feasibility of retaining wainscoting in certain locations, and staff reconlnlended in
Condition # 13 that wainscoting issues that emerge during project planning and
construction be referred to the Historic Preservation Planner.
Interior Issues-The Proposed Mezzanine
The most significant new construction issue in the interior is the proposed circular
mezzanine and associated new staircase in the auditorium's rotunda. This proposal must
be found to comply with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation (a) by preserving an
adequate sense of the rotunda's historic volume, and (b) by achieving a high level of
compatibility in massing, size, scale, railing and supporting colunm design, materials,
finishes, and colors with the historic character of the church rotunda and the auditorium in
general. The presentation of the mezzanine floor plan on Sheet A2.02 of the project plan
set suggests that the central opening in the floor of the mezzanine cannot be larger than
the proposed 17 feet, 2 inches. However, this dimension must be evaluated as to whether
it will provide the required visual sense of the rotunda's historic volume as seen through
the opening from the ground floor (see Attachment L). Condition of Approval # 20
requires that the final details of the mezzanine be submitted for review by the Historic
Preservation Planner. Staffrequests HRB comment on Condition # 20.
MATERIALS AND COLORS
Samples of the proposed materials and colors for the project were not available at the
time of the drafting of the staff report. Therefore, staff recommended as a condition of
project approval that the project materials and colors come back to the Historic
Preservation Planner for review.
RECOMMENDED KEY DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY THE HRB
1. Whether the scope of work proposed in the project's Historic Rehabilitation Plan is
consistent with the definition of "historic rehabilitation" set forth in Municipal
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 13 of 17
Code 18.18.030(b). (The Municipal Code's definition of "historic rehabilitation"
is quoted on page 8 of this staffreport).
2. Whether the adaptive reuse office project proposed for 661 Bryant Street conforms
to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation with
respect to preservation of the historic character of the building's exterior and
interior.
3. Whether the Rehabilitation Plan conforms to the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation with respect to the historic
compatibility of the proposed new construction, most importantly the proposed
mezzanine.
4. Whether the HRB should modify or delete any of staff's recommended Conditions
of Approval for the project, or add further Conditions of Approval.
MUNICIPAL AND STATE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT
Because this is a project affecting a designated Category 2 building in the Downtown
Area and includes an application for a combined historic and seismic floor area bonus,
use of 949 square feet of bonus floor area on-site, and Transferable Development Rights,
it requires discretionary design review by the Architectural Review Board, review by the
Historic Resources Board, and approval by the City Council of the on-site use of bonus
floor area. A detailed description of local and state regulations applicable to the project
follows:
Palo Alto Municipal Code: The project is subject to the City's Historic Preservation
Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 which requires application by the Historic Resources Board of
the following standards of review in 16.49 .050 (b) and (b)( 1): "In evaluating
applications, the review bodies shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement,
texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. The prime concern should be
the exterior appearance of the building site .... On buildings not in a historical district, the
proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics
nor the historical or aesthetic value of the building and its site." In 1987, the City Council
adopted the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation as the HRB' s primary standards of
review. In addition, in 1992 the City of Palo Alto entered into a Certified Local
Government Agreement with the State of California's Office of Historic Preservation
which established the Historic Resources Board as a Certified Local Government (CLG)
and provided that decertification could result if the Board "fails to enforce the provisions
of the local preservation ordinance ... or "substantially fails to maintain consistency of its
design review decisions with the Secretary's Standards .... "
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 14 of 17
The project is also subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. The Board's
ordinance comprises Section 18.76.020 of the Municipal Code's Zoning Ordinance, and
requires the Board to make 16 findings in behalf of an orderly and harmonious built
environment in the City that is consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Finding # 4 is related to historic preservation: "In areas
considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the
design is compatible with such character."
Also, when an application is requesting a Hoor area bonus, the project is subject to the
Floor Area Bonus regulations of Municipal Code Section 18.18.070 which require the
following, "In the case of the floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of a building in
Historic Category 1 or 2, the director, taking into consideration the recommendations of
the historic resources board, has found that the project complies with the Secretary of the
Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings' ... .In the case of a bonus for both seismic and historic rehabilitation that is
proposed to be used on-site, the city council has made the findings set forth in subsection
(b)(8) .... " (Sections 18.l8.070(d)(4)(B)(C). The two findings cited in Subsection (b)(8)
that the City Council must make in order to approve an on-site use of a combined bonus
are as follows: "The exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings' .... " and "The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be
inconsistent with the historic character of the interior and exterior of the building and
site" (Subsection (b )(8)(A)(i)(ii)).
Because the City Council must review and approve both the exterior and interior historic
aspects of an on-site combined bonus project, and because the Council appoints the
Historic Resources Board to make recommendations on historic projects including, as set
forth in Municipal Code 18.l8.070(d)(1) and (3), combined historic and seismic bonus
projects affecting significant historic buildings in the Downtown Area, the Historic
Resources Board is required to review both interior and exterior historic aspects of on-site
conlbined bonus projects, and to make recommendations to the City Council on the
consistency of the entire project with historic preservation standards. Staffhas included a
short excerpt from the Floor Area Bonuses ordinance, "Procedure for Granting of Floor
Area Bonuses" which provides the HRB with the process context within which the HRB
review is mandated (see Attachnlent M).
Finally, Section 18.18.070(e) of the Municipal Code requires that a historic floor area
bonus project include the submission of a protective covenant "in a form satisfactory to
the city attorney, to assure that the property will be rehabilitated and maintained in
accordance with the Secretary of Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings,' together with the accompanying interpretive 'Guidelines for Rehabilitation of
Historic Buildings' .... "
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 15 of 17
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): 661 Bryant Street is considered a historic
resource under CEQA. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) informed staff
that 661 Bryant Street is listed on the state's database with a "status code" of"3S." The
state's publication "California Historical Resource Status Codes" defines "3S" as
"Appears eligible for NR [National Register] as an individual property through survey
evaluation" (the survey was carried out by SHPO in 1979). The property is also
designated to a local register (Palo Alto's Historic Inventory) as a Category 2 "Major
Building." CEQA applies to historic resources if a project application is discretionary
and the project may cause impacts. The project at 661 Bryant Street is subject to the
Architectural Review Board's discretionary design review. In 1992, CEQA (Section
21084.1) clarified that "A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment." The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5(b)(I)) state that "Substantial
adverse change means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the
resource or its inlmediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource
would be materially impaired" "Materially impaired" occurs when a project "Demolishes
or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for
[the historical resources's] inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to
section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code ... " (Section 15064.5(b )(2)(B). However,
"Generally a project that follows ... the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995) ... shall be
considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical
resource" (Section 15064.5(3).
Thus, for discretionary historic commercial or public projects where CEQA applies, the
City'S review process under the Secretary's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation
may need to consider interior impacts if significant character-defining features are present
in the interior. In any case, the Historic Resources Board is required by the state to
review CEQA projects for the following reason: The Historic Resources Board is a
Certified Local Government commission at the "Expanded Level of Participation" which
requires the following duty: "The CLG shall participate in the environmental review of
local projects in accordance with the requirements under the California Environmental
Quality Act. The [CLG] commission may review and comment on permit actions
affecting significant listed historic properties and other resources eligible for listing, in
accordance with local ordinance requirements and with the California Environmental
Quality Act" (page 9 of the "Procedures for Certified Local Government Historic
Preservation Program").
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: The historic preservation chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan ("Goal L-7") begins on page L-35 of the Land Use Element. Policies and programs
that apply to the project are as follows:
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 16 of 17
Policy L-56: "To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown,
promote the preservation significant historic buildings."
Program L-58 establishes the historic standard of review: "For proposed exterior
alterations or additions to designated Historic Landmarks, require design review findings
that the proposed changes are in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards
for Rehabilitation."
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Historic Structure Report for 661 Bryant Street, prepared by Cody
Anderson Wasney Architects, July 2009 (HRB Members Only).
Attachment B: Historic Inventory Form for 661 Bryant Street.
Attachment C: Photograph of the Church of San Vitale, Ravenna, built 526-47 AD.
Attachment D: Article on Elmer Grey from Wikipedia (under separate cover).
Attachment E: "Written Project Description," dated August 13,2009, submitted by
ECI Three Bryant, LLC.
Attachment F: Project Plan Set, dated July 17, 2009, sub~itted by Lundberg Design
(HRB Members Only).
Attachment G: Photograph of an Example of Polished Concrete, submitted by the
Applicant (under separate cover).
Attachment H: Secretary's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,
"Accessibili ty" chapter.
Attachment I: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
Attachment J: Article by Collectics Antiques describing Opalescent Glass.
Attachment K: Secretary's Guidelines, "Windows" chapter.
Attachment L:Department of the Interior: "Preserving Historic Church Interiors."
Attachment M: Excerpt from the Floor Area Bonuses ordinance, Municipal Code
Section 18.18.070(d).
PREPARED BY: ~~
Dennis Backlund
Historic Preservation Planner
REVIEWED BY: ~kJ CATHYSIEGL
Advance Planning Manager
661 Bryant Street: Proposed Historic Rehabilitation Plan Page 17 of 17
City of Palo Alto
Historic Resources Inventory Detail
Date: 25-Jan-95
Historic Building Inventory ID: 53
location
status
Historic name: same
Common or current name: First Church of Christ, Scientist
Number & street: 661 Bryant Street
City: Palo Alto
Alternate Address:
Past Address:
Category: 2
Historical District:
ownership Owner: First Church of Christ, Scientist
Address: same
use
City:
Present: Church
Original: Church
Past:
ZIP:
ZIP:
County: Santa Clara
D· National Registry . o State Registry
o public @ private
I
i Attachment B
description This two-story stucco and tile church owes its stylistic origins primarily to Mission Revival Architecture,
according to Dr. Elliot Evans, an authority on Mission Revival architecture. He told a meeting of the Palo
Alto Historical Association that it is the best example of Mission Revival architecture in this area. The
curved facade of the building uses a curved arcade to adapt to its site. The octagonal clerestory is
unexpectedly surmounted by a round cupola. Unusual window shapes adorn the central octagon.
Photo Date: 1978
page 57
Property Size frontage: 150
depth: 105
acreage:
Condition: excellent
Alteration:
Surroundings:
o Open o Scattered Buildings
o Densely Built
Other:
Threats:
~ None Known
o Vandalism
o Private Developmen
Other:
o Residential
~ Commercial
o Industrial
o Public Works
o Zoning
description Architect: Elmer Gray
(cont.) Builder: Frank Graves & Son
Date: 1916
@ factual 0 estimated
Notes:
Features:
o Barn
o Carriage House
OtherFeatures:
o Formal Garden
o Windmill
Exterior Material:
Other Material:
Original Site: original
Theme: architecture
o Outhouse
·0' Shed
o Watertower
~ None
significance The lot was purchased in 1911 for $3500 and in January, 1916, the church members voted to proceed
with building provided the costs "do not exceed $2000." The building was dedicated on March 25, 1917.
In August 1917, Mr. and Mrs. M.A. Harris deeded "the lot of land adjoining our edifice" on Bryant Street to
the church. Since the population of Palo Alto doubled between 1920 and 1930 (up to 13,652), a new
Sunday School wing was added on the Harris property. Mrs. M.R. Higgins offered to build the unit, and
expansion and remodeling were completed February 15, 1930. Mrs. Mary A. Kimball, and
Mrs. A.M. Hague instituted the First Christian Science services at 839 Emerson Street in December
1897. Services continued for over 2 years and on May 15, 1900, an 'organization was formed with
meeting held in a public hall until 1904. (Palo Alto's population at the time was around
1600.) The church represents somewhat unusual combination of
Spanish Colonial Revival stylistiC elements and a very successful corner site design solution. It is an
imposing architectural contributor to the downtown Palo Alto landscape.
sources Annex: P.A. Times 12/2/29, 4118/30; P.A. Historical Assn. file, Churches.
preparation Organization:
By: Lydia Moran
Date: 1978
DB Record Date: 6/16/94
Address: 1037 Greenwood
City: Palo Alto
Phone:
State: CA ZIP: 94301
page 58
I Attachment C
http://upload. wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/San _ Vitale _ Ravenna.jpg 8/23/2009
661 Bryant Street -ARB Minor Project Application
WRITTEN PRO.JECT DESCRIPTION
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
: Attachment E
August 13, 2009
661 Bryant Street is located on the northwest corner of the intersection between Bryant Street
and Forest A venue. The original building was designed by Elmer Grey in the Mission Revival.
Style for the First Church of Christ Scientist as a place of worship and was built in 1916. Most
of the original 1916 building remains intact except for some interior modifications at the
restrooms and auditorium stage where original material has been removed or modified. A
second-story wing along Bryant was added in 1929 along with three one-story wings forming a
central courtyard in the rear of the property. The central courtyard was enclosed during a later
phase in 1947. The structure consists primarily of a wood frame structure with exterior white
stucco walls over wood lath, wood framed windows and doors and a clay tile roof.
The property is zoned CD-P, is listed as a Category 2 "major building" on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory and is a Category 2 Seismic bUilding.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
With this application, ECI Three Bryant LLC ("ECI") requests review and approval of four
separate items that relate to a new project at 661 Bryant including (1) approval of proposed
modifications to the property as described below and as shown on the attached plans, (2)
verification of eligibility to create 2834sf of Historic Preservation Bonus square footage as
allowed under Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.18.070, (3) verification of eligibility to create
2834sf of Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus square footage as allowed under Palo Alto Municipal
Code 18.18.070 and (4) approval of a change of use from a place of worship to office space.
1. ARB Review of Minor Project for Exterior Modifications
ECI requests ARB review of a Minor Project and ARB recommendation to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment to allow the proposed exterior modifications to the
property to make it more suitable for office use. In addition to modifications to the existing
landscape along both Bryant Street and Forest A venue frontages the following improvements are
proposed:
Window Replacement
The fenestration in the original 1916 structure consists primarily of wood sash with opalescent
glass divided by lead caming. Unfortunately, this glazing dramatically obstructs the amount of
natural light available to the space, greatly reducing the potential for day lighting. Consequently,
we are proposing to replace this glass with clear single pane glazing, and where possible, to reuse
the existing caming. In the rest of the building, we are proposing to replace this with double
insulated sash while retaining the existing wooden window mullions. Both of these solutions
will greatly improve the energy efficiency of the fenestration system.
Prepared by the Applicant
ECI Three Bryant, LLC
August 13, 2009
661 Bryant Street -ARB Minor Project Application
Front Patio Redesign
The existing patio design is not original to the building, and is an uninspired result. It fails to
engage the comer visually and essentially blocks pedestrian access from Bryant Street, and of
course it fails to provide handicapped access to the building. In redesigning the patio to address
these issues, we made the decision to consiQer Bryant Street, rather than Forest Street, the
dominant orientation. Since the long dimension of the patio runs along Bryant, it presents an
opportunity to address both "front" doors from a pleasant outdoor space, and to engage Bryant
Street visually as well as physically. As much as possible we are proposing to reuse the old
brick to pave the patio in order to link the old and new patio surfaces into one composition. The
site walls, which delineate the ramp and planters, are however made of polished concrete, similar
in color to the building, but simpler in detail compared to brick retaining walls, which were never
part of the original patio design. While the concrete could be painted to match the building, we
are proposing to leave them natural polished concrete, which will have more of a masonry feel
while providing a subtle but effective contrast between old and new.
2. Bonus Square Footage for Historic Preservation
ECI requests verification of Historic Preservation floor area bonus square footage potentially
available on the property in accordance with PAMC 18.18.070.
Over the past few months, ECI has had informal conversations with members of the City of Palo
Alto Planning Department to discuss ECl's proposed modifications with particular focus on
historic preservation. During these conversations some staff members have expressed some
concern about removal and replacement of existing windows located on the exterior of the
building.
Currently the building is classified as a Category II historic structure in the City of Palo Alto.
ECI believes the proposed design meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. In particular, Standard Number One states that "A property shall be used for its
historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining
characteristics of the building and its site and environment." ECI is proposing a new use for the
property with minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
In 2009, ECI engaged Cody Anderson Wasney Architects (CAW) to identify historically
significant characteristics of the property and produce a Historic Structures Report (HSR) as a
guide for future improvements. Whereas, CAW categorized the window style as "Very
Significant" they did not categorize the opalescent glass as "Very Significant."
2
August 13, 2009
661 Bryant Street -ARB Minor Project Application
Based on recommendations provided in the HSR, ECl proposes replacement of opalescent and
other obscure glass found on the building exterior with clear glass. Additionally, ECl proposes
reuse of window leading, wood sashes and window frames for as many of the original 1916
windows as possible.
ECl hopes the proposed exterior modifications to the front patio as well as the proposed
preservation of the "Very Significant" elements of the original 1916 era windows addresses the
concerns of city staff. ECl requests verification of eligibility for creation of floor area bonus
square footage based on these proposed modifications.
3. Bonus Square Footage for Seismic Rehabilitation
ECl requests verification of eligibility of Seismic Rehabilitation floor area bonus square footage
potentially available on the property in accordance with PAMC 18.18.070.
As described in correspondence from the City of Palo Alto to James Baer, city records show that
the property is listed as a Category II Seismic structure (See attached).
In 1991, the prior owners of the property completed seismic rehabilitation work in order to
comply with City of Palo Alto requirements for bringing structures built before 1935 up to 1973
UBC. Based on correspondence from Structural Engineering Firm Rinne and Peterson to the
Prior Owner, the seismic retrofit work was an improvement to the safety conditions of the
building however the rehabilitation work did not bring the building up to 1973 UBC. ECl
intends to complete necessary seismic rehabilitation work to bring the building up to 1973 UBC
and then secure seismic rehabilitation bonus square footage available to the building.
4. Change of Use from a Place of Worship to an Office Use
ECl intends to change the use of the building from a place of worship to office space. When ECl
purchased this property in 2008, the goal was to identify a reuse opportunity that would allow for
preservation of the historic fabric of the building. ECl believes the intended reuse as office
space is an ideal fit for this property. Furthermore, the proposed modifications are intended to be
respectful of the historic nature of the building and to preserve the defining characteristics of the
existing building.
PROPOSED USES OF BONUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
With this project, ECl proposes addition of a mezzanine structure inside the main auditorium
space of the building. ECl proposes to use 949sf of the bonu~ square footage on site for this
mezzanine. ECl proposes conversion of the remaining 4,719sfinto Transferrable Development
Rights (TDR's) for resale or use at a later date.
3
August 13, 2009
661 Bryant Street -ARB Minor Project Application
The maximum FAR on this property is 1.0 to 1. Existing gross square footage of the property
equals 16,869sf and existing usable square footage of the building equals 11,336sf. Accordingly,
the unused amount of existing square footage equals 5,533sf.
Based on correspondence between the City of Palo Alto and James Baer of Premier Properties
Management in early 2008 as well as conversations between Daniel Garber, Curtis Williams and
other City Staff we understand that the property is eligible for both Historic and Seismic bonus
and could increase its floor area by 50% of the existing building or 5,000sf, whichever is greater
(18.18.070 (a) (4)). In the case of our property, we request 50% of the existing 11, 336sf or
5,668sf of bonus square footage. This would be evenly split between Historic Preservation
Bonus square footage and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus square footage of 2,834sf each.
We understand that the City Council must approve the on-site use of this bonus (18.18.070 (b)
(8) (A)). And that for the Council to make this approval, the following finding must be nlade:
the exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the US Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings «(18.18.070
(b) (8) (A) (i)); and The on-site issue of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be inconsistent with
the historic character of the interior and exterior of the building and site «(18.18.070 (b) (8) (A)
(ii) ).
We also understand that, assuming that the City Council approves the use of the bonus square
footage, the bonus square footage is exempted from the parking requirements (1 car for every
250sf) that would otherwise be required for normal non-bonus area «(18.18.090 (b) (1) (B)).
Furthermore, based on both the review of the City Zoning and our discussions with City Staff,
we understand that the Seismic and Historic bonus area can be utilized before utilizing existing
unused square footage and thus avoid having to provide additional parking on the site -or
purchasing in-lieu parking from the City.
This unused bonus area and exempt parking rights could then be used in whole or in part on site
or transferred to other to other properties so long as it is transferred within the City's CD district
subject to the City's requirements outlined in the Zoning Code (Transfer of Development Rights
(18.18.080 (a) and (18.18.070) (c)).
4
August 13, 2009
661 Bryant Street -ARB Minor Project Application
5. Historic Rehabilitation Plan
The rehabilitation efforts· of the building shall be consistent with the preservation of the character
of the property. The intended rehabilitation efforts include the following work:
Exterior
1. Windows with Opalescent Glass Located in the "Lantern": Restore lantern windows that
have been damaged. Remove mechanical louvers and replace with windows that are
consistent with the original windows where possible.
2. Octagonal Windows with Opalescent Glass Located in the Main Auditorium Remove the
protective plastic covers from octagonal windows. Repair damaged windows and
rehabilitate to ensure windows do not leak.
3. Exterior Original Light Fixtures
Replace opalescent glass in original exterior light fixtures where fixtures are to be
retained.
4. Leaks: Inspect the building for leaks in the roof, ceilings and windows. Repair all water
damage as well as weak areas where there is potential for new water damage. Inspect
water damage in Reader's Room, entry hall, and Board Room. Make repairs as necessary.
5. Roof: Inspect roof for any damage by biological growth, particularly at flat roof. Clean
and repair as necessary. Any repairs to the red clay tile roof should match existing roof
tiles on the building.
6. Chimney: Cap and flash chimney above Reader's Room.
7. Walls: Evaluate exterior pebble dash textured stucco for damage. Repair historic pebble
dash textured stucco wherever damage is identified.
Interior
8. Pest Inspection: Conduct pest inspection, produce report and complete required repairs
during the building rehabilitation work.
9. Seismic: Perform seismic upgrades as recommended by a Structural Engineer to bring
the building up to 1973 UBC standards as required in order to receive seismic
rehabilitation bonus square footage for this property. The specific seismic upgrades have
not yet been identified.
10. Electrical: Inspect existing electrical system of the bUilding. Rehabilitate or replace
existing wiring as deemed necessary to meet required code. Further details to follow.
5
August 13, 2009
661 Bryant Street -ARB Minor Project Application
11. Plumbing: Inspect existing plumbing system of the building. Rehabilitate or replace
existing plumbing as deemed necessary to meet required code. Further details to follow.
12. HVAC: Inspect existing HVAC system of the building. Rehabilitate or replace existing
HVAC as deemed necessary to meet required code. Further details to follow.
13. Operable Windows: Inspect operable windows. For windows where opalescent glass is
to remain, repair and rehabilitate windows to original condition. For windows where
existing glass is being replaced with clear low-e glass, repair and rehabilitate existing
frames and mullions.
14. Wood Floors: Remove carpet and inspect wood floors. If flooring is found to be original
then reuse wood floor material where possible.
15. Basement: Inspect cracked concrete in basement. Repair as necessary.
6
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R ...
Iechnical Pre..serv
Maon" Wood
L4ItaJI
RoofI
WIndoWs
EntrIncalPon:bH
Storefrontl
S1ructural SysteM
SpaClll1_mlFinllhn
MechanlCiI SysIImI
Site
SItting
Energy
New AdcIliona
AccNtIbIlIty
HeallhlSlfety
It is often necessary to
make modifications to a
historic building so that it
will be in compliance with
current accessibility code
requirements.
Accessibility to certain
historic structures is
required by three specific
federal laws: the
Architectural Barriers Act of
1968, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Attractive plantings and fencing that minimize visibility of access ramp to large-scale historic building.
and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. Federal rules, regulations, and standards have been
developed which provide guidance on how to accomplish access in historic
areas for people with disabilities. Work must be carefully planned and
undertaken so it does not result in the loss of character-defining spaces,
features, and finishes. The goal is to provide the highest level of access with
the lowest level of impact.
Note: Although the work in this section is quite often an important aspect of
rehabilitation projects, it is usually not part of the overall proc~ss of preserving
character-defining features (identify, protect, repair, replace); irather, such work
is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's historic character.
For this reason, particular care must be taken not to obscure, radically change,
damage, or destroy character-defining features in the process of rehabilitation
work to meet accessibility requirements.
Considerations •... Accessibility
Identify, retain and preserve
recommended..... ---~-
Identifying the historic building's
character defining spaces, features, and
finishes so that accessibility code
required work will not result in their
damage or loss.
Complying with
barrier-free access
requirements, in
such a manner
that character
defining spaces,
features, and
finishes are
preserved. Compatible lift for historic foyer using
"like" materials.
Attachment H
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/access01.htm 8/13/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 2 of 2
Working with local disability groups, access
specialists, and historic preservation specialists to
determine the most appropriate solution to access
problems.
Providing barrier-free
access that promotes
independence for the
disabled person to the
highest degree
practicable, while
preserving significant
historic features.
Designing new or rehold made accessible with 1/2" additional means of
wood bevel. access that are
compatible with the
historic building and its setting.
Entrance made accessible by
adding inconspicuous ramp.
not recommended ..... ----------....... -------------,,·""··,m""
Undertaking code-required alteration before identifying those spaces, features,
or finishes which are character-defining and must therefore be preserved.
Altering, damaging, or destroying character-defining features in attempting to
comply with accessibility requirements.
Large wood ramp incompatible with
building's historic character.
•
Making changes to buildings without first
seeking expert advice from access
specialists and historic preservationists, to
determine solutions.
Making access modifications that do not
provide a reasonable balance between
independent, safe access and preservation
of historic features.
Designing new or additional means of
access without considering the impact on
the historic property and its setting.
I •
Home I Next I Previous
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/accessOl.htm 8113/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R.··I Attachment I
MaIonry
Wood
Metala
Roofl
Wlndcrwl
EntnIncalPorcbea
Stortfronll
Struc:tunI Systems
SpacalFeaturtelFinll ....
Site
SIttIng
Energy
leal SyItIms
New AckIIiDna
Acctstiblltty
HeatthlSafety
Credits
"Rehabilitation" is
defined as "the
process of
returning a property
to a state of utility,
through repair or
alteration, which
makes possible an
ef'ficient
contemporary use
while preserving
those portions and
featu res of the
property which are
significant to its
historic,
architectural, and
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation
Introduction to the Standards
The Secretary of the Interior is
responsible for establishing standards
for all programs under Departmental
authority and for advising Federal
agencies on the preservation of
historic properties listed in or eligible
for listing in·the National Register of
Historic Places,
The Standards for Rehabilitation
(codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the
Federal Historic Preservation Tax
Incentives program) address the most
prevalent treatment. "Rehabilitation" is
defined as "the process of returning a
property to a state of utility, through
repair or alteration, which makes
possible an efficient contemporary use
while preserving those portions and
features of the property which are
significant to its historic, architectural,
and cultural values,"
Initially developed by the Secretary of the Interior to determine the
appropriateness of proposed project work on registered properties within the
Historic Preservation Fund grant-in-aid program, the Standards for
Rehabilitation have been widely used over the years--particularly to
determine if a rehabilitation qualifies as a Certified Rehabilitation for Federal
tax purposes, In addition, the Standards have guided Federal agencies in
carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities for properties in Federal
ownership or control; and State and local officials in reviewing both Federal
and nonfederal rehabilitation proposals. They have also been adopted by
historic district and planning commissions across the country.
The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a
property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and
features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials,
construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and
interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and
the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related
new construction. To be certified for Federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation
project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic
character of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is
located.
As stated in the definition, the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least
some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/stand.htm 8113/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 2 of 3
cultural values. II
The Standards are
to be applied to
specific
reha bilitation
projects ina
reasonable
manner, taking
into consideration
economic and
technical
provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and
alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are
important in defining the building's historic character. For example, certain
treatments--if improperly applied--may cause or accelerate physical
deterioration of the ~Iistoric building. This can include using improper repointing
or exterior masonry cleaning techniques, or introducing insulation that
damages historic fabric. In almost all of these situations, use of these materials
and treatments will result in a project that does not meet the Standards.
Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of
the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the
structure will fail to meet the Standards.
The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation
The Standards (Department of Interior
regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to historic
buildings of all materials, construction types,
sizes, and occupancy and encompass the
exterior and the interior, related landscape
features and the building's site and environment
as well as attached, adjacent, or related new
construction. The Standards are to be applied to
specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable
manner, taking into consideration economic and
technical feasibility.
1. A property shall be used for its historic
purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the
defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.
The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces
that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,
place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural
elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired
historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be
preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive
feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and
other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or
pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause
damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of
structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible .
. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/stand.htm 8113/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 3 of3
feasibility. 8. Significant archeological res~urces affected by a project shall be
protected a'nd preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated 'from the old and shaJi be compatible with the
massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
• I • Home I Next I Previous
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/taxirhb/stand.htrn 8/1312009
Opalescent Glass Reference Information and History @ Collectics Antiques & Collectibles
Attachment J
\ SrAffor11ools
Books For Collectors
OPALESCENT GLASS INFORMATION & HISTORY Collectics Customer
Appreciation Sale
Coupon: Save 10% On
Entire Order!
Opalescent glass is a generalized term for clear and semi-opaque pressed glass, cloudy, marbled, and sometimes accented with subtle coloring
all combining to form a milky opalescence in the glass. While Rene Laligue may be recognized by most as the pinnacle of opalescent
glassmaking, stained glass first evolved in the late 1800's and early 1900's during the Art Nouveau period when American glassmakers
transformed European stained glass used in cathedrals into the translucent milky glass we now refer to as opalescent. John LaFarge and Louis
Comfort Tiffany were two American artists who first experimented with opalescent effects, driven by their desire to use glass in creating beautiful
visual scenes in art without painting. Opalescent glass was first developed and patented by John Lafarge in 1879, but it was Tiffany who created
the masterworks in glass for which he is still so well known today. Tiffany created totally new colors in glass, new types of glass unparalleled in
depth and coloration, and used glass in new forms that evoked the forms of nature.
The opalescent effect is a glassmaking technique used by many manufacturers to greater or lesser degrees of artistry, produced in the cooling
process which creates the milky opalescent effect which illuminates any coloration when light shines on it. Sometimes the opalescent effect was
created along the edge of a piece, often coupled with wavy effects and making for an elegant yet subtle look. This opalescence is also created in
the glassmaking by alternating heating and cooling of the glass and with the addition of chemical additives to create the desired effect. Many U.S.
manufacturers made this type of opalescent glass, most notably Fenton, Northwood, Hobbs, and American Glass, while Davidson's was the
major European manufacturer based in the U.K. and giving their wares the marketing name of Pearline. There is also a type of opalescent glass
which is made in layers, and again the heating and re-heating process is used to create the opalescent effect with the addition of chemical
agents. The degree and location of the opalescence is controlled as such by the glassmaking process, and by the thickness of the glass itself as
it forms itself in the molds.
Given the intricacy of some of the designs, the production of the metal molds in sufficient detail was an important part of the process. Many of the
molds for French opalescent glass of the Art Deco period were done by Franckhauser, who did work for Sabino and other contemporaries of
Lalique. Most of the finer glass of this period was done by the French, but the English firm of James J. Jobling also created some innovative
designs after having earlier sought to sign distribution deals with some of the major French factories. Today, few glassmakers still make
opalescent glass primarily due to the toxicity of the chemicals needed to execute the complex glassmaking process.
http://www.collectics.com/education_opal~scent.html 8/13/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... I"
Attachment K
Technical preserv
StanArd
Guide Res
Maaonry
Wood
Metall
oofI
Wlhdows
Entranc:nlPon::Ml
Storefronts
S1ructu1'll Syatemt
SpaClllFwturttIFin hts
lAtch teal Syatlma
te
SeIlIng
Energy
New AdcIliona
AcceaibUIty
H8I1tbtSaf1ty
Windows
Technology and prevailing
architectural styles have
shaped the history of windows
in the United States starting in
the 17th century with wooden
casement windows with tiny
glass panes seated in lead
carnes. From the transitional
single-hung sash in the early
1700s to the true double-hung
sash later in the same century,
these early wooden windows
were characterized by the small panes, wide muntins, and the way in
which decorative trim was used on both the exterior and interior of the
window.
As the sash thickness increased by the turn of the century, muntins took on a
thinner appearance as they narrowed in width but increased in thickness
according to the size of the window and design practices. Regional traditions
continued to have an impact on the prevailing window design such as with the
long-term use of "french windows" in areas of the deep South.
Changes in technology led to the possibility
of larger glass panes so that by the mid-19th
century, two-over-two lights were common;
the manufacturing of plate glass in the United
States allowed for dramatic use of large
sheets of glass in commercial and office
buildings by the late 19th century. With
mass-produced windows, mail order
distribution, and changing architectural
styles, it was possible to obtain a wide range
of window designs and light patterns in sash.
Delicate muntins and multi-pane sash Popular versions of Arts and Crafts houses on early 19th c. row houses.
constructed in the early 20th century
frequently utilized smaller lights in the upper
sash set in groups or pairs and saw the re-emergence of casementwindows. In
the early 20th century, the desire for fireproof building construction in dense
urban areas contributed to the growth of a thriving steel window industry along
with a market for hollow metal and metal clad wooden windows
As one of the few parts of a building serving as both an interior and exterior
feature, windows are nearly always an important part of the historic character of
a building. In most buildings, windows also comprise a considerable amount of
the historic fabric of the wall plane and thus are deserving of special
consideration in a rehabilitation project.
•.•• Identify, retain, and preserve
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/windows01.htm 8/13/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 2 of 6
recommended ..... ----
Identifying, retaining, and
preserving windows--and their
functional and decorative
features--that are important in
defining the overall historic
character of the building.
Such features can include
frames, sash, muntins,
glazing, sills, heads,
hood molds, panelled or
decorated jambs and
moldings, and interior and
exterior shutters and blinds.
Conducting an indepth survey of the conditions of existing windows early
in rehabilitation planning so that repair and upgrading methods and
possible replacement options can be fully explored.
not recommended ..... --------------------
Windows
Removing or radically changing windows which are important in defining the
historic character ofthe building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.
Changing the number, location, size or glazing pattern of windows, through
cutting new openings, blocking-in windows, and installing replacement sash that
do not fit the historic window opening.
Changing the historic appearance of windows through the use of inappropriate
designs, materials, finishes, or colors which noticeably change the sash, depth
of reveal, and muntin configuration; the reflectivity and color of the glazing; or
the appearance of the frame.
Obscuring historic window trim with metal or other material.
Stripping windows of historic material such as wood, cast iron, and bronze.
Replacing windows solely because of peeling paint, broken glass, stuck sash,
and high air infiltration. These conditions, in themselves, are no indication that
windows are beyond repair.
.••• Protect and Maintain
recommended ..... ~<<<'<< •. "<<.".'.".'''''''''"<''<''0'0>~'.' .•.. '''< ..... ' .•...•. "." .......•. , .... ,.".,., ....... .
Protecting and maintaining the wood and
architectural metal which comprise the
window frame, sash, muntins, and
surrounds through appropriate surface
treatments such as cleaning, rust
removal, limited paint removal, and re
application of protective coating
systems.
Making windows weathertight by re
caulking and replacing or installing
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/windows01.htm 8/13/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 3 of 6
weatherstripping. These actions also
improve thermal efficiency.
Evaluating the overall condition of
materials to determine whether more than
protection and maintenance are required,
i.e. if repairs to windows and window
features will be required.
not recom mended..... _/M_U ..... ;.»;·;v;_*lOI--.:.:«-:«o}l')!'/.'-.';O:'},:-:·,.,.:·:<:.:·,:·:.,.:-:·:-,"'<·:""·,.,·:.,.,z·
Windows
Failing to provide adequate protection of materials on a cyclical basis so that
deterioration of the window results.
Retrofitting or replacing windows rather than maintaining the sash, frame, and
glazing.
Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the protection of historic
windows.
•... Repair
recommended ..... ,
Repairing window frames and sash by patching, splicing, consolidating or
otherwise reinforcing.
Such repair may also
include replacement in kind
-or with compatible
substitute material--of those
parts that are either
extensively deteriorated or
are missing when there are
surviving prototypes such
as architraves, hoodmolds,
sash, sills, and interior or
exterior shutters and blinds.
not recom mended..... _Q~W~X""'"«<"""'~Y~"">'~,):N<'»"':~':<""·,:~·:··<··,·
Replacing an entire window when repair of materials and limited replacement of
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/windowsOI.htm 8/13/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 4 of 6
Windows
deteriorated or missing parts are appropriate.
Failing to reuse serviceable window hardware such as brass sash lifts and sash
locks.
Using substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the
visual appearance of the surviving partsof the window or that is physically or
chemically incompatible.
•••• Replace
recommended ..... ---
Replacing in kind an entire
window that is too
deteriorated to repair using
the same sash and pane
configuration and other
design details. If using the
same kind of material is not
technically or economically
feasible when replacing
windows deteriorated beyond
repair, then a compatible
substitute material may be
considered. Deteriorated lower window sash s
replacement in kind.
For example, on certain types of large
buildings, particularly high-rises, aluminum
windows may be a suitable replacement
for historic wooden sash provided wooden
replacement are not practical and the
design detail of the historic windows can
be matched.
Historic color duplication, custom contour
panning, incorporation of either an integral
muntin or 5/8" deep trapezoidal exterior Lower ndow sash replaced, based on
physical documentation. muntin grids, where applicable, retention
of the same glass to frame ratio, matching
of the historic reveal, and duplication of the frame width, depth, and such
existing decorative details as arched tops should all be components in
aluminum replacements for use on historic buildings.
not recommended..... <WH/HH~~~·;·;·»~;0_··-··-·····
Removing-a character-defining window that is unrepairable and blocking it in; or
replacing it with a new window that does not convey the same visual
appearance.
Design for Missing Historic Features
The following work is highlighted to indicate that it represents the particularly
complex technical or design aspects of rehabilitation projects and should only
be considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been
addressed.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/windowsOl.htm 8/13/2009
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 5 of 6
recommended ..... -
Designing and installing new windows when the historic windows
(frames, sash and glazing) are completely missing. The replacement
windows may be an accurate restoration using historical, pictorial, and
physical documentation; or be a new design that is compatible with the
window openings and the historic character of the building.
not recommended ..... ---------------------
recommended .....
Creating a false historical appearance because the replaced window is based
on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical documentation.
Introducing a new design that is incompatible with the historic character of the
building.
Alterations/Additions for the New Use
The following work is highlighted to indicate that it represents the particularly
complex technical or design aspects of rehabilitation projects and should only
be considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been
addressed.
Designing and installing additional windows on rear or other-non
character-defining elevations if required by the new use. New window
openings may also be cut into exposed party walls. Such design should
be compatible with the overall design of the building, but not duplicate the
fenestration pattern and detailing of a character-defining elevation.
Providing a setback in the design of dropped ceilings when they are
required for the new use to allow for the full height of the window
openings.
not recommended ..... --------------------~
ncompatible new window (lower right),
resulting in loss of the building's historic
character.
•
Installing new windows, including
frames, sash, and muntin configuration
that are incompatible with the building's
historic appearance or obscure,
damage, or destroy character-defining
features.
Inserting new floors or furred-down
ceilings which cut across the glazed
areas of windows so that the exterior
form and appearance of the windows
are changed.
I •
Home I Next I Previous
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/TPS/tax/rhb/windowsOI.htm 8/13/2009
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
National Center for Cultural Resources
Attachment L
----------------------------------------------------------~----ITS Interpreting
NUMBER 6 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
Subject: Preserving Historic Church Interiors
Applicable Standards: 1. Compatible Use
2. Retention of Historic Character
5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes and Craftsmanship
10. Reversibility of New Additions/Alterations
Issue: The appropriate rehabilitation of a historic structure must always preserve
significant interior spaces, features and finishes. Large, multi -story interior spaces are
often found in theaters, school auditoriums and gymnasiums, meeting halls, and
religious buildings. These spaces characterize such building types and should be
preserved in rehabilitation projects.
Redundant churches have often been rehabilitated for other uses, some more success
fully than others. In historic churches, architectural features such as stained glass
windows, choir lofts, altars, and large open spaces are important in defining the
historic character of the building. Libraries, museums and historical societies, per
forming arts centers, community centers, and artists' studios are often appropriately
selected as new uses for historic churches, as there is no need to introduce major
architectural changes into the sanctuary space. However, the conversion of churches
into apartments, shops or offices may not be as successful since these new uses are
likely to require too many changes that are not compatible with the historic character
of these interiors. Alterations which compromise or destroy these spaces or which
cause the removal of distinctive architectural features and finishes, or which subdi
vide these two-story spaces and that result in compromising the integrity of these
significant spaces, will not meet Standards 2 and 5, and, in some cases, also will not
meet Standards 1 and 10.
Application I (Incompatible treatment): A simple Gothic Revival church con
structed in 1858 was rehabilitated for combined office and residential apartment use.
The interior still possessed a high degree of integrity before its rehabilitation with its
tray ceiling, twelve large stained glass windows, choir loft, and the large, two-story
space of the sanctuary itself. Dur
ingthe rehabilitation the choir loft
was demolished, and the construc
tion of a full second floor resulted
in bisecting the two-story interior
space horizontally. The combina
tion of these treatments resulted in
a loss of interior features and loss
of the interior space itself in this
historic church building. Insert
ing the new floor level removed
the choir loft and, most impor
tantly, resulted in the loss of the
J 858 Gothic Revival church building prior
to rehabilitation.
Sanctuary with choir loft prior
to rehabilitation
Sanctuary after rehabilitation
with new floor and newly
divided windows.
SIGNIFICANT SPACES
historic spatial volume so characteristic of church building interiors. The new second floor also negatively impacted the tall
Gothic-arched windows by cutting across them, effectively reproportioning them and reducing their appearance to smaller
segments. This rehabilitation, because it did not preserve the integrity and historic character of the church interior, did not meet
Standards I, 2,5 and 10. Although this particular rehabilitation was not successful, some subdivision may have been possible if a
sense of the historic interior space and volume had been preserved, as was achieved in the second example.
Application 2 (Compatible treatment): In another example, a small, two
story, rectangular Shingle-style church, built in the late-19th century, was
rehabilitated into a single-family dwelling. Prior to rehabilitation, the inte
rior historic finishes still remained intact, as did the sanctuary space itselflit
by original clear glass casement windows. As part of the rehabiHtation,
approximately a third of the first floor sanctuary space was partitioned off
at the rear and modified for use as two bedrooms. The remaining two
third& of the sanctuary was retained intact as the living room, and the apse
became the dining area. The corner rooms (the cloakroom, vestry and rear
entry vestibule) were kept in their historic configuration and converted
into a bathroom, kitchen and mudroom, respectively. To permit more light
into the interior, plaster panels at the back of the apse were removed and
replaced with clear, single-paned glass windows. The existing stairway
provided access to the choir loft which was converted into a master bed
room and bath with only a minimal amount of alteration, even allowing Shingle-Style church.
retention of the historic church organ. This rehabilitation successfully North and east elevations after rehabilitation.
preserved the primary, character defining features, finishes and spaces of
this historic church interior.
Sanctuary and apse before rehabilitation.
Before rehabilitationfirstfloor plan with reflected line of
balcony.
Sanctuary after rehabilitation. View toward kitchen and dining area
from living space.
Firstfloor plan after rehabilitation.
Adapted from ITS by Mary Grzeskowiak, Mid-Atlantic Region, and Camille M. Martone, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service
These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case.
JULY 1999, ITS Number 6
EXCERPT Attachment M
(d) Procedure for Granting of Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in subsection (a)(1),
shall be granted in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) An application for such floor area bonus(es) must be filed with the director ofplannihg and
community environment in the form prescribed by the director, stating the amount of such bonus(es)
applied for, the basis therefor under this section, and the extent to which such bonus(es) are proposed to
be used on-site and/or for transfer. An application for floor area bonus for rehabilitation of a Category 1
or 2 historic building shall include a historic structure report, prepared by a qualified expert, retained by
the city, at the applicant's expense, in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the California
State Office of Historic Preservation. It shall also include a plan for rehabilitation; if any part of the
existing building is proposed to be removed or replaced, the historic rehabilitation project plans
submitted for review shall clearly show and identify any and all material proposed for removal or
replacement.
(2) The city may retain an expert in historic rehabilitation or preservation, at the applicant's
expense, to provide the city with an independent evaluation of the project's conformity with the
Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation Historic
Buildings. "
(3) The historic resources board shall review the historic structure report, the historic
rehabilitation project plans, and, if required, the expert independent evaluation of the project, and make
a recommendation to the director of planning and community environment on the project's conformity
with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation
Historic Buildings."
(4) Upon completion of such an application, written determination of the sender site's eligibility
for bonus(es) shall be issued by the director of planning and community environment or the director's
designee, based upon the following:
(A) In the case of a floor area bonus for seismic rehabilitation, the chief building official has
made a determination that the project complies with or exceeds the analysis standards referenced in
Chapter 16.42 of this code;
(B) In the case of the floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of a building in Historic
Category 1 or 2, the director, taking into consideration the recommendations of the historic resources
board, has found that the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR §67,7); and
(C) In the case of a bonus for both seismic and historic rehabilitation that is proposed to be
use on-site, the city council has made the findings set forth in subsection (b )(8) of this section.
(e) Certification of FAR Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in subsection (a)(1),
may be used on the site of the proposed seismic and/or historic rehabilitation project and a building
permit issued therefor only upon satisfaction of all the requirements in subsection (d) above. Upon
determining that the project has been completed as approved, or in the case of city-owned buildings
upon completion of all of the requirements of ChJlQterJ~8.28, the director or director's designee shall
http://www.amlegal.comlnxt/gateway.dll/Califomia/paloalto_ca/title18zoning*/chapter181 ... 8/17/2009
Page 2 of2
issue a written certification which shall state the total floor area bonus utilized at the site (in the case of
buildings in the CD-Commercial Downtown District), and the amount (if any) of remaining floor area
bonus which is eligible for transfer to another site pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The
certification shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder and a copy shall be provided to the
applicant.
As a condition precedent to being credited with a historic rehabilitation floor area bonus whether for
use on-site or for transfer, the owner of the site shall enter into an unsubordinated protective covenant
running with the land in favor of the city (or, if the city is the owner, in favor of a qualified and
disinterested third party if the property is to be rehabilitated after the sale of the transfer of development
rights), in a foml satisfactory to the city attorney, to assure that the property will be rehabilitated and
maintained in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings, together with the accompanying interpretive Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings, as they may be amended from time to time. For city owned buildings subject to a long term
lease of ten or more years where the rehabilitation work is to be performed by the lessee, this protective
covenant shall be in favor of the city.
(Ord. 5038 § 1,2009: Ord. 4964 § 15,2007: Ord. 4923 § 4 (part), 2006)
http://www.amlegal.comlnxt/gateway.dll/Califomia/paloalto_ca/titlel8zoning*/chapterI81 ... 8/17/2009
Historic Resources Board
Meeting of September 2, 2009
Item # 1
661 Bryant Street
Biography of Elmer Grey
From Wikipedia
Prepared by Staff
Attachment D
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elmer Grey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elmer Grey, FAIA[I] (April 29, 1872-
Noverrlber 14, 1963) was an American
architect and artist based in Pasadena,
California. Grey designed many noted
landmarks in Southern California, including
the Beverly Hills Hotel, the Huntington Art
Gallery, the Pasadena Playhouse and Wattles
Mansion. He is credited with being one of
the pioneers in the development of the new
American architecture in the early 20th
century, with a focus on hannony with
nature and eliminating features not
belonging to the local climate and
conditions. Grey was also a noted artist
whose paintings are in the perinanent
collection of the Chicago Art Institute.
Contents
• 1 Architectural career
• 1.1 Career in the Midwest
• 1.2 Health problems
• 1.3 Partnership with Myron
Hunt
• 1.4 Association with the Arts
and Crafts movement
• 1.5 Later career
• 2 Artist and author
• 3 Grey's architectural works
• 3.1 To 1906
• 3.2 1907
• 3.3 1908-1910
• 3.4 1911-1920
• 3.5 1921 on
• 4 References
• 5 Further reading
Architectural career
Career in the Midwest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Grey
Name
Nationality
Birth date
Birth place
Date of death
Place of death
Elmer Grey
~t~.···~L.\f.&n·'ORf1\f.
Personal information
Elmer Grey
American
April 29, 1872
Chicago, Illinois
Page 1 of9
November 14, 1963 (aged 91)
Pasadena, California
Work
Significant buildings Beverly Hills Hotel
Huntington Art Gallery
Pasadena Playhouse
Wattles Mansion
Grey was born in Chicago and
educated in the Milwaukee public
8/13/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of9
Henry Huntington House in San Marino, designed by Hunt and Grey
schools. He did not attend college
and worked for the Milwaukee
architectural firm of Ferry & Clas
from 1887-1899.[2][3] In 1890, the
18-year-old Grey won first prize in a
conlpetition for the design of a water
tower and pumping station
sponsored by a New York
architectural publicaion.[3] While at Ferry & Clas, he assisted in the design of the Milwaukee Central
Library and the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison, Wisconsin. [3] When Grey went into practice
on his own, he first attracted attention for his design of a summer honle he built for himself on a bluff
overlooking Lake Michigan at Fox Point, WisconsinJ4] Grey's Fox Point house was a great hit, being
published widely in magazines and leading to Grey's elevation to Fellow of the American Institute of
Archi tects. [4]
Health problems
Another major commission during his years in Wisconsin was the Christian Science church in
Milwaukee. It was shortly after those plans were finished that Grey later recalled that "my health broke
down completely.,,[4] Grey wrote that his health problems had more to do with "nerves" rather than
anything purely physicalJ4] Grey abandoned his Milwaukee practice and traveled to Florida,
Philadelphia and then to Las Vegas, seeking to regain his health. He took up work on a ranch, hoping
the hard work would build his strength. He eventually moved to California, spending time swimming,
rowing, playing tennis and fishing on Catalina Island. When he read of a job working on a Hollywood
citrus ranch for $25 a month plus board, he took the positionJ4]
Partnership with Myron Hunt
Throop College, as
featured in The
Architectural Record
In 1904, Grey became friends with a fellow Midwestern architect, Myron
Hunt.[l] The two rode horses together on Sunday mornings in Pasadena and
formed a partnership in that city as Hunt and Grey. Grey later wrote that he
began by working only a short time each day "until my nerves got in better
shape.,,[4] Grey's health again failed during the early years of his partnership
with Hunt, and he took a long trip to the South Sea IslandsJ4] Yet, it was
during his partnership with Hunt that Grey produced some of his finest work.
The two designed fine residences for the wealthy of Pasadena and also
worked on larger projects, including schools, churches and hotels. In 1905,
The Architectural Record published articles on both Grey and Hunt, noting:
"Both Mr. Hunt and Mr. Grey stand for the attempt to naturalize in this
country the best traditions of European architecture. Mr. Grey, for instance,
believes that a very genuine American style is in the process of making; but
that as yet it is only in its infancy.,,[3]
From 1907-1908, Hunt & Grey designed a Beaux Arts mansion for railroad
and finance magnate, Henry Huntington, in San Marino. The mansion, built
with reinforced concrete, tile walls and a slab roof, was not completed until
1911 J5] In his book, "Houses of Los Angeles," Sam Watters wrote that the Huntington structure was
"unique in Los Angeles for the anlbition of its house.,,[5] While a French influence was requested by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilElmer_Grey 8/13/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of9
Mrs. Huntington, Hunt & Grey also added elements of a new California architecture py including a red
tile roof, unornamented plaster walls, and sage green window trim.[5] The Huntington mansion was later
converted into the main art gallery of the cultural center built around the Huntington Library.
Hunt & Grey's larger commissions included work for Throop Institute in Pasadena, the school which
would soon become California Institute of Technology. In 1911, they began plans for the new campus of
Occidental College in the Eagle Rock district of Los Angeles. They also designed a dormitory and other
structures for Claremont College and a master expansion plan for Pomona College.[6]
Association with the Arts and Crafts movement
In 1906, Hunt & Grey designed a home for Dr. Guy Cochran near
Downtown Los Angeles that Gustav Stickley's The Craftsman
magazine dubbed the "very best" of their work, with enormous
windows "looking out upon the terrace and garden, giv[ing] such a
sense of relationship between the two that there is almost no feeling
of being enclosed within walls." [7] The Craftsman referred to Hunt
& Grey as "pioneers in the development of the new American
architecture," which was "but a series of individual plans adapted to
the climatic conditions and to the needs of daily living" and in
harmony "with the natural environment and contour of the
landscape.,,[7] The house reflected Grey's vision of California
bungalow architecture, which he described in 1907 as follows:
Hunt & Grey's design of Cochran
House was praised by Gustav
Stickley's The Craftsman
"The best California bungalow schemes involve a garden or large outdoor living space, incorporated as
an integral part of the plan. By this we mean that the main rooms of the house are arranged to face this
out-of-door living space ... It was once considered absurd to plan a house with the kitchen toward the
street, but now not so in California ... the street side of [a man's] domicile is merely the side through
which he enters. ,,[7]
In 1910, as the American Craftsman movement was in full bloom in Southern California, Grey wrote
that California architecture was distinctive because local architects were simply trying to be "natural" -
not so much "because our architects have striven to be unique in their designing as because they have
tried to eliminate features not belonging to this climate and to local conditions." [8] Grey also emphasized
simplicity, once writing that "the greatest fault that can be found with the architecture of Southern
California is that which may be found with all American architecture to a greater or lesser extent,
namely, a lack of simplicity.,,[9]
Though often associated with the Craftsman movenlent, Grey's structures reflect a wide variety of styles,
including Beaux Arts, Mission Revival and English Tudor. One Grey biographer wrote: "While Grey
shared a number of beliefs with Stickley and the Arts and Crafts movement, his catholic, traditionalist
taste and disposition would not allow him to become an exponent of anyone movement. The woodsy,
informal image of the Arts and Crafts house was simply one of many that he might employ. Like
Charles and Henry Greene, he transformed the low-art Arts and Crafts dwelling into a sophisticated
high-art object.,,[l]
Later career
. After his partnership with Hunt dissolved in 1910 or 1911,
http:// en. wiki pedia.org/wiki/Elmer _ Grey 8113/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Grey went on to design the Pasadena Playhouse, the
Beverly Hills Hotel, the Lincoln Shrine in Redlands, three
buildings for the First Church of Christ Scientist, and
many residences. After completing his first Christian
Science church, Grey published an article about church
design in which he wrote:
Page 4 of9
"The commercial spirit of i L ••••• _ •.•.•.••..•. _... -...•.....
our age is so inclined to be a I Beverly Hills Hotel, 1911 drawing mad race for the 'almighty L~~._ .. ~, •.. ~ .... _ .. _ .... , •. __ .•... _ •.... ,._. __ ._. ___ ,._. __ .•• ___ ............. w ••••• , •••• ,
dollar,' and commercial
structures are so often built with the idea of obtaining the most show for
the least money that when religious organizations build they should show
that their aims are higher. The trend of preachment or sermon in all
churches is for the things of lasting value, the real as against the seeming;
so when a church builds, it should show that it believes in putting such
preachments into practice, that it demands the real in architecture instead
of that which only seems so."[lO] First Church of Christ,
Scientist, later used by Jim
Jones and the Peoples Temple
The church Grey designed for the First Church of Christ, Scientist in
Los Angeles was later used by Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple
immediately prior to the 1978 Jonestown tragedy.
Artist and author
Grey was also an artist who painted in both oils and watercolors. He painted Southern California
landscapes, and his watercolors are on permanent exhibit at the Chicago Art Institute.[11] Grey also
wrote numerous articles on architecture and philosophy. [1 1]
For several years in the 1920s, Grey's nervous condition again forced him to cease working as an
architect, though he rturned to his practice in 1929. During the 1930s, he also tried to obtain work as a
set designer in Hollywood.[1]
Grey moved his practice to Florida in 1941, where he was an instructor in mechanical drawing and also
painted a 35-foot frieze at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida, depicting five episodes in the
history and develop~lent of Florida.[12][I3] Grey later returned to Pasadena in his retirement; he died in
November 1963 at age 91 in the Pasadena mansion he had built for himself. [11]
Grey's architectural works
Grey's major works include:
To 1906
• First Church of Christ Scientist, Milwaukee, WI, now Sixth
Church of Christ, Scientist on the NRHP in Milwaukee County
• Edith Daniels House, Aradia, CA (1904)
• Livingston Jenks House, San Rafael, CA (1904) Throop Hall, Pasadena
• Astronomer's House (aka The Monastery) and other buildings,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilElmer_Grey 8/13/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, CA (1904) (with
Myron Hunt)[14]
Page 5 of9
• Thomas H. Foote House, East Colorado Street, Pasadena, CA (1905) (with Myron Hunt)[15]
• J.W. Gillespie House, Montecito, CA (with Myron Hunt)[16]
• Livingston Jenks House, 1000 Vallejo, Russian Hill, San Francisco, CA (1905)
• Ingraham Hotel, Ingraham and Orange Streets, Los Angeles, CA (1906-08) (with Myron Hunti l7]
[18]
• Dr. Guy H. Cochran House, Lorna Drive, Los Angeles (1906) (with Myron Hunt)[5]
• Henry E. Huntington Cottage, Clifton, CA (between Redondo and San Pedro) (1906) (with Myron
Hunti l9]
1907
• Paine House, Pasadena, CA (1907) (with Myron Hunti20]
• L.H. Nares House, Beverly Hills, CA (1907) (with Myron Hunt)[21]
• Wattles Mansion, 1824 N. Curson Ave., Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA(1907)[22][23]
• Valley Hunt Clubhouse, South Orange Grove and Palmetto Avenues, Pasadena, CA (1907) (with
Myron Hunt)[24]
• Walter Ransome Leeds House, Berkeley SquareJ25] Los Angeles, CA (1907) (with Myron Hunt)
[26]
• Chester Montgomery House, Berkeley Square, Los Angeles, CA (1907) (with Myron Hunt)[27]
• William R. Burke House, Berkeley Square, Los Angeles, CA (1907) (with Myron Hunt)[27]
• Polytechnic Elementary School, Pasadena, CA (1907) (with Myron Hunt) and addition (1912-
1913il ]
• Arthur Herbert Woodward House (now the Zane Grey Estate, Altadena, CA (1907) (with Myron
Hunti28]
1908-1910
• William R. Nash House, N. Orange Grove Blvd. near San Rafael Bridge, Pasadena, CA (1908)
(with Myron Hunti29]
• A.S. Gaylord House, San Rafael Heights, Pasadena, CA (1908) (with Myron Hunt)[30]
• Throop Polytechnic Institute, Campus Plan, Pasadena, CA (1908) (with Myron Hunti31 ]
• Dr. lA. Scherer House (Pres. of Throop Polytechnic), Pasadena, CA (1908) (with Myron Hunt)
[32]
• Men's Dormitory and other buildings at Claremont College, Pomona, CA (1908) (with Myron
Hunti33 ]
• Henry Huntington House, later converted into the Huntington Art Gallery, San Marino, CA
(1908) (with Myron Hunti34][35][36][37][38]
• Throop Hall, Pasadena, CA (1909) (with Myron Hunt)[39]
• Throop Polytechnic Institute, Pasadena Hall, Pasadena, CA (1908-10)
• Edward D. Libbey House, Ojai, California (1909) (with Myron Huntil]
• Edward M. Taylor House (aka "Ferndale"), Altadena, CA (with Myron Hunt) (destroyed by fire in
1943i40][5]
• Gartz Court, Pasadena, CA, (1910) (with Myron Hunt) on the NRHP in Pasadena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Grey 8113/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 60f9
• E.M. Neustadt Mansion, West Adams S1. and Western Ave., West Adams, Los Angeles, CA
(1910) (with Myron Hunt)[41]
• Dormitories at Occidental College, Eagle Rock, Los Angeles, CA, and Throop Polytechnic (1910)
(with Myron Hunt)[42]
• IN. Burnes House, EI Molino and Pinehurst, Oak Knoll, Pasadena, CA (1910) (with Myron Hunt)
[43]
1911-1920
• Addison Lysle House, Garfield Ave. and EI Monte Rd., Alhambra, CA (1911)[44]
• Beverly Hills Hotel, Beverly Hills, CA (1911)[45][46][47]
• Hawkins House, Reno, NV (1911)
• Julius Seyler Bungalow, South Pasadena, California (1911-1912)[1]
• First Church of Christ, Scientist, Alvarado Terrace, Los Angeles, CA (1911)[48] [49]
• First Church of Christ Scientist, Long Beach, CA (1913)[50]
• Robert C. Gillis House, Santa Monica, CA (1913)[51]
• First Congregational Church of Riverside, CA, 1913, (with Myron Hunt) on the NRHP in
Riverside County
• E.M. Neustadt House, Altadena, CA (1913)[52]
• Dr. Clifford Webster Barnes House, 999 S. San Rafael Ave., Pasadena, CA (1913)[53]
• Elmer Grey House, 1372 S. EI Molino Ave., Pasadena, CA (1912)[34]
• W. Sias House, Oak Knoll, Pasadena, CA (1912-13)
• John Luckenbach House, Hillhurst Park, Hollywood, CA (1914)[54]
• First Church of Christ Scientist, 661 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA (1916)
• Rew-Sharp House, Coronado, CA (1918)
• Stafford W. Bixby House, Hillhurst Park, Hollywood, CA (1919)[55]
1921 on
• Pico Heights Branch Library, Connecticut and Oxford Streets, Los Angeles, CA (1923)[56]
• Pasadena Playhouse, Pasadena, CA (1924)[57]
• Bowen House, 336 Hudson Ave., Hancock Park, Los Angeles, CA (1925)
• Colony Club, Santa Monica, CA (1925)
• R.H. Cromwell House, Bel Air, CA (1925)[58]
• A.N. Kemp House, Canyon Vista Park, overlooking Santa Monica Canyon and Brentwood
Country Club (1925)[59]
• Bel-Air Bay Club, 16801 Pacific Coast Highway Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, CA (1927)
• Charles 1 Wild House, Fremont Place, Los Angeles, CA (1930)[60]
• Lincoln Shrine, Redlands, CA (1932i61][62][63][64]
• Charles J. Wild House, Pasadena, CA (c. 1932)[65]
• Mrs. 1M. Goss Studio, Pasadena, Ca (c. 1932)[65]
• Margaret Coleman Studio, S. Madison Ave., Pasadena, CA (1933)[66]
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Grey 8/13/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 70f9
1. 1\ abc d efg Robert Winter (editor); David Gebhard (author) (1997). Toward a Simpler Way o/Life, pp. 159-
168. University of California Press. ISBN 0520209168.
2. A "Artist Biographys: Elmer Grey". Edan Hughes. http://www.edanhughes.comlbiography.cfm?
ArtistID=260.
3. 1\ abc d "An Architect Who Writes". The Architectural Record. February 1905.
4. A abc d ef g Elmer Grey. "Vicissitudes of a Young Architect". The Architect and Engineer.
5. A abc de Sam Watters (2007). Houses of Los Angeles, 1885-1919, vol. 1. Acanthus Press.
6. A "Accepts Keys Three Times: Repetition Pleases Pomona College President; Fine New Buildings Are
Formally Dedicated; Ceremonials Mark Twentieth Anniversary". Los Angeles Times. 1908-11-22.
7. 1\ abc "The California Bungalow". The Craftsman. October 1907.
8. A "Fact and Comment". Los Angeles Times. 1910-07-31.
9. A Elmer Grey (January 1905). "Architecture in Southern California". The Architectural Record.
10. A Elmer Grey (December 1913). "On the Design of Certain Modern Church Edifices". The Architectural
Record.
11. A abc "Elmer Grey, Architect, Dies". Los Angeles Times. 1963-11-15.
12. A "Elmer Grey, California Architect, Paints Oil Frieze Depicting Early History of Florida" . Architect &
Engineer. October 1943.
13. A "ArchitectDB: Elmer Grey". University of Washington Library.
https://digital.lib.washington.eduJphp/architectlrecord.phtml?
type=architect&architectid= 198&showall=0&lname=Grey &lcity=&lstateprov=&lcountry=&bionote=&awar
d=&famil y=&nationality=U nited+States&birthdate=&deathdate=.
14. A "By Builders and Architects: Observatory Buildings". Los Angeles Times. 1904-07-03.
15. A "By Builders and Architects: Building Notes". Los Angeles Times. 1905-02-12.
16. A "Among Builders and Architects: A Santa Barbara Mansion". Los Angeles Times. 1905-07-23.
17. A "Big Works Planned: Mammoth Family Hotel for Orange Street". Los Angeles Times. 1906-01-07.
18. A "Luxurious: All Comforts Great Style; Fashionable Hotel Will Add Apartment Houses". Los Angeles
Times. 1908-03-08.
19. A "H.E. Huntington's Cottage", Los Angeles Times. 1906-07-01.
20. A Ruth Ryon (2007-05-27). "Home of the Week: Portico with a pedigree". Los Angeles Times.
21. A "On Beverly Hills: Bungalow fo L.H. Nares and view overlooking the valley". Los Angeles Times. 1907-
03-10.
22. A Susan Moffat (1993-02-18). "An Elegant Piece of Hollywood's Past Is Given Monument Status History:
The designation helps preserve the 1905 Wattles Mansion. It is the last vestige of the resort community that
flourished before the movies came to town". Los Angeles Times.
23. A Nikki Usher (2004-06-24). "Surroundings -Hollywood Hills: Historic Home Evokes Era Before the Age of
Glitz; Wattles Mansion comes from a time when movie industry wealth had yet to make its mark on L.A.".
Los Angeles Times.
24. A "Los Angeles Counties -Its Cities and Towns: Let Clubhouse Contract". Los Angeles Times. 1907-08-02.
25. A Berkeley Square is situated on the west side of Western Avenue, near Adams. The houses on Berkeley
Square were demolished in the 1960s to make way for the 10 freeway.
26. A "City Attracts Home Builders: Fine Residence Multiply in Past Year; Development of Berkeley Square
Rapid". Los Angeles Times. 1908-11-29.
27. A a b "Among Builders and Architects: Buys in Berkeley Square". Los Angeles Times. 1907-08-11.
28. A "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service.
2009-03-13. http://www.nr.nps.gov/.
29. A "Overlooks the Arroyo Seco: House Occupies Old Valley Hunt Club Site; Building Pure Colonial in
Design". Los Angeles Times. 1908-01-05.
30. A "Pasadena Home Set Amid Park of Live Oaks". Los Angeles Times. 1908-03-22.
31. A "Magnificent: New Throop Plans for Finest School: Designs for Plant in Pasadena Costing Millions to Be
Discussed Tonight --Working on Part to Start at Once --Dream Coming True". Los Angeles Times. 1908-
02-29.
32. A "Among the Architects". Los Angeles Times. 1909-12-06.
33. A "To Build Fireproof Concrete Structures About Campus at Claremont College". Los Angeles Times. 1908-
06-14.
34. A a b "Action Started to Designate 2 Houses in Pasadena as Historic Landmarks". Los Angeles Times. 1979-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Grey 8113/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 8 of9
09-23.
35. 1\ "$3.25-million home features French details". Los Angeles Times. 1986-10-12.
36. 1\ Cecilia Rasmussen (2000-08-27). "L.A. Then and Now: An Allure That 2 Tycoons Found Irresistible". Los
Angeles Times.
37. 1\ "Houses, Lots and Lands--Saturday Review of Building and Development; Huntington's Beautiful Palace
Taking Shape on Site of Old Shorb Place". Los Angeles Times. 1908-10-11.
38. 1\ "Thousands Visit Exhibit: Architectural Display, Purely Educational, Is Achieving Its Object by an
Increased Public Attendance". Los Angeles Times. 1911-01-22.
39. 1\ "Central Building on New Campus of Greater Institute Started". Los Angeles Times. 1909-05-09.
40. 1\ Bettijane Levine (2007-10-04). "History: Chronicler ofL.A.'s lost houses; In his two-volume book, Sam
Watters conjures the ghosts of great early estates". Los Angeles Times.
41. 1\ "Palatial Home Has Ideal Site: West Adams Mansion Is Set in Fairy Gardens". Los Angeles Times. 1910-
05-29.
42. 1\ "New "Dorms" To Be Attractive: Undergrad Homes for "Oxy" and Throop "Quads"; Large Building for
academy Students to Accommodate Sixty Boys. Early Structures on Occidental Campus to include Two
Fireproof College Dormitories. Dormitories Which Will Be Centers of Campus Life in Two Southland
Schools". Los Angeles Times. 1910-06-26.
43. 1\ "New "Show Place" for Oak Knoll: Site of Mansion Is Part of Old Alandale Ranch". Los Angeles Times.
1910-07-10.
44. 1\ "Artistic Side Appeals Here; Home Builders Insist on Real Beauty in Houses; Good Taste in Architecture a
Local Characteristic; Three Notably Fine Dwellings Started This Week. A Trio of Beautiful and Artistic
New Southland Homes". Los Angeles Times. 1911-02-12.
45. 1\ "Beverly Hotel To Be Wonder of Southland; Magnificent Mission Hostelry HalfWay Between the City
and the Ocean to Rival Greatest Tourist Resorts in the United States--Half-Million to Be Expended in
Building Alone. Magnificent Tourist Hostelry to Crown Commanding Knoll Between the City and the Sea".
Los Angeles Times. 1911-05-14.
46. 1\ "Work Starts With Rush on Monster Hostelry: Great Tourists Hotelry for Beautiful Site Between the City
and the Sea". Los Angeles Times.
47. 1\ "Hotel Near Completion: Beautiful Mission Hostelry at Beverly Hills Promises to Be One of the Southland
Show Places. The Latest of the Great Tourist Hostelries of the Southland". Los Angeles Times. 1912-02-25.
48. 1\ "Costly New Church for Christian Scientists". Los Angeles Times. 1911-09-20.
49. 1\ "Fine Church for Scientists: Followers of Mrs. Eddy to Have Hundred Thousand Dollar House of-Worship
on Alvarado Terrace. Beautiful Edifice for West End Worshipers". Los Angeles Times. 1912-02-25.
50. 1\ "Stately Edifice for Scientists: Plans Out for Long Beach House of Worship; Structure Will Follow Italian
Renaissance Lines and Will Be of Brick Construction --Special Attention to Be Given Problem of
Accoustics [sic]". Los Angeles Times. 1913-01-26.
51. 1\ "To Rear a Mansion on Canyon's Edge: Palatial Santa Monica Villa for Los Angeles Capitalist". Los
Angeles Times. 1913-02-06.
52. 1\ "Beautiful Dwelling of Thatched Roof Type: Follows English Types; New Altadena Home Has Thatched
Roof of British Country Places --Occupies Beautiful Foothill Site". Los Angeles Times. 1913-02-02.
53. 1\ Ruth Ryon (2001-04-08). "Home of the Week: Old World Craftsman". Los Angeles Times.
54. 1\ "Fine Home for Hillhurst Park: Hollywood Foothill Place Will Be Noteworthy Contribution". Los Angeles
Times. 1914-09-06.
55. 1\ "Notable Homes Overlook City: New Residents Add Charm to Local Architecture; Owners Select Foothill
and Canyon Sites; Extensive Improvements for Beverly Estate. New Foothill Residences of Beautiful
Design". Los Angeles Times. 1919-12-28.
56. 1\ "Plan for Library Is Accepted: New Branch Will be Built for Pico Heights; Another Near Echo Park". Los
Angeles Times. 1923-02-18.
57. 1\ "Pasadena's Playhouse Under Way: Construction Begun on New Community Theater; Finest Plant in
Country". Los Angeles Times. 1924-09-28.
58. 1\ "R.H. Cromwell Residence in Bel-Air Area". Los Angeles Times. 1925-08-30.
59. 1\ "Bank Official Building Fine English Home". Los Angeles Times. 1925-10-04.
60. 1\ "Manor Type Home Will Be Erected: Large Residence Designed For Wilshire Area to Be Built at Once".
Los Angeles Times. 1930-05-18.
61. 1\ "Grey To Design Shrine: Pasadena Architect Invited by Redlands to Give Idea for Proposed Lincoln
Memorial". Los Angeles Times. 1931-02-21.
62. 1\ "Plans Soon To Be Ready for Shrine: Structure to House Bust of Lincoln and Books on Great
http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer _ Grey 8/13/2009
Elmer Grey -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 90f9
Emancipator". Los Angeles Times. 1931-05-17.
63. A Ed Ainsworth (1963-03-25). "On the Move: Lincoln Shrine Gains Popularity". Los Angeles Times.
64. A Charles Hillinger (1972-02-12). "Everyone Turns Out: Lincoln's Birthday --It's a Redlands Must". Los
Angeles Times.
65. A a b Elmer Grey (Oct. 1932). "The Lincoln Shrine and Two Other Buildings, pp. 11-20". The Architect and
Engineer.
66. A "Fine Studio Nears Completion: Semi-Public Pasadena Unit Proves Unique". Los Angeles Times. 1933-
06-11.
Further readillg
More detailed biographical information about Grey can be found in a ten-part series published by
Architect & Engineer magazine from November 1932 through August 1933 under the title, "Vicissitudes
of a Young Architect." See also Robert Craik McLean, "The Work of Elmer Gray, Architect, F AlA,"
published by The Western Architect in August 1916.
Retrieved from ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilElmer_Grey''
Categories: 1871 births I 1963 deaths I American architects I People from Pasadena, California I People
from Milwaukee, Wisconsin I Elmer Grey buildings
http://en. wikipedia.org/wikilElmer _ Grey 8/13/2009
Page 1 of 1
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Elmer_Grey.jpg 8/13/2009
File:Beverly Hills Hotel, 1925.jpg -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 1
File:Beverly Hills Hotel, 1925.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
No resolution available.
Beverly_Hills_Hotel,_1925.jpg (444 x 361 pixels, file size: 132 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beverly _Hills_Hotel,_1925.jpg 8117/2009
File:Beverly Hills Hotel, 1911 drawing.jpg -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 1
File:Beverly Hills Hotel, 1911 drawing.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
• Metadata
jJ.1tlllnifit~nt Touri.rl Hostelry toCr()wn CommandifJgtrnollBetw)cen tkeCity and the Sea ..
Size of this preview: 800 x 363 pixels
Full resolution (2,163 x 981 pixels, file size: 1.21 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
htlp:llen.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beverly _Hills_Hotel,_1911_drawing.jpg 8117/2009
File:Throop College, Pasadena.jpg -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Throop College, Pasadena.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
• Metadata
rrUl:l.TlIRQOr 4.,'QLt'i:~~f, ell" 1'Ecm;:o:tX)(1t,; P.\'l)ADES,\, CAL.
:~~rtoo nQ.M I;!!~ FJ"""" \'t~)'. !u~l1it ... ~.
Size of this preview: 373 x 600 pixels
Full resolution (1,018 x 1,637 pixels, file size: 1.28 MB, MIME type: image
http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Throop _ College,_ Pasadena.jpg
Page 1 of 1
8/17/2009
File:CaITech-1912.jpg -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 1
File:CaITech-1912.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
No higher resolution available.
CaITech-1912.jpg (642 x 400 pixels, file size: 40 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CaITech-1912.jpg 8117/2009
File:Lincoln Shrine Fountain, Redlands CA.jpg -Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 ofl
File:Lincoln Shrine Fountain" Redlands CA.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
• Metadata
Size of this preview: 750 x 600 pixels
Full resolution (1,280 x 1,024 pixels, file size: 240 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
http://en. wikipedia.orglwikiIFile:Lincoln _Shrine _ Fountain,_ Redlands _ CA.jpg 8117/2009
File:Huntington art gallery at huntington library califomia.jpg -Wikipedia, the free encyc... Page 1 of 1
File:Huntington art gallery at huntington library
california.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
• Metadata
htlp:llen.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huntington_art_gallery_at_huntington_library_califomia .... 8/16/2009
File:Former First Church of Christ Scientist, Los Angeles.JPG -Wikipedia, the free encyc ... Page 1 of 1
File:Former First Church of Christ Scientist, Los
Angeles.JPG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
• Metadata
Size of this preview: 764 x 600 pixels
Full resolution (3,011 x 2,363 pixels, file size: 1.54 NIB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Former_First_Church_of_Christ_Scientist,_Los_Angeles .... 8/16/2009
File:First Church of Christ Scientist (Los Angeles drawing).jpg -Wikipedia, the free ency... Page 1 of 1
File:First Church of Christ Scientist (Los Angeles
drawing).jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• File
• File history
• File links
• Metadata
Size of this preview: 800 x 546 pixels
ImT;\U...-,PO.RT.lON OF SIDE E[,'EVATION, F.tRS'f
CU:URcn OF CHRIST, SClf~N'.I'IST. LOS ANGEl.ES, CAl"
EUlER GREY. M~Cm'l·£C':r,.
Full resolution (1,575 x 1,075 pixels, file size: l.14 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilFile:First_Church_ of_ Christ_ Scientist_(Los _Angeles _ drawin... 8117/2009
Historic Resources Board
Meeting of September 2, 2009
Item # 1
661 Bryant Street
Photograph of an Example of a
Polished Concrete Wall
Submitted by the Applicant
Attachment G
\
\
)
November 12, 2009
Blake Reinhardt
1301 Shoreway Road, Suite 250
B~lmont, CA 94002
':y (
i· I Attachment F
QJy9f:P~Mt9 .
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Subject: 661 Bryant Street: Minor Architectural Review, 09PLN-OOI16
Dear Mr. Reinhardt:
On November 12, 2009, the ArChitect~'~~ie~:~Ollrd appllcation 6~.PLN$011·~ f'.lIi~ .
project referenced below, was condi~j0ij.~tly;appr()'9~9 byplanbfug staff;~,as if'was fOdOOQid','
meet the applicable Findings set {,Qrtn.,in '~al'O<1AJtd~~tmicipal~Code (P .AMQ~.§.~cti;on ~i'
18.76.020(d) as well ashaving,,:be~lftoun4 by th~ HtstQri~.R:es'Q}jfces ·;poar~.tq:colhRJ~:~~ith
the U.S. Secretary of the Int~Jiorh; Standards.Jot R~l\abint~ti,Qrtand:Cluidelines"'~or , ..
Rehabilitating Historic BuUciipgs. ; ':. . . ",;
PROJECT:
Request by Blake Reiru.ra.~dt?';~11 ,beh,alfQfEC{Three Bryant LLC ,for minor Architectural
Review for new landscaping, winabw"rep'lacement, addition of an A!OA compliant access
ramp, addition of thrc~ Men~bes, .and{'oth~t 'modifications to tlt~~fr.bll! patio design. The
application also inclu,des tb~ request for(both Historic and sdi~rilJp ;rehabilitation of the
building for a doubL floq{area bo~us totaling 5,668 square feet; 1~1146 sq ft of which is .
requested to be USedi,Qli Siltl; to, con$truc;~ a second floor mezzanine within the existing rotunda.
Environmental Ass~,sskent: 'Categ9ric~lly exempt from the pr6vislOjjS of the California
Environmental Qua~~ty: Act per Se~tion;', 15301. Zone Districtt"Commei9lal Downtown with
Pedestrian Combini~gpistrict (CJj~C(GF)(P)). "
.. ~: -,:::\
Note: The proposed ~n~jte ~~~:~blth~.doUble bonus square;;foptage requii¢.>~:.,City Council
Approval. '. '_;:"
FINDINGS FOR APPRO,VAL:
1. The approval is based upon the finding that the project is con$istent with design
guidelines adopted by the Architectural Review Board, . and that the applicable Findings
set forth in PAMC 18.76.020 (d) have been met.
2. Approval of this project shall be subject to the conditions listed below.
Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
TransPil~tio6f 9
250 HamIlton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2520
650.617.3108
Building
285 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2496
650.329.2240
/' /
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans received on
November 5, 2009 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. The
plans are on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
2. A copy of this letter shall be printed on any plans that are submitted to the City for a
building permit, if required.
3. Upon determining that the project has been completed"as approved, the applicant shall
secure a written certification from the city which shall state the total floor area bonus
utilized at the site and the amount of remaining floor area bonus which is eligible for
transfer to another site. This certification shall be recorded in the office of the County
Recorder.
4. The owner of the site shall enter into an unsubordinated protective covenant running with
the land in favor of the City, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, to assure that the
property will be rehabilitated and maintained in accordance with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings together with the
accompanying interpretive Guidelinesfor Rehabilitation of Historic buildings, as they
may be amended from time to time.
5. The Historic Rehabilitation Plan for 661 Bryant Street will comprise Part 5 of the
"Written Project Description," dated August 13,2009, and submitted by ECI Three
Bryant, LLC and also the repair items listed in the "Recommendations" section of the
Historic Structure Report prepared by Cody Anderson Wasney, dated July 2009, pages
45-46.
6. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied to all eligible aspects of
the historic rehabilitation of the site and the building exterior and interior when needed to '
preserve character-defining features.
7. The historic and seismic rehabilitation, restoration, and new construction at 661 Bryant
Street shall be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation and on a consideration of recommendations provided in the Department of
the Interior's "Preservation Briefs" #9 ("The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows"), #18
("Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings: Identifying and Preserving Character
Defining Elements"), #22 ("The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco"), #24
Page 2 of9
("Heating Ventilating, and Cooling Historic Buildings"), #32 ("Making Historic
Properties Accessible"), #33 ("The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and
Leaded Glass"), #41 ("The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings: Keeping Preservation
in the Forefront"), and "Preservation Tech Note: Specifying Temporary Protection of
Historic Interiors During Construction and Repair."
8. The existing opalescent leaded glazing of the all the windows of the 1916 church building
shall be preserved in place with the exception of those windows numbered 35,36, and 37
on Sheet A3.02 of the project Plan Set, and those windows numbered 60 and 61 on Sheet
A3.03 of the Plan Set. Those five windows shall be placed in storage and their
opalescent glass may be used as replacement glass in the windows preserved in place if
needed.
9. The upper rotunda opalescent glass windows which are currently faced with non-historic
clear plastic on the exterior to protect against leaks shall be evaluated by a qualified
historic consultant, selected by the City as possessing expertise in the repair of historic
leaded stained glass, to determine the technical and economic feasibility of rehabilitating
the windows so that they do not leak, thus allowing the plastic facing to be removed. If
such feasibility is detennined, the repair of the windows shall be added to the applicant's
Historic Rehabilitation Plan. If the expert consultant opinion concurs, alternative metal
framing material may be considered for use in the repair of the windows.
10. All the opalescent glass exterior lighting fixtures of the 1916 church building shall be
preserved in place, and the glass that will replace missing opalescent panes in the exterior
lighting fixtures shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner prior to
installation.
11. The tinted glass of the tall arched window of the staircase foyer of the 1930 church
addition (window # 17 on Sheet A3.00 of the Plan Set) shall be retained.
12. The tinted glass shall be retained in the round windows of the 1930 church addition
(windows # 22, 23, 24,25, and 47 on Sheet A3.00 of the Plan Set). All other tinted
window glass in the 1930 church addition not cited in Conditions # 7 and 8 may be
removed and replaced with clear glass.
13. The geometric mural on the upper wall of the Bryant Street fa9ade of the 1930 church
addition, and the plain painted panels of the upper left side of the addition shall be
maintained and preserved because they are replications of the original painted designs of
the addition, as shown clearly by photos of the addition taken in 1930.
14. The three large bi-folding doors between the main entry foyer and the auditorium shall be
preserved in place as proposed.
Page 3 of9
/'
/ •
15. The opalescent glass skylight of the church auditorium may be removed provided that it
is placed in storage.
16. The wood wainscoting of the church auditorium shall be preserved to the extent feasible,
as determined by the applicant in consultation with the Historic Preservation Planner,
including the sloped-floor wainscoting by means of an adaptive detailing of the base of
the wall at the new level floor.
17. The adaptive reuse treatment of the large arched opening above the existing stage area of
the auditorium shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner. The existing
organ pipe screening within the arched opening may be removed.
18. The exposed wood beam ceilings of the staircase foyer, the former Reading Room, and
the second-floor hallway of the 1930 addition shall be preserved and rehabilitated where
needed.
19. The large hanging metal lighting fixture of the staircase foyer, which appears to be
original, shall be preserved and repaired as needed.
20. The fireplace and the original wood built-in cabinets of the former Reading Room in the
1930 church addition shall be repaired as needed and preserved.
21. The architectural and design details of the proposed transformation of the former Reading
Room and the adjacent offi~e into a single room shall be reviewed for adequate retention
of the former Reading Room's historic character by the Historic Preservation Planner.
22. The final design, materials, finishes, and colors of the proposed auditorium mezzanine,
including the supporting columns and the glass railing around the perimeter of the central
opening of the mezzanine (shown on Sheet A2.02 of the Plan Set) shall be submitted for
review by the Historic Preservation Planner.
23. The final materials and colors for the exterior of 661 Bryant Street shall be submitted for
review by the Historic Preservation Planner.
24. All new exterior lighting including the style, materials, and color of the fixtures, and the
light bulb types, shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner.
25. The Director of Planning's letter of project approval, including the approved conditions,
shall be printed on one of the initial sheets of the Building Permit Plan Set (final
construction plans).
Page 4 of9
./ / •
26. The Historic Preservation Planner shall review the Building Pennit Plan Set for
consistency with the Director of Planning's project approval based on the
. recommendations of the Historic Resources Board.
27. The staff-ARB project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original
date of approval. In the event a building pennit( s), if applicable, is not secured for the
project within the time limit specified above, the staff-ARB approval shall expire and be
of no further force or effect.
Public Works Engineering
26 ENCROACHMENT: Sheet A2.01 shows a new brick planter curb extending about 2 feet
into the public right-of-way (ROW) along Forest Avenue. Consider removing the curb
from the ROW or making it flush with the concrete sidewalk so as not to create a tripping
condition.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
27. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution
Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are
available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website.
28. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any
removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement
within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-
496-5953). This approvalshall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the
trees per City requirements.
29. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is
proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach,
or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City
standards and that the contractorperfonning this work must first obtain a Street Work
Permit from Public Works at the Development Center.
30. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If the project will be creating or replacing 500 square
feet or more of impervious surface, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing
and proposed impervious surface areas with the building pennit application. The
Impervious Area Worksheet/or Land Developments fonn and instructions are available at
the Development Center or on our website.
31. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building pennit plan set that says,
"The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private property must do
so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be
Page 5 of9
/
//
coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk open and safe for
pedestrian use."
Fire Department
32. Install a monitored NFP A 13 fire sprinkler system throughout entire building.
33. A valid Certificate of Use and Occupancy pennit is requ~red.
Water Gas Wastewater Engineering
34. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the
information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in
~.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.).
35. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements,
sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
36. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' horizontal
clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the
field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaultslbases shall be relocated
from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions.
37. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e.
water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
38. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes
all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the
utility mains and/or services.
39. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main
manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California
Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown
on the plans.
40. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing
rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
41. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
Page 6 of9
/
1. The pump( s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less.
2. The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at least 20' from the City clean out.
3. The tank: and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each
cycle.
Prior to issuance of a building permit
42. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at
the applicant's expense.
43. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the
installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
44. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans.
45. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
46. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the
assembly. The applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for all
backflows.
47. An approved RP detector backflow is required for the existing or new water connections
for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title
17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. RP detector backflows shall be installed on the
owner's property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the RP detector
backflow on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required
for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. The applicant shall
provide the City with current test certificates for all backflows.
48. A new gas service line installation is tequired. Show the new gas meter location on the
plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. Gas meters
are not' allowed in planter areas, and below operable windows.
Page 7 of9
/ 49. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at
the main per WGW utilities procedures before any new utility services are installed.
50. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
Electric Utilities
General
51. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
The following shall be incorporated in submittQls for building permit
52. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all
building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included
with the preliminary submittal.
53. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric
Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees
have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested.
54. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
55. This project requires a padmount transfonner. The location of the transfonner shall be"
shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities· Department and the Architectural
Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16.
56. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e.
transfonners, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the
City.· In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed
on private property as required by the City.
57. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required
from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be
according to the City standards· and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 &
#18.
58. Location of the electric paneVswitchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved
by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
59. All utility meters, lines, transfonners, backflow preventers, and any other required
equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no
Page 80f9
conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all
aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building
design 'and setback requirements.
60. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
61. Projects that require the extension and or relocation of high voltage primary distribution
lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and
milst be coordinated with the Electric Utility.
62. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the
utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special
Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost
of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
This Director's decision shall become final fourteen calendar (14) days following the date of
this letter, unless a request for a hearing is filed pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.070(b)(4).
Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to call Russ
Reich at (650) 617-3119. '
Russ Reich
Senior Planner
Page 90f9