The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-01-26 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Historic Resources Board Regular Meeting Agenda: January 26, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of the HRB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record. 2.Recommend HRB Bylaws Modification and 2015-2016 Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report and Discuss Topics for Upcoming 2017 HRB Retreat Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3.1451 Middlefield Road [16PLN-00217]: Request for Preliminary Review of a 14,790 sf replacement building for an expanded Children's Museum and Zoo and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lots. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is being prepared. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Minutes from December 8, 2016 meeting _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Historic Resources Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers are: Chair Martin Bernstein Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer Boardmember David Bower Boardmember Beth Bunnenberg Boardmember Patricia Di Cicco Boardmember Roger Kohler Boardmember Michael Makinen Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the HRB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 7277) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 1/26/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield Junior Museum and Zoo Title: 1451 Middlefield Road [16PLN-00217]: Request for Preliminary Review of a 14,790 sf replacement building for an expanded Children's Museum and Zoo and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lots. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is being prepared. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a study session review. Report Summary The project is to replace the existing Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) with a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosures, perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities, and improvements to the adjacent parking lots northwest of the JMZ that serve the JMZ, Lucie Stern Community Center, Lou Henry Hoover House (aka Girl Scout House), and Rinconada Park. The attached staff report (Attachment A) to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for its January 19, 2017 meeting provides background, images and documents of interest to the HRB. Included with the ARB report is the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) and supplemental information prepared by staff to support the preparation of the Cultural Resources section of an Initial Study. The HRB may provide comments on the compatibility of the project with its context, which includes a listed historic resource and an eligible historic resource, and regarding the applicability of several architectural review findings. The proposed project scope has been developed in coordination with the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan for the surrounding park improvements, parking lot reconfiguration and adjacent public facilities. Plans are viewable after entering the project address into the designated search box at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Historic Resources Evaluation City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) included in the ARB report addresses the existing JMZ building(s). The JMZ buildings were found ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Places, so replacement of these buildings was found not to be a significant impact. The Lucie Stern Community Center (LSCC) is on the same City parcel as the existing JMZ. The parking lots to be re-landscaped are near the LSCC and Lou Henry Hoover House, a potential historic resource also designed by Birge Clark that pre-dates the Birge Clark-designed LSCC. Because the parking lot area is a part of the setting for the historic buildings, the project is being reviewed with respect to potential impacts upon and compatibility with these resources. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Public notice was provided to announce this study session in the local newspaper; as well, the meeting date and time was announced during the ARB preliminary review of the project. Next Steps The applicant will submit a formal application and an Initial Study will be prepared. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: January 19, 2017 ARB Staff Report Including Attachments (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7100) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 1/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ) Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 1451 Middlefield Road [16PLN-00217]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a One-Story, 14,790 Square Foot Replacement Building for an Expanded Junior Museum and Zoo and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lots. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a preliminary review of the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project planned for 1451 Middlefield Road. Report Summary The Community Services Department is seeking the ARB’s preliminary comments on the project, which is to replace the existing Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) with a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosures, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. This review follows a recent Council session conducted November 21, 2016, and is the second ARB study session on the topic of a replacement structure for the JMZ. The proposed project scope has been developed in coordination with the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan for the surrounding park improvements, parking lot reconfiguration and adjacent public facilities. Plans are viewable after entering the project address into the designated search box at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. There are multiple layers of site goals and constraints for this project. The site is shown on the location map (Attachment A). Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Architect: Sarah Vaccaro, Cody Anderson Wasney Representative: John Aiken, Community Services Sr. Program Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 1451 Middlefield Road (JMZ) Neighborhood: Community Center Lot Dimensions & Area: 800 feet Middlefield Rd. dimension; 795,841 square feet (sf) total area Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Lucie Stern Community Center is a Category 1 Resource (includes CSD Administrative offices, Community Center, Children’s Theatre, Stern Theatre, Boy Scout facility, Children’s Library); JMZ is not on National or California historic register; site includes Rinconada Park, Pool, Fire Station, Substation, and the Lou Henry Hoover House (aka Girl Scout House) Existing Improvement(s): JMZ: 9,000 sf, 2-stories, built in 1941 Existing Land Use: Community Center Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North of parcel: Residential (R-1 zone) West of parcel: Residential (R-1) East of parcel: Public Elementary School (Walter Hays, PAUSD) adjacent, and Art Center and Rinconada Library across Newell Road South of parcel: Residential (R-1) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities Comp. Plan Designation: Public Facilities Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, across from single family residences Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Special Setback 24 feet on Middlefield Road Utility Easement/Corridor Water, sewer and storm drain main lines (sheet C1.1) 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Study session conducted on 11/21/16; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54681 PTC: None. HRB: None. ARB: March 19, 2015 Study Session of an 18,400 sf replacement building https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46405; Action Minutes (not verbatim) are available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46924 PRC: Two Study Sessions in 2015; One session April 26, 2016; Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52063 (PRC supports reconfigured relationship with Park; Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52999 Project Description In addition to replacement of the existing Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo buildings with new buildings and outdoor environments, the project includes the reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lot(s) with improved fire access and coverage, accessible parking stalls and pathways, drainage improvements, and site lighting. Applicant’s Description The applicant’s project description is provided as Attachment B to this report. The architect’s design approach to the site organization, massing, materiality, program and experience, and surrounding site improvements is described therein. Attachment B provides a complete summary of design and process efforts to address this unique and highly valued community resource that is currently constrained by the existing older (1941) facility. It highlights the goals and constraints of the project according to the applicant, including: 1. Improving the interface of the JMZ with Rinconada Park while minimizing impact thereto, 2. Protecting heritage and mature feature trees, 3. Improving wayfinding along Middlefield and visibility of the JMZ from that street, and 4. Integrating the new building within the adjacent residential context. Project Type and Review Process The formal entitlement application has not yet been submitted; the preliminary review application process ends with the ARB public hearing and any direction to the applicant is not binding. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) will also review the concept plans in an upcoming study session. The project plans staff reviewed for this report were submitted December 12, 2016. The applicant plans to submit the formal AR application in early 2017; staff will review the submittal for ‘completeness’ prior to the first formal hearing. The ARB recommendation on the 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 formal application will be based upon the Architectural Review findings Council recently adopted (Attachment D), set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76. History of JMZ and Site Constructed in 1941, the existing JMZ building has continually housed the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. The institution of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) is attached to this report (Attachment F). The HRE concludes the JMZ is not eligible for listing the National Register or California Registers under any criteria, due to significant alterations over its history resulting in a loss of historic integrity. The closest building to the JMZ is Walter Hays School on Palo Alto Unified School District’s land to the south of the project site. The Girl Scouts’ Lou Henry Hoover House is the closest building on the City’s parcel; approximately 45 feet to the north. Images of Lucie Stern and Lou Henry Hoover House are shown on plan sheet A0.8. The Lou Henry Hoover (LHH) House, designed by Birge Clark and built in 1926, is the oldest active scout meeting house today, according to the Girl Scouts of Northern California website. It predates the adjacent Birge Clark designed Lucie Stern Community Center, which includes the main theater, Boy Scout facility, children’s theater, and children’s library, and is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 historic resource (Attachment E). Staff learned that the LHH House was relocated in 1936 to the current site from its original site somewhere near the location of the Lucie Stern Center, and that the LHH House received an addition in 1945 on the northeast side of the building. The LHH House may be eligible for listing on both the California and National historic registers, but no historic resource evaluation has been performed. Site Coverage, Floor Area, and Height The existing buildings on the City’s 795,841 sf site cover approximately 81,400 sf of the site. Project plans show the Rinconada Long Range Plan on the site and provide data regarding other buildings’ coverage on this site. The existing museum and zoo buildings cover 8,500 square feet (sf) of the site. The proposed JMZ buildings would cover an additional 6,290 sf, for a total coverage of 14,790 sf by the JMZ project. The lot coverage after construction would be 11% of the site where 30% maximum lot coverage is allowed. With its small second floor of 500 sf, the existing building has 9,000 sf of gross floor area (GFA). The proposed GFA is 14,790 sf. The height of the proposed building is 22 feet. The height of the central supportive column for the netting over the zoo is 36 feet. The fences around the zoo are proposed to be ten to 12 feet tall and the fence around the outdoor animal management area is proposed to be eight feet tall. Building Design The main building is a modified ‘U’ shaped building designed to preserve existing, mature Pecan and Dawn Redwood trees. The new, one-story building will house the museum as well as zoo support functions. Museum components include exhibit rooms, multi-use room, entry/lobby, 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 offices, collection hub and storage rooms, shop, mechanical rooms, conference rooms, classroom, restrooms, and other building support areas such as hallways, elevator, and staircases (2). The zoo uses would include animal control and program and storage rooms. Outdoor Zoo Design The outdoor zoo area includes a netted enclosure; the area is to be called “loose in the zoo” and its zoo exhibits would include meerkat, tortoise, flamingo, duck, kitten, bobcat, raccoon, turtle, cichlid, rabbit, and underwater animals. The outdoor zoo area east of the ‘loose’ zoo would include an animal management area and would be covered with low level netting (seen on plan sheet Z1.0). Building Materials, Signage, Landscaping, and Trees Plan sheets A4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.0 provide images and the building locations for application of proposed materials and signage concepts, which reflect a contemporary style. The zoo site plans, located on Plan Sheets Z01 and Z11, show materials proposed in the ‘loose in the zoo’ area and landscape concepts are shown on sheets C2.1 and PH-2. The applicants’ project description indicates uses of materials are intended to show nature is an educational tool. Plans indicate that 31 trees would be removed and approximately 40 trees would be added for a net increase of approximately nine trees. Many of the new trees would be located within the parking lot(s). The attached Arborist Reports provides information about existing tree conditions and removals. Parking, Circulation and Lighting The existing main parking lot (between the JMZ and Lucie Stern center) features diagonal parking spaces and is inefficient. The secondary parking lot between the Lou Henry Hoover House and theater has a 90-degree parking layout. The landscaped area in front of the Girl Scout House would be converted to parking spaces to increase the supply of spaces on site. The proposed parking lot reconfiguration features 90-degree parking spaces throughout, primarily two-way vehicle circulation and some one-way circulation. The December 12, 2016 plans indicate the proposed parking lot(s) revisions would result in approximately 13 additional on-site automobile parking spaces. The design includes new sidewalks, striped crosswalks, and parking lot trees. The electrical plan indicates 12-foot tall light fixtures around the perimeter of the parking lots, and 25-foot tall light fixtures in the center of the parking lots. Storm water treatment areas are proposed within both lots shown on plan sheet C2.1. One driveway to the parking lot on Middlefield Road would be eliminated. The long-range plan includes an increase in on-street parking by approximately 21 spaces. The project includes an expansion of the number of bicycle rack spaces, located at each end of the new JMZ building. 25 short term bike parking spaces and five long-term bike parking spaces are proposed. 2015 ARB Study Session 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The ARB conducted a study session to receive an overview of a replacement building containing 18,400 sf of floor area. Board members Gooyer, Kim and Lew provided non-binding comments at that time, and a former member also provided comments. The board members:  Wanted the JMZ to retain the kid friendly environment/atmosphere;  Noted the proposed building is similar to an office building/structure;  Stated the proposed green roof is not used as a teaching opportunity;  Declared the proposed elevation is “a let-down”;  Questioned the need for total demolition of the existing building;  Asked whether the existing building could accommodate visitor increase;  Asked how the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan fits into the project;  Questioned whether the area along Middlefield Road belongs to the Rinconada Park;  Questioned if the Plan for expansion of the Rinconada Pool was included in this project;  Asked whether the proposed building could have a basement to lower down the mass of the proposed structure;  Inquired about the use of backside of the Walter Hayes school property and back end of the zoo property line, noted that the existing fence was not engaging and suggested a better use of the space between Walter Hayes School and JMZ;  Suggested improved signage and graphic art qualities of the building to bring back “childlike” qualities;  Noted the existing parking lot and wayfinding should be improved;  Stated that the entrance building resembles an office building, that the difference between the two buildings needed to be bridged, tied together;  Stated that the building had bulky massing, and asked that it be toned down;  Noted the scale and texture were okay and fit in with the neighborhood;  Said landscaping fronting Middlefield Road is important and that neighbors should weigh in on this;  Asked whether the Zoo support in the building could be embedded in the basement, noted a preference for smaller massing, and suggested that two stories may be too tall and that the applicant provide a 3D model for proper understanding;  Suggested that more robust neighborhood outreach would be necessary, as not everyone in the community is aware of this project;  Noted the goals of the project are exciting and interesting, and the scale are okay but the architecture needs improvement;  Asked for a contextual section of Middlefield Road with foliage and screening;  Felt the proposed project is consistent with city’s Comprehensive Plan vision;  Warned about the utility easement running through the site;  Supported the increased setback from the school building;  Wanted more color, playful inventive motifs as long as these were respectful to the neighborhood; and  Noted several other suggestions having to do with parking, bus standing area, and a need for more community involvement. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The ARB considers the context of the project. The context includes the adjacency of Walter Hays School, the Lou Henry Hoover House, Rinconada Park, and the Lucie Stern Community Center, as well as the proximity of the residential neighborhoods across Middlefield Road and Hopkins Avenue. The existing context includes both one story and two story buildings. School and Residential Neighborhoods The southeasterly wall of the existing JMZ building is located on the property line shared with the Palo Alto School District’s Walter Hayes Elementary School. The proposed JMZ building would have a ten foot setback from that shared property line, and follow the existing setback from Middlefield Road. The proposed building improves the building separation from a Walter Hays classroom building. The building component facing Middlefield homes would be longer than the existing building end by about 30 feet. Historic Site and Nearby Historic Buildings The project has a contemporary design on a site that contains older and registered historic buildings. The Lucie Stern Community Center, designed by Birge Clark and built from 1932 to 1940, reflects the Spanish Colonial Revival style featuring a stucco exterior and clay tile roofing. It is locally significant and listed on the City’s inventory as a historic category 1 building as noted on the attached inventory form prepared in 1978 and updated in 1981 (Attachment E). As noted, the Lou Henry Hoover House, circa 1926, relocated from the current Boy Scout wing of the Stern Center to its current address at 1120 Hopkins, was named after the former First Lady, Lou Henry Hoover, who established the first west coast troop in Palo Alto and served as president of Girl Scout USA. The Lou Henry Hoover House is finished with vertical wood siding and shingle roofing material. There are shrubs in front of the building and several mature trees, including a protected coast live oak (tree #284 on arborist map), and several ruby horse chestnut trees (#283 and #289). A old bird bath or fountain, dedicated to a former boy scout master, is also found in the front yard of the and would likely be relocated to the vicinity of the Boy Scout facility at the Lucie Stern Center. Staff is reviewing the setting to determine which features of the landscaping, if any, may have been installed during the period of significance. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The historic buildings on the site are primarily one-story with some two story components. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) will have the opportunity to see and comment on the conceptual plans forthe new building with respect to compatibility with the existing older buildings on the site, and compliance of the modifications of this Category 1 site with the Secretary of Interiors’ Standards for Rehabilitation. The HRB can also provide assistance to staff regarding the AR Findings, and comment on the Historic Resource Evaluation and environmental review document, once published. Transportation Demand Management and Parking Lot Improvements The site is on shuttle, bus and bike routes, and the applicant is preparing a transportation demand management (TDM) plan for submittal with the formal application for Architectural Review. The TDM plan will address pedestrian wayfinding and accessibility enhancements on and off-site, the provision of pedestrian scale lighting, bus drop-off along Middlefield, shuttle stop enhancements, a passenger drop off area at the new JMZ entry, and other improvements for safety related to the Rinconada Plan. The TDM plan is intended to not only reduce parking demand, but also to provide clear transportation options to residents and visitors. Transportation Division staff provided comments regarding the need for coverage over bike parking, secured parking provisions, and the disadvantages of wall-mounted bike parking. There is a requirement for 50% shading of parking lots and a requirement for one parking lot tree-island for every ten parking spaces in a row. The project architect is working with the City’s landscape architect to balance the requirements for shade and tree numbers with pedestrian wayfinding and storm water drainage needs. Utilities, Public Works Review The project architect has received comments from Utilities and Public Works Engineering staff about the City’s requirements. There is a utility corridor crossing the project site and there appears to be a gas line along Middlefield Road. The applicant is aware that building foundations are not allowed to extend into a utilities easement, and major construction projects include upgrades of existing utilities lines. The project architect is aware that a Utility Plan is required with building permits to show water line and meter upgrades, backflow preventers, transformers and the like, and aware of requirements for plans submitted with the formal AR application and additional requirements for building permits. 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Plans prepared for formal AR review must include a site plan indicating storm water system connections and treatment requirements, standards for driveways, curbs and sidewalks, meters and transformers, backflow prevention, work in the right of way, notes about pavement resurfacing and storm water pollution prevention. The formal AR submittal plans also must address trash and recycling requirements. Logistics Plan Building permit applications would involve further disclosures, including submittal of a logistics plan(s). Logistics plans include pedestrian and vehicle traffic controls, truck routes and deliveries, contractor parking, on site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, noise and dust control. Conditions of approval and other measures can be designed to minimize adverse, temporary impacts of construction on residential neighborhoods. Zoning Compliance2 This project is subject to meeting the AR findings; it is not subject to Context Based Design Criteria, nor to any interim ordinances or moratoriums. The project plans indicate conformance with lot coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks and height development standards within the Public Facilities Zone District. The additional floor area proposed for the JMZ requires that additional parking spaces be provided. The proposal is to add 13 spaces to the supply on site. However, the number of parking spaces for all uses on the site is not met with the revised parking lot design. A request for a Director’s adjustment for the parking facilities is anticipated; this will be reviewed with the formal application in connection with proposed parking lot reconfiguration and transportation and parking alternatives (TDM plan). Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan3 With 150,000 annual visits, JMZ provides a strong start for children; JMZ is integral to Rinconada Park and the park is integral to the JMZ. The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) works closely with researchers and professionals to provide a rich environment that stimulates children’s natural curiosity and creativity. The proposed project is consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The applicant is preparing a draft traffic study and TDM plan which will be submitted with, or in advance of, the formal application. The formal application will be reviewed with respect to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and Safe Routes to School. The traffic study and TDM plan will be reviewed by the City’s CEQA consultant, and included as source documents for the CEQA document. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review the TDM plan as well as the Initial 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Study following publication of those documents. The Planning and Transportation staff will review the parking lot plan to ensure efficient and safe circulation and minimization of conflicts. Greenbuilding The City’s long-time policy, established in 2007 before the City established green building requirements for private development, requires City buildings to obtain LEED Silver certification or equivalent (Attachment C). If the City Council adopts the new Green Building and Energy Reach Code being proposed by staff, it is likely that compliance with the 2016 more stringent green building code requirements will satisfy the City’s LEED Silver equivalent alternative. Consistency with Application Findings The Council approved Ordinance containing updated AR findings is attached to this report (Attachment D). Environmental Review Environmental review of the proposal under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City’s consultant (Powers) is underway. Following submittal of a formal application for Architectural Review (AR), anticipated in early 2017, the Initial Study will be published for public review and comment prior to the formal ARB review hearings. The ARB will have a role in commenting on the Aesthetics section of the CEQA document. The HRB will have a role in commenting on the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources sections of the CEQA document. In January 2015, staff had launched a joint environmental study for the Rinconada Park Long Range Master Plan and the Junior Museum and Zoo Project with the help of consultants David J Powers and Associates. The CEQA review includes preparation of technical studies to analyze existing conditions and identify potential impacts, as well as preparation of an Initial Study. Completed reports to date are Air Quality, Arborist Assessment, and Noise Assessment. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 6, 2016, which is at least 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 9, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the ARB meeting. A Council study session is under consideration for early 2017, and the Parks and Recreation Commission is tentatively scheduled to review and recommend a Park Improvement Ordinance along with reviewing the Initial Study and Transportation Demand Management plan. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received regarding the current set of concept plans. Public comments have been provided in public hearings of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission. 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 18 003-46-006 003-45-014 120-08-037 124-02-010 003-58-033 120-08-012 120-08-011 20-08-009 120-08-036 124-01-011 003-45-013 120-08-031 120-08-030 120-08-029 120-08-027 120-08-015 120-08-014 120-08-013 120-08-010 120-08-038 120-08-039 120-08-040 120-08-042 124-02-011 120-08-025 120-08-019 120-08-018 120-08-017 120-08-023 003-58-051 0 003-58-032 003-45-010 003-45-009 003-45-056 003-45-057 003-45-046 120-08-028 003-45- Girl Scout House Children's Library Junior Museum and Zoo 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 00' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 89.1' 132.5' 19.0' 112.5' 119.0' 132.5'48.9' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' .0' 203.3' 20.7' 22.5' 1.8' 209.9' 1494.6' 370.8' 560.5' 241.2' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 150.0' 80.0' 15 58.0'100.0' 173.2' 108.0' 204.1' 108.0' 00' 139.2' 58.9' 139.2'22.5' 20.7' 55.9' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 95.4' 132.5' 25.3' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 90.3' 132.5' 20.2' 112.5' 461.9' 510.8' 241.2' 560.5' 370.8' 75.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 60.7' 125.0' 60.8' 125.0' 78.7' 93.0'109.7' 31.9' 82.6' 123.4' 87.4' 26.5' 60.7'32.0' 78.7' 68.2' 78.4' 3.5' 148.4' 30.6' 26.5' 87.4' 130.7' 68.4' 151.9' 71.7' 80 110.9' 51.1' 16.2' 112.0' 112.0' 82.9' 70.0' 90.0' 125.0' 90.0' 125.0' 125.0' 60.4' 125.0' 60.0' 130.7' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 67.4' 23.1'102.6' 41.5' 170.0'18.4' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 67.4' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 149.0' 50.0' 149.1' 50.0' 149.1'3.5' 6.5' 46.5' 155.7' 50.0' 155.7' 50.0' 155.8' 50.0' 108.9' 53.5' 109.0' 53.5' 108.8' 46.5' 108.9' 46.5' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 51.5' 150.0' 51.5' 156.5' 53.5' 156.5' 53.5' 10 50.0' 1010 50.0' 11 56.5' 1 52.5' 135.0' 52.5' 135.0' 70.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5'40.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5' 50.0' 60.0' 50.0' 60.0'40.0' 50.0 147.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100 50.0' 100100 50.0' 100 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 75.0' 60.0' 75.0' 60.0' 200.1' 1 57.3'42.2'50.0' EMB A RC AD ER O ROA D HOPKINS AVENUEHOPKINS AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD E M BAR C A DE RO RO AD ON STREET CEDAR STREET WILSON STREET COMMUNITY LANE COMMUNITY LANE HARRIET STREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) Curb Edge Tree (TR) abc Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions Water Feature Railroad City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary 0' 165' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto afrench, 2016-07-26 00:10:42Parcel Report (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc. • 455 Lambert Avenue • Palo Alto, CA 94306 • 650.328.1818 • Fax 650.328.1888 • www.cawarchitects.com DATE: PROJECT NAME: SUBJECT: December 12, 2016 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo Preliminary ARB Review Submittal: Project Description Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Background As the Bay Area’s only children’s science center and zoo, the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) is a place where children and families explore, wonder and make discoveries about the natural world. Our mission is to engage a child’s curiosity for science and nature. For visiting children, especially toddlers and preschoolers, we provide multi-sensorial, kinesthetic and play-based exhibits, authentic artifacts, hands-on programs, and live animal encounters designed to connect children to early science concepts. Our exhibit messaging is designed to cultivate empathy for the natural world and introduce conservation issues and solutions. For school-aged children, the museum offers annually 1,100 in-depth and hands-on science classes to 4,000 students in local elementary schools, at the museum, and in local open space preserves where students gain concrete experience and practice with scientific methods and theory, and conservation practice. The JMZ is a unique and highly valued resource for children. Child development research shows that the physical experiences offered here foster the development of abstract reasoning skills and improve learning. Research also shows that engagement with zoo animals helps children cultivate empathy for the natural world and to support conservation of wildlife and wild places. The JMZ’s intimate and approachable scale and consistent staffing has helped us forge rich and long-term relationships with our community—relationships that have allowed us to broaden and deepen the impact of our work. As the Junior Museum and Zoo approaches its 80th year, the museum and zoo are constrained by a facility that no longer reflects the needs of its visitors, collections, and operations. Due to inadequate storage and support spaces, accreditation options for both the Museum and Zoo are unobtainable. While the Educators continue to deliver outstanding educational programs, they are severely limited by lack of office, preparation and storage spaces. In addition, there are many accessibility and safety concerns in the existing facility and the surrounding site. The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum engaged the architectural firm of Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects, Inc. to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012 evaluating program and operational needs, inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction. During the master plan process, the following criteria was developed: Visitor Experience •Tailor spaces for experiences to specific audience segments, including early childhood audiences and children with special needs. •Develop safe and effective ways to connect children with live animals. •Develop classrooms that improve student engagement and learning impact. •Improve access, safety, restrooms and way finding. •Create opportunities for outdoor “play in nature” experiences. •Improve access from the JMZ to Rinconada Park amenities: playground; Children’s Library; Children’s Theatre; Stern Community Center; Art Center; Walter Hays Elementary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.b Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Collections •Provide facilities for animal health and quarantine to meet the standards of the American Zoological Association (AZA). •Improve the care and storage areas for the non-living collections--held in public trust by the Museum—to meet the standards of the American Museum Association (AMA) standards. Operations •Improve storage, access, and work areas to ensure staff safety, efficiency and effectiveness of operations. •Implement green building practices. The overarching goal of the master plan is to “right size” the JMZ facilities to properly support the progressive and innovative educational and science based programs they provide to the community. Due to the limitations of the existing facilities and infrastructure, the facility master plan culminated in a recommendation to demolish the existing museum and zoo buildings and replace with a new facility sized to adequately support the educational mission, outreach, and public programs for Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. Project Description and Scope The proposed design for the Junior Museum & Zoo Project includes constructing a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. The project scope also includes the reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lot, fire access and coverage, accessible parking stalls and pathways, storm drainage and site lighting. The proposed project scope has been and will continue to be developed in coordination with the Rinconada Master Plan for the surrounding park improvements, parking lot reconfiguration and adjacent public facilities. The Junior Museum & Zoo is located on one contiguous city-owned parcel of land which includes the historic Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Girls Scout Building, Rinconada Park, Rinconada Pool, Fire Station, Power Substation, shared-use parking lot and the JMZ. The existing JMZ building is located directly on the shared property line with Walter Hays Elementary School. The existing JMZ exterior zoo is located within the Rinconada Park boundary. The build-able area of the site is further constrained by the parking lot, multiple heritage and mature specimen trees and an existing utility corridor running underneath the existing exterior zoo. The challenge of this project is to design a museum, education center and zoo adequately size to accommodate the program while working within the multiple layers of site goals and constraints: minimizing the impact and improving the interface with Rinconada Park, reconfiguring the parking lot to maximize parking count and clarify circulation, protecting heritage and mature feature trees, improving visibility and way finding along Middlefield, and integrating a new public building within the adjacent residential neighborhood context. Design Approach: Site Organization, Massing and Materiality Our design approach strives to balance the programmatic requirements for the project with the complex site constraints through clarity of plan and volume, expressing the nature of the building materials and structure, creating a unified experience between interior and exterior spaces and featuring the natural context of this site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 2 of 5 2.b Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The JMZ Building gracefully wraps around the existing mature Pecan Tree and Dawn Redwood Tree creating positive and negative spaces allowing the interior of the building to flow out into the exterior courtyard spaces. The low mass of the building aligns with the Middlefield Road grid while the taller volume twists to align with the grid of the GirlScout and Lucie Stern buildings resolving the two geometries of this site and respectfully stepping the mass down toward the residential neighborhood along Middlefield. The building and entry canopy wrap around the existing Dawn Redwood tree creating an exterior entry courtyard featuring the Jurassic-era tree species and serving as an exciting gathering place and entry experience into the Junior Museum and Zoo. The outdoor exhibits plaza bridges over the utility corridor and under the existing large Pecan Tree connecting the walled outdoor classroom to the building. We are striving for clarity of form and materials on the intersecting volumes of the building. The building volumes are simple rectangular forms with parapet roofs. We are proposing unique materials on each volume but tying them together with different tones of neutral colors. We are proposing a panelized fiber cement panel facade material on the tallest volume. For the middle height volume, we are proposing a flat locked seamed metal panel facade material with large storefront windows revealing and featuring the iconic ball exhibit within and creating a strong entrance from the Dawn Redwood courtyard. For the low volume along Middlefield, we are proposing cement plaster with warm, natural wood siding accents that will quietly compliment the surrounding natural context and residential neighborhood. The canopies, signage and feature windows become the accents in both material, color, form and views. We are proposing a brightly colored, acrylic material on the canopies and building signage. There are feature windows on a number of facades and site walls framing views into the exhibit hall and collections storage, out to the zoo and outdoor exhibits plaza. These accents are playful and interactive representing the child-like character of this facility. The negative spaces between the positive volumes of the building: the Dawn Redwood courtyard, the outdoor exhibits plaza, and loose in the zoo enclosure; nestle within the corners of the intertwining volumes. The materiality takes inspiration from nature: “live wood” benches possibly re-using downed trees from this site, thick walls referencing the striations of rammed earth, spiderweb cable and net structure over the zoo. Each of these exterior spaces specifically and intentionally features a live (or artificial) tree allowing nature to become an educational tool at all times. Design Approach: Program and Experience The brightly colored accent canopy and signage framing the entrance and entry courtyard will draw visitors approaching by car, bike and walking. The Dawn Redwood entry courtyard will serve as an exterior lobby with covered areas for line queuing, guest storage and safe play zones for children. There will be exciting views into the museum exhibit hall, Jurassic-era tree and plantings, playful castings in sedimentary themed wall, and covered seating. The courtyard will have wood and metal grate decking raising the walk surface to protect and feature the Dawn Redwood tree roots as well as create clear circulation for JMZ guests. The main entrance into the JMZ lobby from the exterior entry courtyard provides visitors with clear circulation directly into the interior exhibits galleries or out to the exterior loose in the zoo. The exhibits gallery is composed of double high volumes for the iconic ball machine exhibit, intimate lower height spaces, views into the zoo and animal care, and a strong connection out to the exterior exhibit plaza. There is a multi-use classroom with direct access from the museum exhibit space and small teaching kitchen creating a flexible space for holding classes, evening events, birthday parties, board meetings and more. There is a second classroom with direct access from the Dawn Redwood courtyard that features views of the Jurassic-era plantings and tree creating an exciting setting for science education. The indoor exhibit space has a strong connection to the outdoor exhibit plaza located under the Pecan Tree. Visitors will be able to explore with “messy” water, sun, wind exhibits in this outdoor space with exciting views into loose in the zoo. The PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 3 of 5 2.b Packet Pg. 22 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ outdoor classroom will be a walled, partially covered outdoor space perfect for outdoor science classes, evening events and zoo themed camps. The concept for the zoo is a completely netted enclosure where birds, small mammals and children can roam about freely - loose in the zoo! Within the larger netted enclosure, there will be enclosed exhibits for larger animals - bobcats, raccoons, tortoises, meerkats along with a flamingo and waterfowl pond and raised turtle pool with “crawl-thru” opportunities. The central feature of the loose in the zoo will be the large artificial tree providing experiences children to crawl around the root zone and in a future phase climb up to a tree-fort experience in the canopy (see more about phase two below). The loose in the zoo netted enclosure forms a spider-like web overhead. The loose-in-the zoo enclosure will have a wall around it’s perimeter to meet zoo accreditation requirements. This wall creates opportunities for educational and interactive exhibits, gathering spaces, and play areas for visitors in the park beyond the zoo enclosure. The exterior zoo support area located beyond loose in the zoo provide homes for the zoo animals when they are not in loose in the zoo as well as space to store zoo maintenance materials. The area will have a wall around it’s perimeter and netting over the top. The exterior service area accessed off of Middlefield will provide vehicular access to the JMZ shop and animal support spaces, house the trash enclosure, and provide a exterior corridor for staff and animal circulation. The majority of the lower mass building along the property line with Walter Hays and fronting Middlefield is devoted to program support spaces. The JMZ administration staff, Friends staff and educators have an open office space with a shared conference room, break room, teacher preparation and collections storage spaces. The state of the art collections storage spaces will properly protect the treasures entrusted to the City of Palo Alto and the JMZ per museum accreditation standards. The teachers preparation spaces will allow educators to creatively collaborate on lessons and organize supplies for the robust educational outreach program. The program animal space will house various animal species trained for educational and interaction programs with visitors and students along with animal care and animal supply rooms. The wood shop will allow the museum staff to create exciting, innovative, age-appropriate, science exhibits to support the mission of engaging a child’s curiosity for science and nature. Future Phase 2: Program and Experience The JMZ Staff, City of Palo Alto and Friends are considering a future phase 2 addition to the JMZ to further enrich children’s experiences with animals, nature and science. In the location and footprint of the outdoor classroom, a future two story building is proposed with a classroom on the first floor and butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The building will have one interior staircase and elevator, second floor walkways overlooking the zoo and Pecan tree canopy, and an exterior stair within loose in the zoo. Possibly the most exciting part of phase 2 is the addition of a tree-fort to the central artificial feature tree in loose in the zoo with play opportunities, small animal exhibits, and the experience of being in the trees! The design for phase 2 is conceptual at this point as currently this scope is not funded. We will not be submitting phase 2 for ARB review and approval at this time, however wanted to include the conceptual floor plan, zoo site plan, and zoo sections at the end of the drawing package for reference and to build excitement for the future build out of phase 2. Design Approach: Surrounding Site Improvements In addition to the proposed JMZ Building and Zoo, the proposed design includes site improvements to the surrounding areas: Middlefield frontage, the reconfigured shared-use parking lot, and interconnecting pathways between site facilities. The proposed JMZ building is setback approximately 24’ from the Middlefield property line allowing for a generous planted zone. We are proposing attractive native species with low water use and minimal maintenance. There is a path connecting the new striped bus drop-off zone on Middlefield (part of the Rinconada Park long range master plan) to the rest of the public PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 4 of 5 2.b Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ facilities on the site. There will be improved bike paths and bike parking (both short term and long term) located close to the entrance to the JMZ and park arrival. The JMZ project and the Rinconada Park long range master plan teams are working together to reconfigure the parking lot to provide fire access, maximize parking stalls, and create safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The reconfigured shared-use parking lot includes the following improvements: •Net increase of 13 parking stalls •One improved vehicular access driveway off of Middlefield: use existing location but widened and improved; removing the existing second driveway •One vehicular access driveway off of Hopkins (proposed new location) •Two-way circulation through the parking lot with one-way circulation along the drop-off and loading zone near JMZ entrance and park arrival •Connection between the north and south parking lots, however aisles are offset to discourage traffic cutting through from Middlefield to Hopkins •Safe pedestrian routes through the parking lot: one access path between south and north parking lots, one access path from the center island to JMZ entrance We are requesting careful review and collaboration with the City’s Transportation department to ensure the intersection of Kellogg, Middlefield and improved vehicular entrance to the parking lot is safe and effective. While not included in the scope of the JMZ project, we are collaborating with the Rinconada Park long range master plan team to design the park arrival area. The goal is to create a strong entrance to the park with clear circulation from Lucie Stern, the Girl Scout Building and the JMZ. The edge of the park along the zoo enclosure will be designed to enrich the park experience with small gathering and seating areas, natural landscape and play zones such as a small grassy knoll, and artistic and educational installations along the zoo wall. Project Process and Preliminary Review Focus CAW Architects and the Friends presented to the ARB in spring of 2015 with a different, larger version of this project. After two presentations to the Parks and Recreation Commission last year, the commissioners made it clear that the previous zoo footprint and zoo support building posed too great of an impact on parkland and would not be acceptable. The Friends and CAW Architects took on the challenge to tighten the belt on the project program and re-evaluate build able square footage on the site. The site plan and proposed footprint included in this submittal reflect these efforts and were presented to the PRC in April 2016. The commissioners unanimously provided a vote of support for the project and reconfigured relationship with the park. The JMZ design team are continuing to work with the Rinconada Park long range plan team to ensure compatibility between the two design efforts. The environmental review through the CEQA process for both the JMZ project and Rinconada Park long range plan is underway with the following technical studies nearing completion: air quality, cultural resources, transportation and traffic elements, arborist reports, and historic review. The findings of the historic review were that the existing JMZ building does not contribute to the significance of the adjacent Lucie Stern Cultural Center, nor is it eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor the National Register of Historic Places. The CEQA document is scheduled to be released to the public in spring of 2017 and go before council for approval by summer of 2017. In this preliminary Architectural Review Board submittal and review process, we are requesting a focused review of the proposed site organization, massing, and materials as they relate to the surrounding context and the mission of the Junior Museum and Zoo. After receiving preliminary ARB comments, CAW and the Friends will work toward a formal review submittal early spring of 2017. PROJECT DESCRIPTION________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page 5 of 5 2.b Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) ATTACHMENT C: AMENDED POLICY CITY OF PALO ALTO GREEN BUILDING POLICY FOR CITY BUILDINGS CLEAN VERSION The City of Palo Alto intends to incorporate sustainable, green building practices into the design and construction of City buildings, as part of the Council’s overall Sustainability Policy. Specifically, City buildings shall be designed and constructed according to the following criteria: 1. New Construction – All new City buildings over 5,000 square feet shall be designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver or equivalent rating system certification, except as provided in #3 below. 2. Renovations, Additions and Other Buildings – All renovations of or additions to existing City facilities shall be designed to use environmentally sound, green building techniques and materials. LEED or equivalent checklists shall be used as guidelines to identify and enhance green building measures. Substantial renovations or additions of 5,000 square feet or greater shall be evaluated by a designated green building professional to determine the costs and benefits of adding or enhancing green building features. Such facilities shall generally be designed to achieve LEED or LEED Existing Building (LEED-EB) or equivalent rating certification, except as provided in #3 below. 3. Exceptions – Exceptions for new buildings and for substantial renovations and additions may be approved where the City Council determines that LEED or equivalent certification would be impractical or unreasonably costly and that all reasonable green building measures are otherwise incorporated into the project design. Examples of projects that may be considered for exceptions include, but are not limited to: a) buildings requiring compliance with historic preservation criteria, b) additions where compliance with the remainder of the facility or site is impractical, c) projects requiring joint funding with other jurisdictions, and d) buildings that are primarily intended for storage or equipment purposes rather than human occupancy. 4. Certification – For projects requiring compliance with LEED (or equivalent) criteria, the City Council may, in lieu of LEED certification by the U.S. Green Building Council, require independent verification of LEED compliance by a LEED-accredited professional, where it is determined that the cost of certification is excessive and the funds could be better used to enhance the green building features of the project. 5. Site Improvement Projects – Careful planning and consideration shall be given to improvements to sites containing City buildings, parks, and/or open spaces. Projects should emphasize the preservation of native plant and animal species, incorporate drainage and runoff control measures into landscape features, discourage impervious landscaping and construction, provide protection of creek and riparian environments and water quality, and promote the use of drought-resistant landscaping. 6. Maintenance of Existing City Buildings and Facilities – Life cycle cost analysis shall be undertaken for building system or component replacement projects where appropriate in the judgment of the Public Works Director or his designee in an effort to specify the most energy, water and maintenance efficient systems in relation to initial cost. 2.c Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C i t y B u i l d i n g s L E E D S i l v e r 2 0 0 7 P o l i c y ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) 12-03-07 Page 2 7. Reuse and Demolition – Existing City facilities and materials shall be reused where possible to reduce the generation of solid waste and expenditure of energy, water and other resources to create new facilities, where consistent with City objectives for providing desirable facilities and services for residents and businesses. On projects where demolition is required, in order to maximize the amount of waste materials diverted from landfills, deconstruction techniques shall be employed whenever practical, and all salvageable items shall be recovered and put to appropriate use. 8. Demonstration and Education – To the extent practical, City facilities should demonstrate leadership and educate the public about sustainability and green building practices and features, through the use of interpretive signs and exhibits at the facility, and by providing information on the City’s website. 2.c Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C i t y B u i l d i n g s L E E D S i l v e r 2 0 0 7 P o l i c y ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 1 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 Ordinance No. _______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning Regulations), Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. As part of the City’s annual Zoning Code update, the City desires to improve its Architectural Review findings to ensure robust design review, to eliminate repetitive findings and to remove outmoded and unnecessary findings. B. On September 3 and October 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the draft updated architectural review findings and provided input. Subsequently, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the AR findings and recommended that Council approve them without any changes. C. On April 11, 2016, the Council reviewed the draft findings, suggested revisions and directed staff and the ARB to review the updated language and offer approval, feedback or changes. D. On June 16, 2016, the ARB reviewed the updated findings and provided additional comments. E. On August 10, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the updated findings and concurred with the ARB and Staff’s comments. F. On September 12, and November 14, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the current draft of the updated architectural review findings. SECTION 2. Subdivision (d) of Section 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.76.020 Architectural Review. *** (d) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: (1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: 2.d Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d O r d i n a n c e A R F i n d i n g s 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 2 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 (a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7) 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; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept; 2.d Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d O r d i n a n c e A R F i n d i n g s 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 3 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (13) 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 and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14) 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; (15) ITie 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: (A) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E) Use sustainable building materials; (F) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G) Create healthy indoor environments; and (H) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). SECTION 3. Adoption of this ordinance is found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)because: (1) the activity (rewording of Architectural Review findings) is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment, and (2) this ‘minor alteration in land use limitations’ does not result in any changes in land use or density. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance and 2.d Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d O r d i n a n c e A R F i n d i n g s 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Not Yet Approved 161121 jb 0131537 4 Rev. Nov. 21 2016 each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 2.d Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d O r d i n a n c e A R F i n d i n g s 1 2 - 1 2 - 1 6 ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r H i s t o r i c I n v e n t o r y S h e e t ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r H i s t o r i c I n v e n t o r y S h e e t ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO 1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA [15188] PREPRARED FOR: DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES JULY 20, 2016 REVISED 2.f Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) 2.f Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 Page & Turnbull, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2 II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS ............................................................................ 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .................................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ..................................................................... 3 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .................................................................................................. 3 HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT (2004) ....................................................................................................... 4 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 5 SITE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 EXTERIOR ............................................................................................................................................ 6 INTERIOR ........................................................................................................................................... 12 OUTDOOR ZOO .............................................................................................................................. 13 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................ 14 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 16 PALO ALTO HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 16 HISTORY OF JUNIOR MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................................ 19 PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO ...................................................................................... 20 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY ................................................................................................. 22 OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS ........................................................................................................... 28 ORIGINAL ARCHITECT & BUILDER .................................................................................................. 28 V. EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 30 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 30 INTEGRITY ......................................................................................................................................... 32 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 33 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 34 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 35 PUBLISHED WORKS .......................................................................................................................... 35 PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................................................................................................. 35 NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS .................................................................................................... 35 INTERNET SOURCES......................................................................................................................... 36 2.f Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 1 Page & Turnbull, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) Part 1 has been prepared at the request of David J. Powers & Associates for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo in Palo Alto. The building was constructed in 1941 and is located within Rinconada Park on the north side of Middlefield Road (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The property is officially addressed at 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California 94301 (APN 003-46-006). Figure 1. Parcel map of Rinconada Park and 1451 Middlefield Avenue (outlined in red). Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull. 2.f Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 2 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 2. Detail of subject parcel map showing the current footprint of 1451 Middlefield Road in pink. Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION Constructed in 1941, the building at 1451 Middlefield Road has continually housed the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. The institution of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The building at 1451 Middlefield Road has undergone significant alterations over its history and the building has been found not to be eligible for listing the National Register or California Registers under any criteria. METHODOLOGY This Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 provides a summary of previous historical surveys and ratings, a site description, historic context statement, and an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. This report discusses the institutional history of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo as well as the physical history of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road which was constructed to house the museum in 1941. Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including the Palo Alto Public Library, Palo Alto Historical Association, City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, Online Archive of California, and various other online sources. Information from Page & Turnbull’s previous historical assessment in 2004 also informed this report. Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit in February 2016 to review the existing conditions of the property and formulate the descriptions and assessments included in this report. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull in February 2016 unless otherwise noted. 2.f Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 3 Page & Turnbull, Inc. II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building at 1451 Middlefield Road. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. 1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources individually or as part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Properties listed by, or under review by, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) between “1” and “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR). Properties with a Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of “3” or “4” appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of “6” are not eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource either has not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation. 1451 Middlefield Road is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code. The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara County that lists the Status Codes was in April 2012. PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The inventory is organized under the following four Categories: 2.f Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 4 Page & Turnbull, Inc.  Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.  Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.  Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. 1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category. The subject parcel, which encompasses all of Rinconada Park, is designated in City of Palo Alto records as a Category 1 property because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1 designation does not apply to any other building or facility within the park. HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT (2004) In 2003, Page & Turnbull conducted a historical assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo facility as part of the Conservation Assessment Program grant awarded by Heritage Preservation. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the potential architectural and historical significance of 1451 Middlefield Road and to evaluate whether or not the building contributed to the significance of the adjacent Lucie Stern Community Center. Page & Turnbull’s report included a building description, brief history of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, and a preliminary assessment of the building’s individual and contributing significance. The report concluded that the building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in a local, state, or national register, and that the building does not contribute to the significance of the Lucie Stern Cultural Center. The report also indicated that in the event of a proposed project at the site, the building’s significance under National and California register Criterion A/1 (events) should be further investigated. 2.f Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 5 Page & Turnbull, Inc. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION SITE The building at 1451 Middlefield Road, which houses the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, stands along the southwest edge of Rinconada Park, an 18,257-acre parcel in the Community Center neighborhood (Figure 3). A large surface parking lot separates the building from the Lucie Stern Community Center and the Girl Scout Hall. A wood-post and wire fence encloses a lawn, open “science yard” used for activities, and covered sitting area near the primary entrance at the northwest side of the building. The outdoor zoo is located northeast of the museum building. A tall wood slat fence surrounds the zoo area and animal enclosures, separating it from the parking lot and nearby playground. Originally constructed in 1941, the one-and-two-story building was designed in a vernacular Ranch style. The wood frame building sits on a concrete foundation and occupies approximately 7,051 square feet. The walls are clad in textured stucco. The building is composed of a U-shaped arrangement of two main volumes with central, connecting hyphens. The northwest and southeast volumes have side-gabled roofs. A two-story tower capped with a hipped roof is located within the northwest volume. Between the building’s two main volumes is an enclosed courtyard with a flat roof. The gable and hipped roofs are clad with wood shakes and the central flat roof is covered with built-up roofing. Figure 3. Aerial photograph of 1451 Middlefield Road, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (outlined in red). North is up. Source: Google Maps, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull. 2.f Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 6 Page & Turnbull, Inc. EXTERIOR Primary (Northwest) Façade The primary façade faces northwest onto a small lawn and a parking lot. The façade is composed of two one-story, side-gabled wings extending from the two-story tower, all a part of the northwest volume (Figure 4). The north (left) wing contains a band of three wood-frame sliding windows, set within the upper portion of the wall (Figure 5). The two-story tower contains the building’s primary entrance at center, accessed by a wide concrete landing with stairs and a ramp. A fully glazed, wood-frame double door leads into the entrance lobby. The door is flanked by two-lite fixed wood-frame sidelights. Two square stucco-clad posts are located on either side of two-story ground floor. The second story of the tower projects slightly from the main plane of the façade. The lower half is clad in flush horizontal wood siding and features a full-width wood sign reading “Palo Alto Junior Museum.” The upper half is clad in wood lap siding and contains three double-hung wood-frame windows with wood-frame screens. A metal spire sits at the peak of the hipped roof (Figure 6). The south (right) wing is approximately twice the length of the north wing. The left portion of the wing contains a bay of seven almost full-height fixed wood windows. The eighth bay contains a solid wood door with fixed transom (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Right of these windows is a band of three wood-frame sliding windows, set in the upper portion of the wall, and a solid wood door with fixed transom (Figure 9). This façade terminates in overhanging roof eaves with exposed rafter tails, simple fascia, and metal gutters. Figure 4. Primary (northwest) façade of 1451 Middlefield Road, view looking southeast. 2.f Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 7 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Southwest Façade The southwest façade faces Middlefield Avenue and a lawn with a large hedge (Figure 10). The west (left) portion of the façade, part of the northwest volume, contains no fenestration and terminates in an end gable (Figure 11). A small wood vent is located below the gable peak. At center is a connecting hyphen that features a side-gabled roof, which contains paired solid wood doors with Figure 5. Windows at the north wing of the primary façade, view looking northeast. Figure 6. Two-story tower and primary entrance at primary façade, view looking southeast. Figure 7. South wing of primary façade, view looking southwest. Figure 8. Detail view of window bay at south wing of primary faced, view looking northeast. Figure 9. Southernmost portion of the south wing at primary façade, view looking southeast. 2.f Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 8 Page & Turnbull, Inc. metal vents. Above this entrance is a band of five windows. The fixed wood-frame transom window above the entrance is flanked by metal-frame awning windows (Figure 12). The east (right) portion of the façade, part of the southeast volume, contains one wood door east of center accessed by a low concrete landing, and a wood vent below the gable peak. This portion of the façade terminates in an end gable, similar to the west portion of the façade (Figure 13). The entire southwest façade has a wide overhanging roof eave, which features exposed rafter tails and a simple fascia. Rear (Southeast) Façade The rear (southeast) façade faces the paved parking lot of the adjacent Walter Hayes Elementary School. This façade of the one-story southeast volume contains no fenestration (Figure 14 and Figure 15). A continuous side gable extends the full width of the façade. The north portion of this volume is an addition that features a slightly taller gable roof. The gable peaks of the two roofs are parallel but off-set by a few feet (Figure 16). The shallow roof eave at the rear façade contains a simple stucco soffit and metal gutter. Several full-height vertical cracks were observed in the stucco. Figure 10. Southwest façade, view looking northeast across Middlefield Road. Figure 11. Left portion of the southwest façade, view looking northeast. Figure 12. Connecting hyphen, wood double doors, and band of windows, view looking northeast. Figure 13. Right portion of the southwest façade, view looking northeast. 2.f Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 9 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The second story of the two-story tower contains two wood-frame double-hung windows on its southeast façade. Vents and ductwork on the roof are visible at this façade between the two windows (Figure 17). Figure 14. Southeast façade, view looking northwest from the adjacent school parking lot. Figure 15. Southeast façade, view looking northeast. Figure 16. Taller gable-roof addition at the north portion of the façade, view looking northwest. Figure 17. Southeast façade of the two-story tower, view looking northwest. Double-hung windows and mechanical equipment are just visible. Northeast Façade The northeast façade faces the outdoor zoo and exhibit area. This façade features the northwest and southeast volumes, as well as a recessed center portion and an L-shaped patio (Figure 18 and Figure 19). The northeast façade of the southeast (left) volume contains a single wood door and a small wood vent below the gable peak. The rafter tails on the northeast façade have been removed from the overhanging roof eave. The inner northwest façade of the southeast volume has a band of four wood-frame awning windows and three large fixed wood-frame windows further south (Figure 20 and Figure 21). An open trellis overhang extends from the shallow roof eave of the northwest façade. This volume’s inner southwest façade contains one wood door (Figure 22). The center portion of the northeast façade contains the entrance to the museum space and the enclosed courtyard. It features a five-bay bank of full-height wood-frame windows, flanked by single wood doors in the outer bays. A wood-slat bee enclosure projects from center. This portion of the façade terminates in a side-gabled roof, obscured by a wood trellis and partially open roof sheltering the patio (Figure 23-Figure 26). 2.f Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 10 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The northwest (right) volume (the north wing from the primary facade) features several embedded display cases, set low in the wall to be at a child’s eye level and with wide sills containing interpretive panels. The inner southeast façade contains three display cases and a solid wood door (Figure 19 and Figure 26). Display cases are wood frame with a metal lip along the upper edge. The northeast façade of this volume contains two display cases, a solid wood door accessed by a concrete ramp, and one fixed wood-frame window (Figure 27 and Figure 28). Figure 18. Northeast façade of the Junior Museum, view looking southwest from the zoo area. Figure 19. L-shaped patio at center of northeast façade, view looking southwest. Figure 20. Awning windows at the inner northwest façade of the southeast volume, view looking southeast. 2.f Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 11 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 21. Wood windows at the inner northwest façade of the southeast volume further south, view looking southeast from patio. Figure 22. Inner southwest façade of the southeast volume, view looking northeast from the L-shaped patio. Figure 23. L-shaped patio, bee-enclosure, and bank of windows at center portion of northeast façade, view looking south. Figure 24. Wood door left of bee enclosure, view looking southwest. 2.f Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 12 Page & Turnbull, Inc. INTERIOR The central interior space of the museum is the enclosed courtyard at the center of the building (Figure 29). The perimeter of the enclosed courtyard has an angled plaster ceiling, while the center portion is raised and features exposed beams. Classrooms, storage, and staff rooms are located along the southeast and southwest sides of the building. The northwest portion of the interior contains an open exhibit room, lobby at the ground floor of the two-story tower, and staff room in the north wing. The second story contains offices. Figure 25. Windows and entrance at northeast façade, view looking northeast from museum interior. Figure 26. Entrance to museum interior at northeast façade, view looking southwest. Figure 27. Northeast façade of northwest volume, containing display cases, wood door (shown while open), and fixed wood window, view looking southwest. Figure 28. Detail view of low display cases, view looking southwest. 2.f Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 13 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 29. Enclosed courtyard interior exhibit space, view looking southwest. OUTDOOR ZOO The outdoor zoo area is located northeast of the museum building (Figure 30-Figure 33). Surrounded by a wood-slat fence, the zoo is a collection of enclosures arranged around a pond. Landscaping surrounds the concrete-basin, which features an arched wooden bridge. The northwest side of the zoo contains four polygonal concrete enclosures. Three are capped with hipped conical roofs that are clad in wood shake, while the raccoon enclosure is covered by large wood beams. Some enclosures are clad with stucco while others are exposed rough-faced concrete masonry units (CMU). The enclosures contains both wood frame and metal frame windows. A raised concrete fountain and a concrete tortoise enclosure are located in the north portion of the zoo. The southeast side of the zoo contains a bobcat enclosure with a CMU viewing area and wood post fence, as well as a wood-framed and screened aviary. Figure 30. Zoo area with pond and bridge at center, view looking north. Figure 31. Enclosures at northwest side of the zoo, view looking west. 2.f Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 14 Page & Turnbull, Inc. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is located in the Community Center neighborhood, which is bounded by Middlefield Road to the west, Channing Avenue to the north, Newell Road to the east, and Embarcadero Road to the south. The neighborhood is characterized by the large open space of Rinconada Park in the southern portion, and single-family residential buildings in the northern portion. The Walter Hayes Elementary School is adjacent to and southeast of the subject property (Figure 34). The Lucie Stern Community Center is located northwest across the surface parking lot and the Girl Scout Hall is northeast of the subject building (Figure 35). Construction of the Spanish Colonial-style Community Center was completed in 1940, and the log cabin-style Girl Scout Hall was opened several years before, in 1926. The remainder of Rinconada Park is open lawn and contains a children’s playground (Figure 35). Residences across Middlefield Road are one- and two-story English Revival, Mission Revival, and contemporary styles, and were constructed from the mid-1920s through the 2000s (Figure 37). Figure 32. Raccoon enclosure and fountain at northern portion of zoo, view looking northwest. Figure 33. Bobcat enclosure at southeast side of zoo, view looking northeast. Figure 34. Walter Hayes Elementary School, view looking northeast from Middlefield Road. Figure 35. Rear façade of the Community Center, across parking lot from the Junior Museum and Zoo, view looking northwest. 2.f Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 15 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 36. Open space of Rinconada Park, view looking north. Figure 37. Residence across Middlefield Road, view looking southwest from the museum. 2.f Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 16 Page & Turnbull, Inc. IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT PALO ALTO HISTORY The earliest known settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people. The region was colonized by Gaspar de Portola in 1769 as part of Alto California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos, and the land that would become Palo Alto belonged to several, including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.1 The subject property at 1451 Middlefield Road was located on what was formerly Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, and, at more than 2,200 acres, covered all of the original Palo Alto town site. The northern and eastern boundaries were distinguished by San Francisquito Creek, while the western boundary was located near El Camino Real and the southern boundary paralleled Embarcadero Road farther south.2 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century. The current city of Palo Alto contains the former township of Mayfield. In 1882, railroad magnate and California politician Leland Stanford purchased 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his larger estate. Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. The Stanfords’ teenage son died in 1884, leading the couple to create a university in his honor. Contrary to contemporary institutions, the Stanfords wanted a co-educational and non-denominational university.3 On March 9, 1885, the university was founded through an endowment act by the California Assembly and Senate. Using the Stock Farm land, they established Stanford University In 1886, Stanford went to Mayfield where he was interested in founding his university since the school needed a nearby service town to support its operations. However, the Stanfords required alcohol to be banned from the town because they believed that the university’s mission and community would be negatively impacted by any nearby presence of alcohol.4 With 13 popular saloons then operating in Mayfield, the town eventually rejected the Stanfords’ request. Seeking an alternative, Stanford decided in 1894 to found the town of Palo Alto with aid from his friend Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of private land.5 Known as both the Hopkins Tract and University Park, it was bounded by the San Francisquito Creek to the north and the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the south (Figure 38). The subject property of 1451 Middlefield Road was located at the northern edge of the first platted portion of Palo Alto. 1 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed December 22, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. 2 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17. 3 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, accessed December 22, 2014, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. 4 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed December 22, 2014, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA 5 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. 2.f Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 17 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 38. Map of the original town of Palo Alto. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University. Palo Alto was a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. A new train stop was created along University Avenue and the new town flourished serving the university. Palo Alto grew to be much more prosperous than its southeastern neighbor Mayfield. Many people employed at Stanford University chose to move there, and it was considered the safer and more desirable alternative of the two towns.6 The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of University professors clustered in the neighborhood deemed Professorville. The development of a local streetcar in 1906 and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910 facilitated access to jobs outside the city and to the University, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto.7 In reaction to the decline of Mayfield, its residents voted to become a “dry” town in 1904, with sole exception of allowing the Mayfield Brewery to continue. However, the town was plagued by financial issues and could not compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.8 6 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com, website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php. 7 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore, 1-4. 8 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora. 2.f Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 18 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). In 1917, zoning matters were tasked to this advisory commission in order to control development and design. Regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and appropriateness within residential areas fell under the purview of the CPC. From this early period, Palo Alto has maintained control over the built environment, which has resulted its relatively low density and consistent aesthetic. However, the zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century played a part in the racial segregation of the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several neighborhoods were created with race covenants regarding home ownership and occupation, until this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.9 The academic nature of the town prevented factories or other big industries from settling in Palo Alto, limiting the range of people who would populate the area. Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not grow substantially. World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the Peninsula. When the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many families who had been stationed on the Peninsula by the military or who worked in associated industries chose to stay, and the baby boom began. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in 1953.10 Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and development in the city. The city center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s (Figure 39), gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.11 Figure 39. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University. 9 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7. 10 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 11 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4. 2.f Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 19 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west of the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into the 1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon Valley. Palo Alto consciously maintains its high proportion of open space to development and the suburban feeling and scale of its architecture. HISTORY OF JUNIOR MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED STATES The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, located at 1451 Middlefield Road, belongs to a nation-wide movement of children’s museums focused on nature and science education that began at the turn of the 20th century. The development of museums for children and young adults is underrepresented in museum historiography, partially due to the fact that most institutions evolved out of local motivation. The inherently local nature of these museums thwarts developing a widespread understanding of how many developed and when they were founded. Differences in naming between “children’s museums, “junior museums,” and nature, science, and “discovery” centers geared towards children also contribute to the lack of a comprehensive history. Some histories draw strict distinctions between these types of institutions while others considered them part of the same movement.12 The first children’s museum to open was the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, established in 1899. Envisioned as a place where children could touch and play with the exhibits, the purpose of the museum was to engage children’s imaginations and attention while learning about science and natural history. The museum occupied the historic Adams House, formerly used as a storage building for the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences.13 The success of the Brooklyn Children’s Museum led to the establishment of the Boston Children’s Museum in 1913, Detroit Children’s Museum in 1917, Children’s Museum of Indianapolis in 1925, and several more in the 1920s and 1930s.14 The Palo Alto Junior Museum opened in 1934 during this early wave of museum popularity. Having a children’s museum separate from traditional museums is noted to be a “particularly American museological phenomenon.”15 Many European and other American museums contented themselves with children’s rooms, if they allowed children in at all. Despite this American trend, it was not a wide-spread practice for early institutions. In 1941, it is believed that only eight children’s museums occupied their own facility – and not necessarily one constructed for their use.16 Early museums almost universally made use of large, empty homes and expanded or moved as necessary. The ideology behind children’s museums was not just to educate children, but to inspire them with an institution that they felt was created for them. They were not intruders or barred from 12 Shannon O’Donnell, “Junior Grows Up: The Development of the Tallahassee Museum, 1957-1992” (Masters thesis, Florida State University, 2009), 6-7; Edward Porter Alexander and Mary Alexander, Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Fundamentals of Museums (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008), 15, 167; “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times, June 22, 1950, 22. 13 Edward Porter Alexander, The Museum in America: Innovators and Pioneers (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 1997), 133. 14 “Timeline,” Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, accessed February 29, 2016, http://thehistory.childrensmuseum.org/timeline; “History,” Boston Children’s Museum, accessed February 29, 2016, http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/about/history. 15 Thomas Schlereth, quoted by Rebecca Stiles Onion, “Picturing Nature and Childhood at the American Museum of Natural History and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, 1899-1930,” Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4.3 (2001), 450-451. 16 Ibid. 2.f Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 20 Page & Turnbull, Inc. participating as they might be at a traditional museum. These institutions provided educational tools outside of regular classrooms during an era of heightened interest in childhood education reform and in the study and appreciation of nature. Museum collections consisted of a range of items and exhibits, including dioramas, fossils, taxidermy, wiring and radio systems, and anything that could be donated or collected from local sources or cast-offs from other museums. They also offered outdoor trips, art classes, lectures, and sometimes classes for adults. In this manner, children’s museums fostered an active and continuing community that traditional adult museums lacked. One figure that looms large in the history of children’s museums is John Ripley Forbes. He is credited with establishing over 200 nature centers and science museums for children throughout the United States. From a young age, Forbes was influenced by his neighbor William T. Hornaday, noted naturalist and director of the Bronx Zoo. In the late 1930s, Forbes convinced the city to convert an abandoned mansion and opened his first museum, the Kansas City Museum of History and Science. In 1937, he established the William T. Hornaday Foundation to fund children’s museums, which would later become the National Science for Youth Foundation.17 Forbes’ museums had a strong outdoor education component, based on a belief in the benefits of exposing children to nature. During the 1950s, he lived in Sacramento and influenced several institutions throughout California. Forbes died in 2006, and his impact on the children’s museum movement is only recently coming to light.18 During and after World War II, the youth museum movement gained momentum. Science education was placed in a national spotlight by the war, Cold War politics, and the space race. The United States government provided funds for museums, recognizing their education potential and widespread influence.19 By report of the Association of Children’s Museums, by 1975 there were 38 children’s museums in the United States. Based on the strict criteria by which the Association defines “children’s museum,” it is likely that far more youth museums were operating by that time. Other studies postulate that by the 1960s, over 40 children’s museums, youth and junior museums were open.20 Today, there are over 200 specifically children’s museums in the United States, as well as hundreds of youth-centered education centers.21 The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is not a member of the Association of Children’s Museums, which officially lists 33 institutions in California. PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO In the midst of the Great Depression, Palo Alto resident Josephine O’Hara proposed that the community create a small museum to occupy the area’s young children. A “leisure time” committee existed for adults, but there were hardly any activities or engagements for children. O’Hara had visited the children’s museums in Brooklyn and Boston and decided that a similar institution would appeal to the Palo Alto community. In January 1934, O’Hara presented the idea of a children’s museum to the community center commission and the public. A nine-member committee was formed to study the feasibility of such a scheme and to prepare a small exhibition for a spring fair.22 17 Margalit Fox, “John Ripley Forbes, 93, Who Planted Many Nature Museums, is Dead,” New York Times, September 5, 2006, accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/obituaries/05forbes.html; “Mr. Appleseed,” Time, December 21, 1953, 65-66. 18 Gary Ferguson, Nature’s Keeper: John Ripley Forbes and the Children’s Nature Movement (Helena, MT: Sweetgrass Books, 2012). 19 O’Donnell, “Junior Grows Up,” 2009, 12. 20 Herminia Weihsin Din, “An Investigation of Children’s Museums in the United States – Their Past, Present, and Future: A Proposed Study,” Marilyn Zurmuehlin Working Papers in Art Education 15 (1999): 63-69. 21 Association of Children’s Museums online database, accessed February 29, 2016. http://www.childrensmuseums.org/childrens-museums/find-a-childrens-museum/ 22 Phyllis Mackall, “Palo Alto Junior Museum’s 25th Year Observed,” Palo Alto Times, July 16, 1959. 2.f Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 21 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The idea caught immediate public support, and the first iteration of the museum was housed for four months in the art room of the Palo Alto Public Library. In July 1934, the Children’s Museum (as it was known then) officially opened. Josephine O’Hara was the curator and 4,342 children visited the museum during its first year.23 Inspired by the burgeoning children’s museum movement on the East Coast, this institution appears to be the first museum of its kind west of the Mississippi River. In November 1934, the museum formalized its board of directors and established a membership program. The exhibits moved from the library into the basement of Sherman Grade School. Constantly growing, the main branch of the museums and its offices were established in the basement underneath a wing of the Community Center in 1937, while some exhibits remained in the school basement for two more years. During these early years the museum staff were partially supported by WPA (Works Progress Administration) and NYA (National Youth Administration) funds, and volunteers were key components of the museum’s operation. This early period from 1934-1940 saw significant growth in the volume of exhibits and items for the collection, as well as popularity among the community. Summer activities were held at the Addison School, outdoor activity and hikes were led by Josephine O’Hara, and temporary exhibits rotated through five local schools. Attendance continued to increase; by 1940, child visitors totaled 12,702.24 Part of the motivation behind the museum was to imbue the children with initiative, interest, and inner resources that would equip them to deal with another economic depression and to be leaders in the future. In 1941, a gift of $10,000 was made by the local Margaret Frost Foundation to fund construction of a new facility for the museum. The City of Palo Alto offered a portion of land in Rinconada Park, and the museum found a permanent home. Contemporary reports claim that Palo Alto was the first children’s museum to construct its own facility, and research has not uncovered any evidence to the contrary. In order to appeal to young patrons who objected to being called “children,” the museum’s name was officially changed to the Palo Alto Junior Museum.25 Almost immediately after the building’s opening, a $12,000 grant was awarded to the Museum by the philanthropic Columbia Foundation of San Francisco to build a new science wing. Local newspapers constantly reported new activities of the museum, from new acquisitions or traveling exhibits of Native American baskets or African masks to the meetings of hobby groups that included art, ceramics, archery, woodworking, and stamp collection. During the summer vacation, the museum led at least four activities six days a week, not including the regular collection. The variety of programs offered by the Junior Museum seemed almost endless.26 According to local press, as of June 1950 there were only sixteen children’s museums in the United States.27 Given the varied nature of youth museums, their focuses, and their names, it is difficult to know if this was indeed true, but research has not found evidence contradicting this claim. 23 Gene Hammond, “Children’s Museum: First in the United States,” Peninsula Life, August 1948, 20. 24 “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times, June 22, 1950, 22; “Children have place to ride their hobbies,” Palo Alto Times, March 7, 1941; “Brief History of Formation and Development of the Children’s Museum of Palo Alto, Inc.,” August 1941, Palo Alto Historical Association. 25 “Junior Museum building will open in October,” Palo Alto Times, 1941, 8A; Gene Hammond, “Children’s Museum: First in the United States,” Peninsula Life, August 1948, 20; Palo Alto Junior Museum “Golden Anniversary” program, 1984. 26 Verdella Rose, “Youngsters will get lots of sun riding Children’s Museum hobbies,” Palo Alto Times, June 18, 1941. 27 “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times, June 22, 1950, 22. 2.f Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 22 Page & Turnbull, Inc. The institution continued to grow in size and popularity, and in 1969, a remodeled and expanded museum opened. The adjoining zoo was opened, creating great excitement about a permanent collection of birds, snakes, raccoons, a bobcat, and even a golden eagle. During the mid-20th century, children’s museums all over the country began having live animal collections, zoos, or partnering with wildlife preserves to foster a better appreciation and understanding for animals and the natural world. Economic difficulties for the City of Palo Alto in the 1980s threatened the zoo’s continuation.28 The local community rallied to save it, and today the zoo features more than 50 animal species.29 The zoo remains an essential amusement for children today. The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo continues to play an active role in the community and is beloved by generations of Palo Alto and San Francisco Bay Area residents. Its mission to educate and engage children in the fields of science, nature, and art remains strong, and over 150,000 people visit the museum each year.30 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The chronology in the following table provides a list of alterations for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo based on available building permits: Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work 1941 None available Dole Ford Thompson; Aro & Okerman City of Palo Alto Original construction of the subject building 1948 84-913 None listed City of Palo Alto Front office remodel: create new lobby office and remove existing doors at back wall 4/12/1968 27421 GMI Construction City of Palo Alto Construction of addition and remodeling of museum building 6/21/1968 16853 Stanford Electric City of Palo Alto Electrical work 6/26/1968 11569 GMI Construction City of Palo Alto Installation of “electrical apparatus” 6/13/1975 4026 Menlo Oaks Plumbing City of Palo Alto Plumbing work 6/10/1983 83-450 None listed City of Palo Alto Remove interior pocket doors and replaced with hinge types 4/13/1987 87-758 City of Palo Alto Facilities Management City of Palo Alto Renovations to enclosures at northwest side of zoo, including new cut-faced block wall cladding and wire partitions 28 Paul Gullixson, “A plan to save children’s zoo in Palo Alto,” Palo Alto Times, June 10, 1988, A-1. 29 “About the Junior Museum and Zoo,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 20, 2016. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/ 30 Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, “The JMZ Initiative,” 5. 2.f Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 23 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work 7/6/1988 89-858 City of Palo Alto Facilities Management City of Palo Alto New trellis canopy at northeast façade entrance 1/17/1992 92-467 None listed City of Palo Alto Installation of door at raccoon cage 12/6/1994 94-3253 Ernie Erickson City of Palo Alto Install ADA hardware, accessible threshold and stair hardware 8/21/1996 96-2661 CSS Associates City of Palo Alto Install door hardware, landing, and ramp hardware (presumed to be at primary façade) 12/9/1996 96-3837 Hugo Estrada City of Palo Alto Install two water heaters and new electrical outlets 1996 96-3817 Z. Johnson City of Palo Alto Unspecified plumbing and electrical work 2/5/1999 99-315 Salas O’Brien Engineers City of Palo Alto Install new fluorescent strip lighting in exhibit hall (enclosed courtyard) 4/13/2001 01-0923 Hugo Estrada; Gidel & Rocal City of Palo Alto Conversion of storage room at southwest side of building into classroom; Some demolition of non-bearing interior walls, electrical work, and removal of kiln hood in ceramic kiln room 6/13/2002 02-1567 Lehrman Cameron Studio Renovation of bat habitat: new CMU wall and new wood-frame viewing area 10/26/2009 09-2342 Devcon Friends of Palo Alto Junior Museum Partial demolition of CMU wall at aviary to build new bobcat enclosure, relocate aviary, relocate coastal stream display 10/26/2009 09-2343 Devcon Friends of Palo Alto Junior Museum Construction of new bobcat enclosure at southeast side of zoo The Palo Alto Junior Museum building was originally designed and constructed in 1941 by architect Dole Ford Thompson and builders Aro & Okerman. No original building permit was available. The design was a symmetrical arrangement of two one-story wings extending north and south from a two-story tower (Figures 40-42). The central tower contained a foyer, offices, and storage, while the north wing held a workroom and the south wing contained the museum and exhibits. Each wing contained four sliding windows on the northwest façade. The ground floor entrance was recessed 2.f Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 24 Page & Turnbull, Inc. below the second story of the tower, with large wood posts at the entrance and a fully glazed double wood with no sidelights. Two windows flanked the entrance.31 A new science building (the current southeast volume) was completed in 1943 as a separate gable- roofed, wood-frame volume southeast of the main building. The buildings were connected by a patio for outdoor activities. In 1944, a glass-enclosed nature studio was constructed between the northwest and southeast volumes, creating a U-shaped floorplan (Figure 43). In 1955, two rooms were added to the southeast volume.32 In 1956, an addition by architect Harold Ahnfeldt extended the south wing of the main building towards Middlefield Road. Today, the south wing of the primary façade has been extended by approximately twice its original length. Throughout the 1950s several other changes occurred to reconfigure the connection of the different volumes and enclose the courtyard (Figure 44).33 Between 1968 and 1969, the museum underwent a comprehensive remodeling and expansion. Classroom and workspaces, including a kiln room, were remodeled. Roof repairs were also completed. The outdoor zoo was added as part of the institution’s expansion. The zoo has remained largely unchanged except for the material and shape of the some of the enclosures. The expansion was completed by architect Kal H. Porter and GMI Construction. In July 1968, the cast iron weather vane with a flying eagle, which had been donated by a community member at the time of the building’s opening, was stolen. The new building formally opened on February 1, 1969. Based on physical observation of the property, several alterations occurred at unknown dates. The four windows at the north wing of the primary façade were replaced with a band of three slider windows. The four windows at the original south wing of the façade were replaced with an eight-bay assembly of almost full-height windows and a door. The original recessed entrance at the primary façade was removed and the ground level wall brought forward to be even with the façade planes of the one-story wings. Based on historic photographs, these changes occurred prior to 1980 and were likely part of the 1968-69 renovation (Figure 45). A wood trellis was added at the northeast entrance to the zoo and the L-shaped patio was designed in the spring of 1989 by Page Sanders and the California Landscape Contractors Association. Minor improvements to the interior and site have recently occurred, such as interior partition reconfigurations, new enclosures in the zoo, and electrical and mechanical work. 31 Description of the original building is based upon contemporary newspaper reports and historic photographs; “Junior Museum building will open in October,” Palo Alto Times, 1941, 8A. 32 “Junior Museum addition favored,” Palo Alto Times, February 14, 1955; Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, April 7, 2004. 33 Page & Turnbull, 2004. 2.f Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 25 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 40. Illustration of the new Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1941, published in the Palo Alto Times. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 41. A series of construction photos for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 2.f Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 26 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 42. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1948. Source: Peninsula Life magazine, 1948 via Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 43. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1949. Source: San Francisco Public Library Digital Sanborn Collection. 2.f Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 27 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 44. Sketch of building floorplan from undated county assessment form, likely circa late 1950s, prior to the enclosure of the central courtyard. Source: City of Palo Alto Community Development Center. 2.f Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 28 Page & Turnbull, Inc. OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS The subject building was constructed for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo and has been continually occupied since 1941. The City of Palo Alto assumed ownership of the building in 1943 from an association of volunteers. The museum is currently owned by the City of Palo Alto and managed by the non-profit organization, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. ORIGINAL ARCHITECT & BUILDER The original Palo Alto Junior Museum building was designed by Dole Ford Thompson and constructed by Aro & Okerman. Thompson received his architecture degree from the University of Michigan in 1927. He is known to have designed at least eleven buildings in Palo Alto, where he was based. Most of his projects appear to be residences, but he also designed several small facilities buildings at Stanford University.34 Research did not uncovered further examples of his work. Contractors Aro & Okerman also worked primarily in Palo Alto constructing residences and additions, as well as several fire stations in the 1930s through 1950s.35 34 Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment, 2004, 4; “New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion,” The Stanford Daily, August 15, 1935, 3. 35 “Architects & Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, accessed February 26, 2016. http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html; Amy French, “Historic Resources Board Staff Report: 2330 Figure 45. Primary façade of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1980. The recessed entrance has been filled in and the full-height windows have replaced the band of four sliding windows at center. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 2.f Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 29 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Kal H. Porter, the architect of the 1968-69 renovation, was a San Jose-based architect who primarily designed school facilities. He worked throughout Santa Clara County, including the New Inverness School in Cupertino, which feature all moveable walls, and schools for the Jefferson School District in Daly City. He founded the firm Porter, Jensen, Hansen, Manzagol Architects (now PJHM Architects) and Kal Porter, AIA and Associates, which became PSWC Group.36 Bryant,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.conlon.org/Schwartz- Conlon/remodeling/planning/historic_merit/HRB_staff_report.PDF. 36 Past Consultants, San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement, June 2009, 142. 2.f Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 30 Page & Turnbull, Inc. V. EVALUATION NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. There are four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register.  Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;  Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;  Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and  Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The California Register of Historical Resources follows nearly identical guidelines to those used by the National Register, but identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria.  Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.  Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 2.f Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 31 Page & Turnbull, Inc.  Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.  Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The following section examines the eligibility of the property at 1451 Middlefield Road, containing the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, for listing in the National Register and California Register. Criterion A / 1 (Events) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road appears to be individually significant under California Register Criterion 1 as a resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of local or regional history. The institution of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is associated with the early development of children’s museums in the western United States. Founded in 1934, the Palo Alto Junior Museum appears to be the first children’s museum in the western United States. The museum’s founder Josephine O’Hara was directly inspired by the pioneering institutions in Brooklyn and Boston, and brought those ideas to Palo Alto. However, the building at 1451 Middlefield Road was not constructed at this time and was not part of the museum’s original founding. The Palo Alto Junior Museum had several homes during the period 1934-1941, in keeping with the larger pattern of the early children’s museums. Typically, museums were housed in empty historic homes or temporary locations, moving and expanding to accommodate institutional growth. Only in the 1960s and 1970s did most institutions begin to construct their own facilities. The building at 1451 Middlefield Road was noted in contemporary newspapers as being the first building in the West to be constructed to serve as a children’s museum, made possible by a generous local foundation. The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo has become culturally valuable in Palo Alto as an established institution with a clear mission and widespread community support. The significance of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo institution lies in its association within the ideological development of children’s museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. Thus, the period of significance under Criterion 1 is 1941. The building does not appear to rise to a level of significance for association with broad patterns of national history as to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A. Criterion B / 2 (Persons) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to have been associated with persons important to the history of Palo Alto or the State of California to the extent that the property would be considered individually eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under Criterion B/2 (Persons). The founder of the museum, Josephine O’Hara, is a notable figure in the history of the institution and as an early proponent of the values proposed by children’s museums. However, she does not appear to have participated further in the nation-wide or statewide museum movement, and therefore does not rise to an individual level of significance such that the building would be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under Criterion B/2. Criterion C / 3 (Architecture/Design) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion C/3 (Architecture/Design). The original architect Dole Ford Thompson 2.f Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 32 Page & Turnbull, Inc. and the builders Aro & Okerman were active in Palo Alto but are not prolific or sufficiently known enough to determine that the subject building is the work of a master. The building is designed in a vernacular Ranch style. Although the simplicity of the design complements its use and its setting within the park, it does not possess high artistic value, nor is it a distinctive representation of a style. For these reasons, 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under Criterion C/3. Criterion D / 4 (Information Potential) The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road was not evaluated for significance under Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). Criterion D/4 generally applies to the potential for archaeological information to be uncovered at the site, which is beyond the scope of this report. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in the National Register or the California Register, a property must possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity by the survival of certain characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”37 The process of determining integrity is similar for both the National Register and the California Register. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the National Register and the California Register. According to the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, these seven characteristics are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road remains in the same location in which it was construction, so the building retains integrity of location. The use of the building has 37 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001), p. 11; National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), p. 44. 2.f Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 33 Page & Turnbull, Inc. not changed and the institution that it houses remains as important today as when it was founded. Therefore, the building retains integrity of association and feeling. Rinconada Park and the surrounding environment have changed little, but the nearby public school, the large surface parking lot, and the addition of the outdoor zoo encroach upon the original setting of the building. For this reason, the building does not retain integrity of setting. The Palo Alto Junior Museum building has undergone extensive changes during its history. The original building comprised the two-story tower and two symmetrical one-story wings. Successive additions have occurred to the site, including the construction of a new wing to the southeast, connecting hyphens built between the two volumes, and new volumes constructed in the northeast portion of the building. The enclosure of the courtyard at center has obscured the sense of the building’s original scale and linear volumes. The original southern wing has been extended to almost twice the original length, interrupting the symmetry of the original design. The recessed entryway has been replaced, as have the windows at the primary façade. The cumulative impact of these changes has compromised the building’s integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. For these reasons, the building does not retain historic integrity. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo at 1451 Middlefield Road was found significant under California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the ideological development of children’s museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. However, the building has sustained a number of alterations and additions which obscure its original appearance and compromise its integrity. As both significance and integrity are required for eligibility for listing in the California Register., the alterations render the building ineligible. 2.f Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 34 Page & Turnbull, Inc. VII. CONCLUSION The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building was originally constructed in 1941 by local architect Dole Ford Thompson. The building housed the Children’s Museum (now the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo), an institution founded in 1934 to provide education and entertainment for youth in Palo Alto. As an early part of the children’s museum movement, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo embraced tenants established by the first children’s museum on the East Coast and was the first institution of its kind west of the Mississippi River. In order to appeal to young patrons who objected to being called “children,” the museum’s name was officially changed to the Palo Alto Junior Museum. It has become an important civic and cultural institution for the Palo Alto community. The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo at 1451 Middlefield Road was found significant under California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the ideological development of children’s museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. However, the building has sustained a number of alterations and additions which obscure its original appearance and compromise its integrity. As both significance and integrity are required for eligibility for listing in the California Register., the alterations render the building ineligible. For these reasons, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.f Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 35 Page & Turnbull, Inc. VIII. REFERENCES CITED PUBLISHED WORKS Alexander, Edward Porter and Mary Alexander. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Fundamentals of Museums. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008. Alexander, Edward Porter. The Museum in America: Innovators and Pioneers. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 1997. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historic Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001. Ferguson, Gary. Nature’s Keeper: John Ripley Forbes and the Children’s Nature Movement. Helena, MT: Sweetgrass Books, 2012. Onion, Rebecca Stiles. “Picturing Nature and Childhood at the American Museum of Natural History and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, 1899-1930,” Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4.3 (2001), 450-451. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997. Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, April 7, 2004. Past Consultants, San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement, June 2009, 142. Winslow Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993. PUBLIC RECORDS City of Palo Alto Development Center “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, Calif., 1945. Palo Alto Historical Association NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS Hammond, Gene. “Children’s Museum: First in the United States.” Peninsula Life, August 1948. “Mr. Appleseed.” Time, December 21, 1953, 65-66. “New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion,” The Stanford Daily, August 15, 1935, 3. 2.f Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 36 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Palo Alto Times, clippings referencing the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo available at the Palo Alto Historical Association. INTERNET SOURCES “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed 12/22/14, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA “About the Junior Museum and Zoo,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 20, 2016. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/ Association of Children’s Museums online database, accessed February 29, 2016. http://www.childrensmuseums.org/childrens-museums/find-a-childrens-museum/ “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. Herminia Weihsin Din, “An Investigation of Children’s Museums in the United States – Their Past, Present, and Future: A Proposed Study,” Marilyn Zurmuehlin Working Papers in Art Education 15 (1999). Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.h tml Fox, Margalit. “John Ripley Forbes, 93, Who Planted Many Nature Museums, is Dead.” New York Times, September 5, 2006, accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/obituaries/05forbes.html Amy French, “Historic Resources Board Staff Report: 2330 Bryant,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.conlon.org/Schwartz- Conlon/remodeling/planning/historic_merit/HRB_staff_report.PDF Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, “The JMZ Initiative,” 5. http://www.friendsjmz.org/capital_campaign/jmz_initiative.html “History,” Boston Children’s Museum, accessed February 29, 2016, http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/about/history. “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, website accessed 12/22/14, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/ Matt Bowling. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the- beginning-of-mayfields-end.php O’Donnell, Shannon. “Junior Grows Up: The Development of the Tallahassee Museum, 1957- 1992.” Masters thesis, Florida State University, 2009. Lib-ir@fsu.edu. 2.f Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road Revised Palo Alto, California July 20, 2016 37 Page & Turnbull, Inc. “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed 22 December 1014 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12 “Prominent Architects and Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Website accessed 26 February 2016 from: http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html “Timeline,” Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, accessed February 29, 2016, http://thehistory.childrensmuseum.org/timeline 2.f Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) 2.f Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH BUILDING TECHNOLOGY www.page-turnbull.com 2.f Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park Palo Alto CA Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose CA 95126 Prepared by: HortScience, Inc. 325 Ray Street Pleasanton CA 94566 June 2015 2.g Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park Palo Alto CA Table of Contents Page Introduction and Overview 1 Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 1 Suitability for Preservation 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendation for Action 5 Tree Preservation Guidelines 6 List of Tables Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence. 2 Table 2. Suitability for preservation. 5 Table 3. Proposed action. 7 Attachments Tree Assessment Map Tree Assessment Form 2.g Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 1 Introduction and Overview The City of Palo Alto is planning to implement a Long-Range Plan for Rinconada Park. David J. Powers is preparing environmental documents for the project and requested that HortScience, Inc. prepare an Arborist Inventory of trees identified for removal. This report provides the following information: 1. A field review of trees recommended for removal. 2. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development. Assessment Methods The tree assessment focused on trees identified in the Long-Range Plan – Tree Removal exhibit prepared by Verde Design (December 2012). For each tree on the plan, the following steps were undertaken: 1. Locate the tree to be removed on the Verde plan. 2. Verify the species. 3. Measure the trunk diameter (54" above grade). 4. Determine if the tree met the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for protected status. 5. Evaluate the health using a 0 to 5 scale where 0 = dead, 1 = poor and 5 = excellent condition. 6. Note any significant structural characteristics including decay, poor crown conformation, dieback and a history of failure. 7. If not previously assessed, locate the tree’s trunk on the Verde Design plan. With one exception, Blue Atlas cedar #358, only trees to be removed were evaluated. Description of Trees Thirty-eight (38) trees had been identified for removal (Table 1 following page). I added Blue Atlas cedar #358 to this group. Two species (coast redwood and coast live oak) are native to the Palo Alto area. Trees of these two species appear to have been planted as part of landscape development. Trees to be removed as part of the Long Range Plan were not evenly distributed across Rinconada Park but were concentrated in a few areas: Coast redwoods along Newell Road. Twelve (12) redwoods have been topped to provide clearance to the overhead electrical lines (Photo 1). Trees are located just inside the sidewalk. Trunk diameters ranged between 21” and 29”. Tree condition was fair. Photo 1. Looking across Newell Road at coast redwoods #79 – 90. Note presence of overhead wires. 2.g Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 2 Table 1. Species present and tree condition. Trees to be removed. Long Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Palo Alto CA. Common name Scientific name Condition No. of Trees Dead Poor Fair Good Excell. Protected Total Red horsechestnut Aesculus carnea -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Ruby horsechestnut Aesculus carnea 'Briotii' -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Blue Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' 1 -- -- -- -- -- 1 Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Patmore ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Patmore' -- -- 1 2 2 -- 5 Ash Fraxinus sp. -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 Wilson holly Ilex x altaclarensis 'Wilsonii' -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1 Southern magnolia Magnolia grandifolia -- -- 1 1 -- -- 2 Crabapple Malus sp. -- 1 -- -- -- -- 1 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis -- -- -- 1 -- -- 1 Tobira Pittosporum tobira -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 London plane Platanus x hispanica -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 Cherry Prunus sp. -- 1 1 1 -- 3 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia -- -- -- 1 -- 1 1 Southern live oak Quercus virginiana -- -- 2 1 -- -- 3 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens -- -- 12 -- 1 12 13 Tristania Tristaniopsis laurina -- -- -- -- 1 -- 1 Total, all trees assessed 1 3 20 11 4 13 39 Swim Center. Cherries #182 and 184 were located in front of this facility. Trees were young. Cherry #182 was in good condition needs pruning while #182 was in poor condition. Tennis courts area. Thirteen (13) trees were located to the west and southwest of the tennis courts. London plane #223 was in a play area. It was 21” and fair. Associated with new path alignments were Patmore ash #349 – 352, 356, southern live oak #353 – 355, green ash #268, crabapple #265, cherry #357, and ash #362. These were young and semi-mature trees with trunk diameters between 3” and 8”. Condition was a mix of fair and good. 2.g Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 3 Hopkins Avenue entry. Nine (9) trees were located near the park entry off Hopkins Avenue. Included in this group were Aleppo pine #280, Wilson holly #281, glossy privet #282, ruby horsechestnut #283, coast live oak #284, coast redwood #285, tobira #286, red horsechestnut #289 and tristania #332. Trunk diameters ranged from 5” (Wilson holly) to 31” (Aleppo pine). Tree condition varied from fair to good. Coast redwood #285 and tristania #332 were in excellent condition (Photo 2). Photo 2. Coast redwood #285 was 11” in diameter and had excellent form and structure. Middlefield Road Southern magnolia #337 and 338 were located in a 4½’ wide planting strip between the sidewalk and curb. Tree #337 was 19” in diameter and in good condition; #338 was 14” and fair. Blue Atlas cedar #358 Located near the Swim Center, this mature tree had three trunks (25, 13, 12”) and was dead (Photo 3). Photo 3. Looking west at dead Blue Atlas cedar #358. Swim Center is out of the photo on the right. The red building is a restroom facility. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (8.10.020) defines regulated trees in three categories:  Category 1 – Protected trees Protected trees are, “any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; and any redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade.” Coast live oak #284 and coast redwoods #79- 90 meet these criteria. 2.g Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 4  Category 2 – Street trees Street trees are all trees growing within street right-of-way. A permit from the Public Works Department is required prior to any work on or within the dripline of any tree growing within the street right-of-way (publically owned). Coast redwoods #79 – 90 may meet this criterion. Southern magnolias #337 and 338 meet this criterion.  Category 3 – Designated trees Designated trees are trees associated with development project that are specifically designated by City to be saved and protected. Designated trees have yet to be identified for this project. Results for individual trees are located in the Tree Assessment Form (see Attachments). Tree locations are noted by tree tag number in the Tree Assessment Map. Suitability for Preservation Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:  Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees.  Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely.  Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For example, coast redwood and coast live oak are relatively tolerant of construction impacts while Aleppo pine and southern magnolia are more sensitive.  Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.  Species invasiveness Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf) lists species identified as having the potential to be invasive. Palo Alto is part of the Central West Floristic Province. None of the species present has been identified as having invasive potential. 2.g Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 5 Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2). Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Palo Alto CA. High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Six (6) trees were rated as having high suitability for preservation: Patmore ash #349, 350; cherry #357, coast redwood #285, green ash #268, and tristania #332. Moderate Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Twelve (12) trees were rated as having moderate suitability: Patmore ash #351, 352, 356; southern live oak #354, 355; Aleppo pine #280, coast live oak #284, London plane #223, red horsechestnut #289, ruby horsechestnut #283, southern magnolia #337, and Wilson holly #281. Low Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Twenty (20) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation: coast redwoods #79 - 90, cherry #182, 184; crabapple #265, glossy privet #282, tobira #286, southern magnolia #338, southern live oak #353 and ash #362. Note: table does not include Blue Atlas cedar #358 which was dead. We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Evaluation of Impacts from the Long-Range Plan The Long-Range Plan for Rinconada Park involves re-design of numerous features, most notably parking and paths. Trees were identified for removal based on anticipated impacts from construction as well as their location within areas proposed for re-design. A typical construction project tries to balance the location and intensity of adverse impacts from development activity against the quality and health of trees. The tree assessment was the reference points for tree condition and quality. 2.g Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 6 Impacts to trees could occur in a variety of ways. First, demolition of existing structures may directly damage tree roots and crowns. Second, grading and other construction activities may also damage trees, through both direct mechanical injury and indirectly by altering drainage. Re-design may result in changes in irrigation regime that can either benefit or hurt tree growth and development. The 39 trees identified for removal were diverse, encompassing a wide range of species, size, maturity and condition. Thirteen trees (12 coast redwood and 1 coast live oak) met the City of Palo Alto’s criteria for Protected status. Based on my assessment, I recommend the following: 1. Add Blue Atlas cedar #358 to the list of trees to be removed. Alternatively, remove the tree as soon as possible. 2. Consider relocating coast redwood #285 rather than removing it. The tree is small enough to successfully survive relocation. It is in excellent condition. Tree Preservation Guidelines A large number of trees located in Rinconada Park will be retained as the Long-Range Plan is implemented. The keys to successful tree preservation in this setting are: 1) irrigation during construction and 2) maintenance of the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The following are recommendations for design and construction phases that will assist in successful tree preservation. Design recommendations 1. Verify the location and tag numbers of the all trees proposed for preservation. Include trunk locations and tag numbers on all plans. 2. Allow the Consulting Arborist to review all future project submittals including grading, utility, drainage, irrigation, and landscape plans. 3. Prepare a site work plan which identifies access and haul routes, construction trailer and storage areas, etc. 4. Establish a TREE PROTECTION ZONE around each tree to be preserved. For design purposes, the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be the curb or dripline. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. 5. Install protection around all trees to be preserved. 6. No entry is permitted into a TREE PROTECTION ZONE without permission of the project superintendent. 7. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 8. Use only herbicides safe for use around trees and labeled for that use, even below pavement. 2.g Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed. HortScience, Inc. Long-Range Plan. Rinconada Park. Page 7 9. Design irrigation systems so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Pre-construction and demolition treatments and recommendations 1. The demolition contractor shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. 2. Trees to be preserved will require pruning to clean the crown and to provide clearance. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and adhere to the latest editions of the American National Standards for tree work (Z133 and A300). Of particular concern are heavy lateral branches on coast live oak #335 and pecan #330. 3. Trees to be preserved will require irrigation during the construction period. Tree protection during construction 1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. 2. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 3. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 5. No materials, equipment, spoil, waste or wash-out water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE (fenced area). 6. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. 7. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist. Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 30”. 8. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. HortScience, Inc. James R. Clark, Ph.D. Certified Arborist WE-0846 Registered Consulting Arborist #357 2.g Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Attachments Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map 2.g Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : A r b o r i s t R e p o r t - R i n c o n a d a L R P ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION 253 Zoo, exterior Coast redwood 13 No 5 High Excellent form & structure; inside play area. 255 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 23 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 6'; heavy lateral branches to E. 260 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 10 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 5'; separating @ top of tree. 261 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 9 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 12'; narrow form. 262 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 12 No 3 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 9'; separated; fireblight. 263 Zoo, exterior Callery pear 9 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; codominant trunks @ 5'; multiple attachments @7'. 307 Middlefield Southern magnolia 15 No 3 Low Street tree; 4½' planting strip; no basal flare; new sidewalk; okay form but very thin canopy; lacks vigor. 308 Middlefield Southern magnolia 21 No 4 Moderate Street tree; 4½' planting strip; 2' long trunk wound on SW.; multiple attachments @ 7'. 309 Middlefield Southern magnolia 27 No 3 Low Street tree; 4½' planting strip; codominant trunks @ 7' & 10'; crown lifted; thin canopy with twig dieback. 310 Middlefield Southern magnolia 17 No 3 Low Street tree; 4½' planting strip; multiple attachments @ 8'; suppressed by #311; thin canopy. 311 Zoo, exterior Coast live oak 29 Yes 4 High Measured @ 2½'; codominant trunks @ 4'; narrow attachment; stems vertical; nice dense canopy; developing heavy lateral branches to S. Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 Page1 2. g Pa c k e t P g . 8 5 Attachment: Attachment G: Arborist Report - Rinconada LRP (7100 : 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ)) Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 312 Zoo, exterior Hollywood juniper 18 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; leans S. 313 Zoo, exterior Blue Atlas cedar 34,14 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5'; more low-branched than codominant; 34" stem vertical & good; 14" stem sweeps upright to W. but stubbed off. 314 Zoo, exterior Blue Atlas cedar 51 No 4 Moderate Huge tree; 3 very large low laterals sweep upright with good taper. 315 Zoo, exterior Ruby horsechestnut 3,3,3 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 1' & 3' below canopy of #314; rangy. 316 Zoo, exterior Yew 7,7 No 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 1'; upright; lifted to 10'; poor color. 317 Zoo, exterior Blue Atlas cedar 37,32 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 2'; 37" vertical & codominant again @ 12'; 32" really a large branch that sweeps vertical; also codominant again @ 12'. 318 Zoo, interior Norfolk Island pine 9 No 5 High Tag on hawk enclosure; good young tree. 319 Zoo, interior African sumac 4 No 3 Moderate Nice dense canopy; lost central leader. 320 Zoo, interior Monterey pine 14 No 4 Moderate No tag; inside tortoise enclosure; crook @ 8'; codominant trunks high in crown; nice canopy. 321 Zoo, interior Glossy privet 4,3 No 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 4'; thin canopy. 322 Zoo, interior Mayten 8 No 3 Low Leans N.; minor correction; codominant trunks @ 5'. 323 Zoo, interior Mayten 5,5 No 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 4' with wide attachment; small canopy. 324 Zoo, interior Mayten 7 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 4. 325 Zoo, interior London plane 6 No 3 Low No tag; inside enclosure; topped @ 6'. Page2 2. g Pa c k e t P g . 8 6 Attachment: Attachment G: Arborist Report - Rinconada LRP (7100 : 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ)) Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 326 Zoo, interior Victorian box 10,8 No 3 Low Corrected lean N.; codominant trunks @ 4'; thin canopy; no vigor. 327 Zoo, exterior Dawn redwood 32 No 5 High Good form & structure; surface roots; lost central leader @ top of tree. 328 Zoo, exterior Ginkgo 16 No 5 High Good form & structure; developing heavy lateral branches to N. 329 Zoo, interior Norfolk Island pine 5 No 5 High Tag on fence; near #320; tree inside eagle enclosure; good form & structure. 330 Zoo, exterior Pecan 41 No 3 Low Wide but irregular vase-shaped crown; heavy lateral branch to N.; multiple attachments @ 16'. 331 Zoo, interior Ginkgo 7 No 5 High Tag on fence; good young tree. 333 Zoo, exterior Coast redwood 27 Yes 5 High Good form & structure; thin canopy. 334 Zoo, exterior European hackberry 10,9,8,6 No 3 Low Multiple attachments @ base with included bark; dead branches to 4"; crowded by #333 & 335. 335 Zoo, exterior Coast live oak 34 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5' & above; dense canopy; 1 stem vertical; 2nd stem leans horizontal to the W.; needs reduction. 336 Zoo, interior Hollywood juniper 10 No 4 Moderate Tag on fence; near #333; typical form & structure. 339 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 14 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 10'; narrow & upright form. 340 Zoo, exterior Ruby horsechestnut 10,9,8 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 3' & 5'; numerous basal & trunk cankers; 10" & 8" stems vertical; 9" stem leans S. Page3 2. g Pa c k e t P g . 8 7 Attachment: Attachment G: Arborist Report - Rinconada LRP (7100 : 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ)) Tree Survey TREE LOCATION SPECIES TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENT No. DIAMETER TREE?1=poor for (in.)5=excell.PRESERVATION Tree Assessment Junior Museum & Zoo project area City of Palo Alto Palo Alto CA June 2015 341 Zoo, exterior Ruby horsechestnut 8,8,7 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 1' & 3'; attachments @ 3' has included bark; stems vertical; numerous trunk wounds. 342 Zoo, exterior Lawson's cypress 14 No 5 High Good form & structure. 343 Zoo, exterior Calif. bay 19 No 3 Low Good form but thin canopy with extensive twig dieback; very large base. 344 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 17,9,7 No 3 Low Basal cavity on N.; multiple attachments @ 4' with adj. trunk wound; 17" stem vertical; 9" & 7" are low branches that lean horizontal to NE. & SW.; nice canopy. 345 Zoo, exterior Deodar cedar 30 No 3 Low No basal flare; typical form & structure; one- sided to S.; thin canopy. 346 Zoo, exterior Deodar cedar 22 No 4 Moderate One-sided to W.; narrow & upright form. 347 Zoo, exterior Deodar cedar 26 No 3 Low One-sided to N.; lost central leader @ top of tree; thin upper canopy. 348 Zoo, exterior Catalpa 5 No 4 Moderate Good young tree; multiple attachments @ 5'. 359 Zoo, exterior Red horsechestnut 22 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 5'; cavities @ old pruning wounds. 360 Zoo, exterior Crabapple 5 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure. 361 Zoo, exterior Crabapple 7 No 4 Moderate Typical form & structure. 362 Zoo, exterior Ash 3,3 No 3 Low Poor form & structure; codominant trunks @ base. Page4 2. g Pa c k e t P g . 8 8 Attachment: Attachment G: Arborist Report - Rinconada LRP (7100 : 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ)) Tree Assessment Map Rinconada Park Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates San Jose, CA June 2015 No Scale Notes Base map provided by: Verde Design Santa Clara, CA Numbered tree locations are approximate. 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, California 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596 280 281 282 332 283 284 285 286 289 337 338 362 265 268 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 184 182 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 2. g Pa c k e t P g . 8 9 Attachment: Attachment G: Arborist Report - Rinconada LRP (7100 : 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ)) Tree Assessment Map Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Palo Alto, CA Prepared for: David J. Powers & Associates San Jose, CA June 2015 No Scale Notes Base map provided by: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects Palo Alto, CA Numbered tree locations are approximate. 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, California 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596 362 253 255 260 261 262 263 X X 326 309 310 311 308 307 312 313 314 315 316 317 327 328 318 319 329 330 331 320 321 322 323 324 325 360 361 359 336 333 334 335 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 2. g Pa c k e t P g . 9 0 Attachment: Attachment G: Arborist Report - Rinconada LRP (7100 : 1451 Middlefield (Prelim JMZ)) Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1451 Middlefield” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Revised Plans” 2.h Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 7 1 0 0 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d ( P r e l i m J M Z ) ) Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 7654) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/26/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: December 8, 2017 Historic Resources Board Minutes Title: December 8 2016 Draft Historic Resources Board Meeting Minutes From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):  December 8, 2016 Attachments:  December 8, 2016 Historic Resources Board Meeting Minutes (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members David Bower, Beth Bunnenberg, Patricia Di Cicco, Absent: Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Oral Communications Chair Bernstein: Thank you and welcome Council Member Holman and welcome members of the audience and public. We’ll start with oral communications. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on an item, not on our agenda. Please make yourself known. Seeing none. Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions Chair Bernstein: Moving to if there are an agenda, changes, addition or deletions? Ms. Amy French: None City Official Reports Chair Bernstein: Next, are City official reports. I see none are listed unless there’s any comment you would like to add? Ms. French: Just a quick comment. As you may be aware the Avenidas appeal goes to Council on Monday. We have hope because there has been a mediation with the appellant, La Comida and it’s anticipated that appeal will be withdrawn but, never the less, we’ve advertised it for a public hearing in the event that Council does decide to pull it off the agenda. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Anything else? Ms. French: Nothing else. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Public Hearings: CONTINUED BUSINESS Chair Bernstein: Next, is public hearings, continued business and that says none. Study Session 1. 303 Parkside Drive (Greenmeadow community center) [16PLN-00395]: Study session to conduct a preliminary Historic Review for an application for a Conditional Use Permit HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: December 8, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 (CUP) and Minor Architectural Review to allow an 1800 of accessory structure near the park and update to the existing pool and deck area within the gated area of the community center that is included in the Greenmeadow National Register Historic. Chair Bernstein: Then, next on our agenda says a study session. I’ll read the title of that study session: 303 Parkside Drive (Greenmeadow Community Center) study session to conduct a preliminary Historic Review for an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Architectural Review to allow an 1800 square foot accessory structure near the park and update to the existing pool and deck area within the gated area of the Community center that is included in the Greenmeadow National Register Historic record. For additional information, contact Amy French. Shall Staff have a report for us, please? Ms. French: Yes, thank you. I’ll just start by saying in the report, there is an error. I said it was received on the – the application was received on December 7th obviously, it wasn’t just yesterday. I read the report last week so, it came in on November 7th, that was the first error. Another thing is, we did get revised plans last Thursday and so, you were able to get the plans but my report reflected an earlier set. So, it does mention that there aren’t any finish and color schedules, which is no longer true because, in the plans, it does show those. Then, finally, Page and Turnbull, Jon Rusch did provide a report which I emailed to you all – hope you got that last Friday and the applicant got that this week and Mr. Rusch is anticipated to be here but given that my train was late from Redwood City; who knows from Oakland, how that’s going to go but I have summarized his comments in my power point. Oh, I was just saying – well, welcome John Rusch! I put some of your items in my power point. Mr. John Rusch: Great. Do you have a preference where I sit? Ms. French: You can come up here. Mr. Rusch: Thank you. Ms. French: Get comfortable. I should note that Page and Turnbull was awarded a contract for the Eichler design guidelines, which is a City-wide effort for the Eichler built neighborhoods, designed by multiple architects. This is a particular neighborhood, the Greenmeadow neighborhood is a National and California Register listed resource – historic resource. On the screen, we have the 1954 plan for the Community Center. Some fun little notes there. You can’t see all of them but “privacy for the gregarious” I think it says and you can see the original park and pool, which has been modified but the Community Center is to the right. Here where there is a child care center, there’s this breezeway here which is passable for the bicyclists. I lived in Greenmeadow and rode my bike to Wilbur it was called back then when I was growing up here. This is quite a well-travelled path to get to the schools; and then there’s a pool service building with lockers and showers. The architect can go over why they’re choosing to create a new building rather than revise the old bathrooms that would need updating. It’s on the Register, it was built in 1954-1955 and here is today's swimming pool, much larger than the original. You can see in the background the pool office where people check in, the showers and restrooms over here. This is towards Parkside on this side and the park is behind us in this photo. Here you can see past the wall. This is a kind of raised grassy area and you can see the park in the background, with all its mature trees. Then down here, of course, is the park designed by Thomas Church; well-known an award-winning landscape architect did design this park but the National Register form did not identify the park as either contributing or non-contributing. This shows an image of the existing park with the full court or mini- court basketball court. You can see Thomas Church’s characteristic kidney shaped lawn, mature trees, some alcoves around for picnicking and there – this form did not indicate what had changed since the 1950s in that park. So, it’s not really well known about the changes. Then this shows basically, the non- contributing pool; it was determined non-contributing because it had changed since the original. These have not changed since the original, the multi-purpose room and the pool services building. We have a proposal for a new concrete block trash enclosure. Here’s the parking lot out this way and then the new building here with the pavers around and half basketball court. This kind of shows a close up of that. I’ll let the architect go into more detail on their proposal. Some of the things, so, they have ideas for restoring some originally removed features as well as some of the other things I said. Here is the City of Palo Alto Page 3 proposed elevation. This one would face the pool. This one would face the park and then these are the ends where the restrooms are here and then facing the basketball court and patio area over here. There is a finish and color schedule now on the plan that indicates Eichler colors and similar materials and form. The discussion items here today for the HRB would be we have a culture landscape, not identified as a contributor but potentially a district contributor and I’ll let Jon talk about the study; what kind of study would be needed to find out more about that. Then we have the issue of the compatibility of the proposed building with the neighborhood and the effects of the project on the landscape there. Then we have the Secretary of Interior Standards, we know that number one is met because they are continuing the use of the Community Center but the others are for discussion. Basically, as per Jon’s report, I don’t know if you want to talk about these but there are two areas of study that Jon brought up in his report, architecture compatibility. Looking at the proportions and repetition of windows in the neighborhood and in the existing buildings on the site, some considerations there, and in the cladding, which has the narrow, vertical siding. That would be an area that is ideal too –for differentiation, to look at a proportion to that cladding. Just so we make sure it doesn’t look like it was built in 1954. Then there’s effects on the landscape. I really appreciated the analysis that Jon was able to turn around in short order from the revised plans. It talks about the circulation patterns not being interrupted, which is great in the park. Some space arrangements and the boundaries between areas not being interrupted but it does disrupt some symmetrical arrangement features so, that’s something for discussion. In any case, this is a study session but we do have an application that has come in for a conditional use permit and architectural review, so this would be an opportunity to provide some feedback to the applicant and architect and they’re here to present. Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you. Before we invite the applicant to give a presentation, I’d just like to make a – see if anyone has any disclosures. I visited the site, I walked the – got permission from the pool personnel to walk into the property. Walked around the pool. Took a look at the building inside and that was my visit to the site last week. Any other Board Members – Beth. Board Member Bunnenberg: I have the disclosure to make that I was the Chair of the HRB when this National Register nomination came in and I walked the entire area looking for each address. Then, I went to the State hearing and testified that I had done this. So, my history goes way back and it was an addition to all of the wonderful information that’s in it. It is a thing of special pride that Joseph Eichler would sell to anyone. There were certain areas in town that had really quite discriminatory issues in their sub-division and we were having lots of young, new hires in the tech industry that – HP and so forth and many of them were able to buy because of Eichler’s personal beliefs that he would want to sell to anyone. It’s nice to see this. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Bower. Board Member Bunnenberg: Oh, I did walk around the site and actually talked to one member of the Community. Board Member Bower: Yeah, I also visited the site last week and walked the park, which I didn’t even know was there and looked at all the buildings. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: I did – I didn’t enter to any of the buildings but I did walk through the site. Board Member Di Cicco: I as well attended the project location yesterday and had a very welcoming reception from the receptionist or the person in charge of the pool and she showed me how to get around without climbing the fence to see the park and such and was very helpful. It gave me a much greater understanding of what I’m looking at today. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I’d like to invite the applicant to – for a presentation. Identify yourselves please and then we’ll ask our questions at the end of the presentation. Thanks. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Ms. Sherry Listgarten: Hi, I’m Sherry Listgarten and I live in Greenmeadow. First, I want to thank you guys all for helping with this project. It means a lot to our neighborhood. It’s not just historic in name, I think the people grow up in the neighborhood, they live and they breathe it. They’re raising their kids there now and they care a lot about this project. It’s been a discussion for about 3 -5 years. There’s a lot of contention about what we do with this, you know – so, Martin you asked a good question or Amy asked a question about why aren’t we doing all of this is the existing builds so, I can talk about that a little bit. The purpose of this project, during a lot of discussion about what to do with this area. The most active people are the people who use the pool. There’re a lot of families that use the pool, a lot of kids on the swim team and so they want more lanes and they want nicer locker rooms and things like that and a bunch of the neighbors stood up and they said, you know, we don’t even use the pool anymore. We don’t have young kids. We want to fill in the pool. We want to build Community gardens, you know and so there was a lot of contention and it was serious stuff. This is local politics. It’s difficult and I think what we did was we listened to all of the feedback pretty carefully and we said, we need to engage more of our demographics in this shared facility. It’s not ok to through all of our money into the pool. The pool does need maintenance, you know every 30 years you’ve got to do the deck and the plaster, the tile, the copying, the pump room etc. but we really wanted to take seniors, childless families, younger teens and stuff who aren’t using the pool and find a way to engage them. The reason why we’re building the clubhouse between the pool and the park is its dual use. That way people who use the pool can use it but for people who don’t use the pool and they just want to use the park and they want to have a bridge club or they want to have a musical rehearsal. They want to show slides from their recent vacation or everybody wants to get together and watch the super bowl or something like that. It’s a completely different set of uses, new uses and takes much better advantage of the site that we have. We have an amazing site in the middle of our neighborhood and we want to put it to better use. So, that’s the goal of this project. I will say that we’re a very active Community. We’ve been discussing all this information with the Community. We had voted with preliminary plans. We had kind of a record turn out so, 64 households showed up, households, in person to hear about this and out of the 200 hundred, we thought that was a terrific turnout. The vote was 62 to 2 in favor of this, it was remarkable. One of the holdouts was something to do with the financial and then – so, it’s a very, very strong endorsement. So, that’s some of the backgrounds to this project. We are concerned with the historic integrity so, we're really looking forward to your feedback on this. You know, it’s difficult to do things like a (Inaudible) enclosure and you know, all of this stuff and keep the redwoods and you do – a lot of constraints and so, we feel like we have a good start at it but we’re interested in hearing what you have to say. So, that’s my part and Bud is our architect. Mr. Bud Kobza: Hello everybody, my name is Bud Kobza with Dennis Kobza Architects. I happen to be a long-time Palo Alto resident myself, 57 years except for a few years away at school and I went to Cubberley right around the corner as well as I know Amy did as well. I’m disappointed Rodger is not here. His son was my shortstop in little league, so Mathew – so, there’s a lot of kind of coming home here for me. When I was first contacted about doing this project, I was really excited because I rode my bicycle through there, we spent time in the park playing basketball. Doing all that stuff as a kid so, while the architecture is fairly basic and straight forward and I kind of knew it fairly well from living in three different Eichlers over the course of my life in Palo Alto. The opportunity to work with the Community and to work on this really cool site was certain something I look forward to. I thank Amy for giving us a great presentation. The main things that we really kind of look to do here on this project, was to make sure we that we integrated it with the existing building and I appreciate the Page and Turnbull report because that actually gives us a little bit more flexibility I think, to modernize a couple of features on the building and that was something exciting. We really to the approach that we wanted to integrate it completely with the existing structures. So, we chase down, not only the Eichler color palette but also the wood siding types and things like that, while trying to integrate – we’re going to have to integrate a more modern window system and things like that for energy at the same time. After a lot of working back and forth, I think we’ve created a building that will feel like it was part of the original facility as far as concept. You know, getting a sort of grander stair to just a slight rise up to the park, to be able to get to the building. Having the barbecue facilities overlooking the pool area and being able to sort of integrate people's functions with that amenity. We’re also looking at hopefully allowing for the budget, just above City of Palo Alto Page 5 the barbecue area, adding an upper terrace of sort of concrete and extending the historical sort of bench. They’ve got a poured in place concrete bench, that if you walked around the pool, you saw it on some of the perimeters. We want to recall that, we do have in our design as it goes right up against the building. Then the terrace would be just above that and if we’re able to fit it into the budget, the secondary terrace would extend that bench back to – pretty close to its original historical location too. We’re definitely excited about it. The part of the reason I think, they chose to go this path was obviously, you know this an older complex. Our accessibility standards are not met and they would have had a significant investment in making all of those items accessible and then also losing some capacity for the functional use of that. What we’ve done here is provided those accessible elements; the bathroom and the shower. You know, we had the pleasure of having Mr. [Dunbar], your inspector of accessibility in Palo Alto come through and look at the plans and I’ve worked with Robert before on other buildings and so, having that basically, get a preliminary blessing was big to us and kind of reinforced the concept that we’re heading in the right direction, by providing a modern application but into this, what has become a really a historical Community Center. I really don’t have a power point, you know I probably could have but if we end up coming back to you guys to show us or to share more, we can. I take no exception to the Page and Turnbull report at all. I think it gives us good ideas to move forward with and we’re happy. We’ve already discussed looking at these things and working on the items that they suggested and I just would like to offer the opportunity to answer any questions for you guys. Just a pleasure to be here really, on a rainy day. Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you, Bud. Any questions for the applicant or Staff? Beth. Board Member Bunnenberg: One question that came to mind and we always have to look at the Secretary of Interior Standards, those are our guild lines. There’s one, that’s number nine and it can often be a tough one because you’ve worked to make it compatible – it’s low but in terms of differentiation, what do you see as a fact that would be a differentiation from what’s there? Chair Bernstein: May I interrupt for a second please, for that question. Beth, could you actually maybe read what Standard nine is so that members of the public can understand what – when we mention Standard nine, what is Standard nine? It would be…(Crosstalk) Board Member Bunnenberg: Let me get back here. Chair Bernstein: …useful information for the public. I can read it for you if you don’t have it. Board Member Bunnenberg: OK, you want to do it for me. Chair Bernstein: So, I just wanted to add that just to that it helps complete the conversation for understanding. Standard nine is 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 shall be compatible with the massing, scale, size, architectural features, to protect the historical integrity of the property and its environment. I just wanted to add that, k? Thank you. Mr. Kobza: Thank you for that. Should I go ahead and respond Beth, to this point? Board Member Bunnenberg: Pardon? Mr. Kobza: Go ahead and respond? Is that – finish your question? Ok. I mean, obviously – maybe it’s not obvious but we feel that the massing part of this definitely integrates with the existing Community Center and the buildings that surround there. The differentiations is – was, I should say as designed right now is mostly on the interior. Obviously, with it being a different function, modern sort of finishes and things like that, that would take place. Certainly, the Page and Turnbull report have identified a couple things that we can do on the outside with the exterior siding and stuff that would complete the picture of it being a new structure. I think that’s a path that we will certainly take. The amenities that are going to be surrounding this building are going to be definitely new, right? We’re going to end up with, I’m sure some City of Palo Alto Page 6 LED site lighting and the barbecue is going to be new. We’ve integrated a barbecue place on the outside of the building. My Eichler on Los Lobos, when I was growing up had an indoor barbeque, which was awesome and so we kind of picked up on that idea but turned it around and put it on the outside so that, there’s actually a place that people can use to barbeque when the pool is closed, for a park function. It kind of gives it another opportunity to the residents to be able to have a birthday party or do something in the park. So, we think that’s going to pick up the function of the park area as far as the Community use. Yeah, [Sherry] would like to add something. Ms. Listgarten: One idea – again, we just got this feedback so, we haven’t thought about that much but for exterior cladding, one of the things a lot of the people in the neighborhood are doing is horizontal cladding, instead of the vertical. A lot of times it’s Cedar wrapped. It’s very lovely. I don’t know if we can afford it but something maybe in that vein. I don’t know if you guys would approve of that but if you look at the vertical striping, almost every width is traditional Eichler, as far as I can tell. There’s the narrow, there’s the medium, and there’s the wide, the plank (Inaudible). So, it seems unless we go like this, which I don’t know, I haven’t thought about it that much but another approach might be horizontal, which is being done in the neighborhood. Is constant but is a little more modern, that would be an idea. I don’t know. Chair Bernstein: Any other questions? Questions first before we start talking about design issues. Any other questions? Board Member Di Cicco. Board Member Di Cicco: Yeah, I have -- it’s a very kind of general question. The wall is going to be removed to accommodate the new building and I couldn’t tell or read it anywhere, is there going to be fencing between the cul-de-sacs public street, at the end of the park or is this new building going to be just open all the way, from looking down from Alma? The other – on the other end, the building that is now Montessori School, correct? Is that still owned by the association and it’s leased? Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, we lease it. Board Member Di Cicco: Is that – down the road, you would take back the use of that building to or is that just something that’s not even on the radar? Ms. Listgarten: That’s a great question. When we’re – so, right now, there’s not HOA or anything like that that funds this stuff. We have two sources of income – two main sources of income. One is pool memberships and one is the lease of the school and so, currently the neighborhood thinks the lease of the school is working well. It’s generating a good amount of income and we like that use. There’s not too much parking or traffic, you know and things like that. It’s relatively quiet. The neighborhood hasn’t talked that much about reverting it but it’s an excellent question because we have thought about it and we’re like, is this the best use of this space for the Community. Right now, it’s purely an income generator. It doesn’t build Community at all, it doesn’t really serve the neighborhood at all but it’s working for us. So, right now we want to maintain that and get the income from that. The other question about the wall, you can answer. Mr. Kobza: Sure, or you can? Ms. Listgarten: That’s also a really good question. Right now, there is no – the park is private but it’s not fenced in. So, it’s accessible to the public. Right now, we aim to keep that. There will be locks on the doors of the clubhouse so the bathroom, for example, will not be public bathrooms. The people in the neighborhood will have a key code and you’ll need to know the key code and we’ll monitor that and we can adjust it as needed but we don’t plan right now, to fence it off because it’s just a little bit more open and friendly the way that it is now. Yeah, so you would be able to see. So, from Alma, you will be able to see the wall. Now, one thing that we are reintroducing, that was in the original plans but that doesn’t exist today is a strip of trees on that – I don’t know whether it’s South, North, what but on that end of the park, which will help to screen the building. One of the things – one of the feedback that we got from the people in the neighborhoods is that we like to have undeveloped space. That’s kind of rare in Palo City of Palo Alto Page 7 Alto to have this. It’s a park, we like to have a park and we don’t want it to – we don’t want this building to be too much in your face. So, we’ve kept it low. We want to – and then we think the trees will help to screen it a little bit and make it still seem natural. A bunch of the wall is staying and it’s going to be ivy- covered and lovely the way that it is today. So, that’s the current thinking. Those are good questions. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower. Board Member Bower: I’d like to congratulate you on, what I consider to be a very compatible building. I have a couple – I’ll start with that because I think this is a nice design. I have a couple of small issues that I’d like to hear about. Chair Bernstein: We’re going to start with questions, then open to the public, then we’ll talk about design. Board Member Bower: It’s actually an architectural question. Board Member Bower: Great. Thank you. Board Member Bower: The concrete block wall on the plan, says it matches existing but then, of course, we need to differentiate that wall because it’s a new wall from the old wall. Have you thought about how you’d do that? Mr. Kobza: No, but we could, easily. It’s a standard you know, concrete block wall painted I guess right now. It is pretty much normal. We could go to a split faced block. We could go to a fluted sort of block or something like that. We were sort of leaning in the direction of – since we were taking away a decent chunk of the concrete wall, of the sort of matching it. Even though it’s going to be, for the most part low, where the bench is and things like that. Again, to Patricia’s point, we’ve integrated some wrought iron fencing at the perimeter of the pool to secure the pool, which they have currently facing the parking lot. So, that we’re sort of keeping that design and feel integrated a little bit. You know, when you guys talk about the design, we’re going to be open to really any concept and looking at any of your ideas. I think, you know to the Community Center and certainly to [Sherry], making this a success for both themselves and for Palo Alto is really on their agenda. Board Member Bower: Another question, where is the current refuge enclosure? I don’t… Mr. Kobza: There is none. Board Member Bower: Ok. Did you consider other locations for that? Besides the one on the plan? Mr. Kobza: Not much. I mean, we looked at where it is shown on the plan right. We looked more to the left, in the parking lot area. We’re definitely thinking it needs to be off of the parking lot to be able to allow Palo Alto sanitation to get to it. The other location to the left, kind of made it feel like it was going to be more of an alleyway. You know, more hidden, to get behind the building or behind the refuge enclosure and get to the park. That was really the reason that we chose to integrate it more into the pool area. It did take up a little bit of their lawn area but it seemed to feel like, as far as a people path, it was a better decision. Board Member Bower: The reason I bring that up is that when I was out on the site, I realized that that refuge enclosure is going to actually have a significant visual impact on the way in which that property now is experienced by people who are walking up. There’s that very nice long walkway, from the sideway all the way in through that, which is a really beautiful architectural feature. To have that garbage enclosure right next to that walkway, bothered me. I’m just wondering if you had other thoughts about it. Ms. Listgarten: One – I just want to add – one of the things that Matt said – oh sorry – we talked to Matt right before he left and he just gave us one piece of advice which was fewer structures. One of the City of Palo Alto Page 8 reasons why we embedded it was kind of one less structure but – yeah, we found out now that it’s on an easement. I mean, we’re open to moving. One idea I had just putting it all the way in the front corner of the parking lot. So, we don’t even pretend that it's historic and we just kind of get it out of the way and we leave at least the main historic thing. You see what I mean? To pull it all the way forward, into the front and then it’s out of the way of that and you maintain the walkways and things like that. Board Member Bower: It’s a difficult problem. You have to have it – it has to be put on the site somewhere –typically as I see properties – older properties around North Palo Alto developed. Particularly, as an example, the property on the corner of Channing and Middlefield, which is a single story, low dental office; L-shaped building. They put it all the way back on the side. As far away from Middlefield as they can and it still matches the rest of the building but it doesn’t take away from the majesty of that architecture as you approach the building. I guess those are the two questions and more discussion (Inaudible). Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: Hi. I had a couple questions just about the heights. It looks like, from the pool decking, you go up to this sort of raised terrace. So, you go up roughly four steps. So, that might be 24 inches, for this raised terrace and then I see that the overall height of the new building is 12 feet. I just wanted to understand that in reference to the existing building to the right side of the pool and what’s the overall height of that long linear building that’s currently there? Mr. Kobza: I think we’re talking the same height as the lower portion of our building. It’s down in the 9 to 10-foot scenario. We did actually look at a completely one level building, originally. It was actually me sort of pushing them a little bit to say, hey you’re going to have a Community room. I think a little bit taller ceiling would feel good. There’s certainly quite a few different architectural steps in Eicher buildings or Eichler homes, where you see different elevation heights being incorporated. I mean, that was really the premise of taking that portion of the building a little bit higher and you’re right on the steps. It’s going to be somewhere around probably, 24 to 28 inches. It will appear somewhat higher than the pool structure but I think for the use and function, that’s probably a good thing because it is going to be a little bit more of a dynamic use and building. It’s obviously going to be new to all these people and having it have a little bit more substantial presence seems like the right things to me. Vice Chair Wimmer: Then, I see a gate between the terrace – the raised terrace and then the – sort of the terrace that’s between the Community room and the basketball court. It looks like those gates are 8 feet tall? Mr. Kobza: They’re 8 foot wide. Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, 8-foot-wide, not 8 foot tall. Mr. Kobza: Yeah. Vice Chair Wimmer: So, the height of those gates would be (Inaudible)(Crosstalk) Mr. Kobza: It’s probably going to be about 6 -6 ½ feet. Vice Chair Wimmer: That’s probably what you’re required to have around the pool for safety reasons. Mr. Kobza: Exactly. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any other questions? So, I’ve got a couple. One is for Staff, is this property – does it fall into any of our historic categories, 1, 2, 3, 4? City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. French: It’s Nationally and as you know, California Register – because it’s National Register but the way our code is written it does not capture those as automatically being on our historic resource inventory as a category 1, 2, 3, or 4 but the importance of it is such that – you know, this discretionary application elevates it to this level where we do CEQA review and bring it to the Board. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Great. My other question is on page 3 of the Staff report, the chart says, cultural resources with the project on A, I’ll read it. It says, the cause of substantial adverse change in the significant of a historic resource and then the options on that questions are a potentially significant impact, less than significant with mitigation, less than significant no impact. Does Staff or Mr. Rush have any comment on which box might be checked? It’s on page 3 of the Staff report. The top chart. Ms. French: Right. So, again because it’s on the California Register, it is subject to CEQA and that’s what this checklist is about. Is Staff having to make sure that the project will get to a point that where there won’t be an impact because if there is or it needs mitigation, then we have to go through a larger exercise? Chair Bernstein: So, my questions are there any indication of where this – as we’re seeing it today, which box might be checked? Mr. Jon Rusch: Given the current design, I mean I think in a lot of ways it’s very compatible. In a certain sense, it is – the – I’m trying to think of how to phrase this but the differentiation is an issue that we’re looking for some improvement in. For that reason, it is not entirely Standards compliant so, I don’t know if the current stage of development, we could say that it’s a less than significant impact but it’s hovering around there. I don’t know how to – that’s a very precise way of putting it but it’s not far off from that in my mind. I think there’s an additional question about the impact of the landscape and I know that was brought up in our report. That I think it would be helpful to have a little bit more understanding of what features in landscape date to the original construction of the park and neighborhood, would be impacted. So, I understand that the pool has changed quite a bit but the wall, itself has not and a section of that wall will be removed. That does seem to indicate that it’s – it would be a removal of historic fabric. Again, not entirely Standards compliant for that reason but I think the larger question is if that elevates it to a – something greater than a significant impact. I guess I’m still trying to think through a few of those issues so having more information about the landscape and the history of the landscape would be very helpful. Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Thank you and welcome Board Member Kohler. Welcome. Another question I had is for – I think it would be for the applicant. As you heard from Board Member Bunnenberg mentioned, Standard nine can be a challenging Standard to address. One of the other issues that the City of Palo Alto looks at when we look at that Standard Nine about compatibility and differentiation. Another Standard we use is, how is any proposed new construction subordinate to the historical structure. The question would be, how would your proposal be viewed as being subordinate to the historical aspect of the existing buildings? Mr. Kobza: Yeah, I’m not quite sure I understand the question either. You’re saying…go, ahead. Chair Bernstein: That Standard about subordination is that so when a visitor comes to the property, they can see the significant historical structures. So, that would be the existing Eichler structure there. So, that when they – if a new structure is added to the historic property, the historical structure is the more dominate character-defining form and then whatever is new is kind of subordinate to it and not standing out as dominant. Mr. Kobza: I see, thank you for the clarification. I think the basic premise of this would be as you enter, as you mentioned on the very nice walkway from the street, that’s lined with trees and things. You’re going to see all of the existing structures first. Those will all be in plain sight as you approach and it really won’t be until you get quite close to the pool area, where you’re going to get a glimpse of the new building off to the side. The other piece – I think that just the right place, sight wise, to accomplish that and it just happened to be the right place, site wise, to accomplish the tasks that they are looking for and City of Palo Alto Page 10 with the landscaping being added from the park area to help screen the building itself. That should help minimize its impact. However, coming from the park area, there really wasn’t much of a view of the existing buildings at all. You know, you have a fence there and a basketball court; it really takes prominence. Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that and the basis I’m asking that – yeah – the basis I ask that question was that both you and [Sherry] mentioned some actually very good goals about the architectural integrating and the idea of compatibility. It’s a good thing. We as an HRB, Historic Resources Board, we’re given the City of Palo Alto task of that Standard nine, that’s why Board Member Bunnenberg mentioned that; that’s a challenging thing. Sounds like – you answered that well so, thank you. Board Member Di Cicco. Board Member Di Cicco: I just want to kind of enlarge on the cultural landscape and the shrubbery and trees, given very little separation from the public park. Is – I guess, is have there been further research that what is really available, that was Thomas Church original design, what trees are there? How many trees need to be removed? Yesterday, when I was at the park, in the park section, there were two folks with four dogs. If those had been my dogs, they would leap into the pool, given the opportunity and it kind of would concern that – you know, trees take a long time to grow to and whether this is enough basically, I guess security for the members of the association? Ms. Listgarten: I can address some of that. First of all, we’re only removing two trees. We were only going to remove one and [Dave Doctor] said you need to remove that other one because he doesn’t like Siberian Elm so, it’s fine. So, two trees are going to go and I think the neighborhood felt bad about one of them. The structure integrity of the trees – one of the arborists said, take it down ASAP. Dogs – ok, people – I was actually out there with my dog yesterday when Beth stopped by. People like to walk and play with their dogs there. The perimeter is going to stay intact. So, there is no way that a dog can get into the pool. That’s why there are the fences and the gates and these rules around self-closing and stuff like that. There’s no concern at all about dogs running into the pool. My dog will run around the other side and go in the gate. The pool is very friendly towards dogs and things like that but it’s not – practically, it shouldn’t be a problem. There is one dog walker who is pretty incensed about this whole thing but I think with the trees and the benches, it will still be very much like the park. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Next, I’d like to open up this item to members of the public. If any members of the public would like to speak on this event, please make yourself seen. Oh ok, sure, go ahead Beth. Board Member Bunnenberg: It would be very helpful to have color samples of the colors that you list and maybe a sample of the concrete block because I don’t know whether they look the same or simply the fact that it’s many years later and they may not look the same. Also, the report talks about the possibility of using perhaps a wider spaced, vertical wood feature, rather than the thin space. Which is too typical of the Eichler of this era? Would that be acceptable to you? Mr. Kobza: Sure. I mean that would be sort of normal practice as we moved forward with the ARB but we could put that together, very easily. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Let’s bring it back to members of the public, who’d like to speak on this agenda item. If there are any members of the public who’d like to speak? I’d also like to invite Council Member Holman, please. Council Member Holman: I have a question. It’s not clear who the applicant is. I mean, I know you’re here speaking but I don’t know that the – everything says the applicant proposed – the applicant this, the applicant that. So, are you a representative of the Greenmeadow Neighborhood Association or what formal “authority” do you have? City of Palo Alto Page 11 Ms. Listgarten: Ok – I don’t know. So, there’s the Greenmeadow Committee Association has – is a formal body and they have set up a Committee, which is called the 20 Now Committee. This is – whatever, the name and I am on that Committee with two or three other people. In my responsibility on that Committee is design. So, somebody else’s responsibility would be like working with the contractors, for example, and getting the surveys done and stuff like that. I am here as a member – I am definitely on the Committee; the Committee is a formally approved part of the GMCA. That’s a good question. I don’t… Council Member Holman: But has the Committee, you know looked at these plans and approved them (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) Ms. Listgarten: Oh absolutely, absolutely. We voted – there was a big presentation, we’ve circulated all kinds of things and hand them all out to all the households and they have voted on this and we have a newsletter that goes out to the neighborhoods. There’s a lot of information about this. Not only has all the neighborhood seen this but the Board has certainly seen this and is very supportive of it. Council Member Holman: That’s really helpful. You understand the question because everything just says the applicant. Ms. Listgarten: Yeah and I am taking it for granted, just because our neighborhood is so active but yeah, absolutely… Council Member Holman: I know it is. Ms. Listgarten: All of the neighborhoods know about this or if they don’t they’re not paying attention. I mean, they’ve had handouts on their doorstep. There are emails going around. There’s a sign posted there and the Board is very supportive and there was a three-year discussion preceding this. Council Member Holman: That’s helpful clarification and great cohesive neighborhood. Ms. Listgarten: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: I also – that does spark one more question I do have for [Sherry]. Are there any conditions, covenants and restrictions in this development that control what happens to this project? Ms. Listgarten: That’s a good question. So, there are – CCRN’s – a single story I think would apply. So, our neighborhood is all single story and needs to compatible with Eichler so, we cannot renovate our houses in any way that is not compatible with Ickler and there’s an architecture – another part of GMCA is there is an Architectural Review Board, like our own version of it, which looks at things. We have been working with the Architecture Board in Greenmeadow to review some of the things, like colors and lighting and stuff like that. They’re very busy people. They don’t weigh in as much as we would like I guess but we’re working with them as well and they need to approve this. So, they need to write a letter that says, that we approve this thing before we can submit it and that letter has to be a part of that submittal. Chair Bernstein: Ok and I do see the proposed height of the new structure still meets the definition of one story so that’s good. Alright, I see no members of the public are present for this agenda item. We can continue with our study session and that can include additional comments. I’m going to keep the public hearing open. The study session, is this considered a public hearing even though it’s a study session? Ms. French: It is. It’s a noticed hearing. A regular meeting date of the Board. Chair Bernstein: So, I’m going to keep this open so we have an interactive conversation between us, Staff and the applicant representatives. So, back to the Board for any comments. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Bower: Follow-up on my earlier questions. What I remember when I worked on Eichlers in the 70s is that the siding was a unique dimension. In fact, we always had to have it milled. One of the ways that I would recommend that you differentiate your new siding from the original Eichler siding is not to reproduce that pattern and you’re right, there is the 4-inch groove, there’s the 6 inch. I don’t know if they got wider than that. The point I’m trying to make is, I would use a readily available siding and maybe even something like a v-groove siding, which is not what he used. They always had – Eichler, he owned his own Redwood groves and he owned his own mill and he made everything, for all of his houses the same way for the economy, that’s why they were half as much as all the other houses. That’s one thing to consider. The second thing I would consider on the concrete block wall, I’m pretty sure those are 8 by 16 blocks. Rather than use a fluted block, which I don’t think is appropriate, I would just use a different size. I’m pretty sure you can get a 4 by 16 so, you see the 4 inch. Even though it’s smaller in scale and it’s going to – I’m a little bit concerned about how busy that would be but that’s a differentiation. Same material but it’s clearly not the original material. They only used 6 by – I mean 8 by 16 blocks in the 60s and 50s because that’s what was there. Now, we have hundreds of styles – multiple styles. So, that’s another issue. The other thing I just noticed on the plans is there is a 10-foot utility easement right across the front and the refuge is right on top of it. Last time I looked, you can’t put any perminate structure on a utility easement so, that will help me get you to move the – also, I don’t even see how the garbage men get in to get the garbage because it’s back in the corner and could be parked in. Not likely at 4 in the morning when they are coming to collect the garbage but just something to consider. Ms. Listgarten: We just found out about the easement. So, one approach is if it’s a paper easement, we can appeal to the utility companies if we like where it is. I think your feedback is great. It’s tough to figure out where to put this thing. If it’s a separate structure, is that a problem? Do we barrier it in foliage, if it’s a separate structure? I don’t know. I think the refuge thing is going to be an issue that we have to figure out. Board Member Bower: One last comment, the way that I interpret this new building as being compatible and subordinate to the existing buildings. First of all, it’s differentiated by the fact that’s going to be new and the other buildings is pretty tired and really need to be renovated. Surprised me that you could have a daycare center in a building that probably hasn’t been upgraded in, who knows, if ever. What I like about the positioning of the building is it has a significant distance between the original buildings that are on the property and this new building. It’s in the same style so, that’s compatible with me but the distance and the fact that you don’t really see it when you are approaching the main complex, gives me some comfort that this can be a little taller than the other buildings and still be subordinate because it’s off to the side. I think this is a great project and I’m hoping when it comes back to us that these little tiny nit-picking details that we’re giving you some grief about, will easily be resolved. Chair Bernstein: Amy, will the – as the project proceeds because it’s considered preliminary. I’d like to request that it does come back to the HRB, correct? Yeah, great, thanks. Beth. Board Member Bunnenberg: I find it interesting that the – my understanding is that these plans have been worked on for about 5 years and that they have involved everyone and I was particularly interested to hear that the neighbor who would be most impacted by that garbage/refuge structure was pleased to see it. I think that it sounds like you’ve been very respectful of letting people know and we don’t have anyone here protesting it. So, that it feels to me also that I was surprised by the distance between those surrounding houses and this new structure. I think the location looks like it has given them some space, rather than feeling like it's backed right up to my back yard. I like that part of it very much. When we get to discussing the CEQA phase, should I make comments on that now? Chair Bernstein: Sure. Board Member Bunnenberg: In terms of whether it would cause the substantial adverse change to the significant, I would almost see it as no impact. I don’t see how – I don’t know what the other Board Members feel and we don’t have – well there were certainly some structures along time ago and we don’t City of Palo Alto Page 13 know what the Native Americans had but you’re not going deeply enough in the soil to end up with any of that there and paleontology the same way and human remains buried, unlikely. That would be my thought that it’s very respectful of the site. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Di Cicco. Board Member Di Cicco: What I think might be helpful at our next meeting or when it’s further reviewed, would be to have perhaps a streetscape of the cul-de-sac and the building that are all – there’s 220 or something that are contributing, which is a really great number for the total of 248 or something as I read. If perhaps the streetscape and the colors, which have been selected by your association already. If that’s what's going to go be the possibilities for the project, in proximity to it, I think it would be helpful to see that. I also think, be given what we’re not at any phase as to what possibility is going to be used for the building. My thought would be to have the full glass facing toward the pool and the rest of the association property, as opposed to the park and have that on the site plan. The lesser glaze windows on the – facing the cul-de-sac. I don’t – you know it’s hard to tell from just these plans and the difference between how they’re going to sit. One number – number one says, facing the pool with the sliding doors as opposed to the other side. It would make more sense to be but I think it would be nice to be able to see the whole view of it, with the park and with the trees and the locations of them. Ms. Listgarten: I just wanted to add a comment. We can’t have sliding doors facing the pool because it’s a pool perimeter rules. So, those need to be the swing kind of door. So, that’s why the sliding doors are on the other side. Yeah. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. My question or comment or question/comment on your site plan A1.1. A1.1, it’s called enlarged site plan. Anyway, you’re showing – I see the steps going up. Have you considered having steps and ramps going up, having the same number of steps and ramp going down? That would lower the building by about 2 feet or so. That would bring the tall structure from 12 feet, in essence, it brings it down to about 10 feet. Brings then the proposed 9-foot structure down to about 7 feet high, above those grade levels, just to help subordinate the new construction to the existing historic. Have you considered, instead of going up, go down the same distance? Mr. Kobza: We did consider essentially, I think leveling it. I think what you’re kind of getting to. Where the plain of the pool surface would be equal. I think that would end up obviously, dropping the building from the park side. You’d end up having to come down some stairs to get to the building and then some retaining walls along the existing paving path. That would probably create, for safety sakes, some additional railing. Just because if you’re going to have kids on bicycles or skateboards or whatever and there’s a retaining wall where they can fall down. I think, the way we have it makes more sense, certainly for the park side and in a way, being able to step up to the building, we kind of felt like that is a little bit – makes it a little bit more special for the use portion and also gives the people that might be in the building having a function or out on the terrace, a nice view of the pool versus just straight across. Those were features that we did talk about. We did move the ramp, you know, sort of away from the pool area a little bit so it has a clear path but it’s -- (Inaudible) it’s going to be somewhat longer, it’s not invasive to the design really. It’s hopefully tucked away and we’re actually going to use it to hide the pool cover too. So, we did think about those things, Martin. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. I appreciate it. Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) Board Member Bower: Oh sure. Thank you. I wanted to make a couple of comments just on the exterior and how you’re approaching that and treating it and I’m actually in favor of lifting the height of the building up a little bit, just because I know with Eichlers and the design of it, there’s a challenge to get the appropriate amount of insulation up in the ceiling cavity and the current Eichlers really don’t give you an opportunity to do any recessed lighting. I don’t know how you were thinking about heating the building. If you want to do the traditional radiant heat or if you want to do some kind of forced air City of Palo Alto Page 14 system so, I think given the low height approach that you are presenting here is going to present some challenges with those very essential items. I think the building to me looks a little bit low and I know there’s a conversation about subordination but maybe this is – instead of trying to make it subordinate to the existing that have a significant distance between this new building. Maybe raising it up could offer an opportunity for differentiation. I see that the bathroom only has two small windows and the bathrooms are going to be used probably quite a bit so, if you can somehow get more natural light into the bathrooms. So, maybe raising the height of the roof, maybe even 12 inches or something would allow you to get some more windows in there. Some more natural light because people going in and out of those, those are going to be highly used and if you don’t have the natural light, you’re going to have to turn on artificial light and someone’s going to leave the light on and what have you. So, I’m just thinking ahead or maybe a skylight would be something that you…(Crosstalk) Mr. Kobza: Yeah, we’re planning on skylights. Vice Chair Wimmer: I think you need more natural light in there. I kind of like what you're doing with the sort of Nano doors or the expensive accordion to a glass that faces the park side but I’m not really crazy about, in that same room, how you have different heights of windows and doors. So, I would keep that consistent. I do see that you have a fireplace on the inside of that room but you’re not showing any venting or flue mechanism. There’s a fireplace on the inside that faces the… Mr. Kobza: We actually show a flue. It’s probably hard to see on your very small plan. Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, maybe it is. Yeah, ok. I see it, I see it. I guess I would have a little question about attaching the barbecue element on the outside, just for fire safety issues and I know there’s a detached barbecue but it’s on the other side of the fence. Mr. Kobza: Right. Vice Chair Wimmer: Closer to the pool, maybe you can combine those (Inaudible) Mr. Kobza: We did actually talk to the fire department about the barbecue and they were fine with it. Vice Chair Wimmer: I was just questioning. Then, I guess I don’t – I think that Community room, it might be – I don’t know – did you consider a vaulted ceiling because I know a lot of Eichlers have a vaulted ceiling? I’m sure you did. Mr. Kobza: Yes. Vice Chair Wimmer: I just think that could be a really cool room with a maybe a little bit more value of space and some of those exposed beams that are traditional with Eichlers. I think, just going in and having a flat ceiling – I don’t know – it could just be more of a celebrated space, maybe? Then, -- I had another thought and now I’m forgetting. I think about the trash, I see that the trash bins are located in that corner. Maybe if you just rotate them 90 degrees and sort of face them to the left, so the doors are on – it looks more detached and it doesn’t – you don’t read it as a part of the landscape elevation if you just kind of rotate it and push it off to the side. Ms. Listgarten: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: Any comment, we need – this is a public hearing, we need to be mic because it's recorded, thank you. Ms. Listgarten: I would love to do that. I am not sure if the truck can get there. It’s not a very big walkway. That would be ideal if they could. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Vice Chair Wimmer: Sorry, I remember my last comment, sorry. On the elevation, the West elevation on the bathroom sides, you don’t pull an overhang – that’s a flush fascia overhang and that looks – cause the rest of the building has an overhang and that just looks like maybe – I would pull that same overhang on that end. Those are my comments. Mr. Kobza: Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Rodger. Board Member Kohler: I guess I have to disclose things, right? Chair Bernstein: Yes. Board Member Kohler: Ok. Well, it’s been years but I have two children, Heather and Mathew. We spent hours and hours and hours at that wonderful place and so I know how it works fairly well. Also, I would not be – I also have two dogs so, I’m a dog person. 175 pounds of dogs. I think this is a great project. I’m not sure I have a whole lot of comment. There was – the only thing I was – part of the problem is getting old, you forget to set the alarm and you have trouble remembering things. I think the raising of the Community building level with the rear part of where the activity is, brings the whole building up, what is it? 3 feet? 2 feet? 2 feet and having spent hours and hours watching the pool and the kids, that’s going to be really a huge, nice thing to do. You’ll be able to see the pool really well. You’ll get a better idea of what’s going on and it’s actually, I think a pretty good safety feature. I wouldn’t lower it because it's so subtle. You’ve got to decide one way or the other, if you had it level with the pool, then there would be retaining walls in the back and it does make a whole lot of sense to me that if there is a lot of activity going in and out from the lawn area over to the Community building, is more active. As for where the raising the house up on the poolside, you’re a little more careful of getting in and out of the pool and it gives a tremendous view of what’s going on. Both for homeowners and – I mean moms and dads, as well as for the actual life guard people. I think it’s a pretty good solution. If you go – you know, having grew up here, all the different pools we’ve been to, Rinconada and Wilbur and things like – well, it’s not Wilbur anymore but the pool is – I think that’s a pretty good solution myself. I think it’s actually a huge improvement because for safety wise alone. Other than that, I think it's, you know, there’s all kinds of different ways to that and basically, the building has the look of an Eichler, whether it’s got wide boards or you know, -- in my mind, I don’t really care but I think it’s an appropriate structure. I’m ready to vote for it. I guess we can’t yet. Chair Bernstein: I have some other comments on the design. As I mentioned, I visited the site and I think some other Board Members mentioned that when you approach from the parking lot to the existing building that is there, there’s certainly a quality of horizontally and then the lowness. So, when you come into the breezeway, between – you got the Montessori on the right and then – anyway, low, low, low. Have you considered on this project of the new proposed buildings, to have those to help emphasize the horizontality, to have horizontal siding on the proposed new structure? Just to keep that horizontal feeling because I know, in Victorian, you got the vertical so, you put the – a lot of verticalities. I understand this is a common Eichler approach. We see that at the edge of the shopping center, you see that vertical same detail but to have the new structure, since we’re going up 12-foot height structure on one of the buildings there, to have horizontal boards on there, just to see what that looks like. Have you considered that or maybe that part… Mr. Kobza: I would say we’re considering it now. Board Member Kohler: I would not vote for that. Just to let you know. Chair Bernstein: Just the horizontally because of the architectural feel and that’s going to be one of the other measures that as the project continues. That’s one of the other measures of compatibility is architectural feel. Again, repeating the sense I had when I approached the property at the beginning, low horizontality. So, what can you do with this proposed 12-foot structures and the 9-foot structure to keep City of Palo Alto Page 16 that horizon – so, again, it doesn’t change the function. You can look at what impact it has on a budget but again just the architectural feel. With that I would like to invite Mr. Rush has any comments on the idea of compatibility, in terms of horizontality, that’d be great. Excuse me, we have other Board Member conversations going on. I’ll wait till we clear that up. Ok, go ahead. Board Member Kohler: We’ll we’re trying to decide whether to go there to swim or not? Chair Bernstein: Ok. Mr. Rush, please. Mr. Rusch; I’m sorry, could you repeat the question? So, my comments on the horizontality? Chair Bernstein: (Crosstalk) My question is more of a general comment or a discussion that you would offer about the idea of compatibility and differentiation with the proposed structure, regarding the historical resource. Mr. Rusch: In terms of Standards Compliance, I don’t that that having a horizontal board – when you’re thinking about compatibility, I don’t think that having a horizontal board is perhaps the very best solution but I don’t know that it would automatically tilt in the direction of noncompliance. In my kind of understanding of it, I don’t see having horizontal siding as being, you know, the needle that would break the camel’s back so to speak. I don’t think it would tip this into a substantial adverse effect. Chair Bernstein: Repeating why – the main reason why I brought this up is the architectural feel of the historic – of the existing structure and then the new structure. Just something for you as the applicant to design or to consider. That’s all. That’s my comment. Board Member Kohler: Martin, I just don’t understand the switch. I mean, it’s a new building, it’s going to be raised up, it’s taller than the other building. It’s obviously a newer building and it will be newer because probably even the glazing, I don’t know, is the glazing going to match the existing or not? It will be new, it will be double paint if the other one – so, I just – I think it’s going to make it more – I think it becomes more of an eyesore in a sense that everything else is vertical and suddenly you got this building that’s horizontal. Just to me seems out of touch with the general feel of the entire neighborhood. Chair Bernstein: ok. Board Member Bower. Board Member Bower: I’m a little confused about the height of the new building as it relates to the park on the West side and the pool on the East side. It looks like you’re going down about 4 risers, something like 30 inches – 32 inches. There’s no way to raise the building that I can see so, that it’s even with the pool deck, without having on the other side, the West side to have some kind of ramping or stairs out of there. I mean the point, as I understand the design is to get the building at the park level and then step up to the pool level. So, raising the building finished floor to the pool level, creates another bigger problem on the other side. Is that right, because… Mr. Kobza: Nope, actually the building finished floor will closely mirror what the level of the park is, currently. The pool level is about 30 inches lower so, you’re actually going down from our building to the pool. I think we’re going to end up not quite having 30 inches. We’re looking more at probably 26-28 at the most by the time it’s all said and done, with a little bit of slope on the deck and such. It is essential, the opposite of what you’re saying David. Board Member Bower: Because I couldn’t find the floor elevation on the new building. I can see it around the pool, the survey. Mr. Kobza: Right. We can certainly add that so it’s a little bit clearer. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Bower: Well, I’m just trying – actually, a section of course, of the pool deck and the building would be helpful when you come back to us because that would – make it easier to understand this. Mr. Kobza: Yep. Board Member Bower: I don’t get a sense that that neighborhood had a lot of slope in it. I mean I grew up there and watched those buildings being built. It was just fields when I was in elementary school. So, they must have raised the grade in that park or somehow rearranged the grade to create that offset from the pool and putting up a swimming pool below, sort of ambient grade, is counterintuitive. Especially, when you consider, we use to have rain in this City. I’m not sure – you know I don’t want to be more invasive -- to have this project become more invasive in the park area but maybe there’s a way to create – have that building come up and still be able to get out of it – get out from the park side, without having to go downstairs. Mr. Kobza: You don’t have to go. From the park side, the building you walk outside and you’re going to be right at the current level. Board Member Bower: I’m thinking of trying to make the building – the new building flush or close to the same level as the pool deck so, that flows into that space but then the other side of it, you know. You’re going to have to depress the building and then you have to climb out of it. Mr. Kobza: Right. Chair Bernstein: I wasn’t sure – I just wanted to say thank you for your patience. We have a 121-page booklet here called Secretary of Interior Standards and so, again we’re being responsive to the City of Palo Alto’s regulations. That’s why you’re hearing these comments. Additional comments? Suggestions? Board Members? Ms. Listgarten: Can I respond to one or two things? Chair Bernstein: Oh, please, yes. Ms. Listgarten: So, Margaret asked about the eave on the bathroom side, that’s been a place of contention (Inaudible). I had removed the eave because a bunch of the houses don’t have eaves so it’s not the case that there are eaves everywhere. My house and lots of other houses don’t have eaves uniformly. The reason on there is because the path on that side is not super wide and if you have the eave, it encroaches further, it hides the sky. It’s more of a feeling of openness in that path as you’re walking through and safety if you’re a women and more light and stuff like that if there’s not the eave. That’s the thinking around it. I don’t know that we’re still – I don’t know if we’ve quite agreed on that yet but at least I wanted to explain that. I think it’s [Johnathan], you asked about which structure were original in the park, is that right? Mr. Rusch: We have the image on – in the presentation that shows a rendering of the park and structures as originally designed but it’s still a question as to which of these elements were really put in place and… Ms. Listgarten: I can answer that if you want because we went and tried to look at old photos and things like that because we were curious. The oldest photo that we have, the trees were not there. The wall was there but the basketball court was not there, in the very beginning. It looked like lawn and there were people picnicking. I think that that was added a little bit afterward. As far as the neighbors can remember, it’s been there for a really long time but I think that the wall was there and the basketball court may have delayed by 5 or 10 years, something like that. The trees, I think were never there. Everything else was built the way that it is now. The pool was sunk. The pool is a sunken feature, that whole thing is – right now, it’s not more that 2-feet down. It’s between 20-24 inches down and there is City of Palo Alto Page 18 that sitting wall, that sort of – kids would hang out on the sitting wall and it was – dangled their legs that 2 feet kind of things between the park and the pool. Board Member Kohler: I have a quick question, over in the corner, it says privacy for [Greg Gregaria]. What does that mean? What’s the last word? Mr. Listgarten: I mean you guys know more about it – a lot about Eichler but go ahead. Mr. Kobza: I think we’re talking playful people. They’re gregarious. So, the neighbors that want to go out and have a good time and swim. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Di Cicco, you had your, ok. Alright. Amy, is the next step, this goes to Architectural Review Board and then back to us, is that next step? Mr. French: Well, next step is getting to a complete application because it is a conditional permit and architectural review application. So, we want to, I guess – sounds great that there are additional photos that [Sherry] has possession of. So, those kinds of documents would be very helpful for us to submit a documentation of that park. I mean because I think that’s the additional research that we need to do is regarding the cultural landscape and what was actually installed verses that lovely photo – rendering, that we have here. So, we can make some further determination regarding the proposal along the park edge there. Then, yes, we would – you’ve requested to come back, I think that makes sense, we would come back to you before going to the ARB, unless we determine that we’ll just have the HRB conduct the hearing and then keep it kind of at a Staff level architectural review and let this body become the main hearing body because of the kind of minor aspect of the project. The most important part about it is that it’s National Registered District and we’re wrestling with Standards. Board Member Bunnenberg: Are you needing a motion? Ms. French: No, that’s fine. This is billed as a study session. Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) CEQA, is there any motion necessary on the CEQA findings? Ms. French: Again, I think because we’re not ready to make a CEQA determination on staff without the additional documentation. I mean, I’ve heard – I appreciate you’re considering this no impact. I mean, we would like it to be no impact and so to do the research to make that determination, I think will be, you know, something we bring to you and let you concur or not with our findings, at a future date. Chair Bernstein: Also, I think – let's see, Board Member Di Cicco, you were suggesting there be a – some kind of an elevation or – this is a question for the applicant. I think Board Member Di Cicco, I think you were suggesting having a drawing or a view from the cul-de-sac, Greenmeadow Way, so we can see… Mr. Kobza: Sure. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, that’d be a good (Inaudible) Mr. Kobza: We were planning, you know, obviously – typically the ARB is going to have a lot more information coming from us, whether it’s photo surveys or rendering. Chair Bernstein: Good, good. Mr. Kobza: Certainly your point is taken. Chair Bernstein: Good. Thank you so much. Another… City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Di Cicco: I guess, Martin – yeah, I think that would be very helpful and from what I’ve heard too, all the original paths will remain intact? Mr. Kobza: Yeah. Board Member Di Cicco: Yeah. Mr. Kobza: We’re invading it slightly with our pavers but the path itself stays intact. Board Member Di Cicco: I’m sorry but I do not remember what the material was and what… Mr. Kobza: It’s paving. Right now, the path is asphalt paving. Board Member Di Cicco: Asphalt, is that what’s in store or will it maybe be DG? Mr. Kobza: We’re going to leave that entire path the way it is. The basketball court will become a half court; will remain paving. Then, sort of per our layout on the site plan, we’re mirroring the curve of the path with some new hardscape that surrounds the building. So, we’re trying to be compatible with the paths movement – original movement but then, where it starts to touch the building, upscale the material that you’d be walking on. Chair Bernstein: Anymore? Board Member Bower. Board Member Bower: Comment on that, hopefully, you would consider some kind of pervious pavement, like concrete so the water, instead of collecting the water and routing it off somewhere, we can actually get it back down. That’s a big theme in the City after… Mr. Kobza: Yep. Board Member Bower: I was on the Storm Water Committee and we have a ballot issues coming up where we’re trying to move the way we think about water from something to put in the storm drain, towards something – towards a resource we can get back in the ground. Anything you can do to put – to allow that water to get back down in the ground would be… Mr. Kobza: Yep, totally agree. Totally agree. Chair Bernstein: Alright, does the Staff need anything else – would like to request any other things from the Board? Ms. French: I appreciate all of your comments and no, not at this time. We’ll see you in the new year with some revisions. Thank you. Chair Bernstein: [Sherry] and Bob or a Bud, thank you so much. Really appreciate all your comments. Thank you. Ok, that concludes this agenda item. Approval of Minutes 3. Date Chair Bernstein: Next, on our agenda will be approval of minutes. There are none. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Bernstein: Next, is Board Member questions, comments or announcements. Any --Board Member Bower. Board Member Bower: I would like to ask Chair Bernstein, that you agendize a topic that I will call ordinance changes that we want to recommend to the City Council. I have four topics on my list that I think are repetitive because we’ve talk about them but I’ll just list them here. I think the HRB should report directly to Council. I’m not comfortable reporting to the ARB because there’s no guarantee that the recommendations that we make can be heard by the Council, without being filtered through ARB. Second, I think we need to develop a mid-century building protection plan. Similar to what we have in Professorville and along with that endeavor, I think we need to have hearings and encourage an ordinance change to make demolition of buildings not ministerial but discretionary, just like San Francisco. Finally, the last item that I’ve brought up before, is I think we need to have a Mills Act Program that will encourage people to protect their buildings, rather than destroy them. I don’t how we’d move this forward? We’ve had the mid-century building survey on our agenda from both Council – joint Council meetings and also, just as a – in retreats from, maybe 6 years ago, and it just seems like these things can’t move forward and I don’t know how to get them there. I think we need to get them an agenda and try to move them forward as best we can. Chair Bernstein: Amy, is that something you can discuss among – and how to make that – get that to be an agenda item so, we can get that as a public discussion? Ms. French: Sure. Well, recently there was a Council meeting where there was discussion about penalties related to demolition and our liaison to my left, was a part of a discussion there to request that there was something coming back in the new year at some point regarding how we look at our Chapter 1649, with respect to the different categories of historic resources; then with respect to demolition and penalties. I think – oh, the other thing I was going to say is that we were supposed to have a meeting with the Council on the 12th but as you know, that got postponed. I don’t have a new date when that might be but hopefully in the new year, you know, in the spring or thereafter, we can get ourselves a date and leading up to that, I would like to target the late January meeting perhaps, or a meeting in February to have a more full discussion and bring back – now, in the packet for – I think it was November 10th, I provided that list of things that we are – kind of our work program that is out there. Maybe I can resend that to all of you for consideration. Then, David, if you’re interested in flagging and annotating that and sending that back to me, then perhaps get an agenda together that talks about moving forward. Board Member Bower: The list that I just read off? Chair Bernstein: Yes. Board Member Bower: I could (Inaudible) Ms. French: It’s in the record so I can get that from the minutes. Board Member Bower: Ok, so I’m not sure I understand what you (Inaudible) Ms. French: Looking forward into the new year, there’s an opportunity for Staff to come back with direction from Council with some kind of discussion about demolishing and penalties certainly. That brings up the ordinances itself and ordinance changes are part of that discussion. Of course, the new year going to be the Eichler guidelines, meetings and outreach and those discussions with Council. Then, of course, we have this opportunity yearly to have a joint meeting with the Council and so, to prepare for that and then have a meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair, prior to that meeting. There’s work we can do as a Board. Board Member Bower: So, to follow-up on that, our next meeting is January 12th? City of Palo Alto Page 21 Mr. French: I’m going to say no. The next meeting is January 26th. We’re going to do the second meeting of January. We don’t have items as of yet for the 12th as far as project items – development projects and given the holidays, I’m getting a packet reviewed by the management and out at Christmas time or right around the new year is difficult. So, I’m going to say the 26th is our next meeting if that works for all of you? January 26th, ok. Vice Chair Wimmer: I wanted to suggest that maybe we have a meeting, knowing that there are no project items that are on our agenda but we just have a kind of just a group study session, just to casually talk about all these items because I think that there are a lot of these items that come up, in this formal setting, we can’t really talk as openly and have a thorough discussion of a lot of these things. So, maybe it’s kind of a retreat situation? I think January is actually a great time to do that because it’s a new year and I know that we’ve gotten a lot of feedback, for instance, from the Council and things on some directions that they want to see us going in. That we just never have a chance to cohesively get together and discuss. I think it would be wise of us, maybe even before the 26th to schedule a meeting if people… Ms. French: I mean, we could have a meeting on the 12th as a retreat. It wouldn’t require Staff to prepare a packet if we just want to have an agenda. Vice Chair Wimmer: We meet in the other room like we’ve done before and we have, sort of a loose – things on our agenda but maybe we could even come with our own ideas because it just seems like, after the year, we have these kinds of brainstorms but we never really – they don’t go anywhere because we don’t have an opportunity to really kind of discuss it. I think it's – it might be a great thing for our Board to sit down and maybe every January and just sort of plan out our year or think – come up with a list of things that we really want to sort of accomplish that year. I think that would be really helpful. Ms. French: I’m trying to remember when the last retreat was. I remember the retreat when we talked about the bi-law, it was in the Community room over here. Vice Chair Wimmer: I think it’s all – for me, I felt like those meetings and even Karen had one had one with us a year or two ago. I think those are really great because it just makes us kind of gel as Committee because I always feel – I’m speaking personal, I feel like sometimes our meetings are so few and far between, that we sort of lose momentum and I forget, like what were those things we were working on? Everyone is busy and has their own professional lives but I think the more times we get together as a group in a more casual setting, where we can talk about things, I think it’s really good for us, as a whole. Chair Bernstein: I would be (Inaudible) to having to do that on January 12th. Council Member Holman, you had your light on. Council Member Holman: Yeah, it wasn’t for this but since you brought it up. I appreciate the comments and there was supposed to be this last year but then Matt departed but there was supposed to be follow- up to last year's retreat and there were several items that – I don’t think actually required that much Staff input, it was more as Vice Chair Wimmer is talking about, about conversation that the HRB would be having. I actually was wanting to make a couple of other comments, though. The Squire House tour, I think you all know about this but just to be sure. The Squire house tour is this afternoon from 4-6. You do have to get your name on a list so, email Squirehousepaloalto@gmail.com, Squirehousepaloalto@gmail.com. It’s this afternoon from 4-6. Also, it’s looking very likely, it’s not a given yet but it’s looking very likely that CPF Conference will be here in 2018. That’s a conversation I started last year and you know, they book quite a bit ahead so, it’s looking promising though that the CPF Conference will be here in 2018. First time since 1988, which was the year that an impetus for the founding of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. There will be lots of volunteer opportunities so, stay tuned for that. Typically, I wouldn’t do this but given the conversation today and the item that was before the Board today. I found last night a book Mid-century Modern Architecture Travel Guild, that sells for $35 and I’m going to order one, another friend wants one. Some of the quotes about it, it’s a must have a City of Palo Alto Page 22 guild to one of the most fertile regions of the development of mid-century modern architecture. It’s a handbook. The first ever to focus on the architectural wonders of the Westcoast of the U.S, proving visitors with an expertly curated list of 250 must-see destinations. I’m going to order it from my favorite, local bookstore, Bells. If any of you want a copy of it, let me know and we can order how many ever at the same time. Again, I wouldn’t typically do that but given the topic on today’s agenda. Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Also, I’ll be attending – I already – I’ll be attending the Squire House tour today, from 4- 6. I’ve already RSVP. I got a response on that back. Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: We need your mic on. Board Member Di Cicco: I thought I turned it on, not off. I’m glad you brought that up because I had looked in the Weekly and such and it certainly hasn’t been advertised, though I had heard from Beth. I think it was pushed forward frankly, by Mathew because of the Interior Mills Act, that has to be done once a year. Ms. French: Yes, we… (Crosstalk) Board Member Di Cicco: Very low profile, though. Ms. French: …(Inaudible) and Code Enforcement Staff to talk with the owner about the need for a tour – annual tour. Board Member Di Cicco: Kept hidden very well, though, because I looked to see if there were any ads to when it might take place. Ms. French: It was published in the newspaper. The other things are, they are looking to terminate that contract. To be aware of that when you do go today and enjoy it. It’s a process. Council Member Holman: Quick follow up to that to give credit where it’s due. In addition to Staff, Gayle Woolley was very active in trying to get this tour to happen because it hasn’t happened and just – I don’t know how it could happen but if this owner does terminate the Mills Act contract because they're – I know there’s a particular interest of yours, Board Member Bower. If they do terminate this contract, it would be nice to rather than have that saving just go back into – as a Council Member I have to be careful saying this – having that go back into some other fund or pool of funds. It’d be nice to be able to try to apply those savings to some other properties who might take advantage of a Mills Act. Just a thought. I don’t know if it would work or not but just a thought. Chair Bernstein: When we have our discussion about the demolition, would we want to include that discussion would be the definition of demolition – we talk about because that would be really useful for property developers, just to know, ok what’s triggered demolition and what doesn’t. That I think would be useful for people. Alright, anything else for today before we adjourn? Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: We need your mic, we need your mic on. Board Member Di Cicco: Wonderful document about Eichler that we had – it was amazing all the information and what they did to prepare for this National Register nomination. It’s pretty amazing and so well written and really depicted how Joe did business. It was very educational for me. Really enlightening. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Council Member Holman: That was at the initiation of the neighborhood and maybe Amy remembers, I’m embarrassed to say I can’t remember the name of the architect who then lived in Greenmeadow who was – his name is just right here and not here – who was very, very involved in preparing this and advancing it with – I’m sorry? No. At any rate, it was the initiation of the neighborhood and full support of the neighborhood so, it was a great document. Chair Bernstein: Amy, I think I had an email from Robin, saying there’s a potluck after this meeting today? Ms. French: That was going to be my announcement to close this. We have – Robin is out on medical but Alicia has gotten us some treats for our holiday send-off. So, in the back. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer, you had a comment? Vice Chair Wimmer: Yeah and I just wanted to mention, I think next Thursday, which is the 15th at 7 o’clock. I think there’s a Palo Alto Board recognition event. To remind you that – I think it’s at the Art Center. Have you gotten an email on that? (Crosstalk) Yeah, I like these reminders. I need them. Ms. French: Maybe I can rouse that up and send that out to all of you. Also, the day before the fire station, you know the fire station 3 that came to you a month or so ago. They are having an open house at the Art Center the night before that, the 14th. So, inviting the neighborhood to come because we’re not hearing from anyone in the neighborhood about that project. Let’s see what they think of metal siding, I don’t know. Chair Bernstein: Ok, we are adjourned. Thank you. Adjournment