Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-25 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet1. 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: May 25, 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. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule Assignments    Study Session  Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3    2. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN‐00136 and 17PLN‐00135]: HRB Study Session  Supporting Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 sq. ft.  Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350  Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on Six Levels (Two Below Grade) with  a footprint of 37,075 sq.ft. and floor area of 149,500 sq.ft. The Public Safety Building  Site Would be Developed with Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking  Spaces for Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center,  Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department.  Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared;  Formal Project Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For  More Information, Please Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org  or Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.    3. 640 Waverley Street [17PLN‐00105]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to  Discuss a Preliminary Architectural Review application for a Mixed Use Building to  Replace Two Structures on a Downtown Site Determined Ineligible for Listing as  Historic Resources  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.    4. Mills Act Discussion    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    5. PUBLIC HEARING: 303 Parkside Drive [16PLN‐00395]: Historic Resources Board formal  review of an update of the pool and deck, and the construction of an approximately  1,800 square foot community room to be located between the pool and park on the  existing Green Meadow community center site within the Green Meadow National  Register Historic District. The project includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)  amendment request. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA. Zone District:  R‐1 (8,000)(S); Single Family Residential with 8,000 sf minimum lot size and Single  Story Combining District. For more information, contact Chief Planning Official Amy  French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.    Approval of Minutes  Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3    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 Brandon Corey  Boardmember Beth Bunnenberg  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.  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 Staff Report (ID # 8158) Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/25/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments Title: Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule Assignments From: Emily Foley Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate. Background Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. No action is required by the HRB for this item. Attachments:  Attachment A: HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) 2017 Schedule Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/12/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/26/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/9/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 2/23/2017 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Retreat 3/9/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/23/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular David Bower 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Joint ARB David Bower, Brandon Corey 4/13/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/27/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/11/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 5/25/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/8/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/22/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/13/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/27/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/10/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/24/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/14/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/28/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/12/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/26/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/9/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/23/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Canceled 12/14/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/28/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2017 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8130) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/25/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building and Garage (Study Session) Title: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00136 and 17PLN- 00135]: HRB Study Session Supporting Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 sq. ft. Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on Six Levels (Two Below Grade) with a footprint of 37,075 sq.ft. and floor area of 149,500 sq.ft. The Public Safety Building Site Would be Developed with Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking Spaces for Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared; Formal Project Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information, Please Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org or Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resource Board (HRB): 1. Review and provide comments on this Preliminary Architectural Review application. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and HRB members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 support or against the project. This is an opportunity for the HRB and the public to discuss the project and its context and note that:  the parking garage proposed for 350 Sherman is across a city alley from a National Register eligible resource at 321 California Avenue, filed with the State Office of Historic Preservation (Attachment E), and  the Cultural Resources section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report will discuss the proximity of the parking garage to, and compatibility with, this historic resource. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment Department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond Architectural Review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. However, a Notice of Preparation was issued and the associated comment period concluded, an Initial Study was prepared, a Scoping Meeting was held with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and a ‘Prescreening’ was conducted by the City Council to provide direction on the approach to rezoning 350 Sherman Avenue and the desired number of parking spaces at 350 Sherman Avenue. The purpose of the HRB meeting, and on June 1, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting, is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present conceptual project plans to the HRB and ARB and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the projects that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. Representative: Matt Raschke, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: Molly Stump, City Attorney Property Information Address: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue (see location map Attachment A) Neighborhood: California Avenue Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: 140’ x 371’ (250 Sherman) and 130’ x 312’ (350 Sherman) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes, California-Olive-Emerson (COE) area (from 640 Page Mill Road) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): No resources on the two sites; adjacent to 350 Sherman (parking garage site) is a National Register eligible resource, 321 California Avenue, on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation Existing Improvement(s): The two blocks of the site are improved with asphalt and trees in planters in use as surface parking lots available to the public Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lots Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northwest: CC(2)(R)(P) Zoning (commercial land uses) Southwest: CC(2) Zoning (commercial land uses) Northeast: CC(2)(R) Zoning (commercial land uses) South/southeast: PF and RM-40 Zoning (public facilities, and multiple family residential land uses) Special Setbacks: None Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: 250 Sherman: Public Facilities; 350 Sherman: Community Commercial Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: NA SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA 250 Sherman 350 Sherman City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, within 150 feet of multiple family residential land use Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2015: Council directed cost and impacts analysis to increase parking spaces beyond minimum 460 spaces, and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review of a 3-story Public Safety Building (PSB) on Parking Lot C-6 and of a new Parking Garage on Parking Lot C-7 with 460 spaces and 4,700 sf of commercial space. April 3, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach. Report viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56666. Video of Council meeting viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-122/ June 5, 2017: Informational report regarding preliminary review PTC: April 12, 2017 Scoping Meeting Report viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56874 Video of Scoping meeting viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-46/ Excerpt Minutes attached to this report (Attachment B) HRB: None. ARB: None. Infrastructure Plan The new Public Safety Building (PSB) and adjacent public parking garage were envisioned in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The applicant proposes construction of the garage first, to replace and increase surface parking facilities, followed by construction of the PSB once the garage is operational. The need for a larger PSB arose from the growth of public safety services and changes in regulations, including the need to meet the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA). The functions of the existing PSB within the 25,000 sf building at 275 Forest Avenue will be relocated to the new building. Project Description The City intends to construct a new PSB at 250 Sherman Avenue and a new above and below grade parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue. The project description is provided as Attachment G. The Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study also contain project descriptions. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the formal applications will be considered as a single project, because the garage will mitigate for the loss of approximately 310 existing public surface parking spaces on both sites. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The City Council directed staff to proceed with full preliminary design of a new 636-space parking garage concept with four levels of above-ground parking, two levels of basement parking and no retail space, and to design enhancements to the Birch Street frontage that will create an appealing interface between the garage and the pedestrian sidewalk. The proposed PSB design is a 3-story structure over an operational basement per previous Council direction (see Staff Report #6069). Additional application information is also available through the “Building Eye” website at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Attachment F is the concept project plans. Three distinct concepts were developed and will be discussed by the ARB. The Public Works Department webpage for the ‘New Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage’ is viewable at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145. Updates to this website are anticipated. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR).  Rezoning – Text Amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District development standards for public parking garages in the Public Facility zone districts in Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The recent Council discussion served the purpose of a “prescreening” preliminary review for rezoning; Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning Ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages (see Staff Report #7738). Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the HRB and ARB are encouraged to provide objective feedback to the City on the preliminary drawings. The HRB and ARB may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site  Consideration to any applicable policy documents  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The submittal of an application for amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District Development Standards is anticipated, in order to allow greater lot coverage and height for public parking garages in the Downtown and California Business Districts. Next Steps There is no further action required by the HRB after its discussion of the preliminary plans. The applicant will file the formal applications subsequent to the ARB review of the Preliminary Review application. The ARB is tentatively scheduled to hold a study session to review the preliminary application on June 1, 2017. The meetings are webcast and archived through the MediaCenter website (http://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/). Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Public Safety Building and California Avenue Garage at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. To start the EIR process, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed on March 24, 2017. An EIR scoping meeting was held at the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on April 12, 2017. Comments were received at the meeting by one member of the public and from PTC members. Written comments were received from Caltrans and the Native American Heritage Commission. The NOP comment period is now closed. The next step will be the release of a draft EIR (DEIR) after the design is further refined and a formal Architectural Review application is submitted. The Preliminary Review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 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: Vicinity Maps - Figures 1 and 2 (PDF)  Attachment B: Excerpt Scoping Meeting PTC 4 12 17 (DOC)  Attachment C: NOP sent to county via mail March 22 (PDF)  Attachment D: Signed Initial Study (PDF)  Attachment E: 321 Cal Avenue National Register Eligible (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Description (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Exhibit # TITLE HEREwww.migcom.com | 510-845-7549 Palo Alto Public Safety Building Palo Alto, California Figure 1. Project Vicinity Source: Ross Drulis Cusenbery, MIG 02-2PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background building with its own parking lot on the corner and a two- story residential lot; to the east is Site A of this study. The current site is a surface public parking lot, accommodating approximately 148 cars. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. Access to this lot is from Sherman Avenue, as well as from the alley to the north. Site B also has a zoning designation of “PF.” Site B has a land use designation of CC- “Community Commercial”. It is part of the California Avenue Parking District. SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following list of observations summarize potential pros and cons when considering Sites A and B for the development of the PSB and public parking garage, respectively. Potential Opportunities •City ownership of the sites avoids real estate acquisition costs. •Due to the orientation and placement of the County Courthouse, the PSB will have high visibility and opportunity for strong civic presence to those approaching on Park Blvd. from the south. •There is the opportunity to improve pedestrian environment on the east side of Site A, along Park Blvd., in a way that is consistent with the Cal-Ventura Area 2007 Comprehensive Plan goals. •Due to angle-of-view from California Avenue, and the existing height and continuity of the commercial buildings, much of the proposed PSB massing would not be visible from the retail street. This means that the size of the building is unlikely to seem “out of scale” with the smaller parcel retail functions. •The site is very close to CalTrain, a convenience for both staff and visitors. •For the Police Department, there is convenient access to a major arterial roadway (Oregon Expressway). PA R K BI R C H AS H SHERMAN GRANT CALIFORNIA 375’ 14 0 ’ 1 4 0 ’ SITE A - Lot C-6 1.2 Acre Public Safety Building 310’ SITE B - Lot C-7 0.9 Acre Parking Structure NORTH 60 360240120feet JACARANDA Palo Alto Public Safety Building Palo Alto, California www.migcom.com | 510-845-7549 Figure 2. Proposed Project Source: Ross Drulis Cusenbery, MIG 02-2PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background building with its own parking lot on the corner and a two- story residential lot; to the east is Site A of this study. The current site is a surface public parking lot, accommodating approximately 148 cars. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. Access to this lot is from Sherman Avenue, as well as from the alley to the north. Site B also has a zoning designation of “PF.” Site B has a land use designation of CC- “Community Commercial”. It is part of the California Avenue Parking District. SITE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The following list of observations summarize potential pros and cons when considering Sites A and B for the development of the PSB and public parking garage, respectively. Potential Opportunities •City ownership of the sites avoids real estate acquisition costs. •Due to the orientation and placement of the County Courthouse, the PSB will have high visibility and opportunity for strong civic presence to those approaching on Park Blvd. from the south. •There is the opportunity to improve pedestrian environment on the east side of Site A, along Park Blvd., in a way that is consistent with the Cal-Ventura Area 2007 Comprehensive Plan goals. •Due to angle-of-view from California Avenue, and the existing height and continuity of the commercial buildings, much of the proposed PSB massing would not be visible from the retail street. This means that the size of the building is unlikely to seem “out of scale” with the smaller parcel retail functions. •The site is very close to CalTrain, a convenience for both staff and visitors. •For the Police Department, there is convenient access to a major arterial roadway (Oregon Expressway). PA R K BI R C H AS H GRANT CALIFORNIA NORTH 60 360240120feet 02-4PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background PUBLIC ALLEY NA R R O W SI T E MATURE TREES WIDEN PUBLIC REALM CROSS- STREET OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tr a i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e a n d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tra i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e an d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Re c o r d D a t e Un k o w n C o f C C- 1 2 8 1 11 C O C - 0 0 0 0 9 48 0 42 5 2502 40 9 40 8 46 5 46 3 46 1 45 9 44 7 44 5 43 7 - 44 1 43 3 - 4 3 5 2458 2454 41 0 43 0 46 0 45 6 45 4 44 8 42 543 1 47 5 2450 45 1 45 3 2650 2640 36 0 32 0 30 6 30 9 - 31 5 31 4 23 1 44 0 41 4 40 6 - 4 1 0 39 2 36 0 36 4 41 5 41 5 42 1 30 5 44 2 - 4 4 4 43 3 - 4 4 7 40 5 - 4 0 9 16 1 36 6 - 37 0 3 0 0 - 3 3 0 33 2 - 36 2 2290 36 6 40 0 37 1 36 5 35 5 37 5 34 0 34 4 35 0 33 0 30 2 25 0 28 5 31 5 32 533 5 35 0 31 8 30 6 32 0 31 0 27 7 2313 2307 30 3 - 30 9 30 1 29 9 37 8 - 38 4 26 7 - 2 7 1 2350 26 5 22 0 23 0 24 0 29 0 26 0 2363 16 4 2343 2323 20 6 20 0 2555 12 3 15 0 27 0 2401-2585 14 5 10 1 - 15 1 15 3 15 5 15 7 15 9 2421 2441 39 8 39 0 2504 2506 33 4 41 7 27 5 27 6 37 0 39 1 41 3 2333 42 9 45 0 44 0 42 1 36 7 14 0 2160 15 4 2575 2670 37 0 42 0 32. 0 ' 35.2' 71.1 ' 26 . 7 ' 50.9' 125 . 0 ' 111.9' 15 5 . 0 ' 230.0' 13 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 25 . 0 ' 130.0'40.0'49.0' 95 . 0 ' 49.0' 95 . 0 ' 41.0' 25 . 0 ' 50.0' 12 0 . 0 ' 91.0' 12 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 12 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 131.6' 40. 0 ' 11.6' 46.1' 120.0' 90 . 0 ' 120.0' 40. 0 ' 22.2' 90 . 0 ' 271.6' 120 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 239.4' 90 . 0 ' 48.0' 90 . 0 ' 48.0' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 46.0' 125 . 0 ' 46.0' 125 . 0 ' 37.0' 125 . 0 ' 37.0' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 93 . 0 ' 61.0' 26 . 7 ' 71.1 ' 35.2' 40. 0 ' 58.6' 40. 0 ' 58.6' 14.1' 25 . 0 ' 22.7' 90 . 0 ' 40.9' 90 . 0 ' .3' 35. 0 ' 53.4' 35. 0 ' .3' 90 . 0 ' 43.8' 125 . 0 ' 44.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 136 . 3 ' 91.5' 136 . 1 ' 91.5' 14 2 . 6 ' 99.3'132.5' 14 2 . 7 ' 92.8' 23. 6 ' 73.7 ' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10. 0 ' 10.0' 11 8 . 6 ' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 3 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 79 . 0 ' 21.0' 79 . 0 ' 21.0' 21.0' 110 . 0 ' 20.2' 14.1' 10 0 . 0 ' 30.3' 95.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 51.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 42.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 195.0' 110 . 0 ' 195.0' 125 . 0 ' 130.2' 115 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 120.3' 115 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 40.0'14.1' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6'351.6' 16 0 . 0 ' 351.6' 16 0 . 0 ' 351.6'23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 100 . 0 ' 30.0'15.7' 59 . 1 ' 13 . 4 ' 44. 4 ' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 23 0 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 13 6 . 1 ' 151.6' 50.4' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 99. 9 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 99. 9 ' 100.0' 99. 9 ' 110 . 0 ' 51.0' 110 . 0 ' 51.0' 110 . 0 ' 96.0' 110 . 0 ' 96.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 96.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 25.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 25.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 4 ' 50.4' 132 . 4 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 6 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75 . 0 ' 50.0' 75 . 0 ' 50.0' 110 . 0 ' 82.5' 110 . 0 ' 82.5' 110 . 0 ' 250.0' 110 . 0 ' 250.0' 132 . 2 ' 50.0' 132 . 3 ' 50.0' 132 . 0 ' 50.0' 132 . 2 ' 50.0' 131 . 9 ' 50.0' 132 . 0 ' 50.0' 131 . 8 ' 50.0' 131 . 9 ' 50.0' 131 . 6 ' 50.0' 131 . 8 ' 50.0' 131 . 5 ' 50.0' 131 . 6 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 99.6' 150.0' 100 . 0 ' 150.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 37.8' 131 . 5 ' 37.5' 131 . 4 ' 37.5' 131 . 3 ' 37.5' 131 . 4 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 14.1' 40.0' 110 . 0 ' 50.0' 171.2' 257 . 7 ' 218.5' 121 . 5 ' 25.0' 13 5 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100.0' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 10 . 0 ' 25.1' 13 5 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 95 . 3 ' 29.3' 95 . 0 ' 37.2' 95 . 0 ' 54.0' 165 . 8 ' 69.6' 165 . 3 ' 83.3' 261 . 2 ' 99.4' 261 . 2 ' 100.4' 49.5' 86. 5 ' 79 . 0 ' 70.5' 70.5' 29. 5 ' 46. 3 ' 71.7' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99. 0 ' 26. 0 ' 26. 0 ' 99 . 0 ' 41 . 0 ' 41. 0 ' 41. 0 ' 12 5 . 0 ' 84. 0 ' 26.2' 26.2' 26.2' 36.7' 17 0 . 0 ' 351.6' 185 . 0 ' NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E CALIFORNIA AVENUE MI M O S A L A N E BI R C H S T R E E T NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T N AVENUE GRANT A V E N U E SHERIDAN AVENUE ST R E E T BI R C H S T R E E T NO G A L L A N E JACARANDA LANE PE N I N S U L A C O R R I D O R J O I N T P O W E R S B O A R D 8"C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) 6" CI WATER ( A B A N D . A B M # 1 2 1 7 ) 4"CIWATER ( A B A N D . A B M # 1 2 1 7 ) 4" (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) CI 4" CICI WATER ( A B A N D . A B M # 1 2 1 7 ) WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4"4"CI WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4" 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 6" CIP WATER WATERCIP6" CIP6"WATER 6"CI WATER 6" 1" CUJU L - 1 9 4 8 29 ' 1" CU (A B A N D A u g - 1 9 6 8 ) 1" CU Fe b - 1 9 7 6 15 ' (A B A N D O c t - 1 9 3 1 ) 1"CUJun-1941 1" CU JUL - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 29' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31' 4" JU L - 1 9 4 8 25' 1" CU MA R - 1 9 4 7 22 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30 ' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 16 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28 ' 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 8' 1 " C U 1 1 - 0 1 - 1 9 9 8 ( I R R I G ) 44' 1" CU 07-01-1953 1" C 25' 251 2" CU AU G - 1 9 5 7 23 ' 1 " C U 1 2 - 0 8 - 2 0 0 5 18' 24' 2" CU FE B - 1 9 6 9 1" CU APR - 1 9 4 8 49 ' 4"CU OCT - 1 9 6 2 24 ' 1 1 / 2 " CU DE C - 1 9 8 7 MA R - 1 9 4 9 4" P 1" C U J U L - 1 9 6 1 2" C 3/4 " CU 15' 1 " C U 49' 1 " C U M a y - 1 9 8 9 2" (AB A N D M a r - 1 9 7 2 ) GAS 3"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4" A B S G A S ( A B A N D . ) 2"ABS GAS 2"ABS GASABM #515 2"B W P G A S ( A B A N D . 0 8 - 2 8 - 2 0 0 9 ) 2"B W P G A S BWP2"GAS (ABAND) 3"BWP GAS (ABAND)3"BWP(ABAND Jan-1969)GAS (ABAND)3"BWP GAS ( A B A N D ) GA S 2" PV C 4"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4"GAS (ABAND) 4"GAS G-401 (ABAND) 4" G A S G - 4 0 1 ( A B A N D ) 4" BW P DEC 6 7 ( A B A N D . ) GA S 1/2 " PL 2"PE DEC-1994 2" BW P GA S ( A B A N D ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS2" A B S 2"ABS ABM #523 JUN-1965 GAS (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 3"BWP 3/4 " A B S G A S A B M # 6 3 3 J A N - 1 9 6 9 ( A B A N D . ) ABS G A S 6 3 3 J a n - 1 9 6 9 2" ABS GAS ABM# 523 Jun-1965 (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 4" ABS DE C 6 7 AB # 6 1 1 2"ABSGAS 2"ABS GAS ABM #515 (ABAND. 03-31-2009)JUL-1965ABM #515 JUL-1965 2" ABS GAS ABM# 515 Jul-1965 (ABAND. 03-31-2009) 3" ABS GAS ABM #334 01-01-1967 4"PVC ( A B A N D . ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS 3/8 " ABS NO V 6 5 57' 5/8 " PO L Y DE C 7 8 26' 7' 3/4 " SE P 5 0 8' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 40 ' AB S MAR - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " AB S3/4 " AB S MA R - 1 9 6 8 2' 44 ' 3 / 8 " A B S J u l - 1 9 6 5 50' 3 / 4 " B W P S e p - 1 9 5 0 3/4 " AB S APR 7 1 9' 3/8 " 20' 5' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38' 15' 3 / 4 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 39' 1/2 " TE N APR 6 0 38 ' 14' 62' 3 / 8 " A B S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 3/ 58' 3 / 8 " A B S NOV - 1 9 6 52' 3/8 " AB S JU L 6 5 49 ' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 45' 1/2 " PE AU G - 1 9 9 4 3/4 " 5' 38' 1/2 " PL SEP 5 8 64 ' 1 / 2 " P E J U N - 1 9 9 2 3/4 " WPFE B 5 0 3/4 " JUL 4 8 6' NOV75 AU G - 1 9 6 8 AB S NO V - 1 9 6 5 18'3/4"UNK JUN-1960 8' FE B 7 8 32' 1 / 2 " P L 1 1 - 0 1 - 1 9 5 9 10' 1/2 " TE N AP R - 1 9 6 0 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 45' 1/2 " PE JU L - 1 9 9 7 55' 3/4 " AB S MAY - 1 9 6 1 50' 2 " P V C MA Y - 1 9 8 3 5/8 " PO L Y DE C - 1 9 7 8 46' 67' 3/8 " AB S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 1 1 / 8 " POL Y 8' PO L Y 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 3/4"PVCSEP7323' 38' 1/2 " PE OC T - 1 9 9 3 1/2 " TEN MA Y 5 9 JUN-1960 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 10 ' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 5/8"POLYNOV8044' 2' 2 " P E 1/2"TENMAY61 24' 1" CU FE B 5 0 70' 3/4 " AB S OCT - 1 9 6 3 AB S MA R - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " ABS 2' 6'1/2"PE FEB-1993 CU FE B 5 0 25 ' 3/4 " PVC OC T 8 4 NO V 5 7 18' 5/8 " 3/4 " JU L 4 8 3' 2' 2' 5/8 "PV CJU N 8 0 1/2 " P E J U N - 1 9 8 0 7' 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 39' 38' 24' 3/4 " F e b - 1 9 5 0 45 1/2"PE 3/8 " AB S 5/8 " 20' 3/4 " 12' 3/4 " MAR 4 9 18' 3/8 " AB S 20' 3/8 " 2' X 2 ' 2" BW P 7' 3/4 " N O V 3 0 39' 1 / 2 " P E 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 8 1 80 ' 2 " P V C M a y - 1 9 8 3 20' 3/4 " AB S 3/4 " ABS 17' 16 ' 42' 5/8 "PE 3/ 8 "A B S FE B 7 0 OC T 6 9 5 1 / 2 ' 25' 1" PE Aug-2009 40' 1" PE Aug-2009 39' 1" PE Aug-2009 S 44- 4 -9 49- 4 - 1 0 59-5-4/C0 1 S 59-5-8/C01 S 57- 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2/C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 S 60 -2 -5 /C 01 13- 6-2 7 S 58-4-11 57 - 6 - 1 7 59-6- 3 / C 01 11-6-13 40-2-4 S 53-1-4/C01 S 53-1-2/C01 S 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11S 60 -1- 4/C01 57- 1 - 1 7 S 60 -1- 4/C01 57- 1 - 1 7 S 53 -2- 7/C0 1 S 60-1-1/C01 49- 6 - 1 2 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 30 ' 4" JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 31' 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4"JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 30 ' 4" AB S AU G 9 0 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 11' 4" JU L 4 8 29' 4" JU L 4 8 28' 4" JU L 4 8 14' 4" JU L 4 8 25' 4" MA R 4 7 15 ' 4" JU L 4 8 27' JUN41 4" JU L 4 8 26' JU N 5 2 6" AC OC T 8 4 4" JU L 4 8 255' 23' 4"JU L 4 8 200' 23' 8. " S T O R M R C P ST O R M 6. " STO R M 12 . " RC P 12. " ST O R M PC C STORM12."RCP 12. " ST O R M RC P 18. " ST O R M RC P RC P 12. " S T O R M RCP12."STORM 12."RCPSTORM 12. "S T O R M STORM 12." P C C PCC12."STORM PCC12."STORM 3 P C C ST O R M 12. " S T O R M 12 ."PC C S T O R M PC C 12 . " 12. " ST O R M PC C ST O R M PC C 12 . " 12. " ST O R M P C C P C C ST O R M 12 . " PCC STORM 12." P C C 12 . " ST O R M 12. " ST O R M PC C PCCSTORM15." ST O R M PC C 12. " STORM24."PCC PC C 12. " ST O R M PC C 12 . " ST O R M PC C ST O R M 12. " PCCSTORM15." STORM12."PCC S T O R M PC C 12. " 12."PCCSTORM 15. " ST O R M PC C PC C 8." ST O R M P C C 12. " P C C 12 . " ST O R M PC C S T O R M 12. " PCCSTORM24." 12. "P C S PC C 15. " ST O R M 8."PC C 8."P C C 24."STORMPCC PCCSTORM24." PC C 12. " ST O R M 24."STORMPCC PC C 12 . " C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 9 A AC B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 8 A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 6 C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 6 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 7 ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 4 A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 5 CB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 8 B CB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 6 A B C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 2 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 2 B C B - 0 4 3 - 4 -9 1 A C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 2 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 5 C B - 0 4 9 - 3 - 0 3 A ACB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 3 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 0 B A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 2 C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 0 8 A BC B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 2 5 ACB - 0 4 3 - 3 -2 1 ACB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 4 3 A CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 4 ACB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 8 CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 2 0 A CB - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 4 A AC B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 3 IN IN - 0 4 3 - 2 - 9 0 IN IN - 0 4 9 - 3 - 9 1 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 4 IN IN - 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 3 SD MH-043-2-07 SD MH-043-1-31 SD MH- 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 4 SDMH-043-4-16 SD MH-043-4-42 SD MH - 0 4 3 - 4 - 4 3 SD MH-043-3-17 SDMH-043-1-24 SD MH-043-1-15 WT-043-2-91 WT - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 9 WT - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 9 6" ACP WATER ABM# JAN-1963 6" ACP WATER ABM# JAN-1963 6"AC P W A T ER ER A B M # 1 1 9 7 A p r - 2 0 0 0 Ju l - 1 9 5 3 WA T E R W - 1 0 4 5 6" AC 6" TR A N S I T E WA T E R OC T 4 5 10" CIP WATER ABM#165 Jun-1948 10" C I P W A T E R A B M # 1 6 5 J u n - 1 9 4 8 8" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-19648" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 12 " A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 3 5 J A N - 1 9 5 2 6" ACP WATER ABM#468 Feb-1964 8" C I P W A T E R A B M # 1 6 5 J u n - 1 9 4 8 W-5 4 0 6" JU N 4 1 WA T E R AC P 8" PE WATER ABM#1276 Aug-2010 8" A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 6 7 J a n - 1 9 6 48" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 16" CIP WATER ABM# JAN-1925 16" CIP WATER ABM# JAN-1925 WA T E R 6" CIP 6" C I P W A T E R A B M # 5 4 0 Fire S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C 8' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 6 9 5' 4 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 Fir e S e r v i c e 1 4 ' 6 " A C P O c t - 1 9 8 4 1"CUJun-1941 6' 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 118 ' 8" A C P M AY-1 9 8 3 RCP 13'2"CU Jun-1998 8' 1" CU Jul-1971 6" FS Ap r - 1 9 8 5 2" CU Nov - 1 9 6 9 15 ' 5' 2 " C U 45 ' 3 / 4 " C U S e p - 1 9 3 9 10' 1 " C U O c t - 1 9 3 7 26' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 9' 1 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 40 ' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 14' 1 " C U 41 ' 1 " C U N o v - 1 9 3 6 45 ' 2 " C U S e p - 1 9 8 6 41' 1 " C U 0 7 - 0 1 - 1 9 6 3 5' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 4"AC28' F.S.6'1 1 / 2 " CU 45' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 1" CU Jun - 1 9 6 3 43 ' JAN-1929 46 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 0 1 39' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 5 9' 1 1 / 2 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 4 4' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 0 10 ' 1 1 / 2 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 Fire S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C A p r - 2 0 0 1 8"ACDec-1960 21' F.S. 1 4 ' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 7 6 4"CU 8' 1 1 / 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 6" AC F.S . 4 1 ' 6 " A C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 30' Mar-1961Aug-2001 2"Apr-195112' Jun-1941 40' 1 " C U 9' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 3 8 Jul-1957 7' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 9 4 40' 1 1 / 4 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 8 43 ' 1 1 / 4 " C U J a n - 1 9 6 9 40' 3 / 4 " C U F e b - 1 9 3 7 11 ' 1 1 / 2 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 1 1"CUOct-1945 30' 3"W M W / B Y P A S S 09-01-1990 ( I R R I G ) 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 26' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 po t a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 1 5 ' 6 " P V C D e c - 1 9 9 4 pot a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 10 ' 4 " P V C D e c - 1 9 8 4 22' 2 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 Fire S e r v i c e 9 ' 4 " P V C F e b - 1 9 9 9 23' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 8 4' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 5' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 4 6 3' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 7 30' 1 - 1 / 2 " C U 1 0 - 1 5 - 1 9 9 6 29' 3 / 4 " C U 4"4" 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 44' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45'44'2'5' 4 " D I P J u n - 2 0 1 4 41' 6 " D I P M a y - 2 0 1 4 26 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 40' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 25' 4 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 18' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 45 '46'45'46 45 4 44' 1 45 '4545' 44 ' 4 100 ' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 9' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 5 8 20 8 5 20 8 6 15 5 16 2 74737473 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " PE 5 ' 1/ 2 " P E 5 ' 1/ 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 .2 . 5 ' x 2.5' x 2 .2.5' 2.5' x 2 . 5 2.5' x 2 . 5 '2.5' x 2 . 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5 ' x 2.5 ' 1 / 2 "PE 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 "P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2. 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2. 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " PE 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E JA N 2 9 21 ' 52' 3 / 4 " P V C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 71' 1" WP Apr - 1 9 5 6 114 ' 1 " P E 0 8 - 2 9 - 2 0 0 6 1/2"PEDEC88 47 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 1 0 15' JAN29 70' 3/4" PVC Dec-1973 2"PVC JUL 7 4 35' 4' 8' 1 " P E 0 6 - 2 4 - 2 0 0 8 2.5 ' X 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 3/4 " PV C 5/8 " PO L Y 12' 46' 4' 2"PVCJUL7 4 42' 27' 1 1 / 8 " P E 58' 1 / 2 " P E 0 3 - 0 1 - 1 9 8 6 2' 2 " P E 1 0 - 3 0 - 2 0 0 8 24' 1 1 / 8 " P E 78 ' 1" PE Ap r - 1 9 8 8 Rop e 3' 1/2 " P E J a n - 1 9 9 0 22' 24'67' 3 / 8 " A B S J u n - 1 9 6 3 2" AB S MAY 6 1 120 ' 6' JA N 2 9 21 ' 59' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 54 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 78 ' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 53' 1 " P E J u n - 2 0 0 9 31' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 10 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 42 ' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 40' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 16' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 17' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 13 ' 1 " P E J u n - 1 9 9 5 16 1 ' 1 " P E 16' 1 " P E 14 5 ' 1 " P E 5/8 " P E 31' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 3'X 3 ' 1 " P E 24 ' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 6 36' 1" PE Feb-2009 57' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 35 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 21' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 30 ' 1 " P E D e c - 1 9 8 5 18 ' 1 " P E A p r - 2 0 0 1 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 23 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 11' 1" PE Nov-2010 33'1" PE Jul-2002 1" PE 5' PE DE C 8 7 42' 1/2 " 7' 1 " P E 19' 1 " P E Apr - 2 0 0 9 6' 1 " P E 5' 1 " P E 10 ' 1 " P E 7' 1 " P E 13 0 ' 1 " P E AP R - 1 9 8 8 RO P E 54'78' 24' 3 / 4 " P V C N o v - 1 9 7 5 67' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 33 ' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 52' 1" unknown 57 ' 1 " P E F E B - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 59' 2 " XX X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X X X X X X XXXXX XXXX XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XX XX X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X 6"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1216 Jan-2002 2" B W P G A S A B M # 1 2 9 F e b - 1 9 5 3 6" H D P E G A S A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 6" H D P E A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 12" H D P E C A S I N G 12" H D P E C A S I N G 2"P V C G A S A B M # 8 3 6 J A N - 1 9 7 4 6" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 6" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 6" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Jun-2009 2"P V C G A S 7 8 2 M a r - 1 9 7 2 ABM#782 MAR-1972 GAS 2" P V C G A S 7 8 2 M a r - 1 9 7 2 4" P E G A S A B M 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" PE GAS 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Aug-20092" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Aug-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" BWP GAS2" B W P G A S A B M # F e b - 1 9 2 4 2" B W P G A S A B M # O c t - 1 9 3 1 9 S A B M # J u n - 1 9 8 3 2"P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N O V - 1 9 7 5 2" P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N o v - 1 9 7 5 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Mar-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 F E B - 2 0 2" P E G A S A B M 1 1 2 4 A U G - 1 9 9 3 18' 6"" 1 9 6 0 - J u n - 0 1 182'240'292' 23'6"" ACP 1983-Sep-01 SEP-1960 31' 4 " " P E 2 0 1 2 - J u l - 2 0 4" FE B 9 0 21' FE B - 1 9 5 6 4"" A B S 1 9 9 8 - S e p - 2 8 383' 33 ' 313' 4"JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 241' 241' 4" AC JU N 8 0 20 ' 4" AC AU G 6 8 4" AB S JA N 8 9 123' 4" 54' 4" JU L 4 8 13 ' 4" JU L 4 8 12' 67' 4" JU L 4 8 23' 4" TR 14' 25 4" AB S AU G - 1 9 9 0 16 ' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 1 - J a n - 0 4 31' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 3 - J a n - 0 3 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 2 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P 4""4 4""4 4 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 8 62 ' 4 " " V C P 35' 4 " " V C P 4"" C I P 4"" A B S 1 9 9 0 - J a n - 0 7 4"" U n k n o w n 1 9 9 5 - D e c - 0 1 4"" A C P 1 9 6 6 - J a n - 2 7 4"" U n k n o w n 4"" U n k n o w n 4" P E M A Y - 2 0 1 4 6" SAN SEWER 6"S A N S E W E R 7.6" PE DR SAN SEWER ABM#1162 12" V C P S A N S E W E R S S R 2 1 9 9 2 - N o v - 0 1 6" S A N S E W E R 6"S A N S E W E R 5.4 " P E S A N S E W E R S S R 4 27" SAN SEWER 5.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 45.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 4 ABM # 1 0 6 6 A 1 9 8 9 - J a n - 0 1 12 " V C P S A N S E W E R JA N - 1 9 8 9 6"VCP 8" 6" 6" 6" 5.4 " PE SA N S E W E R MA R - 1 9 4 6 1 9 9 7 5.4" P E S A N S E W E R S S R 4 8" 12" VCP SAN SEWER SSR 2 1992-Nov-01 6" 8"P V C S E W E R 2 0 0 9 - A p r - 2 9 CO CO C O CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO C OCO CO CO CO S 27-2-10 5 3 - 4-6/C 0 1 S CAPENDOFPIPE 5 3-3-10/C01 S 18-2-10 5 3-2-8/C01 S 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4 S 17-1-13 59-2-3/CO1 S 43 - 2 - 9 / B 0 6 S 43-4-16/B06 S43 - 4 - 9 / B 0 6 S 43-4-10/B06 S43-4-20/B06 S 43-2-1/B06 S 43- 2 - 3 / B 0 6 S 43- 3 - 1 7 / B 0 6 S43-1-7/B06 S S 43- 4 - 1 2 S S CO 25-6-6 53-5-1/C01 CO N/C01 CO 64-5 - 3 /C01 CO 58- 6 - 1 0 / C 0 1 CO 58 - 6 - 2 / C 0 1 CO 58-5-12/C 0 1 CO 58-5-5/C01 CO 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4CO 58-6-12/C01 CO 59-2- 7 /C 01 CO 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 CO 57- 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2/C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 CO 58-4-11 57 - 6 - 1 7 59-6- 3 / C 01 11-6-1318-2-13 40-2-4 CO 27-2-10 5 3 - 4-6/C 0 1 LH 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 LH 60-1-2/C01 11-3-5LH 53-4-4/C01 LH 65-1-3/C01 FI 58-1-10 60-2 -6/C01 13-6-26 FI 60 -2 -5 /C 01 13- 6-2 7 53-3 - 8/C 01 25-6-6 53-5-1/C01 53-3 - 4/C01 47-2-3/C01 N/C01 N/C01 47-1-11/C01 47-2-2/C01 47-2-4/C01 48' 409' 156' 102' 115.50' 200' 61. 4 0 ' 104' 452' 221' 36' 258' 25 4 ' 219' 335' 253' 75' 151' 300 ' 191' 180 ' 357' 178 . 5 ' 156' 407' 105' 37 5 ' 306' 36 0 ' 175' 120 ' 398' 37 6 .50 ' 348' 345' 248' 506' 200' 55 5 ' 303'232'152'6'383' 257' 197' 118' 123'114'277'239'241'198'94'112' 48' 409' 195' 305' 61' 61. 4 0 ' 75' 75' 245' 24 5 ' 49' 49' 452' 452' 254' 25 4 ' 245' 245 ' 245' 24 5 ' 120' 12 0 ' 180' 18 0 ' 180' 18 0 ' 300' 300 ' 180' 180 ' 179' 178 . 5 ' 407' 407' 360' 360 ' 120' 120 ' 345' 345' 506' 506' 555' 55 5 ' 6'6'48' 409' 8'195' 305' 3'46'144'236'378'238' 115.50' 61. 4 0 ' 452' 36' 25 4 ' 335' 75' 24 5 ' 49' 245 ' 24 5 ' 240 ' 12 0 ' 18 0 ' 18 0 ' 300 ' 180 ' 407' 345' 506' 55 5' 232' 257' 358'356'310'217' 118' 158 ' 172' 285' 196' 98' 236 ' 351'303'253' 203'153'151' 104' 252'250' 136 ' 13 8 ' 250' 406' 403'401'353'351'302'252' 306'264'354'356'404' 104' 157 ' 35' 53' 101' 151'153'203' 152'50'300'52'166'164'200'320'109'370'591'142'78'187'523'173'174'194'257'290'110'297'169'299'150'50'300'199'349'298'149'99'202'200'300'30'190'94'351'352'401'414'452'502'401'301'389'101' 49' 303'301'253'251'203'151'46' 350 ' 248'102'152'202'250'252'250'224'142'92'144'148'661'610'400'51'100'464'483'103'252'352'402'399'401'300'252'153'252'200'384'453'200'150'303'210'451'156'230'153'457'203'231'201'398'331'148'180'182'233'281'283'330'304'302'100'402'349'152'302'300'165'497'451'256'101'99'552'550'53'504'507'248'100'152'601'599'500'502'449'451'351'152'153'451'100'302'200'151'100'202'152'88'193'227'225'402'335'300'351'250'203'301'251'101'99'148'201'199'300'298'449'150'200'251'51'149'303'252'200'152'103'290'236'198'315'444'540'660'719'380'274'272'11'140'88'38'439'190'140'138'103'241'276'328'225'175'130' 163' 488' 272' 308'415'202'231'264'315'103'130'303'300'150'301'48' 16 3 ' 207'27'125'42'105' 78' Cit y o f P a l o A l t o G I S Th i s m a p i s a p r o d u c t o f t h e This d o c u m e n t i s a g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o n l y o f b e s t a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s . Le g e n d As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) Ce r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l i a n c e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) Su r v e y L o t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t T e x t ( C G ) ab c Ad d r e s s L a b e l ( A P ) ab c Dim e n s i o n s ( A P ) Cu r b F a c e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e , R o l l e d ( R F ) Pa v e m e n t E d g e ( R F ) Sid e w a l k E d g e ( R F ) ab c Ro a d C e n t e r l i n e S m a l l T e x t ( T C ) Pip e l i n e ( S D ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d S Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e l i n e ( S D ) Ca t c h B a s i n ( S D ) IN In l e t ( S D ) SD Ma n h o l e ( S D ) OF Ou t f a l l ( S D ) Wy e / t e e ( S D ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) Cro s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W T ) N A D Fi t t i n g ( T B W T ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y EL 9 0 Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tra n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Lin e S t o p p e r Ma i n 4 W a y C r o s s Br a n c h S a d d l e Ca p EL 1 1 . 2 5 EL 2 2 . 5 EL 4 5 Fu l l C i r c l e C l a m p Hy d r a n t ( T B W T ) M Me t e r , M a i n ( T B W T ) N A D Me t e r , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) N A D We l l ( T B W T ) N A D Va l v e ( T B W T ) : Fir e S e r v i c e Hy d r a n t Ma i n Se r v i c e Air R e l i e f V a l v e ( T B W T ) Va l v e B l o w o f f ( T B W T ) Ris e r S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Fi t t i n g ( T B G S ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y Elb o w Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tra n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Ve r t i c a l E l b o w Lin e S t o p p e r An g l e 4 5 Br a n c h S a d d l e Se r v i c e H e a d A d a p t e r Ca p SS C l a m p Ca s i n g ( T B G S ) N A D Fe n c e ( T B U F ) N A D Me t e r ( T B G S ) : X Ab o v e G r o u n d S e r v i c e X Cu r b S e r v i c e Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) Va l v e ( T B G S ) : Ma i n Se r v i c e De a d E n d - O n e W a y Em e r g e n c y S h u t O f f V a l v e ( E S V ) Bu r i e d A l i v e DRIP Va l v e D r i p ( T B G S ) Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) Cro s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W W ) CO Cle a n o u t , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) : S Ma n h o l e CO Cle a n o u t LH La m p H o l e FI Flu s h i n g I n l e t Pip e c a p PG Co n c r e t e p l u g S No n - s t r u c t u r a l n o d e Lif t S t a t i o n , M a i n ( T B W W ) Po i n t T a p ( T B W W ) ab c Te x t ( T B W W ) 0' 30' 60' Lo t s C - 6 a n d C - 7 wi t h W a t e r , G a s , W a s t e w a t e r an d S t o r m D r a i n U t i l i t i e s S h o w n CITY O F PALOALTO INCO R PORATED CALIFORN IA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The C i t y o f P a l o A l t o a s s u m e s n o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a n y e r r o r s . © 1 9 8 9 t o 2 0 1 5 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o mra s c h k , 2 0 1 5 - 0 6 - 2 2 1 8 : 2 5 : 3 3 , B l o c k B o o k a n d C O G O ( w / u t i l i t y a b a n d o n e d l i n e s ) ( \ \ c c - m a p s \ g i s $ \ g i s \ a d m i n \ P e r s o n a l \ m r a s c h k . m d b ) CONNECTION LEGEND 02-4PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING December 14, 2015 Site Evaluation Study Site Background PUBLIC ALLEY NA R R O W SI T E MATURE TREES WIDEN PUBLIC REALM CROSS- STREET OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tr a i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e a n d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Wa l l i s Pa r k Lot C - 8 LotC-9 Tra i n S t a t i o n , C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e S C C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e an d J a i l LotC-2 LotC-1 Lot C-3ParkingGarageLot C-4 Pa r k i n g Re c o r d D a t e Un k o w n C o f C C - 1 2 8 1 11 C O C - 0 0 0 0 9 48 0 42 5 2502 40 9 40 8 46 5 46 3 46 1 45 9 44 7 44 5 43 7 - 44 1 43 3 - 4 3 5 2458 2454 41 0 43 0 46 0 45 6 45 4 44 8 42 5 43 1 47 5 2450 45 1 45 3 2650 2640 36 0 32 0 30 6 30 9 - 31 5 31 4 23 1 44 0 41 4 40 6 - 4 1 0 39 2 36 0 36 4 41 5 41 5 42 1 30 5 44 2 - 4 4 4 43 3 - 4 4 7 40 5 - 4 0 9 16 1 36 6 - 37 0 3 0 0 - 3 3 0 33 2 - 36 2 2290 36 6 40 0 37 1 36 5 35 5 37 5 34 0 34 4 35 0 33 0 30 2 25 0 28 5 31 5 32 533 5 35 0 31 8 30 6 32 0 31 0 27 7 2313 2307 30 3 - 30 9 30 1 29 9 37 8 - 38 4 26 7 - 2 7 1 2350 26 5 22 0 23 0 24 0 29 0 26 0 2363 16 4 2343 2323 20 6 20 0 2555 12 3 15 0 27 0 2401-2585 14 5 10 1 - 15 1 15 3 15 5 15 7 15 9 2421 2441 39 8 39 0 2504 2506 33 4 41 7 27 5 27 6 37 0 39 1 41 3 2333 42 9 45 0 44 0 42 1 36 7 14 0 2160 15 4 2575 2670 37 0 42 0 32 . 0 ' 35.2' 71.1 ' 26 . 7 ' 50.9' 125 . 0 ' 111.9' 155 . 0 ' 230.0' 130 . 0 ' 100.0' 25. 0 ' 130.0'40.0'49.0' 95. 0 ' 49.0' 95. 0 ' 41.0' 25. 0 ' 50.0' 120 . 0 ' 91.0' 120 . 0 ' 100.0' 120 . 0 ' 100.0' 131.6' 40 . 0 ' 11.6'46.1' 120.0' 90. 0 ' 120.0' 40 . 0 ' 22.2' 90. 0 ' 271.6' 120 . 0 ' 14.1' 239.4' 90. 0 ' 48.0' 90. 0 ' 48.0' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 127 . 0 ' 50.2' 12 5 . 0 ' 20.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 20.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 50.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 50.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 46.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 46.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 37.0' 12 5 . 0 ' 37.0' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 125 . 0 ' 65.5' 93 . 0 ' 61.0' 26 . 7 ' 71.1 ' 35.2' 40 . 0 ' 58.6' 40 . 0 ' 58.6' 14.1' 25. 0 ' 22.7' 90. 0 ' 40.9' 90. 0 ' .3' 35. 0 ' 53.4' 35. 0 ' .3' 90. 0 ' 43.8' 12 5 . 0 ' 44.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 28 5 . 0 ' 132.4' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 100.0' 28 5 . 0 ' 136 . 3 ' 91.5' 136 . 1 ' 91.5' 142 . 6 ' 99.3'132.5' 142 . 7 ' 92.8' 23 . 6 ' 73.7 ' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10 . 0 ' 10.0' 11 8 . 6 ' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 3 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 8 ' 50.0' 150 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 79. 0 ' 21.0' 79. 0 ' 21.0' 21.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 20.2' 14.1' 100 . 0 ' 30.3' 95.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 51.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 42.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 195.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 195.0' 125 . 0 ' 130.2' 11 5 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 120.3' 11 5 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 40.0' 14.1' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 125 . 0 ' 32.5' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6'351.6' 160 . 0 ' 351.6' 160 . 0 ' 351.6'230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 100 . 0 ' 30.0'15.7' 59. 1 ' 13. 4 ' 44. 4 ' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 230 . 3 ' 15.7'221.7' 136 . 1 ' 151.6' 50.4' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 99. 9 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 99 . 9 ' 100.0' 99. 9 ' 11 0 . 0 ' 51.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 51.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 96.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 96.0' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 96.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 100 . 0 ' 25.0' 100 . 0 ' 25.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 4 ' 50.4' 13 2 . 4 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 6 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 7 ' 50.0' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 82.5' 11 0 . 0 ' 82.5' 11 0 . 0 ' 250.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 250.0' 13 2 . 2 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 3 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 2 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 9 ' 50.0' 13 2 . 0 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 9 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 6 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 8 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 5 ' 50.0' 13 1 . 6 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 99.6' 150.0' 100 . 0 ' 150.0' 100 . 0 ' 37.8' 13 1 . 5 ' 37.5' 13 1 . 4 ' 37.5' 13 1 . 3 ' 37.5' 13 1 . 4 ' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 38.5' 125 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 14.1 ' 40.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 171.2' 257 . 7 ' 218.5' 121 . 5 ' 25.0' 135 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100.0' 125 . 0 ' 20.0' 10. 0 ' 25.1' 135 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 95. 3 ' 29.3' 95. 0 ' 37.2' 95. 0 ' 54.0' 165 . 8 ' 69.6' 16 5 . 3 ' 83.3' 261 . 2 ' 99.4' 261 . 2 ' 100.4' 49.5' 86 . 5 ' 79. 0 ' 70.5' 70.5' 29 . 5 ' 46 . 3 ' 71.7' 82.5' 82.5' 82.5' 99 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 26 . 0 ' 99 . 0 ' 41. 0 ' 41 . 0 ' 41 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 84. 0 ' 26.2' 26.2' 26.2' 36.7' 17 0 . 0 ' 351.6' 18 5 . 0 ' NEW MAYFIELD LANE CALIFORNIA AVENUE MI M O S A L A N E BI R C H S T R E E T NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BI R C H S T R E E T N AVENUE GRANT A V E N U E SHERIDAN AVENUE ST R E E T BI R C H S T R E E T NO G A L L A N E JACARANDA LANE PE N I N S U L A C O R R I D O R J O I N T P O W E R S B O A R D 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) 6" CI WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4"CI WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4" (A B A N D M a r - 2 0 0 0 ) CI 4" CICIWATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)WATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4"4"CIWATER (ABAND. ABM#1217)4" 8" C I W A T E R ( A B A N D ) 6" C I P W A T E R WATERCIP6" CIP6"WATER 6"CI WATER 6" 1"C UJU L - 1 9 4 8 29 ' 1" CU (AB A N D A u g - 1 9 6 8 ) 1" CU Feb - 1 9 7 6 15' (A B A N D O c t - 1 9 3 1 ) 1"CUJun-1941 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 29' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31 ' 4" JU L - 1 9 4 8 25 ' 1" CU MA R - 1 9 4 7 22' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 22' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 30 ' 1" CU JU N - 1 9 4 8 30' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 31' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 16' 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28' 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 3/4 " C U J U L - 1 9 4 8 8' 1" CU 11-01-1998 (IRRIG) 44' 1" CU 07-01-1953 1" C 25 ' 251 2" CU AU G - 1 9 5 7 23 ' 1 " C U 1 2 - 0 8 - 2 0 0 5 18' 24 ' 2" CU FE B - 1 9 6 9 1" CU AP R - 1 9 4 8 49' 4" CU OC T - 1 9 6 2 24' 1 1 / 2 " CU DE C - 1 9 8 7 MA R - 1 9 4 9 4"P 1" C U J U L - 1 9 6 1 2" C 3/4 " CU 15 ' 1 " C U 49 ' 1 " C U M a y - 1 9 8 9 2"(ABAND Mar-1972)GAS 3"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4" A B S G A S ( A B A N D . ) 2"ABS GAS 2"ABS GASABM #515 2"B W P G A S ( A B A N D . 0 8 - 2 8 - 2 0 0 9 ) 2" B W P G A S BWP2"GAS ( A B A N D ) 3"BWPGAS (ABAND)3"BWP(ABAND Jan-1969)GAS (ABAND)3"BWP GAS (ABAND) GA S 2" PV C 4"GAS ( A B A N D ) 4"GAS (ABAND) 4"GAS G-401 (ABAND) 4" G A S G - 4 0 1 ( A B A N D ) 4" BW P DEC 6 7 ( A B A N D . ) GA S 1/2 " PL 2"PE DEC-1994 2" BW P GA S ( A B A N D ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS2" A B S 2"ABS ABM #523 JUN-1965 GAS (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 3"BWP 3/4 " A B S G A S A B M # 6 3 3 J A N - 1 9 6 9 ( A B A N D . ) AB S G A S 6 3 3 J a n - 1 9 6 9 2" ABS GAS ABM# 523 Jun-1965 (ABAND. 08-28-2009) 4" AB S DE C 6 7 AB# 6 1 1 2"ABSGAS2"ABSGAS A B M # 5 1 5 ( A B A N D . 0 3 - 3 1 - 2 0 0 9 )JUL-1965ABM #515JUL-19652" ABS GAS ABM# 515 Jul-1965 (ABAND. 03-31-2009) 3" ABS GAS ABM #334 01-01-1967 4"PVC ( A B A N D . ) 2" ABS GAS2" ABS GAS 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 57 ' 5/8 " PO L Y DE C 7 8 26' 7' 3/4 " SEP 5 0 8' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 40 ' AB S MAR - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " AB S3/4 " AB S MA R - 1 9 6 8 2' 44' 3 / 8 " A B S J u l - 1 9 6 5 50' 3/4" BWP Sep-1950 3/4 " AB S AP R 7 1 9' 3/8 " 20 ' 5' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 15 ' 3 / 4 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 39 ' 1/2 " TE N AP R 6 0 38 ' 14' 62 ' 3 / 8 " A B S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 3/ 58 ' 3 / 8 " A B S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 3/8 " AB S JU L 6 5 49' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 45 ' 1/2 " PE AU G - 1 9 9 4 3/4 " 5' 38 ' 1/2 " PL SE P 5 8 64' 1 / 2 " P E J U N - 1 9 9 2 3/4 " WP FE B 5 0 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' NOV75 AU G - 1 9 6 8 ABS NO V - 1 9 6 5 18'3/4"UNK JUN-1960 8' FEB 7 8 32 ' 1 / 2 " P L 1 1 - 0 1 - 1 9 5 9 10 ' 1/2 " TE N AP R - 1 9 6 0 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38' 45 ' 1/2 " PE JU L - 1 9 9 7 55' 3/4 " ABS MA Y - 1 9 6 1 50 ' 2 " P V C MA Y - 1 9 8 3 5/8 " PO L Y DE C - 1 9 7 8 46 ' 67' 3/8 " AB S NO V - 1 9 6 5 2' 1 1 / 8 " POL Y 8' PO L Y 3/4 " JU L 4 8 6' 3/4" PVC SEP7 323' 38' 1/2 " PE OC T - 1 9 9 3 1/2 " TE N MAY 5 9 JUN-1960 3/4 " JUL 4 8 6' 3/8 " ABS NO V 6 5 10' 3/4 " JU L 4 8 38 ' 5/8"POLYNOV8044' 2' 2 " P E 1/2"TENMAY61 24' 1" CU FEB 5 0 70' 3/4 " AB S OC T - 1 9 6 3 ABS MA R - 1 9 6 9 3/4 " AB S 2' 6'1/2"PE FEB-1993 CU FE B 5 0 25' 3/4 " PV C OC T 8 4 NO V 5 7 18 ' 5/8 " 3/4 " JU L 4 8 3' 2' 2' 5/8 "P V CJU N 8 0 1/2 " P E J U N - 1 9 8 0 7' 3/8 " AB S NO V 6 5 39' 38 ' 24' 3/4 " F e b - 1 9 5 0 45 1/2"PE 3/8 " AB S 5/8 " 20' 3/4 " 12 ' 3/4 " MA R 4 9 18' 3/8 " AB S 20 ' 3/8 " 2' X 2 ' 2" BW P 7' 3/4 " N O V 3 0 39' 1/2" PE 10-01-1981 80' 2 " P V C M a y - 1 9 8 3 20 ' 3/4 " ABS 3/4 " AB S 17' 16' 42' 5/8 "P E 3/ 8 " AB S F E B 7 0 OCT 6 9 5 1 / 2 ' 25' 1" PE Aug-2009 40' 1" PE Aug-2009 39' 1" PE Aug-2009 S 44- 4 -9 49 - 4 - 1 0 59-5-4/C0 1 S 59-5-8/C01 S 57 - 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2 /C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 S 60 -2 -5/C 01 13-6-27S 58- 4 - 1 1 57- 6 - 1 7 59-6 - 3 / C 01 11-6-13 40-2-4 S 53-1-4/C01 S 53-1-2/C01 S 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11S 6 0-1-4/ C0 1 57 - 1 - 1 7 S 6 0-1-4/ C0 1 57 - 1 - 1 7 S 53-2- 7/ C 01 S 60-1-1/C01 49- 6 - 1 2 4" JUL 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 31' 4" JU L 4 8 30 ' 4"JU L 4 8 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" ABS AUG 9 0 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 11 ' 4" JU L 4 8 29 ' 4" JU L 4 8 28 ' 4" JU L 4 8 14' 4" JU L 4 8 25 ' 4" MA R 4 7 15' 4" JU L 4 8 27' JUN41 4" JU L 4 8 26 ' JU N 5 2 6" AC OC T 8 4 4" JU L 4 8 255' 23 ' 4"JU L 4 8 200' 23' 8." ST O R M R C P S T O R M 6." ST O R M 12 . " RC P 12. " ST O R M PC C STORM12."RCP 12. " ST O R M RCP 18. " ST O R M RC P R C P 12 . " ST O R M RCP12."STORM 12."RCPSTORM 12 . " ST O R M STORM 12." P C C PCC12."STORM PCC12."STORM 3 PC C S T O R M 12 . " ST O R M 12."P C C ST O R M P C C 12. " 12 . " STO R M PCC S T O R M PC C 12 . " 12. " ST O R M P C C PC C S T O R M 12 . " PCC STORM 12." PC C 12. " S T O R M 12. " ST O R M PC C PCCSTORM15." ST O R M PC C 12. " STORM24."PCC PC C 12. " STO R M PC C 12. " S T O R M P C C ST O R M 12 . " PCCSTORM15." STORM12."PCC ST O R M PC C 12 . " 12."PCCSTORM 15. " ST O R M PC C PC C 8." ST O R M PC C 12 . " P C C 12 . " S T O R M PC C ST O R M 12. " PCCSTORM24." 12 . "P C S PC C 15. " ST O R M 8."P C C 8." PC C 24."STORMPCC PCCSTORM24." PC C 12 . " STO R M 24."STORMPCC P C C 12. " C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 9 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 8 ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 0 6 CB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 6 A ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 7 A C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 4 ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 5 C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 8 B C B - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 6 A BCB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 2 C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 2 B C B - 0 4 3 - 4 -9 1 A CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 2 A ACB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 5 CB - 0 4 9 - 3 - 0 3 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 3 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 9 0 B ACB - 0 4 3 - 2 - 2 2 CB - 0 4 3 - 4 - 0 8 A B C B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 2 5 AC B - 0 4 3 - 3 -2 1 A C B - 0 4 3 - 3 - 4 3 A CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 4 A C B - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 8 CB - 0 4 3 - 3 - 2 0 A C B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 4 A A C B - 0 4 3 - 1 - 1 3 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 2 - 9 0 IN IN - 0 4 9 - 3 - 9 1 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 4 IN IN- 0 4 3 - 1 - 9 3 SD MH-043-2-07 SD MH-043-1-31 SD MH - 0 4 3 - 4 - 1 4 SDMH-043-4-16SDMH-043-4-42 SD MH - 0 4 3 - 4 - 4 3 SD MH-043-3-17 SD MH-043-1-24 SD MH-043-1-15 WT-043-2-91 WT - 0 4 3 - 2 - 1 9 WT - 0 4 3 - 3 - 1 9 6" A C P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 6 3 6" A C P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 6 3 6"A CP WATER ER A B M # 1 1 9 7 A p r - 2 0 0 0 Ju l - 1 9 5 3 WA T E R W - 1 0 4 5 6" AC 6" TRA N S I T E WA T E R OC T 4 5 10" CIP WATER ABM#165 Jun-1948 10" CIP WATER ABM#165 Jun-1948 8" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-19648" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 12 " A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 3 5 J A N - 1 9 5 2 6" ACP WATER ABM#468 Feb-1964 8" C I P W A T E R A B M # 1 6 5 J u n - 1 9 4 8 W-5 4 0 6" JU N 4 1 WA T E R AC P 8" PE WATER ABM#1276 Aug-2010 8" A C P W A T E R A B M # 4 6 7 J a n - 1 9 6 4 8" ACP WATER ABM#467 Jan-1964 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 16" C I P W A T E R A B M # J A N - 1 9 2 5 WAT E R 6" CIP 6" C I P W A T E R A B M # 5 4 0 Fire S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C 8' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 6 9 5' 4 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 Fire S e r v i c e 1 4 ' 6 " A C P O c t - 1 9 8 4 1"CUJun-1941 6' 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 11 8 ' 8 " A C P M A Y - 1 9 8 3 RCP 13'2"CU Jun-1998 8' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 7 1 6" FS Apr - 1 9 8 5 2" CU Nov - 1 9 6 9 15 ' 5' 2 " C U 45' 3 / 4 " C U S e p - 1 9 3 9 10 ' 1 " C U O c t - 1 9 3 7 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 9' 1 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 40' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 14' 1 " C U 41' 1 " C U N o v - 1 9 3 6 45 ' 2 " C U S e p - 1 9 8 6 41' 1" CU 07-01-1963 5' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 8 3 4"AC28' F.S.6'1 1/2"CU 45' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 1" CU Ju n - 1 9 6 3 43' JAN-1929 46 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 0 1 39 ' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 5 9' 1 1 / 2 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 4 4' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 8 0 10' 1 1 / 2 " C U A p r - 1 9 6 1 Fir e S e r v i c e 8 ' 4 " P V C A p r - 2 0 0 1 8"ACDec-1960 21' F.S. 1 4 ' 6 " A C P S e p - 1 9 7 6 4"CU 8' 1 1 / 2 " C U M A Y - 1 9 8 3 6" AC F.S . 4 1 ' 6 " A C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 30' Mar-1961Aug-2001 2"Apr-195112' Jun-1941 40' 1 " C U 9' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 3 8 Jul-1957 7' 1 " C U D e c - 1 9 9 4 40 ' 1 1 / 4 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 8 43' 1 1 / 4 " C U J a n - 1 9 6 9 40' 3 / 4 " C U F e b - 1 9 3 7 11' 1 1 / 2 " C U A u g - 1 9 6 1 1"CUOct-1945 30' 3" W M W / B Y P A S S 09-01-1990 ( I R R I G ) 1" CU JU L - 1 9 4 8 28' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 26 ' 1 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 pot a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 1 5 ' 6 " P V C D e c - 1 9 9 4 po t a b l e / f i r e s e r v i c e 10' 4 " P V C D e c - 1 9 8 4 22' 2 " C U S e p - 2 0 1 0 Fire S e r v i c e 9 ' 4 " P V C F e b - 1 9 9 9 23 ' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 8 4' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 5' 1 " C U A p r - 1 9 4 6 3' 1 " C U J u l - 1 9 4 8 22 ' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 4 7 30' 1 - 1 / 2 " C U 1 0 - 1 5 - 1 9 9 6 29' 3 / 4 " C U 4"4" 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 44' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45'44'2'5' 4 " D I P J u n - 2 0 1 4 41' 6 " D I P M a y - 2 0 1 4 26 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46 ' 1 1 / 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45 ' 2 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 26' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 40' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 4 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 45' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 18' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 25 ' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 24' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46' 1 " C U M a y - 2 0 1 4 46 ' 45'46 ' 45'46454 44 ' 1 45'4545' 44 ' 4 100 ' 1 " C U J u n - 2 0 1 4 9' 1 " C U J a n - 1 9 5 8 20 8 5 20 8 6 15 5 16 2 74737473 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2. 5 ' x 2 .5 ' 1 / 2 "P E 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 2 . 5 ' x 2.5' x 2 .2.5' 2.5' x 2 . 5 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 2.5' x 2 . 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5 ' x 2.5 ' 1 / 2 "PE 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2 . 5 ' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " PE 2.5' x 2.5' 1/2" PE 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E 2.5' x 2 . 5 ' 1 / 2 " P E JA N 2 9 21 ' 52 ' 3 / 4 " P V C 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 9 7 8 71' 1" WP Apr - 1 9 5 6 114 ' 1 " P E 0 8 - 2 9 - 2 0 0 6 1/2"PEDEC88 47 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 1 0 15' JAN29 70' 3/4" PVC Dec-1973 2"PV C JUL7 4 35' 4' 8' 1 " P E 0 6 - 2 4 - 2 0 0 8 2.5 ' X 2 . 5 ' 1 " P E 3/4 " PV C 5/8 " PO L Y 12 ' 46' 4' 2"PVCJUL7 4 42' 27' 1 1 / 8 " P E 58' 1 / 2 " P E 0 3 - 0 1 - 1 9 8 6 2' 2 " P E 1 0 - 3 0 - 2 0 0 8 24' 1 1 / 8 " P E 78 ' 1" PE Ap r - 1 9 8 8 Ro p e 3' 1/2 " P E J a n - 1 9 9 0 22 ' 24'67' 3 / 8 " A B S J u n - 1 9 6 3 2" AB S MA Y 6 1 12 0 ' 6' JAN 2 9 21' 59 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 54 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 78 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 53 ' 1 " P E J u n - 2 0 0 9 31' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 10' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 42 ' 1 " P E Ju n - 2 0 0 9 40 ' 1 " P E Jun - 2 0 0 9 16 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 17 ' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 48' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16' 1 " P E J a n - 2 0 0 9 16 ' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 13' 1 " P E J u n - 1 9 9 5 16 1 ' 1 " P E 16' 1" PE 14 5 ' 1 " P E 5/8 " P E 31' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 3'X 3 ' 1 " P E 24' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 6 36' 1" PE Feb-2009 57 ' 1 " P E F e b - 2 0 0 9 35' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 21' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 30' 1 " P E D e c - 1 9 8 5 18' 1 " P E A p r - 2 0 0 1 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 23 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 20' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 24 ' 1 " P E M a r - 2 0 0 9 11' 1" PE Nov-2010 33'1" PE Jul-2002 1" PE 5' PE DEC 8 7 42 ' 1/2 " 7' 1 " P E 19 ' 1 " P E Ap r - 2 0 0 9 6' 1 " P E 5' 1 " P E 10' 1 " P E 7' 1 " P E 130 ' 1 " P E AP R - 1 9 8 8 RO P E 54'78' 24' 3 / 4 " P V C N o v - 1 9 7 5 67 ' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 33' 1 " P E J u l - 2 0 0 2 52' 1 " u n k n o w n 57 ' 1 " P E F E B - 2 0 0 9 24' 1 " P E J A N - 2 0 0 9 59 ' 2 " XX X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX X X X X X X X XXXXX XXXX XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX XX XX X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X 6"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1216 Jan-2002 2" B W P G A S A B M # 1 2 9 F e b - 1 9 5 3 6" H D P E G A S A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 6" H D P E A B M # 1 2 4 6 2 0 0 6 12" H D P E C A S I N G 12" H D P E C A S I N G 2" P V C G A S A B M # 8 3 6 J A N - 1 9 7 4 6" PE GA S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 6" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 6" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Jun-2009 2"P V C G A S 7 8 2 M a r - 1 9 7 2 ABM#782 MAR-1972 GAS 2" PVC GAS 782 Mar-1972 4" P E G A S A B M 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J a n - 2 0 0 9 4" PE GAS 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 M a r - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 J u n - 2 0 0 9 4"PE 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Aug-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 A u g - 2 0 0 9 2" BWP GAS2" B W P G A S A B M # F e b - 1 9 2 4 2" BWP GAS ABM# Oct-1931 9 S A B M # J u n - 1 9 8 3 2"P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N O V - 1 9 7 5 2" P V C G A S A B M # 8 6 1 N o v - 1 9 7 5 2" PE GAS ABM# 1252 Mar-2009 2" P E G A S A B M # 1 2 5 2 F E B - 2 0 2" P E G A S A B M 1 1 2 4 A U G - 1 9 9 3 18' 6"" 1 9 6 0 - J u n - 0 1 182'240'292' 23'6"" ACP 1983-Sep-01 SEP-1960 31' 4 " " P E 2 0 1 2 - J u l - 2 0 4" FEB 9 0 21 ' FEB - 1 9 5 6 4"" A B S 1 9 9 8 - S e p - 2 8 383' 33 ' 313' 4" JU L 4 8 30' 4" JU L 4 8 241' 241' 4" AC JU N 8 0 20 ' 4" AC AU G 6 8 4" ABS JA N 8 9 123' 4" 54' 4" JU L 4 8 13' 4" JU L 4 8 12 ' 67' 4" JU L 4 8 23' 4" TR 14 ' 25 4" ABS AU G - 1 9 9 0 16' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 1 - J a n - 0 4 31 ' 4 " " A B S 2 0 0 3 - J a n - 0 3 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 7 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 2 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - A u g - 2 8 4"" P 4""44"" 4 4 4"" P E 2 0 0 8 - S e p - 0 8 62' 4 " " V C P 35' 4 " " V C P 4"" C I P 4"" A B S 1 9 9 0 - J a n - 0 7 4"" U n k n o w n 1 9 9 5 - D e c - 0 1 4"" A C P 1 9 6 6 - J a n - 2 7 4" " U n k n o w n 4"" U n k n o w n 4" P E M A Y - 2 0 1 4 6" SAN SEWER 6" S A N S E W E R 7.6" PE DR SAN SEWER ABM#1162 12 " V C P S A N S E W E R S S R 2 1 9 9 2 - N o v - 0 1 6" SAN SEWER 6" S A N S E W E R 5.4 " P E S A N S E W E R S S R 4 27" SAN SEWER5.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 45.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 4 AB M # 1 0 6 6 A 1 9 8 9 - J a n - 0 1 12" V C P S A N S E W E R JA N - 1 9 8 9 6"VCP 8" 6" 6" 6" 5.4 " PE SA N S E W E R MAR - 1 9 4 6 1 9 9 7 5.4" PE SAN SEWER SSR 48" 12" VCP SAN SEWER SSR 2 1992-Nov-01 6" 8" P V C S E W E R 2 0 0 9 - A p r - 2 9 C O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO CO COCOCO CO COCO CO CO CO S 27-2-10 53 - 4-6/C 01 S CAPEND OFPIPE 5 3-3-10/C01 S 18-2-10 53-2 - 8 / C0 1 S 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4 S 17-1-13 59-2-3/CO1 S 43- 2 - 9 / B 0 6 S43-4-16/B06 S43 - 4 - 9 / B 0 6 S 43-4-10/B06 S43-4-20/B06 S 43-2-1/B06 S 43- 2 - 3 / B 0 6 S 43- 3 - 1 7 / B 0 6 S43-1-7/B06 S S 43 - 4 - 1 2 S S CO 25-6-6 53-5-1/C 0 1 CO N/C01 CO 64-5 - 3 /C01 CO 58- 6 - 1 0 /C0 1 CO 58 -6- 2 / C 0 1 CO 58-5-12/C 0 1 CO 58-5-5/C01 CO 65- 1 - 5 / C 0 1 26-5-4CO 58-6-12/C01 CO 59-2- 7 /C 01 CO 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 CO 57 - 4 - 1 3 59-6 -2 /C 0 1 11-6-12 78-4-15 CO 58- 4 - 1 1 57- 6 - 1 7 59-6 - 3 / C 01 11-6-1318-2-13 40-2-4 CO 27-2-10 53 - 4-6/C 01 LH 65-5-11/C01 19-2-11 LH 60-1-2/C01 11-3-5LH 53-4-4/C01 LH 65-1-3/C01 FI 58-1-10 60- 2 - 6 /C01 13-6-26 FI 60 -2 -5/C 01 13-6-27 53-3- 8/C01 25-6-6 53-5-1/C 0 1 53-3 - 4/C01 47-2-3/C01 N/C01 N/C01 47-1-11/C01 47-2-2/C01 47-2-4/C01 48' 409' 156' 102' 115.50' 200' 61. 4 0 ' 104' 452' 221' 36' 258' 254 ' 219' 335' 253' 75' 151' 300 ' 191' 18 0 ' 357' 17 8 . 5 ' 156' 407' 105' 375 ' 306' 360 ' 175' 120 ' 398' 376 .5 0 ' 348' 34 5' 248' 506' 200' 555 ' 303'232'152'6'383' 257' 197' 118' 123'114'277'239'241'198'94'112' 48' 409' 195' 305' 61' 61. 4 0 ' 75' 75' 245' 245 ' 49' 49' 452' 452' 254' 254 ' 245' 245 ' 245' 245 ' 120' 120 ' 180' 180 ' 180' 180 ' 300' 300 ' 180' 18 0 ' 179' 17 8 . 5 ' 407' 407' 360' 360 ' 120' 120 ' 345' 34 5' 506' 506' 555' 555 ' 6'6'48' 409' 8'195' 305' 3'46'144'236'378'238' 115.50' 61. 4 0 ' 452' 36' 254 ' 335' 75' 245 ' 49' 245 ' 245 ' 240 ' 120 ' 180 ' 180 ' 300 ' 18 0 ' 407' 34 5' 506' 555' 232' 257' 358'356'310'217' 118' 158 ' 172' 285' 196' 98' 236 ' 351'303'253'203'153'151' 104' 252'250' 136 ' 138 ' 250' 406' 403'401'353' 351'302'252' 306'264'354'356'404' 104' 157 ' 35' 53' 101' 151'153' 203' 152'50'300'52'166'164'200'320'109'370'591'142'78'187'523'173'174'194'257'290'110'297'169'299'150'50'300'199'349'298'149'99'202'200'300'30'190'94'351'352'401'414'452'502'401'301'389'101' 49' 303'301'253'251'203'151'46' 350 ' 248'102'152'202'250'252'250'224'142'92'144'148'661'610'400'51'100'464'483'103'252'352'402'399'401'300'252'153'252'200'384'453'200'150'303'210'451'156'230'153'457'203'231'201'398'331'148'180'182'233'281'283'330'304'302'100'402'349'152'302'300'165'497'451'256'101'99'552'550'53'504'507'248'100'152'601'599'500'502'449'451'351'152'153'451'100'302'200'151'100'202'152'88'193'227'225'402'335'300'351'250'203'301'251'101'99'148'201'199'300'298'449'150'200'251'51'149'303'252'200'152'103'290'236'198'315'444'540'660'719'380'274'272'11'140'88'38'439'190'140'138'103'241'276'328'225'175'130' 163' 488' 272' 308'415'202'231'264'315'103'130'303'300'150'301'48' 16 3 ' 207'27'125'42'105' 78' Cit y o f P a l o A l t o G I S Th i s m a p i s a p r o d u c t o f t h e Thi s d o c u m e n t i s a g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o n l y o f b e s t a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s . Le g e n d As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) ab c As s e s s m e n t P a r c e l L a b e l s ( A P ) Ce r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l i a n c e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) Su r v e y L o t B o u n d a r y L i n e ( C G ) ab c Ea s e m e n t T e x t ( C G ) ab c Ad d r e s s L a b e l ( A P ) ab c Dim e n s i o n s ( A P ) Cu r b F a c e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e ( R F ) Cu r b E d g e , R o l l e d ( R F ) Pa v e m e n t E d g e ( R F ) Sid e w a l k E d g e ( R F ) ab c Ro a d C e n t e r l i n e S m a l l T e x t ( T C ) Pip e l i n e ( S D ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B W T ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d Va l v e ( T B G S ) a b a n d o n e d S Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) a b a n d o n e d Pip e l i n e ( S D ) Ca t c h B a s i n ( S D ) IN In l e t ( S D ) SD Ma n h o l e ( S D ) OF Ou t f a l l ( S D ) Wy e / t e e ( S D ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W T ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) Cr o s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W T ) N A D Fit t i n g ( T B W T ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y EL 9 0 Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tr a n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Lin e S t o p p e r Ma i n 4 W a y C r o s s Bra n c h S a d d l e Ca p EL 1 1 . 2 5 EL 2 2 . 5 EL 4 5 Fu l l C i r c l e C l a m p Hy d r a n t ( T B W T ) M Me t e r , M a i n ( T B W T ) N A D Me t e r , S e r v i c e ( T B W T ) N A D We l l ( T B W T ) N A D Va l v e ( T B W T ) : Fir e S e r v i c e Hy d r a n t Ma i n Se r v i c e Air R e l i e f V a l v e ( T B W T ) Va l v e B l o w o f f ( T B W T ) Ris e r S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Pip e , S e r v i c e ( T B G S ) Fit t i n g ( T B G S ) : Co u p l i n g Re d u c e r Ma i n T e e 3 W a y Elb o w Co n t r o l F i t t i n g Tr a n s i t i o n F i t t i n g Ve r t i c a l E l b o w Lin e S t o p p e r An g l e 4 5 Bra n c h S a d d l e Se r v i c e H e a d A d a p t e r Ca p SS C l a m p Ca s i n g ( T B G S ) N A D Fe n c e ( T B U F ) N A D Me t e r ( T B G S ) : X Ab o v e G r o u n d S e r v i c e X Cu r b S e r v i c e Pip e , M a i n ( T B G S ) Va l v e ( T B G S ) : Ma i n Se r v i c e De a d E n d - O n e W a y Em e r g e n c y S h u t O f f V a l v e ( E S V ) Bu r i e d A l i v e DRI P Va l v e D r i p ( T B G S ) Pip e , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Pip e , M a i n ( T B W W ) Cr o s s i n g C a s i n g ( T B W W ) CO Cle a n o u t , L a t e r a l ( T B W W ) Str u c t u r e , M a i n ( T B W W ) : S Ma n h o l e CO Cle a n o u t LH La m p H o l e FI Flu s h i n g I n l e t Pip e c a p PG Co n c r e t e p l u g S No n - s t r u c t u r a l n o d e Li f t S t a t i o n , M a i n ( T B W W ) Po i n t T a p ( T B W W ) ab c Te x t ( T B W W ) 0' 30' 60' Lo t s C - 6 a n d C - 7 wi t h W a t e r , G a s , W a s t e w a t e r an d S t o r m D r a i n U t i l i t i e s S h o w n CITY O F PALOALTO IN C O R PORATED CALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The C i t y o f P a l o A l t o a s s u m e s n o r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a n y e r r o r s . © 1 9 8 9 t o 2 0 1 5 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o mra s c h k , 2 0 1 5 - 0 6 - 2 2 1 8 : 2 5 : 3 3 , B l o c k B o o k a n d C O G O ( w / u t i l i t y a b a n d o n e d l i n e s ) ( \ \ c c - m a p s \ g i s $ \ g i s \ a d m i n \ P e r s o n a l \ m r a s c h k . m d b ) CONNECTION SITE B Proposed Parking Structure SITE A Proposed Public Safety Building JACARANDA SHERMAN _______________________ 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. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Excerpt Scoping Meeting April 12, 2017 2 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue Project 3 Council Chambers 4 250 Hamilton Avenue 5 6:00 PM 6 7 8 Action Items 9 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 10 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 11 12 SCOPING MEETING. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: The Planning and Transportation 13 Commission Will Hold a Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for an 14 Environmental Impact Report for the Replacement of Surface Parking Lots with a Public Safety 15 Building and Parking Structure. Public Input is Encouraged. For More Information, Please 16 Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org 17 18 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, no study session items so we’ll move on to the first action item which 19 is a scoping meeting for the 250/350 Sherman Avenue two projects. So I believe we’ll start with 20 a staff presentation. 21 22 Colette Chew, Engineer: Good evening, I'm Colette Chew, Engineer with Public Works. We are 23 here tonight to conduct the scoping meeting for the Public Safety Building (PSB) and California 24 Avenue parking garage projects. This is to allow the public to comment on the topics that the 25 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will explore. [Speaking off microphone to set up computer]. 26 27 Ok, alright. Just quickly going over the scoping meeting format my presentation will cover the 28 project overview, our environmental consultant sitting to my right here is Ray Pendro from MIG 29 and he will present the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and the study 30 topics for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Then we’ll listen to public speakers 31 who submitted a card and comment issues to be studied for the EIR and PTC members 32 comments. It's important to note that the scoping session is not intended as a forum for 33 dialogue about the merits of the project, the project alternatives, or the EIR conclusions. Staff 34 is not prepared to answer questions on the project itself. We are here to receive input on what 35 is to be studied in the EIR. 36 _______________________ 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. 1 So the project overview is a construction of a new PSB and California Avenue parking garage in 2 the California Avenue Business Districts on Parking Lot C6 and C7. Parking Lot C6 is about 1.2 3 acres. Parking Lot C7 is 1 acre. The PSB will be located on Parking Lot C6. The parking garage 4 will be located on Lot C7. The parking garage will be completed before the construction of the 5 PSB begins. This is the project location off of California Avenue Parking Lot C6 and C7. The site 6 is bordered by Sherman Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Ash streets. Alma is diagonally up on the 7 map. El Camino Real is diagonally down. Some of the neighborhoods surrounding the site are 8 Evergreen Park, Southgate, College Terrace, and Ventura. 9 10 This is an enlarged view of the site showing Lot C6 to the right and Lot C7 to the left. The site is 11 on Sherman Avenue. You can see Park Boulevard, Birch Street, and Ash Street. Across the 12 street to the bottom right is the County Courthouse building and on the bottom left is 385 13 Sherman which is the Visa building. 14 15 So the PSB will house the Police Department, the 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency 16 Operation Center, the Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department Administration. So 17 the PSB is planned to be three stories tall ranging in size from 45,500 square feet (sf) to about 18 50,000 sf over two levels of an operational basement and below grade parking for the Police 19 Department. There will be about 170 to 190 secure parking spaces below the building. 20 21 And the Cal Ave. parking garage was on Lot C7. On April 3rd, recently the parking garage 22 options were presented to City Council. Council directed staff to begin design for a parking 23 garage with four above ground levels and two basement levels without retail space. And we 24 estimate there would be approximately 636 parking stalls in the new garage. 25 26 The conceptual site plan here showing the PSB to the right here between Park Boulevard and 27 Birch Street and the garage between Birch Street and Ash Street. Sherman Avenue is the 28 entrance for both buildings. California Avenue is up to the top of the site and Jacaranda Lane is 29 between Sherman and California Avenue. This is an aerial view of the project showing the 30 parking garage and the PSB building. And these are just massing models. They don't depict any 31 final design concept yet. And also this is a view looking down Birch Street from California 32 Avenue. Also this is it's this is for massing only and the view doesn't depict actual garage 33 design. So now I'm going to turn it over to Ray from MIG to go over the EIR process. 34 35 Ray Pendro, MIG: Good evening, my name's Ray Pendro from MIG and we’ll be preparing the 36 EIR and the remaining slides are an introduction to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality 37 Act, and the EIR. Just press that or scroll it? There we go. And as Colette mentioned we're 38 taking notes tonight because we're interested in your and the public's ideas on what should be 39 included in the EIR. CEQA is a state law. There's plenty of guidance on how to write an EIR, but 40 _______________________ 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. of course every EIR is a local product of the local jurisdiction and of the community’s interests 1 as well. So the EIR has not been written. That will be available in the summer and there will be 2 a 45 day review period and other public meetings to discuss the content of that once it's 3 written and available to the public. 4 5 These are some of the key thresholds or points in the EIR process. We've completed an initial 6 study. It's on file at the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento. Copies of it are on the back table 7 attached to the staff report and also online. The initial study is a checklist that goes through 8 the CEQA required topics and gives summary or introductory information about each of those 9 topics up to this point before the real deep analysis is begun. The notice of preparation goes 10 with the initial study. It just says we're beginning to write an EIR. Tonight's the scoping 11 meeting. The DEIR will as I mentioned have a 45 day review period in the summer and a at 12 least one public hearing and then there will be a Final EIR where we will answer in writing all 13 comments received on the DEIR and that will be a separate document so that each person that 14 comments on the DEIR that's released in the summer will have a written response for their 15 comments. 16 17 I'm going backwards again. Ok. These are the required contents of an EIR: detailed description 18 of project that will be Chapter 3, potential impacts to the physical environment we have to 19 write down the physical environment because that's the limits of CEQA. I know the public and 20 the Commission and others could be interested in many other topics that will be important to 21 the decision making on this project, but the CEQA law limits the discussion in that EIR to 22 physical impacts, changes on the environment. If we find physical impacts the EIR would 23 suggest mitigation measures. They're called to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those 24 significant impacts. There are other chapters in the EIR that summarize and cover different 25 topics, but they're all related to physical impacts on the environment. A chapter called 26 alternatives will discuss not as much detail as the actual project, but different alternatives that 27 you might consider or the City might consider in making a decision on this project like a smaller 28 project, fewer parking spaces, things like that just to catalyze some public thought and decision 29 making. 30 31 Ok, the initial study has identified these topics for the focus of the EIR. There will be a separate 32 chapter in the EIR named for each of these topics. And this is a good guide for tonight since this 33 is a scoping meeting that if you do have comments about what should be in the EIR choosing 34 one of these topics will help organize the information that we put in the EIR if you relay which 35 item you're interested in. There will be separate technical studies by technical engineers and 36 firms on these topics. There is a separate chapter on air pollution, a separate chapter in the EIR 37 on Greenhouse Gases (GHG), the arborist’s report goes in the Biology Chapter. The 38 geotechnical report is in a chapter called Soils and Geology. Phase 1 and Phase 2 39 environmental site assessments are in a chapter called Hazards. Noise analysis has its own 40 _______________________ 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. chapter, Traffic has its own chapter, and Tribal/Cultural Resource Evaluation this is related 1 especially to a new law that went into effect less than two years ago called Assembly Bill (AB) 2 52 and that will have its own section in the EIR. 3 4 To decide if an impact is significant we compare the physical effect on the environment with 5 standards from the City General Plan, your municipal code, and other regulations that apply to 6 the site. Another set of regulations for example might be the Air Quality Management District 7 thresholds for air pollution. I will eventually get those slides correct now that I have about two 8 more. 9 10 So this… what we will do tonight the public has until April 24th and I hope that's not a Saturday 11 to submit written comments and to send them to Amy either email or in the mail. All 12 comments will be received, must be received by April 24th and those comments will be sent to 13 us and discussed with Amy about where they belong in which chapters of the EIR. And here's 14 the timeline. And there are many opportunities for public input on the project within this 15 timeline. There will be more than one Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting on the 16 project. As I mentioned the DEIR will be released this summer, 45 day review period after 17 that's released. The Final EIR is intended to be certified in December. That's after we respond 18 to all the public comments. And then these are construction dates, estimates, which would 19 occur of course after the EIR is, if it is certified. It's also important to note that an EIR is 20 certified separately from approving a project. The EIR only the Council would decide if the EIR 21 has the accurate and enough information in it to help you with your decision. The EIR does not 22 promote the project or even say it should, if it should be adopted. 23 24 Next steps as I mentioned several architectural reviews of the project. We are preparing the 25 DEIR now or the project description. And these are other steps will be taken during this process 26 between now and December. That's my, that's the end of the presentation and I'm going to 27 move this back just to show topics that might help people organize their comments tonight. 28 Thank you. 29 30 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you staff. I just want to acknowledge that I’ve arrived. I apologize for 31 being late. We have one speaker card. I would like to invite that individual up now, Rita Vrhel. 32 You will have five minutes to speak. If anybody wants to comment on this item and hasn't filled 33 out a speaker card, please do so. 34 35 Rita Vrhel: Thank you again. I'm amazed that there are so few people here given the impact 36 that this project is going to have on the residents of California Avenue particularly those people 37 that are living in the condominiums that are right down the street. I understand that under 38 parking office space continues to be a huge problem. This was mentioned when this topic came 39 before the City Council. Examples given were the Visa building, the Olive Garden project, and 40 _______________________ 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. also there used to be a law firm on the corner of I think it's Park and where you go into the 1 condominiums that is also under parked. So I guess people know that I attend meetings and so 2 they'll ask me to say things for them, but in actuality it would be better if everybody showed up 3 and said their own concerns. I'm glad that the comment period is April 24th; hopefully some 4 people will read about this in the paper and make their concerns known. 5 6 I was at the City Council meeting when this was discussed and Bob Moss who I think you 7 probably all know made the comment that he thought that the EIR report should have been 8 submitted prior to the City Council discussing how many stories above or below the ground the 9 parking garage should be given that there is concern about groundwater extraction and a toxic 10 plume that may or may not impact the building. I believe Moss, Mr. Moss indicated yesterday 11 that he felt the toxic plume would not be a problem, but that certainly should be considered in 12 the EIR report. 13 14 At the Council meeting many people were concerned about just the sheer mass of this parking 15 garage and it's easy to understand why the merchants would like maximum parking particularly 16 since the office building projects which are flourishing in that area are consistently being under 17 parked. I hope that since the City Council saw basically a concrete box with no definition that 18 you will do your best to guide an attractive garage that doesn't loom above the rest of the 19 cityscape for the next hundred years. Thank you very much. 20 21 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. At this time I will open it up to the Commission to give 22 Commissioners an opportunity to identify any areas that the Planning Department should study 23 in addition to the ones that they’ve already identified. Ok, why don’t I begin on my right with 24 Commissioner Gardias and then we’ll just go down the line. 25 26 Commissioner Gardias: Sure. So thanks very much for your report and coming and spending 27 time with us. There is number of the of some observations they have and you when in your 28 opening statement you just made it clear that certain a issues are off the table, but and I noted 29 that. But I think that things need to be set while we are where we are. So I think that there is a 30 because there is no precise plan on of California Avenue neighborhood so this project of the 31 parking garage is just a it's not embedded in the larger thinking of this area. And I can tell you a 32 couple of arguments why I think it's not so, but before I say so you may understand that pretty 33 much had we have we had opportunity or the PTC had opportunity to pretty much act in the 34 larger purview and just consider the precise plan of this area probably things maybe happened 35 in a different order. So for example when you look at those two lots there isn’t that many 36 empty lots in Palo Alto. So those two lots offer some opportunity so the question is what are 37 we going to do with this opportunity? And we decided, City Council just decided to go with the 38 PSB and also with the needed garage and I totally agree that both those constituents they have 39 their needs and we need to support them, but the question is how we may support them. 40 _______________________ 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. 1 And so one possibility is that to consider underground structure for parking garages, but then 2 there is something that's what's on the ground that's a second that's a different set of 3 opportunity because cars may be parked underground, but then what's on the ground gives us 4 opportunity for for example housing development. Once we fill up those lots with the garages 5 then pretty much this opportunity would be lost. And I just want to for the record I just want to 6 note that. 7 8 There is also item that is off the table and I totally understand it again is pretty much 9 [unintelligible] aspect of how those garages would be built. So there is always an opportunity 10 of just having economic, an economically sound development and maybe entrust certain 11 development to P3 partnerships as opposed to found with the public money and then just 12 pretty much leave our constituents with the question is the money that's collected from the 13 taxation or from some other revenue is it directed to the right [unintelligible]. Have this 14 parking being funded with the private/public partnership that would be a different story 15 because there would be a true economic benefit behind the reason to build the structure. And 16 this would look totally different, the management of the parking there would be no funding 17 that would be at stake here. So I just wanted to note those two aspects that certain 18 opportunity might be lost for those that are interested with the with more housing in Palo Alto I 19 think they should take a notice of those. 20 21 There is also another aspect which I think you can just put in the under the section of GHG 22 emissions is that pretty much that this is the pedestrian oriented neighborhood district and 23 what we are doing with building, with directing a spending toward the largest large parking 24 structure we are may be automatically underfunding some opportunity to get to this district by 25 others by different forms of transportation. And then a some other opportunities is just to 26 pretty much is to allow the neighbors from the eastern part of Palo Alto to either bike or to 27 walk to California Avenue. As you may know there is only one access to California that's from 28 the North California side, but then from the other adjacent neighborhoods you pretty much 29 have to either just go to California you just cannot come to the other edges and areas 30 diagonally because there are no connectors. And if I can remind you when we talk about 31 crosstown connector along Matadero Creek then we were discussing here this Commission 32 opportunity to cross Alma somewhere around this area. So that’s I just wanted to mention this 33 that pretty much that we are, that there should be to generate revenue for the merchants we 34 may find some other means to access California, not necessarily allowing number of the vehicle 35 travels by pretty much designing this huge structure. So saying this the impact would be on the 36 GHG emission that's how I see it. So those are my comments for now. Thank you very much. 37 38 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, thank you. The merchants are certainly persuasive on the size of this 39 parking lot that they want there and they were persuasive to Council, but somewhat similar to 40 _______________________ 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. your last comment the effectively the goal here is to bring more traffic into the California 1 Avenue area. So I think we have to be realistic about that. That doesn't mean we have, 2 shouldn't study the impacts which we certainly should, but it does seem like a one off kind of 3 solution at least in this demarcation here of let's just bring more people in so that they can 4 shop and eat and park them there and then move them out. So it's kind of a yin/yang. So I'm 5 sure you'll… there will be big impacts and you're studying those and they're checked the box. 6 So I just wanted to kind of emphasize that. 7 8 I think generally you've checked the boxes that are appropriate in a way that as I went through 9 all of them looked pretty good to the limits of my own knowledge. One comment that I wanted 10 to make is that at the bottom of Page 4 you comment on landscaping that there will be a partial 11 replacement of trees removed from the existing lots onsite and then plant landscape for both 12 sides; also note street level roof deck of the PSB basement garage will be landscape, which is a 13 nice touch. However, when we get over to Page 7 where I think this fits is in aesthetics and I 14 think it's Aesthetics B, maybe. You have no impact on damaging scenic resources including but 15 not limited to trees, etcetera. So that seems to be an omission so that it's going to be more 16 than no impact. At the least it maybe should say less than significant impact on your check 17 boxes there. 18 19 Mr. Pendro: I know I'm not supposed to answer questions, but this might help. 20 21 Commissioner Lauing: I think you can. 22 23 Mr. Pendro: There's a similar question under biological resources about tree ordinance, so on. 24 And that's where we introduced that topic. 25 26 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. 27 28 Mr. Pendro: So you're correct and that is a topic of discussion. 29 30 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, I looked at both and I thought it fit in aesthetics, but that's fine. 31 32 Mr. Pendro: Ok. 33 34 Commissioner Lauing: Because we're taking out trees so we should be looking. And then the 35 third thing that is related to my third comment which is a second one related to aesthetics is 36 that this is a big building. This is a very big building. So to the extent that you could be even 37 more aggressive about landscaping around it where appropriate relative to the architecture so 38 that it doesn't become I’m not suggesting it will, but so that it doesn't become an isolated 39 eyesore because of its huge size and mass. Last night of Council there was that discussion 40 _______________________ 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. about the Hamilton garage right near here and again five stories where most buildings around 1 that are two and well, two really and a post office that’s a story and a half so the aesthetics of 2 that I think are really important for us to take into consideration on the EIR. Thank you. 3 4 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. I agree with my colleague’s comments. I think it's good news 5 that we finally found a track to start the PSB work after what is it now, 17 years of discussion? 6 So that's good news. Also I would generally echo the view and I'll use the word it’s lamentable 7 that we need this parking. I think better planning in the district could have avoided getting us 8 here, but here we are. We do need the parking in the district so I guess let's get on with it in 9 some fashion. 10 11 Two requests for the EIR scope. One as under Category 10, Land Use; if possible let's take one 12 final look whether ground floor retail is more consistent with land use in the district. I know 13 that the Council has expressed views on that, but I think it's consistent with the EIR scope to 14 take one last look at that and at least study and report out on it. Under the Category 16 of 15 traffic it would be great if there's some way to include construction parking impact. We’re 16 looking at a least five years of construction and lost parking for the duration of the project. This 17 could be very negative to the adjacent neighborhoods and we need some analysis that can help 18 lead us to a mitigation plan. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but I would stress I 19 would very much appreciate if we could include that in some fashion. Thank you. 20 21 Commissioner Monk: So I've got a few areas that I wanted to go over and I might be jumping 22 around a little bit so apologies in advance. With regard to the parking that you are citing 636 23 total estimated does that account for the 310 that is being displaced? Or are we just only giving 24 comments and I’m not able to ask questions? Comments only? 25 26 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yeah so kind of like what we did with Castilleja we’re here to 27 mostly receive comments, but if there’s some clarification items that are relatively easy to 28 address we’re happy to answer that. And the 637 I think does include the displaced parking 29 spaces. 30 31 Commissioner Monk: Ok, right. 32 33 Mr. Pendro: So it's a (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Monk: So it’s really an additional? 36 37 Mr. Pendro: It's a net gain of 300 and plus. 38 39 _______________________ 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. Commissioner Monk: And they can you explain a little bit about what's happening with 1 Jacaranda and the egress and ingress of the emergency vehicles and how that's going to work? 2 3 Mr. Pendro: I can tell you that I'm not with the architecture firm designing the project. So I'm 4 writing the EIR meaning I will be asking the same questions to analyze them in the EIR. 5 6 Commissioner Monk: Ok, so (interrupted) 7 8 Mr. Pendro: So I can't answer that. 9 10 Commissioner Monk: Alright then I'll try to just request that these things be looked at. That 11 would be one of them because I was concerned about the location of the plazas that I'm seeing 12 listed and whether or not emergency vehicles are going to be going through where there is a 13 location of a plaza. There’s supposed to be a public plaza on both properties from what I see. 14 Also with regard to the parking totals and that plaza or sorry rather on referring to the garage 15 at 350 there's also supposed to be a retail component. So in the EIR we'd want to see what 16 that would encompass and how that would impact the number of parking. 17 18 Mr. Lait: So just a clarification on that. I think we heard from the Council when this went to 19 yesterday I guess it was or two weeks ago (interrupted) 20 21 Commissioner Monk: Is that coming out? 22 23 Mr. Lait: It's all a bit of a blur, but so the retail component is not something that we're pursuing 24 with respect to the parking garage at least as that we understand the direction from Council at 25 this time. 26 27 Commissioner Monk: Ok, thank you for the update. I wanted to request a study be conducted 28 on the 135 foot communications tower, what impact that will have visibly and also with any 29 other safety concerns that it might that would need to be addressed. Also looking at the safety 30 of the public plazas which I'm had mentioned in regards to that Jacaranda Road. I'm also 31 concerned about displacing 150 spaces during the construction. Is there a feasibility of a 32 remote parking something that's an option we can look into with a shuttle service because it's a 33 highly congested area and those lots are full every day and parking is really difficult. So what 34 are we doing to mitigate the demand for parking while we're doing the construction? I didn’t 35 see anything in that regard on the EIR. I don't know if that's within the scope of the EIR or not. 36 37 Mr. Pendro: Usually not, but it's definitely part of the project design process because those 38 phases of construction have to be scheduled appropriately so that information would be 39 available the details may not show up in the EIR, but it’ll be part of the project plans. 40 _______________________ 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. 1 Commissioner Monk: Ok and then also with the issue that was brought up with regard to 2 displacement of the groundwater and going down one or two levels. Obviously that's going to 3 be studied in detail. Is there a possibility to study having a larger garage that goes underneath 4 Birch Street so that it's one large structure, is that something that could be studied in the EIR as 5 opposed to two separate structures and then maybe it can just go down one level instead of 6 two. I don't know if that would be a solution in any capacity, but I think Los Gatos for example 7 has a larger underground area and it doesn't go as deep. 8 9 Mr. Lait: Yeah I think we can take that comment and see if that fits into one of the alternatives. 10 I do think there's a reason why we're not doing that and it has something to do with the secure 11 parking underneath the PSB. 12 13 Commissioner Monk: That's what I figured. 14 15 Mr. Lait: Yeah, keeping those separated. 16 17 Commissioner Monk: Yeah, you want to keep it separated. I’m sure there's ways to keep it 18 separated, but I understand. 19 20 Mr. Lait: Yeah and so we can take a look at that and if there’s (interrupted) 21 22 Commissioner Monk: Well at least utilize some of Birch Street as opposed to just the area 23 immediately below and if that’s part of the EIR. 24 25 Mr. Lait: Great. 26 27 Commissioner Monk: Also with regard to the entry and exit points I understand that the project 28 at three… the PSB has two entry and exit points yet this humongous parking structure has one 29 and they're both coming out on to Sherman Avenue. I don't know if the EIR could look at any 30 way to mitigate the backup that cars would have entering the garage and also waiting and 31 causing environmental degradation by having their cars running waiting to exit because if 32 there's only one exit for several hundred cars they would be sitting there idling I would imagine. 33 So if there's a possibility to just study whether or not two exits would be more beneficial from 34 the garage. Currently there's about a dozen ways to get in and out of the parking at 350 so 35 that's just something I was thinking about. And also just to help with the general traffic flow. 36 37 I don't know if this [unintelligible] in the scope of the EIR, but would you study any sort of 38 impact in regards to having parking allocated for the electrical vehicles and bicycles and things 39 _______________________ 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. like that and if that would have any sort of mitigating factors on the building itself? Ok. I think 1 that's all that I have. Thank you. 2 3 Mr. Pendro: The brief comment I can make is there will be City standards if they are having the 4 project supply electrical vehicle parking and so on those will be described in the EIR as 5 standards applied by the City. 6 7 Commissioner Monk: Ok, thank you. I actually thought of one last thing it was on the 8 transportation component which is on Page 47. The Levels of Service (LOS) and I think that 9 might fall under that and with the egress and ingress of the one driveway and also just looking 10 at Page 48 of our report I was concerned and it's also referenced when you're on your photo of 11 Birch Street because the bicycle traffic is directed onto Birch Street. That is a very crucial or 12 sorry, not Birch, on Park so I would hope that the EIR makes sure to study what's going on with 13 the bicycle lanes and the safety component that's related. 14 15 Mr. Pendro: The Traffic Chapter will have sections on pedestrian and bicycle (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Monk: Yeah, it was just kind of vague in here here so I didn’t know how detailed, 18 but I'm assuming it’ll get pretty detailed. So thank you. 19 20 Commissioner Summa: So thank you to everyone tonight and also a member of the public who 21 spoke. In general I think you ticked off a lot of the boxes that had concerns for me. There's a 22 couple specific ones I think could be added that is one on 1b Aesthetics it says no impact to 23 substantially damage scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, 24 and historic buildings with state scenic highway. To me I think just that these are such big 25 buildings for the area and to me a scenic resource is the sky and the skyline and the trees so I 26 think you could check that one and look there. And with regards to 9b also substantially 27 deplete groundwater supplies, etcetera; I think that one could be added and I think that would 28 address some of the concerns of members of the community about groundwater depletion. 29 Not just because we're going to use it ever as well water, but the fact that we don't have a very 30 clear understanding of the removal of such massive amounts of ground water especially at one 31 time. 32 33 So those two I think you could add and then the other serious things for me traffic, response 34 time for the emergency vehicles I think has been addressed which I was concerned about in this 35 location because of the congestion that's been referenced by my colleagues. I also think it's 36 kind of interesting this is our Pedestrian Transportation Oriented District (PTOD) and putting a 37 giant parking structure in it does seem inconsistent, but I understand that's what the City 38 Council wanted so… And we've never had a plan for the California area that was accepted so I 39 think it would be good to have a larger plan for the whole area for this and for everything else 40 _______________________ 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. that we're planning on doing there. Because so much is being planned putting into this one 1 small area. 2 3 And then I think there's going to be a lot of construction happening simultaneously in an area 4 that is completely congested with very little parking available especially during mid-day. So I 5 was wondering if the other parking lots, existing parking lots and structures in the area could be 6 optimized during this time maybe with valet parking to help out and that a very careful 7 construction logistic plan would be formed because having gone through two construction sites 8 right around where I live in College Terrace it's there's just no place for all the workers to put 9 their cars and these are big projects. And that area will not be able to absorb them. So yes, 10 those are my comments from now. Thank you. 11 12 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, again thank you for coming. And I think everyone's covered 13 everything so I'll just underline a couple of things in the interest of time. I think the community 14 will be generally concerned with traffic and aesthetics although clearly the entire scope of the 15 EIR will probably come under someone's comments so in particular treatment groundwater, 16 etcetera. But if the purpose of this meeting is for us to get feedback on elements of the EIR 17 that we'd like to see paid special attention to or items that you hadn't included I'd say that 18 really understanding how this project is going to be phased will be important. So you’re going 19 to lose 150 spaces while you build parking, the first parking lot after which the PSB will be built. 20 So it would be some period of time where there's a negative 150 space impact or some impact. 21 And so as several colleagues mentioned having a plan in place or having the EIR reference what 22 will be done in the meantime because the area really is filled to capacity I think will alleviate a 23 lot of the fears of the neighborhood or perhaps there's nothing can be done in which case the 24 neighborhood will be rightfully indignant. 25 26 The second area is to understand the aesthetics in a way that I'm not sure… well, maybe you 27 can answer this question. At the time of the drafting of the EIR how much of the aesthetics will 28 actually be known? So at that point will… what is the stage of architectural renderings that you 29 can give beyond the massing of what is currently in the packages? 30 31 Mr. Pendro: I know that the design will have gone through more than one architectural review 32 submittal. 33 34 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 35 36 Mr. Pendro: And there will be [unintelligible-someone speaking off microphone] right and it’s 37 so the CEQA document will have graphics, illustrations, and visual simulations of before and 38 after of the project design up to that point of how many architectural review meetings they’ve 39 been through. 40 _______________________ 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. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. I (interrupted) 2 3 Mr. Pendro: So it won't be as simplistic as tonight's slide. 4 5 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, that's great. So that was my, so the areas where to the extent 6 that you're going to put more weight than on other comparable EIRs I would emphasize 7 Commissioner Monk's request for understand staging and the intermediate period for what 8 happens when we go down under 50 spaces and Commissioner Summa’s concern of the 9 massing basically of the sky and understanding that from different vantage points in a way that 10 perhaps might not be as extensive as you would do for a comparable EIR, but that those are the 11 two areas. They’ve already been brought up, but those are the ones that I would sort of double 12 underline and say this area really needs to be fleshed out for the community to feel like they 13 have had a full hearing. Thank you. That's all for me. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you Commissioners. I think you have a, you heard (interrupted) 16 17 Mr. Lait: So if we can't sorry Chair to interrupt, but I'm going to ask Albert maybe to just clarify 18 a point so that we're have clarity as to what we're looking at with respect to the aesthetics 19 discussion in the EIR. 20 21 Albert Yang: So the EIR is not going to be focused on the aesthetics of the building itself, it's 22 going to be about its impact on the aesthetic environment. And so that's issues like view or 23 scenic resources or it could also the one place where the building does come more into play is 24 things like light and reflection, but we're it's not really a document that looks at the 25 architectural design in the way that we might otherwise. 26 27 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 28 29 Mr. Pendro: Yeah to the… 30 31 Commissioner Rosenblum: I understand it’s not architecture review. 32 33 Mr. Pendro: That's correct. 34 35 Commissioner Rosenblum: I think that Commissioner Summa made the key point which is 36 basically how does it change our perception? So the environmental impact is, are things that 37 you mentioned. So including blocking the view of the vista or the sky, glare reflection that 38 would be the impact that we would be assessing in the EIR. Is that correct? It's not really 39 judging the quality of the architecture of the building. 40 _______________________ 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. 1 Mr. Pendro: Correct. 2 3 Commissioner Rosenblum: But I would say that the architecture of the building affects things 4 like will there be a glare? Will it be perceived as massive or will it be perceived as blending in; 5 that sort of thing. So to the extent that can be available I again just having sat through many 6 public comments to the extent that the purpose of all of this is to say can we anticipate what 7 the public will be concerned about in an EIR and so how can you predict that and make sure 8 that you've answered this to the extent possible? I'd say more that kind of shows the impact of 9 the actual building itself on the surrounding environment from aesthetic and from a really the 10 comment came out several times, it’s a massive building. What is it going to look like relative to 11 its surroundings? What will its impact be on your views and on the glare and on the perception 12 of the environment? 13 14 Mr. Pendro: You've introduced the one of the most interesting topics in CEQA. Aesthetics is the 15 most subjective chapter in any EIR and that's why we read the questions carefully on the 16 checklist so that as I mentioned earlier the EIR is an attempt to give you information without 17 promoting the project. So you're correct it's not an architectural critique, but there will be 18 illustrations, visual simulations, and for this topic it's just the way it is that some people will like 19 or will not like, but the EIR won't answer or change their opinion on some of those details. 20 21 Commissioner Monk: Just really quickly thank you for that clarification. I was also thinking 22 about the people even a year it says substantially adverse effect on scenic vista. So when we 23 think about the very top, the pretty tall apartment building that's already there I think about 24 those people looking out their windows and I don't I'm not I didn't mean the aesthetics of the 25 building at all. I wouldn't expect that CEQA would look into that, but I do think A and B could be 26 checked to look into and I think then people who especially people who live in that area and 27 have lunch outside in that area and stuff would feel better about our environmental review. 28 29 Chair Alcheck: Ok, sure. Commissioner Gardias. 30 31 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you; just one more comment. This is of course highly judgmental 32 topic, but also a there will be impact on the look and the feel of California itself, right? And 33 then this slide that's included here that shows perspective of the I think it's a Birch Street the 34 where the parking be would be adjacent to the wide building that's on the east side of Birch it 35 was obvious exactly. This is the three-story building. It's it provides a good excuse for the 36 parking, but then in reality California Avenue up to Birch it's pretty much one-story. And 37 although there were some buildings toward the, closer to Mollie Stone that are larger in mass 38 it's still one-story neighborhood. So pretty much that has many penetrations because there are 39 some alleys that cut through the buildings so when you have the three-story parking garage 40 _______________________ 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. right behind the facades of those buildings pretty much the way that you experience California 1 it would be totally different. Because it will just change the way that you feel, right? 2 3 Today it’s this a that's why we all like California because it's as opposed to the Downtown it's 4 more secluded, it's more secret, right? It used to be Mayfield, right? So it's totally it’s against 5 Palo Alto [unintelligible] those are the guys that drink, right, and just do different things, right? 6 And we know that, right? And so it has a charm, right? So now if you with this massive 7 structure we're going to change this neighborhood so those are concerns from the aesthetics 8 perspective. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I’ve sort of thought a lot about how to ask this question. I've heard in 11 presentations in the recent past about the impact a parking garage can have on a retail area 12 especially one that occupies like a whole block in separating retail stores from other retail 13 stores. Essentially interrupting the opportunity for pedestrians to continue to walk along I 14 guess a retail assortment of retail locations. I'm wondering I know that Council has directed, 15 has given direction to sort of put aside the retail component of this project. I understand that 16 from the meeting this week. I'm just curious if and this is coming off the amount of time we've 17 spent evaluating the enforcement of sort of ground floor retail across the entire City; so my 18 question is: is there a category inside of this EIR where you think it's possible to evaluate the 19 impact that the garage will have on I'm not sure if you would call it walkability or somehow 20 alienation of the retail area adjacent to it from the retail area behind it? Or what could 21 eventually be a retail because right now we essentially have a pedestrian oriented district and 22 we have an ordinance that essentially encourages ground floor retail and I'm curious how the 23 properties around it will further develop if in fact they do develop. 24 25 Mr. Pendro: Here's one way to look at it, make the retail one of the alternatives, an EIR 26 alternatives chapter and then there is a section EIR on land use policy and programs that the 27 City’s adopted or like you mentioned there’s an ordinance so that the projects consistency with 28 City policies and ordinances is a topic in CEQA. So if you put the retail alternative it would be 29 like Chapter 20 that was one of the bullet points in the slide. If that were one of the 30 alternatives then the comparison would have that option compared with Downtown policies. 31 32 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 33 34 Mr. Pendro: And that issue would arise within that context. 35 36 Chair Alcheck: That's exactly the, we, I had a conversation just yesterday and that was one of 37 the solutions that was suggested and I think that would I would like to see that. And this isn’t 38 an effort essentially to push back on Council direction, it's just I would like to I would like us in 39 this EIR process to be able to evaluate these options. I would like Counsel primarily to be able 40 _______________________ 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. to see what the pros and cons are for the various benefits. You get more parking or you 1 potentially have an interconnected retail district and I think those are two important 2 considerations. 3 4 Ok, I’m going… [oh right] before I pass it on to Commissioner Gardias I want to suggest I think 5 it's going to be very interesting EIR. I think and I think I am particularly interested in seeing how 6 the groundwater situation is going to be evaluated because it's not clear to me yet that we've 7 had sort of a final conclusion on what happens when you pump out so much groundwater. I 8 don't know that you'll be able to arrive at that conclusion and with certainty, but I think it will 9 inform sort of the greater debate in Palo Alto is because of the size of the project. So I do think 10 that will probably be one of the most highly focused areas from members of the public even if 11 they're not particularly concerned about this project just in general your findings as they relate 12 to pumping all over. Ok, why don’t… if I'm hoping why don’t you make your last final comment 13 and then I'll close this session. 14 15 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, this is just very quick. Just for the record in the section of 16 alternatives which I of course I know that there will be that we already just pin pointed those 17 [unintelligible] as the development for those two services. I was just always wondering why 18 there was no a location on Park Avenue considered for the security building that's pretty much 19 it's empty lot that is pretty much between… I’m just looking at the map. Just give me a 20 moment. That is between Sheridan and parking garage on Sherman. That’s a empty area that 21 has very easy access to the it’s over Oregon Expressway, but has a very easy access to the to 22 Oregon and better egress for the police cars. So I would just for the record I would like to note 23 that there was an empty lot in that area that could have been utilized for the police station. 24 Thank you. 25 26 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to suggest that we move 27 onto Agenda Item Number 3. Thank you very much. 28 ARB PRELIMINARY REVIEW PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 Birch S t r e e t Park Blv d . Calif o r n i a A v e . Jaca r a n d a L n Sher m a n A v e . Ash S t r e e t OPTION 3: AERIAL VIEW COVER SHEET PROJECT DATA SHEET INDEX OVERVIEW VICINITY MAPS ARB 02 TECHNICAL DIAGRAMMATIC SITE PLAN ARB 03 URBAN CONTEXT OVERVIEW ARB 04 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN ARB 05 STREET SECTIONS ARB 06 EXISTING CONTEXT PHOTOS - LOT C6 ARB 07 EXISTING CONTEXT PHOTOS - LOT C7 ARB 08 CONCEPT 01 BUILDING & NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ELEVATIONS ARB09 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER & MASSING ARB 10 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ARB 11 CONCEPT 02 BUILDING & NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ELEVATIONS ARB 12 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER & MASSING ARB 13 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ARB 14 CONCEPT 03 BUILDING & NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ELEVATIONS ARB 15 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER & MASSING ARB 16 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ARB 17 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 250 Sherman Ave. CALIFORNIA AVE. PARKING GARAGE 350 Sherman Ave. CITY OF PALO ALTO PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 01 Lot C6 - Proposed Public safety Building Zoning designation:PF Land use designation:Major Institutional Special Facility (MISP) Maximum site coverage:30% Maximum FAR:1:1 Maximum building height:50’-0”; 35’-0” @ SW corner Lot Area:1.27 acres (55,164 sf ) Existing lot coverage: Zero, the lot is undeveloped Proposed lot coverage:29.20% Existing floor area ratio (FAR): Zero the lot is undeveloped Total floor area 40,351 sf Proposed floor area ratio (FAR): 0.74 Building foot print: 15,885 sf Site area:55,164 sf Proposed building height: 49 feet Existing onsite parking:155 Spaces Required new onsite parking:162 Spaces Proposed new onsite parking:167 Spaces Existing easements None Lot C7 - Proposed Parking Garage Zoning designation:PF Land use designation:Community Commercial (CC) Maximum site coverage:30% Maximum FAR:1:1 Maximum building height:50’-0”; 35’-0” @ SE corner Lot area:0.96 acres (41,843 sf) Existing lot coverage:Zero, the lot is undeveloped Proposed lot coverage:89.30% Existing floor area ratio (FAR):Zero the lot is undeveloped Total floor area 149,500 sf Proposed floor area ratio (FAR): 3.57 Building foot print:37,075 sf Site area:41,843 sf Proposed building height:40’-7” ( To top of railing) Existing onsite parking:143 spaces Required new onsite parking:636 Spaces Proposed new onsite parking:636 Spaces Existing easements:None CALIFORNIA AVENUE BI R C H S T R E E T AS H S T R E E T PA R K B O U L E V A R D SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE LOT C7 LOT C6 JACARANDA LANE CALIFORNIA AVENUE BI R C H S T R E E T AS H S T R E E T PA R K B O U L E V A R D EL C A M I N O R E A L AL M A S T R E E T OREGO N E X P R E S S W A Y STANFORD/ PALO ALTOPLAYINGFIELDS JERRYBOWDEN PARK SARAHWALLIS PARK SANTACLARA COUNTY SUPERIORCOURT CALIFORNIA AVENUECALTRAINSTATION LOT C6LOT C7 SHERMAN AVENUE GRANT AVENUE COMMERCIAL CONTEXT CIVIC LEGEND JACARANDA LANE 00 REGIONAL CONTEXT NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT NTS OVERVIEW vicinity maps vicinity maps NTS EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS NTST.N P.N PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 02 T.N P.N T.N P.N NEW GARAGE BUILDING FOOTPRINT 37,075 SF SITE AREA 41,843 SF SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE BI R C H S T R E E T AS H S T R E E T PA R K B O U L E V A R D COURTHOUSE STAFF ENTRANCE PUBLIC ENTRANCE PUBLIC ENTRANCE RETAIL 63’-0” 25 ’ - 0 ” 21’-8” 3’ - 2 ” 2’ - 3 ” 2’ - 3 ” 20 ’ - 7 ” 150 ’ - 0 ” 46 ’ - 3 ” 36 ’ - 3 ” 11’-2” PSB SITE BLDG RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL MIXED USE OFFICE / RESIDENTIAL NEW PSB BUILDING FOOTPRINT 15,885 SF SITE AREA 55,164 SF PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 13 0 ’ - 8 ” 312’-11”372’-5” 14 0 ’ - 1 1 ” JACARANDA LANE RAMP SECURE PARKING PLAZA RA M P RES. LOT C6LOT C7 00OVERVIEW technical diagrammatic site plan TECHNICAL DIAGRAMMATIC SITE PLAN ALLOWABLE SETBACKS (ZONE PF, BASED ON R-40) FRONT: *0-25’ REAR: 16’ SIDE: 10’ STREET: 20’ *BETWEEN 0’ AND 25’, DETERMINED BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROJECT DATA PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 03 Lot C6 - Proposed Public safety Building Zoning designation:PF Land use designation:Major Institutional Special Facility (MISP) Maximum site coverage:30% Maximum FAR:1:1 Maximum building height:50’-0”; 35’-0” @ SW corner Lot Area:1.27 acres (55,164 sf ) Existing lot coverage: Zero, the lot is undeveloped Proposed lot coverage:29.20% Existing floor area ratio (FAR): Zero the lot is undeveloped Total floor area 40,351 sf Proposed floor area ratio (FAR): 0.74 Building foot print: 15,885 sf Site area:55,164 sf Proposed building height: 49 feet Existing onsite parking:155 Spaces Required new onsite parking:162 Spaces Proposed new onsite parking:167 Spaces Existing easements None Lot C7 - Proposed Parking Garage Zoning designation:PF Land use designation:Community Commercial (CC) Maximum site coverage:30% Maximum FAR:1:1 Maximum building height:50’-0”; 35’-0” @ SE corner Lot area:0.96 acres (41,843 sf) Existing lot coverage:Zero, the lot is undeveloped Proposed lot coverage:89.30% Existing floor area ratio (FAR):Zero the lot is undeveloped Total floor area 149,500 sf Proposed floor area ratio (FAR): 3.57 Building foot print:37,075 sf Site area:41,843 sf Proposed building height:40’-7” ( To top of railing) Existing onsite parking:143 spaces Required new onsite parking:636 Spaces Proposed new onsite parking:636 Spaces Existing easements:None 0’15’30’60’120’T.N P.N KEY PLAN T.N P.N 00OVERVIEW urban context overview URBAN CONTEXT OVERVIEW OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS VIEW A PROPOSED PSB MASSING IN CONTEXT COMPARATIVE HEIGHTS KEY PLAN VIEW B VIEW C VIEW D LOT C6 ZONING ENVELOPE LEGISLATIVE & ZONING MODIFICATIONS ARE BEING PURSUED FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: LOT 6: NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SITE NO REVISIONS ARE BEING PURSUED LOT 7: NEW PARKING GARAGE SITE LOT COVERAGE SETBACKS FAR (FLOOR AREA RATIO) BUILDING HEIGHT 0000 5555 10101010 20202020 40404040 50 40 30 20 10 00 COURTHOUSE MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE COMMERCIAL RETAIL PARKING GARAGEPUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 04 T.N P.N T.N P.N 00OVERVIEW illustrative site plan ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING CONCEPT PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN LOT C7 LOT C6 LOT C6 SECURE PARKING LOT C7 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PARKING GARAGE RAMP RA M P VE H I C L E EN T R Y / E X I T AR C A D E SECURE PARKING jACARANDA LANE PLAZA PSB SITE BLDGS. NTS NTS PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 05 T.N P.N T.N P.N 00OVERVIEW street sections BIRCH STREET SECTION AT LOTS C7 & C6 SHERMAN AVE STREET SECTION AT LOT C6 SHERMAN AVENUE STREET SECTION AT LOT C7 KEY PLAN LOT C6LOT C7 NTSPARK BOULEVARD STREET SECTION AT LOT C6 STREET SECTIONS BASEMENT PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 06 T.N P.N 00OVERVIEW existing context photos EXISTING CONTEXT PHOTOS - LOT C6 VIEW FROM LOT C6 - EAST VIEW FROM LOT C6 - SOUTH VIEW FROM LOT C6 - WEST VIEW OF LOT C6 FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SHERMAN ST & PARK BLVD.VIEW FROM LOT C6 - NORTH PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 07 00 VIEW OF LOT C7 FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SHERMAN & BIRCH STREETS OVERVIEW existing context photos EXISTING CONTEXT PHOTOS - LOT C7 VIEW FROM LOT C7 - NORTH VIEW FROM LOT C7 - EAST VIEW FROM LOT C7 - SOUTH VIEW FROM LOT C7 - WEST PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 08 LOT C6CA L I F O R N I A A V E N U E BIRCH STREET FRONTAGE AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SHERMAN AVENUE FRONTAGE AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SHERMAN AVENUE FRONTAGE AT CALIFORNIA AVENUE GARAGE JA C A R A N D A L A N E SH E R M A N A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T PA R K B O U L E V A R D LOT C6 LOT C7AS H S T R E E T BI R C H S T R E E T 01screening / greening CONCEPT This scheme veils the buildings in a naturalized setting to reduce their visual presence and secure vulnerable openings. This screen- ing is achieved through a conceptual “greening,” with slatted wood-like screens, rough natural textures and immersive land- scaping. The dense planting approach obscures views of parked cars and operational buildings. Slatted screens protect windows from the sun and from unwanted visibility. Rough stone-like wall textures evoke nature and blend buildings with the landscape. Material colors are earthy, warm and low contrast. PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 09CONCEPT 01 BUILDING & NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ELEVATIONS SITE MASSING VIEW 1 AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SITE MASSING VIEW 2 AT THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE GARAGE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 01CONCEPT screening / greening Design components: - wood slat window screens and site fencing - rough stone-like exterior materials - deep set windows - asymmetrical building massing - climbing vines as visual screening for the parking structure - Dense tree planting screening public safety building - A meandering, topographic site plan PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 CONCEPT 01 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER & MASSING ARB 10 01CONCEPT • Blending of landscape organization with building facade- ma- terially and geometrically • Plaza steps in three tiers with smaller elements that are offset from each other • Varied field of site elements • Balance of hardscape and softscape • Orthogonal, offset geometry screening / greening SECURE PARKING PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING RAMP RA M P PLAZA PSB SITE BLDGS. NTS PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 CONCEPT 01 SITE CHARACTERISTICS - PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING ARB 11 T.N P.N LOT C6CA L I F O R N I A A V E N U E BIRCH STREET FRONTAGE AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SHERMAN AVENUE FRONTAGE AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SHERMAN AVENUE FRONTAGE AT CALIFORNIA AVENUE GARAGE JA C A R A N D A L A N E SH E R M A N A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T PA R K B O U L E V A R D LOT C6 LOT C7AS H S T R E E T BI R C H S T R E E T 02dynamic massing ARB 12 CONCEPT This scheme breaks down building massing by modulating the building volumes to make the two-block project appear smaller, more intimate and visually dramatic. A dynamic play of volumes, colors and masses creates a more approachable community pres- ence. Individual program components are rendered as discrete building volumes within the overall project. Materials reference and update color schemes from traditional Palo Alto landmarks. Compositional interplay between the PSB and Garage offer con- tinuity between the buildings. Site design reinforces the small- er compartmentalized approach, with small scale seating and planting areas. PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 CONCEPT 02 BUILDING & NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ELEVATIONS SITE MASSING VIEW 1 AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SITE MASSING VIEW 2 AT THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE GARAGE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 02CONCEPT dynamic massing Design components: - Material palette evoking traditional historic Palo Alto landmarks of light colored cement plaster, terra-cotta and copper patina - Building volumes match the size and scale of adjacent commer- cial buildings - Parking Garage and PSB share one compositional approach - Mixture of materials includes composite wood panels, smooth and board-formed precast concrete PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 13CONCEPT 02 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER & MASSING 02CONCEPT • Dynamic relationships between harscape and softscape • Large scale is modulated by breaking down stepped features • Intimately scaled down spaces for public use • “Berming” allows for trees within plaza • Network of paths within more softscape dynamic massing SECURE PARKING PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING RAMP RA M P PLAZA PSB SITE BLDGS. NTS PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 14CONCEPT 02 SITE CHARACTERISTICS - PublIC SAfETy buIldINg T.N P.N LOT C6CA L I F O R N I A A V E N U E BIRCH STREET FRONTAGE AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SHERMAN AVENUE FRONTAGE AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SHERMAN AVENUE FRONTAGE AT CALIFORNIA AVENUE GARAGE JA C A R A N D A L A N E SH E R M A N A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T PA R K B O U L E V A R D LOT C6 LOT C7AS H S T R E E T BI R C H S T R E E T 03simple civic CONCEPT This scheme presents a dignified and semi-formal visual pres- ence to create a confident, approachable and community-scaled civic image for Public Safety. An abstracted theme of rectangles is introduced. The building features a simple palette and under- stated detailing, with a variety of pattern that provides visual interest over the large scale of the two parcels. The base of the building is a warm, dark and earthy brick wall material provid- ing texture and interest at street level. Lower-level windows are deep set to evoke a traditional colonnade. Upper level materials reference Sierra White Granite, the material of civic projects com- mon in the Bay Area. Upper level windows suggest informally ar- ranged columns. Horizontal delineations at each floor break the three-story buildings into a stack of one-story-scaled elements, addressing the scale of the retail district. The construction ap- proach is modular, increasing the likelihood that this will be the most cost effective approach. PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 CONCEPT 03 BUILDING & NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ELEVATION ARB 15 SITE MASSING VIEW 1 AT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SITE MASSING VIEW 2 AT THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE GARAGE AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 03CONCEPT simple civic Design Components: - Building base and site walls are a manganese ironspot brick ve- neer - Smooth, light-colored precast panels cast to resemble Sierra White Granite - Modular pre-cast panels for both PSB and Garage for cost-effec- tiveness - Deep-set ground-floor windows - Simple raised planting areas at site that develop and radiate the geometry of the building PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 16CONCEPT 03 ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER & MASSING PSB SITE BLDGS. 03CONCEPT • LARGE OPEN SPACE THAT CELEBRATES THE BUILDING / PROGRAM • ACTS AS A CENTRAL SPACES / PLAZA FOR IMMEDIATE AREA • MINIMALIST LANGUAGE IMPLIES MONUMENTALITY / FORMALITY • THREE EVEN TERRACE STEPS / PLAZA IS MORE HARDSCAPE / SOFTSCAPE IS MORE FIGURAL • CIVIC SCALED; OVERSIZED FURNISHINGS / BARRIERS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT PLAZA simple civic SECURE PARKING PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING RAMP RA M P PLAZA NTS PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & PARKING GARAGE 2017.04.18 ARB 17CONCEPT 03 SITE CHARACTERISTICS - PublIC SAfETy buIldINg T.N P.N Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage ARB Preliminary Review PROJECT BACKGROUND The Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage projects are part of the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. Construction of a new Public Safety Building (PSB) is the top infrastructure priority for Palo Alto. The existing Public Safety Building (PSB) at 275 Forest Avenue opened in 1970 and is approximately 25,000 square feet. Due to the growth of public safety services and changes in regulations, the existing building no longer meets current seismic, accessibility, or regulatory code requirements that are applicable to an essential services facility. Existing Project Site The site for the Public Safety Building (PSB) and California Avenue Parking Garage is located on Public Parking Lots C-6 and C-7 in the California Avenue Business District. The project site was reviewed and accepted by City Council in December 2015. The PSB will be located on Lot C-6, and the Parking Garage will be located on Lot C-7. The site is on Sherman Avenue, between Park Blvd., Birch Street, Ash Street, and Jacaranda Lane. California Avenue is one block north of the site. Parking Lot C-6 is located on Sherman Avenue, between Park Blvd. and Birch Street. This is a 1.2 acre site, approximately 375’ long (east/west) and 140’ wide (north/south). The site is approximately 1/2 of a full city block, with an alley--Jacaranda Lane--separating it from one- and two-story retail functions to the north. To the south of the site stands the County Courthouse, to the east is 385 Sherman, a mixed-use office and residential development, and to the west is Parking Lot C-7. Parking Lot C-6 has approximately 158 parking stalls. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. Parking Lot C-7 is located on Sherman Avenue, between Birch and Ash Streets. This is a .93 acre site, approximately 310’ long (east/west) and 140’ wide (north/ south). The site is also approximately 1/2 of a full city block, with Jacaranda Lane separating it from one- and two-story retail functions to the north as well. To the south of the site is 385 Sherman, a new mixed-use office/ residential project. To the west is a commercial building with its own parking lot on the corner and a two-story residential lot; to the east is Parking Lot C-6, the PSB site. Parking Lot C-7 has approximately 148 parking stalls. The users of the lot are assumed to be primarily visitors and employees of businesses in the California Avenue retail area, as well as jurors and visitors to the adjacent courthouse. The parking lot has a perimeter of mature trees, as well as some trees within the parking area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The focus of this preliminary review is to explore the merits of three uniquely different approaches to building a new civic complex in the California Avenue Business District. The project represents Palo Alto’s largest investment in municipal infrastructure since the construction of City Hall. Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 2 The three preliminary options presented within this application offers ARB an opportunity to initiate dialogue about the design opportunities inherent in each concept and provide direction to the design team on how best to further refine the design as the project progresses. The project is made up of a number of different building and site components over the two parcels. The design of each will be separate but interrelated. Public presence is invited on both sites, however, discrete site barriers and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) strategies secure the PSB site without fortressing. The Public Safety Building (PSB/Lot C6) is a 46,000 square-foot, three-story police station and fire/police administration building; the PSB includes two full-block subterranean floors of police parking and operations , and shares its parcel with operational site buildings, a secure operational yard, and a public plaza. The PSB includes generous setbacks from its property lines, a standoff that offers both security and community design benefits. The PSB is a secure, essential services facility that will be designed to support and protect the critical operations that occur inside. The project will include facility resiliency, redundancy and hardening strategies which when deployed will enable the PSB to remain operational after a major disaster. The design of the PSB will require the careful balancing of transparency and solidity, including careful placement and type of windows, openings and other security sensitive features. The Parking Garage (Lot C7) is a four-story above grade and two-story below grade, approximately 636 stall public parking structure serving the parking needs of the California Avenue business district. The parking structure fills its site to nearly the property lines, and utilizes strategies such as a sidewalk-level arcade (on Ash) and a landscaped setback (on Birch) to provide scale-mitigating site amenities. The height of the California Avenue Garage will be approximately 37'-0" above sidewalk level to top of rail and may include roof top photovoltaic systems which will increase the overall height to approximately 49'-0". It is the design team’s understanding the City of Palo Alto City Council is considering altering the requirements of the PF zone to include public parking garages to address the California Avenue Parking Garage’s current nonconformance to building setback, lot coverage, FAR and height requirements. For this preliminary ARB review, the design team respectfully requests that the ARB focus on identifying the preferred civic bearing, neighborhood compatibility and attitude for this new complex. Should the buildings be assertive or understated? Should they address the scale of the retail district, the County Courthouse, or something in between? Each proposed approach has an accompanying massing and material strategy that are to be discussed in the context of the proposed civic approach. Design refinements (proportion, detailing, final material selection, etc.) are preliminary, and will develop further once a preferred civic approach is identified. A key part of the discussion includes how the project should address the surrounding urban context. The California Avenue neighborhood has an eclectic mix of scales, materials, uses and styles. It is a neighborhood that is seeing significant change in the immediate area, and is benefiting from the increased design focus and energy. The new PSB and Garage offers an opportunity to contribute to this momentum. Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 3 DESIGN OPTIONS: The three unique site approaches are distinguished by their different approaches to context, bearing, massing and message. They have been provided “nicknames” to capture the essence of each approach, facilitating discussion of their relative merits. Material, massing and landscape strategies have been keyed to the overall storyline of each approach, reinforcing the message through the elements of design. 01 SCREENING/GREENING This scheme veils the buildings in a naturalized setting to reduce their visual presence and secure vulnerable openings. This screening is achieved through a conceptual "greening," with slatted wood-like screens, rough natural textures and immersive landscaping. The dense planting approach obscures views of parked cars and operational buildings. Slatted screens protect windows from the sun and from unwanted visibility. Rough stone-like wall textures evoke nature and blend buildings with the landscape. Material colors are earthy, warm and low contrast. Design components: - Wood slat window screens and site fencing - Rough stone-like exterior materials - Deep set windows - Asymmetrical building massing - Climbing vines as visual screening for the parking structure - Dense tree planting screening public safety building - A meandering, topographic site plan 02 DYNAMIC MASSING This scheme breaks down building massing by modulating the building volumes to make the two- block project appear smaller, more intimate and visually dramatic. A dynamic play of volumes, colors and masses creates a more approachable community presence. Individual program components are rendered as discrete building volumes within the overall project. Materials reference and update color schemes from traditional Palo Alto landmarks. Compositional interplay between the PSB and Garage offer continuity between the buildings. Site design reinforces the smaller compartmentalized approach, with small scale seating and planting areas. Design components: - Material palette evoking traditional historic Palo Alto landmarks of light colored cement plaster, terra-cotta and copper patina - Building volumes match the size and scale of adjacent commercial buildings - Parking Garage and PSB share one compositional approach - Mixture of materials includes composite wood panels, smooth and board-formed precast concrete 03 SIMPLE CIVIC This scheme presents a dignified and semi-formal visual presence to create a confident, approachable and community-scaled civic image for Public Safety. An abstracted theme of rectangles is introduced. The building features a simple palette and understated detailing, with a variety of pattern that provides visual interest over the large scale of the two parcels. The base of the building is a warm, dark and earthy brick wall material providing texture and interest at street Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage Prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. April 18, 2017 4 level. Lower-level windows are deep set to evoke a traditional colonnade. Upper level materials reference Sierra White Granite, the material of civic projects common in the Bay Area. Upper level windows suggest informally arranged columns. Horizontal delineations at each floor break the three-story buildings into a stack of one-story-scaled elements, addressing the scale of the retail district. The construction approach is modular, increasing the likelihood that this will be the most cost effective approach. Design Components: - Building base and site walls are a manganese ironspot brick veneer - Smooth, light-colored precast panels cast to resemble Sierra White Granite - Modular pre-cast panels for both PSB and Garage for cost-effectiveness - Deep-set ground-floor windows - Simple raised planting areas at site that develop and radiate the geometry of the building Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8072) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/25/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 640 Waverley Mixed Use Project (Study Session) Title: 640 Waverley Street [17PLN-00105]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Discuss a Preliminary Architectural Review application for a Mixed Use Building to Replace Two Structures on a Downtown Site Determined Ineligible for Listing as Historic Resources From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide input during a voluntary study session review of a preliminary architectural review application for a mixed use project to replace two older structures on a Downtown Palo Alto property located at 640 and 646 Waverley Street. The HRB may consider the project with respect to:  the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines discussion regarding desirable commercial-to-residential transitions in streetscape design, and  Architectural Review Findings found in Palo Alto Municipal code Chapter 18.76, particularly Finding 2b, which has a focus on historic resources. Report Summary The HRB’s duties, set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.27.040, include informing staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family buildings in the Downtown area and providing recommendations regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures. The structures on the subject property have not been identified as historically significant through the consultant historic evaluation process. Therefore, review by the HRB of the formal application, once submitted, is not required. This report forwards to the HRB the concept plans for a mixed use building to replace two existing Downtown buildings which were determined through Historic Resource Evaluations to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 be ineligible for listing as historic resources. The property is adjacent to a home at 650 Waverley Street, which is listed as a category 2 historic resource on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory; however, this proximity does not necessitate HRB review. The goal of this voluntary study session is to provide input on the proposal to assist staff in assessing the project’s compatibility with the adjacent historic resource at 650 Waverley, and focused on the relevance of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and Architectural Review Finding 2b. The Architectural Review Board is tentatively scheduled to review the Preliminary Architectural Review application on June 15, 2017. The minutes of the HRB meeting will be provided with the staff report to the ARB for consideration during the review. Background Context A vicinity map is provided with this report (Attachment A). The project site is located within the Commercial Downtown outside the retail core. The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) identifies this site as within the “Cowper Center” District, which is considered a “secondary activity center”. Above is a streetscape image showing the multi-family residential building at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue, the ca. 1902 home at 650 Waverley Street (renovated following HRB review on July 19, 2006), the subject property with its two structures, and the previous building at 636 Waverley Street to the right of the subject property, demolished in 2014 to make way for a mixed use building approved by City Council on appeal and under construction. The house at 650 Waverley is listed on the City’s HRI as a Category 2 resource and also deemed eligible in 1998 for listing on both National and California Registers (under criteria A and C.) The below image is of 650 Waverley, just to the left of the subject property. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The home at 650 Waverley was one of 165 properties deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in the Final Survey the City had prepared and submitted to the State office of Historic Preservation. The DPR523 record prepared in 2000 by Dames and Moore for 650 Waverley Street is attached (Attachment F). In 2003, the property owner requested that the property be listed on the City’s Historic Inventory. The HRB recommended Category 2 listing on May 21, 2003; HRB meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/historic-meetings/2462.pdf. On June 9, 2003, City Council approved the Category 2 designation for the property following review of the staff report, viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cmrs/2065.pdf. The four-story 636 Waverley building under construction is just right of the subject property. The above image is the subject property (640 Waverley at front, 646 Waverley at the rear). The home at 640 Waverley was built in 1908, and is placed on the front of the subject property. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The home is designed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. The home at 646 Waverley was built in 1904, and is located on the rear portion of the subject property. It is also designed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. Both structures are currently being utilized as office space. Local Historic Resource Inventory The City of Palo Alto's Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) 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. Neither of the two structures on this site is listed on the City of Palo Alto’s HRI. Historic Resource Evaluation The applicant retained a consultant in 2015 to prepare a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) of the existing structures on the site, given the age of the structures and proposal to come forward with an Architectural Review application for a replacement building. The City’s consultant peer-reviewed the original evaluation and a final HRE was prepared (by a different firm, to address the City’s review comments) and submitted (Attachment B). The HRE:  determined that the structures on the site were ineligible for listing as historic resources.  took into consideration and incorporated the 2015 HRE in combination with the City’s peer review document that were utilized as guidance to ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) regarding the historic significance of the buildings. Proposal The proposal is to construct a new 9,733 square foot, three-story mixed use building, plus a basement level. Commercial space totaling 5,237 square feet would be contained in the basement and first floor of the building. The project plans show a single residential unit of 4,496 square feet proposed on the upper floors. The above-grade building elements adjacent to 650 Waverley Street include a driveway and garage at the ground level, family room and terrace at second level and terrace at the third level The project description is provided as Attachment C to this report. The project plans are found at this website: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning by entering the address. Hard copy plans are also provided to HRB members. Discussion Significance Criteria The HRE states that the two structures on the site do not meet the criteria for significance for listing on Palo Alto’s HRI; the criteria are stated in PAMC Chapter 16.49. The HRE states the structures also do not meet the criteria of significance for listing on the NRHP or the CRHP, for City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 reasons stated in the HRE. Specifically, the HRE concludes: “The 1904 structure retains integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship, but the 1908 structure retains integrity of location only. Since these two house are located within a single property and are closely related, it very important to understand the connection that these two houses form together. It could be argued that the changes to the front bungalow diminish the integrity of the rear bungalow and that the changes to the feeling, setting, and association are significant to also further contribute to the loss of integrity.” Alterations Regarding alterations to 640 Waverley, the HRE concludes: “alterations to the front house include historic and modern changes; however, it appears that the majority of the alterations are historic (over 50 years). The historic alterations include a secondary front door and alterations to the primary elevation window, and alterations to the front porch stair railing. There is an addition to the rear of the house; however, based on site visit and research it appears this addition is historic.” Regarding alterations to 646 Waverley, the HRE states: “Alterations to the building are minimal and limited to the northwest elevation where there is a vinyl replacement window and new porch railing.” CEQA and Adjacent Historic Resource The Category 2 resource forms the immediate context on the east site of the subject site. The concept plans show a 12-inch setback from the side property lines, 20-inch setback from the rear property line, six-inch setback from the front property line, and with a height of 40’4”. The concept plans indicate vegetation would be provided along the property line shared with the historic resource at 650 Waverley Street. As noted, the context on the west side of the subject site is created by 636 Waverley. A mixed- use replacement building on the subject site will be subject to formal Architectural Review for compatibility with its context, and subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One of the topics addressed in the CEQA checklist is Cultural Resources. The HRE will be helpful in the CEQA determination for the project when a formal application for the project is submitted. Compliance with Applicable Regulations As noted, a single family residential unit is proposed. The applicant has been advised that a single family residential unit is not a permitted land use based on the current Commercial Downtown Community (CD-C(P)) zone district regulations, and that the project should be revised, or a text amendment to the zoning code could be requested to proceed with a single family unit on the property. The zone district, CDC(P) allows office space on the first floor but requires that the architectural design accommodate the possibility of retail on the first floor. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The project plans will be reviewed for compliance with the City’s development standards, Architectural Review findings, other applicable zoning codes, Comprehensive Plan policies, design guidelines set forth in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and Context Based Design Criteria for the Downtown Commercial District, which are contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.18. A section from the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (pages 16-17) discussing desirable commercial-to-residential transitions in streetscape design is included in Attachment E. The HRB may wish to provide input to the applicant as to the project’s design compatibility within the site’s context. The Architectural Review Findings found in Palo Alto Municipal code Chapter 18.76 are provided as Attachment D for the HRB. The HRB may wish to provide comments with respect to Architectural Review Finding 2b, which has a focus on historic resources: “The project has a unified and coherent design…that preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant.” Environmental Review The formal application for the subject project would be assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Next Steps Preliminary Architectural Review by the ARB is tentatively scheduled for June 15, 2017. 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: Vicinity Map (DOCX)  Attachment B: Final Updated HRE Waverly Palo Alto 2_8_2017_all documents (PDF)  Attachment C: Applicant submittal - project description (PDF)  Attachment D: ARB findings (DOCX)  Attachment E: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines - Commercial and Residential Edges (PDF)  Attachment F: DPR 650 Waverley (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment A: Vicinity Map February 8, 2017 To: Amy French, Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Re: Response to Peer Review Comments of the Updated Historic Resource Evaluation Report – 640 and 646 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, California (Updated January 16, 2017) Dear Ms. French, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the peer review comments made by Samantha Murray (Dudek), dated January 16, 2017 regarding the updated Historic Resource Evaluation Report – 640 and 646 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, California. EDS also appreciates the efforts taken by the City of Palo Alto to ensure compliance under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has completed all the recommended changes associated with the peer review (attached). If there are any questions or further comments, please feel free to contact me directly at 971-344-2826 or at 707-812-7400 if needed. Sincerely, Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Principal Architectural Historian Evans & De Shazo, LLC, 971-344-2826 stacey@evans-deshazo.com Evans & De Shazo, LLC 6876 Sebastopol Avenue Sebastopol, CA 95472 971-244-1836/707-812-7400 www.evans-deshazo.com UPDATED HISTO RIC RESOURCE EVALUATION FOR 640 AND 646 WAVERLEY STREET, PALO ALTO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: James Lin SUBMITTED BY: Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Principal Architectural Historian Evans & De Shazo, LLC Updated February 8, 2016 Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page i Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .................................................................................. 1 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................... 3 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ................................................................................................ 3 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code: Chapter 16.49, Historic Preservation ............................................................... 4 City of Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) ............................................................................................... 5 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 5 Dudek Peer Review Comments and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 5 LITERATURE SEARCH AND REVIEW ......................................................................................... 6 NWIC ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 LOCAL RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................................... 8 HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................................ 9 CITY OF PALO ALTO HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 9 PROJECT AREA'S PAST OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS ............................................................................................. 15 CURRENT CONDITION SURVEY ............................................................................................. 16 FRONT BUNGALOW CA. 1908 ....................................................................................................................... 16 Northeast Elevation (Primary Façade) ................................................................................................................ 16 Northwest Elevation............................................................................................................................................ 20 Southwest Elevation ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Southeast Elevation ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Alterations........................................................................................................................................................... 23 REAR BUNGALOW CA. 1904 ......................................................................................................................... 23 Northeast Elevation (Primary Façade) ................................................................................................................ 23 Northwest Elevation............................................................................................................................................ 26 Southwest ........................................................................................................................................................... 27 Southeast Elevation ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Alterations........................................................................................................................................................... 29 ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE............................................................................................................................... 29 EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................ 29 CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................................... 30 National Register of Historic Places .................................................................................................................... 30 California Register of Historical Resources ......................................................................................................... 30 Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page ii NRHP/CRHR EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................... 30 Historic Integrity ................................................................................................................................................. 31 CITY OF PALO ALTO EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................... 33 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 34 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................................. 35 Appendix A: DPR Forms Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 1 INTRODUCTION Evans & De Shazo, LLC (EDS) was contracted by James Lin to provide an updated Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the proposed project located at 640 and 646 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, California within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 120-160-023 (Project Area) to ensure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code for Historic Preservation (Chapter 16.49). The Project Area consists of two wood-framed houses designed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. The house with the address of 640 Waverley Street (front bungalow) was constructed in ca. 1908 and is situated along the front of the property, and the house with the address of 646 Waverley Street (rear bungalow) was constructed in ca. 1904 and is situated at the rear of the property. Neither of the two houses are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resource (CRHR) or the City of Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory (HRI); however, the rear house is shown on the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (Past Heritage) website within the Master Index to Houses.1 The updated HRE, completed by Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo, who holds an M.A. in Historic Preservation and exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s professional qualification standards for Architectural History and History, addresses inefficiencies in the previously submitted HRE prepared by PAST Consultants, LLC (PAST) titled "Historic Resource Evaluation Proposal for 640-646 Waverley St., Palo Alto, CA APN 20-016-023; 13PLN-00375" (dated September 4, 2015) (Attachment A), as well as comments and recommendations provided within the peer review document by Dudek (dated July 14, 2016) for the City of Palo Alto. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The proposed project includes plans to demolish the front and rear houses located within the Project Area to allow for the construction of a multi-story, mixed-use 10,200 square foot office and residential building (Project). The two houses, located at 640 and 646 Waverley Street, are situated within a 5,275 square foot lot that is located along the southwest side of Waverley Street. Waverley Street is bounded on the southeast by Forest Avenue and on the northwest by Hamilton Avenue, and located with an area that is zoned as a Commercial Downtown Community Subdistrict/Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-CP). The Project Area is located within USGS 7.5' Palo Alto quadrangle (1981) (Figure 1), Section 4 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West, Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coordinates at the approximate center of the Project Area, as measured from the USGS 7.5- minute Palo Alto quadrangle, are: 4144638 meters north and 574433 meters east, Zone 10. 1 http://www.pastheritage.org/HousePixLists/PixListW.html Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 2 Figure 1. Project Area Location. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE The proposed Project is subject to CEQA regulations and guidelines as described below. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA and the guidelines for implementing CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5) give direction and guidance for evaluation of properties as well as the preparation of Initial Studies (that include a CRE), Categorical Exemptions, Negative Declarations, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports. According to CEQA, cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance. The five classes of cultural resources defined by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) that are eligible for evaluation include:  Building: A structure created principally to shelter or assist in carrying out any form of human activity. A “building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.  Structure: A construction made for a functional purpose rather than creating human shelter. Examples include mines, bridges, and tunnels.  Object: Construction primarily artist in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed. It may be movable by nature or design or made for a specific setting or environment. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use or character. Examples include fountains, monuments, maritime resources, sculptures and boundary markers.  Site: The location of a significant event. A prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing building, structure, or object. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event and if no buildings, structures, or objects marked it at that time. Examples include trails, designed landscapes, battlefields, habitation sites, Native American ceremonial areas, petroglyphs, and pictographs.  Historic District: Unified geographic entities which contain a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally. According to California Code of Regulations §15064.5, cultural resources are historically significant if they are:  Listed in, or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et. seq.);  Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP);  Included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resource Code; or Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 4  Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As stated in subdivision (c) of §5024.1, a resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it has integrity and meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places criteria: 1) 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; 2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts representative of California and United States history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture convey significance when they also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A resource has integrity if it retains the characteristics that were present during the resource’s period of significance. Enough of these characteristics must remain to convey the reasons for its significance. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code: Chapter 16.49, Historic Preservation It is found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, districts and neighborhoods of historical and architectural significance located within the City of Palo Alto are of cultural and aesthetic benefit to the community. It is further found that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of the City will be enhanced by respecting the heritage of the City. The purposes of this chapter are to: (a) Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those historic structures, districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo Alto; (b) Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; (c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts and neighborhoods; (d) Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such structures; (e) Enrich the educational and cultural dimensions of human life by serving aesthetic as well as material needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past; (f) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city; Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 5 (g) Establish special requirements so as to assure the preservation and the satisfactory maintenance of significant historic structures within the downtown area. City of Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) The City of Palo Alto's HRI 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: 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. Neither of the two houses in the Project Area is listed on the City of Palo Alto’s HRI. METHODS This updated HRE takes into consideration and incorporates the previous HRE conducted by PAST in combination with Dudek's peer review document that were utilized as guidance to ensure compliance with CEQA and the City of Palo Alto municipal regarding the historic significance of the buildings. EDS prepared this updated HRE utilizing research collected from the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), the Palo Alto Public Library, Palo Alto Historical Association, City of Palo Alto Planning Development Department, Santa Clara County Assessor, San Jose Public Library (King Library Branch), Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, and various online sources. EDS also conducted a site visit on September 26, 2016 to review the existing conditions of the property and formulate descriptions and assessments of the two houses within the context of the neighborhood, which is included in this report. The comments and recommendations provided in the peer review document are addressed within each section of this report as needed and are highlighted in the section below to ensure all recommendations and comments were addressed. Dudek Peer Review Comments and Recommendations The peer review completed by Dudek is broken down in the following section to highlight significant issues identified in regards to the PAST HRE. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 6 “This peer review finds that the most significant issue is the need for additional information to support the findings that were reached in the HRE. The lack of a basic historic context that addresses the history and development of the University Park neighborhood, residential development, and applicable architectural/building styles would greatly improve the report and provide a foundation for the conclusions that the property is not eligible under national, state, or local level eligibility criteria. While the findings of the evaluation may or may not change as a result of this information, the HRE will ultimately be a more defensible document that adheres to the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for an evaluation report. Further, it is recommended that a discussion of character-defining features of the style be included to explain/justify why the alterations have resulted in compromised integrity” (Dudek 2016). The following bullet points highlight significant sections to address, as well as EDS’ response (in blue) to ensure CEQA compliance:  Explanation of the “CEQA Study Area” This is now addressed, as the Project Area is clearly explained in the Introduction section above and shown on a Project Area location map (Figure 1).  Property Description: “describe the current condition of the property.” EDS has completed a thorough current conditions survey and evaluation of the property, which is presented within the Current Condition Survey section below.  Building Alterations: These sections should note how the alterations were identified (i.e., building permit research, review of original plans, field observations, or a combination or methods)… etc… EDS addressed alterations for each building within the Current Condition Survey.  Historic Resource Evaluation: Development of Historic Context, Neighborhood, housing, University Park etc… EDS has developed a thorough historic context that includes the neighborhood and University Park, which is presented in the Historic Context section below.  Criteria Evaluation and Integrity development and details. EDS has provided a thorough criteria evaluation and discussion of integrity for both houses within the Project Area.  Missing Report Sections (throughout): EDS has included all missing report sections to complete the HRE and conducted additional research to develop the context and bibliography. LITERATURE SEARCH AND REVIEW NWIC EDS completed a record search at the NWIC on September 15, 2016 (NWIC File #16-0407) to obtain information about previous cultural resource studies, including historic architectural evaluations, that have been conducted within one-quarter of a mile from the Project Area, and to obtain and review records for previously recorded cultural resources, including historic buildings and structures, located in the area. The following inventories and directories were also reviewed:  National Register of Historic Places Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 7  California Register of Historical Resources  California Inventory of Historic Resources  California Historical Landmarks  California Points of Historical Interest  Santa Clara County Historic Properties Directory According to information on file at the NWIC, the Project Area has not been previously evaluated (PAST's letter report has not been submitted to the NWIC); however, there have been 11 cultural resource studies previously conducted within a 1/4-mile of the Project Area (listed in Table 1). Table 1: Previous Cultural Resource Studies. NWIC # Year Title Author(s) Resource(s) S-020523 1998 Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facility SF-533-07, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (letter report Barry A. Price None S-022183 1999 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Property at 200 Hamilton Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, California. Robert Cartier None S-022359 2000 Archaeological Monitoring at 168 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California (letter report) Hannah Ballard S-022649 2000 Archaeological Testing Program for the Property at 200 Hamilton Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, California. Robert Cartier None S-029573 2000 Final Report, Archaeological Survey and Record Search for the Six Fluor Global Fiber Optic Segments, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Mateo County, California. Jonathan Goodrich P-43-000463 (CA- SCL-462H) P-43-000551 (CA- SCL-556H) P-43-000593 (CA- SCL-598) S-033475 2006 Verizon Cellular Communications Tower Site--Palo Alto Retail, 219 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. Jason D. Jones P-43-001845 S-035932 2009 Records Search Results for AT&T Mobility Audit Site CNU0770/13313/1-A, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California 94301 (letter report). Carolyn Losee P-43-002261 S-039704 2012 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for T- Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF15104A (Channing House), 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California (letter report Wayne H. Bonner and Kathleen A. Crawford P-43-002808 S-041536 2001 Final Survey Report, Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, August 1997- August 2000. Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley P-43-000551 (CA- SCL-556H) S-041600 2012 Collocation ("CO") Submission Packet, AT&T POLY 1 - Outdoor DAS, Utility Poles Along Waverly Street, Lincoln Avenue, Emerson Street, Bryant Street, Park Avenue, Rinconada Avenue, Arrowhead Way, Dennis Dana Supernowicz P-43-002809 Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 8 NWIC # Year Title Author(s) Resource(s) Way. S-041600a 2012 Cultural Resources Study of the Palo Alto ODAS Project, Nodes P1N1B, P1N7A, P1N8A, P1N10B, P1N13A, P1N14A, P1N16A, P1N16B, P1N21A, P1N29A, P1N34A, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California Historic Resource Associates None In addition, there are ten properties listed on the NRHP and the CRHR within a quarter-mile of the Project Area (shown in Table 2). There is also one Historic District within quarter-mile of the Project Area. Table 2: NRHP and CRHR listed resources and Landmark Districts within a 1/4-mile of the Project Area. Name Address NRHP CRHR Historic District Landmark United States Post Office (Palo Alto) 380 Hamilton Avenue X X N/A N/A T.B. Downing House 706 Cowper Street X X N/A N/A Fraternal Hall Building 140 University Avenue X X N/A N/A Hewlett-Packard House and Garage 367 Addison Avenue X X N/A N/A Norris House 1247 Cowper Street X X N/A N/A Palo Alto Medical Center 300 Homer Avenue X X N/A N/A Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot 95 University Avenue X X N/A N/A Pettigrew House 1336 Cowpers St. X X N/A N/A Ramona Street Architectural District 518-581 Ramona St. and 255-267 Hamilton Ave. X X X N/A Women’s Club of Palo Alto 475 Homer X X N/A N/A LOCAL RESEARCH Local research was conducted on September 26, 2016 to obtain additional primary and secondary resources such as photographs, permit records, and documents related to the buildings, to help assist in the development of the historic context for the HRE. In addition, online resources were accessed that include published local histories, oral histories, maps, and photographs that were utilized to further develop the historic context. Online resources included:  www.newspapers.com  www.ancestory.com  www.calisphere.com (University of California)  Santa Clara County Assessor Office  Palo Alto Stanford Heritage  Palo Alto Historical Association Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 9  Palo Alto Main Library (now know as the Rinconada Library)  http://ldsgenealogy.com/CA/Santa-Clara-County-City-Directories.htm (City Directories)  City of Palo Alto website Personal communication included a conversation with Steve Staiger, City of Palo Alto Historian, on September 29, 2016 in regards to the general history of Palo Alto within the context of the Project Area. HISTORIC CONTEXT CITY OF PALO ALTO HISTORY The City of Palo Alto is unique among other cities on the San Francisco Peninsula because its development is strongly tied to the creation and development of Stanford University and its founders, Leland and Jane Lathrop Stanford. In 1876, when Leland Stanford, moved his family moved from San Francisco to the 650 acres George Gordon estate, he had already achieved distinction as a merchant, governor of California during the Civil War, and president of the Central Pacific Railroad (now part of the Southern Pacific). His land holdings in Palo Alto soon grew to be more than 8,000 acres of land, which became known as the Palo Alto Farm. A year before the Central Pacific Railroad was completed, Stanford’s wife Jane gave birth to their only child, Leland Stanford Jr. However, in 1884, while traveling in Italy, 16-year-old Leland was stricken with typhoid fever and died. From this point forward the Stanford’s committed their fortune and time to building the Leland Stanford Junior University. After six years of planning and building, construction of the University began in 1887 and four years later, on October 1, 1891 Stanford University opened its doors. The prediction of a New York newspaper that Stanford professors would "lecture in marble halls to empty benches" was quickly disproved as the free university soon attracted many students. The first student body consisted of 555 men and women, and by the second year the original faculty of 15 was expanded to 49. The University’s first president was David Starr Jordan, a graduate of Cornell University, who left his post as President of Indiana University to join the Stanford out west. According to City of Palo Alto Historian Steve Straiger, the City of Palo Alto was unique as it got its start as a result of the of the building and developed of the Leland Stanford Junior College and the city services, housing, and transportation were all developed in support of the university (S. Staiger, personal communication, September 29, 2016). As the University grew Stanford decided that his faculty and students needed a nearby town in which to reside, but he wanted a town free of the saloons, which were prevalent in the nearby cities of Menlo Park and Mayfield. By the late 1880s Stanford, along with Timothy Hopkins - adopted son of Mark Hopkins, one of the Central Pacific Railroad’s “Big Four” - began to acquire and survey the land that would form the foundation of the new town of Palo Alto. The original town grid was platted by 1887 and lots were put to auction in 1890. The town was called “University Park,” but Stanford preferred "Palo Alto". The town extended from present day Embarcadero Road and the railroad to a point northeast of Middlefield Road (Winslow 1993). Many of the early homes in Palo Alto were built by tradesmen who came to the City to work on the construction of Stanford University (S. Staiger, personal communication, September 29, 2016). These carpenters, masons and other tradesmen used their skills to build simple houses for their families using published images, purchased plans, or inspiration from nearby homes (City of Palo Alto 2000). By contrast, a number of stately homes were also built in the southwest part of town between Addison Avenue and Embarcadero Road, which were large homes built on large lots for Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 10 Stanford University faculty. The area where these large, stately homes were built became known as Professorville, which was the closest place to both campus and downtown Palo Alto that was not owned by the university. When Stanford died in 1893, his estate went into probate and the University’s future became uncertain for a brief period of time; however, it was released from probate in 1898 and Jane Stanford gave over $11 million to the university trustees to continue the legacy that Stanford had created. When Jane died in 1905, she left complete control over the University to the Board of Trustees. By the beginning of the 20th century Palo Alto neighborhoods that surrounded University Avenue, including the Project Area began to develop (Figure 2). Waverley Street, which crosses University Avenue near the center of downtown Palo Alto, was soon developed. The area developed primarily as houses that served as rentals, as well as larger homes and buildings that served as boarding rooms in support of the university (Personal Communication with Steve Staiger). During this time, Palo Alto became known for its interesting group of names of streets and the "author" group was considered the most interesting (Jones 1932). Waverley Street is believed to be named for the Sir Walter Scott (1771– 1832) novel Waverley, originally published anonymously in 1814 (Jones 1932). By 1904 the neighborhood that surrounds the Project Area had increasingly developed and the Vernacular Bungalow located rear of the Project Area had been constructed (Figure 3). After the 1906 earthquake struck San Francisco, the town of Palo Alto was soon preparing for the prospect of attracting skittish San Franciscans to new homes south of the shaky city. So Palo Alto's Board of Trustees printed out 200 posters bearing the legend "Why not live in Palo Alto?" These were posted on the crumbling walls of San Francisco's ravaged buildings and in response, neighborhoods within the area of Hamilton and University between Middlefield were soon developed. Then the City of Palo Alto waited then for new citizens to arrive. Some came, but the number of new residents the City anticipated never arrived. According to Steve Staiger, during this time the development of Palo Alto was for the most part in the hands of Professors who were also leaders in the community (personal communication with Steve Staiger). By 1908, the house at 646 Waverley Street had been constructed (Figure 4). Figure 2: 1895 Sanborn map (left) and 1901 Sanborn map (right) show the development near the Project Area. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 11 Figure 3: 1904 Sanborn map showing the ca. 1904 house at 640 Waverly Street (Rear bungalow). Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 12 Figure 4: 1908 Sanborn map showing both the front and rear houses within the Project Area. At the beginning of the 20th century plans to build the Palo Alto Trolley, nicknamed the Tooneville trolley by local residents, were in full swing, and in 1906, within financing by the Southern Pacific Railroad, the trolley line opened. The trolley line ran southwest along University Avenue and then southeast on Waverley Street past the Project Area before reaching Oregon Street and onto the Stanford University campus. The trolley was in operation from 1906 to 1925; and by the end of the 1920s, due to costs and the introduction of the automobile, the rail lines were pulled up (Figure 5). Figure 5: Trolley cars on Waverley Street, ca. 1920 (Courtesy of Past Heritage). Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 13 Figure 6: ca. 1920 Palo Alto Map showing the trolley line along Waverley Street. In the 1920s, Palo Alto was enlarged and included numerous additions that were often laid out with different orientations, creating a patchwork pattern that is most prevalent on each side of the railroad tracks. These sometimes-awkward grids dictated the framework for most development in the City during this time. The presence of 25-foot wide lots in the original ‘University Park’ grid provided for dense urban development, not only in the commercial downtown, but also in the adjoining residential areas such as the neighborhood where the Project Area is located (Corbet et al. 2001). In the 1930s, housing prices in Palo Alto were very low, as the country was racked by the Great Depression, and Palo Alto was still a very small town with only 14,000 residents. By the end of 1939, it had grown to only 16,774. Early Palo Alto was not the center of wealth as it is today. In fact, Palo Alto was still very much reflected the farming life of the past with its pastoral lands and orchards, which characterized much of Santa Clara County. Although, the community may have been strapped for cash, money appeared not to have been a problem for the University. In 1930, despite the Great Depression, the University established a golf course, then the women's gym in 1931, the Frost Amphitheater in 1937, and Memorial Hall that was built mainly with student contributions as a memorial to Stanford students and faculty who died in World War I. During 1940s, World War II was in full-swing and the war brought local hysteria to the City of Palo Alto and soon anti-Japanese sentiment followed. It was not until the end of World War II that the housing boom of the twentieth century hit Palo Alto (Page and Turnbull 2014). Post-World War II Palo Alto Following World War II, Palo Alto went through its greatest expansion of the 20th century (S. Staiger, personal communication, September 29, 2016). The City expanded its boundary south towards the City Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 14 of Mountain View, which resulted in nearly a doubling of the land area of the City. This was a significant turning point in the growth of Palo Alto, as it allowed for the development of industries such as the Palo Alto Medical Clinic (1930-2005). The clinic was founded by Dr. Russel Van Arsdale Lee and played a very important role in the development of the Palo Alto community. Located at 300 Homer Avenue, the clinic is less than two blocks southeast of the Project Area. The clinic, as well as the University, became two of the main employers in the City of Palo Alto at this time. The 1930s also saw changes along Waverley Street that include the demolition of several large homes along Hamilton Avenue, Waverley Street and Gilman Street to build a downtown post office. The post office was constructed in 1932 in the Spanish Revival architectural style. This building, as well as an increase in the construction of multilevel apartment buildings, changed the overall look and feel of Waverley Street, and the surrounding neighborhood changed from a working-class neighborhood that was mainly small houses to a dense, urban environment with churches, a post office, small businesses, and several multi-unit/mulit-level apartment buildings (Figure 7). Figure 7: 1949 Sanborn map showing significant changes to Waverley Street. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 15 By the mid-1940s returning soldiers and newcomers were increased the attendance of Stanford University, bringing undergraduate enrollment from a bit more than 3,700 in 1945 to 8,200 in 1947. Although facilities were jammed, construction on campus was limited by continuing material shortages. But in 1945, the University established its first Planning Office to study space, soon figuring out that it could eke out more space in classrooms, labs and dorms, just in time to meet the post-war demand from discharged veterans (City of Palo Alto 1998). As a result, many of the neighborhoods built after World War II were shaped by Modernist design ideas popularized by the builder Joseph Eichler. The houses were intentionally designed with austere facades and were oriented towards private backyards and interior courtyards, where expansive glass walls brought the outside into the interior (City of Palo 2007). Development continued in Palo Alto through the 1950s with the construction of what is now known as the Stanford Shopping Center. Then in 1966, the community witnessed one of the greatest impacts to its downtown with the construction of the Palo Alto Office Center. Located at 525 University Avenue, the building is a 15-story high rise that is located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the Project Area. During this time the neighborhood that surrounds Waverley Street continued to change as construction of apartment complexes were again on the rise, but the City was also participating in environmental conservation as well. In the 1970s, the City annexed undeveloped land, much of which was retained as open space, including a 1,940-acre marshland habitat along the San Francisco Bay, now known as the Baylands Nature Preserve (City of Palo Alto 1998). PROJECT AREA'S PAST OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS This section was included as part of the PAST HRE and the accuracy of the information it contains was confirmed by EDS using information obtained at the Santa Clara County Assessor on September 26, 2016 and in Polk’s Palo Alto City Directories (1914 – 1965). The development of this table lends to the understanding of the neighborhood and the use of the property between 1914 and 1965 by identifying past owners, the years of occupancy and the occupations of those living in the houses. Table 3: Past owners and occupants of the Project Area. Year 640 Waverley Street (Front bungalow) 646 Waverley Street (Rear bungalow) 1914-1917 Mrs. Moses Stinchfield (housekeeper) Vacant 1918-1919 Henry Lanz (teacher) Irvin Falk (salesman) 1920-1923 E. Johnson (millman) H.E. Jensen (carpenter) 1923 A.J. Clyde (retired) Gus Johnson (painter) 1924 Harvey E. Dorr (laborer) Gus Johnson (painter) 1925-1928 F. Mortensen (millman) C.A. Lewis (painter) 1928-1934 Mrs. Katherine Carpenter (creamery worker) Fred R. Ingram (civil engineer) 1934 Clyde Beckelhymer (laboratory worker) Vacant 1935-1937 Katherine Carpenter (creamery worker) James Bannister (cabinetmaker) Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 16 Year 640 Waverley Street (Front bungalow) 646 Waverley Street (Rear bungalow) 1938-1944 Katherine Carpenter (creamery worker) Mrs. A.O. Stidston (widow) 1945-1949 H.W. Harala (carpenter) Arnie Enbom (painter) 1950-1953 Three businesses: Hazel Clark, dressmaker Frances Silva, silverware Lamplighters Lamps Mary F. Armstrong (researcher) 1953 Family Service Association Family Service Association 1956-1965 Douglas Rucker, Rucker’s Uniform Shop Jesse Johnson (electrician) Evan Scharf (sales manager) CURRENT CONDITION SURVEY The Project Area was previously surveyed and evaluated by PAST and documented in a report dated September 4, 2015. The document was peer reviewed by Dudek on July 14, 2016 with comments and recommendations for additional survey and evaluation details that are necessary to complete the HRE. To provide the missing details and to assess the current condition of the two houses, EDS Principal Architectural Historian, Stacey De Shazo M.A., conducted a site visit on September 26, 2016. Both of the houses and the setting were photographed and documented to address comments and recommendations by Dudek. To ensure a complete and accurate understanding of these details, EDS has provided the following sections. FRONT BUNGALOW CA. 1908 The front bungalow, located at 640 Waverley Street, was constructed in ca. 1908 and is a simple, wood- framed building that is designed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. The front bungalow includes a low-pitched hipped roof with a central, hipped-dormer, overhanging eaves with an exposed, decorative rafter system, and a partial-width front porch supported by a single, short square column located above a solid railing. There is a decorative low water table trim that runs the perimeter of the house that adds a decorative visual element to the design. The roof is clad in asphalt shingles that are in fair condition. Overall, the plan of the house appears to be original; however, there has been an addition to the rear of the house. There is no evidence that the porch was enclosed after it was constructed, as indicated in the PAST HRE, because it appears enclosed on the 1908 Sanborn map (shown previously in Figure 4). The former residence is currently being utilized as office space. Northeast Elevation (Primary Façade) The northeast elevation consists of an asymmetrical design that includes a partial-width porch, two front doors and a large fixed picture window (Figure 8). The walls are clad in horizontal, wood shiplap and are in good condition. The open section of the porch is supported by a single, short column that rests on a low, solid wood porch railing that wraps around two sides of the front porch (Figure 9). The stairs and the low wall are constructed of wood and appear original to the construction of the house; however, the half wall stair railing that leads to the porch does appear to be original (Figure 10). There are two front doors to the house; however, it appears that the main front entrance was the one that faces the street Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 17 view (Figure 11 and Figure 12). The second door is located along the northeast facing elevation of the enclosed porch. However, due to the materials and style of the door and casing it appears that this secondary entrance may have been added between the 1920s and 1940s, and is not a recent addition. The large fixed picture window on the primary facade does not appear to be original to the construction; however, there are no permits available or design plans to confirm this change. There is a hipped dormer that consists of two decorative, fixed horizontal windows that appear to be original to the house and are character-defining elements to the Bungalow architectural style. Figure 8: Northeast elevation, primary façade, facing southwest. Figure 9: Solid, low porch railing. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 18 Figure 10: Stair railing and half-wall. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 19 Figure 11: Original front door entrance. Figure 12: Secondary front door. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 20 Northwest Elevation The northwest elevation was not accessible due to construction occurring adjacent to the northwest façade; however, the exposed overhanging eaves and decorative rafter system were visible along this elevation and the wood cladding appears to be in good condition (Figure 13). There are several windows located along this facade that, due to the construction, were boarded-up for safety and protection. Figure 13: Northwest elevation, facing southwest. Southwest Elevation The southwest elevation is the rear of the house and includes a small hipped-roof addition that was added sometime between 1924 and 1949 (See previous Figure 7). There is a large window that has been boarded-up, likely for safety reasons, due to the adjacent construction (Figure 14). The original design of the house was carried along this addition with elements that includes a similar water table, wood cladding, exposed overhanging eaves and decorative rafter system. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 21 Figure 14: Southwest elevation showing the rear addition. Southeast Elevation The southeast elevation consists of one large, fixed picture window, paired single-hung wood windows that are set within a square bay window with a shed roof and exposed rafters, and two small single-hung one-over-one wood windows with decorative lugs (Figure 15). The date the large, fixed picture window was changed is not clear, but it is not original to the construction of the house (Figure 16). Along this elevation, the original rear entry is visible, as well as the rear addition that includes a secondary rear entry with a shed porch that covers a portion of the rear porch entry. There is also access to a root cellar that consists of a shed style construction and a large wood door to allow access to the storage area located underneath the house (Figure 17). Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 22 Figure 15: Southeast elevation showing the original wood windows. Figure 16: Southeast elevation showing the large, fixed window. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 23 Figure 17: Addition along the southeast elevation and the root cellar. Alterations Alterations to the ca. 1908 front house include historic and modern changes; however, it appears that the majority of the alterations are historic (over 50 years). The historic alterations include a secondary front door and alterations to the primary elevation window, and alterations to the front porch stair railing. There is an addition to the rear of the house; however, based on site visit and research it appears this addition is historic. REAR BUNGALOW CA. 1904 The rear bungalow located at 646 Waverley Street is a wood-framed house that is constructed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. The house features a design that is similar to 640 Waverley Street and consists of a hipped roof with a central hipped-roof dormer, overhanging eaves with exposed rafters, a partial width porch, and one-over-one and double-hung sash windows. The roof is asphalt shingle and is in fair condition. The building is currently serving as office space. Northeast Elevation (Primary Façade) The northeast elevation, although positioned at the rear of the parcel, is visible from the street view (Figure 18). The walls are clad in horizontal, wood shiplap and are in good condition. Along the primary façade there are paired, one-over-one single hung wood windows (Figure 19) and one single-hung, one- over-one wood window that are in good condition. The main front entry door is located along the northeast elevation and is designed with a solid panel along the lower lever and glass within the upper panel (Figure 20). The door appears to be original to the house and is in good condition. There is also a screen door constructed of wood that includes three solid panels along the lower portion of the door and framed mesh along the upper portion of the door. There is a partial width porch that is supported by a one chamfered, square column that rests on a low, solid wood porch railing that wraps around two sides of the front porch (Figure 21). The support column consists of a decorative cushion capital that is Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 24 very unique (Figure 22). The ceiling porch is clad in wood and framed in decorative trim. The stairs and the low wall are constructed of wood and appear to be original to the construction of the house; however, the iron stair handrail is not original. Figure 18: Northeast elevation of the rear bungalow as viewed from Waverley Street. Figure 19: Northeast elevation, paired windows with original wavy glass. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 25 Figure 20: Northeast elevation, front door and one-over-one single-hung wood window. Figure 21: Metal porch handrail. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 26 Figure 22: Decorative cushion capital. Northwest Elevation The northwest elevation consists of a side entry door and two windows (Figure 23). The door is situated within a recessed entry and consists of three panels along the lower portion and glass within the upper portion. The door appears to be original to the house and is in good condition. There is an aluminum and wire mesh screen door that opens to a raised porch/deck that includes modern railing. The two windows consist of one single-hung, one-over-one wood window and a small vinyl slider window that is inset into an original window opening. Figure 23: Northwest elevation, facing southeast. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 27 Southwest The southwest elevation was not accessible due to the small narrow space, but was viewed from the northwest elevation as well as from the adjacent public parking lot on Gilman Street that is situated along the southwest elevation (Figure 24 and Figure 25). The parking lot is utilized for the downtown Palo Alto Farmer's Market. The southwest elevation consists of two one-over-one, single-hung wood windows that are in good condition. There is an exhaust vent that is located along the exterior of this elevation that likely vent from the kitchen. The exhaust is secured to the exterior southwest elevation and through a cut out through the overhanging eaves. There is a tree that is situated on the adjacent parcel that is located fairly close to the house with branches that appear to touch the roof. Figure 24: Southwest elevation, facing southeast. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 28 Figure 25: The parking lot on Gilman Street along the southwest elevation of the bungalow, facing southwest. Southeast Elevation The southeast elevation was not accessible; however, it was viewed from the northeast corner of the house (Figure 26). This elevation consists of two original windows. The window closest to the front porch appears to be a one-over-one, single-hung wood window. The window that is situated closest to the south corner of the building is a vertical window that appears to be similar in style and size to the window that is situated along the front porch. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 29 Figure 26: Southeast elevation, facing southwest. Alterations Alterations to the building are minimal and limited to the northwest elevation where there is a vinyl replacement window and new porch railing. ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPE The landscape of the parcel that contains the two houses is almost entirely covered with concrete, which serves as parking for the business offices that are located within the two houses. There is a small group of plants along sections of the primary elevation of both houses that consist of small trees and shrubs. There is a plastic fence along the southeast boundary of the parcel and a wood fence situated along the southwest boundary; there is no fencing along the northwest or northeast parcel boundaries. EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE The ca. 1904 and ca. 1908 Vernacular Bungalow houses were each evaluated for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. The two buildings were also reviewed as to whether either house meets any of the criteria for designation on the City of Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory. The buildings were evaluated within the historic context of Waverley Street and the surrounding neighborhood. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 30 CRITERIA National Register of Historic Places The NRHP is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources. To be considered eligible, a property must meet the NRHP Criteria for significance. This involves examining the property’s age, integrity, and significance. California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through several 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 CRHR follows nearly identical guidelines to those used for the National Register. One difference is that the CRHR identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically instead of alphabetically. Another difference, according to the OHP is that “It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.2 NRHP/CRHR EVALUATION The following section examines the eligibility of the two houses for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR. Although the CRHR “was consciously designed on the model of the National Register, the two programs are extremely similar”,3 EDS took into consideration the differences as noted in the above section between the programs for this evaluation. After a thorough analysis it was determined that two houses do not meet the criteria of significance for listing on the NRHP or the CRHP for the following reasons. A/1. (Event) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The ca. 1904 and ca. 1908 houses do not appear to be individually significant in association with historical events important to the nation or California. The two houses appear to have been constructed in support of the university, but were part of general growth that had been taking place throughout the City of Palo Alto for many years and are not specifically related to an event such as the development of the university, which took place approximately 20 years prior to the construction of the two houses. In addition, these houses appear to have been constructed as rental houses, which was a common practice in urban areas, particularly in cities that support universities. 2 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6 California Register and National Register:A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register) 3 Ibid. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 31 Therefore, the buildings do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A or the CRHR under Criterion 1. B/2. (Person) That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past. Based on extensive local and regional research regarding property there was no evidence that that property was associated with and important person significant to national or California history; therefore not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion B/2. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B or CRHR under Criterion 2. C/3. (Construction/Architectural) 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 and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The Mission Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style has its roots in the early bungalow architecture in California that consisted of modest designs that were inexpensive and also low-profile, simple buildings. This made it the perfect house for working-class neighborhoods either as rental houses or as inexpensive options for new home-ownership. The ca. 1904 house and the ca. 1908 house each represent this early Vernacular Bungalow style; however, they do not meet the integrity requirement (discussed below) to qualify for the NRHP/CRHR. In addition, neither house represents the work of a master either in design or construction, nor do both of these simple vernacular houses posses’ high artistic values, nor do they represent a significant or distinguishable entity that would make them eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. In addition, the City of Palo Alto has a history of prominent architects and builders, of which some are known internationally such as Bernard Maybeck, Julia Morgan, William Wurster, and Joseph Eichler. As such, the ca. 1904 and the ca. 1908 Vernacular Bungalow style houses were not determined to be designed by a master architect and were likely constructed by a local contractor/craftsman. Therefore, neither house appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C or CRHR under Criterion 3. D/4. (Information) That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. The Project Area was not evaluated for archaeology, so the property cannot be determined if it will yield, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Historic Integrity To qualify for listing in the NRHP of the CRHR, a property must possess significance under one of the criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity is similar for both the NRHP and the CRHR. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity are applied to both a NRHP and CRHR evaluation, including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. 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. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 32  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 following section was provided as an update to the PAST HRE letter report and to address in particular Criterion C/3 as noted in the previous section. • Location. Both houses retain integrity of location because each building remains at the original location where they were constructed. The buildings have integrity of location. • Design. The ca. 1904 building retains sufficient integrity of design as a Vernacular Bungalow style house due to its character-defining features that remain intact; however, the ca. 1908 Vernacular Bungalow house has less design integrity due to primary façade changes to the window and changes in the main entry door to accommodate the conversion of the house to office space. • Setting. Waverley Street and the surrounding blocks have changed substantially from the original residential setting that is depicted in the 1908 Sanborn map. The majority of the early changes appear to have occurred in the 1930s and 1940s when buildings were demolished to make way for apartment buildings and the U.S. Post Office. Today, there are only three original houses left from the early 1900s development on the Waverly block that had once consisted of 16 parcels and 17 single family homes. The block now consists of several apartment buildings, business, the U.S. Post Office, and a parking lot that encompasses approximately two of the original parcels. The Waverley block is currently mixed-use and the physical environment has completely changed. Due to these changes, the buildings do not retain integrity of setting. • Materials. The ca. 1904 house retains integrity of materials, as very little has changed on the exterior of the house. There is a porch addition and a change in one window, but these changes are not significant. The ca. 1908 house consists of the removal of historic windows, changes to the stair railing, and the removal of wood cladding along the primary elevation to create a secondary door opening that was likely added when the house was converted to an office. The ca. 1904 building retains integrity of materials, and although some material have been removed from the ca. 1908 building it appears the ca. 1908 building retains deminished integrity of materials. • Workmanship. The ca. 1904 house retains integrity of workmanship. The workmanship of the ca. 1904 rear bungalow house does appear to furnish evidence of the technology of the craft and does illustrate the aesthetic principles of a local historic period in the City of Palo Alto. However, the ca. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 33 1908 house does not convey the original workmanship of the Vernacular Bungalow style due to alterations to the primary façade. So while the ca. 1904 house retains integrity of workmanship, the ca. 1908 house does not. • Feeling. Feeling is the quality that a historic property has in evoking the aesthetic or historic sense of a past period. The changes to the neighborhood are one of the conditions that evokes that sense of feeling that is now missing and makes the two small bungalows appear out of place and disconnected from a neighborhood that is now primarily apartments and business. Therefore, both houses do not retain integrity of feeling. In addition, the concrete setting and the rear parking lot that can be viewed from both houses also takes away from the feeling of a past time. • Association. The ca. 1904 and ca. 1908 houses do not have a direct link with significant events or persons; therefore, the houses do not have integrity of association The ca. 1904 retains integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship; however, the ca. 1908 house retains integrity of location and partial design integrity, although it has been diminished due to alterations. Since these two house are located within a single property and are closely related, it very important to understand the connection that these two houses form together. It could be argued that the changes to the front bungalow diminish the integrity of the rear bungalow and that the changes to the feeling, setting, and association are significant to also further contribute to the loss of integrity. CITY OF PALO ALTO EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE EDS also evaluated the ca. 1904 house and the ca. 1908 house for eligibility to be listed on the City of Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory. According to Chapter 16.49: Historic Preservation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC Chapter 16.49), buildings are evaluated for potential historic significance according to the following criteria, with an evaluation of the subject building listed below each criterion: 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; Although the houses appear to have been built because of a growing need to support the university, they are not associated with the lives of historic people or important events in the City of Palo Alto. 2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; The Vernacular Bungalow style does represent a local residential construction type in the City of Palo Alto and the ca. 1904 house appears to be representative of this style; however, it is not an excellent representation of the similar California Bungalow style, which was prevalent in California during this time. The ca. 1908 front Bungalow house has been modified with changes that include the removal of historic windows along the primary façade, changes to the window design, and the addition of a secondary front door, which have contributed to the loss of integrity and detract from its original Bungalow style. Therefore, the ca. 1908 building is not representative of the Vernacular Bungalow style in the City of Palo Alto. 3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 34 Neither the ca. 1904 nor the ca. 1908 houses were constructed in many locations within the neighborhood that was once known as University Park; however, there are some examples within the City of Palo that do remain and are reminiscent of this Vernacular Bungalow style. However, less modified examples remain throughout neighborhoods. This style occasionally appears within the residential district north of Lytton Avenue. 4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; Throughout the history of the property, the two houses were utilized as private residences, retail, and office space and although the professional associated with the residents or business owners that rented these homes are important, there is no connection with a business that is now rare. 5. The architect or building was important. The architect of the two buildings is not known. 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. Although there are unique character-defining elements present on each of the houses, neither building is designed with elements that demonstrate outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. The plan and detail of the houses are simple and do not consists of a particular level of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In conclusion, the Historic Resource Evaluation of the two buildings located within the Project Area following the NRHP and CRHR criteria for significance has determined that neither of the two houses are eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. Although, the ca. 1904 house does consist of elements that are representative of the Vernacular Bungalow style, the ca. 1908 house does not possess enough integrity to quality. In addition, these two houses are located within a single property and are closely related and it could be argued that the changes to the front bungalow has in part diminished the integrity of the rear bungalow and that the changes to the feeling, setting, and association are significant to also further contribute to the loss of integrity. Based on this evaluation it does not appear that either the ca. 1904 house or the ca. 1908 house retain enough of the elements of integrity in total to establish significance for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR. The two buildings also do not appear to meet the PAMC Chapter 16.49 to qualify for local listing. In addition, neither of two buildings are within an established or eligible historic district. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project that includes the demolition of the ca. 1904 and ca. 1908 buildings and new construction within the Project Area will not adversely impact Historical Resources as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further recommendations are warranted. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 35 REFERENCES CITED California State Office of Historic Preservation 2011 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6 California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). City of Palo Alto 1998 Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, Chapter 1. City of Palo Alto, 1998, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, land use and Community Design Element, pages L-3 – L-4 2008 Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory. Electronic document, www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504. Accessed 9-25-2016. 2007 Palo Alto Comprehencive Plan, Land Use and Community Design. Electronic document, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170. Assessed 9-26-2016. 2016 Historic Preservation webpage. Electronic document, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp. Accessed 9-26-2016. Corbet, Michael and Denise Bradeley 2001 Historical Overview of Palo Alto’s Built Environment, in The Final Survey Report: Palo Alto Historical Survey Update (February 2001) by Dames & Moore. Pages 1-1 through 1-11. Derry, Anne, and H. Ward Jandl, Carol D. Shull and Jan Thorman 1977 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. National Register Bulletin #24. U.S. Department of hte Interior, National Park Service. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb24/. Jones, Joseph 1932 Street-Names of Palo Alto, California. American Speech, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 273-277. Published by Duke University Press. McAlester, Virginia and Lee 2009 Field Guild to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf. Page and Turnbull 2014 2555 Park Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation. Palo Alto, CA. Palo Alto Historical Association 2010 Photograph Collection. Electronic resource, http://archives.pahistory.org/. Accessed 09-21- 2016. Palo Alto Stanford Heritage 2015 Master Index to House. Electronic document, http://www.pastheritage.org/HousePixLists/PixListW.html. Accessed 09- 27-2016. Winslow, Ward 1993 Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto Historical Association. Evans & De Shazo, LLC Page 36 Appendix A: DPR Forms Page 1 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 640 Waverley Street P1. Other Identifier: ____ DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Palo Alto Date 1981 T 6S ; R 3W ;  of  of Sec 4 ; B.M. c. Address 640 Waverley Street City Palo Alto Zip 94301 d. UTM: Zone 10 , 574433 mE/ 4144638 mN e. Other Locational Data: The house is situated along the front portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 120-160-023 within a 5,275-square foot parcel along the southwest side of Waverley Street. Waverley Street is bounded on the southeast by Forest Avenue and on the northwest by Hamilton Avenue. *P3a. Description: The house located at 640 Waverley Street was constructed in ca. 1908 and is a simple, wood-framed building that is designed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. The front bungalow includes a low-pitched hipped roof with a central, hipped-dormer, overhanging eaves with an exposed, decorative rafter system, and a partial-width front porch supported by a single, short square column located above a solid railing. There is a decorative low water table trim that runs the perimeter of the house that adds a decorative visual element to the design. The roof is clad in asphalt shingles that are in fair condition. Overall, the plan of the house appears to be original; however, there has been an addition to the rear of the house. The former residence is currently being utilized as office space. (See on Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 *P4. Resources Present: Building  Structure  Object  Site District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:  Historic  Prehistoric  Both ca. 1908 *P7. Owner and Address: James Lin *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Evans & De Shazo, LLC 6876 Sebastopol Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472 *P9. Date Recorded: September 26, 2016 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") De Shazo, Stacey; Historic Resource Evaluation for 640 and 646 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California ____ *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____640 Waverley Street Page __2___ of __10___ Northeast Elevation (Primary Façade) The northeast elevation consists of an asymmetrical design that includes a partial-width porch, two front doors and a large fixed picture window. The walls are clad in horizontal, wood shiplap and are in good condition. The open section of the porch is supported by a single, short column that rests on a low, solid wood porch railing that wraps around two sides of the front porch. The stairs and the low wall are constructed of wood and appear original to the construction of the house; however, the half wall stair railing that leads to the porch does appear to be original. There are two front doors to the house; however, it appears that the main front entrance was the one that faces the street view. The second door is located along the northeast facing elevation of the enclosed porch. However, due to the materials and style of the door and casing it appears that this secondary entrance may have been added between the 1920s and 1940s, and is not a recent addition. The large fixed picture window on the primary facade does not appear to be original to the construction; however, there are no permits available or design plans to confirm this change. There is a hipped dormer that consists of two decorative, fixed horizontal windows that appear to be original to the house and are character-defining elements to the Bungalow architectural style. Northwest Elevation The northwest elevation was not accessible due to construction occurring adjacent to the northwest façade; however, the exposed overhanging eaves and decorative rafter system were visible along this elevation and the wood cladding appears to be in good condition. There are several windows located along this facade that, due to the construction, were boarded-up for safety and protection. Southwest Elevation The southwest elevation is the rear of the house and includes a small hipped-roof addition that was added sometime between 1924 and 1949. There is a large window that has been boarded-up, likely for safety reasons, due to the adjacent construction. The original design of the house was carried along this addition with elements that includes a similar water table, wood cladding, exposed overhanging eaves and decorative rafter system. Southeast Elevation The southeast elevation consists of one large, fixed picture window, paired single-hung wood windows that are set within a square bay window with a shed roof and exposed rafters, and two small single-hung one-over-one wood windows with decorative lugs. The date the large, fixed picture window was changed is not clear, but it is not original to the construction of the house. Along this elevation, the original rear entry is visible, as well as the rear addition that includes a secondary rear entry with a shed porch that covers a portion of the rear porch entry. There is also access to a root cellar that consists of a age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____640 Waverley Street Page __3___ of __10___ shed style construction and a large wood door to allow access to the storage area located underneath the house. Alterations Alterations to the ca. 1908 house include historic and modern changes; however, it appears that the majority of the alterations are historic (over 50 years). The historic alterations include a secondary front door and alterations to the primary elevation window, and alterations to the front porch stair railing. There is an addition to the rear of the house; however, based on site visit and research it appears this addition is historic. age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____640 Waverley Street Page __4___ of __10___ age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____640 Waverley Street Page __5___ of __10___ age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____640 Waverley Street Page __6___ of __10___ age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____640 Waverley Street Page __7___ of __10___ age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____640 Waverley Street Page __8___ of __10___ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 640 Waverly Street *NRHP Status Code 6Z Page 9 of 10 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) B1. Historic Name: Unknown B2. Common Name: 640 Waverly Street B3. Original Use: House B4. Present Use: Office *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular Bungalow *B6. Construction History: Construction date: According to Sanborn fire insurance maps (dated 1904 and 1908), the house was constructed in ca. 1908. Alterations: The ca. 1908 house appears to have undergone the majority of alterations prior to 1967. The historic alterations include a secondary front door and alterations to the primary elevation window, and alterations to the front porch stair railing. The dates of these changed are not known, but likely occurred prior to 1967. There is also a rear addition to the house that was added prior to 1947 (Sanborn 1947). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *B10. Significance: Theme Early Residential Development Area Palo Alto Period of Significance 1900-1940 Property Type single dwelling/house Applicable Criteria N/A The ca. 1908 house does not possess enough integrity to quality as eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR due to significant alterations to the house and changes to the neighborhood. These alterations include the removal of historic windows, changes to the stair railing, and the removal of wood cladding along the primary elevation to create a secondary door opening that was likely added when the house was converted to an office. As such design and materials are diminished. In addition, the house does not consist of workmanship integrity of crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. There are significant changes to Waverley Street and the surrounding blocks from the original residential setting, feeling, or association to the current mixed-use neighborhood and the urban environment. In all, the house does not retain integrity of setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association and thus does not convey significance. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: HP2 *B12. References: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Palo Alto, 1904, 1908, and 1947. B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Stacey De Shazo, M.A. *Date of Evaluation: October 6, 2016 Page 10 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___640 Waverley Street *Map Name: Palo Alto *Scale: 1:15,000 *Date of map: _1981_______ DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) * Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 1 of 10 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 646 Waverley Street P1. Other Identifier: ____ DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Palo Alto Date 1981 T 6S ; R 3W ;  of  of Sec 4 ; B.M. c. Address 646 Waverley Street City Palo Alto Zip 94301 d. UTM: Zone 10 , 574433 mE/ 4144638 mN e. Other Locational Data: The house is situated along the rear portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 120-160-023 within a 5,275 square foot parcel along the southwest side of Waverley Street. Waverley Street is bounded on the southeast by Forest Avenue and on the northwest by Hamilton Avenue. *P3a. Description: The ca. 1904 house located at rear of 646 Waverley Street is a wood-framed house that is constructed in the Vernacular Bungalow architectural style. The house features a design that consists of a hipped roof with a central hipped-roof dormer, overhanging eaves with exposed rafters, a partial width porch, and one-over-one and double-hung sash windows. The roof is asphalt shingle and is in fair condition. The former residence is currently being utilized as office space. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure  Object  Site  District  Element of District  Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:  Historic  Prehistoric  Both ca. 1904 *P7. Owner and Address: James Lin *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Stacey De Shazo, M.A. Evans & De Shazo, LLC 6876 Sebastopol Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472 *P9. Date Recorded: September 26, 2016 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") De Shazo, Stacey; Historic Resource Evaluation for 640 and 646 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California ____ *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____646 Waverley Street Page __2___ of __10___ Northeast Elevation (Primary Façade) The northeast elevation, although positioned at the rear of the parcel, is visible from the street view. The walls are clad in horizontal, wood shiplap and are in good condition. Along the primary façade there are paired, one-over-one single hung, wood windows and one single-hung, one-over-one wood window that are in good condition. The main front entry door is located along the northeast elevation and is designed with a solid panel along the lower lever and glass within the upper panel. The door appears to be original to the house and is in good condition. There is also a screen door constructed of wood that includes three solid panels along the lower portion of the door and framed mesh along the upper portion of the door. There is a partial width porch that is supported by a one chamfered, square column that rests on a low, solid wood porch railing that wraps around two sides of the front porch. The support column consists of a decorative cushion capital that is very unique. The ceiling porch is clad in wood and framed in decorative trim. The stairs and the low wall are constructed of wood and appear to be original to the construction of the house; however, the iron stair handrail is not original. Northwest Elevation The northwest elevation consists of a side entry door and two windows (Figure 23). The door is situated within a recessed entry and consists of three panels along the lower portion and glass within the upper portion. The door appears to be original to the house and is in good condition. There is an aluminum and wire mesh screen door that opens to a raised porch/deck that includes modern railing. The two windows consist of one single-hung, one-over-one wood window and a small vinyl slider window that is inset into an original window opening. Southwest The southwest elevation was not accessible due to the small narrow space, but was viewed from the northwest elevation as well as from the adjacent public parking lot on Gilman Street that is situated along the southwest elevation (Figure 24 and Figure 25). The parking lot is utilized for the downtown Palo Alto Farmer's Market. The southwest elevation consists of two one-over-one, single-hung wood windows that are in good condition. There is an exhaust vent that is located along the exterior of this elevation that likely vent from the kitchen. The exhaust is secured to the exterior southwest elevation and through a cut out through the overhanging eaves. There is a tree that is situated on the adjacent parcel that is located fairly close to the house with branches that appear to touch the roof. Southeast Elevation The southeast elevation was not accessible; however, it was viewed from the northeast corner of the house (Figure 26). This elevation consists of two original windows. The window closest to the front porch appears to be a one-over-one, single-hung wood window. The window that is situated closest to the south corner of the building is a vertical window that appears to be similar in style and size to the window that is situated along the front porch. age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____646 Waverley Street Page __3___ of __10___ Alterations Alterations to the building are minimal and limited to the northwest elevation where there is a vinyl replacement window and new porch railing. Northeast elevation of the rear bungalow as viewed from Waverley Street. age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____646 Waverley Street Page __4___ of __10___ Northeast elevation, paired windows with original wavy glass. Northeast elevation, front door and one-over-one single-hung wood window. age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____646 Waverley Street Page __5___ of __10___ Metal porch handrail. Decorative cushion capital. age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____646 Waverley Street Page __6___ of __10___ Northwest elevation, facing southeast. age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____646 Waverley Street Page __7___ of __10___ Southwest elevation, facing southeast. The parking lot on Gilman Street along the southwest elevation of the bungalow, facing southwest. age of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) *Recorded by: *Date  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # Trinomial CONTINUATION SHEET Property Name: _____646 Waverley Street Page __8___ of __10___ Southeast elevation, facing southwest. *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 646 Waverly Street *NRHP Status Code 6Z Page 9 of 10 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) B1. Historic Name: Unknown B2. Common Name: 646 Waverly Street B3. Original Use: House B4. Present Use: Office *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular Bungalow *B6. Construction History: Construction date: According to Sanborn fire insurance maps (dated 1904 and 1908), the house was constructed in ca. 1904. Alterations: Changes to the house include a porch addition and replacement vinyl windows along the northwest elevation, which likely occurred in the past 20 years. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *B10. Significance: Theme Early Residential Development Area Palo Alto Period of Significance 1900-1940 Property Type single dwelling/house Applicable Criteria N/A The ca. 1904 house, which is situated along the rear section of the parcel, does not possess enough integrity to quality as eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR due to significant changes to the neighborhood and the diminished integrity of the front bungalow (see sketch for location). Since these two house are located within a single property and are closely related, it very important to understand the connection that these two houses form together. It could be argued that the changes to the front bungalow diminish the integrity of the rear bungalow and that the changes to the feeling, setting, and association are significant to also further contribute to the loss of integrity. In addition, there are significant changes to Waverley Street and the surrounding blocks from the original residential setting, feeling, or association to the current mixed-use neighborhood and the urban environment. In all, the house does not retain integrity of setting, feeling, or association and thus cannot convey significance. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: HP2 *B12. References: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Palo Alto, 1904, 1908, and 1947. B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Stacey De Shazo, M.A. *Date of Evaluation: October 6, 2016 Page 10 of 10 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ___646 Waverley Street *Map Name: Palo Alto *Scale: 1:15,000 *Date of map: _1981_______ DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) * Required information State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Attachment D Architectural Review Findings 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: 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, and 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 regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and 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. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8095) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/25/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Mills Act Discussion (continued from April 27, 2017) Title: Mills Act Discussion From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) resume its discussion of the Mills Act program in Palo Alto, including a discussion of the HRB subcommittee’s attached draft proposal. Background On April 27, 2017, staff presented a written report about the Mills Act to the HRB members and the HRB discussed the topic. An excerpt of the meeting minutes are attached to this report (Attachment A). The HRB formed a subcommittee during the HRB meeting of April 27, 2017 to discuss this topic and the item was continued to the May 25, 2017 HRB meeting. The subcommittee met and prepared a draft proposal (Attachment B). Subcommittee Materials Staff and the City Attorney have not yet reviewed the draft proposal. The Historic Preservation Planner, who joined the City of Palo Alto on May 16, 2017, will continue working with the HRB subcommittee following the HRB full discussion of the draft on May 25, 2017. 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: Excerpt HRB Meeting Minutes of April 27 Discussion of Mills Act (DOCX)  Attachment B: Mills Act Pilot Program 4-28-2017 (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Page 1 Study Session 3. HRB discussion of Mills Act Chair Bernstein: Alright, next on our – yeah? Ok, next on our agenda will be a study session and it’s regarding Historic Resources Board discussion of Mills Act. Shall staff have any introduction on this subject? Ms. French: Sure, I’ll just briefly cover the points that are in the staff report. I did do a background summary the last time that Council and the HRB had a joint session. That was in May of 2015 and we didn’t have one last year and I don’t know – there’s nothing on the schedule for this year, yet. At that meeting, there was some discussion about the Mills Act because it did appear as one of the incentives on our list of incentives for historic preservation. I captured here Council Member Dubois’s statement about that, as far as what he suggested for the HRB to do, so I quoted that in our background here. Then I did a little bit of research on looking at some other Cities. I looked at Oakland in particular, because that’s where our Historic Planner went for his next job and I thought, oh, that’s interesting, it’s very robust over there. They had a pilot program, they have a Historic Preservation Element in their Comprehensive Plan, it’s a very robust program. I had some – I put some links in here in the staff report for anybody on the Board or the public to go in and find out about that. I do want to state that – that’s in the report as well but Squire House is our only Mills Act contract at this point and they have requested to end that contract; the Mills Act contract. So, 10-years from now, basically, we will have no Mills Act contract properties in Palo Alto. Unless somebody else comes forward and seeks one of those contracts. Now is a good time to have that discussion because we’re listed as a City with Mills Act contract program and I think it would be nice to have one or two or more. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. I do see on packet page 17, where is says locate criteria for eligibility and there are three criteria. It has to be Category one, must be individually listed, and only a single-family home outside downtown CD – commercial downtown district. I’m curious if anyone knows how many Category One, non-CD zone, single family residents are there in Palo Alto? Did… Board Member Kohler: What page are you on? Chair Bernstein: Packet page 17. Board Member Kohler: Ok. Ms. French: So, I – can I just put a context around this page and this staff report? This is a staff report from former planner Dennis Backlund… Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok. Ms. French: … that was a proposed – looks like a staff proposed criteria. I don’t – I didn’t find any evidence that this was adopted or… Chair Bernstein: Oh ok, alright. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING EXCERPT MINUTES: April 27, 2017 Mills Act Discussion City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. French: …yeah, so this is – this was ruminations and I couldn’t even find the minutes that went with these to say what the HRB thought of these. Chair Bernstein: I do see it says proposed local policy, ok. Alright, good. Alright – but responding to Council Member DuBois comment about what are the some of the parameters? That might include, in our discussion today, that does it have to be a Category One single family residence? Can it be a duplex unit, for example? Does it need to be – can it be within the commercial – anyway, we have lots of flexibility that we can discuss today because today is a discussion. Alright, so I look forward to any – I’d like to also put on the record that Board Member Brandon Corey has – is – has joined us. Welcome. The – for Board Members, why don’t we just head down and see if we have any comments or suggestions on day one for our next discussion on Mills Act. Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: My memory – if my memory is correct, we did have a – the City did have a Mills Act on the Juana Briones House but that one had a very sad outcome and I think left a (inaudible) to proceeded with more properties. That has lasted us quite a while and yet, former Board Member Pat Di Cicco talked about the rules for her house down in, I think it’s Coronado. That it had been working very successfully but with two special provisions. That each year the people owning the properties had to report what they had done with what was their tax saving. That seems to me to be a very important part. Then I think the big question is, how do you lay out that plan so that property owners can see what steps they can take first and what needs to wait a while till it’s another year or whatever? Board Member Kohler: Oh, I’m sorry. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: Oh, Corey has his light on. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Brandon or Corey. Board Member Corey: Yeah, so I actually attended a recent workshop as well on the Mills Act. I had some – I got some pretty interesting data out of that. Shannon [Lochner] who runs the program for the State of California was there and she actually gave a presentation on it. A couple of things that were interesting. First I heard that there are 290 contracts in Santa Clara County, which is actually pretty extensive. I thought that was kind of – that was surprising. I think Oakland has 50 so that was – I guess that’s not even in Santa Clara County so I thought that was kind of interesting given our – give what we’ve kind of come too. Also, interesting, I had asked questions and talked to a handful of people in other Cities in the area who had actually adopted this. The overall – they kind of came to two conclusions. First of all, everyone was always nervous about the properties tax impact and while nobody had any conclusive data on any impacts of the schools that they could put together. Of course, there was nothing that kind of discounted any possible impact either but even Shannon had said that she had been doing it for a long time and they’d never had any report of any really bad side effect from a school for this. The interesting thing was that a lot of Cities – what they had talked about was Los Gatos, I remember in particular, had a plan where they tried to have a pilot program where they added say – they allowed up for up to five initially, as a way to kind of have City Council feel better about the impact. Then they could kind of let that grow over time depending on how it went. It seemed like they – I hadn’t – of course, this isn’t to say that there hasn’t been anybody but it generally sounded like that seems like a reasonable approach because if you had more of a pilot program or some limited number to start with. Then you could kind of gauge the interest as well but then you would be able to mitigate this by having a cap so I thought that was pretty interesting. Then there’s – then overall in California, there are many places that have it. I think San Diego has over 1,000 of them they said so it’s all very City dependent. There’s a lot of flexibility as far as the local designation and what you can do there. The other thing that was -- Board Member Bunnenberg had mentioned this, as far as having to keep track of what was on the property. That was or what you’d spent money on the property, I think that was important. Another thing that was added in the last couple years, I think it was 2015, but I guess it was revised; maybe it was City of Palo Alto Page 3 2014. Where the City has the requirement, although there’s some flexibility in what that means, to actually inspect the property to verify that those improvements have been made so that’s something that we would have to consider as well as far as what the impact would be. They said something – I think LA was one of the strictest where they actually went underneath the house and inspected down to the detail of the foundation and everything. Then there are other Cities that do drive-by inspections so it’s just – again, it’s up to the local authority but that is part of the plan now. I think that was the gist of it but it was a lot of good information. Chair Bernstein: Well, thanks for that report. I mean, that suggests that there is just a lot of flexibility. Each City can decide what is appropriate and acceptable. Board Member Corey: Yeah, I think overall the message was a lot – all – there are many, many Cities that do it. (Inaudible) there are 90 separate programs in California; I forgot to mention that. So, different cities and they all – they have – there’s just a lot of local flexibility on what they want to implement that’s right for them. Chair Bernstein: Ok, good. Ok. Alright, other Board Members? Yeah? Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, sure. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: I mean, I think – it seems to me like the City needs to review what the Mills Act offers and how – we need to define it for ourselves. Also, I think there’s a bit of a Staff impact if we have a lot of contracts out because it’s the City – the City Staff that would have to monitor it or be involved in it so I guess that’s one of the number one questions. I know that the Staff is pretty overworked, rumor has it. Is that even something that the – that we can take on and maybe that’s primarily why we don’t encourage people to have Mills Act contracts because maybe Staff isn’t prepared or doesn’t have the ability to have – to monitor those. I don’t know. That’s not something that I can answer but it would be interesting to know why our one and only contract – why they are interested in breaking their contract. I thought it was because they are required to have the house open once a year. I remember this recent year when it was open and I think Karen had announced at the meeting that morning that – you guys, the Squire House is open and so you need to email them and request to be put on the list. Of course, right after the meeting I instantly emailed and they said sorry it’s full. I just went anyway. I just thought I’m going to show up and see if I can go because I was really interested in seeing the house. No one was really monitoring a list at the door. So, I – maybe it would be good to know why – I guess the advantages and disadvantages for these people to have these contracts -- maybe that’s the primary disadvantages of having to have to have your house open once a year and also the bookkeeping aspect of it. It might be hard – I mean for some people maybe that outweighs the benefits but I think that the City has to embrace this program and define it for themselves. Then offer it to people because I don’t think that people are coming to us saying hey, I have a historical house. I want to participate in the Mills Act. They just don’t – people don’t know about it. I think the City has to offer this as a program if the City wants this to truly be an incentive. I’ve actually – I have a -- I think a Category two project that I worked on. Gosh, it’s been like 12-years ago and I actually contacted them and said, do you know about this program? Would you be interested in participating? They’d never heard of it and I don’t know if they would participate. I mean it would almost be interesting – I think our first step is to see – to define the Mills Act for the City of Palo Alto and define what Palo Alto wants to offer within the realm of the Mills Act. Then find one or two people who –homeowners who would like to participate in it and sort of witness – walk them through it and witness what are the experiences like so we can all – it feels like we all need to participate in it. To that degree where we sign up two or three houses or whoever is interested in it and go through the application process and go through the first year with them and support them and see what their feedback is and have them – like a pilot program I guess. Have – give – have them say, yeah this is great. I’m saving 50% of my property taxes or I can go on vacation now or is it like wow, this is a lot harder. All this paperwork, we don’t really have the ability to fill out these forms. I City of Palo Alto Page 4 mean, it would just be interesting to go – to experience that with someone or a group of people so that we have a better understanding of it altogether. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Well, I think the evidence is rather clear that it is a popular program across the State and sadly to say that we’re just behind the eight ball as far as promoting this type of incentive. I think it’s really – does not reflect well upon the City of Palo Alto when we hear much smaller Cities and less economical endowed Cities like Santa Ana, having over 300 type contracts and what do we have? One that may be – I think the program is a popular program. Just – well, the City needs to get behind it and start promoting it as a preservation tool. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: I think that it’s important for the members of the public to see that it is – I believe the top cap amount it $10,000 on a Mills Act. Certainly, there are many properties, for instance in the Professorville and even throughout the City, that need the seismic strengthening, need the – perhaps basement reinforced, may need complete re-wiring and all those things are quite expensive these days. Those might be samples of the kinds of things that people would be asking for. I feel like it is a positive program and that – one that is well worth making at least a trial. The other possible problem is a reduction in the amount of money that the school district gets because it shares those incomes that we pay on property tax. Chair Bernstein: The – I heard – I recall – I think one of the two – when we had two Mills Act contracts intact, I thought the organization – private organization, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, was administering that so I think that gave good relief to the City Staff I believe. Council Member Holman, comment on it? Yeah. Council Member Holman: I don’t know about the Mills Act but I’m – I’ve been involved with a couple of projects where covenants were put on the properties. One of them is on Melville and that one Palo Alto Stanford Heritage is the inspector if you will, according to that covenants and that’s one example but at least so far, that one’s been very positive. I was involved in another project where I’m – Staff is over worked but the City is the overseer and I’d say that that hasn’t been – had such a positive outcome to this point in time. Again, each one of those is just one example. To Board Member Wimmer’s point, I mean Staff does have a large load but I think Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, I think is a willing participant. Also, Board Member Wimmer’s question about why don’t we have more here? It has -- as Board Member Bunnenberg said, my experience for a long, long time has been that the school district has always been very touchy about whether we have these or not but the extent of impact on the school district, I think would be compared to their size of a budget so it would be pretty minimal. I don’t know that there’s a – I just don’t know if there’s a $10,000 limit or not. I thought it was kind of what the City and the property owner would negotiate as far as the agreement was concerned. There also – something that I haven’t heard mentioned yet, is that there’s also like what kinds of properties? I mean, the Staff report on page 17 that you mentioned, the reason for properties outside of the CD district is because there are other incentives there like TDRs and seismic bonuses and that sort of thing but you might look at also, what kinds of properties like – which kind of properties is the most threatened? I have my own perspective but it’s not for me to say, but what’s the most threatened and is it also to maybe help somebody to get into a home in exchange for reduced property taxes and a covenant for the public benefit on that home. You know how do you – there are ways to flavor it, if you will, that you might consider as well. Vice Chair Bower: Martin. Chair Bernstein: That includes even what Categories are considered – are allowed to apply for a Mills Act and I always bring up the example of the former University Art Building as a Category three so maybe the Category is not so important. It’s just the attribute of the historic resource. Vice Chair Bower. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Bower: So, I share all of my fellow Board Member’s comments. I’d like to move to a discussion of specifics because I think that’s where this discussion needs to go. I’d like to first say that in the seminars that I have attended either on the web or in person that the California Preservation Foundation has presented, the issues of property tax reduction are a slight misnomer. It’s not a reduction but a redirection of property taxes. In both the seminars that I attended, they pointed out that when a Mills Act contract is signed, the tax savings is actually redirected into the preservation of the building and the contract specifies that every year the homeowners has to spend the money that their saving on their buildings. They can accumulate that amount – that savings and do large projects with the approval of the Building Department or the Planning Department but that’s part of the definition process and that’s really what a Mills Act needs. When we create this act, we have to have definitions and the first one is that you have to decide as a City, what is the maximum amount of money or evaluate – property evaluation that we will identify as redirected taxes? Again, in both seminars, they said a million dollars seems to be the appropriate level. That’s the maximum so I would suggest that we start there. That’s roughly $12,000 in taxes and in the case of a property that is not worth a million dollars and I don’t think that there are any properties in Palo Alto that are under a million, sadly. We might make – we might have an alternative evaluation that is a percentage of the value so it’s a maximum of a million that could be redirected – in value redirected in taxes to your house. The second issue would be how you define the projects that this redirected funding will support and again, the most important one that was identified in these seminars was foundation upgrades and building anchors to a new foundation. That doesn’t mean that you have to replace the foundation. You can do parallel foundations as I did on my daughter’s house in the Liberty Hills Historic District in San Francisco. Where we left the brick foundation intact and we just built a new foundation next to it and that supports the building and the old brick foundation has some load but basically doesn’t take the earthquake loading. In a situation where you have a foundation anchoring project, those are pretty expensive and you’re not going to do it for $12,000. Especially if you are adding foundation or replacing foundations so that might be a 3-year project and it is – the homeowner would need to propose that to the Planning Department, create a set of drawings and then create a funding program so that the project is identified, specified in both timeline and cost and scope. Then the building department typically would manage the actual construction and then notify the Planning Department that the project is complete or that it’s underway. The next item is – and by the way, you – they suggest that the projects that this redirect – sorry – the redirected funding would be targeted to, would be foundations first, electrical systems, mechanical systems, plumbing, so you’re – and roofing and outside the enclosure, waterproofing and insulation. Specifically, you don’t want somebody taking their money and remodeling their kitchen, which might be needing it but not necessarily the best use of the funds. Definitions are really critical and so you’re target projects have to be part of this. We’ve already spoken about a yearly review of projects and use of funds. I think that could be because the City has so many different entities that might participate in this. At least the building department and Public Works and of course planning, we don’t need to duplicate that effort. So, if a building permit has been issued, the Building Department – the building permit system could notify planning that there is a project underway, it would probably come through planning anyway because they’d have to review it, tag it in some way, and then let the building inspector do his job – his or her job. Then planning just gets a report that this is done. Somebody is just going to have to look at it every year but right now we’re talking about zero projects so we can do this. We can figure that out as we go. I already talked about the accumulation of funds for a large project. They did say that these should not be more than 3-years so if you can’t do it in 3-years – you don’t want to have a 10-year project, which allows a homeowner to accumulate $120,000 say as the $12,000 max and then say, oh whoops, sorry. We didn’t save the money, we can’t do it now. I found the assessed evaluation models in the Mills Act -- there are three different ways you can calculate the value -- to be incredibly complicated. I don’t understand them and I read them, I’ve listened to the explanation in two seminars and I still don’t get it. Clearly, articulated assessment evaluation in the local ordinance is necessary; a clear description. So, a homeowner – if I can’t understand it after two seminars and as Historic Resources Board Member, I don’t know how a homeowner would. I would make Category One – Four eligible. I don’t see any reason why only Category One homes need to be eligible. I just think that’s an arbitrary issue and the last – one of the last things is in terms of definitions. Establishing in the ordinance a day of the year that all houses have to be open at the same time and ought to establish in the definition what part of the house has to be available to the public. I can understand the (inaudible) of a homeowner having to open their entire house to the public and not knowing who the public is and City of Palo Alto Page 6 wondering if the people here are actually casing their house for burglaries. I mean, you know those privacy issues are important so I think there are ways of dealing with it. Having a sign up, for instance, having a maximum number – a reasonable maximum number and maybe have a four to eight-hour window or maybe two days. So, this is – these are the things that I think we want to continue to think about as ways to accommodate the public access but at the same time, preserve the privacy of the people who are a part of this. The people – the homeowners who take advantage of this program have a benefit and as part of that benefit, the public needs to see what it is. So, I wanted to just finish by taking two examples of properties near me; I live in Crescent Park. The house next door to me was purchased in 1981 by friends of ours for $81,000. It sold in 2015 for $1.7 million. The property taxes prior to a sale were $1,800 a year. The property taxes today are $20,400 and I’m using the 1.2%. They are higher because there is other school district adds but that is clearly a tenfold increase in property taxes in one hit. There is another property on Hamilton Avenue that was sold in 2013 to a developer for $3 million. Prior – I don’t know the tax rate prior to that sale but the new sale was basically $3 million so the tax rate in 2013 went to $35,000 – basically $36,000. The new house that was built on that was sold for $8.5 million and the property tax rate today or in 2015 when it was sold, was $102,000 so we saw a fourfold increase in – a little less than a fourfold increase in property taxes in two years but over – if we could get to the original tax rate prior to that last sale, it would be probably in the $2,400 - $3,000 amount because that house had been owned by the same family – a prominent local family in Palo Alto. I’ve lived in Palo Alto for 66-years. I went to Palo Alto’s schools for 13-years. From kindergarten through 12th grade. I cannot remember a time when the Palo Alto school district ever had enough money. They are – they have a budget – if I’m – I think that last budget that they show in our materials today -- that we got for today. I think the last budget was 20 – in 2005, $20 million. Now, I may be reading this wrong but they have a significant budget. They have a significant task and all of the community supports the task. We’re talking about $12,000 per – maximum per Mills Act contract. Even if we had ten Mills Act contracts, that’s $120,000 as opposed to – well, a $20 million budget in 2005. It’s higher, I know today because that was 12-years ago. I think we have a number of initiatives in Palo Alto that need attention. Schools aren’t the only one, I know they are important but this is a very, very small piece and it’s important to do. Chair Bernstein: Thank you Vice Chair Bower. That’s a good formula that you’ve presented that can help and perhaps turn into a welcome program. Picking up on Board Member Wimmer’s comment about how do property owners learn about this? I think that whatever kind of outreach program, we encourage to happen and make happen. It would be great. Ok. Picking up on Bower’s comment about specifics and how will the comments presented by Board Member Bower and other Board Members, how does that become more – how do we put that into effect I guess? There’s already a Mills contract program that already exists. There’s a required contract provision. Essentially, is it City Council agendize and then to – it’s already – the Mills Act already exists already so I guess, what action would -- what’s the next way to make this into effect? But it’s already in effect so it’s – I guess maybe just publication. Ms. French: Yeah, I mean the Mills Act is not a City program per say. Chair Bernstein: Right, right. Ms. French: It’s a – the County assessor. We don’t have an ordinance and we don’t have anything in our code that I am aware of that I could find. So, it’s a resolution, is there some kind of recommendation? I think that’s what DuBois had a suggestion that some kind of recommendations come from the HRB as to the parameters of how we would do it in Palo Alto. Then, if there’s some legal instrument that we could have the Council adopt, that would be one way to do it. Then from there, do the publications, the pamphlets, what have you, the website. We have on our website links to Mills Act, but is it decipherable to the average person? Certainly, the math sounds like it’s not. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower. Vice Chair Bower: So, would it be reasonable – if we have no ordinance and I think that’s what’s required here. I don’t know. Council Member Holman, do you have a sense of the history of how the Squire House Mills Act contract was created if there is no ordinance or maybe – actually, my question should be – City of Palo Alto Page 7 that’s not really relevant. In the seminars that I attended they, in both cases, said that you need an ordinance so I’m assuming that’s where we should move. Council Member Holman: So, if I remember this correctly, the Squire House has an easement on it so the outside of the house is already protected. That happened when the fate of the Squire House was in jeopardy. This happened, gosh, I think the 80’s maybe. Vice Chair Bower: 70’s I think or even (inaudible)(crosstalk) Council Member Holman: I’m not sure exactly the timing but it was a long time ago. Longer ago than any of us think to – care to think about actually. Then the owner –when the Mario’s, who use to be an HRB Member, (inaudible) was. They actually requested the Mills Act because they wanted further protections on the house and they did a lot of restoration on the house too. That’s – I’m confident of a couple of those things. That there’s an easement on the house that protects the outside and the Mario’s requested the Mills Act and that they did a lot of restoration on the house so that’s a – can’t tell you exactly what years but that’s how it came about. Vice Chair Bower: Is – should we be crafting language for an ordinance then? Definitions and the scopes? Council Member Holman: I think – well, and Amy will have her own comments to make with this but I think it’s cleaner and simpler if you have an ordinance and somebody who wants to apply has some guidance on what the parameters are. I think the City always doesn’t want to look at these as one offs either. We’re talking about a burden on Staff. I mean, they need something to refer to say ok, this application does or doesn’t comply or conform to what the ordinance says in terms of parameters. Maybe Amy has something to add to that but that would be my perspective. Otherwise, you’re just doing one- offs and I don’t think that’s… Vice Chair Bower: No. Council Member Holman: … very effective or an efficient way to do it. Ms. French: You know, I would just echo that it’s nice to have something that’s discoverable in a legal document that people can see at the same time there saying, what are my setbacks? What is – I mean – so that would be nice to have something in the zoning code that may be refers you to a different section of the Municipal Code pertaining to this tax benefit. Chair Bernstein: Who are the signatories on a Mills contract? The property owner, City of Palo Alto, State of California, does anybody know? Board Member Wimmer: I – Corey, you could correct me if I am wrong but I think it’s the City and the property owner. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, it has to be the owner of the property because it’s a – it’s like a covenant. If the property were to be sold within the 10-year contract period, it would remain throughout the end of the contract. I think it’s the City and the owner. Chair Bernstein: Does anybody know if a property owner today wanted to enter a Mills contract, they can just request it? Ms. French: I can tell you – I think I read about this a little bit in the report but there is a fee… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, I saw that. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Ms. French: …on our – yeah, it’s not expensive but (crosstalk)… Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) Ms. French: …to establish… Chair Bernstein: $1,936. Ms. French: …yeah, to enter into – so what that means is that you’re getting support from a planner, me probably, and the City attorney’s office Staff, to invent the contract for that property and take it through the process. Then they have to record it at the Country from the date of recordation and that starts the 10 years. Chair Bernstein: Ok, so no Council action to enter a contract? Ms. French: Correct. Vice Chair Bower: I would like to suggest that we take Dennis Backlund’s 2006… Chair Bernstein: Proposed. Vice Chair Bower: …proposal – I guess this was a recommendation and modify it to reflect the things that we’ve discussed today because this document is a very broad outline but lacks enough specifics to actually give guidance to Council. Then propose that this move to Council for consideration. Whatever – I’m – if we could do a planning – make this part of the Planning Department documents. I don’t know. That part of it is beyond me but I think we could – we as a Board can refine the requirements as we see are necessary and then propose that and let the Council – help the Council move this into a real program. I would like – I think a pilot program makes some sense. Say we limit the number of properties in the first 10-years to some number and allow for some flexibility to come back and redefine needs as we, the community and the City and the homeowners, experience them. Ms. French: So, that might be – I would just weigh in on that. If you’re going to think about this pilot program concept. I mean the way Oakland, it was the one I studied, did it is they did that and then came forward with an ordinance so an ordinance would have to go to the Planning Commission for - at least a zoning code ordinance. That might be the next step after establishing the pilot program and that would be to go through that process of an ordinance. Vice Chair Bower: That sounds like – that’s fine. I mean, I don’t have a problem with that. It’s 10-years. How long did Oakland’s – I didn’t actually get to that document because I was looking at all the other more historic ones. How did their pilot program last? 5-years? Ms. French: I believe it was 2-years. Vice Chair Bower: 2-years, interesting. Ok, well, so that’s different. Chair Bernstein: From the – when the City of Palo Alto signs this contract in addition to the property owners, is it – whose signs? The City’s Manager’s office, Planning Director? Who signs the contract from the City? Ms. French: Well, I’m – at least attorneys as to the form of the legal working and I’d have to go look at the one contract that exists and see what that says. I can show that – I think that’s a public document. I can show that to you. Chair Bernstein: Yeah. Council Member Holman. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Council Member Holman: Oh, I was just going to say that I think it would be advisable for – because you’re the experts on historic preservation, other than our City Staff so it might be good if you guys took a look at the contract itself and see if you saw any holes in it or any suggestions – recommendations based on past history or what you hear from other communities. Board Member Kohler: I have to just make a small… Chair Bernstein: Yeah, Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: …modest comment about time marches on. You look at this date hereof a regular meeting November 5th, 1997, talking about what we’re talking about today. I see that Martin Bernstein was on the Board and I was on the Board. I didn’t know you’d been on the Board that long, Martin, but it’s just amazing to think how things go. I think it’s about time – maybe we would do something after 22 – 21 –22-years of mulling it around; it’s a good idea. I vote for it. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: I definitely think that I’m so glad that this conversation is started. I think that we need to do a little bit of – I guess more research on our – individually and then come back so I think we should continue this item for sure. Maybe a month from now we can continue this discussion but I know that I’ve done a little bit of research on it 2-years ago. I wish I had brought that. I kind of forgot where I left off because I was trying – because I was looking at some information that you had to do an application through the County so I’m going to go back and see what research that I had done. Also, I mean, Pat Di Cicco, a past Board Member, she – I mean maybe we could even – so she has a Mills Act in Coronado but she also has a significant historic house in Palo Alto. I’m just curious to know why she doesn’t seek – has not sought out having a Mills Act contract on her house in Palo Alto. That would be an interesting question to ask her. Maybe she could be – participate in our pilot program. I don’t know. I just – a good questions. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: I had asked around about this a while ago with some of my neighbors as far as if – my – the feedback that I got and this is actually, I think going back -- even back to Dennis’s time. Was that we – that there is no process for getting a Mills Act so people clearly don’t know this is the case. That if anyone – if it needs – if you wanted to go and approach that, it would definitely have to be brought to City Council for approval because of the cost impact so that’s – you know, maybe that was 5- years ago but that seemed to be the consensus from the people who did know about it. Who had actually contacted the City and were told that there’s no process right now beyond what -- the existing ones. Maybe this is hearsay but… Ms. French: (Inaudible) Board Member Corey: There’s no published process so – and those who had contracted Dennis, it sounded like there wasn’t a process in place so it was kind of an unknown. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I think the evidence is rather clear that this is a workable program, it’s been demonstrated through a number of different communities throughout California. I think it’s just a – we’re just dragging our feet here, saying that this how to do this thing. Ever other communities in the State are doing it. Let’s move ahead and do it. Chair Bernstein: Ok. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Makinen: If we keep thinking of reasons of why we can’t do it or the technicalities, it’s never going to happen. We got to get behind it and push it. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: I can volunteer to contact the State and see if we can get any update contracts or any various contracts they have because they certainly seem willing to – she certainly seemed willing to help and I got her card and we talked for a while so I can do that if that’s helpful. Yeah. Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that. May I suggest that a subcommittee takes a look at this. Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: The last Mills Act discussion that I remember attending, there was some talk about that it’s really important to tailor it to your community. That was one of the points but on page 18 of our packet – of our – in our packet, there is a list of basic portions – basic things that are usually included. So, we at least have that much of a framework. Chair Bernstein: Doing the idea of the specifics as Vice Chair Bower had suggested, I think it would be really important because as Board Member Corey mentioned, when the signatory is the representative of the City of Palo Alto and that maybe be then the Council may have to approve entering that contract. Then having the specifics so that if any school administrators have issues with property tax, if there’s some limit of that, then that can help reduce any anxiety of the school district regarding the loss of revenue. Board Member Corey has suggested to be a part of the – to take a look at this. How’s the Board feel about creating a subcommittee to examine this? (Crosstalk) Alright. We have one Board Member who volunteered to be on that subcommittee. Board Member – are there any – ok, Board -- Vice Chair Bower. We can up to one more and then Board Member Wimmer, ok. That will be the subcommittee so it will be Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Corey, and Vice – and then former Vice Chair Wimmer to be on the subcommittee for this. Great, good. Vice Chair Bower: So, Amy… Chair Bernstein: We need your light. Vice Chair Bower: …could you send us – find the contract and send it to the three of us and any documentation like the actual contract. Then maybe a moment after our meeting, Margaret and Corey and I can get together and just plain strategy. Ms. French: I guess you could, if you wanted to, come back in a month so the meeting in a month would be the meeting of May 25th. If that is of interest, then the subcommittee could come make a statement there about what you’d done. Chair Bernstein: I think the timing of this is actually good because we’re going soon be without any Mills contracts enforced in the City. (Crosstalk). Yeah, ok. Additional comments on this agenda item? Ok. Alright, thank you very much. Ok, I think that concludes. Any other comments from staff before me move ahead on this topic? Ok. Ms. French: Nope. Chair Bernstein: OK, thank you. 4/29/2017 City of Palo Alto Mills Act Pilot Program The City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board recommends that the City Council adopt a two-year Mills Act pilot program. The purpose of this program is to establish a basis for instituting a permanent incentive program to protect and maintain historic residential properties within the City of Palo Alto boundaries. Program Outline  Eligibility. All Mills Act applications must meet the State of California’s requirements as set forth in the California Government Code 50280.1. A Mills Act contract would be granted to all Palo Alto historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or identified as Category 1-4 on the city historic survey (Danes & Moore?). Any property not listed as a Category 1-4 property could apply for recognition as an historic property. The Historic Resources Board would review all applications---Mills Act and Historic Category listing requests. Only single family or multi-family residences are eligible.  Local Contract Requirements. As allowed by state law, the following conditions would be added to the City of Palo Alto’s Mills Act contract. 1. The contract would run for a 10-year period and automatically transfer to new owners during the contract term. At the end of ten years the contract could be extended by one to two years to complete a rehabilitation project underway but not yet completed. 2. The contract would allow a maximum tax adjustment up to $1 million of property value ($12,000.00 per tax year maximum). Tax payment savings would be redirected to property renovation and rehabilitation at a minimum of a 4/29/2017 dollar for dollar rate. All work would be focused upon extending the life of the building (See approved project list in Appendix A) 3. Projects would be approved by the Planning Department and construction supervised by the appropriate city officials (building inspectors, planning director, historic planner). The planning department would review contracts yearly for compliance with contract terms. Rehabilitation project funding could be accumulated for up to three years to cover larger projects with planning department approval. 4. Rehabilitation projects must include protection or restoration of identified character-defining features of the property and the removal or compatible replacement of incompatible additions. All work must conform to the State Office of Historic Preservation and the State Historic Building Code and comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Rehabilitation of both interior and exterior features would qualify. Exterior facades of properties participating in the Mills Act program must be clearly visible from the sidewalk and not obscured by any vegetation or other structures. 5. All Mills Act properties will be open to the public on the same day of the year for a period of time determined by the Planning Department (a 4-6 hour period?). Tour participants would be required to register to participate in the tour. If interior restoration was included in the restoration project then the tour will extend to the specified areas of the interior. 6. A base application fee $XXX.00 would be charged for each contract. An additional $2 would be charged for every $1,000 assessed value of the contract ($1.5 million 4/29/2017 exemption would be $3000). A $415 yearly fee would be charged for annual inspections. 7. Penalties may be imposed for breach of contract or failure to maintain the property per contract terms. If the contract is canceled under Section 50284, the property owner will pay a cancelation fee of 12 ½% of the property. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8134) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/25/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 303 Parkside Drive: Green Meadow Community Center Project (1st hearing) Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 303 Parkside Drive [16PLN-00395]: Historic Resources Board formal review of an update of the pool and deck, and the construction of an approximately 1,800 square foot community room to be located between the pool and park on the existing Green Meadow community center site within the Green Meadow National Register Historic District. The project includes a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment request. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA. Zone District: R-1 (8,000)(S); Single Family Residential with 8,000 sf minimum lot size and Single Story Combining District. For more information, contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Review (a) the revised project plans responsive to the HRB input at the December 8, 2016 HRB meeting, (b) the revised report regarding the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Attachment E) prepared by the City’s historic preservation consultant, and (c) the AR findings with particular focus on finding 2b, and 2. Provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (PCE). Report Summary City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 This report transmits revised plans for the requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Architectural and Historic Review of a proposed 1,800 square foot building adjacent to the pool complex within the Greenmeadow community center facility, which is part of the National Register Greenmeadow Eichler District. The City’s historic preservation consultant has provided an analysis of the revised project (Attachment E) with respect to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (SISR). The HRB’s duties, set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.27.040, include informing staff (acting on behalf of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for minor projects) of the historical and/or architectural significance of buildings designated as significant outside of Downtown and providing recommendations regarding proposed exterior alterations of significant historic structures. The project includes revisions to existing CMU (concrete masonry unit) landscape wall near the pool, and modifications to the original curved walkway in the park area of the site. The entire site is considered to be a contributor to a National Register Historic District. Attachment A is a summary staff prepared regarding the SISR compliance. This minor project will be reviewed by staff for compliance with the Architectural Review findings following review by the Historic Resources Board. Background Site and Project Description The Greenmeadow community center is a privately owned resource; the site has frontage on Parkside Drive, Creekside Drive and Greenmeadow Way. The park, originally designed by Thomas Church, is to the west of the pool area and is visible from Greenmeadow Way. The proposed, detached building would be placed in the asphalt area of the park, in the area of the current basketball court. A half-court basketball court is proposed to allow the continuation of this recreation activity in the park and landscaping and hardscaping are proposed. The project includes a new trash and recycling enclosure accessible from the existing parking lot, and modifications to the pool and deck. Project Review The applications for Historic and Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were initially received on November 7, 2016. The initial plan set was reviewed by the City’s consultant in a memorandum dated December 2, 2016 and by the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 HRB in a study session on December 8, 2016. The applicant’s summary of project plan revisions made in response to the HRB comments is provided as Attachment C. December 8, 2016 HRB Review The December 8th report contained background information and a project description. An excerpt of meeting minutes from the HRB December 8th meeting is provided as Attachment B. The discussion included how the project might strike a balance between the Eichler aesthetic and appearing as a new contribution to the community center. The City’s consultant has since revised the report to address the current plan set and additional research. Revised Project/Responses The revised drawings now include landscape planting details and the letter responds to discussion items from December 8, 2016. The applicant notes that:  the new building’s location is not so visible from Parkside Drive but it is visible from Greenmeadow Way cul-de-sac such that, with no real ‘street presence’ it would be subordinate in views from Parkside Drive.  though it is seemingly taller that the original building (because the level of the park is approximately 30 inches higher than that of the pool), it is mostly the same height above grade as the existing buildings, at nine feet tall.  the building would not be not better located at the level of the pool, for the reasons explained in the attached letter.  vertical siding would be better than horizontal, to fit with the park and fenestration. HRB comments about fenestration and ‘differentiation’ and bulleted responses are below: 1. HRB: Make windows more regular, more compatible with Eichler style, more natural light.  Windows were redesigned so heights are compatible with each other and with doors, and clerestory windows and skylights added. 2. HRB: New building should be differentiated from original building.  Original building exterior is (entirely) CMU, painted a white color.  New building exterior is (entirely) wood, painted dark brown.  Original perimeter wall is largely a white color CMU, with some avocado color metal.  New perimeter wall is largely dark brown wood, with some near-black metal near dining patio  New building location is distinct, significantly more glass, bright green accents.  Original structures adjacent to the new building (CMU walls on either side) are differentiated in both their construction (CMU with block pillars) and color (off-white with some ivy growth), which also reflects the original buildings.  New and original buildings are easily distinguishable, but compatible in style, in height (generally), and in orientation.  Dark brown color of new building integrates with the existing (non-original) dark brown fencing. Images from Revised Plans City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Above: Project area includes the parking lot and other site areas; half basketball court is just above proposed new building Above: Close up image of the new building, hardscaping area and half-court City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Below: Proposed landscaping around new building and pool area Above: Proposed elevations of new building; Below: Previous elevations submitted in 2016 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Discussion Applicability of PAMC As noted in the December 8th report, the site is not listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, and so the project is not subject to the regulations of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49. However, because the site is within a National Register Historic District and also listed on the California Register of Historic Resources, the exterior alterations to the community center property triggering discretionary reviews (CUP and Architectural Review) require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As noted, the HRB’s duty is related to assisting staff in its determination regarding proposed modifications to existing historic structures. The HRB may provide feedback on the City’s consultant’s review of compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and thereby assist staff in its review of modifications to the existing site. Consultant Review The City’s consultant’s December 2016 report noted the need for additional information about what was original to the park. The updated analysis is based on the revised and expanded drawing set completed in April 2017. The consultant notes Thomas Church’s landscape drawings were not uncovered but images from the San Francisco Chronicle in 1954 were helpful to see the basketball court was in the original design, even if it was not installed at the outset. Staff has explored available information in the City’s files. The 1984 Use Permit plans, which show the bean-shaped lawn and asphalt area, do not show a basketball court; the plans are not highly detailed. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The below image from the 1986 Use Permit shows the basketball court, and proposed changes to the pool, seat wall and pool deck. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 A community center brochure showed the court (partial brochure image shown below). The applicant recently noted the court was installed about 20 years after the original installation. The applicant also noted:  The wall was there early on (shown in a very early picture of the park). The wall was the same color that it is today (and the applicant doesn't plan to change that).  The park lawn was there and grassy as shown in the brochure's diagram, but without the trees in the lawn that are shown in the brochure's diagram.  There were some landscaping islands near the barbecues that are now gone, though the barbecues remain.  For the pool, the shape and perimeter were changed in the 80's, and a low bench that surrounded the pool was removed; that is one reason the applicant is introducing the sitting bench, because it reflects what was there earlier.  The building housing the locker rooms and pump room is original and unchanged.  The trees on the property were much smaller, and Crepe Myrtle and Pistache were introduced later, but the walnut and redwoods are original. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The above image contained in the National Register nomination does not include the basketball court, and reflects other differences from the brochure image. The City’s consultant’s recent report provides additional images, and notes the proposed building’s revised cladding material allows adequate differentiation, and the door and window arrangement, though not a replication of original buildings in Greenmeadow, is similar to the historic fenestration. Further, the circulation patterns are slightly changed with the project, the plantings would form a strong boundary along the lawn identified as contemporary, and with more complexity and variety than in the original park planting palette. Overall, the review was positive with respect to the standards, noting the modifications would still allow the landscape to convey its overall design dating to 1954-55. A recommendation suggests caution for future projects to ensure no loss of the park’s historic integrity, and proposes documentation of current curved walkway and portion of CMU wall to be modified in the project, and donation of the images to the Palo Alto Historical Association so the images are available for future research. As noted, the project is categorized as minor and since the improvements would not result in a negative impact to the historic resource and the project has been evaluated as compliant with Secretary of Interiors’ Standards for Rehabilitation (SISR), the project is considered exempt from CEQA. Architectural Review Findings The Architectural Review Findings in Palo Alto Municipal code Chapter 18.76 are provided as Attachment D for the HRB to review. The HRB may wish to provide comments with respect to Architectural Review Finding 2b, which has a focus on historic resources: “The project has a unified and coherent design…that preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant.” City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Environmental Review The project is considered exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15303. 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: Table of SISR for 303 Parkside (DOCX)  Attachment B: Excerpt HRB December 8 2016 Greenmeadow Center (DOCX)  Attachment C: Applicant Response to HRB (PDF)  Attachment D: ARB findings (DOCX)  Attachment E: 303 Parkside Historic Analysis Memo 16252 revised (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment A: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The community center site will continue to be used as a community center for the residential neighborhood. It is anticipated that the use of the proposed building as a gathering space would support the original historic recreation- and community-related functions that the community center was intended to serve within the Greenmeadow subdivision. A basketball half court is proposed, which will continue this recreational activity on the site. The cultural landscape of the Greenmeadow community center was not formally identified as contributing to the historic district, but is a potential district contributor. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The proposed building has been designed for compatibility with the forms and materials of buildings originally constructed by Eichler Homes, Inc. As buildings original to Greenmeadow are one story in height, the low scale of the proposed building is consistent with the nearby pool services building and multi- purpose building, as well as adjacent residences. The proposed building’s double roof plane, overhanging eaves with exposed rafters, and exterior material palette of vertical wood boards and concrete block are elements that draw from the design vocabulary of surrounding, original Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis Eichler residences. The proposed project would not result in the removal of materials or features from any contributing building within the Greenmeadow Historic District. The proposed building would not disrupt the major circulation patterns, spatial arrangements, and boundaries between programmatic areas that characterize the community center park. The circular walk that fills much of the western portion of the park, which is emblematic of the designs of Thomas Church, would remain, with minor adjustment. This circulation pattern appears to have high importance within the landscape of the park, and the proposed project would support the existing programmatic division between the western lawn and the central pool and building cluster. The building and patio would require the removal of the central portion of the existing concrete block wall at the southwest edge of the pool area. The CMU wall was not described in the listing for the resource as a character-defining feature of the resource but should be photo-documented prior to modification. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The design of the proposed building appears to be compatible with the scale, material palette, and form of the nearby pool services building and multi-purpose building, as well as surrounding residences, and differentiated as well. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. ☐ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☒ Not applicable Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: Only a portion of the CMU wall and walkway paving original to the park would be removed; the remaining portions of walkway and wall would be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. ☐ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☒ Not applicable Explanation: There are no deteriorated historic building features proposed to be repaired or replaced. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: No chemical or abrasive physical surface treatments are proposed, or are anticipated to be necessary, which might damage the existing historic materials. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. ☐ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☒ Not applicable Explanation: The project does not propose any grading, excavation, or other ground disturbance that could potentially affect archeological resources, if present. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The material for the perimeter pool wall is wood and therefore differentiated from the remaining portions of the original CMU wall. The cladding material on the new building will be differentiated adequately, and the fenestration will be compatible with window and door arrangements found in the district. The low scale, horizontal orientation of the new building is consistent with buildings on the site and in the neighborhood. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ☐ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☒ Not applicable City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members David Bower, Beth 3 Bunnenberg, Patricia Di Cicco, 4 5 Absent: Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen 6 7 Study Session 8 9 1. 303 Parkside Drive (Greenmeadow community center) [16PLN-00395]: Study session 10 to conduct a preliminary Historic Review for an application for a Conditional Use Permit 11 (CUP) and Minor Architectural Review to allow an 1800 of accessory structure near the park 12 and update to the existing pool and deck area within the gated area of the community center 13 that is included in the Greenmeadow National Register Historic. 14 15 Chair Bernstein: Then, next on our agenda says a study session. I’ll read the title of that study session: 16 303 Parkside Drive (Greenmeadow Community Center) study session to conduct a preliminary Historic 17 Review for an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Architectural Review to allow an 1800 18 square foot accessory structure near the park and update to the existing pool and deck area within the 19 gated area of the Community center that is included in the Greenmeadow National Register Historic 20 record. For additional information, contact Amy French. Shall Staff have a report for us, please? 21 22 Ms. French: Yes, thank you. I’ll just start by saying in the report, there is an error. I said it was received 23 on the – the application was received on December 7th obviously, it wasn’t just yesterday. Read the 24 report last week so, it came in on November 7th, that was the first error. Another thing is, we did get 25 revised plans last Thursday and so, you were able to get the plans but my report reflected an earlier set. 26 So, it does mention that there aren’t any, you know, finish and color schedules, which is no longer true 27 because, in the plans, it does show those. Then, finally, Page and Turnbull, [John] Rush did provide a 28 report which I emailed to you all – hope you got that last Friday and the applicant got that this week and 29 Mr. Rusch is anticipated to be here but given that my train was late from Redwood City; who knows from 30 Oakland, how that’s going to go but I have summarized his comments in my power point. Oh, I was just 31 saying – well welcome John Rusch. I got some of your items in my power point. 32 33 Mr. John Rusch: Great. 34 35 Ms. French: Do you have a preference where I sit? 36 37 Ms. French: You can come up here. 38 39 Mr. Rusch: Thank you. 40 41 Ms. French: Get comfortable. I should note that Page and Turnbull was awarded a contract for the Eichler 42 design guild lines, which is a City-wide effort for the Eichler built neighborhoods, designed by multiple 43 architects. This is a particular neighborhood, the Greenmeadow neighborhood is a National and California 44 Register listed resource – historic resource. On the screen, we have the 1954 plan for the Community 45 Center. Some fun little notes there. You can’t see all of them but privacy for the gregarious, I think it 46 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING EXCERPT MINUTES: December 8, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 says and you can see the original park pool, which has been modified but the Community Center to the 1 right. Here where there is a child care center, there’s this breezeway here which is passable through from 2 – you know, for the bicyclists. I went – I lived in Greenmeadow and rode my bike to [Wilbur] it was 3 (Inaudible). This is quite a well-travelled path to get to the schools and there’s a pool service building 4 with lockers and showers. The architect can go over why they’re choosing to create a new building rather 5 than revise the old bathrooms here, that need updating. It’s on the Register, it was built in 1954-1955 6 and here is today's swimming pool. Much larger than the original. You can see in the background the 7 pool office where people check in, the showers and restrooms over here. This is towards Parkside on this 8 side and the park is behind us in this photo. Here you can see past the wall. This is a kind of raised 9 grassy area and you can see the park in the background, with all its mature trees. Then down here, of 10 course, is the (Inaudible) Thomas Church; well-known an award landscape architect did design this park 11 but the National Register forum did not identify the park as either contributing or non-contributing. This 12 shows an image of the existing park with the full court or mini-court basketball court. You can see 13 Thomas Church is a characteristic kidney shaped lawn, mature trees, some alcoves around for picnicking 14 and there – this form did not indicate what had changed since the 1950s in that park. So, it’s not really 15 well known about that. Then this shows basically, the non-contributing pool, it was determined non-16 contributing because it had changed since the original. These have not changed since the original, the 17 multi-purpose room and the pool services building. We have a proposal for a new concrete block trash 18 enclosure. Here’s the parking lot out this way and then the new building here with the pavers around and 19 half basketball court. This kind of shows a close up of that. I’ll let the architect go in more detail on their 20 proposal. Some of the things so – oh and they have ideas for restoring some originally removed features 21 as well as some of the other things I said. Here is the proposed elevation. This one would face the pool. 22 This one would face the park and then these are the ends where the restrooms are here and then facing 23 the basketball court and patio area over here. There is a finish and color schedule now on the plan that 24 indicates Eichler colors and similar materials and form. The discussion items here today for the HRB 25 would be we have a culture landscape, not identified as a contributor but potentially a district contributor 26 and I’ll let John talk about the study; what kind of study would be needed to find out more about that. 27 Then we have the issue of the compatibility of the proposed building with the neighborhood and the 28 effects of the project on the landscape there. Then we have the Secretary of Interior Standards, we know 29 that number one is met because they are continuing the use of the Community Center but the others are 30 for discussion. Basically, as per John’s report, I don’t know if you want to talk about these but there are 31 two areas of study that John brought up in his report, architecture compatibility. Looking at the 32 proportions and repetition of windows in the neighborhood and in the existing buildings on the site. Some 33 considerations there and in the cladding, which has the narrow, vertical siding. That would be an area 34 that is ideal too – you know for differentiation, to look at a proportion to that cladding. Just so we make 35 sure it doesn’t look like it built in 1954. Then there’s effect on the landscape. I really appreciated the 36 analysis that John was able to turn around in short order from the revised plans. It talks about the 37 circulation patterns not being interrupted, which is great in the park. Some space arrangements and the 38 boundaries between areas not being interrupted but it does disrupt some symmetrical arrangement 39 features so, that’s something for discussion. In any case, this is a study session but we do have an 40 application that has come in for a conditional use permit and architectural review so, this would be an 41 opportunity to provide some feedback to the applicant and architect and they’re here to present. 42 43 Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you. Before we invite the applicant to give a presentation, I’d just like to 44 make a – see if anyone has any disclosures. I visited the site, I walked the – got permission from the 45 pool personnel to walk into the property. Walked around the pool. Took a look at the building inside and 46 that was my visit to the site last week. Any other Board Members – Beth. 47 48 Board Member Bunnenberg: I have the disclosure to make that I was the Chair of the HRB when this 49 National Register nomination came in and I walked the entire area looking for each address. Then, I went 50 to the State hearing and testified that I had done this. So, my history goes way back and it was an 51 addition to all of the wonderful information that’s in it. It is a thing of special pride that Joseph Eichler 52 would sell to anyone. There were certain areas in town that had really quite discriminatory issues in their 53 sub-division and we were having lots of young, new hires in the tech industry that – HP and so forth and 54 City of Palo Alto Page 3 many of them were able to buy because of Eichler’s personal beliefs that he would want to sell to 1 anyone. It’s nice to see this. 2 3 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Bower. 4 5 Board Member Bunnenberg: Oh, I did walk around the site and actually talked to one member of the 6 Community. 7 8 Board Member Bower: Yeah, I also visited the site last week and walked the park, which I didn’t even 9 know was there and looked at all the buildings. 10 11 Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. 12 13 Vice Chair Wimmer: I did – I didn’t enter to any of the buildings but I did walk through the site. 14 15 Board Member Di Cicco: I as well attended the project location yesterday and had a very welcoming 16 reception from the receptionist or the person in charge of the pool and she showed me how to get 17 around without climbing the fence to see the park and such and was very helpful. It gave me a much 18 greater understanding of what I’m looking at today. 19 20 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I’d like to invite the applicant to – for a presentation. Identify yourselves 21 please and then we’ll ask our questions at the end of the presentation. Thanks. 22 23 Ms. Sherry Listgarten: Hi, I’m Sherry Listgarten and I live in Greenmeadow. First, I want to thank you 24 guys all for helping with this project. It means a lot to our neighborhood. It’s not just historic in name, I 25 think the people grow up in the neighborhood, they live and they breathe it. They’re raising their kids 26 there now and they care a lot about this project. It’s been a discussion for about 3 -5 years. There’s a lot 27 of contention about what we do with this, you know – so, Martin you asked a good question or Amy 28 asked a question about why aren’t we doing all of this is the existing builds so, I can talk about that a 29 little bit. The purpose of this project, during a lot of discussion about what to do with this area. The most 30 active people are the people who use the pool. There’re a lot of families that use the pool, a lot of kids on 31 the swim team and so they want more lanes and they want nicer locker rooms and things like that and a 32 bunch of the neighbors stood up and they said, you know, we don’t even use the pool anymore. We don’t 33 have young kids. We want to fill in the pool. We want to build Community gardens, you know and so 34 there was a lot of contention and it was serious stuff. This is local politics. It’s difficult and I think what 35 we did was we listened to all of the feedback pretty carefully and we said, we need to engage more of 36 our demographics in this shared facility. It’s not ok to through all of our money into the pool. The pool 37 does need maintenance, you know every 30 years you’ve got to do the deck and the plaster, the tile, the 38 copying, the pump room etc. but we really wanted to take seniors, childless families, younger teens and 39 stuff who aren’t using the pool and find a way to engage them. The reason why we’re building the 40 clubhouse between the pool and the park is its dual use. That way people who use the pool can use it 41 but for people who don’t use the pool and they just want to use the park and they want to have a bridge 42 club or they want to have a musical rehearsal. They want to show slides from their recent vacation or 43 everybody wants to get together and watch the super bowl or something like that. It’s a completely 44 different set of uses, new uses and takes much better advantage of the site that we have. We have an 45 amazing site in the middle of our neighborhood and we want to put it to better use. So, that’s the goal of 46 this project. I will say that we’re a very active Community. We’ve been discussing all this information with 47 the Community. We had voted with preliminary plans. We had kind of a record turn out so, 64 48 households showed up, households, in person to hear about this and out of the 200 hundred, we thought 49 that was a terrific turnout. The vote was 62 to 2 in favor of this, it was remarkable. One of the holdouts 50 was something to do with the financial and then – so, it’s a very, very strong endorsement. So, that’s 51 some of the backgrounds to this project. We are concerned with the historic integrity so, we're really 52 looking forward to your feedback on this. You know, it’s difficult to do things like a (Inaudible) enclosure 53 and you know, all of this stuff and keep the redwoods and you do – a lot of constraints and so, we feel 54 City of Palo Alto Page 4 like we have a good start at it but we’re interested in hearing what you have to say. So, that’s my part 1 and Bud is our architect. 2 3 Mr. Bud Kobza: Hello everybody, my name is Bud Kobza with Dennis Kobza Architects. I happen to be a 4 long-time Palo Alto resident myself, 57 years except for a few years away at school and I went to 5 Cubberley right around the corner as well as I know Amy did as well. I’m disappointed Rodger is not 6 here. His son was my shortstop in little league, so Mathew – so, there’s a lot of kind of coming home 7 here for me. When I was first contacted about doing this project, I was really excited because I rode my 8 bicycle through there, we spent time in the park playing basketball. Doing all that stuff as a kid so, while 9 the architecture is fairly basic and straight forward and I kind of knew it fairly well from living in three 10 different Eichlers over the course of my life in Palo Alto. The opportunity to work with the Community and 11 to work on this really cool site was certain something I look forward to. I thank Amy for giving us a great 12 presentation. The main things that we really kind of look to do here on this project, was to make sure we 13 that we integrated it with the existing building and I appreciate the Page and Turnbull report because 14 that actually gives us a little bit more flexibility I think, to modernize a couple of features on the building 15 and that was something exciting. We really to the approach that we wanted to integrate it completely 16 with the existing structures. So, we chase down, not only the Eichler color palette but also the wood 17 siding types and things like that, while trying to integrate – we’re going to have to integrate a more 18 modern window system and things like that for energy at the same time. After a lot of working back and 19 forth, I think we’ve created a building that will feel like it was part of the original facility as far as 20 concept. You know, getting a sort of grander stair to just a slight rise up to the park, to be able to get to 21 the building. Having the barbecue facilities overlooking the pool area and being able to sort of integrate 22 people's functions with that amenity. We’re also looking at hopefully allowing for the budget, just above 23 the barbecue area, adding an upper terrace of sort of concrete and extending the historical sort of bench. 24 They’ve got a poured in place concrete bench, that if you walked around the pool, you saw it on some of 25 the perimeters. We want to recall that, we do have in our design as it goes right up against the building. 26 Then the terrace would be just above that and if we’re able to fit it into the budget, the secondary 27 terrace would extend that bench back to – pretty close to its original historical location too. We’re 28 definitely excited about it. The part of the reason I think, they chose to go this path was obviously, you 29 know this an older complex. Our accessibility standards are not met and they would have had a 30 significant investment in making all of those items accessible and then also losing some capacity for the 31 functional use of that. What we’ve done here is provided those accessible elements; the bathroom and 32 the shower. You know, we had the pleasure of having Mr. [Dunbar], your inspector of accessibility in Palo 33 Alto come through and look at the plans and I’ve worked with Robert before on other buildings and so, 34 having that basically, get a preliminary blessing was big to us and kind of reinforced the concept that 35 we’re heading in the right direction, by providing a modern application but into this, what has become a 36 really a historical Community Center. I really don’t have a power point, you know I probably could have 37 but if we end up coming back to you guys to show us or to share more, we can. I take no exception to 38 the Page and Turnbull report at all. I think it gives us good ideas to move forward with and we’re happy. 39 We’ve already discussed looking at these things and working on the items that they suggested and I just 40 would like to offer the opportunity to answer any questions for you guys. Just a pleasure to be here 41 really, on a rainy day. 42 43 Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you, Bud. Any questions for the applicant or Staff? Beth. 44 45 Board Member Bunnenberg: One question that came to mind and we always have to look at the 46 Secretary of Interior Standards, those are our guild lines. There’s one, that’s number nine and it can 47 often be a tough one because you’ve worked to make it compatible – it’s low but in terms of 48 differentiation, what do you see as a fact that would be a differentiation from what’s there? 49 50 Chair Bernstein: May I interrupt for a second please, for that question. Beth, could you actually maybe 51 read what Standard nine is so that members of the public can understand what – when we mention 52 Standard nine, what is Standard nine? It would be…(Crosstalk) 53 54 Board Member Bunnenberg: Let me get back here. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 Chair Bernstein: …useful information for the public. I can read it for you if you don’t have it. 2 3 Board Member Bunnenberg: OK, you want to do it for me. 4 5 Chair Bernstein: So, I just wanted to add that just to that it helps complete the conversation for 6 understanding. Standard nine is new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not 7 destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the 8 old and shall be compatible with the massing, scale, size, architectural features, to protect the historical 9 integrity of the property and its environment. I just wanted to add that, k? Thank you. 10 11 Mr. Kobza: Thank you for that. Should I go ahead and respond Beth, to this point? 12 13 Board Member Bunnenberg: Pardon? 14 15 Mr. Kobza: Go ahead and respond? Is that – finish your question? Ok. I mean, obviously – maybe it’s not 16 obvious but we feel that the massing part of this definitely integrates with the existing Community Center 17 and the buildings that surround there. The differentiations is – was, I should say as designed right now is 18 mostly on the interior. Obviously, with it being a different function, modern sort of finishes and things like 19 that, that would take place. Certainly, the Page and Turnbull report have identified a couple things that 20 we can do on the outside with the exterior siding and stuff that would complete the picture of it being a 21 new structure. I think that’s a path that we will certainly take. The amenities that are going to be 22 surrounding this building are going to be definitely new, right? We’re going to end up with, I’m sure some 23 LED site lighting and the barbecue is going to be new. We’ve integrated a barbecue place on the outside 24 of the building. My Eichler on Los Lobos, when I was growing up had an indoor barbeque, which was 25 awesome and so we kind of picked up on that idea but turned it around and put it on the outside so that, 26 there’s actually a place that people can use to barbeque when the pool is closed, for a park function. It 27 kind of gives it another opportunity to the residents to be able to have a birthday party or do something 28 in the park. So, we think that’s going to pick up the function of the park area as far as the Community 29 use. Yeah, [Sherry] would like to add something. 30 31 Ms. Listgarten: One idea – again, we just got this feedback so, we haven’t thought about that much but 32 for exterior cladding, one of the things a lot of the people in the neighborhood are doing is horizontal 33 cladding, instead of the vertical. A lot of times it’s Cedar wrapped. It’s very lovely. I don’t know if we can 34 afford it but something maybe in that vein. I don’t know if you guys would approve of that but if you look 35 at the vertical striping, almost every width is traditional Eichler, as far as I can tell. There’s the narrow, 36 there’s the medium, and there’s the wide, the plank (Inaudible). So, it seems unless we go like this, 37 which I don’t know, I haven’t thought about it that much but another approach might be horizontal, 38 which is being done in the neighborhood. Is constant but is a little more modern, that would be an idea. 39 I don’t know. 40 41 Chair Bernstein: Any other questions? Questions first before we start talking about design issues. Any 42 other questions? Board Member Di Cicco. 43 44 Board Member Di Cicco: Yeah, I have -- it’s a very kind of general question. The wall is going to be 45 removed to accommodate the new building and I couldn’t tell or read it anywhere, is there going to be 46 fencing between the cul-de-sacs public street, at the end of the park or is this new building going to be 47 just open all the way, from looking down from Alma? The other – on the other end, the building that is 48 now Montessori School, correct? Is that still owned by the association and it’s leased? 49 50 Ms. Listgarten: Yeah, we lease it. 51 52 Board Member Di Cicco: Is that – down the road, you would take back the use of that building to or is 53 that just something that’s not even on the radar? 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. Listgarten: That’s a great question. When we’re – so, right now, there’s not HOA or anything like that 1 that funds this stuff. We have two sources of income – two main sources of income. One is pool 2 memberships and one is the lease of the school and so, currently the neighborhood thinks the lease of 3 the school is working well. It’s generating a good amount of income and we like that use. There’s not too 4 much parking or traffic, you know and things like that. It’s relatively quiet. The neighborhood hasn’t 5 talked that much about reverting it but it’s an excellent question because we have thought about it and 6 we’re like, is this the best use of this space for the Community. Right now, it’s purely an income 7 generator. It doesn’t build Community at all, it doesn’t really serve the neighborhood at all but it’s 8 working for us. So, right now we want to maintain that and get the income from that. The other question 9 about the wall, you can answer. 10 11 Mr. Kobza: Sure, or you can? 12 13 Ms. Listgarten: That’s also a really good question. Right now, there is no – the park is private but it’s not 14 fenced in. So, it’s accessible to the public. Right now, we aim to keep that. There will be locks on the 15 doors of the clubhouse so the bathroom, for example, will not be public bathrooms. The people in the 16 neighborhood will have a key code and you’ll need to know the key code and we’ll monitor that and we 17 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 18 and friendly the way that it is now. Yeah, so you would be able to see. So, from Alma, you will be able to 19 see the wall. Now, one thing that we are reintroducing, that was in the original plans but that doesn’t 20 exist today is a strip of trees on that – I don’t know whether it’s South, North, what but on that end of 21 the park, which will help to screen the building. One of the things – one of the feedback that we got from 22 the people in the neighborhoods is that we like to have undeveloped space. That’s kind of rare in Palo 23 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 24 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 25 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-26 covered and lovely the way that it is today. So, that’s the current thinking. Those are good questions. 27 28 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower. 29 30 Board Member Bower: I’d like to congratulate you on, what I consider to be a very compatible building. I 31 have a couple – I’ll start with that because I think this is a nice design. I have a couple of small issues 32 that I’d like to hear about. 33 34 Chair Bernstein: We’re going to start with questions, then open to the public, then we’ll talk about design. 35 36 Board Member Bower: It’s actually an architectural question. 37 38 Board Member Bower: Great. Thank you. 39 40 Board Member Bower: The concrete block wall on the plan, says it matches existing but then, of course, 41 we need to differentiate that wall because it’s a new wall from the old wall. Have you thought about how 42 you’d do that? 43 44 Mr. Kobza: No, but we could, easily. It’s a standard you know, concrete block wall painted I guess right 45 now. It is pretty much normal. We could go to a split faced block. We could go to a fluted sort of block or 46 something like that. We were sort of leaning in the direction of – since we were taking away a decent 47 chunk of the concrete wall, of the sort of matching it. Even though it’s going to be, for the most part low, 48 where the bench is and things like that. Again, to Patricia’s point, we’ve integrated some wrought iron 49 fencing at the perimeter of the pool to secure the pool, which they have currently facing the parking lot. 50 So, that we’re sort of keeping that design and feel integrated a little bit. You know, when you guys talk 51 about the design, we’re going to be open to really any concept and looking at any of your ideas. I think, 52 you know to the Community Center and certainly to [Sherry], making this a success for both themselves 53 and for Palo Alto is really on their agenda. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Bower: Another question, where is the current refuge enclosure? I don’t… 1 2 Mr. Kobza: There is none. 3 4 Board Member Bower: Ok. Did you consider other locations for that? Besides the one on the plan? 5 6 Mr. Kobza: Not much. I mean, we looked at where it is shown on the plan right. We looked more to the 7 left, in the parking lot area. We’re definitely thinking it needs to be off of the parking lot to be able to 8 allow Palo Alto sanitation to get to it. The other location to the left, kind of made it feel like it was going 9 to be more of an alleyway. You know, more hidden, to get behind the building or behind the refuge 10 enclosure and get to the park. That was really the reason that we chose to integrate it more into the pool 11 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 12 a better decision. 13 14 Board Member Bower: The reason I bring that up is that when I was out on the site, I realized that that 15 refuge enclosure is going to actually have a significant visual impact on the way in which that property 16 now is experienced by people who are walking up. There’s that very nice long walkway, from the sideway 17 all the way in through that, which is a really beautiful architectural feature. To have that garbage 18 enclosure right next to that walkway, bothered me. I’m just wondering if you had other thoughts about 19 it. 20 21 Ms. Listgarten: One – I just want to add – one of the things that Matt said – oh sorry – we talked to Matt 22 right before he left and he just gave us one piece of advice which was fewer structures. One of the 23 reasons why we embedded it was kind of one less structure but – yeah, we found out now that it’s on an 24 easement. I mean, we’re open to moving. One idea I had just putting it all the way in the front corner of 25 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 26 we leave at least the main historic thing. You see what I mean? To pull it all the way forward, into the 27 front and then it’s out of the way of that and you maintain the walkways and things like that. 28 29 Board Member Bower: It’s a difficult problem. You have to have it – it has to be put on the site 30 somewhere –typically as I see properties – older properties around North Palo Alto developed. 31 Particularly, as an example, the property on the corner of Channing and Middlefield, which is a single 32 story, low dental office; L-shaped building. They put it all the way back on the side. As far away from 33 Middlefield as they can and it still matches the rest of the building but it doesn’t take away from the 34 majesty of that architecture as you approach the building. I guess those are the two questions and more 35 discussion (Inaudible). 36 37 Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. 38 39 Vice Chair Wimmer: Hi. I had a couple questions just about the heights. It looks like, from the pool 40 decking, you go up to this sort of raised terrace. So, you go up roughly four steps. So, that might be 24 41 inches, for this raised terrace and then I see that the overall height of the new building is 12 feet. I just 42 wanted to understand that in reference to the existing building to the right side of the pool and what’s 43 the overall height of that long linear building that’s currently there? 44 45 Mr. Kobza: I think we’re talking the same height as the lower portion of our building. It’s down in the 9 to 46 10-foot scenario. We did actually look at a completely one level building, originally. It was actually me 47 sort of pushing them a little bit to say, hey you’re going to have a Community room. I think a little bit 48 taller ceiling would feel good. There’s certainly quite a few different architectural steps in Eicher buildings 49 or Eichler homes, where you see different elevation heights being incorporated. I mean, that was really 50 the premise of taking that portion of the building a little bit higher and you’re right on the steps. It’s 51 going to be somewhere around probably, 24 to 28 inches. It will appear somewhat higher than the pool 52 structure but I think for the use and function, that’s probably a good thing because it is going to be a 53 little bit more of a dynamic use and building. It’s obviously going to be new to all these people and 54 having it have a little bit more substantial presence seems like the right things to me. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 Vice Chair Wimmer: Then, I see a gate between the terrace – the raised terrace and then the – sort of 2 the terrace that’s between the Community room and the basketball court. It looks like those gates are 8 3 feet tall? 4 5 Mr. Kobza: They’re 8 foot wide. 6 7 Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, 8-foot-wide, not 8 foot tall. 8 9 Mr. Kobza: Yeah. 10 11 Vice Chair Wimmer: So, the height of those gates would be (Inaudible)(Crosstalk) 12 13 Mr. Kobza: It’s probably going to be about 6 -6 ½ feet. 14 15 Vice Chair Wimmer: That’s probably what you’re required to have around the pool for safety reasons. 16 17 Mr. Kobza: Exactly. 18 19 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any other questions? So, I’ve got a couple. One is for Staff, is this property – 20 does it fall into any of our historic categories, 1, 2, 3, 4? 21 22 Ms. French: It’s Nationally and as you know, California Register – because it’s National Register but the 23 way our code is written it does not capture those as automatically being on our historic resource 24 inventory as a category 1, 2, 3, or 4 but the importance of it is such that – you know, this discretionary 25 application elevates it to this level where we do CEQA review and bring it to the Board. 26 27 Chair Bernstein: Ok. Great. My other questions is on page 3 of the Staff report, the chart says, cultural 28 resources with the project on A, I’ll read it. It says, the cause of substantial adverse change in the 29 significant of a historic resource and then the options on that questions are a potentially significant 30 impact, less than significant with mitigation, less than significant no impact. Does Staff or Mr. Rush have 31 any comment on which box might be checked? It’s on page 3 of the Staff report. The top chart. 32 33 Ms. French: Right. So, again because it’s on the California Register, it is subject to CEQA and that’s what 34 this checklist is about. Is Staff having to make sure that the project will get to a point that where there 35 won’t be an impact because if there is or it needs mitigation, then we have to go through a larger 36 exercise? 37 38 Chair Bernstein: So, my questions are there any indication of where this – as we’re seeing it today, which 39 box might be checked? 40 41 Mr. Rusch: Given the current design, I mean I think in a lot of ways it’s very compatible. In a certain 42 sense, it is – the – I’m trying to think of how to phrase this but the differentiation is an issue that we’re 43 looking for some improvement in. For that reason, it is not entirely Standards compliant so, I don’t know 44 if the current stage of development, we could say that it’s a less than significant impact but it’s hovering 45 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 46 my mind. I think there’s an additional question about the impact of the landscape and I know that was 47 brought up in our report. That I think it would be helpful to have a little bit more understanding of what 48 features in landscape date to the original construction of the park and neighborhood, would be impacted. 49 So, I understand that the pool has changed quite a bit but the wall, itself has not and a section of that 50 wall will be removed. That does seem to indicate that it’s – it would be a removal of historic fabric. Again, 51 not entirely Standards compliant for that reason but I think the larger question is if that elevates it to a – 52 something greater than a significant impact. I guess I’m still trying to think through a few of those issues 53 so having more information about the landscape and the history of the landscape would be very helpful. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Thank you and welcome Board Member Kohler. Welcome. Another question I 1 had is for – I think it would be for the applicant. As you heard from Board Member Bunnenberg 2 mentioned, Standard nine can be a challenging Standard to address. One of the other issues that the City 3 of Palo Alto looks at when we look at that Standard Nine about compatibility and differentiation. Another 4 Standard we use is, how is any proposed new construction subordinate to the historical structure. The 5 question would be, how would your proposal be viewed as being subordinate to the historical aspect of 6 the existing buildings? 7 8 Mr. Kobza: Yeah, I’m not quite sure I understand the question either. You’re saying…go, ahead. 9 10 Chair Bernstein: That Standard about subordination is that so when a visitor comes to the property, they 11 can see the significant historical structures. So, that would be the existing Eichler structure there. So, that 12 when they – if a new structure is added to the historic property, the historical structure is the more 13 dominate character-defining form and then whatever is new is kind of subordinate to it and not standing 14 out as dominant. 15 16 Mr. Kobza: I see, thank you for the clarification. I think the basic premise of this would be as you enter, 17 as you mentioned on the very nice walkway from the street, that’s lined with trees and things. You’re 18 going to see all of the existing structures first. Those will all be in plain sight as you approach and it really 19 won’t be until you get quite close to the pool area, where you’re going to get a glimpse of the new 20 building off to the side. The other piece – I think that just the right place, sight wise, to accomplish that 21 and it just happened to be the right place, site wise, to accomplish the tasks that they are looking for and 22 with the landscaping being added from the park area to help screen the building itself. That should help 23 minimize its impact. However, coming from the park area, there really wasn’t much of a view of the 24 existing buildings at all. You know, you have a fence there and a basketball court; it really takes 25 prominence. 26 27 Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that and the basis I’m asking that – yeah – the basis I ask that question 28 was that both you and [Sherry] mentioned some actually very good goals about the architectural 29 integrating and the idea of compatibility. It’s a good thing. We as an HRB, Historic Resources Board, 30 we’re given the City of Palo Alto task of that Standard nine, that’s why Board Member Bunnenberg 31 mentioned that; that’s a challenging thing. Sounds like – you answered that well so, thank you. Board 32 Member Di Cicco. 33 34 Board Member Di Cicco: I just want to kind of enlarge on the cultural landscape and the shrubbery and 35 trees, given very little separation from the public park. Is – I guess, is have there been further research 36 that what is really available, that was Thomas Church original design, what trees are there? How many 37 trees need to be removed? Yesterday, when I was at the park, in the park section, there were two folks 38 with four dogs. If those had been my dogs, they would leap into the pool, given the opportunity and it 39 kind of would concern that – you know, trees take a long time to grow to and whether this is enough 40 basically, I guess security for the members of the association? 41 42 Ms. Listgarten: I can address some of that. First of all, we’re only removing two trees. We were only 43 going to remove one and [Dave Doctor] said you need to remove that other one because he doesn’t like 44 Siberian Elm so, it’s fine. So, two trees are going to go and I think the neighborhood felt bad about one 45 of them. The structure integrity of the trees – one of the arborists said, take it down ASAP. Dogs – ok, 46 people – I was actually out there with my dog yesterday when Beth stopped by. People like to walk and 47 play with their dogs there. The perimeter is going to stay intact. So, there is no way that a dog can get 48 into the pool. That’s why there are the fences and the gates and these rules around self-closing and stuff 49 like that. There’s no concern at all about dogs running into the pool. My dog will run around the other 50 side and go in the gate. The pool is very friendly towards dogs and things like that but it’s not – 51 practically, it shouldn’t be a problem. There is one dog walker who is pretty incensed about this whole 52 thing but I think with the trees and the benches, it will still be very much like the park. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Next, I’d like to open up this item to members of the public. If any 1 members of the public would like to speak on this event, please make yourself seen. Oh ok, sure, go 2 ahead Beth. 3 4 Board Member Bunnenberg: It would be very helpful to have color samples of the colors that you list and 5 maybe a sample of the concrete block because I don’t know whether they look the same or simply the 6 fact that it’s many years later and they may not look the same. Also, the report talks about the possibility 7 of using perhaps a wider spaced, vertical wood feature, rather than the thin space. Which is too typical of 8 the Eichler of this era? Would that be acceptable to you? 9 10 Mr. Kobza: Sure. I mean that would be sort of normal practice as we moved forward with the ARB but we 11 could put that together, very easily. 12 13 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Let’s bring it back to members of the public, who’d like to speak on this 14 agenda item. If there are any members of the public who’d like to speak? I’d also like to invite Council 15 Member Holman, please. 16 17 Council Member Holman: I have a question. It’s not clear who the applicant is. I mean, I know you’re 18 here speaking but I don’t know that the – everything says the applicant proposed – the applicant this, the 19 applicant that. So, are you a representative of the Greenmeadow Neighborhood Association or what 20 formal “authority” do you have? 21 22 Ms. Listgarten: Ok – I don’t know. So, there’s the Greenmeadow Committee Association has – is a formal 23 body and they have set up a Committee, which is called the 20 Now Committee. This is – whatever, the 24 name and I am on that Committee with two or three other people. In my responsibility on that 25 Committee is design. So, somebody else’s responsibility would be like working with the contractors, for 26 example, and getting the surveys done and stuff like that. I am here as a member – I am definitely on 27 the Committee; the Committee is a formally approved part of the GMCA. That’s a good question. I don’t… 28 29 Council Member Holman: But has the Committee, you know looked at these plans and approved them 30 (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) 31 32 Ms. Listgarten: Oh absolutely, absolutely. We voted – there was a big presentation, we’ve circulated all 33 kinds of things and hand them all out to all the households and they have voted on this and we have a 34 newsletter that goes out to the neighborhoods. There’s a lot of information about this. Not only has all 35 the neighborhood seen this but the Board has certainly seen this and is very supportive of it. 36 37 Council Member Holman: That’s really helpful. You understand the question because everything just says 38 the applicant. 39 40 Ms. Listgarten: Yeah and I am taking it for granted, just because our neighborhood is so active but yeah, 41 absolutely… 42 43 Council Member Holman: I know it is. 44 45 Ms. Listgarten: All of the neighborhoods know about this or if they don’t they’re not paying attention. I 46 mean, they’ve had handouts on their doorstep. There are emails going around. There’s a sign posted 47 there and the Board is very supportive and there was a three-year discussion preceding this. 48 49 Council Member Holman: That’s helpful clarification and great cohesive neighborhood. 50 51 Ms. Listgarten: (Inaudible) 52 53 Chair Bernstein: I also – that does spark one more question I do have for [Sherry]. Are there any 54 conditions, covenants and restrictions in this development that control what happens to this project? 55 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Ms. Listgarten: That’s a good question. So, there are – CCRN’s – a single story I think would apply. So, 2 our neighborhood is all single story and needs to compatible with Eichler so, we cannot renovate our 3 houses in any way that is not compatible with Ickler and there’s an architecture – another part of GMCA 4 is there is an Architectural Review Board, like our own version of it, which looks at things. We have been 5 working with the Architecture Board in Greenmeadow to review some of the things, like colors and 6 lighting and stuff like that. They’re very busy people. They don’t weigh in as much as we would like I 7 guess but we’re working with them as well and they need to approve this. So, they need to write a letter 8 that says, that we approve this thing before we can submit it and that letter has to be a part of that 9 submittal. 10 11 Chair Bernstein: Ok and I do see the proposed height of the new structure still meets the definition of 12 one story so that’s good. Alright, I see no members of the public are present for this agenda item. We 13 can continue with our study session and that can include additional comments. I’m going to keep the 14 public hearing open. The study session, is this considered a public hearing even though it’s a study 15 session? 16 17 Ms. French: It is. It’s a noticed hearing. A regular meeting date of the Board. 18 19 Chair Bernstein: So, I’m going to keep this open so we have an interactive conversation between us, Staff 20 and the applicant representatives. So, back to the Board for any comments. 21 22 Board Member Bower: Follow-up on my earlier questions. What I remember when I worked on Eichlers in 23 the 70s is that the siding was a unique dimension. In fact, we always had to have it milled. One of the 24 ways that I would recommend that you differentiate your new siding from the original Eichler siding is 25 not to reproduce that pattern and you’re right, there is the 4-inch groove, there’s the 6 inch. I don’t know 26 if they got wider than that. The point I’m trying to make is, I would use a readily available siding and 27 maybe even something like a v-groove siding, which is not what he used. They always had – Eichler, he 28 owned his own Redwood groves and he owned his own mill and he made everything, for all of his houses 29 the same way for the economy, that’s why they were half as much as all the other houses. That’s one 30 thing to consider. The second thing I would consider on the concrete block wall, I’m pretty sure those are 31 8 by 16 blocks. Rather than use a fluted block, which I don’t think is appropriate, I would just use a 32 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 33 scale and it’s going to – I’m a little bit concerned about how busy that would be but that’s a 34 differentiation. Same material but it’s clearly not the original material. They only used 6 by – I mean 8 by 35 16 blocks in the 60s and 50s because that’s what was there. Now, we have hundreds of styles – multiple 36 styles. So, that’s another issue. The other thing I just noticed on the plans is there is a 10-foot utility 37 easement right across the front and the refuge is right on top of it. Last time I looked, you can’t put any 38 perminate structure on a utility easement so, that will help me get you to move the – also, I don’t even 39 see how the garbage men get in to get the garbage because it’s back in the corner and could be parked 40 in. Not likely at 4 in the morning when they are coming to collect the garbage but just something to 41 consider. 42 43 Ms. Listgarten: We just found out about the easement. So, one approach is if it’s a paper easement, we 44 can appeal to the utility companies if we like where it is. I think your feedback is great. It’s tough to 45 figure out where to put this thing. If it’s a separate structure, is that a problem? Do we barrier it in 46 foliage, if it’s a separate structure? I don’t know. I think the refuge thing is going to be an issue that we 47 have to figure out. 48 49 Board Member Bower: One last comment, the way that I interpret this new building as being compatible 50 and subordinate to the existing buildings. First of all, it’s differentiated by the fact that’s going to be new 51 and the other buildings is pretty tired and really need to be renovated. Surprised me that you could have 52 a daycare center in a building that probably hasn’t been upgraded in, who knows, if ever. What I like 53 about the positioning of the building is it has a significant distance between the original buildings that are 54 on the property and this new building. It’s in the same style so, that’s compatible with me but the 55 City of Palo Alto Page 12 distance and the fact that you don’t really see it when you are approaching the main complex, gives me 1 some comfort that this can be a little taller than the other buildings and still be subordinate because it’s 2 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 3 nit-picking details that we’re giving you some grief about, will easily be resolved. 4 5 Chair Bernstein: Amy, will the – as the project proceeds because it’s considered preliminary. I’d like to 6 request that it does come back to the HRB, correct? Yeah, great, thanks. Beth. 7 8 Board Member Bunnenberg: I find it interesting that the – my understanding is that these plans have 9 been worked on for about 5 years and that they have involved everyone and I was particularly interested 10 to hear that the neighbor who would be most impacted by that garbage/refuge structure was pleased to 11 see it. I think that it sounds like you’ve been very respectful of letting people know and we don’t have 12 anyone here protesting it. So, that it feels to me also that I was surprised by the distance between those 13 surrounding houses and this new structure. I think the location looks like it has given them some space, 14 rather than feeling like it's backed right up to my back yard. I like that part of it very much. When we get 15 to discussing the CEQA phase, should I make comments on that now? 16 17 Chair Bernstein: Sure. 18 19 Board Member Bunnenberg: In terms of whether it would cause the substantial adverse change to the 20 significant, I would almost see it as no impact. I don’t see how – I don’t know what the other Board 21 Members feel and we don’t have – well there were certainly some structures along time ago and we don’t 22 know what the Native Americans had but you’re not going deeply enough in the soil to end up with any 23 of that there and paleontology the same way and human remains buried, unlikely. That would be my 24 thought that it’s very respectful of the site. 25 26 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Di Cicco. 27 28 Board Member Di Cicco: What I think might be helpful at our next meeting or when it’s further reviewed, 29 would be to have perhaps a streetscape of the cul-de-sac and the building that are all – there’s 220 or 30 something that are contributing, which is a really great number for the total of 248 or something as I 31 read. If perhaps the streetscape and the colors, which have been selected by your association already. If 32 that’s what's going to go be the possibilities for the project, in proximity to it, I think it would be helpful 33 to see that. I also think, be given what we’re not at any phase as to what possibility is going to be used 34 for the building. My thought would be to have the full glass facing toward the pool and the rest of the 35 association property, as opposed to the park and have that on the site plan. The lesser glaze windows on 36 the – facing the cul-de-sac. I don’t – you know it’s hard to tell from just these plans and the difference 37 between how they’re going to sit. One number – number one says, facing the pool with the sliding doors 38 as opposed to the other side. It would make more sense to be but I think it would be nice to be able to 39 see the whole view of it, with the park and with the trees and the locations of them. 40 41 Ms. Listgarten: I just wanted to add a comment. We can’t have sliding doors facing the pool because it’s 42 a pool perimeter rules. So, those need to be the swing kind of door. So, that’s why the sliding doors are 43 on the other side. Yeah. 44 45 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. My question or comment or question/comment on your site plan A1.1. A1.1, 46 it’s called enlarged site plan. Anyway, you’re showing – I see the steps going up. Have you considered 47 having steps and ramps going up, having the same number of steps and ramp going down? That would 48 lower the building by about 2 feet or so. That would bring the tall structure from 12 feet, in essence, it 49 brings it down to about 10 feet. Brings then the proposed 9-foot structure down to about 7 feet high, 50 above those grade levels, just to help subordinate the new construction to the existing historic. Have you 51 considered, instead of going up, go down the same distance? 52 53 Mr. Kobza: We did consider essentially, I think leveling it. I think what you’re kind of getting to. Where 54 the plain of the pool surface would be equal. I think that would end up obviously, dropping the building 55 City of Palo Alto Page 13 from the park side. You’d end up having to come down some stairs to get to the building and then some 1 retaining walls along the existing paving path. That would probably create, for safety sakes, some 2 additional railing. Just because if you’re going to have kids on bicycles or skateboards or whatever and 3 there’s a retaining wall where they can fall down. I think, the way we have it makes more sense, certainly 4 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 5 – makes it a little bit more special for the use portion and also gives the people that might be in the 6 building having a function or out on the terrace, a nice view of the pool versus just straight across. Those 7 were features that we did talk about. We did move the ramp, you know, sort of away from the pool area 8 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 9 the design really. It’s hopefully tucked away and we’re actually going to use it to hide the pool cover too. 10 So, we did think about those things, Martin. 11 12 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. I appreciate it. Board Member Kohler. 13 14 Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) 15 16 Board Member Bower: Oh sure. Thank you. I wanted to make a couple of comments just on the exterior 17 and how you’re approaching that and treating it and I’m actually in favor of lifting the height of the 18 building up a little bit, just because I know with Eichlers and the design of it, there’s a challenge to get 19 the appropriate amount of insulation up in the ceiling cavity and the current Eichlers really don’t give you 20 an opportunity to do any recessed lighting. I don’t know how you were thinking about heating the 21 building. If you want to do the traditional radiant heat or if you want to do some kind of forced air 22 system so, I think given the low height approach that you are presenting here is going to present some 23 challenges with those very essential items. I think the building to me looks a little bit low and I know 24 there’s a conversation about subordination but maybe this is – instead of trying to make it subordinate to 25 the existing that have a significant distance between this new building. Maybe raising it up could offer an 26 opportunity for differentiation. I see that the bathroom only has two small windows and the bathrooms 27 are going to be used probably quite a bit so, if you can somehow get more natural light into the 28 bathrooms. So, maybe raising the height of the roof, maybe even 12 inches or something would allow 29 you to get some more windows in there. Some more natural light because people going in and out of 30 those, those are going to be highly used and if you don’t have the natural light, you’re going to have to 31 turn on artificial light and someone’s going to leave the light on and what have you. So, I’m just thinking 32 ahead or maybe a skylight would be something that you…(Crosstalk) 33 34 Mr. Kobza: Yeah, we’re planning on skylights. 35 36 Vice Chair Wimmer: I think you need more natural light in there. I kind of like what you're doing with the 37 sort of Nano doors or the expensive accordion to a glass that faces the park side but I’m not really crazy 38 about, in that same room, how you have different heights of windows and doors. So, I would keep that 39 consistent. I do see that you have a fireplace on the inside of that room but you’re not showing any 40 venting or flue mechanism. There’s a fireplace on the inside that faces the… 41 42 Mr. Kobza: We actually show a flue. It’s probably hard to see on your very small plan. 43 44 Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, maybe it is. Yeah, ok. I see it, I see it. I guess I would have a little question 45 about attaching the barbecue element on the outside, just for fire safety issues and I know there’s a 46 detached barbecue but it’s on the other side of the fence. 47 48 Mr. Kobza: Right. 49 50 Vice Chair Wimmer: Closer to the pool, maybe you can combine those (Inaudible) 51 52 Mr. Kobza: We did actually talk to the fire department about the barbecue and they were fine with it. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Vice Chair Wimmer: I was just questioning. Then, I guess I don’t – I think that Community room, it might 1 be – I don’t know – did you consider a vaulted ceiling because I know a lot of Eichlers have a vaulted 2 ceiling? I’m sure you did. 3 4 Mr. Kobza: Yes. 5 6 Vice Chair Wimmer: I just think that could be a really cool room with a maybe a little bit more value of 7 space and some of those exposed beams that are traditional with Eichlers. I think, just going in and 8 having a flat ceiling – I don’t know – it could just be more of a celebrated space, maybe? Then, -- I had 9 another thought and now I’m forgetting. I think about the trash, I see that the trash bins are located in 10 that corner. Maybe if you just rotate them 90 degrees and sort of face them to the left, so the doors are 11 on – it looks more detached and it doesn’t – you don’t read it as a part of the landscape elevation if you 12 just kind of rotate it and push it off to the side. 13 14 Ms. Listgarten: (Inaudible) 15 16 Chair Bernstein: Any comment, we need – this is a public hearing, we need to be mic because it's 17 recorded, thank you. 18 19 Ms. Listgarten: I would love to do that. I am not sure if the truck can get there. It’s not a very big 20 walkway. That would be ideal if they could. 21 22 Vice Chair Wimmer: Sorry, I remember my last comment, sorry. On the elevation, the West elevation on 23 the bathroom sides, you don’t pull an overhang – that’s a flush fascia overhang and that looks – cause 24 the rest of the building has an overhang and that just looks like maybe – I would pull that same 25 overhang on that end. Those are my comments. 26 27 Mr. Kobza: Thank you. 28 29 Chair Bernstein: Rodger. 30 31 Board Member Kohler: I guess I have to disclose things, right? 32 33 Chair Bernstein: Yes. 34 35 Board Member Kohler: Ok. Well, it’s been years but I have two children, Heather and Mathew. We spent 36 hours and hours and hours at that wonderful place and so I know how it works fairly well. Also, I would 37 not be – I also have two dogs so, I’m a dog person. 175 pounds of dogs. I think this is a great project. 38 I’m not sure I have a whole lot of comment. There was – the only thing I was – part of the problem is 39 getting old, you forget to set the alarm and you have trouble remembering things. I think the raising of 40 the Community building level with the rear part of where the activity is, brings the whole building up, 41 what is it? 3 feet? 2 feet? 2 feet and having spent hours and hours watching the pool and the kids, that’s 42 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 43 idea of what’s going on and it’s actually, I think a pretty good safety feature. I wouldn’t lower it because 44 it's so subtle. You’ve got to decide one way or the other, if you had it level with the pool, then there 45 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 46 activity going in and out from the lawn area over to the Community building, is more active. As for where 47 the raising the house up on the poolside, you’re a little more careful of getting in and out of the pool and 48 it gives a tremendous view of what’s going on. Both for homeowners and – I mean moms and dads, as 49 well as for the actual life guard people. I think it’s a pretty good solution. If you go – you know, having 50 grew up here, all the different pools we’ve been to, Rinconada and Wilbur and things like – well, it’s not 51 Wilbur anymore but the pool is – I think that’s a pretty good solution myself. I think it’s actually a huge 52 improvement because for safety wise alone. Other than that, I think it's, you know, there’s all kinds of 53 different ways to that and basically, the building has the look of an Eichler, whether it’s got wide boards 54 City of Palo Alto Page 15 or you know, -- in my mind, I don’t really care but I think it’s an appropriate structure. I’m ready to vote 1 for it. I guess we can’t yet. 2 3 Chair Bernstein: I have some other comments on the design. As I mentioned, I visited the site and I think 4 some other Board Members mentioned that when you approach from the parking lot to the existing 5 building that is there, there’s certainly a quality of horizontally and then the lowness. So, when you come 6 into the breezeway, between – you got the Montessori on the right and then – anyway, low, low, low. 7 Have you considered on this project of the new proposed buildings, to have those to help emphasize the 8 horizontality, to have horizontal siding on the proposed new structure? Just to keep that horizontal 9 feeling because I know, in Victorian, you got the vertical so, you put the – a lot of verticalities. I 10 understand this is a common Eichler approach. We see that at the edge of the shopping center, you see 11 that vertical same detail but to have the new structure, since we’re going up 12-foot height structure on 12 one of the buildings there, to have horizontal boards on there, just to see what that looks like. Have you 13 considered that or maybe that part… 14 15 Mr. Kobza: I would say we’re considering it now. 16 17 Board Member Kohler: I would not vote for that. Just to let you know. 18 19 Chair Bernstein: Just the horizontally because of the architectural feel and that’s going to be one of the 20 other measures that as the project continues. That’s one of the other measures of compatibility is 21 architectural feel. Again, repeating the sense I had when I approached the property at the beginning, low 22 horizontality. So, what can you do with this proposed 12-foot structures and the 9-foot structure to keep 23 that horizon – so, again, it doesn’t change the function. You can look at what impact it has on a budget 24 but again just the architectural feel. With that I would like to invite Mr. Rush has any comments on the 25 idea of compatibility, in terms of horizontality, that’d be great. Excuse me, we have other Board Member 26 conversations going on. I’ll wait till we clear that up. Ok, go ahead. 27 28 Board Member Kohler: We’ll we’re trying to decide whether to go there to swim or not? 29 30 Chair Bernstein: Ok. Mr. Rush, please. 31 32 Mr. Rusch; I’m sorry, could you repeat the question? So, my comments on the horizontality? 33 34 Chair Bernstein: (Crosstalk) My question is more of a general comment or a discussion that you would 35 offer about the idea of compatibility and differentiation with the proposed structure, regarding the 36 historical resource. 37 38 Mr. Rusch: In terms of Standards Compliance, I don’t that that having a horizontal board – when you’re 39 thinking about compatibility, I don’t think that having a horizontal board is perhaps the very best solution 40 but I don’t know that it would automatically tilt in the direction of noncompliance. In my kind of 41 understanding of it, I don’t see having horizontal siding as being, you know, the needle that would break 42 the camel’s back so to speak. I don’t think it would tip this into a substantial adverse effect. 43 44 Chair Bernstein: Repeating why – the main reason why I brought this up is the architectural feel of the 45 historic – of the existing structure and then the new structure. Just something for you as the applicant to 46 design or to consider. That’s all. That’s my comment. 47 48 Board Member Kohler: Martin, I just don’t understand the switch. I mean, it’s a new building, it’s going to 49 be raised up, it’s taller than the other building. It’s obviously a newer building and it will be newer 50 because probably even the glazing, I don’t know, is the glazing going to match the existing or not? It will 51 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 52 becomes more of an eyesore in a sense that everything else is vertical and suddenly you got this building 53 that’s horizontal. Just to me seems out of touch with the general feel of the entire neighborhood. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Bernstein: ok. Board Member Bower. 1 2 Board Member Bower: I’m a little confused about the height of the new building as it relates to the park 3 on the West side and the pool on the East side. It looks like you’re going down about 4 risers, something 4 like 30 inches – 32 inches. There’s no way to raise the building that I can see so, that it’s even with the 5 pool deck, without having on the other side, the West side to have some kind of ramping or stairs out of 6 there. I mean the point, as I understand the design is to get the building at the park level and then step 7 up to the pool level. So, raising the building finished floor to the pool level, creates another bigger 8 problem on the other side. Is that right, because… 9 10 Mr. Kobza: Nope, actually the building finished floor will closely mirror what the level of the park is, 11 currently. The pool level is about 30 inches lower so, you’re actually going down from our building to the 12 pool. I think we’re going to end up not quite having 30 inches. We’re looking more at probably 26-28 at 13 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, 14 the opposite of what you’re saying David. 15 16 Board Member Bower: Because I couldn’t find the floor elevation on the new building. I can see it around 17 the pool, the survey. 18 19 Mr. Kobza: Right. We can certainly add that so it’s a little bit clearer. 20 21 Board Member Bower: Well, I’m just trying – actually, a section of course, of the pool deck and the 22 building would be helpful when you come back to us because that would – make it easier to understand 23 this. 24 25 Mr. Kobza: Yep. 26 27 Board Member Bower: I don’t get a sense that that neighborhood had a lot of slope in it. I mean I grew 28 up there and watched those buildings being built. It was just fields when I was in elementary school. So, 29 they must have raised the grade in that park or somehow rearranged the grade to create that offset from 30 the pool and putting up a swimming pool below, sort of ambient grade, is counterintuitive. Especially, 31 when you consider, we use to have rain in this City. I’m not sure – you know I don’t want to be more 32 invasive -- to have this project become more invasive in the park area but maybe there’s a way to create 33 – have that building come up and still be able to get out of it – get out from the park side, without having 34 to go downstairs. 35 36 Mr. Kobza: You don’t have to go. From the park side, the building you walk outside and you’re going to 37 be right at the current level. 38 39 Board Member Bower: I’m thinking of trying to make the building – the new building flush or close to the 40 same level as the pool deck so, that flows into that space but then the other side of it, you know. You’re 41 going to have to depress the building and then you have to climb out of it. 42 43 Mr. Kobza: Right. 44 45 Chair Bernstein: I wasn’t sure – I just wanted to say thank you for your patience. We have a 121-page 46 booklet here called Secretary of Interior Standards and so, again we’re being responsive to the City of 47 Palo Alto’s regulations. That’s why you’re hearing these comments. Additional comments? Suggestions? 48 Board Members? 49 50 Ms. Listgarten: Can I respond to one or two things? 51 52 Chair Bernstein: Oh, please, yes. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Listgarten: So, Margaret asked about the eave on the bathroom side, that’s been a place of 1 contention (Inaudible). I had removed the eave because a bunch of the houses don’t have eaves so it’s 2 not the case that there are eaves everywhere. My house and lots of other houses don’t have eaves 3 uniformly. The reason on there is because the path on that side is not super wide and if you have the 4 eave, it encroaches further, it hides the sky. It’s more of a feeling of openness in that path as you’re 5 walking through and safety if you’re a women and more light and stuff like that if there’s not the eave. 6 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 7 but at least I wanted to explain that. I think it’s [Johnathan], you asked about which structure were 8 original in the park, is that right? 9 10 Mr. Rusch: We have the image on – in the presentation that shows a rendering of the park and 11 structures as originally designed but it’s still a question as to which of these elements were really put in 12 place and… 13 14 Ms. Listgarten: I can answer that if you want because we went and tried to look at old photos and things 15 like that because we were curious. The oldest photo that we have, the trees were not there. The wall 16 was there but the basketball court was not there, in the very beginning. It looked like lawn and there 17 were people picnicking. I think that that was added a little bit afterward. As far as the neighbors can 18 remember, it’s been there for a really long time but I think that the wall was there and the basketball 19 court may have delayed by 5 or 10 years, something like that. The trees, I think were never there. 20 Everything else was built the way that it is now. The pool was sunk. The pool is a sunken feature, that 21 whole thing is – right now, it’s not more that 2-feet down. It’s between 20-24 inches down and there is 22 that sitting wall, that sort of – kids would hang out on the sitting wall and it was – dangled their legs that 23 2 feet kind of things between the park and the pool. 24 25 Board Member Kohler: I have a quick question, over in the corner, it says privacy for [Greg Gregaria]. 26 What does that mean? What’s the last word? 27 28 [Mr. Listgarten:] I mean you guys know more about it – a lot about Eichler but go ahead. 29 30 [Mr. Cobesaid:] I think we’re talking playful people. They’re gregarious. So, the neighbors that want to go 31 out and have a good time and swim. 32 33 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Di Cicco, you had your, ok. Alright. Amy, is the next step, this goes to 34 Architectural Review Board and then back to us, is that next step? 35 36 Mr. French: Well, next step is getting to a complete application because it is a conditional permit and 37 architectural review application. So, we want to, I guess – sounds great that there are additional photos 38 that [Sherry] has possession of. So, those kinds of documents would be very helpful for us to submit a 39 documentation of that park. I mean because I think that’s the additional research that we need to do is 40 regarding the cultural landscape and what was actually installed verses that lovely photo – rendering, 41 that we have here. So, we can make some further determination regarding the proposal along the park 42 edge there. Then, yes, we would – you’ve requested to come back, I think that makes sense, we would 43 come back to you before going to the ARB, unless we determine that we’ll just have the HRB conduct the 44 hearing and then keep it kind of at a Staff level architectural review and let this body become the main 45 hearing body because of the kind of minor aspect of the project. The most important part about it is that 46 it’s National Registered District and we’re wrestling with Standards. 47 48 Board Member Bunnenberg: Are you needing a motion? 49 50 Ms. French: No, that’s fine. This is billed as a study session. 51 52 Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) CEQA, is there any motion necessary on the CEQA findings? 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Ms. French: Again, I think because we’re not ready to make a CEQA determination on Staff without the 1 additional documentation. I mean, I’ve heard – I appreciate you’re considering this no impact. I mean, 2 we would like it to be no impact and so to do the research to make that determination, I think will be, 3 you know, something we bring to you and let you concur or not with our findings, at a future date. 4 5 Chair Bernstein: Also, I think – let's see, Board Member Di Cicco, you were suggesting there be a – some 6 kind of an elevation or – this is a question for the applicant. I think Board Member Di Cicco, I think you 7 were suggesting having a drawing or a view from the cul-de-sac, Greenmeadow Way, so we can see… 8 9 Mr. Kobza: Sure. 10 11 Chair Bernstein: Yeah, that’d be a good (Inaudible) 12 13 Mr. Kobza: We were planning, you know, obviously – typically the ARB is going to have a lot more 14 information coming from us, whether it’s photo surveys or rendering. 15 16 Chair Bernstein: Good, good. 17 18 Mr. Kobza: Certainly your point is taken. 19 20 Chair Bernstein: Good. Thank you so much. Another… 21 22 Board Member Di Cicco: I guess, Martin – yeah, I think that would be very helpful and from what I’ve 23 heard too, all the original paths will remain intact? 24 25 Mr. Kobza: Yeah. 26 27 Board Member Di Cicco: Yeah. 28 29 Mr. Kobza: We’re invading it slightly with our pavers but the path itself stays intact. 30 31 Board Member Di Cicco: I’m sorry but I do not remember what the material was and what… 32 33 Mr. Kobza: It’s paving. Right now, the path is asphalt paving. 34 35 Board Member Di Cicco: Asphalt, is that what’s in store or will it maybe be DG? 36 37 Mr. Kobza: We’re going to leave that entire path the way it is. The basketball court will become a half 38 court; will remain paving. Then, sort of per our layout on the site plan, we’re mirroring the curve of the 39 path with some new hardscape that surrounds the building. So, we’re trying to be compatible with the 40 paths movement – original movement but then, where it starts to touch the building, upscale the material 41 that you’d be walking on. 42 43 Chair Bernstein: Anymore? Board Member Bower. 44 45 Board Member Bower: Comment on that, hopefully, you would consider some kind of pervious pavement, 46 like concrete so the water, instead of collecting the water and routing it off somewhere, we can actually 47 get it back down. That’s a big theme in the City after… 48 49 Mr. Kobza: Yep. 50 51 Board Member Bower: I was on the Storm Water Committee and we have a ballot issues coming up 52 where we’re trying to move the way we think about water from something to put in the storm drain, 53 towards something – towards a resource we can get back in the ground. Anything you can do to put – to 54 allow that water to get back down in the ground would be… 55 City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 Mr. Kobza: Yep, totally agree. Totally agree. 2 3 Chair Bernstein: Alright, does the Staff need anything else – would like to request any other things from 4 the Board? 5 6 Ms. French: I appreciate all of your comments and no, not at this time. We’ll see you in the new year 7 with some revisions. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Bernstein: Sherry and Bud, thank you so much. Really appreciate all your comments. Thank you. 10 Ok, that concludes this agenda item. 11 303 Parkside Response to feedback from HRB study session We appreciate the time that HRB spent with us during the pre-review. The main points that we heard raised (per the transcript) are listed below, along with our response. The most difficult issue (we believe) is at the end. Fenestration Jonathon Rusch called out a need to re-visit the fenestration, to make the windows more regular and more compatible with Eichler style. Several HRB members also asked for more natural light (e.g., in the bathrooms). We have responded by redesigning the windows, making heights compatible with each other and with doors, adding some clerestory windows (per Jonathan Rusch’s suggestion), and adding some skylights in darker rooms (e.g., bathrooms, shower, storage). We are happier with the revised windows, and welcome any additional feedback. Differentiation Jonathon Rusch and several board members emphasized the need to differentiate the new building from the original. We have differentiated in the following way: ●The original building exterior is (entirely) CMU, painted white-ish. ●The new building exterior is (entirely) wood, painted dark brown. ●The original perimeter wall is largely (white-ish) CMU, with some (avocado) metal. ●The new perimeter wall is largely (dark brown) wood, with some (near-black) metal near the dining patio. The new building is also in a quite distinct location, with significantly more glass and some bright green accents. The original structures that are adjacent to the new building (CMU walls on either side) are differentiated in both their construction (CMU with block pillars) and color (off-white with some ivy growth), which also reflects the original buildings. While the new and original buildings are easily distinguishable, they are compatible in style, in height (generally), and in orientation. In addition, we chose dark brown for the color of the new building so it would integrate with the existing (non-original) dark brown fencing, as well as be compatible with the tree’d park on the south side. Subordination There was some discussion about whether the new building is subordinate to the existing structures. It is in a very different location, and much less visible from the street (visible only from the cul-de-sac of Greenmeadow Way). In that sense, it is clearly subordinate -- it has no street entrance or presence. However, the new building is higher than the original. The height of the original building is about 9 feet. The height of much of the new building is also 9 feet. However, because the park is about 30 inches higher than the pool, the overall effect is of a building that is 30 inches higher (and more for the great room portion). There was some discussion in the HRB study session about sinking the building to be level with the pool. We strongly feel that is the wrong approach for this building. We want it to be an extension of the park, with views out over the park. When it is level with the park, as designed, we avoid lining the perimeter with railings, and we enable natural extensions of dining areas onto the basketball court and the park setting. This way people can view the lovely surroundings. We can also enhance the park with new landscaping beds around the building. An important goal of this clubhouse is to make better use of our park, and we don’t feel we can accomplish that if the building is 30 inches below the surface of the park. Horizontal sense One board member noted that there is a strong horizontal element in the existing structures, and asked how we will continue that in the new building. The new building itself is largely horizontal, with just 9 foot height for most of it. The most concrete suggestion made in the pre-review was around using horizontal siding instead of vertical, but there was some dissension on that suggestion in HRB. We have stayed with vertical siding because the exterior is quite broken up with windows, and we feel that vertical is a better fit. We also believe that the dark brown vertical is more compatible with the park (more tree-like) than horizontal would be. Overhang on the bathroom wing One board member asked why there is no overhang on the bathroom wing. We designed it that way so that there is more sky and feeling of space as people walk along that side of the building. And we note that several houses in Greenmeadow have similar designs. (You can see these along Scripps Avenue (for example), and some are visible in Google’s StreetView.) But we are open to adding an overhang if HRB prefers. Character of the great room A comment was made about the character of the great room, and whether we could do more with it. Indeed, Kobza (our architect) had originally suggested a slanted ceiling, but there was some unhappiness among the neighbors because of the overall height. We took a vote, and it was solidly in favor of the 11-foot “pop-up” style for the great room. We hope that the large windows/views and the large contrasting beams will provide some visual interest. Landscaping, materials Several HRB members noted that we didn’t have enough information about landscaping and materials. These have now been included. Refuse container placement During the review, we discussed the appropriate placement for the refuse container. This has been the most difficult issue for us, and we have not found a perfect placement. The constraints are: ●It must be adjacent to a street or parking lot. ●It should be relatively near where most of the trash is generated (pool and park). ●It should not obstruct views (of buildings/site). ●It should avoid existing easements. ●Neighbors should be comfortable with it. The only parking lots we have are in front of our buildings, so any refuse enclosure there will be visible. (Our trash containers are currently in one of those parking lots.) And our property has essentially no street frontage outside of that. The small areas we do have (by Greenmeadow Way and by Creekside) are adjacent to parks and to multiple houses. So we feel it’s best to put the refuse container in the parking lot. A diagram of options is shown below. We have chosen A because we believe it’s the least objectionable, but we are also open to the others. Evaluating these probably requires a visit to the site, and we’d be happy to accompany someone(s), or send along pictures. Attachment D Architectural Review Findings 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: 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, and 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 regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and 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. MEMORANDUM DATE May 17, 2017 PROJECT NO. 16252 TO Amy French PROJECT 303 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto OF City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Jonathon Rusch, Architectural Historian CC VIA E-mail REGARDING: 303 Parkside Drive – Revised Historic Resource Impact Analysis INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Impact Analysis memorandum provides comments on the proposed project for the community center at 303 Parkside Drive in the Greenmeadow development of Palo Alto. The project involves the construction of a new one-story building and surrounding paved patio within the community center site located northwest of the intersection of Parkside Drive and Scripps Avenue. The community center is located within the National Register of Historic Places-listed Greenmeadow Historic District, and contains a multi-purpose building (currently housing the Montessori School of Los Altos) at the northeast end of the site, a swimming pool and pool services building toward the middle, and a park area with a basketball court and bean-shaped lawn at the southwestern end. The new building—to contain a community room, storage area, and sanitary facilities—would be constructed within the park landscape and would stand adjacent to the pool area. The City of Palo Alto has requested a discussion of whether the project, as currently developed, may adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards) and, where applicable, to provide guidance that would allow the project to better comply with the Standards. Page & Turnbull previously prepared a memorandum dated December 2, 2016, which provided comments on project drawings dated December 1, 2016. This memorandum provides an updated analysis of the project based on a revised and expanded drawing set completed in April 2017. GREENMEADOW HISTORIC DISTRICT The Greenmeadow Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in 2005; due to its inclusion on the National Register, it is also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The Greenmeadow Historic District is significant as a suburban residential subdivision developed by Eichler Homes, Inc. in 1954 and 1955. The single-family residences and support buildings that comprise Greenmeadow were designed by modernist architects A. Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons, who produced six standardized residential designs to be repeated throughout the development. The homes had visible post-and-beam construction—often with roof rafters exposed underneath overhanging eaves. Additional characteristics include flat or shallowly pitched roofs, vertical wood siding, and broad expanses of glass. Construction materials were chosen for their affordability. Designs also included 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 2 of 9 outdoor areas connected to the interior living space of the home through sliding doors, which promoted seamless transitions between interior and exterior. Given the repeated architectural designs by a well-known mid-century architectural firm, as well as the consistent scale and pattern of development throughout Greenmeadow, the historic district was listed in the National Register under Criterion C (Architecture). According to the National Register designation form, the district includes 220 contributing buildings that are primarily residences, but also two support buildings as described below. In addition, 26 non-contributing buildings and structures are located within the boundaries of the district. The proposed project is sited within Greenmeadow’s community center area. The National Register designation form for the Greenmeadow Historic District describes this area as follows: Among the features contributing to Greenmeadow's unique character is its community center complex. The center is 2.9 acres of centrally located common area which Eichler Homes, in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto and architects Jones and Emmons, carved from small increments of space from each residential parcel. Eichler's original center design, which remains intact and continues to function today, consisted of a multi-purpose building, a pool services building, an outdoor swimming pool, a park, and ample off-street parking. Barely visible from the street, and set back to accommodate necessary off-street parking, Greenmeadow's community center is an unobtrusive feature of its collective streetscape. Architecturally identical to the surrounding houses, it seems to naturally blend into its site and surroundings. […] Outside the building, one is led through an almost formally symmetrical arrangement of walkways, trees, and lawns. A generous breezeway provides a sheltered connection between the multi-purpose building on one side and the swimming pool services building on the other. A pool office is strategically located inside, at the pool building's entrance. […] The walls of dressing/shower rooms are concrete masonry units, painted white. Completing the pool building, which covers the entire length of the pool, is the pump and filter room. The adjoining park features asphalt-paved, meandering walkways that lead to a central greensward and past benches and picnicking alcoves under redwood tree families. The original landscaping of redwood trees was designed by Thomas Church, the esteemed Bay Area landscape architect who was recipient of the 1953 Gold Medal award from the Architect's League of New York. Church also created variation between the residential lots with differing driveways, and grass and planting forms at the street. The two buildings—the multi-purpose building and pool services building—are both considered to be "contributing." The pool is "non-contributing" as it has been significantly enlarged from its original design.1 1 Greenmeadow Historic District National Register of Historic Places designation form, 2005, Section 7 Page 5. 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 3 of 9 The cultural landscape of the park located within the community center, designed by Thomas Church, was not described in further detail in the National Register designation form, and was not identified as either contributing or non-contributing to the historic district. Additionally, the National Register designation form did not provide information on changes that have occurred to the park’s cultural landscape since the district’s period of significance, 1954-1955. Original landscape design drawings completed by Church were not uncovered during the preparation of this memorandum. The following site plans were published in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1954: Figure 1. Greenmeadow Community Center site plan Source: San Francisco Chronicle, October 3, 1954, page 3L Figure 2. Greenmeadow Community Center rendering Source: San Francisco Chronicle, October 10, 1954, page 3L 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 4 of 9 Figure 3. Detail of 1954 rendering, as reproduced in a later community publication Source: Greenmeadow: A Unique Palo Alto Community Since 1954 (undated brochure) The second and third images above indicate that the distinctive site features belonging to the southern portion of the community center site—the bean-shaped lawn, adjacent barbecue islands, and basketball court—were original to the park’s design. However, neighborhood residents have indicated that the park did not originally contain the basketball court and the belt of trees within the center of the lawn, which are illustrated in the rendering. The current basketball court was added during the 1970s. BRIEF PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION & PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant has provided City staff with site plans, elevation drawings and sections, prepared by Dennis Kobza & Associates and dated April 4, 2017, as well as drawings prepared by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc., dated April 7, 2017, and by Bonnie Brock Landscape Design, dated April 6, 2017. The project would involve the construction of a new one-story building and surrounding landscape features immediately southwest of the Greenmeadow pool, pool services building, and multi-purpose building. The community center site is surrounded on all sides by detached residences that contribute to the Greenmeadow Historic District. The proposed project site currently contains a paved, full-length basketball court, a cluster of trees, and a concrete block wall that demarcates the southwestern edge of the pool area. The proposed building and surrounding patio paving would replace the southeastern half of the basketball court and two existing trees; the building and patio would require the removal of the central portion of the existing concrete block wall at the southwest edge of the pool area. The design for the building is a symmetrical T-plan. The building’s roof is comprised of two flat planes: at the northwestern portion of the building, the roof would be taller (12’) than the roof plane at the southeastern portion of the building (9’). At the southwest and northeast façades, the ends of the building’s roof beams would be exposed underneath the eaves. The exterior siding of the building would be 8”-wide tongue-and-groove vertical wood. The building would feature a relatively simple fenestration arrangement consisting of solid pedestrian doors and operable windows of 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 5 of 9 varying sizes and placements on their respective façades. Fenestration at the southeastern portion of the building, featuring the lower roof, would be comprised of paired and single doors. Each of the single doors would be positioned adjacent to a narrow window rising from the ground to the eave. Most doors would also be crowned with transom windows, with similar heights and dimensions as clerestory windows placed elsewhere on the façades. The primary (northeast) façade, facing the adjacent pool, would feature an entrance with a fully glazed, paired door flanked by full-height windows. The southwest façade would feature a bank of six doors that would slide outward from center. Each of these entrances is crowned by a wood fascia board. The proposed building would be surrounded by a paved patio and dining area, which would approach the adjacent pool into an area currently containing grass lawn. The patio would be raised above the level of the pool area and would be separated from the pool by a new wood wall inboard of the current wall location. Much of the existing wall at the southeast edge of the pool area would be removed. A new planting strip would be inserted to demarcate the northern edge of the bean-shaped lawn of the community center park. This planting strip would contain a band of four new trees, two new benches, and low shrubs (geraniums and New Zealand flax). New plantings will also be placed within beds and planters along the north edges of the basketball court, within the proposed patio, and adjacent to the new building. New planting beds will also be placed on either side of the existing path leading into the park from the community center parking lot. These planting beds will contain a variety of drought-resistant species. A new trash enclosure is also proposed, currently sited within the community center parking lot near the pedestrian entrance into the park. DISCUSSION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS The following discussion considers the project’s potential effects on, and compatibility with, the Greenmeadow Historic District, and provides comments on whether the project appears to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation. The following comments provide general guidance meant to assist with adherence to the Standards. While the cultural landscape of the Greenmeadow community center has not formally been identified as contributing to the historic district, the following discussion considers the cultural landscape to be a potential district contributor. The Standards for Rehabilitation are: 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 6 of 9 conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The following comments are provided regarding the proposed project’s adherence to the applicable Standards. The compatibility of the proposed community center building with the surrounding Greenmeadow neighborhood is discussed first, followed by a discussion of the project’s effect on the landscape of the community center. ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY Use (Standard 1): The community center site will continue to be used as a community center. It is anticipated that the use of the proposed building as a gathering space would support the original historic recreation- and community-related functions that the community center was intended to serve within the Greenmeadow subdivision. Historic character, materials, scale and proportion, and massing (Standards 2 and 9): The proposed building has been designed for compatibility with the forms and materials of buildings originally constructed by Eichler Homes, Inc. As buildings original to Greenmeadow are one story in height, 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 7 of 9 the low scale and horizontal orientation of the proposed building is consistent with the nearby pool services building and multi-purpose building, as well as adjacent residences. Furthermore, the proposed building’s double roof plane, overhanging eaves with exposed rafters, and exterior material palette of vertical wood boards and concrete block are elements that draw from the design vocabulary of surrounding, original Eichler residences. The proposed building’s overall fenestration pattern has been designed to reference the multi- purpose building and surrounding Eichler residences. Original Eichler designs in Greenmeadow typically employ minimal fenestration at the street-facing façade, although there are often clerestories that provide a degree of privacy to living areas. Full-height windows at the rear façade provide an effortless blend of interior and exterior spaces. Windows and door openings typically follow a rational or repeated arrangement that is carefully designed for a compositional effect. The proposed design incorporates varied arrangements of openings that differ from one area of the building to another. At the building’s southeast wing, the northeast and southwest façades feature broad clerestory windows, as well as tall and narrow windows adjacent to single pedestrian doors; at the northwest wing, the building features large glazed areas facing the pool and the park lawn. The northwest façade contains two assemblies of doors and windows within equally sized openings, while the southeast façade does not have any openings apart from two clerestories. The varied fenestration patterns and interplay between expansive and minimal glazing reflect the designs of original homes within Greenmeadow, although adapted for the community center building’s program. Differentiation and historical development (Standards 3 and 9): As stated above, the design of the proposed building appears to be largely compatible with the scale, material palette, and form of the nearby pool services building and multi-purpose building, as well as surrounding residences. It appears that the building would be differentiated adequately through its cladding material: while vertical tongue-and-groove boards are typical of Eichler homes, the 8”-wide boards that have been proposed are generally wider than those typically used in Greenmeadow and therefore would offer a subtle form of differentiation. Furthermore, the arrangement of windows and doors is similar to, but not an exact replica of, fenestration found on buildings in Greenmeadow originally constructed by Eichler Homes. EFFECT ON LANDSCAPE Historic character (Standard 2): The historic character of the community center park is supported through numerous cultural landscape elements, including spatial organization, circulation, vegetation, and small-scale features. The proposed building is sited in a location that currently contains paving (portions of the walkway and non-original basketball court) and portions of grass lawn. The project site lies between the walled pool area and park lawn. The circulation patterns of the park would be changed slightly as a result of the project: the construction of the new building and its surrounding patio would remove select portions of the curved circulation path near the parking lot, which appears in an early landscape drawing (Figure 2) and is believed to be an original landscape feature. Park users would also be able to access the pool area through the proposed patio and wall, where the current concrete masonry unit wall forms a strict boundary between different programmatic areas. 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 8 of 9 A band of new trees, low shrubs, and benches proposed for a planting bed along the edge of the bean-shaped lawn would not change the shape of the lawn, nor would these elements alter the curvilinear pedestrian path that marks the lawn’s edges. These elements would form a strong boundary along the northern edge of the lawn that was not originally proposed in this location, although a belt of trees appears in this location in the original landscape rendering (Figure 3). This planting bed and its features would be identifiable as contemporary additions to the landscape and would disrupt the simplicity of the site design to an extent. Additionally, the plantings to be introduced alongside the entrance path near the parking lot would be noticeably more varied and complex than the park’s current planting palette of primarily grass. In spite of the issues identified above, the proposed project at the Greenmeadow Community Center would generally support the existing programmatic division of the community center park. The circular walk that fills much of the western portion of the park, which is emblematic of the designs of Thomas Church, would remain. This circulation pattern appears to have high importance within the landscape of the park, and the proposed project would generally support the existing programmatic division between the western lawn and the central pool and building cluster. It does not appear that the proposed building would disrupt major circulation patterns, spatial arrangements, and boundaries between programmatic areas that characterize the community center park, to the extent that the historic character of the park would no longer be discernible. Removal of historic materials and features (Standards 2, 5, and 9): The proposed project would not result in the removal of materials or features from any contributing building within the Greenmeadow Historic District. The construction of the proposed building and its surrounding patio, however, would remove features from the existing cultural landscape of the community center that date to the Greenmeadow Historic District’s period of significance: a central portion of the CMU wall along the southwestern edge of the pool area, as well as a portion of walkway paving that appears to be original to the park. However, in either case only a portion of the full feature would be removed, and the remaining portions of the walkway and wall would be preserved. As the material chosen for the proposed pool perimeter wall is wood, this new feature would be differentiated from the remaining portions of the CMU perimeter wall and would not be interpreted as original to the design of the community center. Repair and replacement of historic materials and features (Standard 6): It is not anticipated that the proposed project would involve the repair of deteriorated historic features, and it does not appear that the project would reintroduce historic elements that were originally located within the park landscape but were later removed or replaced. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed project involves the construction of a new community building, patio, and pool wall, with new areas of plantings to be introduced along existing walkways within the community center park landscape. The design of the new building appears compatible with the original buildings located within the Greenmeadow Community Center and therefore complies with the applicable Standards. Changes to the landscape of the park, which is considered a potential contributor to the Greenmeadow Historic District, do not appear to alter the circulation patterns, organization, and material/planting palette of the park to the extent that the landscape would no longer be able to convey its overall design dating to the historic district’s period of significance, 1954-1955. However, 303 Parkside Drive Historic Resource Impact Analysis Page 9 of 9 it may be possible that future changes to the design and features of the community center park landscape—in tandem with those proposed as part of the current project—may result in the loss of the park’s historic integrity. Future projects therefore should be reviewed carefully for potential cumulative effects on this potential district contributor. Because the project proposes to remove select features that date to the historic district’s period of significance—namely, a curved walkway and a portion of CMU wall demarcating the boundary of the pool area—it is recommended that the project sponsor document the current conditions of these features and the overall park design prior to beginning the project. The resulting documentation (i.e. printed and labeled photographs) could be donated to the Palo Alto Historical Association, to be made available for future researchers. QUALIFICATIONS Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. We were one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate our practice to historic preservation and we are among the longest-practicing such firms in the country. Our offices are located in Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco. Our staff includes licensed architects, designers and historians, conservators and planners. All our professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. As an architectural historian within Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Studio, Jonathon Rusch meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. He has extensive experience surveying, researching, and evaluating historic properties. Jonathon has conducted numerous Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs), Section 106 Technical Reports, and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation reports for historic resources.