HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-22 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________
1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Historic Resources Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: February 22, 2018
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 and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
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
2.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [18PLN-00042]:
Modification to Roof Material for the New Junior Museum and Zoo Building
Approved by City Council in December 2017. Zone District: Public Facilities.
3.PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Recommendation of the Palo Alto Eichler
Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City Council
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
4.Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2018
New Business
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
Continued Business
_______________________
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 two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Subcommittee Items
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
_______________________
1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two 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 David Bower
Vice Chair Brandon Corey
Boardmember Martin Bernstein
Boardmember Roger Kohler
Boardmember Michael Makinen
Boardmember Margaret Wimmer
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: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning
& Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be
included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before
the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8989)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/22/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignment
Title: Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
From: Hillary Gitelman
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: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments_2.22 (PDF)
2018 Schedule
Historic Resources Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned
1/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
1/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Retreat/Fieldtrip
2/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
3/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
4/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
4/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/10/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/24/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
6/14/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
6/28/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
7/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
7/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
8/9/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
8/23/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/27/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/9/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
12/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/27/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
2018 Subcommittee Assignments
January February March April May June
July August September October November December
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8940)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/22/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield: Junior Museum and Zoo: Roof Material
Change
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road
[18PLN-00042]: Modification to Roof Material for the New
Junior Museum and Zoo Building Approved by City Council in
December 2017. Zone District: Public Facilities.
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following actions:
1. Review and provide input regarding the proposal for asphalt composition shingle roof
material to replace the Council-approved standing seam roof material for the new
Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) building.
Background
City Council approved the JMZ project on December 4, 2017. The Record of Land Use Action
(RLUA) is provided as Attachment B to this report and the approved Resolution is also provided,
as Attachment C.
Exterior modifications to a Council approved project are subject to Architectural Review (AR), to
ensure the project continues to meet the applicable (AR) Findings. The HRB’s purview is related
to the fact that the building will be constructed on a site containing listed and eligible historic
resources. The HRB is requested to affirm that the revised project with the different roof
material will still be compatible with the historical context of the site. The Architectural Review
Board (ARB)’s purview is to review and recommend a minor change to this Council approved
project. The ARB is scheduled to review this change on March 1, 2018.
The HRB reviewed and recommended the JMZ project on June 22, 2017, subject to HRB
subcommittee review of a revised roof color for the standing seam roof. The HRB noted
concern about potential modifications to the building during the ARB review. Prior to the
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
September 21, 2017 ARB meeting, HRB subcommittee members Kohler, Bunnenberg and
Wimmer reviewed the prior standing seam metal roof color selection.
Proposal
The applicant seeks a change in the roof material to sage green asphalt composition shingles.
The applicant states that the change is “based on budgetary constraints on the project as well
as the potential to add photovoltaic (PV) panels to portions of the roof in the future.” The
proposed plans also include rooftop photo-voltaic panels. Plans for the revised roof material
and PV panel placement are viewable online at the project address at
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning.
Project Information
Owner: City of Palo Alto
Architect: Sarah Vaccaro, Cody Anderson Wasney
Representative: John Aiken, Community Services Sr. Program Manager
Legal Counsel: City Attorney
Property Information
Address: 1451 Middlefield Road (JMZ)
Neighborhood: Community Center
Lot Dimensions & Area: JMZ/ Stern Center site has 800’ frontage on Middlefield Rd (JMZ key
frontage), 245’ on Melville Av, 215’ on Harriett St, and 245’ of shared
property line with Walter Hayes School; parcel:795,841 sf (18.3 acres)
Housing Inventory Site: No
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes
Historic Resource(s): Lucie Stern Community Center Category 1 Resource (CSD
Administrative offices, Community Center, Children’s Theatre, Stern
Theatre, Boy Scout facility, Children’s Library); the Lou Henry Hoover
House aka Girl Scout House (GSH) is an eligible historic resource.
Existing Improvement(s): JMZ: 9,000 sf, 2-stories, built in 1941
Existing Land Use: Community Center
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North of parcel: Residential (R-1 zone)
West of parcel: Residential (R-1)
East of parcel: Public Elementary School (Walter Hays, PAUSD)
adjacent, and Art Center and Rinconada Library across Newell Road
South of parcel: Residential (R-1)
Aerial View of Property:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Public Facilities
Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institutions/Special Facilities
Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts
(150'): Across from single family residences
Special Setback 24 feet on Middlefield Road
Utility Easement/Corridor Water, sewer and storm drain main lines
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: The City Council report of December 4 2017 is available online at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62293.
PTC: None
HRB: The HRB staff report of June 22, 2017 is available online at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58347.
Meeting minutes are available online at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61349
The video of the meeting is viewable at this link:
http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-39/
ARB The September 21, 2017 ARB meeting video is available online:
http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/. The
September 21, 2017 ARB report is available at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61805.
The ARB meeting minutes are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61851.
On January 18, the ARB subcommittee reviewed the gable resolution
with associated public art placement to meet a condition of approval.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62878
PRC: Two Study Sessions in 2015; One session April 26, 2016; Report link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52063
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
The PRC supports reconfigured relationship with Park; Minutes:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52999
Analysis1
Roof Material Context
The City property on which the existing JMZ building is located contains locally designated
historic resources (the Local Inventory Category 1 Lucie Stern Center) and an eligible historic
resource (the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House). The roof material on the Lucie Stern Center
is clay tile, and the roof material on the Girl Scout House is wood shingles. The mansard roof on
the Walter Hays School is clay tile. Seven of the eight homes opposite the JMZ along
Middlefield, between Kellogg and the Hayes school, have shingle roofing.
Below: The Original JMZ had a shingle roof Below: The GSH nearby has a shingle roof
Below: Hayes School roof - clay tile Below: At Kellogg and Middlefield home – gray shingles
Below: Middlefield homes opposite the JMZ site – gray or brown shingle roofs; one has clay tile
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Below: Roofs of the two homes directly opposite the existing JMZ building
The proposal for the JMZ building is Duration Premium Cool Shingles in “sage” color
Below: Proposed ‘sage’ composition shingles Below: Previously approved standing seam
Below: Rendering of proposed composition shingled roof
Below: Elevation of proposed asphalt composition shingle roof
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Below: Elevation of previously approved standing seam roof
Photo-Voltaic Panels
The project plans sheet A2.3 show the future location for installation of PV panels on the roof.
Below is an image showing the PV panels on a composition shingle roof.
The below image shows PV panels would be placed on roof segments sloped toward
Middlefield Road and Walter Hayes school.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan2
Following the Council’s December 4, 2017 approval of the JMZ project, the new Comprehensive
Plan (Plan) became effective. The AR findings developed for the March 1st ARB report note the
relevant Plan policies.
Environmental Review
The City Council had approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the JMZ project. The
proposed change of roof materials qualifies as ‘exempt’ from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto
Weekly on February 9, 2018, which is at least 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard
mailing occurred on February 9, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the HRB meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received regarding
the roof material change. Several comments from neighbors received prior to the September
2017 ARB meeting reflected concern about “industrial” material, noting “the use of metal
appears harsh and cold” and likening the metal appearance to shipping containers.
2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
Next Steps
The Architectural Review Board is tentatively scheduled to conduct a public hearing of the roof
material and PV installation changes on March 1, 2018.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may:
1. Recommend denial of the proposed changes.
Report Author & Contact Information HRB3 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: AR findings (DOCX)
Attachment B: ROLUA Council Approval of JMZ (DOCX)
Attachment C: Resolution for JMZ CEQA documents and RPRLP (PDF)
3 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
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.
APPROVAL NO. 2017-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO (JMZ) [FILE NO.17PLN-00147],
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR JMZ PROJECT AND RINCONADA LONG
RANGE PLAN
On December 4, 2017, the City Council approved the Architectural Review
application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On April 27, 2017, the architect representing the Friends of the Junior
Museum and Zoo submitted an Architectural Review application for the new Junior Museum and
Zoo (JMZ) at 1451 Middlefield Road, zoned Public Facilities, and associated site improvements
(“Project”); the review of this application followed two preliminary review meetings with the
Architectural Review Board and one study session with the Historic Resources Board to discuss
earlier project designs;
B. On June 22, 2017, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the Historic
Resource Evaluations and the project and recommended approval of the project,
C. On August 3, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project
and continued the hearing to allow for revisions and publication and public comments on the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND);
D. On August 4, 2017, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City (1) published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating the
JMZ project and, programmatically, the Rinconada Long Range Master Plan, and (2) provided a
Notice of Intent for circulation of the document for public comments for a period ending
September 5, 2017;
E. On August 10, 2017, the City held a community outreach meeting regarding
the CEQA document and process, and no written comments on the CEQA document were
received; and
F. On September 21, 2017, following the end of the public comment period, the ARB
reviewed and recommended Council approval of the IS/MND (with respect to the JMZ project)
and the Project.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment from August 4, 2017 through
September 5, 2017, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared and these
are to be adopted by Council resolution.
SECTION 3. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW. The Historic Resources Board
found that;
(1) the project is in substantial compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards,
(2) the project meets Architectural Review Finding 2b, in that the project preserves,
respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively the site and
historic character/resources, with the provision that the applicant work with an HRB
subcommittee to find a solution to the roofing issue the HRB raised prior to ARB review,
and
(3) the HRB is supportive of listing the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House as a historic
resource.
SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS. The approval findings for the
project are set forth below. The project is consistent with all relevant Architectural Review
findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(d) as follows:
1a. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, specifically:
i. Policy C-1.4 Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries,
classes and cultural activities for community members recognizing that these
facilities and services build and strengthen community. [NEW POLICY] [C11]
ii. Policy C-1.16 Provide arts, science and recreational activities that foster healthy
children, youth and teen development. [NEW POLICY] [C30]
iii. Policy C-1.20 Leverage available funding to support the development of, and
improved access to, programs that address all types of developmental
disabilities, including physical, sensory, cognitive or social/emotional needs.
[NEW POLICY] [C42]
iv. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.(Previous Policy L-12)
v. Policy C-3.2 Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and
appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure.
vi. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure AES-1, LAND-1, LAND-2) (Previous Policy L-48)] [L80]
vii. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to
promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense
of community safety. ([Previous Policy L-49) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation
Measure AES-1)] [L87]
viii. Policy L-8.5 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit.
Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing public and
private art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects
are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood.
[Previous Policy L-72] [L122]
ix. PUBLIC SPACES Policy L-9.4 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering
places and open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales.
[(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L130]
x. Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared
outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential
neighborhoods. [(Previous Policy L-15) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L132]
xi. Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and
other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees
approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for
expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N45]
1b. The design is also consistent with the Public Facility uses and development
standards, and with the other applicable Zoning Code regulations (Parking ordinance, as
clarified in the August 3, 2017 ARB staff report and attachments thereto).
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 in adjacent residential areas.
More specifically:
i. The design was revised during the process, which involved two preliminary
review sessions with the ARB and one study session with the HRB, and two
formal meetings with the ARB;
ii. The site improvements will provide a better internal sense of order at the site;
iii. The new gable-roofed JMZ building, at a height of 29 feet and set back 24 feet
from Middlefield Road, would be similar in height and setback to existing two-
story houses located across Middlefield Road near the JMZ. The netted zoo
enclosure, at 36 feet in height, would be taller than the existing building;
iv. There are no context based design criteria for the PF zone, but the building
facades feature exterior colors and textures to provide visual interest and gabled
roofs, materials and colors respond to the site context (Lucie Stern Center, Girl
Scout House and the residential neighborhood). The Middlefield Road façade
was reworked during the process to have greater modulation and improved
materials to fit the neighborhood. The lower masses along Middlefield and the
property line shared with Walter Hays respect the residential neighborhood
scale. Along with a roof line that pops up for clerestory windows and, with the
wall cladding, help to break the long façade, the building eave, skin and structure
extend beyond the exterior wall for a section as shade protection for the
storefront windows facing south east;
v. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and does not
cause significant impact to the historic resources including the Girl Scout House.
Existing protected trees and important trees will be retained;
vi. Two street trees would be removed (Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue
and a London Plane Tree along Hopkins) for driveways, but new street trees will
be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to mitigate
the removals (subject to additional study of adjusted driveways at Middlefield
and Hopkins, per approval condition, and coordination with Urban Forestry staff
regarding planned street tree plantings and removals);
vii. No heritage or protected trees will be removed, and tree removal and
replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Tree
Preservation Ordinance. Transplanting of one coast redwood and one coast live
oak is proposed; and
viii. Approximately 41 public trees would be removed (and 57 trees would be
planted, as noted in Finding #5) as part of the JMZ project, including the above-
noted street trees (six are for the parking lot reconfiguration near the Girl scout
House, 12 in the Zoo area for zoo reconfiguration, 13 for the new JMZ building,
six, non-native trees in poor condition from the oak grove near Lucie Stern to
improve the growing conditions for the remaining native oaks, and one from the
edge of Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza).
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, in that:
a. The materials to be used include smooth, hand-troweled plaster; clear-stained
cedar, horizontal siding and ceilings, and use of wood slats horizontally and
vertically for fences and enclosures; netting; durable standing-seam metal
roofing and accent panels; low-E aluminum curtainwall and punched windows;
wood-topped concrete seat-walls; with use-appropriate whimsical signage,
public art and rainbow tunnel; and
b. Colors are warm, earth tones, plus off-white and red colors enhancing the
composition by their reference the Lucie Stern Center buildings and the bright
colors used for the whimsical components of the Project.
c. The architectural details of the building and site invoke whimsy and child-like
scale into the simple massing and contemporary materials.
d. Facing Middlefield Road, the wall cladding further breaks up the long façade and
provides warm natural material accents.
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.) in that:
a. The project responds to the new crosswalk planned on Middlefield Road at
Kellogg Avenue, and improved crosswalk on Newell Road at Hopkins Avenue,
allowing connection from Middlefield to Rinconada Park with ADA compliant
paths and featuring a raised pedestrian crossing through the parking lot
providing a direct connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and
Rinconada Park; a new pedestrian path connecting the sidewalk on Middlefield
Road to the JMZ as a ‘promenade’ to the park entry plaza, including bicycle
parking facilities at key locations;
b. One of the existing curb cuts along Middlefield is being removed, which is a
benefit to all the pedestrian traffic going to Walter Hayes School; and
c. The proposed parking lot would provide efficient circulation with no dead-end
drive aisles, and meet the City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles with
safer, 90-degree parking spaces allowing sufficient room for vehicles to back out
of parking spaces. The vehicular circulation will be improved with the project,
including maneuverability of buses and large trucks.
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 in that:
a. New landscaping is proposed at the JMZ facility and parking lots, designed to
meet the 50% shade requirement of PAMC Section 18.54.040 and “no net loss of
canopy” goals; conditions of approval for use of Silva cells will ensure this goal
and code requirement will be achieved;
b. The project features 57 new trees including five native oaks, intended to offset
tree removals and many (but not all) of the plants to be used are ‘regionally
indigenous drought resistant’ species; and
c. Use of non-natives in key locations is appropriate for this use (educational) and
setting (important community center and children’s facility requiring drought
resistant, sustainable and appropriate plants).
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related
to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site
planning, in that:
a. The project is designed to CALgreen guidelines for design and operational and
efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy consumption;
b. The building is oriented to optimize daylight to interiors, and features low-
emissivity glazing, energy efficient LED lighting; and
c. The project includes new bicycle parking spaces for greater sustainability in the
transportation sector.
SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Conditions
1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
3. Mitigation Measures (#3a – #3d): The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
associated with the project (Exhibit A) is incorporated by reference and the mitigation
measures (below) shall be implemented as described in such document:
3a. BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the
project shall implement the following measures:
i. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify
active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential
nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree
removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 –
August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the
preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the
preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals
until construction activities are initiated.
ii. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all
the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site,
in consultation with the CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.
iii. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction
activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed
within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest.
3b. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during
construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the
find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be
notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate
mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include
collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of
findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to
the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
3c. MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the
proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC)
Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as
to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
i. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner
has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The
NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent
(MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours
to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects.
Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the
reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the
reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
ii. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a
recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and
the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails
to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her
authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated
with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property
in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
3d. MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, construction noise
would be reduced to a less than significant level:
i. Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and
6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with
no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto
Municipal Code).
ii. Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school
activities and hours:
iii. Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the
concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during
periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends,
and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with
school officials may be necessary.
iv. Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first,
where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction
activities located further to the west and south.
v. Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-site construction and
demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be
placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor.
Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for
specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate
the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or
portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.
vi. Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest
distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive
receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
vii. Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be
as quiet as practical.
viii. Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources
where technology exists.
ix. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all
internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
x. Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and
portable power generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise-
sensitive land uses.
xi. Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in
writing.
xii. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are
not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site.
xiii. Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to
complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the
disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made
available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site
4. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the
approved plans entitled, "New Construction Junior Museum & Zoo, 1451 Middlefield
Road,” stamped as received by the City on September 6, 2017 on file with the Planning
Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these
conditions of approval.
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN REFINEMENTS:
The following additional modifications to the landscape plan and civil plans for further
refinements shall be addressed prior to City Council review:
a. For auxiliary pathway consider a material modification in the area between Lucie
Stern and Middlefield;
b. Employ rounded curb corners (small radius) at angled curb areas adjacent to
traffic to save the curbs from future chipping;
c. Update plan sheets as needed to reflect relocation of gates so they do not block
pedestrian and bike connectivity from parking lot to JMZ, and from Rinconada
Park to Middlefield;
d. Update plan sheets to reflect sheet A2.0 sidewalk width to ensure a minimum
sidewalk width of at least five feet between the bus drop-off and planter;
e. Consider a vegetative swale instead of an 18” berm and consider placing step
stones or access paths to minimize trampling of Carex grass;
f. Provide step stones or access path between Girl Scout House front yard and
parking lot, to minimize pedestrian damage to new plantings or alter plant
material;
g. Adjust plantings at the Lucie Stern loading area (Texas Redbuds will not have
enough clearance to avoid being damaged by delivery trucks) to more columnar
trees to reduce canopy interference with loading activities;
h. Adjust width of the raised crosswalk (10 feet) to allow a more gradual ramp (at
least five feet wide);
i. Add a street tree in the planter strip at Middlefield at the front of the JMZ
building;
j. Reconfigure driveway approaches slightly to be more aligned and aesthetically
pleasing (at Middlefield and at Hopkins).
k. The tunnel area will need to include signage to advise bicyclists to walk their
bikes through the tunnel (or otherwise direct bicyclists) to avoid conflict with
pedestrians.
6. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the
Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.
7. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second
page of the plans submitted for building permit.
8. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be
submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit
review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to obtain
approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any
proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention.
9. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
return to the ARB sub-committee for approval of the following items, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment:
a. Resolution of the design for the gable end above the main entry to the JMZ, if
the public art piece is not placed on that gable end, or
b. If public art does get placed on the gable end, sub-committee review of
details for mounting of the public art on the gable end.
10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to
determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a
Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by
Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations.
Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.
11. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No additional freestanding signs are approved at this time.
The wall sign at the front of the JMZ is not approved at this time, and shall be subject to
separate architectural review and may be in a different location if public art is proposed on
that façade. The existing, previously approved freestanding ‘whimsical’ sign installed per
PCE Director’s amendment September 13, 2004), and located approximately 12 feet from
the back of sidewalk on Middlefield Road, may be reinstalled at a similar setback as
indicated on Sheet A1.1. All other signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of
Planning.
Fire
12. Fire
The building permit plans shall include installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14
standpipe system, NFPA 24 underground fire service and NFPA 72 fire alarm system.
Public Art
13. Public Art. The project will incorporate public art. Artist Charles Sowers has been
selected as the project artist and approved by the Public Art Commission. The artist was
scheduled to being design development process in the summer of 2017, and anticipates
completing design development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Public Works – Engineering Conditions
14. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water
regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge
permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and
incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to
land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and
uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project
on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of
permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to
protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department.
The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water
pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as
bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that
require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm”
specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system.
The qualified third-party reviewer the applicant has retained shall submit certification
that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with
the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2
copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task
and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to
approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the
installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the
City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were
constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings.
15. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace
those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter
strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the
inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with
the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a
note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must
note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a
licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the
Development Center.
16. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new
street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public
Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street
tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the
building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has
determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation
requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street
tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the
applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from
Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953).
17. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations
and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades
must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks
should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales.
Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage
from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be
collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep
rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other
pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single
Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717
18. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and
fill volumes. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public
Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention
- It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available
here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732
20. SWPPP: The applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This
entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and
implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that
addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality
protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft
SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the
building permit.
21. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any
removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement
within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-
496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of
the trees per City requirements.
22. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is
proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach,
or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City
standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work
Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different
location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway
must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section.
Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be
replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. Please also call out City standard
details as applicable and include those details within the plan set.
23. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square
feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations
of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit
application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and
instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website.
24. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to
maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the
permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance
agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City
will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee.
25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works
Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-
way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes,
material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise
control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of
affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work
permit.
26. PAVEMENT: Hopkins Ave and Embarcadero Rd were resurfaced in 2011 and 2015
respectively. These streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will
trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan:
“Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Hopkins Ave
and Embarcadero Rd based the roadway surface condition after project completion and
limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street
along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as
hatched on the site plan.
27. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site.
Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The
proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and
use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the
plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district.
28. The applicant shall continue to work with Public Works and Utilities toward a long
term solution for relocation of utilities out of the corridor prior to construction of the
JMZ project.
29. Due to the lack of storm drain infrastructure on Hopkins and the historical storm
drainage issues on that street, please revise DMA VI to drain elsewhere.
30. Civil plans should clearly call out where details 1 and 2 as shown on sheet C2.3 apply.
31. Proposed new trash enclosure should drain to sanitary sewer.
32. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares
the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City
of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot
below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street
right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please
provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan.
This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to
handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables
and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage
Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the
public storm drain system.
33. Building and Grading Permit plans should only include work proposed for this
project.
Urban Forestry
34. Silva cells shall be included in the design to ensure the project will meet the city’s
goal for no net loss of canopy and 50% shading of parking lot area. The planting
strategy submitted with the building permit describes the following:
a. Total number of replacement trees to be planted and shown on a table with
removals
b. Attributes (for each area or grove) that will be used for selecting species such
as native, large stature at maturity, drought-tolerant, and complementary to
established trees that are retained
c. Soil volume and distance to nearest impervious area/obstacle to growth
d. Projected canopy diameter of each planted tree in 15 years
35. TREE PROTECTION REPORT (TPR). Provide a construction level report for building
permit plan check.
36. If City Council formally designates as Landmark Trees, Pecan #330 and Dawn
Redwood #327, they shall be retained and protected during construction and shall be
subject to the same tree ordinance provisions as the oaks, with a mitigation measure
providing for their retention or replacement if lost.
37. Civil engineering and grading plans. Plans shall show finish grade (FG) and the lower
limit of excavation. Engineer shall receive from the project arborist for each tree root
zone to be preserved, a spot grade of the lowest excavation depth for new driving
surface, landscape area or other activity.
38. Ensure that the existing Utility Easement that bisects the site shall not in any event
allow for excavation via an open trench thru the root zone of (Designated Landmark)
Pecan Tree # 330.
39. Add Project Arborist contact information to the Project Directory. If CPA-LA, list
direct contact information for construction-phase contact ability.
Utilities Electrical
40. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department
service requirements noted during plan review.
41. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both
public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48
hours prior to beginning work.
42. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation
#18.
43. The new pad-mount transformer is shown on plan sheet E1.00 located in the
landscaped area just north of the electrical room. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16
(see detail comments below). The proposed transformer pad appears to meet the 3-
feet minimum clearance on the non-operable sides and 8’ feet clearance on the
operable side.
44. Plan sheet E1.00 shows the electrical room adjacent to the padmount transformer
and appears to provide the location for electrical panel/switchboard.
45. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads)
required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and
installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on building permit plans.
Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
46. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards.
47. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond
what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges.
The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well
as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
48. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility.
Public Works Watershed Protection
49. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection,
except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a
dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with
grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. The trash
area must meet these requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements.
50. Include Construction best management practices (BMP) sheet in plans.
Prior to building permit approval:
51. Disconnect downspouts and allow to drain to landscaping (outward from
building as needed). (C 2.1 mentions connecting roof leader to storm drain).
52. New storm drain/drop inlets in parking lots and high visitor areas should include a
trash capture device. Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘flows to Bay’ message.
53. Permeable concrete
a. County-wide design specs should be followed (ensure pg. C 2.3 is appropriate specs.)
b. Installation specs per company should be followed
c. Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City
staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks).
d. Set up meeting with parties before project is approved by City Council.
e. Funding for maintenance needs to be approved.
54. Ensure all interior and exterior drainage from zoo/animal area is piped to sanitary
sewer system.
55. Stormwater treatment measures
a. Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements
b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3
Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for
details
c. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil
amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost.
Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines:
http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-
sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance.
56. Stormwater quality protection
a. At a minimum, follow the BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans.
b. Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and
having rainwater enter the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and
recycling containers to not allow overflow.
57. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related
permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate
of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.
a. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge
water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or
designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either
or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground
water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable
waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to
the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained
prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in
authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
b. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water
i. Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect
connection to the sanitary sewer system.
ii. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices
iii. Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system
only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from
rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater
treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional
information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k)
c. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters,
copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall
not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for
which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates
and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement
roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided
that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the
purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to
structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition
of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
d. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
i. Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if
equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed
during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation.
ii. Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are
handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain
system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be
allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept
closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or
protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate
wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided
for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site.
e. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain
system.
f. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers
No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain
system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger,
any substance that contains any of the following:
i. Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
ii. Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter;
iii. Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
iv. Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
v. Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to
dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall
be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling
tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are
required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
g. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in
sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for
domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes
where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper
piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
h. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains
Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in
areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial
process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning
wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all
such materials and equipment
i. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling
Locations
a. The owner of every new commercial and industrial building or portion
thereof shall cause the building to be constructed so that industrial waste
is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic waste prior
to converging with other waste streams in the sanitary sewer system. For
the purposes of this section only, the term "new" shall also include
change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial waste
b. Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the
sanitary sewer system shall provide and maintain one or more sampling
locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring
methodologies or other sampling and measuring points approved by the
Superintendent which will allow the separate measuring and sampling of
industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by the
Superintendent, domestic and industrial waste shall be kept completely
separated upstream of such sampling locations and/or measuring points.
Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis of sewage
effluent constituents shall provide a suitable means for sampling and/or
measurement of flow to determine billing constituents in accordance
with the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling locations shall be so
located that they are safe and accessible to the Superintendent at any
reasonable time during which discharge is occurring.
j. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
k. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas,
fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
l. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to
Bay," or equivalent.
SECTION 6. Term of Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of
one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not
secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect.
PASSED: 9-0
AYES:
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 0
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney
171205 th TS/ RESO MND Parks Master Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 9727
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO PROJECT AND THE RINCONADA PARK LONG
RANGE PLAN, AND APPROVING THE RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN
RECITALS
A. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan programmatic-level environmental review process
has been connected with the project-specific Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) “rebuild”
environmental review process since late 2014, to allow the full scope of comprehensive
environmental review;
B. Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Palo Alto prepared an Initial Study
and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rinconada Long Range
Plan and Junior Museum and Zoo Project (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”) all
in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
together with state and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date
(collectively “CEQA”).
C. The Rinconada Long Range Plan and Junior Museum and Zoo Project (the “Project”)
analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is a guidance and planning
document for park, museum and zoo improvements, expansion and enhancement of facilities
and services, and renovations to the Rinconada Park area to serve the community’s needs. A
more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
D. The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public
comment from August 4, 2017 through September 5, 2017.
E. The City of Palo Alto considered the comments received during the public review period
and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration including minor revisions.
F. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the
Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment and identified
mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-
significant level.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3D83259B-95DA-45F6-A9B3-1766888653DE
171205 th TS/ RESO MND Parks Master Plan
G. In connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an initial
study/mitigated negative declaration that identifies one or more significant environmental
effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to incorporate feasible
mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environmental effects to a less-than-
significant level.
H. Whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures
to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires the lead agency
to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure compliance with the
mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the decision-making
body of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency for the Project (the “Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program” or “MMRP”).
I. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the
decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project.
J. On September 21, 2017, the Architectural Review Board conducted a public hearing
allowing for public comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the JMZ project, and recommended
Council approval of the JMZ project based on findings and conditions set forth in the Record of
Land Use Action (RLUA);
K. On October 24, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) unanimously voted to
recommend that the City Council adopt the MND, MMRP and the Rinconada Park Long Range
Plan;
L. The PRC recognized that the JMZ rebuild will require some adjustments to the west end
configuration of Rinconada Park but that only the exterior, open-air zoo is located in the park,
consistent with the existing zoo condition, and recommended City Council adopt the Parks
Improvement Ordinance (PIO);
M. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, together
with comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and intends to
take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines
implementing CEQA. The IS, MND and MMRP can be found as Attachment D to the staff report
related to this resolution.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3D83259B-95DA-45F6-A9B3-1766888653DE
171205 th TS/ RESO MND Parks Master Plan
N. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan was initiated to identify and prioritize future
renovations and upgrades, and is a comprehensive evaluation of Rinconada Park, including its
facilities and amenities, which:
establishes a phasing plan that evaluates Rinconada Park as 12 separate but
connected elements and discusses the recommendations for each element,
analyzes current site conditions as well as community uses,
provides insight into how the park is currently being utilized,
identifies areas in which the park is under serving;
O. The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan:
will guide future capital improvement funds for renovations and development of
the park, dividing the work into scheduled phases to be implemented as funding
becomes available over the next 25 years;
identifies new improvements to the park to meet community demands,
focuses on ways to better connect the adjacent community facilities surrounding
the park on the site and across Newell Road (the Palo Alto Art Center and
Rinconada Library) to enhance the park as the central feature and main link to
these cultural and community assets, including the JMZ,
outlines a number of goals for the site surrounding the JMZ including retaining
parking stall count and clarifying circulation in the parking lot, creating a strong
park arrival experience from Middlefield Road and Lucie Stern Community
Center, and integrating the park visitor experience with the JMZ through art
installations and educational features, and
is consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation
Master Plan principles related to play, health, sustainability, inclusivity,
accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby make the following findings: (1) it has
independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and
other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to
acting upon or approving the Project, (2) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and is consistent with
state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and (3) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto, as lead
agency for the Project. The City Council designates the Director of Public Works, at 250
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3D83259B-95DA-45F6-A9B3-1766888653DE
171205 th TS/ RESO MND Parks Master Plan
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, as the custodian of documents and records of
proceedings on which this decision is based.
SECTION 2. THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that based upon the entire record of
proceedings before it and all information received that there is no substantial evidence that the
Project will have a significant effect on the environment and does hereby adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for
the Project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for viewing at City of
Palo Alto City Hall, 5th Floor – Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301.
SECTION 3. The City Council approves the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: December 4, 2017
AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, HOLMAN, KNISS, KOU, SCHARFF, TANAKA, WOLBACH
NOES:
ABSENT: FINE
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
________________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________
City Manager
________________________________
Deputy City Attorney _______________________________
Director of Administrative Services
________________________________
Director of Community Services
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3D83259B-95DA-45F6-A9B3-1766888653DE
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 3D83259B95DA45F6A9B31766888653DE Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign: RESO 9727 JMZ CEQA documents and RPRLP.docx
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 4 Signatures: 6 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Irma Mora
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
Irma.Mora@CityofPaloAlto.org
IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Record Tracking
Status: Original
12/14/2017 8:47:23 AM
Holder: Irma Mora
Irma.Mora@CityofPaloAlto.org
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Tim Shimizu
Tim.Shimizu@cityofpaloalto.org
Deputy City Attorney
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Sent: 12/14/2017 8:50:40 AM
Viewed: 12/14/2017 9:23:24 AM
Signed: 12/14/2017 6:09:28 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Kristen O'Kane
Kristen.O'Kane@cityofpaloalto.org
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Sent: 12/14/2017 6:09:29 PM
Viewed: 12/18/2017 8:23:53 AM
Signed: 12/18/2017 8:24:13 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Lalo Perez
Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org
Chief Financial Officer
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Sent: 12/18/2017 8:24:14 AM
Viewed: 12/18/2017 9:06:30 AM
Signed: 12/18/2017 9:07:05 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
James Keene
James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20
Sent: 12/18/2017 9:07:06 AM
Viewed: 12/19/2017 8:07:15 AM
Signed: 12/19/2017 8:07:19 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 4/14/2015 5:40:07 PM
ID: 44fe333a-6a81-4cb7-b7d4-925473ac82e3
H. Gregory Scharff
Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.org
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 71.198.25.55
Signed using mobile
Sent: 12/19/2017 8:07:20 AM
Viewed: 12/19/2017 8:39:25 AM
Signed: 12/19/2017 8:39:32 AM
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Beth Minor
Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Using IP Address: 97.84.70.54
Signed using mobile
Sent: 12/19/2017 8:39:33 AM
Viewed: 12/19/2017 8:45:45 AM
Signed: 12/19/2017 8:46:11 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/19/2017 8:39:33 AM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/19/2017 8:45:45 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 12/19/2017 8:46:11 AM
Completed Security Checked 12/19/2017 8:46:11 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
CONSUMER DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc.
(DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly,
and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms
and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of
this document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the
DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you
through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of
any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may
request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us
or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 8:33:53 AM
Parties agreed to: James Keene
How to contact City of Palo Alto:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org
To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address
To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at
david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous
e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to
change your email address..
In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected
in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign.
To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and
in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and
telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any.
To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto
To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent
page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request
you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account
number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The
consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions
may take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP?
Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above
Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0,
NetScape 7.2 (or above)
Email: Access to a valid email account
Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum
Enabled Security Settings:
•Allow per session cookies
•Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy
Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via
proxy connection
** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will
provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time
providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will
have the right to withdraw your consent.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you
were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to
e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or
save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and
disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above,
please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and
• I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
• Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you.
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8905)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/22/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Recommendation
of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the
City Council
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s):
1. Resume the public hearing, continued from January 25, 2018, and provide comments on
the Final Draft Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines (Guidelines); and
2. Recommend Council approval of the Final Draft Guidelines.
Summary
This report transmits the final draft Guidelines, modified to address comments received during
the 60-day comment period, January 18th community meeting and January 25th HRB public
hearing. The Final Draft Guidelines are annotated to clarify changes made to the Public Review
Draft. The Final Draft Guidelines are viewable via the City’s Eichler page
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/special_projects/eichler_neighborhood_design_
guidelines_.asp) which has been updated to reflect the current schedule and summarize the
community outreach for the project. Earlier reports to the HRB provide detail regarding the
purpose and Council direction to staff regarding the Eichler Guidelines project.
The origin of the Guidelines project was neighborhood concern regarding incompatible, new
two-story homes proposed in several of the 31 Eichler-built tracts in Palo Alto. In 2015 and
2016, this concern prompted four neighborhoods to request single-story overlay (SSO) rezoning
to restrict new development to one-story homes. Council approved two of the requested SSOs
(Los Arboles and Greer Park North), and did not approve two SSOs (Royal Manor and Faircourt)
because support for the overlay in those tracts eroded during the public hearing process.
As noted in reports and meetings on this topic, there is the potential for the Guidelines, or a
portion thereof, to be used in conjunction with existing discretionary review processes, such as
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
the Individual Review program. Zoning Code changes would be required in order to establish a
connection to the Guidelines beyond use as an informational tool for voluntary compliance.
Staff is preparing for Council direction to make changes to the Zoning Code, which is a separate
process requiring legal notice to homeowners and Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) public hearings, at minimum, prior to City Council review and adoption of any ordinance.
Background
HRB Hearings Summary
HRB reports, minutes and videos, are viewable via links from agendas on this webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/historic/default.asp, and provide background
information regarding the Eichler Guidelines project.
October 12, 2017
The HRB discussed the Guidelines project on October 12, 2017. Meeting minutes are available
here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62570. The October staff
report, viewable here https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63375
described the Council’s direction to staff and noted that Council would review draft Guidelines
in the Spring 2018, when Council could consider whether to direct staff to bring forward
amendments to the City’s ordinances, or create new regulatory measures to implement the
Guidelines. The report also addressed relationship to the Individual Review Program by:
Clarifying limitations on R-1 development standards cannot be mandated via voluntary
guidelines, but could be imposed via amendments to the zoning ordinance and the
Individual Review (IR) Guidelines, applicable to new two-story, single family-homes and
second floor additions (but not tall, one-story homes).
Describing limitations of the IR Guidelines limitations, which do not:
o prescribe how to best achieve compatibility with an Eichler neighborhood scale
and pattern,
o prescribe a maximum second floor area in terms such as a limitation on the
number of rooms or a percentage of the first floor area,
o limit the height of a one-story or second floor volume within an Eichler
neighborhood, nor
o mandate use of a mid-century modern style.
Providing a link to the 2016 Individual Review Program Audit report presented to the
PTC in August 2016 (viewable at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53365). Minutes of the
August 2016 PTC meeting are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56020
November 9, 2017
On November 9, 2017, the HRB received hard copy of the Public Review Draft Guidelines. No
staff report was prepared, but meeting was noticed and recorded. The HRB discussion is
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
viewable by video at this link: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-45/. Minutes
of the November meeting were provided with the December 14, 2017 HRB staff report.
December 14, 2017
The HRB provided comments on December 14, 2017. The December 14th report is viewable
here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62556. Minutes of the
December 14th HRB meeting were provided in the January 25, 2018 HRB staff report.
January 25, 2018
The January 25, 2018 HRB report provided a summary of the written comments received prior
to the comment deadline of January 12th. At HRB member places on January 25, 2018, staff
provided a hardcopy matrix of comments received through the January 18, 2018 community
workshop, and brief responses to the comments. These have been uploaded to this report as
Attachment D, which has several additional comments added, but does not reflect emails
received after the January 25th HRB packet preparation. The January 25th HRB staff report is
visible here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62974 and the
minutes from the January 25, 2018 HRB meetings are provided as Attachment C.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Discussion
Approach to Addressing Written Comments
The Final Draft Guidelines, annotated to show modifications to the Public Review Draft, include:
Insertion of the word “voluntary” and phrase “public educational” where deemed
helpful to a reader’s understanding of the essential nature of the Guidelines;
Addition of a frequently asked questions section, which discusses the voluntary nature
of the Guidelines and the potential future regulatory changes;
On the Eichler Tracts map, listing of tracts from oldest to newest (as requested by the
HRB);
Verbiage adding flexibility toward additions at the fronts of homes, provided the
addition is compatible with the overall design of the house;
Recommendation for ADUs to be potentially placed at rear or the front of the property,
possibly attached to the primary residence or developed within a portion of the house
or garage;
Deletion of some content in the “Process Improvement Suggestions” chapter, including
verbiage about the ‘erosion of support’ (related to two SSO rezoning processes in 2016)
and provision of a statement: “Use of these Guidelines in association with any
discretionary planning process or for review of homes in any special district will be as
established by Council in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.12. Council adoption of
any regulatory ordinance related to use of these Guidelines (or a subset of these
Guidelines) is a legislative process requiring review and recommendation by the
Planning and Transportation Commission.”
Reordering of chapters:
o The earlier chapter (chapter four) is about projects that could affect the
neighborhood character more broadly. Chapter four is now titled, “Respecting
privacy within Eichler neighborhoods; architectural compatibility and
neighborhood cohesion; new additions to existing Eichler homes; new home
construction; and accessory dwelling units.”
o Chapters five through eight have the following titles: Preserving and restoring
Eichler homes, Promoting a shared landscape, streetscape, and sense of nature,
Guidance for National Register districts, and Process improvement suggestions
and next steps;
Additional information about Eichler’s policy regarding non-discrimination;
Insertion of successful and unsuccessful addition illustrations with descriptions,
including second story additions. Below are sample excerpted ‘appropriate’ illustrations:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Below is a sample of descriptions with the ‘appropriate’ addition illustrations:
Description: A successful second-story addition to an existing Eichler home using the
same flat roof form, post-and-beam construction and similar window forms. The
addition is set back from the front facade to make the addition subordinate to the
original home. To address privacy concerns, larger windows are located on the front
facade, and windows on the side facades are clerestory windows, which allow in light
but are above the occupants' eye-line.
Below is a sample of ‘inappropriate’ addition illustrations and description:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
January 18th Community Meeting and Comments Received After January 25th HRB Packet
Attachment E contains email correspondence received after the preparation of the January 25th
HRB packet. The correspondence indicates many homeowners are disconcerted by the
potential for regulations related to the Guidelines. Some expressed concern that this is nearing
the end of the process and state that there was not enough effort to have broad community
input; especially, some of the commenters note a desire for staff to directly “reach out to
champions of the community who opposed the SSO”.
One commenter, who had attended an HRB meeting to hear the HRB discussion about the
Guidelines, states that the January 18th community meeting was too focused on how to make
the guidelines mandatory via legislation, that it became the “center of the conversation.”
Others cite a concern the Guidelines include information about details such as door handles,
garage doors and front door colors. Staff notes that the first hour of the January 18th meeting
was focused on the Guidelines with opportunity for comment on each chapter; however, the
attendees’ questions soon focused on the potential for regulations related to the Guidelines.
The second hour was focused on the potential for Council direction to direct staff to bring back
draft regulations. Staff presented the one slide about options that staff also presented to the
HRB on January 25th.
Several of the latest comments are from owners within the Greer Park North tract, which
Council rezoned to an SSO in 2015; these commenters did not support the SSO and provide
feedback on next steps. The repeated bulleted statements (within those emails) ask that:
“All Guidelines should be voluntary and not regulations,
After the Guidelines are passed, SSO neighborhoods should have a chance to
convert their neighborhood to non-SSO, with only 30% vote required,
Aesthetic things like garage door should not be too restrictive,
Guidelines should guide people on building the second story the right way, and
not fight/limit the second stories.”
Other comments are from owners within the Royal Manor tract, where the SSO effort was
unsuccessful. These comments state that the Guidelines don’t reflect the beliefs of those who
opposed the SSOs, urging the city to not adopt any formal guidelines about “looks” due to
“implications of Guidelines and enforceability”, and asking staff to seek broader community
outreach.
Additional Outreach
On February 16th, staff distributed colorful notice cards to every Eichler home in Palo Alto –
inviting participation at the February 22nd HRB meeting and noting ways to view (live or
archived) videos of the HRB meeting. Staff will also distribute public hearing notice cards to
these homes in advance of the Council’s consideration of the Guidelines. The webpage for this
project provides a summary of outreach and community consideration.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
Next Steps
City Council Action
The attached draft Resolution (Attachment A) has been prepared for City Council adoption of
the final Draft Guidelines. The Resolution includes relevant policies from the Comprehensive
Plan Council adopted on November 13, 2017. An April date is now targeted for City Council
consideration of the final draft. Should Council direct staff to proceed with policy and or zoning
code amendments, staff would hold public hearings to refine these approaches.
Potential Regulatory Options
Potential regulatory options were presented at the community meeting on January 18, 2018,
and discussed briefly with the HRB on January 25, 2018; Attachment B summarizes the options
graphically. Council will be presented with these options for consideration, and may direct staff
to move forward with one or more options. Following its recommendation of the Final Draft
Guidelines, after hearing any public testimony, the HRB may wish to discuss and comment on
the ‘tiered’ options. Preferences noted at the community meeting are shown below.
“Tier 0” approach would mean the Guidelines are voluntary, with no ordinance to
enforce mandatory use of any portion of them.
“Tier 1” approach is use of the Guidelines as a tool for staff and consultants reviewing
new two-story homes and second floor additions proceeding through the ‘Individual
Review’ discretionary planning entitlement process. A zoning ordinance would be
prepared to reference the existence and use of the residential guidelines (including
Professorville Guidelines) as a tool for the IR program. The ordinance could also clarify
the relevance of guidelines for a historic district listed locally and subject to the City’s
historic ordinance (Professorville, which is also listed on the National Register) versus
tracts that are only listed on the National Register (Green Gables and Greenmeadow)
and not subject to the City’s historic ordinance. If Council directs this approach, staff
would bring an ordinance to the PTC and City Council with required notice and public
hearings. This option appeared to have more support at the community meeting. This
could also allow use of the Guidelines for review of residential projects seeking
exceptions to zoning development standards (e.g. Home Improvement Exceptions and
Variances).
Related to the Tier 1 approach, within the Individual Review Guidelines, additional
privacy measures from the Eichler Guidelines could be cited to strengthen how well a
new two-story home or new second floor addition respects an adjacent Eichler home’s
existing privacy condition.
“Tier 2” approach is to create the opportunity for neighborhoods to self-select to
become Eichler Overlay (EO) Districts, similar to Single Story Overlay (SSO) Districts. An
Eichler Overlay District could have more existing two-story homes than the 20%
maximum threshold needed to establish an SSO. An Eichler Overlay could allow for new
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
second floor additions or new two-story homes, whereas existing SSOs could not have
new two-story homes or new second floor additions.
Note: An existing SSO could still utilize the Eichler Guidelines specific to one-story homes,
on a voluntary basis. Currently, the City does not have a one-story design review
program; therefore, any desire by owners of a tract to have a review program for one-
story homes and additions would have to be addressed with ordinance language, such as
noted in the next Tier, Tier 3 (not Tier 2).
“Tier3” approach would be to modify Development Standards within the R-1 Zoning
District (PAMC 18.12) specific to Eichler homes. Such regulations could be tailored for
the National Historic Register tracts and non-National Register tracts with Single Story
Overlays (SSOs). The revised standards could place additional restrictions or provide
greater allowances for additions to existing Eichlers.
Single Story Overlay Regulations
Modifications to Chapter 18.12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) are necessary to
respond to the Council’s direction for improvements to the Single Story Overlay (SSO) rezoning
process. Following Council adoption of the Eichler Guidelines, and direction to staff regarding
potential options, staff will begin the process of outreach and notification of draft zoning
ordinance changes to address the SSO process issues. Public hearings before the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) are required for any zoning ordinance changes.
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: Resolution (DOCX)
Attachment B: Options for Potential Regulatory Changes (DOCX)
Attachment C: HRB January 25 2018 Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)
Attachment D: Comments and Responses (XLSX)
Attachment E: Eichler Box Emails February 13 to January 18 (PDF)
Attachment F: Annotated Final Draft Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
NOT YET APPROVED
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE EICHLER
NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES
R E C I T A L S
A. In late 2016, Council authorized staff to proceed with a consultant contract to develop design
guidelines for Eichler neighborhoods in Palo Alto;
B. Two community outreach meetings and an on-line survey were conducted in the spring of 2017,
and a third meeting “Eichler Memory Event” was held in the summer of 2017, prior to development
of a Public Review Draft Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines (Guidelines);
C. On October 12, 2017, staff presented an informational report to the Historic Resources Board,
describing the processes for Guidelines adoption and for developing potential regulatory options;
D. The Public Review Draft Guidelines, which were informed by and incorporated community
comments, were published on November 9, 2017, as announced at a Historic Resources Board
meeting on the same day, for a 60-day initial public comment period ending January 12, 2018;
E. Following release of the Public Review Draft Guidelines, the Historic Resources Board conducted
two hearings on December 14, 2017, and January 25, 2018, to receive public testimony and provide
comments on the Public Review Draft Guidelines; on January 25th, the HRB continued the public
hearing to February 22, 2018 to allow the HRB to review the final draft addressing the January
public comments;
F. At the community meeting on January 18, 2018, attendees provided input into the Guidelines
and potential regulatory options;
G. On February 22, 2018, the Historic Resources Board conducted a final public hearing to review
the Final Draft Guidelines and hear public testimony, provide comments to staff, and recommend
the City Council adopt the Guidelines.
H. Upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing on _______,
Council reviewed the Guidelines and made the following findings:
1. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with applicable policies of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, including:
Policy L-1.1, Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.
Policy L-5.2, Use the zoning ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and
coordinated area plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and
architectural compatibility.
Policy L-5.4, In areas of the city having a historic or consistent design character,
encourage the design of new development to maintain and support the existing
character.
Policy L-5.8, Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for
single-family residences.
Policy L-5.9, Discourage the use of fences that obscure the view of the front of houses
from the street.
Policy L-6.1, Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that
have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory,
the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic
Places.
Policy L-6.2, If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential
historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State
or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor
exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially
historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements
may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter
character-defining features of the building.
Policy L-6.7, Streamline, to the maximum extent feasible, any future processes for
design review of historic structures to eliminate unnecessary delay and uncertainty for
the applicant and to encourage historic preservation.
2. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with the applicable purposes of the R-1 Zone
(PAMC 18.12 Section 18.12.010 items a-c, which are as follows:
In R-1 zones, to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings
with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and
opportunities for outdoor living and children’s play, and to create and preserve variety
among neighborhoods, to provide adequate open area, and to encourage quality design,
where accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units and accessory structures
or buildings are appropriate; and
In R-1 sub-districts, to create and maintain single-family living areas of varying site size
and development characteristics, to reflect and preserve the character of existing
neighborhoods; and
In Single-Story combining districts, to preserve and maintain single-family living areas of
predominantly single-story character in areas having a prevailing single story character,
thus limiting the number of structures rendered noncomplying by the (S) combining
district. It is intended that neighborhoods currently subject to single story deed
restrictions be developed in a manner consistent with those deed restrictions.
Furthermore, it is desirable that homes be similar in age, design and character, ensuring
that residents of an area proposed for rezoning possess like desires for neighborhood
preservation and face common home remodeling constraints.
SECTION 2. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows. The City Council hereby adopts the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines, which are
attached as Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. CEQA. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA,
the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is
exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Class 8 Categorical Exemption, which applies to actions
taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance,
restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves
procedures for protection of the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Brandon
Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Discussion and Recommendation of the
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City Council
Chair Bower: I want to call the meeting back to order. We’re running a long time this morning so let’s
move to the next action item is number three. A public hearing, Historic Resources Board discussion, and
recommendation of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City. We have all
received from staff a response packet on comments of the public review draft. We got them this morning,
none of us have had time to review them but let’s let staff take over from there.
Ms. French: Please. Good morning, the item that you have At Place was received last night from our
consultant and what it is, is a tabulation and notes and they are preliminary, they are not ready for prime
time really or they are not completed, to say what we’re going to do in response to the comments. It is a
complete list of the comments received and it starts at number 32 because that is the first comment
following – the comments before number 32 were admin draft comments. Now, this is on the public
review draft so it starts at comment number 32 and it goes to comment number 227. Those contain
comments received at the community meeting that we had last Thursday. On the screen I have the
schedule and it kind of shows you the trajectory of our review of these Eichler Guidelines and
preparation. In yellow you can see that is today’s date, we are looking towards a recommendation
realizing, of course, that there are a lot of comments and you’re not seeing the final version in what you
have today. This is still the same version that was given to you and members of the public on November
9th of last year but I do have some slides here that say generally what we are doing in response. As well
as to convene the approaches as you say potential regulatory options that we’ve been starting to discuss
and in fact, we began last Thursday to discuss those. Our intent, of course, is to get to the City Council,
we have this target date of March 12th, with a revised guideline to respond to the comments to the City
Council for the adoption of just the guidelines. Then direction to go to the next stage which is to begin to
formulate some regulatory measures as Council might direct us. There’s the schedule and we’re hoping to
get these out in the final version and start using them and so we’ll talk about that in a minute. We have a
workshop summary here that’s basically from last Thursday. We had about 35 people come, including
former Chair Bernstein and our individual review consultant who looks at two-story homes. We did have
some repeat customers or attendees from the prior workshops and we did tell the group there that we’re
planning to go to Council on March 12th, that could slip. We showed them the tools and – oh thank you,
this is for Brandon, excellent. We have a – we talked about this initial tier approach to implementation
show the Council direct one of those approaches and we got some feedback on those so we’ll talk about
that and then we talked about next steps. We’re hoping to begin to look at integrating basically as a
recommendation to Council this set of guidelines in some fashion to the two-story home review process
so that these can be useful in that process and we’re clear about that; again, I’ll talk about that in a bit. A
lot of the comments from last Thursday focused on similar topics so we have – these where some of the
things that were noted. We had the concern about – there are some statements in here about adding
onto the front may not be a good idea but then as far as a second floor but then adding on to the rear is
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
EXCERPT MINUTES: January 25, 2018
Eichler Guidelines
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
impactful to privacy so for an Eichler tract. These are some of the comments here, we had a lot of
concern about accessory dwelling units. Especially because the current regulations for secondary dwelling
units in the rear year allow for a height of 17-feet. So, several folks commented on how that should be
no higher than the height of the home which actually could in a single-story overlay neighborhood really.
We’d have to make an actual change to the regulations in the zoning code to make that and that is
something I think worth perusing as soon as possible and we’re hearing from the public about that.
There was some interest about these – ACC stands for Architectural Control Committees so there are
several neighborhoods that have Architectural Control Committees and that’s a voluntary thing that they
can use these guidelines once they are finalized in their process to look at homes in Eichler Tracts.
Anyways, there are some other comments here, I’m just going to let them sit for a second. There are
some interesting aspects in that there are non-Eichlers and you know how do we look at the non-Eichlers
when it comes to this. I mean obviously they are not restoring an Eichler because it was never an Eichler
but how do these apply to those buildings in Eichler Tracts where they exist? There’s a lot of words on
the screen, I’m not going to read them. These were just some of the comments that we heard and you
know McMansions, people are – it’s clear – it needs to be clear that there’s not going to be any
retroactive enforcement, these are voluntary. These are proposed as voluntary, what the Council does
next will be…
Board Member Kohler: Can you do back?
Ms. French: Yeah, this one?
Board Member Kohler: The next one back.
Ms. French: This one?
Board Member Kohler: Oh wait, go back right…
Male: Forward.
Ms. French: This one?
Board Member Kohler: Forward now sorry.
Ms. French: Oh, ok.
Board Member Kohler: So, down at the bottom it says no McMansions.
Ms. French: This was a comment that was made – these are Emily’s notes from last Thursday and if you
wanted to weigh in on…
Ms. Vance: Sure, this was just kind of a general comment about several people stating that they didn’t
like these large – I think the phrased used was stucco palaces that were popping up within Eichler Tracts.
So, that was just another comment that we head at that meeting.
Board Member Kohler: Ok.
Ms. French: So, this is kind of a flavor, it gives you a flavor of that meeting. Those who didn’t attend,
Martin was there and he can weigh in on that too or you can talk with him about that. Here is the original
table of contents from the November draft, the public review draft. There were comments on rearranging
an order because the next stage being how are we going to implement this. There’s kind of a need for
clarity and placement of the more important guidelines near the front and the guidelines that address
how to make a perfect Eichler basically with – that those would be later in the document and very clearly
not ever going to be a mandatory or code change. There was also, excuse me, expressed concern about
this concept of Eichler overlay which is not proposed actually. It is talked about as an option I believe and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
you know it’s not defined but it’s not intended to replace single-story overlay or it’s not intended too force
it on any existing single-story overlay. I mean the single-story overlay is really the best way to retain a
one-story neighborhood so we’re not encouraging anybody to change that. The potential reorganization
of the guidelines would be in the introduction to integrate only some of the contents in Chapter 8, which
is called the Process Improvement Suggestions into the purpose section so why are we doing this?
Council adoption of the guidelines is required, Council action is also required for any subsequent
ordinances with regulatory changes and those aren’t proposed at this time. Then we – there’s some other
things that we can do there but inserting the known CCNRs and then which of those actually limit
construction to one-story so it’s clearly found. Of course, that might be – anyways. Then what are these
guidelines and what aren’t they? In other words, these are not mandatory, these are voluntary and
anything else is by separate action. Then also clearing up the misconception that may be out there that
we’re trying to change the single-story overlay guidelines with – single-story overlay zoning code with
guidelines; we’re not. The Council had directed us to modify the ordinance for single-story overlay
establishment because we had such trouble with what we called erosion of support. That phrase appears
in here and it caused confusion. We have not received, just for the record, any comments from any
single-story overlay property owner tract that they want to – you know that their support for their
existing single-story overlay is eroding that. That was not what that was intended to be, that was about
how difficult it has been for several tracts to get a single-story overlay established because of the
changing support level during that process to try to rezone their neighborhood. I just wanted to kind of
say that. Here is the proposed reorganization so you can see here that the beginning part is to focus on
the history and the values etc. Then the first major chapter on what’s next is what to do in Chapter 4 so
we talk about compatibility, new additions and that’s where we put the stuff about the ADUs. So, have
that in the critical chapter for people to look at when they are actually going to come forward with some
kind of proposal for an addition or construction. Then the later Chapters 5, 6, 7, those are really intended
for maintenance and that sort of thing. Moving on, we do have some FAQs, we had shared those and
those are on our webpage, correct Emily? These are all on our webpage about this project and we have
this email address that people can communicate and they have been. The concept of these and you
where here for Professorville so this group is the best group to understand this. We did this already with
the Professorville Guidelines and just like these, any Discretionary Review such as Individual Review for a
new two-story home, this could be useful in that process. We do need to make an ordinance to say we’re
going to intend to use this for that process and maybe be specific about which of the guidelines in here
would be useful for that IR process. That is something that we would have a discussion with the Council
about. Your former comments or previous comments on the public redraft was hey, let’s get these in
chronological order as these tracts as to when they were built and have it listed that way so that’s going
to happen in the next draft. Then this – we’re going to have this clarification in Chapter 3 to help
understand better…
Board Member Kohler: Could you go back on more?
Ms. French: Yep.
Board Member Kohler: So, you look down here and you see number 4, number 10 and they are talking
about putting underground – to go under the railroad and that’s going to impact a whole bunch of these
Eichler homes because they are going to get wiped out. That’s what the proposal is or the last one I saw
and that’s nothing official but that’s what they are talking about. It was in the paper and they showed
that this and the one down at Churchill Avenue to try to get the trains – everyone to go under them like
in Oregon. Does this…
Ms. French: Yeah, this is not the document to address…
Board Member Kohler: No, I’m just saying it’s just – once you see these orange things and you realize
that they – the powers to be are talking about wiping out ten or twelve of those homes.
Ms. French: Perhaps we can agendize a discussion about Caltrain possibilities at a later date. I just want
to focus on the guidelines.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Board Member Kohler: No, that’s ok, I’m just saying it kind of pops right out at you once you see all
those homes.
Ms. French: Moving on, Chapter 4 we would make that a later chapter basically because it’s about
maintaining Eichler homes and not about the new additions. The part that people really care more about
I think and then these would be the earlier chapter as noted. As noted, moving the ADUs into that
Chapter 5, this one, which would then become an earlier chapter and this one would just basically be
about the National Historic Districts. This – again, we heard no taller than the home height and the home
height being the single-story so this would be certainly a regulation that could be applied City-wide but
certainly in the Eichler neighborhoods where privacy in the backyards is so critical. Privacy for those plate
glass window is unique to the Eichler neighborhoods in particular. Then we have this Chapter 8 going into
the background and I already talked about that kind of in the introductory to – so people understand
about hey, we’re going – I think might – it would say less than it says right now about this
implementation. The implementation itself would talk about – yeah. Then I guess I had – this was shown
to the workshop folks and this is – we spent a good hour talking about these and really people – nobody
was all that excited about just a voluntary, at least the folks in the room that cared about Eichlers. They
certainly – there was some popularity about this Tier One which again was let’s use these in the IR
process looking at new two-story homes and maybe strengthen the whole privacy guideline in the IR
Guidelines. Then these later tiers, this concept of having an Eichler overlay, for instance, we have a two-
story – original two-story Eichler neighborhood, [Terraria Court], they have too many two-story original
Eichler homes to be considered for single-story overlay. They are not entitled to go through that existing
process so this might be if they – they had come forward and asked and I said no, sorry, you don’t meet
the entrance requirements. If we had an Eichler overlay for that type of neighborhood, they could avail
themselves on that. So, it would again be like the single-overlay; self-selecting neighbors/property
owners coming together and asking to have that for their tract and it wouldn’t supplant single-story
overlay. When I had this here saying add – change to EO, I mean that is a possibility. We would not
encourage switching from single-story overlay to Eichler but there might be a possibility of in the Eichler
overlays talking about guidelines in here, some of them in particular related to Eichler overlay. This is just
a start, we are starting this conversation and the chief goal is to get these to Council in their revised state
as we just outlined to get those adopted. Then the next steps carry on months and how long after.
Anyways, this summarized that there was not much support for this option, the Tier (inaudible) zero. The
Tier 1, the concept of strengthening our massing, the scale and streetscape and privacy guidelines from
the IR specific to Eichler neighborhoods was – seemed to be popular. Then the concept of tailored Eichler
overlays along with IR integration for two-story. This is what kind of summarized what we heard and
then with regulatory – the concept of the regulations that we might come up with for height mass and
privacy. For instance, you could come up with limitations on the size of a second floor or a certain
placement on the property where those would be less impactful on privacy or how you deal with privacy
in an Eichler tract. That sums up my presentation such as it is and Emily if you had anything to add here.
She did – we did have an exercise that was a – where folks came a put a dot on these tiers here basically
and that’s where the ‘what’s most popular’ kind of came about where dots.
Ms. Vance: Right, yeah, there was an exercise at the end of the public meeting on Thursday where we
had a sheet with the Tier 1, 2, 3 and it was just another exercise for people to participate into kind of
gauge the feeling of the room. I got to stand over there and kind of have more one on one chats with
individuals as they came up to talk about the options that we presented. I don’t have a picture of it or
anything but we – that’s kind of where what – when we talk about this visualizing support, that’s where
that’s coming from.
Ms. French: I guess I would add just because I’m glancing at this working draft that’s At Place, you know
comments that were made prior to this by staff and the HRB are underway. For instance, here’s an easy
one, chapter numbers are going to be added to the green section title pages. I think Roger had made
that comment in a prior meeting or possibility David so we have our work cut out for us to pull together
the final draft to get to Council. We would like your support in moving that forward, the final guidelines
City of Palo Alto Page 5
document. As to these potential regulatory, we are going to be buttoned up for Council on that, that is
going to be a later effort and you will have involvement in that as well.
Chair Bower: Ok, thank you, it’s a lot of material. I think because this meeting has run so long, I’d like to
ask our one audience participant who has asked to speak to us to come forward. Penny Ellison, who has
been here before and so welcome back. I’m sorry that it’s taken us so long to get to this topic.
Ms. Penny Ellison: Well, thank you for considering this item. I live in Green Meadow which is a single-
story overlay district and I’m speaking today as an individual on that; as a representative of my
Neighborhood Association, we have not voted on this. Here are some thoughts that I have about it, as I
look at these tiered options here, I think that the Tier Three regulatory options actually have some
relevance for SSO neighborhoods. I say that because as I listened to people in the neighborhood
meetings, what I heard is really clearly is that the key issue is the protection from privacy intrusion on
those indoor/outdoor glass-walled spaces that define Eichler architecture and the lifestyle associated with
it. When we talk about restricting additions onto the front of the property, I think if you – I would
encourage you – in fact, I invite you. I’d be glad to organize a tour of some Eichler homes in Green
Meadow so that you can understand sort of how the indoor/outdoor spaces work and how the Eichler
architects really designed the homes to speak to each other. The window placement is very important
and so that’s why I get to Tier 3, the regulatory options, even for SSO neighborhoods I think is very
important because – and things – it can control things like floor heights. You know if you raise a floor in
an Eichler, you can actually see your fence into your neighbor’s yard. I Eichler guarded against this when
they were designing – their architects were very careful about that. They were careful not to place
windows on one side of a house to face the private spaces of the home next door. These kinds of – even
today, like our existing code right now does not protect an Eichler home even in an SSO neighborhood
from this. I can show you an example of this in my own home. Too late for me but I would really like to
see other Eichler homes protected from somebody putting a plate glass wall facing yours and that can
happen today. Simultaneously with the floor being raised which enables your neighbor to see into your
house so those kinds of things can happen presently, even in an SSO neighborhood so it would be terrific
to go to the Tier 3 thing. I was one of the people who suggested a maximum height for ADUs that does
not exceed the height of the primary residence on the lot that it shares. I think that you can probably add
the 17-feet into that but say whichever one is less and then that gives some flexibility for areas where
people want it. Let’s see, what were my other comments? Generally, I think that the guidelines are a
helpful learning tool for people who want to maintain an Eichler and the comments when I distributed it
in my neighborhood that I got back where you know, I wish I’d seen this before I did my remodel. So, it
is going to be helpful for people who care about it but I do think that regulation is going to be important.
I think that these guidelines – for some people, the read them and said gosh, these are great. This is
going to protect our privacy but in fact, I think it’s kind of giving people a false sense of security. It
doesn’t do that at all as we all know now. I do think they provide a wonderful context for the next
conversation that needs to happen about regulation and we need to make sure that this process does not
stop here. Thank you for considering my comments.
Chair Bower: Sure, thank you very much for coming and waiting so long. It’s very important that we hear
from homeowners in these circumstances. I think that your concerns, the ones that you’ve just
expressed, are at least my concerns about the way we develop these. Also, I think to echo Amy’s earlier
statements, this is the beginning of a long process because at first, you adopt guidelines, then you move
forward to implementation and I think that’s where we’ll get closer to the kinds of protection you’re
looking for. Today, I think that – I know Michael has to leave shortly. We received all these comments
which we didn’t have time to review. I’m not sure that we can actually move this forward at this point
because there’s too much that’s still in flux; the arrangement. So, mindful – being mindful of the interest
of getting this to the Council as soon as possible, I think we ought to probably continue this discussion. It
would be nice to see the revised guidelines the next time we talk about this and maybe we would have
an opportunity to review public comments that are on these 200 comments that you gave us today and
maybe move this forward to the Council.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Ms. French: Thank you. Can I ask that – you know we had heard comments from before and we – those
are – of the HRB’s. If you hadn’t made comments before and there are comments that you are
withholding, please make sure that we have those. We basically have provided direction to our consultant
to move on these and start creating the final version so we can bring those back. February 8th is to soon
to get the final draft in front of you but certainly by February 8th if there was something that you can
provide to us about what you received today, that would be really important to do that. So, we can put
that on our retreat agenda as an item for you to…
Chair Bower: Of course.
Ms. French: Did you have some thoughts about that Emily? Ok. To give us a here, here, on these or
some concerns if you do have them because we want to let the consultants move on to the next stage.
Chair Bower: Ok, Martin, do you have a comment?
Board Member Bernstein: I have a question for the speaker Penny Ellison, if I may? My question for
Penny is with your experience with the Architectural Control Committees, how effective is that in
implementing their recommendations? Do you have experience with that?
Ms. Ellison: I have talked with the members of our ARC in Green Meadow about that. I haven’t done a
remodel that required me to do that, any work that I’ve done has all been things like restoring siding to
get back to the original siding; simple stuff like that. Generally speaking, they will tell you that they do
their best to get neighbors to comply but the fact of the matter is, it’s – they use persuasion because
ultimately what it comes down to is the neighbor could – is the neighborhood going to sue the neighbor
whose doing something to their house? Controls – City regulated controls would be very helpful, it
certainly would have been very helpful in my particular instance. The Committee recommended against
what the person did and it – and City regulations allowed it so it went forward and there was nothing
that really could be done. Does that make sense?
Board Member Bernstein: Yes, that does. My other comment is that based on your experience and maybe
even in your own personal residence, I hear the word privacy is the dominant concern. Is it – privacy –as
long as the people feel that their privacy is being respected, is that the…
Ms. Ellison: Well, I can’t speak for other people. What I heard and I mean I can tell you what I heard in
the meetings is that the indoor/outdoor space of an Eichler – I mean if you live in an Eichler, you want
your windows open. So, I can tell you what happened to me, I mean my neighbor put a plate glass
window right across and I can hear everything that goes on in her house now. I know she can hear
everything that goes on in mine so – and when her lights go on at night, it lights my backyard and that
was never the case before so it has changed. It means that you know where I use to have a view of the
sky from the interior of my house, I know how a view of my draperies which are always shut so it has
really changed my, both enjoyment of my home and my privacy. That’s – it’s unfortunate but that’s – you
know, it’s done so I guess what I’m saying is we’re not – I can appreciate it because I’ve experienced
what people are worried about.
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you for that.
Chair Bower: Thank you. Other Board Members have comments?
Board Member Wimmer: I just have one quick question and maybe this has already been answered.
Once the guidelines are put in place, is there – if an Eichler owner wants to modify/add/alter their home,
will they be required to go through like an IR sort of review with – like when you want to put on a
second-story, you have to meet with Arnold. Is there going to be some kind of a review or these are just
guidelines that we put out there and people can take it or leave it?
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Ms. French: The ladder because we do not have a single-story home review process and I think taking
that on, frankly resources…
Board Member Wimmer: That’s a lot.
Ms. French: That’s a lot so my preference and I think at could happen is that the regulatory – yeah, you
can get to a point of what are the most important prescriptive statements you can make about one-story
changes in a single-story overlay neighborhood in particular. Then figure out what those statements are
and then those can be part of the Development Standards so then we’re not doing a qualitative review at
staff.
Board Member Wimmer: Could we empower people like Penny who – she’s part of her neighborhood
organization – I forget what you referred to it as but could we empower them to be somewhat of like an
HOA. Where in this zone, if one of the neighbors wants to remodel their house they would have their own
Board that’s made up of their own neighbors and like a lot of HOAs do that. Maybe that’s not something
that the City of Palo Alto would allow but would that – I just through that out there as an idea. They
could be self-regulating a forum or in an arena where each individual has to go to go through a review
and a neighborhood comment but they do it themselves. So, basically, Palo Alto was delegating that
activity to the neighborhood, I mean that’s…
Ms. French: It’s like a Municipal Advisory Council of some sort…
Board Member Wimmer: Kind of a cool idea, I don’t know if it could even happen.
Ms. French: …or Committee.
Board Member Wimmer: I mean that might be a way because that’s basically, you’re trying to address
the neighbors. You’re trying to make the community members happy so if we put it upon the community
members in that neighborhood to review those projects and comment on them with the guidelines. I
don’t know and then my only other comment which was the same comment I gave with the Professorville
Guidelines is with the book itself if we could maximize the font size. I said that before, I know that’s –
maybe I’m old but I see a lot of blank area on the page and maybe if we could just – instead of a 10
point, make it a 12 point. It just makes it easier to read, just simple, not to make – I don’t want to create
more pages. I just want to be able to see it better, sorry.
Ms. French: I think you are not alone in the quest for larger print.
Board Member Wimmer: I hate these things, I just hate it. Please, bigger font would be great.
Board Member Kohler: I have one quick comment in that my recent experience with the person who
wanted to add a second floor or do a new home with a two-story, was the people complained the most
were the folks who already had two-story homes and big ugly ones at that. They complained the most
and we worked very hard with the neighbors and everything so anyway, it never got done. Maybe with
these guidelines, we’ll be able to do something.
Chair Bower: I have a couple of quick observations, I know this – we want – we all need to get moving
here. I would hope that there’s language in the final version of this that allows the ACC and the
organizations that have CCNRs Homeowners Associations to really be the first line of defense in their
neighborhood development. More local I think is better and that would be as local as you get. Mindful of
what Ms. Ellison just described to us as a CCNRs or Architectural Review Committee that has to live with
their neighbors and can’t really – it really is not going to enforce it. I would hope that these guidelines
that know neighborhood association could approve something that was less stringent than this. We’re
going to set a guideline standard that’s kind of a standard in that individual neighborhoods could, though
they Architectural Review Committees, review it but not under mind these guidelines. I don’t know if
that’s – if there’s a way to incorporate that but I think that’s important.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. French: One thing that I didn’t mention when we were talking about the National Register Historic
Districts, I think you all aware that Professorville is both a National and Local Historic District. In our code
for historic preservation, only addresses local designated districts. If for instance, the Green Meadow
National Register District wished to become a local designated district, that is another way to have some
kind of review at least for Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Right now, because it’s not in our ordinance,
that isn’t happening.
Chair Bower: Right and that was my – one of my next – my next comment that I wanted to speak to is I
would like these – this document in some way to encourage the local listing of any National Register
District or property. Now, in this case, we’re talking about Eichler properties so it seems to me that we
should make some statement that these national districts – Eichler districts ought to be part of our local
register. I know that requires the homeowners to do that but I think we could still encourage that in this
document. Finally, a letter that Emily sent to us from a – emailed to us, which I printed out and then left
at home, talked about single-story overlay and I didn’t understand what the issue in that letter was. That
has to be part of the public record because it was sent to the Board. Can you briefly summarize what that
– do you remember what that was about? I’ll just – if not, I’ll just – we’ll just move on. Don’t worry about
it, let’s move on.
Ms. French: Was that – sorry, when did we receive that letter?
Chair Bower: I don’t know.
Ms. French: When did you receive it?
Chair Bower: Emily sent it to us earlier this week. Look, it’s ok, I – we’re not done with this, we’ll come
back to it, let’s just move on.
Board Member Wimmer: (Inaudible) the ADU heights.
Chair Bower: Yeah, alright…
Ms. French: Right, we heard from several about the ADU heights and that frankly could be on a separate
ordinance that’s going – that’s – we have these annual updates of our codes and that might be a City-
wide wish that transcends the whole Eichler situation.
Chair Bower: I think we’re going to need to continue this discussion, we can do it at our retreat on the 8th
but maybe, is it possible to move this forward on the 22nd – on February 22nd meeting? That we would
have this complete enough that the Board might make some final recommendation to the Council; 22nd of
February, that’s….
Ms. French: Yeah, that would help.
Board Member Corey: I would love to see – I mean you know we already talked about coming back on
the 8th with all our comments and feedback but is there any way we could get a draft – preliminary draft
final before we – is that not going to happen?
Ms. French: As you saw with the 200 and some comments, I wouldn’t want to put the consultant in that
position of not meeting a deadline so I would prefer the – continue to the 22nd. If there’s some reason
why we can’t it to you by then, we can always target…
Chair Bower: Well, let’s hope that we don’t get it on the 21st…
Ms. French: Correct. Yeah, that’s…
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Bower: …or the morning of the 22nd.
Ms. French: That gives us a little more wiggle room to get it to you by maybe the 8th or the following
week.
Board Member Corey: I guess -- I think that’s my point exactly if we get it the 21st or the 22nd it’s not
going to be a very productive meeting.
Chair Bower: Alright so we’ll continue this until time uncertain I think.
Ms. French: Or you could just say the 22nd…
Chair Bower: Oh, alright.
Ms. French: … if you’d like to give predictability to the process and then we’ll…
Chair Bower: Fine, let’s do on the 22nd and then we’ll visit.
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
1
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1
Sidebar about equity or inclusiveness for the section in Chapter 1, "Valuing Eichler
Neighborhoods in Palo Alto"? Eichler CC&Rs did not discriminate based on race. One of
the challenges the City faces today in Eichler neighborhood today arises from the fear of
newcomers with different values
Page & Turnbull added additional text to elaborate the history of housing Palo Alto and to clearly
indicate that the CC&Rs in Palo Alto's Eichler tracts did not discriminate based on race, religion, etc.
2
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1, "Valuing
Eichler Neighborhoods
in Palo Alto"
Expand last sentence of "Valuing Eichler Neighborhoods in Palo Alto" section. Something
like : “…Palo Alto can ensure that its cultural and architectural heritage continue to
express the community’s identity as it evolves physically and socially to include modified
buildings and new families.”
Change incorporated.
3
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1, "Purpose of
the Palo Alto Eichler
Neighborhood Design
Guidelines"
Add sidebar explaining that the guidelines are proposed to be advisory (voluntary)
unless regulatory (zoning) changes are adopted by the City Council to impose them as a
requirement?
Side bar incorporated, and will reference the new Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions for
readers interested in learning more.
4
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1, "Purpose of
the Palo Alto Eichler
Neighborhood Design
Guidelines"
Add something about "Fichlers"? (Where SSOs extend beyond the Eichler tracts)It is Page & Turnbull's understanding that the SSOs extend beyond some of the Eichler tracts to include
other single-story residences, but these are not necessarily "Fichlers." Thus, a discussion of "Fichlers" in
the Design Guidelines is not necessary (and could even be potentially confusing).
5
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1
Mention that we consulted with other cities Added to the Methodology section of Chapter 1: "Additionally Page & Turnbull researched other cities
throughout California to find precedents of design guidelines, regulatory ordinances, and single-story
overlays that could inform the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines."
6
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft Add an "Afterward" chapter to the guidelines and move the "Process Improvement
Suggestions" section to that chapter along with a discussion about how to use the
guidelines as neighborhoods change and as the City's zoning regulations evolve. Also
mention that Palo Alto is planning to develop a context statement on PA's modernist
architecture, which will help City understand how to evaluate Eichler neighborhoods for
eligibility to the NR and CR, and also help the City to understand how much change is too
much change when Eichler neighborhoods are designated as historic districts
Process Improvements Suggestions section has been moved to the new Chapter 8: Process
Improvement Suggestions at the end of the document. Topics include: project review for National
Register Historic Districts, design review training and raising awareness of neighborhood ACCs,
designation of additional National Register Historic Districts, and potential modifications to the zoning
code as they relate to Eichler neighborhoods.
7
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1, "Existing
Regulatory Framework
and Review Process"
Add State Historic Building Code to the Regulatory Framework section? SHBC is a huge
incentive for folks adding onto an existing building
Sidebar on the California Historical Building Code (CHBC) added to elaborate on the incentives available
for historic preservation.
8
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
throughout
When discussing CC&R's please say that they CAN be enforced by residents themselves,
not just that the City does not enforce them
Language added to clearly indicate that CC&Rs are not enforced by the City, but CAN be enforced by
residents.
9
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1, "Existing
Regulatory Framework
and Review Process"
At the end of the regulatory section, we may want to explain that a mitigation measure
associated with the Comp Plan Update EIR resulted in a new Comp Plan Policy L-7.2: If a
proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource
that has not been evaluated for inclusion in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City
staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to
the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do
not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt
from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or
replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining
features of the building. AMY: "I would expect the context statement we’re talking about
developing to help us conclude that individual Eichler homes are not historical resources
themselves, but that districts are, and demolitions and substantial alterations will need
to be reviewed to determine their potential impact on the district."
General Comment.
Page & Turnbull and the City of Palo Alto have decided to focus on current regulations and guidelines in
the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhoods Design Guidelines, and to address future IR Guideline updates and
code changes in a separate document/discussion.
10
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1, "Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Legislation"
Shorten the discussion of the State's ADU law and expand the explanation of what the
resulting City ordinance allows
Page & Turnbull feels that the discussion of the State's ADU law is sufficiently concise and provides
necessary context. Additional details about the quantitative allowances under Palo Alto's ADU laws
have been added to Section 4.3 Accessory Dwelling Units, which provides guidelines about ADUs in
Eichler Neighborhoods.
11
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
5.2.8
5.2.8 should reference or explain City's code provisions regarding garage context Bullet point added to the list reading: "See 18.12.040 (f) Contextual Garage Placement and 18.12.040 (g)
Garage Doors of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for further guidance."
12
Hillary Gitelman, via email to Amy
French
9/20/2017 Administrative Draft,
7.1
Expand to communicate the quantitative standards/allowances for various types of
ADUs.
Language added to ADU section in Chapter 1, directing readers to Chapter 7.2 for further design
guidance on ADU projects.
"Guide to Accessory Dwelling Units" table from the City of Palo Alto: Summary Guide to ADUs and
Junior ADUs" has been incorporated into Chapter 7.2. This table summarizes the quantitative
allowances for ADUs per City of Palo Alto code.
Note: After the Public Review period, section 7.2 was moved to section 4.3.
13
Arnold M., via email from Amy French 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft
5.2
About replacement home - some language about 'encourage' (since guidelines not
regulatory)
Page & Turnbull feels that it has been adequately established throughout the guidelines that the
document is advisory rather than regulatory. Furthermore, the text includes language like "should"
(rather than "shall" or "must") that indicates recommendations rather than mandates.
14
Arnold M., via email from Amy French 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft
5.2.1
Streetscape pattern related to IR guideline for streetscape and massing Bullet points added to 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 directing readers to the IR guidelines for additional information.
15
Hillary, via email from Amy French 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft Add an "Afterward" chapter at end of guidelines to include statement that Council will
concurrently consider regulatory options with the guidelines and provide direction to
staff
Process Improvements Suggestions section has been moved to the new Chapter 8, at the end of the
document.
17
City Staff, via email from Amy French 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
throughout
More and better graphics including more appropriate/inappropriate drawings
(dos/don’ts)
Additional graphics, photographs and diagrams have been added throughout the formatted document.
Green check marks and red Xs also clearly label photographs and diagrams as "do" or "don't" for easy
visual reference.
18
City Staff, via email from Amy French 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1
Expanded and revised ADU language Language added to ADU section in Chapter 1, directing readers to Chapter 7.2 for further design
guidance on ADU projects.
Note: After the Public Review period, section 7.2 was moved to section 4.3.
ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhoods Design Guidelines - Public Comment & Response to Comments (Edited 2/7/2018)
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
19
City Staff, via email from Amy French 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1
"Prosses improvements Suggestions" to move to end along with "afterward" on possible
regulatory changes
Process Improvements Suggestions section has been moved to the new Chapter 8, at the end of the
document.
20
Amy French email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft Added "Afterward" section should recommend any regulatory changes we think are
important to address concerns about ADUs in these neighborhoods
Process Improvements Suggestions section has been moved to the new Chapter 8, at the end of the
document.
21
Emily Vance, conference call 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1
Legends are hard to read (too small)Page & Turnbull will ensure that legends are sufficiently large/legible in the formatted Design
Guidelines document.
22
Emily Vance, conference call 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
5.2.6
Do not use example photo associated with 5.2.6 (caption says that it is new construction,
but we think that it is actually an Eichler with an addition)
Photo removed.
23
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 1
NOTE:
Line numbers were
added by P&T for
clarity in transferring
to the Response to
Comments
spreadsheet.
Line 7: delete comma after "community"
Line 15: last sentence of paragraph is a little clunky
Line 82: Need to be sure that legend can easily be read
Line 91-92: delete "to develop the guidelines"
Lines 154-158: Are these titles of the chapters or descriptions? If titles, should be in all
caps.
Line 163: replace "guide" with "assist with"
Line 185-91: Order listed in this sentence is not followed below
Line 245: Be sure legend is easily read
Line 293: legend
Line 327: No sidebar necessary for this
Line 381-2: Change "Districts" to "Resources within districts"
Line 386: Change "group" to "whole"
Lines 389-94: This paragraph should be better integrated into the earlier paragraphs
which define criteria and integrity
Line 396: Change "two " to "four"
Line 396-7: After "Historic Districts, add ", two of which are Eichler tracts"
Line 524: Move "Process Improvement Suggestions" section to an "Afterward" chapter
Line 579: Perhaps the Standards should get a little side bar panel, or put in the appendix
Line 7: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 15: Separated into two sentences.
Line 82, 245, 293: Page & Turnbull will ensure that legends are sufficiently large/legible in the
formatted Design Guidelines document.
Line 154-8: These are descriptions, not titles. Added punctuation to make them more clearly short
sentence descriptions.
Line 163: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 185-91: List reordered to reflect sections below.
Line 327: Sidebar has been removed.
Line 381-2:Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 386: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 389-94: Paragraph moved to just after first paragraph so that the section flows better.
Line 396: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 396-7: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 524: "Process Improvements Suggestions" section has been moved to a separate chapter (Chapter
8) at the end of the document.
Line 579: Page & Turnbull will include the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation either
as a sidebar or separate section in the "Afterward" Chapter or Appendix.
24
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 2
Line 9: Delete comma after "easier"
Line 28: Delete comma after "real estate"
Line 32: Delete comma after "1925"
Line 34: Change "Hillsborough." to "Hillsborough, California."
Line 35: Change "well designed" to "well-designed"
Line 40: Delete comma after "1947"
Line 44: Delete comma after "University Gardens"
Line 48: Delete comma after "1940s"
Line 51: "S. Robert Anshen" EV - what was his first name?
Line 56: Delete comma after "AA-1"
Line 72: Delete comma after "market"
Line 79: Delete comma after "success"
Line 79: Delete "he"
Line 102: Delete extra space between "for developments"
Line 105-7: "Furthermore, Eichler Homes...." EV - Let's expound on this
Line 108: change comma at end of sentence to a period
Line 111-12: "Claude Oakland even helped Eichler Homes develop two-story house
designs, which are found in a few of Palo Alto's Eichler tracts." EV - which ones?
Line 113: change "was" to "were"
Line 130: Change "west by" to "to"
Line 138: Change "Joseph Eichler and they" to "Joseph Eichler. They"
Line 9: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 28: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 32: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 34: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 35: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 40: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 44: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 51: Literature, drawings, etc. all refer to the architect as "S. Robert Anshen." Thus, Page & Turnbull
feels that this is the most appropriate and recognizable form of the architect's name.
Line 56: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 72: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 79: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 102: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 105-7: Additional elaboration on housing discrimination and Eichler's policy of non-discrimination
have been added.
Line 108: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 111-2: Sentence edited: "Some tracts that Eichler developed later in his career, such as the Los
Arboles Addition of 1972-1974, included two-story houses designed by Claude Oakland."
Line 113: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 130: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 138: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
25
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 2
Line 140: Delete comma after "commissions"
Line 147-8: "A. Quincy Jones" EV - first name?
Line 161: Delete comma after "steel frames"
Line 166: Delete comma after "1969"
Line 188: Delete comma after "1977"
Line 189: Should we see an example of each one's [landscape architect] work? Same with
architects above? [add drawing or photo as illustration with each bio?]
Line 194: add "his role in" after "gardens and"
Line 209: Where did this image come from? Need source/credit.
Line 248: Side panel with summary of general characteristics? Post and beam, striking
roof forms with broad eaves, simple material palette of wood or concrete block,
interior/exterior spaces, etc.
Line 253: Define "post and beam" in this section
Line 140: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 147-8: Literature, drawings, etc. all refer to the architect as "A. Quincy Jones." Thus, Page &
Turnbull feels that this is the most appropriate and recognizable form of the architect's name.
Line 161: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 166: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 188: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 189: Photographs and drawings have been added to illustrate the body of work of each architect
and landscape architect discussed.
Line 194: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 209: All credit lines have been resolved.
Line 248: Diagrams have been added to help define the materials and elements that make up the
"general characteristics" of Eichler residences.
Line 253: Short definition of post and beam construction added; the definition is also illustrated with a
photo of an Eichler home under construction in which the construction method is visually apparent.
26
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 3
Lines 12-17: Order listed in sentence should be followed below
Line 19: Capitalize "Community"
Line 24: change "traffic circles" to "roundabouts"
Line 37: Change to "common interest or, at least, the shared"
Line 44-5: "….promoting sociability on the street." EV - How? Nobody has a front porch
and privacy is a big factor of Eichler homes...
Line 50: Capitalize section heading "Shared Landscape, Streetscape, and Sense of
Nature"
Line 74: Section should be written in the present tense
Line 83-4: change to "vocabulary was favored over revivalist styles along with the use of
similar materials."
Line 86: Section should be written in the present tense
Line 87-8: flat roofs - how is that a deficiency?
Line 106: "For those people, Chapter VIII...." EV: Only 7 chapters
Line 12-17: list rearranged to reflect the sections below
Line 19: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 24: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 37: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 44-5: Sentence has been edited to clarify that although the houses tend to be oriented toward the
rear yard, it is the experience of residence (as voiced in community meetings) that the design and scale
of the neighborhood promotes sociability on the street.
Line 50: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 74 & 86: Paragraphs edited to be consistent in the use of the present tense.
Line 83-4: Page & Turnbull feels that the suggested edit results in a confusing sentence where it is not
clear if "similar materials" refers to modern/contemporary design or revivalist styles. Therefore, the
phrasing was not changed.
Line 87-8: Flat roofs can be considered a deficiency because they are prone to leaking. Sentence has
been clarified.
Line 106: Changed to "Chapter 4" which discusses maintenance of existing homes. (Note: Chapter 4 was
later moved to Chapter 5)
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
27
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 4
Line 21: Delete comma after "right of way"
Line 57: EV supports Christina Dikas's suggestion to include sources for paint colors as a
sidebar
Line 120: Great drawings showing appropriate/inappropriate treatments - would like
more of these throughout
Line 148: Could we see more appropriate/inappropriate here?
Line 151: Change "that have" to "with"
Line 185: "....by duplicating the old mortar in strength, composition, and texture..." EV -
And color?
Line 189: Add a bullet point? - Avoid painting unpainted masonry
Line 21: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 57: Paint color sidebar will be added in the formatted document.
Line 120 & 148: Additional graphics, photographs and diagrams have been added throughout the
formatted document. Green check marks and red Xs also clearly label photographs and diagrams as
"do" or "don't" for easy visual reference.
Line 151: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 185: Sentence edited to read: "Repoint the mortar joints between bricks by duplicating the old
mortar in strength, composition, color, and texture— so as not to cause damage due to differing
porosity."
Line 189: Bullet point added stating "Avoid painting any unpainted masonry or brick."
28
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 5
Line 48-53: Combine two bullet points?
Line 65: Would like to see appropriate/inappropriate drawings
Line 94-97: Chevron roofs acceptable?
Line 99-100: I'm confused - what does this drawing depict? What to do? What not to do?
Line 158-60: Is this addition appropriate overall?
Line 216: Delete comma after "unit"
Line 316: If it's not new construction, I would not have it [the photo] in this section
Line 48-53: Page & Turnbull feels that although these bullet points are closely related, they address two
slightly different situations. The first bullet point discourages front additions, and recommends side or
rear additions. The second bullet point says IF you must have a front addition, ensure that it does not
project substantially ahead of neighboring residences.
Line 65: Additional graphics, photographs and diagrams have been added throughout the formatted
document. Green check marks and red Xs also clearly label photographs and diagrams as "do" or
"don't" for easy visual reference.
Line 94-97: Page & Turnbull feels that the chevron roofs are rare enough in the Eichler tracts that they
should not be explicitly recommended as an "appropriate" roof form for second story additions.
Line 99-100: Green check mark graphic has been placed on top of graphic to clearly indicate that this is
an "appropriate" example. Caption further explains that this graphic shows that when an Eichler house
has a composite roof form, additions should only be above one portion.
Line 158-60: In the formatted document, photographs and illustrations will be clearly labeled with a
green checkmark or red X to indicate whether they are appropriate or inappropriate. Captions will
provide more narrative details about why an example is or is not appropriate.
Line 216: Copy-edit suggestions incorporated.
Line 316: Photo removed.
29
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 6
Line 1: find historic photos of "modernist landscape design in the neighborhood"
Line 109-11: Porches should also be mentioned in Chapter 5
Line 133-4: "primary of the house" ?
Line 144: "Shrubbery may be a good substitute for fencing in some cases." EV: So long as
it does not block views of the residence? From earlier: Hedges that line the front yard of
a property and block views of the residence are discouraged.
Line 1: Historic photo added of Eichler tract streetscape with landscaping visible.
Line 109-11: Bullet added to 5.2.1 with same language from 6.2.3 - "Large raised porches at the front of
residences are not appropriate in Eichler neighborhoods, as front yards are visually shared while private
living space is located at the rear."
Line 133-4: sentence clarified.
Line 144: Sentence expanded to read: "Shrubbery may be a good substitute for fencing in some cases,
so long as it does not obscure views of an Eichler residence from the street."
30
Emily Vance, redlined text via email 9/27/2017 Administrative Draft,
Chapter 7
Line 28: Unnecessary picture
Line 125: Name Greenmeadow and Green Gables
Line 138-9: Reword sentence; challenges that are manageable
Line 28: Photo removed
Line 125: Greenmeadow and Green Gables added
Line 138-9: Sentence added "Fortunately, with careful and deliberate planning these challenges are
manageable."
31
Amy French, email 10/11/2017 Administrative Draft,
throughout
Do not represent the IR program as a ‘design review’ process - it is review of ‘privacy,
massing, and streetscape’. The IR program has always stayed away from referring to
itself as design review (we don’t prescribe design styles or even require resolved designs
in the style the applicant has selected.
Additional language from the IR guidelines was added in Chapter 1 to clarify: "Palo Alto Single Family
Individual Review Guidelines established specific requirements relating to streetscape, massing, and
privacy of new two-story homes and upper story additions within the R-1 zone district; however, the IR
process is not a design review process, and does not prescribe specific architectural style."
When referring to the IR process, language had been changed from "design review" to "discretionary
review."
32
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
throughout
Fix all broken hyperlinks. Ensure that all URLs in the body of the text are hyperlinked.Page & Turnbull fixed all broken hyperlinks and made all URLs in the body the text hyperlinks.
33
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 2
Page 40 with "Table of Eichler Neighborhoods in Palo Alto" has a lot of dead space,
needs to be reformatted.
Page & Turnbull reformatted the table to span two columns, filling the page in a more balanced way.
34
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 2
Floor plan on page 46 is difficult to see.Page & Turnbull split the graphic into two separate images so that the floor plan could be enlarged.
35
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 4
Font in sidebar on page 65 is difficult to read.
Labels on "Original Eichler Exterior Body Colors" graphic are hard to read.
Weight of font edited to make the text easier to read in sidebar.
Text of labels enlarged to make more legible.
36
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 5
5.1.6 - add wood shingles to list in last bullet on page 81 Wood shingles added to list of inappropriate cladding materials in guideline 5.1.6 (changed to 4.1.6).
37
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 6
6.2.3 - Are turf-block pavers an appropriate material for primary driveway?Page & Turnbull feels that turf-block pavers are appropriate mitigation for additional paving; however,
Page & Turnbull does not think that turf-block pavers are an appropriate material for the primary
driveway they create too much visual and material texture. Too clarify this point, Page & Turnbull
added additional language to guideline 6.2.1.
38
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 7
7.1.5 - Does this point suggest that additions in Eichler neighborhood that aren't in NR
districts don't need to be differentiated? See 5.1.5 for comparison.
While the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are ALWAYS considered best practice,
Page & Turnbull has used Chapter 7. Special Considerations to emphasize the need to adhere to SOI
Standards in National Register Districts.
In 5.1.5 (changed to 4.1.6) the guideline is not suggesting that first story additions need to exactly
match the original Eichler to give the appearance of the addition being an original part of the home.
Rather, the idea is to extend the roofline in a consistent manner -- cladding material on the walls, for
example, may be used to subtly distinguish the addition.
39
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 7
Page 106, clean up background noise in diagram.Diagram edited for visual clarity.
40
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 7
7.2.2. - Does second bullet point also apply to detached ADUs?While guideline 7.2.2 (changed to 4.3.2) is specifically talking about detached ADUs, the second bullet
would also apply to attached ADUs. Page & Turnbull removed the word "attached" from the bullet point
to avoid confusion.
41
Emily Vance, marked up PDF 11/7/2017 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 7
Change color of Guide to Accessory Dwelling Units table.Green was the original color from the Palo Alto document, but the color was changed to a yellow that
conforms to the color palette of the Design Guidelines.
42 David Bower (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Add chapter numbers on green pages.Chapter numbers added to green section title pages.
43
David Bower (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Streetscape - Façade easement ordinance to preserve what public sees.
Single story review is critically important.
General comment.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
44
Michael Makinen (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Glad to see context related to Frank Lloyd Wright's Usonian home; it would be nice to
include a picture of a Usonian.
Photograph of the Bazett House added to Chapter 2.
45
Brandon Corey (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Chimney ordinance - can't get a permit to stabilize - encourage replacement because of
air quality issues.
Text added to Section 4.4 (changed to 5.4) Repairing Chimneys (page 71): "Effective January 1, 2011, the
City of Palo Alto began enforcing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation
6, Rule 3, which prohibits the sale or resale, supply, install, or transfer of new or used wood-burning
devices intended for use within district boundaries. This requirement does not apply if a wood-burning
device is an installed fixture included in the sale or transfer of any real property. While the
implementation of this rule does not affect existing wood-burning fireplaces in Palo Alto, residents may
chose to convert their wood-burning fireplace to a gas-fueled or electric-powered fireplace." Citation:
"Wood burning fireplaces are prohibited effective January 1, 2011," City of Palo Alto,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/17691.
46
Roger Kohlen (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft 5.2 - want to see drawings of new home construction - already in IR guidelines for 2 story
houses.
Page & Turnbull added in a diagram from the Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Review Guidelines
which illustrates "compatible infill" as well as another photograph of new construction in an Eichler
neighborhood to Chapter 5.2 (changed to 4.2).
47 Karen Holman (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Add chapter numbers to headers.Chapter numbers have been added to page headers.
48
Karen Holman (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Page 17, more on maintenance of windows.Page 17 of the Public Review Draft is the "Components of a Design Guideline" which is a graphic meant
to illustrate the various parts of the document, and how to read/use the document. More in depth
information on the maintenance of windows (including a list of additional resources regarding
windows) can be found in section 4.2 (changed to 5.2) Repairing and replacing windows and doors.
49
Karen Holman (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Add to context that Eichler was expelled from state construction board due to his non-
discrimination policies.
According to sources found, Eichler resigned from the National Association of Home Builders in 1958 (as
opposed to be expelled) in protest of their racial discrimination policies.
http://www.eichlernetwork.com/article/wonderful-world-eichler-homes
Sentence added: "Eichler's stance against racial discrimination in housing became well-known
nationally, and by 1958 Eichler resigned from the National Association of Home Builders to protest their
discriminatory policies."
Margaret Wimmer (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Incentives for Eichler owners to preserve? Feel rewarded - and.or plaque for
preservation?
It is up to the City of Palo Alto to establish incentive programs for preservation, which can include
implementation of state tax credits through the Mills Act, a plaque program, or other local incentives.
Currently these financial incentive programs have not been implemented in Palo Alto. The California
Historical Building Code can help with the rehabilitation of historic buildings, and is discussed in a
sidebar in Chapter 1 of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhoods Design Guidelines. Currently, most Eichlers
in Palo Alto are not identified or designated historic resource (with the exception of the Green Gables
and Greenmeadows National Register Historic Districts), so typical preservation incentives would not
apply.
Beth Bunnenberg (HRB)11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Is there a discussion of coil floor heating?Yes, the radiant heating is discussed in the Design Guidelines in Section 4.5 (changed to 5.5) Mechanical
Systems and Plumbing.
50
Beth Bunnenberg (HRB, notes emailed
to P&T)
11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Thoughts on how to organize Eichler information.
Philosophy of Eichler's Buildings.
Midcentury Modern Style.
Relationship to Frank Wright's architecture.
Site plan for each subdivision.
Page & Turnbull feels that it has addressed each of these topics in the Design Guidelines. Specifically,
the philosophy, midcentury modern style, and Wright are all discussed in Chapter 2.
Historic site plans are not necessarily available for each subdivision (or at the same level of
quality/detail), and tracking all of these down would be outside the scope of this particular project. For
those interested in additional archival documents, the University of California, Berkeley College of
Environmental Design Archives and UCLA A. Quincy Jones Architectural Archive are excellent resources.
Beth Bunnenberg (HRB, notes emailed
to P&T)
11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Goals: Organic curved streets (no straight streets), Indoor-outdoor living, reverse plans -
living area at the back facing the backyard, bedrooms at the front of the home, family
gathering areas, gathering places for family (at home), parks incorporated in the
subdivision plan
General Comment.
Page & Turnbull acknowledges that these are all key, typical features of Eichler homes. Page & Turnbull
added additional language about curved streets and the interior floor plan with living spaces toward the
rear of the house in Chapter 2: Typical Characteristics of Eichler Residences.
51
Beth Bunnenberg (HRB, notes emailed
to P&T)
11/9/2017 Public Review Draft Regulations (or lack of regulations), protection of one story overlay.
Subdivision design review for modifications - Palo Alto.
Modification design in Palo Alto regulations Palo Alto City Code and subdivision design
committee
Two National Register districts to abide by Secretary of Interior Standards.
Page & Turnbull acknowledges that these are important issues to address, and feels that it has
thoroughly discussed the existing regulations (including Single Story Overlay, Individual Review, zoning,
CC&Rs, ACCs) in Chapter 1. Additionally, the National Register of Historic Places is discussed in detail in
Chapter 1, and guidelines specific to meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
are elaborated in Chapter 7.
52 David Bower (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft Would like to see tracts organized chronologically instead of alphabetically in maps.Page & Turnbull has edited maps to organize tracts chronologically (rather than alphabetically). New
tract ID numbers reflect this reordering.
53
David Bower (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 23
Flood zone colors - which are in the flood zones? Needs to be a different color.
Are NRHP districts exempt from FEMA requirements?
Page & Turnbull edited the shading color of "Zone X" to a brighter yellow, so that is better distinguished
from the SFHA zone and areas not in a flood zone. Page & Turnbull also changed the tracts to have an
outline only (no fill) for the Flood Hazard Area map so that the edge of the SFHA is more visible.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
54
Martin Bernstein (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 23
Flood zones can change - keep in parcel maps and remove graphic?Page & Turnbull recognizes that flood zones are subject to change, but feels that the map is important
to illustrate the importance of this issue as it relates to Eichler tracts that are already in or very near the
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). A disclaimer will be added to the map to state that flood zones are
subject to change, and cite resources for current updates. The title of the map has also been changed to
"Palo Alto Eichler Tracts & Flood Hazard Areas (November 2017)"
55
Roger Kohler (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 23
Flood map is helpful - add disclaimer to check flood zone information for updates.Page & Turnbull recognizes that flood zones are subject to change, but feels that the map is important
to illustrate the importance of this issue as it relates to Eichler tracts that are already in or very near the
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). A disclaimer will be added to the map to state that flood zones are
subject to change, and cite resources for current updates. The title of the map has also been changed to
"Palo Alto Eichler Tracts & Flood Hazard Areas (November 2017)"
56
Lee Lippert, architect in Palo Alto and
former president of PAST Heritage
(public comment, HRB)
12/14/2017 Public Review Draft Difficulty in implementation - path forward on how each homeowner will embrace the
document
Eichlers are subject to moisture, dry rot - sea level rise will make it a worse problem
Issue of floor plane - if a home is in a flood zone and not historic, need a number of
incentives to become a historic resource - State Historic Building Code, tax incentives,
etc.
Beam overhangs subject to rot on exterior - homeowners cut them off and loose
character; siding is customer milled - people use cement plaster over plywood; garage
doors replaced with roll-up doors
Incentivize citizens to use guidelines
The only currently available preservation incentive in Palo Alto is the California Historical Building Code
(CHBC), which is discussed in a sidebar on page 26 of the Public Review Draft. Page & Turnbull agrees
that additional incentives are recommended, and may be addressed in a separate document regarding
other IR Guideline updates and code changes.
57
Mira Edelman, owner of Eichler in Royal
Manor (public comment, HRB)
12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
Page 76-77
Thorough, appreciate public involvement.
Section 5.1.1 - first story additions merit more study, allow additions consistent with
zoning regulations and guidelines.
Will provide written comments with addresses of examples of good one story additions
Some good additions, especially rear additions that could be okay - guidelines should
have a light touch.
Concerned about the middle diagram (section 5.1.1) - that concept could be okay - make
a "yes."
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
64
Martin Bernstein (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 77
Middle diagram could be a "yes" if designed to be subordinate with solutions from page
104.
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions.
58
Michael Makinen (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft Recommend incentives attached to follow the guidelines - voluntary but more interest.
(Bernstein agreed)
Likes 2nd bullet under 4.5.2 (page 72)
The only currently available preservation incentive in Palo Alto is the California Historical Building Code
(CHBC), which is only applicable to National Register districts and is discussed in a sidebar on page 26 of
the Public Review Draft. Page & Turnbull agrees that additional incentives are recommended, and will
addressed in a separate document regarding other IR Guideline updates and code changes.
59
Martin Bernstein (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
Page 24
Preservation ordinance doesn't address NRHP districts/contributors (other board
members point out that it is clarified on page 27).
General comment. The fact that the two Eichler National Register districts are not included in the Palo
Alto Historic Resource Inventory per Palo Alto's Historic Ordinance is discussed on page 27 of the Public
Review Draft.
60
Martin Bernstein (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
Page 25
Add a key for contributors/non-contributors, not just in comment/caption Legend added to National Register district maps to indicate contributors and non-contributors visually.
61
Martin Bernstein (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
Section 4.1.2
Not enforceable guidelines (paint colors).Page & Turnbull recognizes that exterior paint color is not enforceable. However, the guidelines overall
are suggestions and best practices, rather than enforceable regulations. Page & Turnbull feels that this
information is worthy of being distributed, and is part of the "best practices" approach. The sidebar on
page 65 (next to paint color graphics) states "These colors are not required by the City of Palo Alto.
These colors are provided for historical reference and inspiration purposes."
62
Martin Bernstein (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 72
Mechanical systems - Support the idea of making them minimally visible.General comment.
63
David Bower (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 72
Mechanical companies don't have engineers to design HVAC systems, and just use round
ducts. Recommend rectangular ducting to diminish visibility.
Added to bullet #5 of Section 4.5.2 (changed to 5.5.2) - "Rectangular duct systems are preferable to
round duct systems as their profiles have a lesser visual impact from the street."
64
Martin Bernstein (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 103, 7.1.3
7.1.3 knob handle diagram. Original knobs present accessibility issues. Suggest removal
because knobs are hard for aging population.
Added to third bullet under 7.1.3 "If accessibility is a concern, consider a lever handle with a simple,
unornamented contemporary look." Page & Turnbull also added a drawing of simple, contemporary
lever handle as an example of a compatible alternative replacement to original Eichler hardware.
65
Brandon Corey (HRB)12/14/2017 Public Review Draft,
page 67, 4.2.2
I had one other comment that wasn’t covered. On page 67, on the improving the energy
efficiency of the house by repairing or upgrading windows. In general, I like all this in
here but there was – I never saw anything about trying to match the materials so it
would be nice to incorporate something about materials. There’s a lot about size and
profile but nothing about materials so I would encourage people not to replace wood
with vinyl, aluminum and those sorts of things, right?
New bullet added (first in list) under 4.2.1 (changed to 5.2.1): "When possible, repair original windows
in place. If replacement is necessary, choose replacements that support the modernist Eichler aesthetic;
"in-kind" replacement of windows that match the original sash material, configuration, and openings
are preferred."
New bullet added (second to last) under 4.2.2 (changed to 5.2.2): "If new window sash and/or frames
are required, it is recommended to chose a window with the same material and configuration as the
original window."
66
Emily Vance (City of Palo Alto), via
email regarding HRB hearing
12/14/2017 Public Review Draft Should offer incentives for adhering to Guidelines The only currently available preservation incentive in Palo Alto is the California Historical Building Code
(CHBC), which is only applicable to National Register districts and is discussed in a sidebar on page 26 of
the Public Review Draft). Page & Turnbull agrees that additional incentives are recommended, and may
be addressed in a separate document regarding other IR Guideline updates and code changes.
67
Emily Vance (City of Palo Alto), via
email regarding HRB hearing
12/14/2017 Public Review Draft Permit issuance and how to get Guidelines to right people General Comment.
68
Ben Bower, Eichler home resident (via
email)
1/2/2018 Public Review Draft We live in an Eichler at 462 Ferne. We are always interested in Eichler architecture
considerations. Primarily second stories, and appreciated working with those who
backed up to the school properties. I hope the resistance to two stories continues on
those properties backed to other Eichlers. Privacy and vision today is acceptable with
fencing but would probably require neighbors to install drapes or ??? for one out the
backyard.
General comment. Second-story additions and privacy are addressed in Section 5.1.3 (changed to
4.1.4). More general comments about the value of privacy is discussed in Chapter 3. Overview of
Community Values & Concerns (page 57 of the Public Review Draft)
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
69
Ben Bower, Eichler home resident (via
email)
1/2/2018 Public Review Draft What we have seen lately and currently under construction are air conditioning units
installed on roofs with little thought about architecture, neighborhood noise, etc. There
is a definite visual Eichler roof line. We would like to see this addressed also.
HVAC systems are addressed in Section 4.5 (changed to 5.5) - Mechanical systems in plumbing. Page 72
of Public Review Draft.
70
Ben Bower, Eichler home resident (via
email)
1/2/2018 Public Review Draft Less of a concern might be the relaxing of the requirement for LED fixtures. Loosing just
one of the many led's can require (esthetically) replacing the entire fixture which might
be unavailable anymore. Today, Palo Alto requires no sales of lights other than LED. LED
bulbs in the older fixtures (which might be Eichler original) might be the prudent
requirement today. Led marketing may advertise 50,000 hours but may not advise that
the LED's do loose lumen output before reaching those hours. I love my LED
replacements for fluorescent tubes in the garage. Awesome! Changed because they ARE
better. Technology has surpassed regulation in this case.
General comment.
71
Stephan Monismisth (via email
forwarded to Emily Vance)
11/9/2017 Public Review Draft How does this apply on a street like ours, Channing, where on our side of the street
there are the Barrett and Hilp houses whereas across the street there are Eichlers? I
would suppose that the rules would only apply on the Eichler side of the street?
Email response from City of Palo Alto: "Thanks for reaching out to our department regarding the
implementation of the Eichler Guidelines. The guidelines, which at this point are completely voluntary,
only apply to Eichler tracts. If your home is not an Eichler then these preservation suggestions would
not apply - however, if your home is a mid-century resource, much of the information would still be
relevant and worth reading if you are interested in preservation." A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
section was added to Chapter 1 to address this and other common questions.
72
Megan Yahyanejad, Royal Manor
Eichler home resident (via email to
HRB)
11/7/2017 Public Review Daft Royal Manor Eichlers are in bad shape; many have not been painted for a long time;
residents leaving old boxes, gardening material, etc. in the yard; residents don't mow or
blow lawns. "Now my question is how come we are not having a regulation to enforce
residents to keep their old Eichler houses in a good shape? But we are trying to pass a
regulation to enforce the architectural design to a neighborhood?" ... "Our radiant
heating stops working every other month and needs repair twice a year and our house is
often even colder than outside because of thin walls and no insulation.
Chapter 4. Guidelines for Maintaining Eichler Homes (changed to Chapter 5) addresses the
maintenance of Eichler homes, including advice for paint colors, repairing existing materials, repair and
replacement of mechanical and plumbing systems (including radiant heat floors), etc. Chapter 6:
Guidelines for Shared Landscape, Streetscape & Sense of Nature addresses best practices for
maintaining landscapes.
73
Alison Cormack (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/7/2018 Public Review Draft The photos and renderings of what is recommended and what is not recommended are
very helpful and easy to understand.
General comment.
74
Alison Cormack (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/7/2018 Public Review Draft How could/should one install solar panels on a flat roof? Third bullet point added to 4.3.3 (changed to 5.3.3): "If installing solar panels on a flat roof, consider
installing them flat, or as far to the rear of the roof as possible, to minimize their visual impact on the
neighborhood."
75
Alison Cormack (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/7/2018 Public Review Draft,
4.2.2
Why does the report recommend window film first, before double-paned, safety glass
windows? This area is one where I believe function should be prioritized over form due
to significant differences in energy usage and the potential for injury.
Window film is mentioned in the first bullet point, although the guidelines do not prioritize window film
over double-paned safety glass. The guidelines provide a number of different strategies and options
that should be weighed against preservation, safety, and energy-use concerns. The "Window
Resources" sidebar on page 67 of the Public Review Draft also provides further guidance on this topic
76
Alison Cormack (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/7/2018 Public Review Draft Please clarify how these guidelines will be used. Will city planners reject future
applications that do not conform to the guidelines? Will existing "inappropriate"
modifications to homes be affected in any way? Will projects that do not require
permits (e.g. garage doors) need to comply with these guidelines? How will neighbors
participate in this?
"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" section added to Chapter 1. Reads: " Are the Design Guidelines
mandatory, and how will these Design Guidelines be used? No, the Design Guidelines are currently
voluntary. Since the Design Guidelines are voluntary, there is no "retroactive" application of the
Guidelines. The Guidelines will be used concurrently with the Individual Review Guidelines and will be
utilized by Planning Staff when reviewing projects. The Design Guidelines are also meant to be used by
homeowners when working on their home and offer advice on best practices for preserving and
rehabilitating Eichler homes. The Design Guidelines may also be used by Architectural Control
Committees (ACCs) during their review process."
77
Alison Cormack (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/7/2018 Public Review Draft Please consider that massing a second story addition at the front of the lot, which this
report does not recommend, protects the backyard privacy that appears to be
paramount both in this report and in most people's comments. You can see examples of
this approach on the east side of Ross Road.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
78
Karen Nierenberg (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/10/2018 Public Review Draft I have just read through the study and my question to you is what did the City spend on
this study?
I am opposed to the whole idea of what this means.
First of all, Eichlers were built facing inward with large fences. That goes against every
idea of "community' with which I grew up. Coming from the Midwest in the 70's. I was
shocked at how unfriendly Eichlers felt (it was the only home we could afford at the time
however). When we remodeled years later, we added windows facing the street for that
very reason - to be part of the neighborhood. I see in this document that it wants to
regulate windows (in addition to everything else) so that they stay the same - narrow,
unfriendly, facing the backyard, which is totally fenced in of course.
The above is only one of many "guidelines" in this document to which I am totally
opposed.
The Guidelines are currently voluntary. The Guidelines will be reviewed and voted on by City Council in
March, 2018 at which point it may be decided to make them more restrictive. The City will consider the
desire to maintain the character and cohesiveness of these special neighborhoods along with concerns
regarding privacy and the desire for new construction. This decision will be based on all information
gathered over the previous year from public workshops, HRB meetings, staff and consultant research
and other forms of public commentary, like emails sent to Eichler@cityofpaloalto.org.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
79
Unmesh Vartak (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/9/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 3
This section only contains concerns for preserving Eichler homes in mid century
architecture. The concerns with expansion are not very well represented. For example:
1. Expanding on single story may not be feasible - Because of easements it may not be
possible to expand Eichler on single story. Such restriction can cause inverse
condemnation.
2. Expanding on single story increases construction footprint and creates smaller
backyards - Eichler owners love their backyards. Expanding Eichler with two stories is the
only option to preserve beautiful Eichler backyards.
3. All residents do not like low profile ceilings. We want to have recommendations that
allow high ceilings in Eichler neighborhoods.
Chapter 3 broadly discusses Palo Alto Eichler community values and concerns, as expressed at
community meetings and online surveys during the process of developing these Design Guidelines.
Chapter 5 of the Public Review Draft does discuss both single story (horizonal) and two story (vertical)
additions. Both kinds of additions should balance community values such as privacy, adaptation, and a
cohesive streetscape.
80
Unmesh Vartak (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/9/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 4
Garage door recommendation is too restrictive - The document uses garage door that
does not meet this requirement as improvement example on page 58, 71.
Guideline 4.2.3 (changed to 5.2.3) recommends repair over replacement and suggests that panelized or
extensively glazed garage doors are unlikely to be compatible replacements; rather, the guidelines
recommends (but does not require) that garage doors be of a Modern design, compatible with original
Eichler materials. Some photographs in the design guidelines may include garage doors that do not
meet the suggestions in guideline 4.2.3 (changed to 5.2.3), however these photographs were used to
illustrate other features. Examples of appropriate and inappropriate garage doors are found on the
same page as Guideline 4.2.3 (changed to 5.2.3).
The photographs of Eichlers on page 58 of the public review draft were meant to illustrate Eichlers that
have been "adapted to a new architectural style" meaning that they would not meet the
recommendations in these Design Guidelines.
81
Unmesh Vartak (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/9/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 5, page 75
It mentions privacy is a big concern. At every place where privacy concern is re-iterated,
we should add concern that recommending first floor expansion results in loss of
backyards.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
82
Unmesh Vartak (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/9/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 5, page 76
As a first course of action, explore opportunities to construct a first-story addition
rather than a second-story addition. This statement is incorrect. We need to come up
with correct design that is elegant. When a new home is built above flood zone, privacy
will be lost even with first floor addition. We need to recommend adapting modern
architecture style to construct beautiful two story house.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
83
Unmesh Vartak (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/9/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 5, page 78
Second story additions are generally discouraged - This is incorrect. Many residents want
to preserve backyards and expand on second story. Discouraging second stories is not
going to solve the problem.
Setbacks from the front façade will help to minimize an addition’s appearance from the
street. - This is incorrect. It is better to provide guidelines for beautiful second story
house rather than attempt to hide second story.
Avoid adding windows that allow views into neighboring rear yards - This is incorrect.
Please recommend adding lighting technique in second story without hurting privacy of
neighbors. For example - add a patio on side which takes the patio door inside and does
not impede neighbors privacy. OR add high windows on side.
Set second-story additions back from façades that are nearest to neighboring properties
(generally, side façades). - This is incorrect. This recommendation can create ugly second
story.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
84
Unmesh Vartak (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/9/2018 Public Review Draft Please add recommendation for modern architecture style for Eichler home additions -
Modern architecture homes look like logical extension of Eichler homes.
Page & Turnbull feels that the architectural styles of additions have been adequately discussed.
Guideline 5.1.4 (changed to 4.1.4) which states "Use a construction technique and architectural style for
a new addition that is compatible with, but does not directly imitate, the original residence and
surrounding homes." The bullet points further explain that a modern/contemporary style inspired by
Eichler is appropriate, where as historicist/revival styles are not appropriate.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
85
Michael A. Nierenberg (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/8/2018 Public Review Draft I am very concerned that your document presented in the guise of suggestions regarding
Eichlers is the first step toward imposing formal regulations. Despite the purported
community nature of Eichlers, we bought our Eichler 40 years ago as an independent
unit, not part of an association or condominium style community, nor bound by
community regulations. You are now on the way to telling us what color we can paint
our house, what landscaping we can do, and essentially dictating every aspect of the
home we live in. On page 12 of the document you note that the promise of Eichler
residences was to lead “private lives”. Private to me means that the city does not dictate
how I paint my home, heat my house, or garden. While I believe in the importance of
community and being a good neighbor, I am opposed to Palo Alto once again inserting
itself where it does not belong and usurping people’s ability to manage their own lives.
The document keeps alluding to “some owners” say this and some say that about the
importance of these “suggestions”. Who are they and how many? If these remain
suggestions, okay. They will be noted and either followed or not. But if this is a step
toward canonization of regulations, I hope the Eichler community, which you say is so
cohesive, will band together to take all action necessary to oppose the action.
"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" section added to Chapter 1. Reads: " Are the Design Guidelines
mandatory, and how will these Design Guidelines be used? No, the Design Guidelines are currently
voluntary. Since the Design Guidelines are voluntary, there is no "retroactive" application of the
Guidelines. The Guidelines will be used concurrently with the Individual Review Guidelines and will be
utilized by Planning Staff when reviewing projects. The Design Guidelines are also meant to be used by
homeowners when working on their home and offer advice on best practices for preserving and
rehabilitating Eichler homes. The Design Guidelines may also be used by Architectural Control
Committees (ACCs) during their review process."
Furthermore, the Guidelines explicitly state the current regulatory framework and are transparent
about current discussions about potential code changes - as discussed in Chapter 8: Process
Improvement Suggestions. Many of the guidelines in this document are informational, meant to aid
homeowners and designers who are interested in maintaining or upgrading their Eichler.
86
Jory Bell (email to Emily Vance)8/11/2017 Map of Eichler
Neighborhoods on City
of Palo Alto's project
website -
https://www.cityofpal
oalto.org/gov/depts/p
ln/special_projects/eic
hler_neighborhood_d
esign_guidelines_.asp
"I live at 147 greenmeadow way, Palo alto, 94306 which is part of a 17 unit Eichler
townhouse complex at the corner of alma st and greenmeadow way. in looking at the
information regarding the proposed Eichler neighborhood design guidelines, I came
across this map attributed to page and turnbull:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56865
which does not show our complex as being among Palo alto’s Eichler "tracts".
I was curious as to why this was, and also to learn how various Palo alto Eichler
communities were added
or excluded from this list (i.e., does the listing only represent single family homes or is
there a
requirement to somehow opt in, etc.)
thanks!"
The Meadowcreek townhouses have been added to the maps of Eichler tracts in Chapter 1 and the
"Table of Eichler Neighborhoods in Palo Alto" in Chapter 2. Due to the relatively few number of Eichler
townhouses in Palo Alto, Page & Turnbull has chosen not to address this unique tract directly in the
Guidelines; however, Page & Turnbull feels that much of the guidance, especially regarding
maintenance, will be relevant to Meadowcreek.
87
Diane Reklis, 3410 Janice Way 1/11/2018 Public Review Draft These are good as far as they go and I appreciate the work that has gone into them
already. I would prefer something stronger than “guidelines” to protect our
neighborhoods, but there is lots to like in the current document. I see several places for
significant expansion or improvement.
General Comment.
88
Diane Reklis, 3410 Janice Way 1/11/2018 Public Review Draft Expansion in back yards vs front yards - The document pays lip service to the desirability
of encouraging expansion in front yards to protect the privacy that is a hallmark of most
Eichler backyards and glass-walled living spaces, yet the document quickly suggests that
it is most essential to protect current front yards to maintain the suburban feel. This is
the same mistake the Council made when they denied the SSLO in the Royal Manor area
– 2 council members who have lived in Eichlers were not allowed to participate in the
discussion, while 4 council members who have never lived in an Eichler concluded that
things would be great as long as nearly all second story additions were at the back of the
property rather than the front, despite significant testimony that second stories in the
back would peer directly into glass walls of many Eichler kitchens, dining rooms, living
rooms and master bedrooms. Required setbacks from the street should be modified.
Several things have changed in the past 60 years which reduce the need for expansive
suburban front yards:
a) Today’s kids are more likely to be in organized programs including day care and
coached sports than at home hanging with the neighborhood kids.
b) Chronic water shortages have encouraged many people to replace front lawns with
rock gardens and other light watering yards. Smaller might well be adequate.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
89
Diane Reklis, 3410 Janice Way 1/11/2018 Public Review Draft The location of ADU’s and the sketch of a stand-alone ADU - The sketch of a proposed
stand-alone ADU in the proposed guidelines would certainly not work in my backyard
and I doubt it would preserve anything like the famed indoor-outdoor living designed by
Joseph Eichler in most yards.
a) To get to the box-like ADU as sketched in the document, you would either have to
walk past every single bedroom or past all of the glass walls. Since an ADU is designed
to be relatively small, likely tenants would often be single and perhaps keep later hours
than the family that presumably occupies the rest of the house. Even the quietest
tenant would have trouble not making any noise as they tried to get into an Eichler back
yard. The safety of young residents would also be a question if strangers were
encouraged to walk within inches of children’s bedroom windows.
b) The location outside master bedroom wall of windows removes any privacy in that
room as well as any privacy for occupants of the ADU.
c) I believe it would be both preferable and safer to encourage any ADU’s to be located
in the front of the property and likely attached to the current structure. This could either
be as part of the original garage or by taking over one or two of the front bedrooms for a
separate dwelling unit that could serve for a second master suite, college students,
workers needing small space close to tech centers and schools here, workers with homes
in central valley or Sierras needing a weeknight residence to avoid crazy commute, care
givers for both our oldest and youngest residents, or a place for current residents to be
able to age in place in the neighborhood they love while renting out large part of their
home to younger families.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
90
Diane Reklis, 3410 Janice Way 1/11/2018 Public Review Draft Please note the ways many of our houses have been changed over the years and write
guidelines to make future and past changes fit the way people live. Much could be
gained by looking at changes that have been made in the past and learning from these
what works and what doesn’t and incorporating ideas into the guidelines.
a) Many people have added a room in part of the original garage. Guidelines should
address the safety of these rooms when they are used as bedrooms (as they will
sometimes be used no matter what the current code says). Do they need extra
fireproofing between these spaces and the furnace and water heaters? Should there be
a physical barrier between these spaces and the driveway? How about guidelines for
additional windows or doors? Guidelines and suggestions for those who wish to add a
bathroom and/or laundry room would be helpful.
b) Many of the houses on our street (Janice Way) were built with garages that were
closer to the street than the bedroom wing. A number of the houses have recently been
modified to bring the bedroom wing even with the street or even closer to the street
than the front of the garage. This allows space to add a bathroom and even a small
kitchen to turn the front bedroom (or two) into an apartment which could be rented as
an ADU or otherwise provide flexibility over the lifetime ownership by a family.
Guidelines should explicitly address these changes. Should front room have a separate
entrance on the side? What about windows on the front of the house? Front windows
are not standard on Eichlers, but some owners will want them – suggestions on how to
make additional windows and doors fit with Eichler neighborhoods would be
worthwhile.
Page & Turnbull used input from the community (gathered at community meetings, public hearings,
and an online survey) as well as observations from field visits which helped guide the direction of the
content of the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines address additions of various types including
single story (horizontal) additions, two story (additions) and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) - these
additions may be of various sizes to accommodate additional bedrooms, bathrooms, laundry rooms or
any number of purposes.
Garage conversions (either as additional living space or what is known as a "Junior ADU") are discussed
in Guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.1) - one of the bullet points reads "Converting a home’s garage may
also be explored. Plan these types of alterations with care, ensuring that the enclosed feature supports
the original modern style of the house." Fireproofing requirements would be determined during the
permitting process, and are determined by the Fire Department; detailed guidance on fireproofing is
outside the scope of this document. Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story
additions on the front facade. These include an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow
for front additions that have staggered massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern.
Front additions may take the form of a garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some
expansion of the square footage and will include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage
conversions are addressed in Guidelines 7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
91
Mira Edelman, resident of Eichler in
Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I urge the City to refrain from making the Eichler Guidelines anything more than
voluntary information that can be used by homeowners when working on their homes
and to assist Staff when reviewing projects. Only two Palo Alto Eichler tracts are National
Register Historic Districts. The Eichler Guidelines should not be interpreted to impose a
level of preservation reserved for historically recognized properties that have met an
exhausting list of criteria as defined by the federal government. Palo Alto’s existing
regulatory framework and review process is already daunting. Eichler homeowners must
not be hamstrung from making improvements and alterations that meet contemporary
needs and fulfill the promise of a high quality of life.
General comment.
92
Mira Edelman, resident of Eichler in
Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76-77)
I urge the City to gain a better understanding of the wide variety of additions that may
conform to the overall pattern of Eichler residences within the surrounding
neighborhood, rather than suggest that the examples set forth in the Draft Guidelines
are the extent of acceptable and unacceptable additions. Although the Eichler aesthetic
is recognizable from subdivision to subdivision, the location of each tract, the
architectural firm used, and the era in which the tract was developed results in a variety
of Eichler “looks.”
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
93
Mira Edelman, resident of Eichler in
Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76-77)
The Draft Guidelines appear to suggest that the only appropriate new addition would be
one that
spans the entire rear of a home. The graphics on page 77 incompletely illustrate Eichler
lots,
failing to recognize that most Eichler homes were original designed to have fence lines
between
lots, including fenced in courtyards that may project into the front yard beyond the front
of the
existing building.
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
94
Mira Edelman, resident of Eichler in
Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76-77)
The Draft Guidelines recommend that Eichler owners enclose an existing atrium,
courtyard, or carport as a design strategy to provide additional living space without
disrupting a home’s overall massing through a new addition. See Draft Guidelines at 76.
This proposition is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the Eichler design
aesthetic in which the atrium, courtyard and carport are signature design elements of an
Eichler home. I urge the City to strike from the Guidelines the recommendation to
enclose an existing atrium, courtyard or carport, and instead encourage Eichler owners
to maintain and preserve these distinctive elements.
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
95
Mira Edelman, resident of Eichler in
Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76-77)
The middle graphic on page 77 suggests that an addition in the rear yard that extends
beyond
the existing building would be inappropriate if “it would be visible from the street.” The
City
should be cautious when imposing guidelines affecting the rear of an existing building,
because regulatory framework already provide detailed criteria for rear additions and
rear
additions will rarely if ever be visible from the street . Restraint on limiting rear additions
can
improve their quality of life of Eichler owners, while at the same time having no effect
on a
community’s design legacy or neighborhood character. It is worth noting that numerous
Eichler floor plans have original subordinate rear structures that
extend beyond the main structure.
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
96
Mira Edelman, resident of Eichler in
Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76-77)
The third graphic on page 77 suggests that a front addition “should be avoided” entirely.
Many
of Eichler’s original designs have subordinate front structures that project beyond the
main
plane of the home. Because Eichlers often contain a modest amount of living space
compared to the average
contemporary home, owners may need new additions to improve quality of life. A
common new
front addition to my Eichler floor plan has been made successfully and unobtrusively to
at least two houses in my tract. See 3468 Greer Road and 3434 Janice Way (currently
undergoing front
elevation expansion). Had I not personally witnessed the new addition going up on
Janice Way,
I don’t think I would have know the Greer Road home had the same addition completed
long
ago. It is that seamless and that consistent with the original Eichler aesthetic.
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
97
Mira Edelman, resident of Eichler in
Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76-77)
When compliant with all regulatory framework and setbacks and done sensitively in the
style of
the original architecture, it simply cannot be said that front additions “disrupt the
pattern of the
streetscape setback and detract from the original Eichler design.” Draft Guidelines at 77.
The
City should not suggest that new front additions cannot be added to existing Eichler
buildings.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
98
Ben Lerner, 3482 Janice Way, Royal
Manor, (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Overall I think you did an excellent job of characterizing Eichler neighborhoods and the
design elements that make them what they are. Thank you for your efforts!
The most important aspect of Eichler neighborhood design is the backyard privacy that is
achieved by the
predominantly single-story design. I’m very pleased that your guidelines recognize this
and encourage additions
and redevelopments to be single-story. My concern is that this can be seen as just one
aspect of Eichler design,
on par with grooved garage doors and low-sloping roofs. In my view the privacy of
neighbors’ yards is
General comment.
Privacy was addressed in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public Review Draft,
and is emphasized as a primary concern. To regulate second story additions, neighborhoods can choose
to implement Single Story Overlay zoning. The City of Palo Alto is also discussing other regulatory
options to enforce certain aspects of the Design Guidelines as they relate to privacy (and other issues).
99
Ben Lerner, 3482 Janice Way (Royal
Manor)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I found the guidelines to be very informative and educational about many Eichler design
elements, such as
entry and garage doors, siding, roof lines, fencing & landscaping, paint & trim colors, etc.
But 50-60 years after
these homes have been constructed, many are no longer “true”, yet their neighborhoods
still hold the essential
Eichler look. I would like to suggest that in the final guidelines, you establish a
prioritization between design
elements that affect the surrounding neighborhood (e.g. height, mass, privacy of
neighbors), and those that only
affect the house in question (e.g. types of doors and windows, paint color, driveway and
walkway concrete
Page & Turnbull has moved the chapter "Guidelines for Architectural Compatibility & Neighborhood
Cohesion: New Additions to Eichler Homes & New Construction" up to be Chapter 4, to emphasize this
chapter as a priority. The City of Palo Alto will be engaging City Council and the public in a discussion
about future regulatory implementation that will continue after the publication of these Design
Guidelines; as such, the Guidelines are all currently voluntary, but the City of Palo Alto - based on
guidance from City Council and the public - may choose to create regulations to enforce certain aspects
of the Guidelines in the future.
100
David Toy (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 1) I would like Eichler Guidelines that prohibit and/or provide very specific rules for multi-
story construction that reduces open space and shadows neighbors single-story homes.
"very important"
General Comment - Community Values.
Already addressed in Guidelines 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.8, and 5.2.2 of the Public Review Draft.
101
David Toy (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 2) I would like Eichler Guidelines that prohibit garage additions and building
modifications that extend high above neighbors' houses and back yards especially in the
rear. "very important"
General Comment - Community Values.
Already addressed in Guidelines 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.8, and 5.2.2 of the Public Review Draft.
102
David Toy (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 3) I would like Eichler Guidelines that require new construction to have compatible
"scale and mass". To prevent "stucco palaces" or monster homes. "very important"
General Comment - Community Values.
Already addressed in Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5
of the Public Review Draft.
103
David Toy (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 4) I would like Eichler Guidelines that encourage/require the mid-century modern style.
"very important"
General Comment - Community Values.
Already addressed in Guidelines 5.1.4, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4 of the Public Review Draft.
104
David Toy (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 5) I would like Eichler Guidelines that strictly preserve Eichler design details (door
handles, paint colors, fence styles, landscaping) "very important"
General Comment.
Already addressed in Guidelines 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.3.1, and 6.3.2 of the Public Review
Draft. Further guidance is provided in Chapter 7.1 on National Register Historic Districts in the Public
Review Draft.
105
David Toy (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 6) I would like Eichler Guidelines that are fair and reasonable for home owners to pursue
their dream home, but still give the City enough ability to enforce the guidelines
effectively. "very important"
General Comment - Community Values.
106
James F. Stauffer, 3750 Starr King
Circle, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft My greatest concerns regarding future building and remodeling in my neighborhood are:
1. Privacy. One-story Eichler neighborhoods like mine were designed to have no
structures built so high that their
occupants, when looking through their windows, could see over the surrounding
good-neighbor fences and into the glass-walled rooms of nearby homes.
General Comment - Community Values.
Already addressed in Guidelines 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.8, and 5.2.2 of the Public Review Draft.
107
James F. Stauffer, 3750 Starr King
Circle, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 2. Aesthetic compatibility: Most Eichler neighborhoods like mine were designed to honor
a unified aesthetic concept. People who have bought into such neighborhoods generally
appreciated and desired this aesthetic enough to invest their savings and a great deal of
care to acquire and maintain it. Allowing incompatible construction in the neighborhood
robs them of the benefit they deserve for their investment in money and effort.
General Comment - Community Values.
Already addressed in Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5
of the Public Review Draft.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
108
James F. Stauffer, 3750 Starr King
Circle, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I urge the City of Palo Alto to adopt and ENFORCE design guidelines that are EFFECTIVE
in preserving the privacy and aesthetic features of our Eichler neighborhoods.
General Comment - Community Values. Favors regulatory enforcement.
Already addressed in Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5
of the Public Review Draft.
109
Joan Tada, 3730 Carlson Circle,
Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I am a home owner in fairmeadow and would like to suggest that the guidelines for new
or remodel
construction prohibit massively huge stucco houses that do not blend in our Eichler
neighborhood. Scale and
materials should blend in. Also privacy should be maintained as was originally designed
by Eichler developer.
General Comment - Community Values.
Already addressed in Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5
of the Public Review Draft.
110
John and Jule Hurst, 3722 Carlson
Circle, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft We have been active in trying to help define and preserve the Fairmeadow Tract of
Eichler homes having lived
here and raised our family since September 1992.
Here is our input on the 4 major themes from the proposed Guidelines, in order of
importance to us:
1.) We would like Eichler Guidelines that highly encourage/even require the mid-century
modern style. No 'taco
bell' windows. Design elements that provide continuity between indoor/outdoor living
space.
2.) Require new or remodeled construction to compatible 'scale and mass' which are
already on the books with
the PA Planning Commission. We have used this to impede two house remodel designs
already here in the
Fairmeadow Tract. Making sure these guidelines are strictly interpreted is highly critical.
3.) By following #2 Privacy should be protected; especially in the rear of the home lots.
4.) It should be encouraged to preserve Eichler design details, but this is more of a 'nice
to have'.
General comment
Mid-century Modern style considerations, including appropriate windows, has already been addressed
in Guidelines 5.1.4, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4 of the Public Review Draft. Scale and mass have been addressed in
Guidelines 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.8, and 5.2.2 of the Public Review Draft. Privacy have been previously
addressed in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public Review Draft.
Preservation, maintenance, and repair of original Eichler design details were addressed in Guidelines
4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.3.1, and 6.3.2 of the Public Review Draft; further guidance is provided
in Chapter 7.1 on National Register Historic Districts.
111
Linda Mantiply, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I own and live in an Eichler in Fair Meadow.
I remodeled my home in 2000. It was very important to me to retain its Eichler look. I
want to see guidelines that
preserve the basic look of an Eichler and doesn’t encourage an out-of-place monster
home.
Backyard privacy or main yard privacy is very important to me.
General Comment - Community Values.
Maintenance of the Eichler look is discussed in Chapter 4. Guidelines for the appropriate style, mass,
and scale of additions and new construction were already included Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4,
5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5 of the Public Review Draft. Privacy has already been
addressed in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public Review Draft.
112
Linda Toy, 3756 Starr Circle (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft My husband and I have lived in an Eichler neighborhood in Palo Alto since 1995, and we
hope that new home
owners and builders will try and respect the character of our neighborhood.
Our privacy is very important to us as I'm guessing it is to anyone who owns a home in
our neighborhood or
anywhere. I would like Eichler Guidelines that protect my privacy, especially in the rear.
In addition, there are some new homes that aren't overwhelming in size, and it is very
important that Eichler
Guidelines require new construction to have compatible "scale and mass". This should
help prevent "stucco
palaces" or monster homes from taking over the neighborhood.
Finally, it would be nice to maintain the mid-century modern style, but if that's not
possible, perhaps we can
encourage new construction to at least stay in character with the Eicher style and not
deviate to some of the
other styles that we see.
General Comment - Community Values.
Maintenance of the Eichler look is discussed in Chapter 4. Guidelines for the appropriate style, mass,
and scale of additions and new construction were already included Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4,
5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5 of the Public Review Draft. Privacy has been addressed
in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public Review Draft.
113
Lionel Vedrine (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I want to bring my support to this initiative as we had multiple issue in Fairmeadow and
almost all residents
complained about the monster Stucco house that flippers or not respectful homer try to
build.
I live in 3639 Bryant street and we have the 3647 house under construction and all the
neighbors try to make
this house better fit.
I read the 120 pages and also the simpler Cupertino Eichler guidelines.
The most important for us is keeping the Eichler style or mid-century modern style,
protect privacy mainly in
the backyard. respect scale and mass and avoid ugly stucco mansion. I will be more
flexible (nice to have) on
the Eichler design details.
As we live in California and as both state and the City of Palo Alto embraced Green
energy (Solar in this case),
I will add some protection on the existing installed solar panel as new house could
impact the Solar energy
production. For example ensuring the new house does not impact more than 10% the
production of electricity at
December 21st, this requirement is consistent with the CA California Solar Act (relevant
for trees, not houses).
General comment - Community Values.
Guidelines for the appropriate style, mass, and scale of additions and new construction were already
included Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5 of the Public
Review Draft. Privacy has already been addressed in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3
of the Public Review Draft.
Solar panels are addressed in Guideline 4.3.3 of the Public Review Draft (changed to 5.3.3), and would
not be prohibited, nor would previously installed solar panels be required to change/move. Additional
resources were added in a sidebar next to Guideline 4.3.3 of the Public Review Draft (changed to 5.3.3)
for homeowners seeking further guidance on solar panels.
114
Malati Raghunath (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft The guideline document does not capture adequate examples of the recent two-story
designs. Several of these new homes look very elegant keeping in sync with the Eichler
design. However they have not been captured.
Page & Turnbull added in a diagram from the Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Review Guidelines
which illustrates "compatible infill" as well as another photograph of new construction in an Eichler
neighborhood to Chapter 5.2 (changed to 4.2).
115
Malati Raghunath (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 3
Chapter 3 - Primarily it focuses on ideas related to single story expansions. For several
neighborhoods in flood zone and easements (due to high tension power line), the only
viable option may be expanding as two story design. To preserve the green space in
backyards, a second story (with appropriate window choices to adhere to privacy of
neighbors) is a better choice.
Chapter 3 broadly discusses Palo Alto Eichler community values and concerns, as expressed at
community meetings and online surveys during the process of developing these Design Guidelines.
Chapter 5 of the Public Review Draft does discuss additions, both single story (horizontal additions) and
second story (vertical additions).
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
116
Malati Raghunath (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 - Garage door examples are very confusing.P.68 and 84 show garage doors
that are Not OK and OK
The photograph on page 68 of the Public Review Draft accompanies Guideline 4.2.3 (changed to 5.2.3)
which discusses the maintenance and repair of doors and garage doors; this photograph illustrates a
"good" example of a maintained, original garage door which is indicated by the green check mark and
described in the caption. The photographs on page 84 of the Public Review Draft accompany section 5.2
(changed to 4.2) which discusses NEW construction within an Eichler neighborhood. New construction
is not expected to exactly replicate historic Eichler homes; rather, new homes should feature
appropriate scale, massing, roof forms, and contemporary design that is distinct, but complimentary to
the surrounding neighborhood. The photographs shown are of new construction, and thus might
feature more contemporary garage doors that would not be found on original Eichler homes.
117
Malati Raghunath (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 5
Chapter 5 - At several places, privacy concerns have been mentioned repeatedly.
However sacrificing green spaces in backyards by expanding the first story is equally
concerning. Several residents want to preserve backyards and expand on second story.
Discouraging second stories is not going to solve the problem.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
118
Ming Zhao, 921 Elsinore Drive, Triple El
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I appreciate your effort to put such a guideline. But given all the bay area cities are facing
acute housing supply issue, I don't think working on such a guideline is even necessity.
Plus, creating such a guideline(even advisory) for a major potion of existing Palo Alto
housing will hurt the developers' motivation, which hurts the supply even further. On
the other hand, I would to applaud your effort on promoting the reasonable secondary
addition to Eichler home. Because that will at some point make it easier to add more
square feet to an existing home, which can hopefully ease certain supply issue. I hope at
some point we could use that the remove the restriction of SSO so that more secondary
unit can be built. At the end, I don't think certain people's privacy should be put on top
other people's living requirement.
General Comment - Community Values.
119
Ming Zhao, 921 Elsinore Drive, Triple El
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft As an owner of Eichler house who has gone through substantial amount of remodeling, I
don't think certain design
choice made by Eichler house is sustainable and should be preserved. For example,
lacking of both attic and crawl space make it very disruptive to do any electrical or
plumbing improvement. We try our best to be green, but any of these things can easily
blow away whatever saving we gain through these green effort.
While sustainability was not a value that came up frequently in early community meetings and
therefore not addressed in Chapter 3, Page & Turnbull recognizes that sustainability is an important
issue. While older houses may not have been built with the "green" materials or technologies that we
have available today, it is widely accepted that the "embodied energy" of a house makes maintenance a
more sustainable option than demolition and new construction. To balance both preservation and
sustainability concerns, Page & Turnbull included guidelines about appropriately installing solar panels,
energy efficient HVAC systems, weather-proofing windows, and upgraded windows; these include
Guidelines 4.2.2, 4.3.3, and 4.5.2 of the Public Review Draft. Additional resources regarding sustainable
rehabilitation and windows are provided in the "Window Resources" sidebar on page 67 of the Public
Review Draft.
120
Ming Zhao, 921 Elsinore Drive, Triple El
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Based on these comments, as an owner in triple EL neighborhood, I don't think there is a
need to get historical status of triple EL, because we should leave people there choice to
build things they would enjoy and cost effect and up to code.
General comment.
The Design Guidelines do not impose historic status on any buildings or neighborhoods.
121
Rebecca Thompson (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Maintaining privacy and limiting the mass/scale of neighboring homes was the #1 most
important factor in supporting the SSO. A large number thought the SSO would also
guarantee continuation of the “Eichler Look”. That said, more than a few neighbors said
that regulating style elements was not something they would support. I gave this
feedback in April and via the survey and feel that these guidelines can only go so far
before they become an over-reach that causes the whole idea to be rejected.
General Comment - Community Values.
The Design Guidelines discuss the SSO as an option for neighborhoods interested in further regulatory
oversight (Chapter 1, page 20 of the Public Review Draft). The Design Guidelines address privacy and
massing/scale concerns, as well as maintenance of "character-defining features," while clearly
indicating that things like paint color are not enforced by regulation, but guidance and information is
provided for those homeowners who are interested.
122
Rebecca Thompson (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I and a few people in other Eichler neighborhoods would like your team to consider
breaking this into two sections:
1) Privacy Guidelines - much stronger and enforceable via IR
2) Style Guidelines - more of a guide for those wishing to keep the compatible style
elements beyond shape,
scale, and major exterior elements such as siding. With the primary concern about
privacy, especially for the non-SSO neighborhoods, this document will have much more
impact if it can show how these Eichler-specific guidelines will have more power to
protect the privacy and daylight of the neighboring homeowner than the existing IR
process for 2-story homes. The weakness of that set of guidelines is what lead Eichler
owners to rise up and rally around the SSO.
Page & Turnbull reordered the guideline chapters to make the "Guidelines for Architectural
Compatibility & Neighborhood Cohesion: New Additions to Eichler Homes, New Construction, and
Accessory Dwelling Units" the new Chapter 4, to follow the Chapter 3 discussion on community values.
This puts issues of privacy, scale/mass, and compatibility up front. The chapters related to maintained
of homes and landscapes, as well as the Special Considerations: National Register Historic Districts,
follow afterwards.
The Guidelines are currently voluntary. The Guidelines will be reviewed and voted on by City Council in
March, 2018 at which point it may be decided to make them more restrictive. The City will consider the
desire to maintain the character and cohesiveness of these special neighborhoods along with concerns
regarding privacy and the desire for new construction. This decision will be based on all information
gathered over the previous year from public workshops, HRB meetings, staff and consultant research
and other forms of public commentary, like emails sent to Eichler@cityofpaloalto.org.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
123
Rebecca Thompson (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 5
The importance of Privacy seems to have been de-emphasized in favor of neighborhood
style when creating the
2-story section (Section 5). The guidelines suggest building a second story at the back of
the house so as to
protect the view from the street. While this is preferable from an architectural and
neighborhood aesthetic, to
the neighbors, the back and side yards are what they wish to protect. There are several
Eichlers in town that
have been quite successfully expanded out front so the owners gained extra living space
without negatively
impacting the livability of their neighbors homes and without drastically impacting the
street view.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
124
Rebecca Thompson (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 4
For Style Guidelines, please know that for every one of us that owns a dozen issues of
Atomic Ranch magazine,
there is another who could care less about MCM. Many simply live in the house they
could afford at the time
they bought 20-40 years ago. These homeowners will find it very off-putting to be
instructed on the types of
lighting, paint colors and doors/hardware to put on their house. If Section 4 is not scaled
back, positioned
sensitively, or more clearly stated as optional, this effort could convey a message to long-
time Eichler owners
that they are not in compliance or are out of style. Similarly, to do some mechanical
upgrades in an architecturally acceptable way is quite costly and people are likely to
choose what they can afford or what makes the most sense to them considering the # of
years they expect to continue living in the house. If that portion of this work is presented
more clearly as education and suggestions or resources for future work, that would be
more well received. Finally, the landscaping section seems like a big overreach that I
would like to see scaled back.
Page & Turnbull reordered the guideline chapters to make the "Guidelines for Architectural
Compatibility & Neighborhood Cohesion: New Additions to Eichler Homes, New Construction, and
Accessory Dwelling Units" the new Chapter 4, to follow the Chapter 3 discussion on community values.
This puts issues of privacy, scale/mass, and compatibility up front. The chapters related to maintained
of homes and landscapes, as well as the Special Considerations: National Register Historic Districts,
follow afterwards.
The Guidelines are currently voluntary. The Guidelines will be reviewed and voted on by City Council in
March, 2018 at which point it may be decided to make them more restrictive. The City will consider the
desire to maintain the character and cohesiveness of these special neighborhoods along with concerns
regarding privacy and the desire for new construction. This decision will be based on all information
gathered over the previous year from public workshops, HRB meetings, staff and consultant research
and other forms of public commentary, like emails sent to Eichler@cityofpaloalto.org.
Section 6.3 was scaled back only include one guideline with the most relevant points to maintaining a
safe and useable streetscape.
125
Richard Willits, Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft This is a nice piece of work. Well done. You have a wonderful sensitivity to most of our
issues. I am
particularly pleased to see the many mentions of privacy, and the notes that Eichler
developments were planned
at once, with interdependencies of residences taken into account. Chapter 8 is
particularly useful in positioning
this document within the context of other work to be done.
General comment.
126
Richard Willits, Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Privacy: I like section 5.1.8. The third bullet point of 5.1.3 needs to be strong enough to
discourage someone who has a lot where this can not be done.
6.1.3 appears to follow the old IR guidelines practice of suggesting to the happy builder
that by throwing trees at problem you can make up for direct impingement of privacy,
rather than stating that most second story additions, and elevated flood plain additions
should be not considered.
In most cases second stories will not work. On the other hand, for Eichlers on the
periphery of an Eichler
community which backs up to a taller developments, the community could be helped by
second story
development. This is why planning needs to be done on a community basis, such as
through a carefully crafted
SSO, ACC, or other instrument, such as Eichler Zones.
In order to more fully emphasize the existing IR guidelines about privacy, the note in Guideline 5.1.8
(changed to 4.1.8) was added to Guideline 5.1.3 (changed to 4.1.3) - "Note: Second story additions
must also comply with privacy chapter in the IR Guidelines. Second story guidance not applicable to
SSOs."
Page & Turnbull recognizes that trees cannot solve all privacy concerns and does not believe that it is
the responsibility of the "impacted" party to address all such concerns. However, Page & Turnbull
included Guideline 6.1.3 of the Public Review Draft as a suggestion for one possible mitigation for
existing privacy concerns. To further clarify, Page & Turnbull edited guideline 6.1.3 to read "While
privacy concerns should be carefully addressed during the planning process, where privacy concerns
have been previously introduced by new construction on adjacent lots, consider introducing trees or
other plantings to block sight lines from neighboring residences."
Page & Turnbull agrees that community-based planning strategies including SSO, ACC, and other zoning
changes can be effective strategies for addressing Eichler community values. All existing regulatory
frameworks and review processes are detailed in Chapter 1, and suggestions for further "process
improvements" are discussed in Chapter 8.
127
Richard Willits, Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft ADUs: Many Eichlers essentially have ADUs in their garages, or by pushing out in front to
add small bathrooms,
making a suite out of the largest bedroom. Since the ADU law want through this year 5-
10% of Eichlers locally
have undergone projects of this second type, which are well received by the
neighborhood. The statement in
5.1.1 discouraging front additions is in variance to the trend for building in front. It
would be better to suggest
that with front building the residential wing not line up directly with the garage, but be
somewhat offset, for
Eichlers which previously did not have a flat front.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
128
Richard Willits, Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Detached ADUs: Detached ADUs in the back are very difficult in Eichler neighborhoods.
As with other design guidelines, this document pulls short of saying thing probably
should not be done. The example shown (p106) would in most cases not be successful at
avoiding impingement on privacy of the living room or master bedroom of most Eichler
models. “Back yard houses” in the flood plain will be almost impossible to build without
impinging on the neighbors' privacy or sight-lines. The general rule that is needed is that
new construction should be built at
grade level, as the original houses are, and go no higher than the original houses (10-11
feet). This may be
beyond the scope of your purview, but without some protection from violations of this
principle, Eichler community unity will be harmed, especially give the rabid push by
builders hoping to cash in with homeowners
creating new rental spaces, and the current complete lack of consultation needed with
the community.
While detached ADUs in the backyard may rarely be feasible, Page & Turnbull felt that it was worth
discussing them given that the California State law requires that municipalities make allowances for
ADUs in residential neighborhoods.
These Design Guidelines attempt to mitigate any privacy concerns while working within the legal
allowances prescribed by the State of California. Guideline 7.2.2. in particular advocates for designing
an ADU with a height lower than the maximum allowed. The second bullet point under Guideline 7.2.2
has been further clarified to read "The maximum allowed height, per California State law, for attached
ADUs is 17 feet. Designing a detached ADU that has a lower height than the maximum is strongly
encouraged."
129
Richard Willits, Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Front Yards: P92. Lawns are out of style for new landscaping at this time, due to the
recent drought.
Guideline 6.1.1 discusses front yards, and bullet point three states that xeriscaping is an appropriate
option for Eichler homes, although maintaining the open, modernist character is encouraged when
designing a xeriscape yard. The bullet point has been expanded to read, "Xeriscaping with drought-
tolerant plants and rock features is also appropriate, but the open character of the front yard should be
retained." To further clarify that xeriscaping is an appropriate option, the photographs accompanying
the guideline have been rearranged so that two in one column show original lawns, and two show
xeriscape yards - both have green check marks and a caption that support both strategies.
130
Richard Willits, Royal Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Process: I appreciate Chapter 8’s intrinsic acceptance of the ACC process, and that more
work needs to be done on a community level regarding planning for second story
additions or tear-downs leading to two story houses.
Clearly this document points the way to further work needed.
"Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions" discusses some of the ways that more can be done to
preserve Eichler community character and address other community concerns. Options for different
approaches and code changes will be evaluated by the City of Palo Alto and discussed at public
meetings in the future, after the publication of these Design Guidelines.
131
Roger Petersen, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft First of all, a big thank you for putting together the Eichler Design Guidelines! They are
very well written, and
do a nice job of telling the story of the history of our neighborhoods. Also very
informative about all of today's
factors.
Is there a path to getting these applied to all new projects in Eichler neighborhoods?
Similar to how today's IR
Guidelines are applied (to 2-story projects), but also to 1-story projects in our
neighborhoods?
"Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions" discusses some of the ways that more can be done to
preserve Eichler community character and address other community concerns. Options for different
approaches and code changes will be evaluated by the City of Palo Alto and discussed at public
meetings in the future, after the publication of these Design Guidelines.
132
Roger Petersen, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I'm also thinking that different Eichler neighborhoods will want different levels of
"strictness". For example,
those with ACCs today might want Chapters 4, 5, and 6 applied and enforced. Whereas
things like materials
and landscape may be a hard sell in other neighborhoods. How might we handle this
situation?
Page & Turnbull reordered the guideline chapters to make the "Guidelines for Architectural
Compatibility & Neighborhood Cohesion: New Additions to Eichler Homes, New Construction, and
Accessory Dwelling Units" the new Chapter 4, to follow the Chapter 3 discussion on community values.
This puts issues of privacy, scale/mass, and compatibility up front. The chapters related to maintained
of homes and landscapes, as well as the Special Considerations: National Register Historic Districts,
follow afterwards.
The Guidelines are currently voluntary. The Guidelines will be reviewed and voted on by City Council in
March, 2018 at which point it may be decided to make them more restrictive - or whether to create a
tiered system with various "levels of enforcement." The City will consider the desire to maintain the
character and cohesiveness of these special neighborhoods along with concerns regarding privacy and
the desire for new construction. This decision will be based on all information gathered over the
previous year from public workshops, HRB meetings, staff and consultant research and other forms of
public commentary, like emails sent to Eichler@cityofpaloalto.org.
133
Roger Petersen, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Priorities: For us in Fairmeadow, we feel that privacy is very important. So we like
Chapter 5 especially. We would also
like to preserve the midcentury modern feel of our neighborhood, to avoid monster
homes and stucco styles.
And I know that Fairmeadow has dozens of neighbors who feel the same way.
We would hate to lose privacy protection and scale-and-mass protection, if people
rebelled against things like
landscape and paint colors. (I know that the Guidelines present these more as
informative than required, but
people may seize upon these as reason to protest.)
General comment - Community Values.
134
Roger Petersen, Fairmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Using IR Process: It would be great if we could use the current IR Process for all new
projects in Eichler neighborhoods (including 1-story projects in non-SSO neighborhoods).
That would give neighbors at least a chance to learn about new
projects (before they break ground), and provide feedback if they conflict with the
neighborhood character.
Without some review, I wonder how many projects will follow the guidelines.
If we did use the Eichler Guidelines as part of an IR Process, would all chapters be
applied? Or is only Chapter
5 appropriate? (Do today's IR Guidelines talk about landscape and maintenance?)
General comment.
135
Sandra Park, 3700 Carlson Circle (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 1 - Privacy. It is very important to maintain privacy, especially neighbor views of
backyards since Eichlers tend to be floor to ceiling glass in the rear. It is also important to
have clear buffer zones all around a house since overbuilt homes can loom over or
intrude on neighbors. Second stories need to be carefully reviewed, favoring smaller,
recessed second levels, if at all. Single story is much preferred.
General Comment - Community Values.
Addressed in Guidelines 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.8, and 5.2.2 of the Public Review Draft.
136
Sandra Park, 3700 Carlson Circle (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 2 - Mass and scale. New and remodeled houses should harmonize with their
neighborhoods and surrounding
community—a very important priority for city planning. The trend toward stucco
“mansions” or other structures of overbearing and exceptional mass and scale are
contrary to the historical model of Eichlers that maximized privacy and balance between
neighbors.
General Comment - Community Values.
Addressed in Guidelines 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, and 5.2.5 of the
Public Review Draft.
137
Sandra Park, 3700 Carlson Circle (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 3 - Midcentury modern. Overall, the elements of modest structures with recessed
entryways and a horizontally oriented roofline with natural building materials is
desirable to maintain the character of our community.
General Comment - Community Values.
Addressed in Guidelines 5.1.4, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4 of the Public Review Draft.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
138
Xia Jin (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I think it's an excellent idea to have some consistent guidance to preserve the
neighborhood appeal while
allowing homeowners improve on their homes. While I am driving through Palo Alto
neighborhood, I see
houses north of East Meadow have trendy and up-to-date appeal, while in the South of
East Meadow houses are
General Comment - Community Values.
Addressed in Guidelines 5.1.4, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4 of the Public Review Draft.
139
Xia Jin (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76)
5.1.1 second bullet point - I understand it is discouraged to have first-story additions at
the front, But I oppose the wording “Do not place”. This is too strong wording. If a
homeowner eventually thinks it’s best to do some additions at the front, after exploring
all the alternatives, I think we should still allow it. Otherwise they would be considered
violating the guideline. I suggest change that to “If possible, avoid placing..”
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
140
Xia Jin (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
5.1.1 (p. 76)
5.1.1 fourth bullet point - “Design new first-story additions so that their roofs do not rise
above the height of original residence” I view this as being too restrictive. Most Eichlers
have low ceilings. If homeowner have a design that add to their back and does not affect
their neighbors, I think they should be allowed to build with higher ceilings, if the design
still work with the rest of the house. I think this clause is too arbitrary. I also think
homeowners should be more encouraged to improve on the front side of their houses.
Right now many of the houses look stale, and plain. I don't think we should further
discourage homeowners to improve on the front of their house. This may include
additions in the front that can still be compatible with the neighborhood.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
141
Roy Snyder, 3371 Thomas Drive, Royal
Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I oppose the adoption by the City of Palo Alto, or any of its Departments, Agencies, etc.,
of the Proposed Eichler Design Guidelines I am a homeowner in Palo Alto. We have lived
in our Eichler on Thomas Drive (Royal Manor) since1975. In it’s original configuration on
the property and floor plan, our home did not conform to the proposed guidelines (front
fencing, view from street, etc.) We have remodeled three times. As a result, our front
new driveway and walk, installed new front and side windows, over-the-roof repaired
piping, raised roof line, current exterior paint colors, and other features I’m sure, do not
conform to the proposed “guidelines”.
At this point, the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory rather than regulatory.
The guidelines are designed to be relevant to thousands of Eichler homes in Palo Alto, and to be
interpreted based on historical knowledge as well as the existing site conditions. A "Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs)" section has been added to Chapter 1 to clarify these points early in the document.
142
Roy Snyder, 3371 Thomas Drive, Royal
Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft If adopted by the City, the proposed guidelines will become an official city document.
Our home will fall outside the guidelines and will have a perceived lower value. While
this may not be reflected in the current hot real estate market, the purchaser in sale
price negotiations will use this condition as a bargaining chip to drive the sale price
down. Other homeowners will face uncertainties, delays, and added costs – all
unneeded – when remodeling. Smarter and stricter zoning and permitting (hard)
requirements limiting the gross size and height of the resulting structure would be a
better way to combat the proliferation of the “MacMansions” springing up in south Palo
Alto. This would be more effective in preserving a pleasant, but diverse residential
environment.
As an advisory document, the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Guidelines are meant to provide guidance
and information for planners, designers, and homeowners to help inform their planning process. Other
codified, regulatory options will be evaluated by the City of Palo Alto and discussed in public meetings
in the future. A "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" section has been added to Chapter 1 to clarify
these points early in the document.
143
Roy Snyder, 3371 Thomas Drive, Royal
Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft What will be the penalties for homeowners who choose not to follow the guidelines,
when remodeling or maintaining their property? If no penalty, how will this be assured?
I.e., what “force of law” will the guidelines have? And if no penalty, what will be the
enforcement mechanism?
General comment.
At this point, the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory, rather than regulatory;
as such, no penalties will be enforced. Neighborhoods currently have the option of pursuing a SSO if
they are interested in implementing a regulatory process. If a neighborhood as an ACC, this committee
may have its own enforcement mechanisms. Potential codified regulations with enforcement
procedures are discussed in "Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions," but are part of a larger, on-
going discussion at the City of Palo Alto. A "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" section has been added
to Chapter 1 to clarify these points early in the document.
144
Roy Snyder, 3371 Thomas Drive, Royal
Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft How will the guidelines impact the City of Palo Alto’s remodeling permit/plan approval
process, regardless of whether the guidelines are followed or not? If no impact (e.g.
permit/plan approval time or cost), how will this be assured? The guidelines are overly
restrictive as stated, but then are qualified as “preferred” or as “more appropriate”. City
staff reviewing proposed residential projects will have little specific direction, which can
only lead to confusion, bureaucratic delays with attendant costs to the home owner.
Interpretations will shift and become more restrictive over time as City planning and
permit approval personnel change.
General comment.
At this point, the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory, rather than regulatory;
as such, no penalties will be enforced. Neighborhoods currently have the option of pursuing a SSO if
they are interested in implementing a regulatory process. If a neighborhood as an ACC, this committee
may have its own enforcement mechanisms. Potential codified regulations with enforcement
procedures are discussed in "Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions," but are part of a larger, on-
going discussion at the City of Palo Alto. A "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" section has been added
to Chapter 1 to clarify these points early in the document.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
145
Roy Snyder, 3371 Thomas Drive, Royal
Manor (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Which the local contractors, real estate agents, architects, and design firms, with specific
experience in Palo Alto Eichler remodels and home sales, were consulted, in the
preparation of the draft guidelines? As noted in the document, “well over 2,000” Eichler
homes are in Palo Alto. But development of the draft has been poorly publicized and
reported given the number of properties and potential impacts involved. There have
been no direct mailings to property owners, inserts in utility billings, few articles in the
community press, etc. There have been sporadic articles in the PA Weekly, but few since
the summer of 2017. What was the price paid to Page and Turnbull by the City of Palo
Alto for the preparation of the draft guidelines? What’s the estimated cost for the total
effort and final document?
The City of Palo Alto created and maintained a webpage on the City's website dedicated to this project,
which included an up-to-date schedule of community meetings, public hearings, and deadlines;
updates; and contact information including the option to sign up for an email list. By the end of this
project, there will have been three community meetings, an online survey, a community Eichler
Memory Event, four Historic Resources Board public hearings, one City Council public hearing, and a 2-
month public comment period. The details of this public process and outreach are detailed in the
Design Guidelines "Methodology" section of Chapter 1.
146
Graciel Spivak, 317 Shasta Drive (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 114
It was brought to my attention that the last paragraph in page 114 of the Eisler Design
Guidelines contains language suggestion that property owners could request adding a
second story in an Eichler tract with an SSO designation. My husband and I are
adamantly opposed to this idea. Property owners who wish to own a 2-story home can
find one outside of Eichler tracts, and should not be allowed to destroy the esthetics and
architectural concepts of Eichler homes. In addition, second stories pose threats to the
privacy of the neighbors, whose houses have large windows facing patios, gardens and
courtyards, and bedroom and bathroom windows that would be in the sightline of
anyone within the second story.
Currently, no changes to the SSO have been made, and any changes to SSO zoning, or the
implementation of an Eichler Overlay (EO) zone would be subject to vigorous public debate; these are a
few of many potential modifications of the Palo Alto zoning code that are being discussed. The Design
Guidelines do not in any way change the process of acquiring or removing SSO zoning.
The sentence "Also in 2016, the City Council noted issues with the Single Story Overlay rezoning process
(i.e. the issue of 'erosion of support' in which the code did not address percentage of support reduction
during the rezoning process) and noted that staff would eventually need to adjust the zoning code to
address these process issues" on page 114 has been removed, to avoid unnecessary confusion.
The Design Guidelines address privacy concerns with in the existing regulatory framework in Guidelines
5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.8, and 5.2.2.
147
James Taylor, 4123 Briarwood Way,
Greenmeadow 3 (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft I live in Greenmeadow 3 in an original Eichler and I recently reviewed the Public Review
Draft of the Palo Alto
Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. I would like to say how much I appreciated the
work done and the
generally excellent overview of Eichler homes in Palo Alto. Allowing multi-story or even
significantly taller homes on these lots is disruptive to the neighbors. Greenmeadow has
remained completely single story but in some other Eichler areas larger homes loom
over their Eichler neighbors to the detriment of those who wish to preserve the Eichler
look and feel. This should not be permitted by the guidelines and a single story overlay
should be enforced on all Eichler neighborhoods that remain largely or wholly single
story regardless of historical designation.
General comment.
148
James Taylor, 4123 Briarwood Way,
Greenmeadow 3 (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 5
The guidelines (5.1.3 for instance) impose some restrictions on 2nd story additions that
are well thought out.
However, the guidelines should make it clear that there is no realistic way to do this in a
typical Eichler
neighborhood given the house layouts and lots. Fewer problems will result if the
guidelines make it clear that a
2nd story addition is considered very unlikely to meet these criteria in an Eichler
neighborhood. The current
wording encourages people to try where it should instead be realistic and make it clear
that permission will be
very hard to get. Similarly 5.1.7 says "Be considerate of neighbors’ privacy when making
decisions about the location of new windows" but fails to make it clear that doing so will
make a 2nd story addition impossible in almost all Eichler neighborhood locations.
Likewise the guidance in 5.18.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
149
James Taylor, 4123 Briarwood Way,
Greenmeadow 3 (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 6
While landscaping can help with privacy issues created by additions, I found the focus in
6.1.3 unfortunate in
that it implied the onus is on those who have LOST privacy to new building to add
plantings rather than on the
builder to avoid breaching their privacy. This should be rephrased to put the onus on the
builder not the victim.
Reworded 6.1.3 to say "While privacy concerns should be carefully addressed during the planning
process, where privacy concerns have been previously introduced by new construction on adjacent
lots…"
See also the last bullet point of Guideline 7.2.2 (changed to 4.3.2).
150
James Taylor, 4123 Briarwood Way,
Greenmeadow 3 (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 7
Finally, I found the ADU guidance generally excellent. The allowance of 17' as a height,
however, would be
excessive in an Eichler neighborhood where all the houses are lower than this, especially
next door to houses
with flat roofs for instance. I believe a lower limit should be insisted on not merely
encouraged when the ADU
is being added to a home in an areas of low-rise Eichlers.
The 17 foot maximum height limit for ADUs was set by a California State law. These Design Guidelines
attempt to mitigate any privacy concerns while working within the legal allowances prescribed by the
State of California. Guideline 7.2.2. in particular advocates for designing an ADU with a height lower
than the maximum allowed. The second bullet point under Guideline 7.2.2 has been further clarified to
read "The maximum allowed height, per California State law, for attached ADUs is 17 feet. Designing a
detached ADU that has a lower height than the maximum is strongly encouraged."
151
Nancy Karp, 221 Parkside Drive,
Greenmeadow (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft GreenMeadow has worked hard to get a single story restriction and it works for us. I
would be against the
rescinding of this. Our lots with few exceptions are too small for a small unit to be built
there. I am against that.
General comment. The Eichler Design Guidelines will not rescind SSO status. Only the neighborhood can
initiate and would need sufficient resident support to rescind.
152
Anne Marie Bredehoft-Hallada (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Bravo! This is a great document to have. I would have loved to have this when we first
moved into our
home and planned our addition.
General comment.
153
Anne Marie Bredehoft-Hallada (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft, p
76
p.76: The document states to try to avoid additions on the front of the house, however,
in the Royal Manor
district this is the only option for most of the homes due to the lot placement. On Janice
Way alone, we have
had 5 of these. Three are currently under construction. They are mostly just a bathroom
as the lot size does not
permit much else.
It would be great to have some pictures of good front of the house
additions/suggestions.
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
154
Anne Marie Bredehoft-Hallada (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft, p.
86
p.86 Windows: One huge problem with original Eichler windows is that they do not meet
current egress
guidelines. I think this needs to be addressed as it becomes tricky to meet the aesthetic
guidelines and egress
guidelines simultaneously. https://www.egresswindows.com/its-the-law. Due to egress
guidelines we had to do
windows that I would not have chosen. My architect struggled with this as well as well as
many neighbors that
I have talked with.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
155
Anne Marie Bredehoft-Hallada (email
to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Lastly, garage conversions are extremely popular in Royal Manor due to the smaller size
homes. Most are
converted for recreational use/family rooms. Some are done very well and others not as
much. It would be
great to add garage conversion guidelines which include not changing the front of the
home. I have a neighbor
who just did a great job on theirs.
Garage conversions as a means of adding additional living space are discussed in Guideline 5.1.1
(changed to 4.1.1), 7.2.1 (changed to 4.3.1), and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
156
Mary Slocum (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 1. Recommended options are too limited. For example, front door hardware. Lever
handles look great with the Eichler lines and many are ADA compliant which is important
to multi-generational families and those with disabled members.
Added to third bullet under 7.1.3 "If accessibility is a concern, consider a lever handle with a simple,
unornamented contemporary look." Page & Turnbull also added a drawing of simple, contemporary
lever handle as an example of a compatible alternative replacement to original Eichler hardware.
157
Mary Slocum (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 2. A wood door is fine but the upkeep can be expensive. We put a stainless steel on ours
and it is wonderful.
Wood and stainless steel doors can both be appropriate replacements if they are flush (or "slab") doors
that don't include panelization or historicist window elements. The third bullet point under Guideline
4.2.3 reads "If entry doors on a residence must be replaced, select new doors that have a simple and
flat appearance. This is most important for doors that can be viewed from the street." No preference of
wood or metal material is indicated, as both are appropriate if they meet these criteria.
158
Mary Slocum (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 3. I did not understand the logic of not putting additions on the front side. I understand
the examples but not the overarching recommendation. We put two additions and
rebuilt the garage on the front of ours. Because of how the original house was set on the
lot, it was the only option. We maintained the general line of the house but brought it
forward. It still relates well to the houses around it.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
159
Mary Slocum (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 4. Landscaping. These are very different times. Lawns are not a good choice today. We
used small stones and interesting placements of trees and plants. And many front yard
trees have outgrown a comfortable scale and some threaten foundations and having
grown too big and close, even the walls of the houses.
Guideline 6.1.1 discusses front yards, and bullet point three states that xeriscaping is an appropriate
option for Eichler homes, although maintaining the open, modernist character is encouraged when
designing a xeriscape yard. The bullet point has been expanded to read, "Xeriscaping with drought-
tolerant plants and rock features is also appropriate, but the open character of the front yard should be
retained." To further clarify that xeriscaping is an appropriate option, the photographs accompanying
the guideline have been rearranged so that two in one column show original lawns, and two show
xeriscape yards - both have green check marks and a caption that support both strategies.
160
Mary Slocum (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 5. Fences. This is a difficult topic. Neighbors find it hard to agree and fence builders want
to stick with a more traditional look that is readily available and is less expensive.
Page & Turnbull recognizes that cost and availability will always be weighed as practical concerns.
Increasingly, simple and Modern materials (and fences) are available at chain home improvement
stores; these options are more affordable than costly custom-designed fences. When selecting
materials and a fence design, whether off-the-shelf or custom-designed, Guidelines 6.3.1 and 6.3.2
encourage compatibility with the Eichler style and surrounding streetscape.
A "Frequently Asked Questions" section has been added to Chapter 1, which addresses additional
resources for homeowners who want to learn more about their home or who are ready to take on a
renovation and need additional advice about products, retailers, contractors, architects, real estate
agents, etc. A sidebar with the same information was also added to the "Guidelines for Maintaining
Eichler Homes" chapter. A few of these resources are also listed in the Appendix C - Additional
Resources & Works Cited.
161
Mary Slocum (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft 6. Which leads me to my last comment. It is not easy to source materials for Eichlers.
Even with the Eichler network it can be tricky. You can’t pop into a Home Depot or other
similar store and easily find Eichler replacement or compatible parts. This is an
important consideration for owners short on time and constrained by budget. What can
we do to provide more resources for materials that are readily available at an affordable
price point?
While it is the case that original Eichler siding is no longer available off-the-shelf, many good Eichler-
compatible replacement fixtures and materials are increasingly available online and at chain home
improvement stores. In addition to the Eichler Network, other blogs such as Redneck Modern provide
excellent advice and resources.
A "Frequently Asked Questions" section has been added to Chapter 1, which addresses additional
resources for homeowners who want to learn more about their home or who are ready to take on a
renovation and need additional advice about products, retailers, contractors, architects, real estate
agents, etc. A sidebar with the same information was also added to the "Guidelines for Maintaining
Eichler Homes" chapter. A few of these resources are also listed in the Appendix C - Additional
Resources & Works Cited.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
162
Abby Boyd (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Could you please answer a question about the single story overlay and the guidelines.
First of all: Do you plan to change the single story overlay rules, or phase them out.
What is the relationship between the single story overlay and the Eichler guidelines. Is it
either or, or do
both apply. Why don't you simply make the single story overlays easier to get, perhaps
for smaller areas. Perhaps make a form. Please explain how Montrose became so ugly.
At this point, the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory, rather than regulatory.
Neighborhoods currently have the option of pursuing a SSO if they are interested in implementing a
regulatory process. Potential codified regulations with enforcement procedures are discussed in
"Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions," but are part of a larger, on-going discussion at the City
of Palo Alto. There is no plan to phase out SSOs, rather a potential Eichler Overlay would be an
alternative option for those neighborhoods without an SSO. A "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)"
section has been added to Chapter 1 to clarify this and other concerns early in the document.
163
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
4/28/2017 Public Review Draft Can you please briefly outline/update me on how these Eichler Design Guidelines will
affect the
new ADU codes for Palo Alto that were very recently approved?
Some neighborhoods have a single story overlay, some do not. Greenmeadow does. I
think everyone is in the dark as to what the new ADU codes are and how they will be
enforced etc. Will the Eichler Design Guidelines be "enforceable"?
This comment was received prior to the publication of the Public Review Draft. Accessory Dwelling Unit
legislation is disused in Chapter 1 (page 28 of the Public Review Draft), and Section 7.2. Accessory
Dwelling Units (moved to section 4.3 Accessory Dwelling Units) is devoted to ADUs.
164
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/13/2018 Public Review Draft 1. First and foremost, is the possibility of disregarding the SSO for our neighborhood.
This is a big deal. I
simply do not understand how you can do this? This would be a BIG detraction to our
neighborhood, lifestyles,
enjoyment, property value etc.
The "Potential Modifications to Zoning Code Related to Eichler Neighborhoods" section was written to
provide some background on the events that lead City Council to direct the City of Palo Alto Planning
Department to hire Page & Turnbull to create these Design Guidelines. The section did not intend to
imply that SSO protection would be removed from neighborhoods involuntarily or that existing SSO
neighborhoods have experience "erosion of support"; the phrase "erosion of support" specifically refers
to the recent applications for SSO zoning during which the percentage of homeowners in support of SSO
zoning declined DURING THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR SSO ZONING. The sentence "Also in 2016, the
City Council noted issues with the Single Story Overlay rezoning process (i.e. the issue of 'erosion of
support' in which the code did not address percentage of support reduction during the rezoning
process) and noted that staff would eventually need to adjust the zoning code to address these process
issues" on page 114 has been removed, to avoid unnecessary confusion.
165
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/13/2018 Public Review Draft 2. The height and closeness to the property line is also a major issue. What has
happened to the “daylight plane”
rules and codes?
The Design Guidelines are currently advisory, rather than regulatory. Whether advisory or regulatory,
the Design Guidelines must be in conformance with existing City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. Code
sections relating to the "daylight plane" include 18.04 and 18.12.040. Chapter 1 of the Design
Guidelines discusses the current Single-Family Residential Zoning and points to additional resources
including the Code itself, and Palo Alto's "Zoning Ordinance Technical Manual for Single-Family
Residential Zones" which interprets the code and provides illustrations.
166
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/13/2018 Public Review Draft 3. Privacy and daylight are neighborhood values. The SSO, height and setback
restrictions help protect these
two values. 4. There are other issues, but these are the most important ones.
The SSO and height and setback restrictions (as elaborated in Palo Alto's Municipal Code, particularly
18.12 Single-Family Residential Zoning) are among the existing regulatory frameworks and review
processes that are discussed in Chapter 1. These Design Guidelines aim to provide guidance to
accommodate maintenance, additions, and new construction in Eichler neighborhoods while meeting
code requirements and community values.
167
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/13/2018 Public Review Draft 5. What is proposed to be “codified” vs “guidance”?At this point, the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory, rather than regulatory.
Neighborhoods currently have the option of pursuing a SSO if they are interested in implementing a
regulatory process. Potential codified regulations with enforcement procedures are discussed in
"Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions," but are part of a larger, on-going discussion at the City
of Palo Alto. A "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" section has been added to Chapter 1 to clarify this
and other concerns early in the document.
168
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/16/2018 Public Review Draft 1). I strongly support the existing Single Story Overlay (SSO) zoning protection that
Greenmeadow
residents worked so hard to get and that a large super majority of our residents voted to
approve. Further, all
homes purchased after the SSO was approved were purchased with the understanding
that they would have SSO
protection. This protection has helped to preserve our privacy and the architectural
integrity of our historic
Eichler neighborhood.
General comment.
169
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/16/2018 Public Review Draft 2). I am concerned that the addition of ADU does not adequately protect the privacy of
neighbors in Eichler
neighborhoods in particular. The window height, floor height, setback and daylight plane
need to be addressed.
The “lessening” of current codes or “exceptions to current codes would be extremely
detrimental to the privacy,
property value etc. The “privacy expense” should be at the expense of the property that
the ADU is on, not at
the “privacy expense” of the neighbor. Stricter codes addressing these issues may be
desirable and necessary.
As noted in section 7.2 Accessory Dwelling Units (changed to Section 4.3 Accessory Dwelling Units),
"California state law requires that municipalities make allowances for ADUs in residential
neighborhoods. ADUs—which provide new living space that is entirely independent of the main
residence—can accommodate additional residences on properties where only one residence was
originally constructed." The Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory, rather than
regulatory, and furthermore do not make any allowances beyond what is legally required by the State
of California. Rather, the Design Guidelines aim to provide guidance for working within this state
legislation to ensure the best possible outcomes when it comes to ADUs; this guidance includes
considerations of privacy and views.
170
Maureen McNally, 420 Adobe Place
(email to eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/16/2018 Public Review Draft 3). It is my opinion that the draft Eichler Guidelines do NOT adequately address or
protect the privacy in
Eichler neighborhoods. The window height, floor height, setbacks, daylight plane etc.
need to be addressed and
“codified” if necessary. The “lessening” of current codes would be extremely detrimental
to the privacy and
property values. In fact, stricter codes addressing these issues may be desirable and
necessary to adequately
protect these neighborhoods.
The Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines in no way "lessen" current codes, but rather aim
to provide additional guidance for working within the existing regulatory framework to further
community values such as privacy, neighborhood cohesion, etc. The Design Guidelines addressed
privacy concerns with in the existing regulatory framework in Guidelines 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.8, and 5.2.2 of
the Public Review Document. As discussed in Chapter 8: Process Improvement Suggestions, the City of
Palo Alto is also considering additional regulatory (code) changes as part of a longer, on-going
discussion. A "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" section has been added to Chapter 1 to clarify this
and other concerns early in the document.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
171
Siamack Sanaie (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/15/2018 Public Review Draft We need to emphasize people’s concern with adding space and preserving their
backyard, as much as concerns about privacy. On the beginning of chapter 5 there is a
whole section about privacy and how building a second story house can affect the
privacy of neighbors, we also need to emphasize people’s concern with adding space and
preserving their backyard.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
172
Siamack Sanaie (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Forcing people to stay on single floor on smaller lots would make the backyard
significantly smaller, which makes the “seamless blend of interior and exterior realm”
worthless. Guideline should encourage neighborhoods to get comfortable with second
story houses and instead of fighting them help the people who need to build a second
story to minimize the impact on the privacy of their neighbors. If someone decides that
building a new two story house is what they need and worked with the city and
neighbors to address their privacy issues they should absolutely be able to do so.
The Guidelines are currently voluntary. Furthermore, the Design Guidelines do not prohibit second
story additions. Guidelines 5.1.3 and 5.1.8 (changed to 4.1.3 and 4.1.8) address second story additions
and privacy concerns. By using these voluntary Guidelines, planners, designers, and homeowners can
better plan to address these issues up front.
173
Siamack Sanaie (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Please add more pictures of good examples for building a second story.Page & Turnbull added in a diagram from the Palo Alto Single-Family Residential Review Guidelines
which illustrates "compatible infill" as well as another photograph of new construction in an Eichler
neighborhood to Chapter 5.2 (changed to 4.2).
174
Siamack Sanaie (email to
eichler@cityofpaloalto.org)
1/12/2018 Public Review Draft Siamack Sanaie also copied a number of comments verbatim from an email from
Unmesh Vartack. See comments No. 79-84 in this spreadsheet; comments are addressed
above.
Addressed above; see comments No. 79-84.
175
Ben Bower, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Streetscape guidelines to include roofs per pictures attached. [Attached photos are
examples of HVAC systems that protrude above flat roof line and are highly visible from
street - visual clutter]
Page & Turnbull recognizes that HVAC systems on roofs can contribute to visual clutter. Guideline 4.5.2
(changed to 5.5.2) addresses this issue by stating "Select and install new heating and cooling equipment
while considering its impact on the architectural character of a residence, as well as its performance."
Three bullet points further specify strategies for avoiding this issue including not placing window-
mounted AC units on the front facade, using ductless HVAC systems (such as mini split), using low-
profile ducts and/or placing them underneath new roofing materials.
176
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft This booklet does a nice job explaining Eichler history, design characteristics and
aesthetics as well as providing some good information about how to maintain Eichler
homes. It may encourage some people to embrace that aesthetic in their home
improvement projects. Guidelines are helpful. Of course, guidelines are not enforceable.
Code is. In my comments, I will identify some areas that I think should be codified.
General comment.
177
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft To my mind, protection of privacy of glass-walled indoor/outdoor Eichler spaces in side
and backyards is critical. Without it, the privacy of Eichler master bedrooms and
bathrooms, living rooms, kitchens and family living spaces could be lost, destroying the
indoor/outdoor design and lifestyle that definesEichler homes. Our homes are fishbowls
to neighbors how place windows and doors without consideration of these impacts. This
is a problem for SSO neighborhoods as well as other neighborhoods that do not have
SSO. Poorly designed window and door placement, floor heights, etc. that current code
allows can be a significant problem even between single-story structures. Privacy
protection of the indoor/outdoor glassed space of Eichler homes must be codified. We
should be working to identify the best ways to accomplish that goal in the code. I don't
think this document gets us there.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
178
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft I would like code to protect the careful juxtaposition of homes that Eichler's architects
engineered. Eichler homes were designed to "speak" to each other- they considered the
context of neighboring properties and structures to maintain privacy. Windows, walls
and doors were carefully placed so that residents could treat their backyard like a private
extension of their interior space. That meant that glass-walled rooms and abutting patio
space were designed to be privatethrough careful consideration of context of adjoining
home properties. I don't think the draft guidelines adequately address how to protect
hat privacy. Floor height matters; siting matters; fence height matters; window and door
placement matters; wall height matters; daylight planes matter. I would like the
guidelines (and some code) to do a better job protecting the very important privacy of
the glass-walled indoor-outdoor spaces that define Eichler's contribution to California
architecture and lifestyle.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
179
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 114
The suggestion at the end of the document (page 114) that there is "erosion of support
for SSOs" and that replacement zoning would be developed was a surprise to me.I
have heard nothing that would indicate an "erosion of support" in Greenmeadow.
Would staff share the specific evidence behind this statement? Greenmeadow
Community Association got supermajority support four our SSO, and it would be onerous
to ask that neighborhoods undergo that type of rigorous process repeatedly. Subsequent
owners bought their homes with the understanding that they are moving into an SSO
neighborhood. For Greenmeadow, our SSO has been a great help to maintain the
architectural integrity of our neighborhood over time. Opening that Pandora's box, to my
mind, may be viewed as hostile toward established SSO neighborhoods. I think the city
should tread very carefully here.
The "Potential Modifications to Zoning Code Related to Eichler Neighborhoods" section was written to
provide some background on the events that lead City Council to direct the City of Palo Alto Planning
Department to hire Page & Turnbull to create these Design Guidelines. The section did not intend to
imply that SSO protection would be removed from neighborhoods involuntarily or that existing SSO
neighborhoods have experience "erosion of support"; the phrase "erosion of support" specifically refers
to the recent applications for SSO zoning during which the percentage of homeowners in support of SSO
zoning declined DURING THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR SSO ZONING. The sentence "Also in 2016, the
City Council noted issues with the Single Story Overlay rezoning process (i.e. the issue of 'erosion of
support' in which the code did not address percentage of support reduction during the rezoning
process) and noted that staff would eventually need to adjust the zoning code to address these process
issues" on page 114 has been removed, to avoid unnecessary confusion.
180
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 27
Why is Greenmeadow not included in the city's historic inventory? Pg. 27 says "The
National Register Historic Districts are not currently listed in the city's Historic Resource
Inventory…" Greenmeadow Community Association went to a great deal of trouble and
lengthy process to get this historic designation. Why is Greenmeadow not included in
the city's Historic Inventory?
As noted in the Design Guidelines in Chapter 1, the National Register of Historic Places is administered
by the National Park Service at the federal level and "Regulations that involve National Register-listed
properties are based in federal laws, particularly the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its
enacting regulations. In general, National Register listing is an honorary act, though potential benefits
include application for 20% tax credits for a sensitive rehabilitation of historic properties that are, or will
become, income-producing, including rental units; and the California Historical Building Code, which
provides alternative building regulations for historic properties undergoing rehabilitation."
The Palo Alto Historic Inventory is a separate inventory, administered at the local level and includes
additional regulatory protections. Any individual or group may propose designating a historic structure,
site or district to the Palo Alto Historic Inventory according to the procedure found in the Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 16.49.040). Properties nominated for designation are
recommended by the HRB and decided upon by the City Council. In many cases, properties or districts
that are eligible for the National Register may also be eligible for local listing on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory, and neighborhoods may chose to pursue this designation instead of OR in addition to
National Register designation.
181
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft How does the SSO preclude CEQA review? The document continues to say "…Eichler
tracts with a SSO does not trigger discretionary review. Since both National Register
Historic Districts have SSOs, they do not fall under the purview of CEQA review." How
does the SSO preclude CEQA review? Building a second story is not the only way a
developer or homeowner can negatively impact a neighboring Eichler property.
General comment - refers to Palo Alto's discretionary review process.
182
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Here's an excerpt from the description of United States Department of the Interior
description of Eichlers: Eichlers are defined as having: "private living areas that
expanded to the outdoors." "…Eichler architect typically paid close attention to the siting
of the houses, and Greenmeadow was exemplary." "designers placed homes in ways
they felt best fit individual lots, provided the best solar orientation possible, and ensured
privacy for neighboring residents."
Although the National Register of Historic Places and the Guidelines document talk
about these essential aspects of Eichler design, the guidelines do not suggest options for
enforceable code to protect privacy of indoor/outdoor spaces. We need code to do this.
The Guidelines document acknowledges the importance of this need for privacy and the
deliberate effort of Joseph Eichler's architects and landscape designers to create it, but
that does not go far enough. We need code to preserve this essential protection.
Without it, our neighbors' home expansion and "improvement" projects may intrude on
our private lives. Eichler homes are fishbowls. Preservation of privacy is an essential
need.
General comment.
Privacy has been addressed in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public Review
Draft.
183
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 57
P. 57 - "The sense of privacy is highly valued by Eichler residents, as it contributes to a
quiet and calm living environment. Consequently, a concern among many residents is
that new construction or additions may impinge on their sense of privacy." This
statement grossly understates the need for privacy that the Eichler's glass walled spaces
demand. We don't just "value" a "sense of privacy." We needactual privacy. The largest,
most private spaces in our homes will be on full display of neighbors if we are not
protected. We need code to protect this privacy.
General comment - values privacy and regulatory enforcement of guidelines related to privacy.
Privacy has been addressed in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public Review
Draft.
184
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 66
p. 66 - Much attention is given to the matter of privacy in the history and Community
Values sections of these documents. A defining feature of Eichlers is the
indoor/outdoor…yet on page 66 where the guidelines begin to address window
placement, there is no mention of considering neighboring window placement and
backyard space at all. This is inconsistent with the Eichler design. Existing code fails to
protect this privacy (because the unique design of Eichlers really was not considered
when that code was developed) and many Eichler owners have had their privacy sorely
impacted by abutting neighbors placing window sin locations that Eichler never intended
-- This occurs even with single-story construction. We need code to prevent
window/door placement that allows views into Eichler glass walls.
Page 66 of the Public Review Draft addresses the maintenance and repair of existing windows in
original Eichler homes; Guideline 4.2.2 (changed to 5.2.2) recommends the repair of existing original
windows and the replacement "in-kind" of windows that maintain the original openings and size,
meaning that no new intrusions of privacy should be introduced. Privacy related to windows and views
have been addressed in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public Review Draft.
Chapter 5 of the Public Review Draft has been moved up to be the new "Chapter 4" to emphasize the
importance of the guidelines related to additions, new construction and ADUs.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
185
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 70
p. 70 - In placing solar panels, one should also consider the view from neighboring
homes' indoor/outdoor living spaces. In most Greenmeadow Eichlers, the first thing one
sees on entering the home is a view across the living room through the floor-to-ceiling
glazed wall to the neighboring home's roof and sky. if a homeowner faces the
mechanical side of new solar panels toward those glass walls, it defaces the appearance
of the living room of their neighbor's home. Existing code does not consider this because
it doesn't acknowledge the unique design of Eichlers. It should. We need code that
prevents the mechanical side of solar panels facing toward a neighboring home's glass
wall in a way that would make it visible from the interior of the neighbor's home.
In some cases, solar panels may be placed flat on a flat roof, and the Design Guidelines suggest that
homeowners consider placement of solar panels in a way that minimizes the visual impact. However,
solar panels will generally be somewhat visible. Most houses have neighbors on both sides as well as at
the rear, and so solar panels that one neighbor can't see may be visible to another neighbor. By
minimizing the visibility from the front facade, the impact to the streetscape, which is a space shared
by the entire community and in the public right-of-way , is mitigated.
186
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 75
pg. 75 - privacy, architectural compatibility and neighborhood cohesion -- The Guidelines
acknowledge the importance of privacy in the rear/side yards.
General comment - Community Values.
187
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
Page 76
pg. 76 - "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the house as the addition
would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks." This
statement is not correct for many Eichler homes. Some Eichler designs can take an
addition on the front. There are a number of examples of this in Greenmeadow.
However, side and backyard additions have the most impact on privacy and can destroy
the privacy, usability, design advantages and beauty of indoor/outdoor living spaces.
This page also suggest converting a garage as an option. If a garage conversion is done,
consideration of door and window placement is crucial .Eichler architects frequently
would place a windowless garage wall toward neighbor's indoor/outdoor space to
protect privacy of that space. Window/door placement matters a lot.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
188
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 78
pg. 78 - It is my opinion that basements next door to an Eichler are a very bad idea.
Necessary dewatering can undermine soil structure, making the slab of an adjacent
home slope which can BREAK the radiant and plumbing systems that are in the slab of
the neighboring home. Very bad idea. This could create unnecessary neighborhood strife
and huge expense. Further, basements are inconsistent with the original design of the
homes. They would undermine historic place authenticity for neighborhoods with
historic district designation.
In addition, a conventional foundation will raise the house (ergo also raise the windows
that the neighbor can see over the fence into the neighbor's indoor/outdoor spaces). It
seems like the writers may not fully understand the sensitivity of the indoor/outdoor
glass-walled spaces. I would be glad to arrange a tour for staff, the HRB and City Council.
The Design Guidelines note that adding a basement is not an ideal solution; Guideline 5.1.2 (changed to
4.1.3) reads "Adding a basement requires a complex approach due to the existing concrete slab
foundation." Soil structure is a legitimate concern that would be evaluated by the Building Department
during the permitting process to ensure projects do not have negative impacts to neighbors.
189
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 82
pg. 82 - 5.1.8 - "Identify potential privacy concerns early in the process while developing
any project that introduces new windows and/or balconies." "Whenever possible,
develop a project that avoids direct views into neighboring windows that may require
additional privacy. These include bedroom and bathroom windows, as well as the large
rear windows at living spaces that are typical of Eichler homes." I think this should be
codified.
General comment.
190
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 83
pg. 83 - "In neighborhoods that are not in flood zones, design new residences so that the
floor level heights conform to those of surrounding Eichler residences." I think this
should be codified.
General comment - favors the codification of Guideline 5.2.2 (changed to 4.2.2) which addresses privacy
concerns and scale/massing concerns related to infill construction in Eichler neighborhoods.
191
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 84
pg. 84 - Additions like the ones recommended on this page should be noted as
unacceptable for the historic districts. These don't look at all like Eichlers. Maybe they
were once, but not any more.
The photographs on page 84 illustrate NEW construction in Eichler neighborhoods - either where an
Eichler was torn down or a lot was previously empty. New construction within Eichler neighborhoods
should not exactly imitate Eichler design, as this is considered "false historicism." However, the Design
Guidelines recommend that a contemporary style based on the scale, massing, openings, and roof
shapes of Eichlers is the most appropriate strategy for Eichler neighborhoods (as opposed to historicist
or "revival" styles which are not compatible with Eichler neighborhoods). This is elaborated in Guideline
5.2.2 and 5.2.3 in the Public Review Draft (changed to 4.2.2 and 4.2.3).
192
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 93
p. 93 - 6.1.3 - This reads like it supports privacy invasion and seems to make it the
responsibility of the impacted neighbor to mitigate such impact. Many Eichler backyards
do not have room to support such landscaping changes. Father, planting tall trees for
privacy may add shade to areas of the yard where a neighbor formerly had sun. Our
homes are very close together on smaller lots in Greenmeadow. Because we have single
story homes, the structure takes up much of the existing lot. Our gardens and backyards
are very small spaces. I think the writers need to expire the interior and backyard spaces
more. Again, I would be glad to organize a tour.
Page & Turnbull recognizes that trees cannot solve all privacy concerns and does not believe that it is
the responsibility of the "impacted" party to address all such concerns. However, Page & Turnbull
included Guideline 6.1.3 of the Public Review Draft as a suggestion for one possible mitigation for
existingprivacy concerns. To further clarify, Page & Turnbull edited guideline 6.1.3 to read "While
privacy concerns should be carefully addressed during the planning process, where privacy concerns
have been previously introduced by new construction on adjacent lots, consider introducing trees or
other plantings to block sight lines from neighboring residences."
More proactive guidelines regarding privacy, which seek to make addressing privacy concerns part of
the design process, are articulated in Guidelines 5.1.3, 5.1.7,5.1.8, 5.2.1, 5.2.7, and 6.1.3 of the Public
193
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
pg. 106, 7.2.1
pg. 106 -7.2.1 - I suggest a change to this language. It is too vague. The direction should
be much more clear. How about, "Plan ADUs carefully, with the understanding that the
selected design and site placement may have an effect on the original residence, as well
as surrounding residences. Design so that privacy of windows and indoor/outdoor spaces
of neighboring residences is protected." I think this should be codified.
Page & Turnbull edited guideline 7.2.1 (changed to 4.3.1) to read "Plan ADUs carefully, with the
understanding that the selected design and site placement may have an effect on the original
residence, as well as surrounding residences. Design so that privacy of windows and indoor-outdoor
spaces of adjacent residences is protected." as suggested by the commenter.
194
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 107
pg. 107 - The entire dire document talks about maintaining roof heights and then we
read this… "the maximum allowed height for attached ADUs is 17 feet. Designing an
attached ADU that has a lower height than the maximum is strongly encouraged." 17
feet is absurdly high for a structure next to most Eichler homes. It will look like a tower.
Don't just encourage, requirethat height limit is consistent with the existing home on
the lot in an historic Eichler neighborhood. Remember that the ADU will be built close to
the property line because our lots are small and our homes already are very close
together. Height will matter a lot. A neighbor could create a structure that would loom
over a backyard. Height limit should be codified.
The California State law on ADUs specifies 17 feet as the maximum allowable height. In this case, state
law supersedes local (Palo Alto) law. This is stated in the introductory paragraph to section 7.2
Accessory Dwelling Units (changed to section 4.3) and in the discussion of ADUs in Chapter 1.
The Design Guidelines, however, do strongly encourage the design of ADUs with a lower height in
Eichler neighborhoods. Guideline 7.2.2 (changed to 4.3.2) reads "Design detached ADUs with as low a
height and roof slope as possible, in order to reduce the building’s visibility from surrounding
residences." Furthermore, the language of the second bullet point was clarified to indicate the role of
state law and reads "The maximum allowed height, per California State law, for attached ADUs is 17
feet. Designing a detached ADU that has a lower height than the maximum is strongly encouraged."
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
195
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 108
"With privacy concerns in mind, do not place eye-level windows on a detached ADU so
that they face toward the primary outdoor space of the remain residence. Clerestories
placed above eye level are far more appropriate." - I think this should be codified.
General comment.
196
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 108
"Whenever possible, do not place windows where they can be seen from neighboring
residences (for instance, over the top of a boundary fence." - I think this should be
codified.
General comment.
197
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 114
"…rezoning process (i.e. the issue of 'erosion of support in which the code die not
address percentage of support reduction during rezoning process)…" - please explain
what this means.
The "Potential Modifications to Zoning Code Related to Eichler Neighborhoods" section was written to
provide some background on the events that lead City Council to direct the City of Palo Alto Planning
Department to hire Page & Turnbull to create these Design Guidelines. The section did not intend to
imply that SSO protection would be removed from neighborhoods involuntarily or that existing SSO
neighborhoods have experience "erosion of support"; the phrase "erosion of support" specifically refers
to the recent applications for SSO zoning during which the percentage of homeowners in support of SSO
zoning declined DURING THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR SSO ZONING.
198
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 114
pg. 114 - This paragraph reads as though staff is dismissive of the important work that
was done by residents to get SSO and historic district designation. Greenmeadow
residents spent hundreds of hours working to get this designation. I have heard no
"erosion of support" for SSOs in my neighborhood. Please share existing documentation
of this "erosion of support" in Greenmeadow that is the basis for this statement. I
strongly support the existing Greenmeadow Single Story Overlay (SSO) zoning protection
that our neighborhood association worked so hard to get and that a large super majority
of our residents voted to approve. Further, all homes purchased after the SSO was
approved were purchased with the understanding that they would have SSO protection.
This protection has helped to preserve our homes' privacy and the architectural integrity
of our historic Eichler neighborhood. How frequently will the city make residents jump
through these hoops? I reads as though staff is advocating to eliminate SSOs.
The "Potential Modifications to Zoning Code Related to Eichler Neighborhoods" section was written to
provide some background on the events that lead City Council to direct the City of Palo Alto Planning
Department to hire Page & Turnbull to create these Design Guidelines. The section did not intend to
imply that SSO protection would be removed from neighborhoods involuntarily or that existing SSO
neighborhoods have experience "erosion of support"; the phrase "erosion of support" specifically refers
to the recent applications for SSO zoning during which the percentage of homeowners in support of SSO
zoning declined DURING THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR SSO ZONING. The Design Guidelines do not in
any way change the process for instating or removing SSO zoning. The Design Guidelines do not
endorse the removal of SSO zoning.
The sentence "Also in 2016, the City Council noted issues with the Single Story Overlay rezoning process
(i.e. the issue of 'erosion of support' in which the code did not address percentage of support reduction
during the rezoning process) and noted that staff would eventually need to adjust the zoning code to
address these process issues" on page 114 has been removed, to avoid unnecessary confusion.
199
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft We need Tier 1 IR Integration & Privacy Guidelines to apply to SSO neighborhoods.General comment - refers to potential modifications to the Zoning Code related to Eichler
neighborhoods.
200
Penny Ellson, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
page 114
"The Planning Department is considering the development of an Eichler Overlay (EO)
zone concept…." -- Advocacy is not staff's role.
General comment. Any decision about whether or not to establish an Eichler Overlay (EO) zoning
program, and what that process would entail, will be based on all information gathered over the
previous year from public workshops, HRB meetings, staff and consultant research and other forms of
public commentary, like emails sent to Eichler@cityofpaloalto.org.
201
[no name], Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft ADU section - Wish to see language about locating ADUs in front yards before document
goes to City Council.
General comment. Page & Turnbull added guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the
front facade. These include an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front
additions that have staggered massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front
additions may take the form of a garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of
the square footage and will include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are
addressed in Guidelines 7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
202
Tim Perkins, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 1
Ch 1 - Consider add # homes in each tract along with name and year built.Page & Turnbull revised the "Table of Eichler Neighborhoods in Palo Alto" in Chapter 2 to include a
column that lists the number of lots (parcels) in each tract. Since Eichler neighborhoods usually have
one house on each parcel, this is an approximation of the number of homes in each tract.
203
Tim Perkins, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 3 & 6
Consider modify set back from street to allow horizonal expansion of single story.Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
204
Tim Perkins, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 3 & 6
Consider having ADU's conform to guidelines.As noted in section 7.2 Accessory Dwelling Units (changed to Section 4.3 Accessory Dwelling Units),
"California state law requires that municipalities make allowances for ADUs in residential
neighborhoods. ADUs—which provide new living space that is entirely independent of the main
residence—can accommodate additional residences on properties where only one residence was
originally constructed." The Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory, rather than
regulatory, and furthermore do not make any allowances beyond what is legally required by the State
of California. Rather, the Design Guidelines aim to provide guidance for working within this state
legislation to ensure the best possible outcomes when it comes to ADUs; this guidance includes
considerations of privacy and views.
205
Tim Perkins, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 3 & 6
ADU's in front yard need guidelines, otherwise it may significantly harm a neighborhood
aesthetic.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks.
Side and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review
Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
206
Tim Perkins, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
Chapter 3 & 6
Consider addressing roof apparatus such as A/C Page & Turnbull recognizes that HVAC systems on roofs can contribute to visual clutter. Guideline 4.5.2
(changed to 5.5.2) addresses this issue by stating "Select and install new heating and cooling equipment
while considering its impact on the architectural character of a residence, as well as its performance."
Three bullet points further specify strategies for avoiding this issue including not placing window-
mounted AC units on the front facade, using ductless HVAC systems (such as mini split), using low-
profile ducts and/or placing them underneath new roofing materials.
207
Tim Perkins, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft What impact have existing guidelines in other tracts (historic districts) had? Do they
work?
General comment.
208
Diane (?) Reklis, Community Meeting
#3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
pg. 106
ADU - speaker posed issue as choice between having traditional front yards versus
privacy and compatibility with Eichler look. It's not about either/or - we can use part of
front yards with full compliance with original Eichler design ideas.
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
209
Diane (?) Reklis, Community Meeting
#3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Flood zone - not clear if separate ADU has to be raised above flood zone. Each of these
would peer over fences into glass walls in several lots. Please clarify in document.
As noted in section 7.2 Accessory Dwelling Units (changed to Section 4.3 Accessory Dwelling Units),
"California state law requires that municipalities make allowances for ADUs in residential
neighborhoods. ADUs—which provide new living space that is entirely independent of the main
residence—can accommodate additional residences on properties where only one residence was
originally constructed. The 17 foot maximum height limit for ADUs was set by a California State law.
These Design Guidelines attempt to mitigate any privacy concerns while working within the legal
allowances prescribed by the State of California. Guideline 7.2.2. in particular advocates for designing
an ADU with a height lower than the maximum allowed. The second bullet point under Guideline 7.2.2
has been further clarified to read "The maximum allowed height, per California State law, for attached
ADUs is 17 feet. Designing a detached ADU that has a lower height than the maximum is strongly
encouraged."
210
Diane (?) Reklis, Community Meeting
#3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
pg. 106
Flesh out what a separate ADU would look like - windows aimed at master BR windows?
Windows aimed at neighbors? What would access look like? Real examples from
successful projects.
Page & Turnbull added guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These
include an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have
staggered massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the
form of a garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and
will include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1). The California state mandate to allow ADUs is relatively recent, and not that many
homeowners in Eichler neighborhoods have decided to take advantage of the new ADU allowances;
those who have, are more likely to have converted existing space rather than built a detached ADU. As
such, we have not found built examples of detached ADUs in Eichler neighborhoods that provide a good
"real life" example to depict in photographs. Page & Turnbull has included five diagrams of detached
ADUs which suggest various strategies for window and door placement to address privacy concerns.
211
Katie Renati, Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft, 6 Add another section in No. 3 for access to sunlight (after privacy)Added to Guideline 4.3.3 (changed to 5.3.3) "After solar panels are installed, their access to sunlight is
protected by the California Solar Rights Act, found in the California Public Resource Code, Division 15,
Chapter 12, 25980-25986."
212
Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft, 6 The document mentions privacy but not access to light. It needs to be added.Added to Guideline 4.3.3 (changed to 5.3.3) "After solar panels are installed, their access to sunlight is
protected by the California Solar Rights Act, found in the California Public Resource Code, Division 15,
Chapter 12, 25980-25986."
213
Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
96
Add something about fences between houses. I think the current height limitation is far
too low. Separate "nice to have" section like paint, door knobs, and landscape, and
important aspects that community is concerned about - privacy, height (flood zone
especially), mass, access to light. Put maintenance, repair etc. to the back part of the
document.
Page & Turnbull has moved the chapter "Guidelines for Architectural Compatibility & Neighborhood
Cohesion: New Additions to Eichler Homes & New Construction" up to be Chapter 4, to emphasize this
chapter as a priority. The City of Palo Alto will be engaging City Council and the public in a discussion
about future regulatory implementation that will continue after the publication of these Design
Guidelines; as such, the Guidelines are all currently voluntary, but the City of Palo Alto - based on
guidance from City Council and the public - may choose to create regulations to enforce certain aspects
of the Guidelines in the future. The added FAQ section in Chapter 1 also addresses this.
Fence code is regulated through Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.48.050. As voluntary
Design Guidelines, this document cannot alter the current code. However, this might be a code
modification that is discussed by City Council in the future in response to these Design Guidelines and
the on-going discussion about Eichler neighborhoods and zoning.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
214
Community Meeting #3 1/18/2018 Public Review Draft,
96
ADU section - should not be higher than neighbor's houses that have a direct view into
the ADU.
As noted in section 7.2 Accessory Dwelling Units (changed to Section 4.3 Accessory Dwelling Units),
"California state law requires that municipalities make allowances for ADUs in residential
neighborhoods. ADUs—which provide new living space that is entirely independent of the main
residence—can accommodate additional residences on properties where only one residence was
originally constructed. The 17 foot maximum height limit for ADUs was set by a California State law.
These Design Guidelines attempt to mitigate any privacy concerns while working within the legal
allowances prescribed by the State of California. Guideline 7.2.2. in particular advocates for designing
an ADU with a height lower than the maximum allowed. The second bullet point under Guideline 7.2.2
has been further clarified to read "The maximum allowed height, per California State law, for attached
ADUs is 17 feet. Designing a detached ADU that has a lower height than the maximum is strongly
encouraged."
215
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Introduction – Potential code changes in Chapter 8 – consider moving this to the Intro Page & Turnbull chose to put this section in the final chapter to indicate that is part of an on-going
conversation and is part of the "next steps" phase. A "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" section was
added to Chapter 1 to clarify the common concerns and confusion about the role of the Design
Guidelines related to city code.
216
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Page 13 – want clarification about mandatory nature of Guidelines "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" section added to Chapter 1. Reads: " Are the Design Guidelines
mandatory, and how will these Design Guidelines be used? No, the Design Guidelines are currently
voluntary. Since the Design Guidelines are voluntary, there is no "retroactive" application of the
Guidelines. The Guidelines will be used concurrently with the Individual Review Guidelines and will be
utilized by Planning Staff when reviewing projects. The Design Guidelines are also meant to be used by
homeowners when working on their home and offer advice on best practices for preserving and
rehabilitating Eichler homes. The Design Guidelines may also be used by Architectural Control
Committees (ACCs) during their review process."
217
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft CC&Rs – Do the guidelines replace CC&Rs or are they meant to develop further on the
content of CC&Rs? Important to note that all neighborhoods have CC&Rs, but not all
neighborhoods have ACCs. Not all neighborhoods are aware of their CC&R (or don’t pay
much attention to it).
"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" section added to Chapter 1. Reads: " Are the Design Guidelines
mandatory, and how will these Design Guidelines be used? No, the Design Guidelines are currently
voluntary. Since the Design Guidelines are voluntary, there is no "retroactive" application of the
Guidelines. The Guidelines will be used concurrently with the Individual Review Guidelines and will be
utilized by Planning Staff when reviewing projects. The Design Guidelines are also meant to be used by
homeowners when working on their home and offer advice on best practices for preserving and
rehabilitating Eichler homes. The Design Guidelines may also be used by Architectural Control
Committees (ACCs) during their review process."
CC&Rs are also discussed at length in Chapter 1.
218
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Why don’t these guidelines apply to Macky neighborhoods?"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" section added to Chapter 1. Reads: " Are the Design Guidelines
mandatory, and how will these Design Guidelines be used? No, the Design Guidelines are currently
voluntary. Since the Design Guidelines are voluntary, there is no "retroactive" application of the
Guidelines. The Guidelines will be used concurrently with the Individual Review Guidelines and will be
utilized by Planning Staff when reviewing projects. The Design Guidelines are also meant to be used by
homeowners when working on their home and offer advice on best practices for preserving and
rehabilitating Eichler homes. The Design Guidelines may also be used by Architectural Control
Committees (ACCs) during their review process."
219
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Map – do the maps distinguish Eichler homes from non-Eichler homes within each tract?No the maps do not distinguish between Eichler and non-Eichler homes within each tract. This level of
detail would not be legible in the maps and was beyond the scope of work for this document. The
Design Guidelines are voluntary, not mandatory (regulatory), but homeowners who have a non-Eichler
home in an Eichler neighborhood or a midcentury modern home in a non-Eichler neighborhood may
find this guidance informative. Non-Eichler homes should, generally, conform to guidelines about scale,
mass, setbacks, and privacy to promote neighborhood cohesion, but Chapter 4 (changed to Chapter 5)
on maintained may be less relevant. Page & Turnbull also added a "Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQs)" section to Chapter 1 to clarify this and other concerns in the document.
220
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Do Guidelines apply to Eichler neighborhoods or only individual Eichler homes?"Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" section added to Chapter 1. Reads: " Are the Design Guidelines
mandatory, and how will these Design Guidelines be used? No, the Design Guidelines are currently
voluntary. Since the Design Guidelines are voluntary, there is no "retroactive" application of the
Guidelines. The Guidelines will be used concurrently with the Individual Review Guidelines and will be
utilized by Planning Staff when reviewing projects. The Design Guidelines are also meant to be used by
homeowners when working on their home and offer advice on best practices for preserving and
rehabilitating Eichler homes. The Design Guidelines may also be used by Architectural Control
Committees (ACCs) during their review process."
221
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Chapter 3 – only interviewed a small number of residents. Not enough outreach or
communication
The City of Palo Alto created and maintained a webpage on the City's website dedicated to this project,
which included an up-to-date schedule of community meetings, public hearings, and deadlines;
updates; and contact information including the option to sign up for an email list. By the end of this
project, there will have been three community meetings, an online survey, a community Eichler
Memory Event, four Historic Resources Board public hearings, one City Council public hearing, and a 2-
month public comment period. The details of this public process and outreach are detailed in the
Design Guidelines "Methodology" section of Chapter 1.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
222
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Privacy & ADUs in rear yard is problematic. Can ADUs be in front or in a garage?Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
223
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Is there a planning process for ADUs in National Register districts and SSOs?When a project applicant submits a permit for an ADU for a property that is a historic resource, or is
within an historic district, the permit will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner for review
for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
224
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Will there be another public review of the Design Guidelines (after edits and response-to-
comments are incorporated)?
The revised draft, which will be known as the "Final Draft," will be reviewed internally by City Staff and
again by the HRB to assess the changes made based on comments during the Public Review Process.
225
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Guidelines will help to hold on to the unique “flavor” of Eichler neighborhoods.General comment.
226
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Don’t forget the context of the Royal Manor discussion – debate about SSO zoning.
Neighborhood was split and zoning ultimately did not go through
The context of the Royal Manor debate about SSO zoning informed the development of the Design
Guidelines through a directive from City Council, this is discussed in Chapter 1 and the directive itself is
cited in a footnote in Chapter 8.
227
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Triple El homes some have more glazing on the side facades and some have more
glazing in the front – consider this in privacy discussion
The Design Guidelines are written to be broadly applicable to the many different floor plans and siting
arrangements in Eichler neighborhoods. Chapter 2 discusses the "Typical Characteristics of Eichler
Residences" and notes this variety. Privacy is emphasized throughout the Guidelines, but to further
highlight this concern, Page & Turnbull moved Guideline 5.1.8 "Identify potential privacy concerns early
in the process while developing any project that introduces new windows and/or balconies. (Note:
Second story additions must also comply with privacy chapter in the IR Guidelines. Second story
guidance not applicable to SSOs.)" to the front of the chapter and is now Guideline 4.1.1. Additionally,
Guideline 5.1.7 (changed to 4.1.8) to state that "Even windows on single story additions may have an
impact on neighbors' privacy."
228
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Solar Panels – any protections for solar panels with regards to shade (created by new
trees or a new addition, etc.)? Is there any code to point to in a sidebar?
A sidebar with additional resources about installing Solar Panels in Palo Alto was added, with a
reference to the City's website and the California Office of Historic Preservation guidance on solar
panels. Also added to Guideline 4.3.3 (changed to 5.3.3) is a bullet reading "After solar panels are
installed, their access to sunlight is protected by the California Solar Rights Act, found in the California
Public Resource Code, Division 15, Chapter 12, 25980-25986. "
229
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Process improvements given by Council are absent from Chapter 8 The directive given by City Council was broad and requested Planning staff to "“return to Council with a
preliminary evaluation of an Eichler overlay zone or strengthening the Individual Review (IR) Guidelines
to incorporate Eichler design and privacy compatibility where appropriate, and depending on the
context of the lot, make allowance for second stories, adjustments to setbacks and possibly other
accommodations." This quote is included in the Design Guidelines in the "Potential Modifications to
Zoning Code Related to Eichler Neighborhoods" section of Chapter 8 (page 114 of the Public Review
Draft); Page & Turnbull added a footnote to direct readers to the transcript of this meeting.
230
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Process Improvement Suggestions – want more clarification on Eichler Overlay (EO)The Eichler Overlay (EO) is an idea/suggestion that has been floated by the City Planning Department,
but has not been completely fleshed out. Any decision to move forward with discussions of an Eichler
Overlay (EO) and its specific regulations will be based on all information cultivated over the previous
year from public workshops, HRB meetings, staff and consultant research and other forms of public
commentary, like emails sent to Eichler@cityofpaloalto.org.
231
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Basements – soil structure affect neighbors and construction of basements may result in
problems for neighbors.
The Design Guidelines note that adding a basement is not an ideal solution; Guideline 5.1.2 (changed to
4.1.3) reads "Adding a basement requires a complex approach due to the existing concrete slab
foundation." Soil structure is a legitimate concern that would be evaluated by the Building Department
during the permitting process to ensure projects do not have dangerous impacts - if a project can not be
conducted in a way that is safe for neighboring homes, it will not be permitted.
232
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Page 114 – Potential code changes – say where this background discussion and
information can be found
Quote in the "Potential Modifications to Zoning Code Related to Eichler Neighborhoods" section of
Chapter 8 is from a City Council meeting on May 2, 2016. A footnote has been added citing the meeting
transcript: "City of Palo Alto City Council Transcript, Special Meeting (May 2, 2016), 68,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53289."
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Response to Comments on Public Review Draft WORKING DRAFT 1/24/18
Comment
No. Meeting/Source Date Document Comment
(note: page numbers in comments refer to Public Review Draft)Page & Turnbull Response
233
Verbal comment during Community
Meeting #3
1/18/2018 Public Review Draft Residents value their front yards, but would prefer to allow front additions (if sensitively
done) to mitigate privacy concerns and concern for the loss of rear yard space and the
iconic indoor-outdoor connection
Page & Turnbull has deleted the sentence "Do not place new first-story additions at the front of the
house, as the addition would have the potential to disrupt the overall pattern of consistent setbacks. Sie
and rear additions are strongly encouraged, if lot size permits" on page 76 of the Public Review Draft.
Also added are guidelines allowing for sensitive first-story additions on the front facade. These include
an expansion of guideline 5.1.1 (changed to 4.1.2) to allow for front additions that have staggered
massing consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. Front additions may take the form of a
garage conversion to an ADU (which could include some expansion of the square footage and will
include introduction of windows and doors) - these garage conversions are addressed in Guidelines
7.2.1 (Changed to 4.3.1) and 7.2.3 (changed to 4.3.3).
Page & Turnbull has revised the series of three diagrams associated with Section 5.1.1 (changed to
4.1.2) to more clearly depict possible front AND rear additions to existing Eichlers. These diagrams
reflect the updated guidance which allows for compatible one-story, front additions. Additional
photographs of good examples of one-story front and rear additions were also added to Section 5.1
(changed to 4.1).
234
Historic Resources Board (HRB)1/25/2018 Public Review Draft
(1) Language should be included that indicates ACCs and CCRs are first line of defense
and should adopt the Guidelines and
(2) The City should encourage NR districts and other potential districts to seek local
historic listing.
Chapter 8 - Process Improvement Suggestions includes recommendations such as the designation of
additional National Register Historic Districts and project review for National Register Historic Districts,
as well as design review training and raising awareness of neighborhood ACCs. Page & Turnbull believes
that these would be useful next steps following the approval of the Design Guidelines.
An additional sentence was added to the "Purpose of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design
Guidelines" section of Chapter 1 to encourage ACCs to use the Design Guidelines in their review
process.
235
Amy French, via email 2/5/2018 Public Review Draft
"Emily and I had thought the Implementation section was going away and some of the
content moving into first chapter. The implementation is a separate process that will
involve, if directed by Council, amendment to the zoning ordinance Chapter 18.12."
Page & Turnbull removed the sentence "Also in 2016, the City Council noted issues with the Single
Story Overlay rezoning process (i.e. the issue of 'erosion of support' in which the code did not address
percentage of support reduction during the rezoning process) and noted that staff would eventually
need to adjust the zoning code to address these process issues" on page 114 of the Public Review Draft,
to avoid unnecessary confusion. To also address, up front, the questions about implementation and the
voluntary/regulatory nature of the guidelines, a "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)" section was
added to Chapter 1.
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines Prepared by Page and Turnbull
Annotated Final Draft Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines
Provided to the HRB members with packet for February 22, 2018 public hearing and
made available at the City’s libraries on February 16, 2018
Available on the City’s webpage at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/special_projects/eichler_neighborhood_
design_guidelines_.asp
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8996)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 2/22/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Draft HRB Minutes of January 25, 2018
Title: Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2018
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
January 25, 2018
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Minutes HRB January 25 2018 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Brandon
Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen
Absent:
Chair Bernstein: Well, we’ll wait, Brandon will be here in about 5-10-minutes so we have minutes to
approve but he spoke at the minutes so we should wait for him. We could do
Vice Chair Bower: We could do Board Member questions or comments (inaudible). Could we change…
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: (inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, I know that, right.
Ms. French: (inaudible – off mic)
Chair Bernstein: Welcome everybody to the January 25th meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Would
staff please call roll?
[The Board heard agenda changes, additions, and deletions first]
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: I’d like to open up next on our agenda would be oral communications and any member
of the public may speak to us on any item, not on the agenda. I have one card from Jessica Brettle and
welcome Jessica.
Ms. Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk: Thank you, Chair Bernstein and Board Members. My name is
Jessica Brettle, I’m the Assistant City Clerk here in Palo Alto in the Clerk’s Office. I’m just here briefly to
speak to all of you about a recruitment that we’re opening up for our Board Members. We know you all
are very connected in the community. So, if you know of anybody who is interested in applying and
serving, we encourage you to talk to them and get them to apply so that we can get some really great,
qualified people on our Boards and Commissions. Right now, we are recruiting for four different Boards
and commissions, we’re actually recruiting for one open position on this very Board; HRB and that term
would end in 2019. We’re also recruiting for three positions on the HRC, which is the Human Relations
Commission, three terms on the Public Art Commission, and two on the Utility Advisory Commission. So,
if you know of anybody who is interested, please encourage them to give us a call at the Clerk’s Office or
go to the City’s website at cityofpaloalo.org/clerk. The deadline to apply is March 20th at 4:30 p.m.
Chair Bernstein: Jessica, the – I know for the HRB, previous elections there where several people applied
for a position. Do you know if the Clerk’s Office can reach out to those applicants to remind them?
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: January 25, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ms. Brettle: Yes, if we’ve received applications in the past, we do reach out to those folks and we keep
them on file. So, we will reach out to them and ask them to apply once more for that vacancy.
Chair Bernstein: Excellent.
Ms. Brettle: If you have any questions, give us a call.
Vice Chair Bower: I have a quick question.
Ms. Brettle: Yes, sir?
Vice Chair Bower: Is there any prohibition from a Board Member serving on more than one Board or
Commission here?
Ms. Brettle: You know that’s an interesting question, I would have to look into that. Are you interested in
serving on another Board sir?
Vice Chair Bower: (inaudible)
Ms. Brettle: I will have to look into that. That’s a good question, I will have to find out for you.
Vice Chair Bower: I just wanted to put it out there so that maybe the City Clerk’s Office or City Attorney
could share with the community whether that’s an issue.
Ms. Brettle: I don’t think that it has happened in the past but I don’t know if we have a certain provision
that excludes that from happening. I’d have to look into it.
Board Member Kohler: I think there was someone a long time ago that was on two Boards or he was –
anyway, never mind. I think…
Ms. Brettle: No, it’s a good question. I’ll have to look into it.
Vice Chair Bower: Actually, you asked me if I was but I’m on the Storm Water Management Committee,
as well as this Board, and there was a discussion before I got on that other Committee.
Ms. Brettle: Whether or not that was allowable.
Vice Chair Bower: Right but that’s a Committee and not a Board.
Ms. Brettle: Right.
Vice Chair Bower: I’m not sure -- or a Commission and I’m not sure there is a distinction but I just
thought it would be worth clarifying.
Ms. Brettle: Sure, definitely, thank you for that suggestion. Thank you for your time.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you.
Ms. Brettle: I have some flyers, I’ll put them in the back. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you, Jessica.
[The Board moved to the election of Chair and Vice-Chair]
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Chair Bernstein: Alright, first I’d like to actually start with agenda changes, additions and deletions and
I’d like to suggest that we then move to Board Member comments and questions at that point.
[The Board moved to Board Member comments and questions]
Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Chair Bernstein: Alright, we are still without Board Member Corey and our next item would be the item on
526 Waverly Street.
Ms. French: I’m sorry, the…
Chair Bernstein: Yes, please, go ahead.
Ms. French: So, the selection of Chair and Vice-chair is the next item so if you could put that to the end
of the meeting then.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, that’s a good way to do it.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, moving ahead and welcome Council Member Holman to our meeting and I see
our planner Holly is here also – Keene, thank you, welcome.
[The Board moved to City official reports]
Chair Bernstein: Alright, I think all the Board Members are present now so we can actually move to
selection of Chair and Vice Chair. I would like to start by nominating Vice Chair Bower to be Chair of the
HRB. I believe in this process for HRB, a second is not required for nominations? I don’t know if they are
or not. May I have a second to the nomination?
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second that.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. I’d like to actually speak to my motion or nomination, that I’ve seen that Mr.
Bower and – currently Vice Chair Bower has been on the Board for numerous times and I believe that
you would be well – the Board would be well served for you as Chair. You’re very well spoken and very
thoughtful and you help illustrate all the different sides and fairness of issues so that’s why – that’s my
basis of my nomination. Any other comments? Would you like to speak to your second?
Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I think David we – would be an ideal leader. I think he does a lot of
homework before each meeting. I think he’s been in the community from a long time and he even
resides in a historic house so I think that he would be an ideal Chair for our Committee.
Chair Bernstein: Any other comments? All those in favor – go ahead, Mr. or Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: I totally confer – agree with that comment. Excellent choice.
Chair Bernstein: OK, all those in favor signal by saying aye. Mr. Chair, congratulations. Yeah and then
Vice Chair.
VICE CHAIR BOWER WAS VOTED 5-0 TO BE CHAIR
Chair Bower: I am honored that my fellow Board Members feel that I can take this job in hand and I
follow Martin’s excellent stewardship of the Board. I certainly appreciate this opportunity, I was Chair in
2011 and I had just come on the Board a couple before. I think I have more to offer now that I’ve been
City of Palo Alto Page 4
here for a while but I’m still relatively young in terms of 10-year on the Board. I think the next order of
business would be to appoint a Vice Chair. Are there nominations? Martin or Michael?
Board Member Makinen: I’d like to nominate Margaret Wimmer.
Board Member Kohler: Oh, I was going to do that too.
Board Member Makinen: Well, I beat you to it.
Board Member Wimmer: Thank you, I have been Vice Chair for at least one term, a term in a half but I
was actually going to nominate Brandon Corey to see if he would like to step up to be the Vice Chair this
term.
Chair Bower: I would second that nomination of Brandon. I’d second it for Margaret but Margaret has –
appears not to be interested.
Board Member Wimmer: Well I’ve done it so I also like to – I act in fairness so I feel like maybe someone
else would like to have a turn.
Board Member Kohler: I think that’s a very appropriate proposal.
Chair Bower: Roger, you want to have a comment?
Board Member Kohler: No, I think it would be a good choice.
Chair Bower: Yeah, I’d like to speak briefly to Brandon’s nomination. He, Margaret and I have been
working on the Mills Act program and I’ve been very impressed with his insight and energy as we have
addressed that issue. So, I think he would be a very good person to be in the Vice Chair seat so I would
strongly encourage my fellow Board Members to support that. Any other comments?
Board Member Wimmer: Should we ask Brandon if he wants to be Vice Chair before we put him in that
position?
Chair Bower: No, no…
Board Member Wimmer: Maybe we should hear from Brandon.
Chair Bower: …we don’t go there.
Board Member Wimmer: Oh ok, you can’t say anything. He should be able to say – shouldn’t he be able
to say (inaudible)
Chair Bower: I did hear a no so.
Board Member Corey: No, I’m certainly honored to do that if you guys think -- I think I’d be a good
choice, I’m happy to take on that challenge.
Chair Bower: Good, I do. Michael, do you have anything else to add? Your lights on that’s why…
Board Member Makinen: No, I agree with that nomination.
Chair Bower: Alright, any further comments? All in favor of Brandon as Vice Chair say aye? Good, it’s
unanimous.
BOARD MEMBER COREY WAS VOTED TO VICE CHAIR WITH A VOTE OF 5-0
City of Palo Alto Page 5
[The board moved to action item number two]
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Ms. French: Should we talk about the next – City official reports as the next item?
Board Member: Yes, please, go ahead.
Ms. French: We have our next meeting is the retreat on February 8th. We are going to meet here and
then we will go to the Girl Scout House as a field trip so right after the retreat. As noted, this was before
Council Member Holman arrived, we will be discussing the new Comprehensive Plan policies with respect
to historic preservation and other matters. If you want to get a sneak preview of that, you can look
online at February 11th because we had a staff report for that. You can kind of see what we’re going to
do on February 8th…
Board Member: Excellent.
Ms. French: …and then the meeting after that, so far, we do not have items for the meeting on the 22nd
but stay tuned, we may.
Board Member: Great.
Ms. French: Reflect that Brandon Corey, Board Member, arrived.
Board Member: Welcome Board Member Corey, great.
Vice Chair Bower: I have – there were three meeting dates that I know I will not be available at this
point. Should I just say this for the record? They are March 8th, April 26th, and August – I’m sorry,
September 13th. September 13th is questionable, I might still be in town so I just wanted to put that on
the record.
[The Board moved back up to selection of Chair and Vice-Chair]
Action Items
2.. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 526 Waverley Street [17PLN-00454]:
Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of Façade Restoration and Associated
Historic Designation Reclassification From a Local Historic Resource Category III to a Category II
Historic Resource. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 (Historical Resource Rehabilitation). For
More Information Contact the Historic Planner Emily Vance at emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Bower: Let’s move onto our action items. Oh wait, did we do the study section? Yes. Public
speaking? I think we’re on the public hearing for 526 Waverley Street. I’ll just read the title as we have
been – as it has been presented to us. This is a recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of
façade restoration and associated historic designation reclassification from a Local Historic Resource
Category III to a Category II Historic Resource. The zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental
Assessment, it’s exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 (Historical
Resource Rehabilitation). To begin (inaudible), is there a presentation from the applicant? Oh, I’m sorry,
staff presentation first.
Ms. Vance: I’ll just give a brief…
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Chair Bower: I apologize.
Ms. Vance: No worries. I will give a brief presentation on the project so on October – August 24th, 2017,
the Historic Resources Board conducted a study session regarding the façade restoration and historic
designation elevation of 536 Waverley. A two-story Spanish colonial revival commercial building designed
by Birge Clark. On December 15th, 2017, an application was submitted for a commercial remold and
façade restoration of 526 Waverly Street. Exterior work includes the removal of modern brick finish and
the restoration of various original architectural features including but not limited to, ironwork, entry
arches, wood lintel and tile work. The building is currently a Category III historic resource on the local
inventory and is located within downtown Palo Alto. Staff supports the restoration of the façade as
indicated in the submitted plans. This includes the removal of applied siding and non-original trim,
removal of the brick finish, restoration of window grill to the northernmost window on the second-story,
restoration of iron balconies, restoration of plaster trim, brackets and wooden lintel and restoration of the
arched entryway at the southern entrance. Here we see the original 1927 Birge Clark elevation and
additionally, two sets of French doors were located on the second-floor with iron balconies visible in these
plans. Both sets of doors have since been removed and multi-paned windows inserted in their place. The
restoration of the two sets of doors would not be necessary in order to achieve Category II statues.
Continuing, staff supports the restoration of 526 Waverley façade to its original 1927 appearance with
HRB’s guidance and input regarding tile choice and other architectural details which we will be discussing
momentarily. Staff also finds that the proposed changes would meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for restoration. The restoration would also allow for the building historic status to be raised to a Category
II based on definitions found in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.49.020. Staff would support a change to
the historic category designation after the completion and inspection of approved work to be done at a
staff level. Alright, here it’s working, here’s floor plans and the definitions of Category III and II. That
concludes staff’s report, I think we’re going to turn it over to the applicants for their presentation.
Mr. John Shenk: Oh, it is on. I was looking for a light, sorry about that. Good morning.
Board Member Kohler: I have to interrupt for a quick second. I have to disclose that you’re working with
John Shenk, is that correct?
Mr. Shenk: I am John Shank.
Board Member: (inaudible) relationship.
Mr. Shenk: There’s another John Shenk running around here.
Board Member Kohler: There is, ok. Why did you confuse me then?
Mr. Shenk: If you’d like to get coffee or something.
Board Member Kohler: Somehow, we got the impression – anyway, let’s just forget about that.
Chair Bower: Roger has a prior relationship with a different John Shenk…
Mr. Shenk: Understood.
Chair Bower: …and just wanted to be clear that you make it clear to the public that you’re not that same
person.
Mr. Shenk: It’s happened more than once so that’s – I was – I knew exactly the confusion that had
happened.
Chair Bower: Welcome and please continue.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Shenk: Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair Bower and Vice Chair Corey, well done and other
members of the Board, City professional staff and of course Council Member Holman. My name is John
Shenk, not to be confused with the other John Shenk and I’m CEO of the Thoits Brothers. Over the past
few months we worked successfully I believe, with staff and with you prior feedback, we are excited to
be here today to ask for your approval of our proposed restoration of what was once an iconic building
and piece of the fabric of the downtown. Our architect Randy Popp will walk you through the details of
the proposal but I’d like to share a little, quickly, of why we are here and why this project is perfect for its
organization. In 1880 Edward K. Thoits came to Palo Alto with his family and by the way, this little bit of
history I thought was appropriate given you’re the HRB. In 1880 the Thoits – Ed Thoirts came to Palo
Alto. He opened a shoe store and I was actually looking at the picture that you all have up there at the
beginning of the meeting. His first store was in that 100 block of University next to the Bank of Palo Alto
building. His reason for opening the shoe store was Stanford had opened, the train station was there and
he thought there would be a significant increase in foot traffic. His two sons, Willis and Edward C. or E.C
Thoits where the original Thoits brothers and they went on to become leaders in the Palo Alto community
while investing in the local real estate. E.C in partnership with Willis’s widow Hazel continued growing the
family’s real estate holdings during their lives. Following E.C death, Warren Thoits, together with his
siblings, continue the family’s interests and investment in the local real estate. Warren also ran a law firm
and was very involved in the community throughout his life. The third or cousin’s generation consists of
fourteen children, all descendants of Willis and Hazels five children. They are the primary stewards of the
family’s assets today. Over the years we’ve received recognition for our care of other historic structures
and have also just recently completed a redevelopment of a non-historic site to show our continued
commitment to the long-term health and vibrancy of the downtown. Just last year we were approached
by the Hoffacken family to acquire their building and we were honored that they approached us. We’ve
intentionally not leased the retail space and are hopeful that our process with the City can move forward
expeditiously so that we can afford to do the things that we’d love to be able to do to the building. I’m
happy to answer questions later but right now I’ll let Randy walk you through our proposal. Thank you.
Mr. Randy Popp: Thank you and good morning. Randy Popp, architect, thank you to the staff for the
great presentation and the report and thank you to the Chair and Board for the time today. I often come
to this room to face a challenge or add my voice to a difficult topic but we’re here today to do something
really fun. We’re going to repair and protect a bit of Palo Alto history and learn a little bit about this
elegant little building in the process. When we were hear last, you were all clear and helpful. You
supported the concept for the restoration, you identified the goal for the reference date and you
described your desire for efficiency. We all benefit from the existence of the archive of Birge Clark work
at Stanford. It’s always so striking to me how much they were able to accomplish with a few simple
sheets. Fortunately, the information is clear and provides a roadmap for us to find the original design
although it often takes much more detail to create a building these days. John and I are committed to
the same level a basic integrity exhibited in these documents so here’s what we see today. We’ll focus on
the front façade and using the drawings as references, describe the intended restoration elements. First,
the chimney and the roof and eave are all relatively good condition and have remained unchanged and
are just in need of minor repair and maintenance. Moving left to right, the eastern bay will have its arch
restored. We’ve shown some nearby examples of the craftsmanship present on similarly detailed Birge
Clark buildings. These types of references, along with the drawings, will guide us. The storefront will be
recreated, along with the tile base, above ironwork and any ironwork balcony will be closely recreated
and installed. Note that the window height will remain due to the interior floors and the coordination of
them and in our discussion with staff, as they mentioned, this is not problematic. The amount of
encroachment over the public way resulting from the reattachment of the balconies is not a code issue at
this height. At the central portion, the storefront and entry recess will be closely restored. Currently, not
in compliance with the requirement for pedestrian covered area, the changes we’re proposing will allow
the building to exceed the minimum requirement under current zoning. Repair of the wood lintel will be
challenging but we will attempt to accurately recreate the unique beam and design while maintaining the
surface character typical of this kind of woodwork on Birge Clark’s buildings. In a similar fashion to what I
described earlier, the plaster details and balcony will be recreated as described at the eastern bay. At the
western bay, it gets more interesting. This was the original Sports Shop location once they opened in the
early 1930s. The recess and storefront will be returned, along with the plaster pediment and more ornate
City of Palo Alto Page 8
corbels. At the upper portion, we’ll install a pair of matching iron window grates and we were fortunate to
discover some historical photos which display the building’s signage from early to mid-1930’s. We love
this type of history – we love the history of this type of signage reflects and believe it to be an iatrical
aspect of the overall character. We hope we can hear some comments from you regarding your support
in this so staff can include your thoughts during ARB signage review. In closing, we’d like to draw upon
the experience of the Board and request some advice regarding the tile. The drawings are specific and
accurate photos are not available. We’ve examined a number Birge Clark building and found a range of
design, complexity, color, and intensity. Much as Mr. Clark proposed – purposely built this building for his
client, we would ask for some flexibility to allow the tile to reflect the next tenant. The lack of specificity
in the drawings gives us some leeway which we hope you’ll indulge. Our hope is that you allow us to
officially review selections with staff once we get to that point. In closing, I want to thank you for your
time today and look forward to your thoughts and discussion. John and I would be happy to respond if
you have further questions or seek clarification for any of the items we’ve touched on. Thank you.
Chair Bower: Thank you. That’s a very informative and concise review of the project. I’d like to say that
yesterday I had an opportunity to go by the building and was lucky enough to actually see the inside
because you're – I guess it’s a tenant, was there and I explained to them why I was there so they invited
me in – just stood inside the building. I – as I have said before in Board meetings, I’ve been here for 67-
years and that building was the place that Palo Alto residents bought sports equipment. We didn’t have
Big Five or any of these other giant stores and it was a family-owned operation and so I have spent
many, many days there getting new baseball mitts or other kinds of sporting equipment. I was astounded
to see the inside is effectively unchanged from the way it was developed. It’s painted in kind of an odd
way and the elevator is not an attractive addition but I was reminded of the building across here at 630
Ramona that we reviewed 5-years ago. That has been – it has had or had a similar history where it was
three separate business entrances that have now been combined into one but the original balconies that
look over the main tall, two-stories space was – it still exists and was renovated and it’s quite a beautiful
building. I’m wondering if at some point there’s a moment that we could talk about what your plans are
for the inside too. Let’s start with questions the Board has for the applicant or staff. Martin?
Board Member: Thank you, Chair Bower. The – moving – if the Board agrees to and moves to move it
from Category III to Category II, are there any benefits -- either the applicant or the staff can answer,
are there any benefits that the applicant and owner can receive or apply for if it moves from a Category
III to a Category II? I didn’t hear anything in the presentation that if there are any such benefits being
applied for.
Ms. French: Historic bonus is available in the commercial downtown district for a restored building that
goes through the proper paperwork and all that, following approval and these other paperwork filings.
There can be a bonus issued that could be used either onsite or transferred off-site to a non-historic
property.
Board Member: So, like whatever those bonuses are – wait, I didn’t hear that in the presentation so – but
it may not be a concern for the HRB if those are going to be asked for during this project.
Ms. French: When a – I mean it’s – when a project comes forward showing the addition to the building
perhaps using that bonus that would come after designation as a Category II, then that’s a next step.
Board Member: Ok, great, thank you so much.
Chair Bower: It’s difficult, my mic today. Any other comments?
Board Member Kohler: I have a quick question I guess on…
Chair Bower: Roger?
Board Member Kohler: Are you going to keep the painting done by Greg?
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Bower: Brown.
Board Member Kohler: Greg Brown, yeah. I just had it here, on the side, there’s a painting done by him
on the wall.
Mr. Popp: Yes.
Board Member Kohler: You will, oh good.
Mr. Popp: That’s a one-word sentence but yes, the intent is that we will keep that and do whatever repair
it needs to be done to maintain that. It’s a great little addition over there, whimsical.
Board Member Kohler: Yep, he was quite a guy.
Chair Bower: Michael.
Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Chair Bower. I’m really pleased to see the project of this scope
appear before the HRB. Typically, we deal with rehabilitation, this is one of the first restoration projects
that I can recall, it being not the typical thing we look at. We usually do a rehabilitation which means
keeping the character-defining features and the historic elements in place and making it useful for
modern use but a restoration is atypical to our normal business here. So, I congratulate you for doing the
restoration, I think it’s the proper thing to do. The second thing that I noticed, you’re going – obviously,
the report says you’re going back to what it appears to be a 1927 and one of my comments on your
previous study session is that you need to clearly define a period of significant. I know you’re –
everybody is saying 1927 but there’s not a clear synced statement saying the period of significance is
1927. I couldn’t find it in the reports anywhere I looked but somewhere that should be stated.
Chair Bower: Roger.
Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to chime in that David’s comments about going there to buy
baseball gear and stuff is I did the same thing with my mom and dad and them taking us there. I
remember it’s quite a – you know having grown up here, quite nice to see these improvements to return
to what it uses to be. It’s really quite a great looking building and now it sorts of got evened out in such
that it’s not a lot there to really get excited about except for the tile roof. I’m very pleased to see this
happening.
Chair Bower: Brandon, you have a comment?
Board Member Corey: No, I mean I don’t have anything as a specific comment but I love the plan overall.
I think it looks really good and I second the comments about the – from Michael over there. I think this is
a great way to kind of revive this building and kind of bring it back to a great place.
Chair Bower: Martin.
Board Member Corey: Thanks for all your effort in putting this together.
Board Member Wimmer: Are we just asking questions or are we making suggestions or comments?
Chair Bower: I think it’s questions and comments. Questions?
Board Member Wimmer: Or suggestions?
Chair Bower: Comments? Sure.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to respond to a couple of design elements. In the – on the left
side where there’s an arch, you’re going to restore that arch? I think that it would be nice if the
storefront, if the door could respond to that arch and you used – if you go back a couple of slides where
you were showing an example of another arch. I think that’s on the – I know the building, you were just
using it as an example. If we could go back to that and you’ll see how that arch -- the storefront entry
door responds to the arch because that’s the only bay in that building. There are three bays in that –
there.
Mr. Popp: Oh, sorry, just a little too quick.
Board Member Wimmer: I think that – see how that arch, see – do you see how – oh, that’s the
[Mansoor and Gorb] building, is that – I don’t know.
Mr. Popp: That’s Avenidas.
Board Member Wimmer: Oh, Avenidas, sorry. See on the storefront how the window responds to the
arch. I think that would be a really beautiful element if you could make the storefront – the glazing
responds to the arch because there’s a symmetry here in this building. I mean there are three bays, the
center bay is obviously the more prominent one and has more going on but there’s asymmetry. Then in
the left, I think it’s really neat – it’s unique because it has an arch but the entry door conflicts with that
beautiful arch. I mean I would just love to see that echoed or that arch element sort of responded to in
the glazing so that was my one comment. Then in terms of the tile, can we talk about that yet? Is that
ok?
Chair Bower: We’ll get there.
Board Member Wimmer: Ok.
Chair Bower: I wanted to – if no one else has comments, I’ll make a couple of comments. I think it’s
important that even though in our packet we have the descriptions and the qualifications of Category I
and II and III buildings. I wanted to point out the definition for a Category II building is a major building
of regional importance. The building is – these buildings are meritorious works of the best architects,
outstanding examples of an architectural style or illustrates the stylistic development of architecture in
the state or region. Those are three different ways in which we could classify this building as a Category
II building. I think this building probably satisfies each one of those requirements so I’m fairly confident
that meeting that definition—these definitions is not going to be a problem assuming that the project
moves forward as presented. I noticed in the Public Works Department review that they had an issue
with overhangs so I went and looked up -- I don’t know why the Public Works Department didn’t provide
the information in our packet but I went in and found the California building code section. It seems to me
just from a brief review of the elevations that you provided which are original elevation, that probably
isn’t going to be a problem. I wanted to address that issue because should – the only place I can see that
being a problem is the deeper balcony that would be added back in the middle of the building. Just as a
reference for – you can’t have any project into the public right of way in the first 96-inches or 8-feet. For
every inch above 96, you can project out one so it’s a one to one ratio. There aren’t any measurements
on the drawings but there is a rough floor to floor measurement of 10’ 6’’ on the two side buildings – two
side spaces and 11-feet in the middle. Using that, I think you’re still ok but I wanted to point out that
should that be a problem, it seems to me reasonable to pull the balcony back slightly so that it meets
that requirement. I don’t think that would materially affect the appearance or the renovation of this
building. I wanted to have that in the record because I don’t want that detail to disappear because we’re
trying to stay with a specific or exact replication. In fact, it seems to me that pulling it back a little bit
differentiates it from the original so that it satisfies another Secretary of Interior Standards.
Mr. Popp: First of all, thank you so much for your comment and I appreciate the attention to detail that
you’ve given to this – the study. You’re absolutely correct about the code and we’ve done a study of the
balcony and the dimensions based on the drawings using the dimensions that we have and extrapolating
City of Palo Alto Page 11
over dimensions from that through CAT software. The balcony, as it projects now, will extend about 23-
inches which are well within the limit of what the code maximum would be for that. Even the bracket
itself that supports, which extends out in profile at about a 45-degree angle, conforms to that one to one
ratio that you were describing. So, I don’t foresee any problem with the code relative to this but thank
you for your comment and I appreciate having it in the record.
Chair Bower: Yeah, I wanted to make it clear that that kind of a detail will not come back to us but staff
would, I think, need to rely on the hearing here to make a determination. I just wanted to have that in
the record that I think we’re all in agreement that a site modification if necessary would be acceptable. I
too had a question about the mural, the Greg Brown mural, and I assume the answer was just the one
you gave me so I appreciate that. I noticed yesterday that the doors in the center portion of the building
– the original French doors are still there apparently although they are covered from – there is a ledge
that’s been added that obscures the center doors. I’m wondering if – since I didn’t look at it from the
inside, I’m wondering if that’s something that you’re aware of because there was note that the doors
aren’t going to be restored…
Mr. Popp: Correct.
Chair Bower: …but I couldn’t tell if whether that was the left pair or the center.
Mr. Popp: I think that there’s been some siding that’s applied to the building that’s covering the sill but
from my study of the building and being inside, it appears to me that the doors have been removed and
that it’s a window at that location. Just from ground level, I think it’s a little harder to discern that but…
Chair Bower: So, it looked to me like it might have been an original door because I thought I saw the
handle on the door. It’s so – any rate, those doors are coming back or not?
Mr. Popp: They are not. There’s an issue with the floor heights and the building has a lot of height
change inside it. So, as we’re looking forward to renovating the interior of the building and making it
accessible, it’s going to be very difficult for us to keep the floor heights the way they are and maintaining
those doors would create a pretty significant barrier to creating accessibility inside this building.
Chair Bower: But I’m talking about the second-floor doors.
Mr. Popp: I understand.
Chair Bower: Ok, just so we are clear. In that sense, that what you’re presenting today by presenting the
historic drawings is not exactly what you’re going to do. Are there any other deviations from these
drawings?
Mr. Popp: No, no, it’s exactly what we are going to do.
Chair Bower: Except for those two doors, (inaudible) pair of doors in the middle on the second floor.
Mr. Popp: I think – your belief is that it’s still doors?
Chair Bower: No, I’m just…
Mr. Popp: Our intention in our drawings describes that we’re maintaining the windows that at the center
bay at this point.
Chair Bower: Ok and they were not doors originally?
Mr. Popp: They were originally doors in 1927, at some point and we – I’ve gone to the historic achieves
and other places to see if I can figure out when it actually changed but it’s not clear. At some point, the
City of Palo Alto Page 12
doors were removed at both at the center bay and the east bay and converted to windows. Based on
staffs input and our discussion about what we’re going to do with this floor height because it does have
about three different height changes at that upper level, the mezzanine level. It’s our intention just to
maintain windows but to put the balcony in front of it and that should be enough to obscure the
impression that it was once doors but is now windows.
Chair Bower: Sorry, I was looking at the drawings and I thought that dash lines behind the railing
suggested that was going (inaudible).
Mr. Popp: Sorry I wasn’t clear about that.
Chair Bower: It’s alright. Well, and you’re providing very -- almost a 100 – 90-year old drawings. Let’s see
so one last question and then I want the Board to discuss two issues that you brought up. It – what’s the
plan for the interior of the building? How will that be built out? I know you’re planning to change the
balcony – the two mezzanines I suppose.
Mr. Popp: At this point, we really don’t have clear direction about what we’re going to do in the interior.
It’s our goal to renovate that in some way and maintain some of the characters that are inside there if it’s
appropriate for the work and can be maintained in conjunction with all of the other items that we’re
doing. We’re really just focused on the category reclassification and the restoration of the building at this
point.
Chair Bower: Exterior?
Mr. Popp: Correct.
Chair Bower: Actually, it’s front façade.
Mr. Popp: Just the front façade, right. Well, front façade and the roof, we’re maintaining the tile roof as
it goes back.
Chair Bower: I’d like to ask the Board to – could you bring up the tile samples that you have in your
presentation? I’d like the Board to consider these and maybe we should make a recommendation as for
how the tile display or selection moves forward. Martin.
Board Member Bernstein: Actually, I’d liked to comment on Board Member Wimmer’s comment about the
idea or suggestion of putting the – underneath the arch. Relocating that door from Birge Clark’s location
to Board Member Wimmer’s suggestion. Functionally, if it stays where Birge Clark put it, is that an issue
for your group?
Mr. Popp: No, it’s not.
Board Member Bernstein: Fine. The reason that I’m bringing that up and then what -- I would not be
supporting changing Birge Clark’s original design. Birge Clark did things very intentionally, for example
even the eave line is different than the eave line on the right-hand side. Then even that porch – that bay
is even a different dimension so there is not symmetry. So, I mean it just says -- if I looked at drawings
from (inaudible) or Brunelleschi, I would not suggest a change since we have a good historical record.
I’m going to trust that when Birge Clark put it that way there in consultation with his original client or the
fact that we just have a historical record and this is street facing façade; the main façade. I wouldn’t
support any Board motion that includes moving it – changing it from Birge Clarks original location. That
would be my vote on that topic.
Chair Bower: I didn’t – I feel the same way. I didn’t follow up on Margaret’s suggestion in part because I
didn’t hear a motion or anything that would preclude the applicant from moving forward with this. I feel
the same, I think Birge Clark intended it to be offset and the detailing – the cornice detailing at the roof
City of Palo Alto Page 13
line on the left-hand portion as we’re looking at this is totally different than the right hand. The center is
prominent, higher, more detailed.
Board Member Bernstein: I also enjoy architect Popp’s comment about six drawings is a whole building
and that’s been true for many architects around Palo Alto. There was one, I forget, residential – I forget
his name, down on Bryant and yeah, like two drawings. That was it, anyway…
Mr. Popp: If only, if only we could.
Board Member Bernstein: Exactly.
Chair Bower: It’s now about 66.
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you.
Chair Bower: If we can talk about the tile. Do Board Members have comments about how to approach
this? Margaret.
Board Member Wimmer: I wanted you to go back to the image with the Palo Alto Toy Store, the historic
image because it looks like maybe that’s the – that’s our – there.
Mr. Popp: Sorry, I’ll get there, hang on one second and I actually have a larger version of that so I’ll
bring that up for you.
Board Member Wimmer: I think that’s our best clue as to maybe what was original to the building and it
looks like it was like an 8 by 8 square terracotta maybe. That’s kind of what that looks like to me, I don’t
know. Then obviously they changed it to a brick looking veneer or something but if I just interject my
first pass thought or opinion, I like some of your images. I think some of them are from the University Art
building, maybe? The possibilities in Palo Alto…
Mr. Popp: Do you want me to tell you where these are all from?
Board Member Wimmer: No, that’s ok but I think that because the subject building is kind of a low – it
doesn’t come up, it’s not so much of a Wainscot, it’s more of a tall baseboard maybe? It’s not so I think
that if you wanted to get into a decorative tile, it would be harder to achieve that in a lower height. We
only have what? Is that 16-inches of tile height, possibly…
Mr. Popp: Just a little more than that.
Board Member Wimmer: …14 to 16 so my thought would – I mean I guess here’s an opportunity to do
something unique and decorative but my first instinct was to be almost kept it really simple and keep it a
dark color that emulates maybe the wood. You’re probably going to paint the wood – some of the
woodwork and the rafter tails. Maybe you’ll paint them a dark brown and the windows will probably be an
oil rubbed bronze or a dark color, as well as the balconies. I would almost keep it simple and just emulate
those dark colors because then it’s not going to – when there are dirt and things at the sidewalk, it’s not
going to pick up the dirt as much as a lighter color tile. I would just go dark and keep it simple, I like the
running bond pattern but…
Mr. Shenk: I agree with you. Some of those other buildings like the University Art building and such,
there’s enough room to…
Board Member Wimmer: To do a decorative…
Mr. Shenk: … have some interesting design.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Board Member Wimmer: Yes.
Mr. Shenk: If we look at maybe the bottom right-hand corner where – what we’re hoping for is some
latitude where it’s not just terracotta tile because I think, at least today, it feels cheap. It doesn’t feel like
we want the building to – it’s not the impression that we like the whole restoration to give but like that
bottom corner, I can’t quite see it perfectly from here. I agree with you that it ought to be darker but in
opposed to a darker terracotta. Maybe the tile has a little design, it may have a little interest in it…
Board Member Wimmer: A little relief, yeah.
Mr. Shenk: …but I agree, it can’t have the interest of…
Board Member Wimmer: I agree.
Mr. Shenk: …a 3-foot Wainscot sort of a thing but some latitude where we can try to procure and find
some interesting – appropriate but interesting tile that gives a nice accent.
Board Member Wimmer: There’s a company called Fireclay Tile, I’m sure you’re familiar with them and
they might be a good source to consider.
Mr. Shenk: Yeah, Randy mentioned (inaudible).
Mr. Popp: Maybe I just add to what John is saying that Option G that is in the bottom right-hand corner,
the reason I was more focused on that one as a preferred style is the bottom band of tile is a little bit
darker and has a little bit of decoration but is fairly muted. It would help to conceal any splatter or dirt
that might collect at the bottom edge. The next couple rows of tile, whether we have two or three is not
perfectly clear. There’s some height that we need to solve there but just a very subtle decoration to that
but not just monochromatic. Then the top edge of it, it’s something that I’ve seen in a number of these,
just has a very simple little-rolled ball nose that rolls back into the oil rubbed bronze storefront metal. I
really – I just love the simplicity of that and so not going as far and as detailed as the University Art
building as with the waves that go through it and all the color and variation and contrast. Something that
is more muted in a way that you’re describing but not quite as flat as a terracotta is where I was hoping
we might end up. Again, I think what I was describing earlier was we don’t know who the tenant is yet
and if might be nice to do some of this selection based on who we think might ultimately take the
buildings. What I’m hoping is that you’ll give us the kind of direction that you’re giving and then perhaps
we can work with staff to actually make final selections. Thank you.
Chair Bower: Other comments? I’ll just make a brief comment about this. It seems to me that – this is
just a comment, it’s not a direction, I want to make that clear. The original – the picture that we were
just shown, the 1936 picture, is 6 by 6 terracotta and I would agree with you that that’s pretty simple. I
think -- actually, if you could go back to the tile, I was going to refer to one of your examples. I have no
problem having more colorful tile and doing something that is more interesting. I think Option E though is
because it’s just color and the tile is roughly the same size, it might be more compatible yet a
differentiated version of what was there before. I think that the Option G is a little (inaudible) to me. I
mean that’s just the term that comes to mind and it’s not that I don’t like that but it’s – this is a
restoration so you’re working hard to recover what was there. Technically, terracotta would be the
answer but I’m – I think you should have a little bit of leeway in this because it’s a big project but be
mindful of the differentiation yet compatibility thing. I don’t see that nice tile down at the bottom of your
example G as being compatible with the original. That’s how I look at it so again…
Mr. Popp: Thank you.
Chair Bower: … you can work with staff on that.
Board Member Kohler: I like G.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Bower: So, do I, just not necessarily on that building.
Board Member Kohler: It just seems more appropriate. The other is kind of a random – you went to the
tile place and picked up a bunch of random colors and I just like the – G is more organized.
Board Member Bernstein: Yeah and I have a comment on that. E – just based on the photos, on E what’s
really striking is the colorized tile and again, I’m trying to put my understanding of what would Birge
Clark do? I’m thinking Birge Clark would have more of the muted versus the – which is the Option G
versus the Option E which is really kind of screaming with color. Option G is the color but it’s a little more
subordinate to the overall (inaudible) of the building so I’d be cautious about putting a bright color as
Option E is and I would suggest Option E would be my preferred choice.
Chair Bower: I’m not making a suggestion about bright colors, just form, that was my comment. Anyway,
any other comments on that? Michael.
Board Member Makinen: Yes, just one additional comment on tiles. One of the old-time tile companies
S&S tile is just about ready to go out of business. I think they – I read an article that the caretaker still
has all the old molds in San Jose. You might want to get in touch with him on some of the tiles that are
still available, they are historic.
Board Member Kohler: I could also disclose that in the ancient days I use to sit with Birge Clark at AIA
meetings and we had nice chats but I didn’t ask him about the tile.
Mr. Popp: If only you had.
Chair Bower: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I appreciate it, as I said before when this came to this Board before how much
I appreciate the Thoits family and John Shenks and now Randy Popp’s concern and interest about this
building and staff’s support for a restoration here. One of the things that I’ve tried to do as liaison to this
Board is encourage you all and I think now Chair Bower, I think you kind of lead the way on this with
support and comments by others. As I look at this, I’ve commented before to this Board is what happens
so much of the time is a project will come to the HRB and without lack of – without specificity, when it
goes to the Building Department then or the Development Center this project could end up exceedingly
different because what you have here is – there aren’t really plans here. There’s like the original drawings
and I’m not trying to be a critic here, I’m trying to encourage a good outcome and the best outcome in
what I trust is the intended outcome. That’s my purpose in commenting and it applies not to just this
building but all buildings. I noted on sheet A-31 which is really the only plan that you have, that in all of
the – to the original front elevation it says similar to, similar to, similar to on seven occasions.
Restorations, in my experience, has been that they are in kind, not similar too because what does similar
to mean? On the photograph just above that there’s a line that points to replace storefront as noted
below for the main central storefront but there’s no reference to what’s going to happen below. So, it’s
going to be replaced as noted below but where is that? What is that? As to the tile, I appreciate the
flexibility. It seems like there ought to be something more definitive that comes forward to the HRB
because tile is such a character-defining element. Especially on buildings such as Birge Clark’s and that
before tile selection is made, it should come back to this body for specificity. In terms of – because these
are expensive projects, this is going to be a fabulous building. A fabulous building and I trust that will be
but how fabulous will it be is going to – and whether it’s going to be fabulous or not has the potential for
that but whether it is or not is going to depend on largely what happens at this body. As far as
incentives, staff mentioned TDRs are also investment tax credits and that this building would be eligible
for. The TDRs, I think would just be in a rough calculation should be somewhere in the range -- and I
know Mr. Shenk would have a good handle on this but just a rough calculation at 2,500-square feet and
that’s just for the restoration. I don’t know if there’s any seismic work going on here or not which would
be important to understand because that would also impact with what happens with the building
City of Palo Alto Page 16
elements in terms of design. So, if it’s just historic restoration and I don’t mean just in the terms that
someone might interpret it but if it is that aspect only, it should be somewhere between $700,050 and a
million dollars’ worth of TDRs and that’s pretty conservative for this marketplace that’s at $300 a foot and
I don’t see any objection or contradiction to that. So, around that and that’s $700,050 to a million dollars
and if it’s for seismic, in addition, of course, it’s double that investment in tax credits which Roxy Rapp
has utilized before and I’m not sure the Thoits family has or not but those are also available. Having to
do with the second-floor heights and access up there, it’s never been clear to me and I have tried in the
last couple of years – maybe like a year and a half ago as I try to get clarity from the Building
Department whether the State Historic Building Code is actually made accessible to property owners and
it’s lacking clarity to me whether it really is utilized. How much that might and might now help on
something like a floor height, I really can’t answer that but I know on a lot of elements it would apply. I
don’t know about floor height if that would be a flexibility that would be allowed or not but it just seems
– I so much appreciate projects like this. I think it was Chair Bower that mentioned it’s a restoration --
which maybe it was Michael that said it’s a restoration is not usually what comes forward. I think this is
terrific but is it a restoration? I think there’s a lot that’s not known and so much could happen after it
leaves this Board. Again, my intention is not just about this project but it’s about -- I’ve been trying to
encourage the Board to be specific and encouraging true restoration renovation projects as they come
through this body and understand the consequences later; as was mentioned earlier about overhangs too
but that’s just one example. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Chair Bower: Thank you, Council Member Holman. I too share that concern about these projects. I
looked at the plans – so-called plans and we have more detail about how to protect the trees than we do
about any other part of this. It’s something that is absolutely irritating to me is that we get a plan set
with a page on how to protect trees. We have no issues with trees, it’s a huge waste of trees to print this
and yet we don’t have other details. I was going to encourage the Board to be more specific about
exactly what we are approving when we get to that point should we approve this. I think there’s, from
my perspective, a tension between generating a lot of plans for a lot of details prior to having some kind
of approval so that you don’t end up spending a lot of money. As the City is currently spending on our
California Avenue parking garage and designing it over and over and over again by Board. I’m unhappy
with that and think it’s a waste of everyone’s time and money so I understand that part of it. I also
understand and hear what you’re saying and sympathize with it. Let’s see if there are no – there’s no
other issue I want to – one second, one other issue I want to discuss which is part of what the applicant
has asked us to review and that’s signage. Then let’s go back and pull it back to the Board and see how
we move forward. You wanted to have…
Mr. Popp: I was just going to ask you to please comment on the signage before you…
Chair Bower: Right. So, you’re referring in your presentation to the Sports Shop and Sporting Goods neon
sign?
Mr. Popp: Yeah, when it was originally built the original tenant in that space was the Home Foods Shop
and they had this small marquis sign that was mounted to the side of the building. Then early 1930’s, it
appears about 1932, the Sports Shop took that sign down and replaced it with this newer marquis sign. I
don’t think it’s our intention to specifically describe it as being neon but we very much like the form and
the character of the sign.
Chair Bower: Comments Board Members?
Board Member Bernstein: I’m in support of the old sign if the applicant wishes to do that. It reminds me
of the – there was some discussion about does the Mac’s Smoke Shop exceed the sign ordinance and
there was a discussion but it’s part of the rich character of that street. Therefore, it should be maintained
and I support if there’s something in this direction that the applicant wants to apply for, I’m supportive of
that.
Chair Bower: Margaret? Brandon?
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Board Member Wimmer: I think those hanging signs like that are very uncommon now in downtown, are
they not? I mean I could see if it was still on the building and being restored but to come up with a new
one, I don’t know. I would just question that because that’s atypical of the signage that’s in Palo Alto
right now. It’s usually on the – flat on the front façade and not sticking out but I don’t know. I’m not up
on the sign ordinance.
Mr. Shenk: You’re spot on, you’re absolutely accurate and I think that’s the point though. Is that – from
our – what we’re looking for is kind of like the old theaters and they have their big marquis. It’s clearly an
old building and it doesn’t have the new signage and so the idea – whether it was the original food one.
It seems to add to the impression that this is an old building, that’s an old-style sign.
Board Member Wimmer: What did they do with the Shinola? Is that a clock that’s sticking out like that?
What did they do there?
Mr. Shenk: Yeah, they’ve got a clock. It’s on a similar mount, right it’s perpendicular to the building.
Board Member Wimmer: I just think the City would have a hard time if you put the gap on a sign like that
because didn’t they give Keene a hard time for putting their sign? Anyway, I just don’t – I don’t know if
you could – I don’t know if that would fly but (inaudible). I don’t think we have any jurisdiction over the
signage whether they can do that or not.
Chair Bower: No, we do.
Board Member Wimmer: Oh.
Chair Bower: I think we do.
Board Member Makinen: Well, I don’t think that the original sign wasn’t a part of the Birge Clark design
so it was an accessory that was put on by the (inaudible) tenant. I don’t think Birge Clark ever envisioned
a sign like that so I think its…
Board Member Wimmer: I agree. I think that there’s a simple beauty to that building the way it is and I
don’t think it needs to be cluttered. Now you are putting all these – I mean and it looks like that’s on the
far-right side. That’s where you’re going to put those beautiful iron grills over the window. I think it
would compete with that, with the historic architectural elements but that’s my opinion.
Chair Bower: Do you have any – Roger, any comments?
Board Member Kohler: I kind of like the sign. I can see that everyone’s point that it’s not necessarily part
of the original building but it was done – we have no idea when the sign got put up I don’t think. I’d be
ok with it, it kind of reminds you of the old day and what things were like. Then people walking with
younger who would say look at that sign. Why is that there? It kind of gives them a guidepost that this
use to be a very important store to Palo Alto because as I said, I’ve been down there and I even think we
took our kids there for various things. I’d be ok with the sign, I think it’s a neat little feature. It’s not
really little but…
Chair Bower: Brandon, do you have a comment?
Board Member Corey: I like the idea of the sign. I think it’s kind of fun and it does distinguish this as an
old building. It’s not clear to me that – if that should be a requirement and there should be maybe some
flexibility there.
Chair Bower: My feelings, I share all of these sentiments and in particular, it’s not part of your application
so I don’t that we’re going to make a – I doubt we’re going to make a determination about the sign. If
City of Palo Alto Page 18
you’re doing a renovation of the building and the building doesn’t have a sign, I think that’s going to be
problematic. I’m just – I mean there are two signs showing on this, which one? Are you – so this is a
problem in this request, I don’t know which sign you want. I don’t even know whether you want either of
these signs, maybe you just want the platform for the gap because the gap can move in there and then
(inaudible) the gap on the sign. We don’t have materials, we have size scale so I think that’s not going to
happen in our motion today.
Mr. Popp: We’re happy to develop all that information. What we’re really looking for from the Board
today was just whether or not it would be open to the idea of a sign like this and to give staff some
direction about whether we should even consider a sign such as this. I think it’s certainly not our
intention to do something neon or perhaps even illuminated. It’s somewhere between these two sizes
and it’s something looking like this but we don’t know what the materials would be yet. We don’t have a
tenant and all of those things are down the road but we’re just looking for some guidance about what
you think might be appropriate or acceptable and to suggest that you’re going to approve anything.
Chair Bower: I’m hearing problems with any sign, I’m hearing problems – comfortable discussions about
a sign but I’m inclined not to want to have a sign there if it’s not going to be exactly the Sports Shops
sign or this food sign. I actually don’t think that’s part of the restoration because it disappeared a long
time ago. I wouldn’t rule it out but at this point, I’m not optimistic that that’s going to be part of your
project. The Varsity Theater is a huge, huge, nonconforming encroachment in the public right of way but
it was there, it’s part of that building. Same with the Stanford Theater, those are the two that come to
mind quickly. Even on California Avenue, the Fine Arts Theater which has been destroyed for all intensive
purposes still has its sign which I think is a historic façade designation or should have. At any rate, those
things exist and we could evaluate them as a historic object but we don’t have anything to evaluate here
so we’re going to recreate it and I’m just not comfortable with that.
Board Member Kohler: Well, I think it’d be good – we could all be good sports and put the sports sign up.
Chair Bower: Alright.
Board Member Wimmer: Do you think before we continue on much further, we should look at the three
bullet points that are on the first page of what the staff wanted us to look at. I think there’s something
about going from a Category III to a Category II and making sure that we’re complying with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Let’s look at those three bullet points before we spend much more
time…
Chair Bower: So, if there’s…
Board Member Wimmer: … should we focus on that?
Chair Bower: Yeah but I want to do that as a Board. Bring it back to the Board so if there are no other
comments, questions for staff or applicant, I’d like to bring – Emily?
Ms. Vance: I would just like to make one thing very clear that staff is going to be working very closely
with the applicants on this project. Due to it being a Group A resource and being downtown, any permit
application is going to be reviewed by us so it’s not like – I’m hoping to maybe put concerns – settle your
concerns about missing things or something falling through the cracks. This is – like you said, we don’t
get a lot of restoration projects, we get rehab projects so this is kind of a special – it’s a special project,
it’s a special building and we’re going to working very closely on it. I just wanted to let you know that
even things, again like permits will be reviewed at a staff level certainly.
Board Member Wimmer: Will we be seeing this project again or no?
Ms. Vance: That’s a good question, I was kind of under the impression that this would be the last time
you see the façade restoration project. It will come to you again when and if they do a rehab or additions
City of Palo Alto Page 19
or anything like that. The tile was going to be – we were going to have this general discussion and then it
was going to be approved at a staff level. Then the category elevation was also going to be something
done at a staff level with the guidance of HRB but that’s up for…
Board Member Kohler: You said with the guidance of the HRB?
Ms. Vance: Correct, on tile and other features and in a kind of seeing how this meeting went today.
Board Member Kohler: So, it would be coming back to us then?
Chair Bower: Not necessarily.
Ms. Vance: Not necessarily.
Board Member Kohler: Well, how do we approve the tile and everything?
Ms. Vance: That would be done at a staff level by myself. If you guys had said, for example, we love G,
we all want G, that’s what we want and then I would go with that choice.
Board Member Kohler: It seems like we should see this again, that’s what I’m thinking.
Ms. Vance: That’s an option.
Chair Bower: Let’s just – let’s go there in a minute. Martin?
Board Member Bernstein: Let’s see, referring to Board Member Wimmer about the asking – the HRB
being asked to provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning regarding the reclassification. My
understanding is City Council needs to approve a reclassification, is that correct?
Chair Bower: Yes.
Ms. French: Yes, we would prepare a resolution for the Council’s action on this where we could include
statements that are dear to the Board.
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you.
Chair Bower: Alright, if there are no other questions I’d like to bring it back to the Board and we’ll talk
about how we move this project forward if we do. I would like to remind Board Members that there are a
number of options that we have to deal with concerns that have been expressed today that still would
allow this project to move forward which I would very much like to have happened. If the Board feels
that we should see the tile and any other aspect of this that we have had concerns about today, I would
recommend that we create a subcommittee – move the project forward, create a subcommittee to look
at any unresolved items and then if it’s – the subcommittee can’t resolve those items. Then those items
and those items only would come back to the Board so in our discussion I’d like to take that into
consideration. Margaret?
Board Member Wimmer: I think that it would be fair if we asked them to come back after they do
construction documents. I mean we have so many canceled meetings because we have no subject
matter to discuss so maybe – it’s not like we’re not available if that’s ok for the applicant. I mean I think
we’ll probably reiterate some of the same things that we’re saying today but it seems like even what
Karen says, a lot of this stuff is similar to match existing or to emulate what was there before. We’re not
really seeing any actual material, we’re not seeing any actual drawings, we’re not seeing any actual
construction documents of what they are actually deciding to do. We’re just seeing images, historic
images which is great but we’re not seeing the actual – what is that the – these aren’t – these are just
old drawings showing what their intent is but they don’t have drawings saying how they're carrying
City of Palo Alto Page 20
through that intent. So, maybe we’re available to review the project as it gets a little more detailed and
more decided upon. The Board is available, we’d be happy to review it again if it doesn’t cost an
absorbent amount of extra money for the applicant and I don’t think it would. The applicant has to
prepare all this information anyway to show staff so why can’t we – we would be happy to review it and
give out our guidance. That’s what you’re asking for, is our guidance, we’re here to give it.
Chair Bower: Right so I’m comfortable with that as long as we’re not going to redesign the project when
it comes back to us because that get’s to be expensive for the applicant and it’s – we have staff time
we’re going to put in here. So, I’d like to formulate some kind of motion that would allow the City Council
to determine whether or not the Category change is significant because I think that’s critical to moving
the project forward. It’s my understanding that’s required in order to get the renovation. I completely
agree that we don’t really have any detail – adequate details to make decisions about without drawing.
As long as those have to be generated anyway, I think it’s reasonable to have this come back to the
Board in some form without – I am very mindful of not wanting this project to disappear because we’re
adding another regulatory hurdle that causes it to fall apart. This is a great project and I want to make
sure that it moves forward. Any other comments? Do I – would someone like to craft a motion?
Board Member Kohler: Are we supposed to do a motion?
Chair Bower: John?
Ms. Shenk: I just want to offer some feedback if you’d like because it goes to the time – there’s some –
not necessarily tension but just around the timings and such and I’m happy to address that if that’s
helpful.
Chair Bower: Sure.
Mr. Shenk: So, time is money, right the vacant space where many, many tens of thousands of dollars a
month and for us, an issue on – I’ll speak more on a generic project because I think Ms. Holman was also
speaking generically as to process, some specific here but also just generally to process. The more times
that we come back to an HRB or an ARB means I’m hedging my bets that there’s going to be a change so
I’m not advancing. I’m trying to go as far as I need to go to satisfy the requirement but I don’t want to
keep going on the site. Hey Randy, keep going, get the full construction drawings, let’s have the fire guys
looking at it and everything so that I can get into the building. I’m not so the whole process slows down
as we approach each hurdle. Many – I’m not saying that inappropriate, it’s just so you know it absolutely
slows us down from an approval today with conditions or such and then we know ok, that’s where we
need to go. I think more specifically with this project, I’m – I’ll say a little surprised but I’m appreciating
what you’re saying too but to me, this restoration is exciting etc. but isn’t complicated. I wouldn’t think
that you need to see details – construction documents on how that piece of iron that’s on the second
floor is attached to the building, the caulking, and what happens there? What is it? How’s it anchored
versus that’s the one and we’ve shown pictures of other ones in the community? Emily is aware and so I
was thinking we’re going to go out there with our shop drawings, which come way later, the shop
drawings from the iron person who’s hired to create that. Emily can look at that and say yeah, it has the
right number of twists, it’s the right size bar, it’s all these things and so Emily says yeah, I’m signing off
on that at the building permit stage from the Planning Department who has to approve that. The arch,
the arch is the arch, how it’s built? Do we have a metal stud behind there? Is it a wood frame? I didn’t
perceive that was – those were things you guys needed to see to advance this verse that’s the arch that
will go there. I was excited that we had all of the details that we do have, original plans which don’t have
construction documents right? They just built it so that it looked like the picture on the plans and we
have great examples in the community of those. It looks like the ironwork here is almost identical to the
ironwork on Avenidas. The same balcony, the same spears, and the same little do-dads at the tops of the
spears. That’s a technical term I’ve learned, the do-dads but it has – we have a great amount of detail
here in the example and with that thought hey, great, if you guys felt that was appropriate, we had
enough to keep going. I don’t have shop drawings, I don’t have all of that and that’s why you have what
you have. I’m not trying to give you less so that we can change it later, we think we’re going to be held
City of Palo Alto Page 21
to a very – and expect to be held to a very high standard given that there are examples that you can
walk too. That is what’s going to go back over here because he did very similar things in the community
with the lintels in the iron. I’ll stop there.
Board Member Wimmer: I think – I appreciate that, thank you.
Mr. Shenk: Sure.
Board Member Wimmer: I think though that we’re being asked to approve something that you don’t
really – I mean I guess it would be nice if you could at least give us a front elevation of what you’re
proposing to do to see that it closely matches what – I mean we’re reviewing an original Birge Clark front
elevation and were asked to approve that. I mean we all approve that because it was original but…
Mr. Shenk: I think that’s exactly it. We are proposing the original proposal.
Board Member Wimmer: So, if this is your – if you’re just basically saying this front elevation that I’m
looking at right now is your construction documents. This is what you are proposing to do 100%, then
ok, that makes it clear, then we can make our comments on it. It just feels like there are little grey areas
here because you’re showing – we see the existing building. I mean if you’re saying the original Birge
Clark -- that drawing is our construction documents per say. That is what – let’s just say you drew that,
you’re – you know what I’m trying to say?
Mr. Shenk: Correct…
Board Member Wimmer: Maybe I’m not saying it the right way.
Mr. Shenk: …and I’m sorry if that was left…
Board Member Wimmer: Like we’re using something that was original so is that exactly what you’re –
what we’re approving…
Mr. Shenk: Yes.
Board Member Wimmer: …because we don’t know – we’re looking at this, yes, we love it, we appreciate
it, it’s historic, we want it but then you’re to adapt it and you’re going to redraw it. That’s where the
disconnect comes from because we approve this but we don’t see your drawing to prove that you’re
really going to emulate that. That’s why it’s hard for us because …
Mr. Shenk: I guess I would say that is exactly it and I think because we are not building a building, we’re
not doing a renovation, we’re not doing anything else…
Board Member Wimmer: Right, we understand that but there’s…
Mr. Shenk: We’re applying ironwork, right?
Board Member Wimmer: Right.
Mr. Shenk: Actually, a detail for you all to take a look at is in the original drawing there’s one piece of
iron on the top right bay and it was built with two but that’s whether you like one or two. We’re very
open to it but I think it goes to the asymmetry of the left-hand bottom corner of the door and one piece
of iron on one window. We’re applying ironwork across the top, that’s it, right?
Board Member Wimmer: I guess I don’t know why I am arguing. I’m not trying to argue it, I’m just
saying let’s see it in your hand. I mean let’s see your drawings so we can see that – am I wrong?
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Bower: No, I don’t think so but let’s move – I think we need to move forward…
Board Member Wimmer: Sorry.
Chair Bower: … because I think we’re basically talking about the same thing. I don’t think we’re asking
for shop drawings, that’s not something that we would do but I would feel more comfortable with some
dimension drawings. I guess what makes us somewhat uncomfortable is the term similar which is used
repeatedly and I know exactly why it’s used that way because that gives you latitude. On the other hand,
I guess that’s where – I think that term makes us less comfortable so how – I think we can craft this –
craft a motion that will get this – still allow this to move forward. Not produce more hurdles but allow
time to move forward, don’t you think?
Mr. Popp: If you don’t mind, I’m very comfortable with you including linage in your motion that describes
it being – I don’t want to put the words in your mouth but we are committing to going back to this
elevation. That’s why we’ve shown it, that’s why we’ve included it, that’s why there are no other
drawings, and we not interrupting this. We’re not coming up with a new design. Board Member Wimmer I
appreciate your comments about the arch and the arch door but that’s not where we are going with this.
We’re going back to 1927 Birge Clark design, that’s our intent and that drawing shows it. That’s what we
are doing and I’m going to give that drawing to the ironwork subcontractor that I use and I’m going to
tell him that this is the design that I want you to use. Give me shop drawings based on this. I’m going to
give this drawing to contractors and say when we’re done, it needs to look like this. I’m going to have a
full set of construction documents and they are going to go to Emily and she’s going to review them just
the way she described as staff always does. This is our guide, this is our intent, and the word similarly
just means that it’s impossible for us to know exactly what was there. There’s so little detail in the
drawings and we’re subtly interrupting but that’s really all it is. It’s a very subtle interruption. Our goal is
to really dial the clock back to 1927 and that’s what we are committing too.
Chair Bower: I’ll bring it back to the Board. I would propose that what we do is – I think we can – we’ve
discussed the restoration. I think we have pretty clearly as a Board feel that this could be changed from a
Category III to a Category II and so I would recommend that to the Planning Director that that change
be made. I think if we’re still concerned about the specific details and the ones that I’m concerned about
are for instance stucco treatment. There’s the original stucco, some or maybe there isn’t but what’s the
new going to look like? I think that’s a reasonable question and that we would see on a palette – you
know a sample board. I think we – some of the plaster details that are being restored, we ought to know
what those look like but again, I don’t think that’s going to be a deal breaker here. I think obviously
Board Members are concerned about it so I’d propose that we move to recommend this project move
forward and create a subcommittee and have a subcommittee look at the details that we’re discussing;
tile, maybe stucco – plastering details, color. I’m perfectly comfortable personally with staff, Emily, and
Amy, doing this. They are very thorough but I don’t want to (inaudible) the Board’s position. I just want
to – I want this not to be a roadblock, I want this just to be a clarification, the subcommittee. Is that –
are people comfortable with that or is there a different direction that the Board Members would like to
take? Margaret, are you comfortable with that?
Board Member Wimmer: Sure, yeah.
Chair Bower: Could I hear a motion that addresses the three recommendations in our report and maybe
a subcommittee recommendation? Anybody want to craft that? I will craft it if no one else will. Alright….
Board Member Wimmer: You’re so crafty.
MOTION
Chair Bower: I am so crafty. That was Margaret that said that. I would like to – my motion is that we
approve the restoration as presented today in – how do I describe this? It’s not in theory but as
represented in the reproduction drawings that were presented by the applicant. I think these renovations
City of Palo Alto Page 23
need to adhere to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for restoration and renovation. The proposed
change from a Category III to a Category II, I think is met in all three of the options for a Category II
definition of a building. So, we recommend that change be made and that the project move forward. Now
the condition that I – I would put two conditions on this, one that this project has to be executed as
closely to these drawings as possible as presented today and if they are not executed, then that category
shift does not occur. Now that’s a chicken and an egg problem but if this project is not completed as
proposed today then that category change cannot occur so it’s – I don’t know if we want to condition the
change in category to the completion of the project. That’s probably required?
Ms. Vance: Yeah, I think we made it clear – it was written in the staff report that the Category II
elevation would not occur until after work is complete and inspected.
Chair Bower: Right so let’s incorporate that into the motion which is getting a little –already too long.
Lastly, that a subcommittee be formed of three people to review the detailing that – the kinds of detailing
we discussed today; tile selection and probably a full materials pallet on the front of the building.
Board Member Bernstein: A question for the subcommittee, that would be a subcommittee that just
meets then with Historic Planner Vance?
Chair Bower: Staff and applicant.
Board Member Bernstein: Yeah and (inaudible) – so the subcommittee would not be involved in the full
HRB, that’s just between…
Chair Bower: No.
Board Member Bernstein: Yeah so just communication with Emily and…
Chair Bower: Right and the subcommittee would (inaudible). Now, it’s my understanding, I think, that if
the subcommittee has problems with some portion of the review they are doing. They could bring that
back to the Board, is that correct or am I misinformed?
Ms. French: We don’t do this all the time so yeah, I think if there’s an issue as you said earlier, any
unresolved items that are troubling to the subcommittee. I mean you’re delegated by the Board to take
care of things and if you feel like they are not taken care of a need further input, I think that’s always an
option to come back to the Board.
Chair Bower: Ok, as long as it’s possible for the subcommittee to say you know, I’m not – we are not
comfortable with this or we have some other issues that we want the Board to hear about related to
these selections. Then it could come back but I’m intend – anticipating that would be the case. So, to…
Board Member Bernstein: You’re clear.
Chair Bower: …restate, we’re going to approve the project as it’s proposed as long as it’s substantially
completed according to the drawings. We’re going to recommend that the category change be made
from III to II after the project is complete. We’re going to create a subcommittee to review details with
staff, Emily and Amy and whoever else is there, and client. Any other additions to that?
Board Member Kohler: Sounds good.
Chair Bower: Alright, do I have a second?
Board Member Bernstein: I’ll second that. The reason I’ll second that is it doesn’t sound like that’s
slowing down the process.
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Chair Bower: Ok.
Board Member Makinen: (Inaudible) Chair?
Chair Bower: Mic.
Board Member Makinen: Would the Chair like to consider the statement that is does comply with the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards?
Chair Bower: Yep, that was…
Board Member Makinen: (inaudible)
Chair Bower: …part of my first remark.
Board Member Makinen: Ok.
Chair Bower: Yeah and oh, I’m sorry, the other thing that I would add to this motion is that the – if
applicable, the California Historic Building Code should be used on this project. I don’t know who makes
that decision but I think it’s obvious that this particular façade restoration should qualify for that.
Board Member Bernstein: My understanding is that the applicant can request that.
Chair Bower: Ok but I think it’s pretty clear that that should be applied if the applicant is interested. I
don’t see why they wouldn’t because there are substantial advantages to using that. Alright, any other
comments? There is a second.
Board Member Bernstein: I seconded it.
Chair Bower: Emily.
Ms. Vance: I was just wondering who was going to be on the subcommittee.
Chair Bower: We’ll get there.
Ms. Vance: Ok, not yet.
Chair Bower: I thought that we could approve the motion and then create the subcommittee or add
subcommittee members if that’s acceptable with everyone? Alright, any further discussion? No further
discussion, all in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed? None.
MOTION PASSED WITH UNANIMOUS VOTE OF 6-0
Chair Bower: Good so subcommittee members, who would like to be a part of that subcommittee or
should I just pick people?
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll volunteer.
Chair Bower: Thank you. Margaret wants to be on it. Michael, you want to participate?
Board Member Makinen: (inaudible – no mic)
Chair Bower: Michael. Anyone else? I’ll be on it. Alright, so it’s Margaret, Michael and me on that
subcommittee and I think that takes care of this item. Sorry, it’s been a long time, it says it's 3:25 on the
City of Palo Alto Page 25
clock we can see from our position so it’s been a lot longer than I thought. Can we have a 2-minute
break just to stand up and stretch?
[The Board took a short break]
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Discussion and Recommendation of the
Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City Council
Chair Bower: I want to call the meeting back to order. We’re running a long time this morning so let’s
move to the next action item is number three. A public hearing, Historic Resources Board discussion, and
recommendation of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City. We have all
received from staff a response packet on comments of the public review draft. We got them this morning,
none of us have had time to review them but let’s let staff take over from there.
Ms. French: Please. Good morning, the item that you have At Place was received last night from our
consultant and what it is, is a tabulation and notes and they are preliminary, they are not ready for prime
time really or they are not completed, to say what we’re going to do in response to the comments. It is a
complete list of the comments received and it starts at number 32 because that is the first comment
following – the comments before number 32 were admin draft comments. Now, this is on the public
review draft so it starts at comment number 32 and it goes to comment number 227. Those contain
comments received at the community meeting that we had last Thursday. On the screen I have the
schedule and it kind of shows you the trajectory of our review of these Eichler Guidelines and
preparation. In yellow you can see that is today’s date, we are looking towards a recommendation
realizing, of course, that there are a lot of comments and you’re not seeing the final version in what you
have today. This is still the same version that was given to you and members of the public on November
9th of last year but I do have some slides here that say generally what we are doing in response. As well
as to convene the approaches as you say potential regulatory options that we’ve been starting to discuss
and in fact, we began last Thursday to discuss those. Our intent, of course, is to get to the City Council,
we have this target date of March 12th, with a revised guideline to respond to the comments to the City
Council for the adoption of just the guidelines. Then direction to go to the next stage which is to begin to
formulate some regulatory measures as Council might direct us. There’s the schedule and we’re hoping to
get these out in the final version and start using them and so we’ll talk about that in a minute. We have a
workshop summary here that’s basically from last Thursday. We had about 35 people come, including
former Chair Bernstein and our individual review consultant who looks at two-story homes. We did have
some repeat customers or attendees from the prior workshops and we did tell the group there that we’re
planning to go to Council on March 12th, that could slip. We showed them the tools and – oh thank you,
this is for Brandon, excellent. We have a – we talked about this initial tier approach to implementation
show the Council direct one of those approaches and we got some feedback on those so we’ll talk about
that and then we talked about next steps. We’re hoping to begin to look at integrating basically as a
recommendation to Council this set of guidelines in some fashion to the two-story home review process
so that these can be useful in that process and we’re clear about that; again, I’ll talk about that in a bit. A
lot of the comments from last Thursday focused on similar topics so we have – these where some of the
things that were noted. We had the concern about – there are some statements in here about adding
onto the front may not be a good idea but then as far as a second floor but then adding on to the rear is
impactful to privacy so for an Eichler tract. These are some of the comments here, we had a lot of
concern about accessory dwelling units. Especially because the current regulations for secondary dwelling
units in the rear year allow for a height of 17-feet. So, several folks commented on how that should be
no higher than the height of the home which actually could in a single-story overlay neighborhood really.
We’d have to make an actual change to the regulations in the zoning code to make that and that is
something I think worth perusing as soon as possible and we’re hearing from the public about that.
There was some interest about these – ACC stands for Architectural Control Committees so there are
several neighborhoods that have Architectural Control Committees and that’s a voluntary thing that they
can use these guidelines once they are finalized in their process to look at homes in Eichler Tracts.
Anyways, there are some other comments here, I’m just going to let them sit for a second. There are
some interesting aspects in that there are non-Eichlers and you know how do we look at the non-Eichlers
City of Palo Alto Page 26
when it comes to this. I mean obviously they are not restoring an Eichler because it was never an Eichler
but how do these apply to those buildings in Eichler Tracts where they exist? There’s a lot of words on
the screen, I’m not going to read them. These were just some of the comments that we heard and you
know McMansions, people are – it’s clear – it needs to be clear that there’s not going to be any
retroactive enforcement, these are voluntary. These are proposed as voluntary, what the Council does
next will be…
Board Member Kohler: Can you do back?
Ms. French: Yeah, this one?
Board Member Kohler: The next one back.
Ms. French: This one?
Board Member Kohler: Oh wait, go back right…
Male: Forward.
Ms. French: This one?
Board Member Kohler: Forward now sorry.
Ms. French: Oh, ok.
Board Member Kohler: So, down at the bottom it says no McMansions.
Ms. French: This was a comment that was made – these are Emily’s notes from last Thursday and if you
wanted to weigh in on…
Ms. Vance: Sure, this was just kind of a general comment about several people stating that they didn’t
like these large – I think the phrased used was stucco palaces that were popping up within Eichler Tracts.
So, that was just another comment that we head at that meeting.
Board Member Kohler: Ok.
Ms. French: So, this is kind of a flavor, it gives you a flavor of that meeting. Those who didn’t attend,
Martin was there and he can weigh in on that too or you can talk with him about that. Here is the original
table of contents from the November draft, the public review draft. There were comments on rearranging
an order because the next stage being how are we going to implement this. There’s kind of a need for
clarity and placement of the more important guidelines near the front and the guidelines that address
how to make a perfect Eichler basically with – that those would be later in the document and very clearly
not ever going to be a mandatory or code change. There was also, excuse me, expressed concern about
this concept of Eichler overlay which is not proposed actually. It is talked about as an option I believe and
you know it’s not defined but it’s not intended to replace single-story overlay or it’s not intended too force
it on any existing single-story overlay. I mean the single-story overlay is really the best way to retain a
one-story neighborhood so we’re not encouraging anybody to change that. The potential reorganization
of the guidelines would be in the introduction to integrate only some of the contents in Chapter 8, which
is called the Process Improvement Suggestions into the purpose section so why are we doing this?
Council adoption of the guidelines is required, Council action is also required for any subsequent
ordinances with regulatory changes and those aren’t proposed at this time. Then we – there’s some other
things that we can do there but inserting the known CCNRs and then which of those actually limit
construction to one-story so it’s clearly found. Of course, that might be – anyways. Then what are these
guidelines and what aren’t they? In other words, these are not mandatory, these are voluntary and
anything else is by separate action. Then also clearing up the misconception that may be out there that
City of Palo Alto Page 27
we’re trying to change the single-story overlay guidelines with – single-story overlay zoning code with
guidelines; we’re not. The Council had directed us to modify the ordinance for single-story overlay
establishment because we had such trouble with what we called erosion of support. That phrase appears
in here and it caused confusion. We have not received, just for the record, any comments from any
single-story overlay property owner tract that they want to – you know that their support for their
existing single-story overlay is eroding that. That was not what that was intended to be, that was about
how difficult it has been for several tracts to get a single-story overlay established because of the
changing support level during that process to try to rezone their neighborhood. I just wanted to kind of
say that. Here is the proposed reorganization so you can see here that the beginning part is to focus on
the history and the values etc. Then the first major chapter on what’s next is what to do in Chapter 4 so
we talk about compatibility, new additions and that’s where we put the stuff about the ADUs. So, have
that in the critical chapter for people to look at when they are actually going to come forward with some
kind of proposal for an addition or construction. Then the later Chapters 5, 6, 7, those are really intended
for maintenance and that sort of thing. Moving on, we do have some FAQs, we had shared those and
those are on our webpage, correct Emily? These are all on our webpage about this project and we have
this email address that people can communicate and they have been. The concept of these and you
where here for Professorville so this group is the best group to understand this. We did this already with
the Professorville Guidelines and just like these, any Discretionary Review such as Individual Review for a
new two-story home, this could be useful in that process. We do need to make an ordinance to say we’re
going to intend to use this for that process and maybe be specific about which of the guidelines in here
would be useful for that IR process. That is something that we would have a discussion with the Council
about. Your former comments or previous comments on the public redraft was hey, let’s get these in
chronological order as these tracts as to when they were built and have it listed that way so that’s going
to happen in the next draft. Then this – we’re going to have this clarification in Chapter 3 to help
understand better…
Board Member Kohler: Could you go back on more?
Ms. French: Yep.
Board Member Kohler: So, you look down here and you see number 4, number 10 and they are talking
about putting underground – to go under the railroad and that’s going to impact a whole bunch of these
Eichler homes because they are going to get wiped out. That’s what the proposal is or the last one I saw
and that’s nothing official but that’s what they are talking about. It was in the paper and they showed
that this and the one down at Churchill Avenue to try to get the trains – everyone to go under them like
in Oregon. Does this…
Ms. French: Yeah, this is not the document to address…
Board Member Kohler: No, I’m just saying it’s just – once you see these orange things and you realize
that they – the powers to be are talking about wiping out ten or twelve of those homes.
Ms. French: Perhaps we can agendize a discussion about Caltrain possibilities at a later date. I just want
to focus on the guidelines.
Board Member Kohler: No, that’s ok, I’m just saying it kind of pops right out at you once you see all
those homes.
Ms. French: Moving on, Chapter 4 we would make that a later chapter basically because it’s about
maintaining Eichler homes and not about the new additions. The part that people really care more about
I think and then these would be the earlier chapter as noted. As noted, moving the ADUs into that
Chapter 5, this one, which would then become an earlier chapter and this one would just basically be
about the National Historic Districts. This – again, we heard no taller than the home height and the home
height being the single-story so this would be certainly a regulation that could be applied City-wide but
certainly in the Eichler neighborhoods where privacy in the backyards is so critical. Privacy for those plate
City of Palo Alto Page 28
glass window is unique to the Eichler neighborhoods in particular. Then we have this Chapter 8 going into
the background and I already talked about that kind of in the introductory to – so people understand
about hey, we’re going – I think might – it would say less than it says right now about this
implementation. The implementation itself would talk about – yeah. Then I guess I had – this was shown
to the workshop folks and this is – we spent a good hour talking about these and really people – nobody
was all that excited about just a voluntary, at least the folks in the room that cared about Eichlers. They
certainly – there was some popularity about this Tier One which again was let’s use these in the IR
process looking at new two-story homes and maybe strengthen the whole privacy guideline in the IR
Guidelines. Then these later tiers, this concept of having an Eichler overlay, for instance, we have a two-
story – original two-story Eichler neighborhood, [Terraria Court], they have too many two-story original
Eichler homes to be considered for single-story overlay. They are not entitled to go through that existing
process so this might be if they – they had come forward and asked and I said no, sorry, you don’t meet
the entrance requirements. If we had an Eichler overlay for that type of neighborhood, they could avail
themselves on that. So, it would again be like the single-overlay; self-selecting neighbors/property
owners coming together and asking to have that for their tract and it wouldn’t supplant single-story
overlay. When I had this here saying add – change to EO, I mean that is a possibility. We would not
encourage switching from single-story overlay to Eichler but there might be a possibility of in the Eichler
overlays talking about guidelines in here, some of them in particular related to Eichler overlay. This is just
a start, we are starting this conversation and the chief goal is to get these to Council in their revised state
as we just outlined to get those adopted. Then the next steps carry on months and how long after.
Anyways, this summarized that there was not much support for this option, the Tier (inaudible) zero. The
Tier 1, the concept of strengthening our massing, the scale and streetscape and privacy guidelines from
the IR specific to Eichler neighborhoods was – seemed to be popular. Then the concept of tailored Eichler
overlays along with IR integration for two-story. This is what kind of summarized what we heard and
then with regulatory – the concept of the regulations that we might come up with for height mass and
privacy. For instance, you could come up with limitations on the size of a second floor or a certain
placement on the property where those would be less impactful on privacy or how you deal with privacy
in an Eichler tract. That sums up my presentation such as it is and Emily if you had anything to add here.
She did – we did have an exercise that was a – where folks came a put a dot on these tiers here basically
and that’s where the ‘what’s most popular’ kind of came about where dots.
Ms. Vance: Right, yeah, there was an exercise at the end of the public meeting on Thursday where we
had a sheet with the Tier 1, 2, 3 and it was just another exercise for people to participate into kind of
gauge the feeling of the room. I got to stand over there and kind of have more one on one chats with
individuals as they came up to talk about the options that we presented. I don’t have a picture of it or
anything but we – that’s kind of where what – when we talk about this visualizing support, that’s where
that’s coming from.
Ms. French: I guess I would add just because I’m glancing at this working draft that’s At Place, you know
comments that were made prior to this by staff and the HRB are underway. For instance, here’s an easy
one, chapter numbers are going to be added to the green section title pages. I think Roger had made
that comment in a prior meeting or possibility David so we have our work cut out for us to pull together
the final draft to get to Council. We would like your support in moving that forward, the final guidelines
document. As to these potential regulatory, we are going to be buttoned up for Council on that, that is
going to be a later effort and you will have involvement in that as well.
Chair Bower: Ok, thank you, it’s a lot of material. I think because this meeting has run so long, I’d like to
ask our one audience participant who has asked to speak to us to come forward. Penny Ellison, who has
been here before and so welcome back. I’m sorry that it’s taken us so long to get to this topic.
Ms. Penny Ellison: Well, thank you for considering this item. I live in Green Meadow which is a single-
story overlay district and I’m speaking today as an individual on that; as a representative of my
Neighborhood Association, we have not voted on this. Here are some thoughts that I have about it, as I
look at these tiered options here, I think that the Tier Three regulatory options actually have some
relevance for SSO neighborhoods. I say that because as I listened to people in the neighborhood
City of Palo Alto Page 29
meetings, what I heard is really clearly is that the key issue is the protection from privacy intrusion on
those indoor/outdoor glass-walled spaces that define Eichler architecture and the lifestyle associated with
it. When we talk about restricting additions onto the front of the property, I think if you – I would
encourage you – in fact, I invite you. I’d be glad to organize a tour of some Eichler homes in Green
Meadow so that you can understand sort of how the indoor/outdoor spaces work and how the Eichler
architects really designed the homes to speak to each other. The window placement is very important
and so that’s why I get to Tier 3, the regulatory options, even for SSO neighborhoods I think is very
important because – and things – it can control things like floor heights. You know if you raise a floor in
an Eichler, you can actually see your fence into your neighbor’s yard. I Eichler guarded against this when
they were designing – their architects were very careful about that. They were careful not to place
windows on one side of a house to face the private spaces of the home next door. These kinds of – even
today, like our existing code right now does not protect an Eichler home even in an SSO neighborhood
from this. I can show you an example of this in my own home. Too late for me but I would really like to
see other Eichler homes protected from somebody putting a plate glass wall facing yours and that can
happen today. Simultaneously with the floor being raised which enables your neighbor to see into your
house so those kinds of things can happen presently, even in an SSO neighborhood so it would be terrific
to go to the Tier 3 thing. I was one of the people who suggested a maximum height for ADUs that does
not exceed the height of the primary residence on the lot that it shares. I think that you can probably add
the 17-feet into that but say whichever one is less and then that gives some flexibility for areas where
people want it. Let’s see, what were my other comments? Generally, I think that the guidelines are a
helpful learning tool for people who want to maintain an Eichler and the comments when I distributed it
in my neighborhood that I got back where you know, I wish I’d seen this before I did my remodel. So, it
is going to be helpful for people who care about it but I do think that regulation is going to be important.
I think that these guidelines – for some people, the read them and said gosh, these are great. This is
going to protect our privacy but in fact, I think it’s kind of giving people a false sense of security. It
doesn’t do that at all as we all know now. I do think they provide a wonderful context for the next
conversation that needs to happen about regulation and we need to make sure that this process does not
stop here. Thank you for considering my comments.
Chair Bower: Sure, thank you very much for coming and waiting so long. It’s very important that we hear
from homeowners in these circumstances. I think that your concerns, the ones that you’ve just
expressed, are at least my concerns about the way we develop these. Also, I think to echo Amy’s earlier
statements, this is the beginning of a long process because at first, you adopt guidelines, then you move
forward to implementation and I think that’s where we’ll get closer to the kinds of protection you’re
looking for. Today, I think that – I know Michael has to leave shortly. We received all these comments
which we didn’t have time to review. I’m not sure that we can actually move this forward at this point
because there’s too much that’s still in flux; the arrangement. So, mindful – being mindful of the interest
of getting this to the Council as soon as possible, I think we ought to probably continue this discussion. It
would be nice to see the revised guidelines the next time we talk about this and maybe we would have
an opportunity to review public comments that are on these 200 comments that you gave us today and
maybe move this forward to the Council.
Ms. French: Thank you. Can I ask that – you know we had heard comments from before and we – those
are – of the HRB’s. If you hadn’t made comments before and there are comments that you are
withholding, please make sure that we have those. We basically have provided direction to our consultant
to move on these and start creating the final version so we can bring those back. February 8th is to soon
to get the final draft in front of you but certainly by February 8th if there was something that you can
provide to us about what you received today, that would be really important to do that. So, we can put
that on our retreat agenda as an item for you to…
Chair Bower: Of course.
Ms. French: Did you have some thoughts about that Emily? Ok. To give us a here, here, on these or
some concerns if you do have them because we want to let the consultants move on to the next stage.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Chair Bower: Ok, Martin, do you have a comment?
Board Member Bernstein: I have a question for the speaker Penny Ellison, if I may? My question for
Penny is with your experience with the Architectural Control Committees, how effective is that in
implementing their recommendations? Do you have experience with that?
Ms. Ellison: I have talked with the members of our ARC in Green Meadow about that. I haven’t done a
remodel that required me to do that, any work that I’ve done has all been things like restoring siding to
get back to the original siding; simple stuff like that. Generally speaking, they will tell you that they do
their best to get neighbors to comply but the fact of the matter is, it’s – they use persuasion because
ultimately what it comes down to is the neighbor could – is the neighborhood going to sue the neighbor
whose doing something to their house? Controls – City regulated controls would be very helpful, it
certainly would have been very helpful in my particular instance. The Committee recommended against
what the person did and it – and City regulations allowed it so it went forward and there was nothing
that really could be done. Does that make sense?
Board Member Bernstein: Yes, that does. My other comment is that based on your experience and maybe
even in your own personal residence, I hear the word privacy is the dominant concern. Is it – privacy –as
long as the people feel that their privacy is being respected, is that the…
Ms. Ellison: Well, I can’t speak for other people. What I heard and I mean I can tell you what I heard in
the meetings is that the indoor/outdoor space of an Eichler – I mean if you live in an Eichler, you want
your windows open. So, I can tell you what happened to me, I mean my neighbor put a plate glass
window right across and I can hear everything that goes on in her house now. I know she can hear
everything that goes on in mine so – and when her lights go on at night, it lights my backyard and that
was never the case before so it has changed. It means that you know where I use to have a view of the
sky from the interior of my house, I know how a view of my draperies which are always shut so it has
really changed my, both enjoyment of my home and my privacy. That’s – it’s unfortunate but that’s – you
know, it’s done so I guess what I’m saying is we’re not – I can appreciate it because I’ve experienced
what people are worried about.
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you for that.
Chair Bower: Thank you. Other Board Members have comments?
Board Member Wimmer: I just have one quick question and maybe this has already been answered.
Once the guidelines are put in place, is there – if an Eichler owner wants to modify/add/alter their home,
will they be required to go through like an IR sort of review with – like when you want to put on a
second-story, you have to meet with Arnold. Is there going to be some kind of a review or these are just
guidelines that we put out there and people can take it or leave it?
Ms. French: The ladder because we do not have a single-story home review process and I think taking
that on, frankly resources…
Board Member Wimmer: That’s a lot.
Ms. French: That’s a lot so my preference and I think at could happen is that the regulatory – yeah, you
can get to a point of what are the most important prescriptive statements you can make about one-story
changes in a single-story overlay neighborhood in particular. Then figure out what those statements are
and then those can be part of the Development Standards so then we’re not doing a qualitative review at
staff.
Board Member Wimmer: Could we empower people like Penny who – she’s part of her neighborhood
organization – I forget what you referred to it as but could we empower them to be somewhat of like an
HOA. Where in this zone, if one of the neighbors wants to remodel their house they would have their own
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Board that’s made up of their own neighbors and like a lot of HOAs do that. Maybe that’s not something
that the City of Palo Alto would allow but would that – I just through that out there as an idea. They
could be self-regulating a forum or in an arena where each individual has to go to go through a review
and a neighborhood comment but they do it themselves. So, basically, Palo Alto was delegating that
activity to the neighborhood, I mean that’s…
Ms. French: It’s like a Municipal Advisory Council of some sort…
Board Member Wimmer: Kind of a cool idea, I don’t know if it could even happen.
Ms. French: …or Committee.
Board Member Wimmer: I mean that might be a way because that’s basically, you’re trying to address
the neighbors. You’re trying to make the community members happy so if we put it upon the community
members in that neighborhood to review those projects and comment on them with the guidelines. I
don’t know and then my only other comment which was the same comment I gave with the Professorville
Guidelines is with the book itself if we could maximize the font size. I said that before, I know that’s –
maybe I’m old but I see a lot of blank area on the page and maybe if we could just – instead of a 10
point, make it a 12 point. It just makes it easier to read, just simple, not to make – I don’t want to create
more pages. I just want to be able to see it better, sorry.
Ms. French: I think you are not alone in the quest for larger print.
Board Member Wimmer: I hate these things, I just hate it. Please, bigger font would be great.
Board Member Kohler: I have one quick comment in that my recent experience with the person who
wanted to add a second floor or do a new home with a two-story, was the people complained the most
were the folks who already had two-story homes and big ugly ones at that. They complained the most
and we worked very hard with the neighbors and everything so anyway, it never got done. Maybe with
these guidelines, we’ll be able to do something.
Chair Bower: I have a couple of quick observations, I know this – we want – we all need to get moving
here. I would hope that there’s language in the final version of this that allows the ACC and the
organizations that have CCNRs Homeowners Associations to really be the first line of defense in their
neighborhood development. More local I think is better and that would be as local as you get. Mindful of
what Ms. Ellison just described to us as a CCNRs or Architectural Review Committee that has to live with
their neighbors and can’t really – it really is not going to enforce it. I would hope that these guidelines
that know neighborhood association could approve something that was less stringent than this. We’re
going to set a guideline standard that’s kind of a standard in that individual neighborhoods could, though
they Architectural Review Committees, review it but not under mind these guidelines. I don’t know if
that’s – if there’s a way to incorporate that but I think that’s important.
Ms. French: One thing that I didn’t mention when we were talking about the National Register Historic
Districts, I think you all aware that Professorville is both a National and Local Historic District. In our code
for historic preservation, only addresses local designated districts. If for instance, the Green Meadow
National Register District wished to become a local designated district, that is another way to have some
kind of review at least for Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Right now, because it’s not in our ordinance,
that isn’t happening.
Chair Bower: Right and that was my – one of my next – my next comment that I wanted to speak to is I
would like these – this document in some way to encourage the local listing of any National Register
District or property. Now, in this case, we’re talking about Eichler properties so it seems to me that we
should make some statement that these national districts – Eichler districts ought to be part of our local
register. I know that requires the homeowners to do that but I think we could still encourage that in this
document. Finally, a letter that Emily sent to us from a – emailed to us, which I printed out and then left
City of Palo Alto Page 32
at home, talked about single-story overlay and I didn’t understand what the issue in that letter was. That
has to be part of the public record because it was sent to the Board. Can you briefly summarize what that
– do you remember what that was about? I’ll just – if not, I’ll just – we’ll just move on. Don’t worry about
it, let’s move on.
Ms. French: Was that – sorry, when did we receive that letter?
Chair Bower: I don’t know.
Ms. French: When did you receive it?
Chair Bower: Emily sent it to us earlier this week. Look, it’s ok, I – we’re not done with this, we’ll come
back to it, let’s just move on.
Board Member Wimmer: (Inaudible) the ADU heights.
Chair Bower: Yeah, alright…
Ms. French: Right, we heard from several about the ADU heights and that frankly could be on a separate
ordinance that’s going – that’s – we have these annual updates of our codes and that might be a City-
wide wish that transcends the whole Eichler situation.
Chair Bower: I think we’re going to need to continue this discussion, we can do it at our retreat on the 8th
but maybe, is it possible to move this forward on the 22nd – on February 22nd meeting? That we would
have this complete enough that the Board might make some final recommendation to the Council; 22nd of
February, that’s….
Ms. French: Yeah, that would help.
Board Member Corey: I would love to see – I mean you know we already talked about coming back on
the 8th with all our comments and feedback but is there any way we could get a draft – preliminary draft
final before we – is that not going to happen?
Ms. French: As you saw with the 200 and some comments, I wouldn’t want to put the consultant in that
position of not meeting a deadline so I would prefer the – continue to the 22nd. If there’s some reason
why we can’t it to you by then, we can always target…
Chair Bower: Well, let’s hope that we don’t get it on the 21st…
Ms. French: Correct. Yeah, that’s…
Chair Bower: …or the morning of the 22nd.
Ms. French: That gives us a little more wiggle room to get it to you by maybe the 8th or the following
week.
Board Member Corey: I guess -- I think that’s my point exactly if we get it the 21st or the 22nd it’s not
going to be a very productive meeting.
Chair Bower: Alright so we’ll continue this until time uncertain I think.
Ms. French: Or you could just say the 22nd…
Chair Bower: Oh, alright.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Ms. French: … if you’d like to give predictability to the process and then we’ll…
Chair Bower: Fine, let’s do on the 22nd and then we’ll visit.
Approval of Minutes
4. Historic Resources Board Draft Meeting Minutes of December 14, 2017.
Chair Bower: Alright, we have one final thing to do then today and that is approval of minutes. I’m sure
every one of you has read every single word in the minutes.
Board Member Wimmer: I tried too.
Chair Bower: Any changes? Martin, you have a change.
Board Member Bernstein: I do, I’ll go through the page numbers here. Regarding the minutes of – let me
see the date – minutes of December 14th and packet page 101, in the middle, it says IR consultant
Manuela. So, in the middle and so where ever it says Manuela, it says it about – there are several pages
so it’s Mamorella just so that’s correct there. Then also on packet page 102 about the middle where I’m
saying about the Willis Polk building that says no existing historic fabric was retained. Cross off the words
removed because the existing historic fabric – I’m sorry, my mistake, I’m just reading it – oh, yeah, it
should say no existing historic fabric, yeah, was retained. That’s what it should say…
Chair Bower: Then just cross out…
Board Member Bernstein: and cross out the word or removed. It should say that no existing historic
fabric was retained, correct that record. Packet page 105 the fourth from the bottom where it says Chair
Bernstein, it says the word – the last sentence says now of the fabric is going to be thrown away. Correct
that to say none of the fabric is going to be thrown away. Then finally on packet page 106, third
paragraph from the bottom, Chair Bernstein, it’s not a Camphor tree, it’s a Chamfer, C-H-A-M-F-E-R.
Those are my (crosstalk).
Chair Bower: Alright…
Board Member Bernstein: Thank you.
Chair Bower: If there are no other corrects or additions or alterations do I hear a motion to approve?
Board Member Bernstein: Oh, one more on packet page 113, third paragraph from the bottom it talks
about Board Member Gooyer. He’s on the Architectural Review Board so whoever said yes can fess up.
Chair Bower: I missed that, that’s…
Ms. French: We have the same transcriptionist doing the ARB (inaudible).
Board Member Kohler: It was put in there on purpose.
Chair Bower: Yeah, this is a test. Alright…
Board Member Bernstein: So, yes, I have read the minutes. (crosstalk)
Board Member Wimmer: Do you only read your comments or do you read all of ours?
Board Member Corey: (Inaudible)
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Board Member Wimmer: Did you correct mine?
Chair Bower: Alright, do I hear a motion to approve? Motion to approve?
Board Member Corey: Second.
Board Member Wimmer: Approve, I wasn’t there so I can’t approve but I’ll approve it.
Chair Bower: I’m looking for the motion to approve.
Board Member Bernstein: I move…
Board Member Corey: I move…
Board Member Bernstein: Go ahead.
Chair Bower: Ok, Brandon…
MOTION
Board Member Corey: I move to approve.
Chair Bower: … moves to approve. Second?
Board Member Bernstein: As amended.
Chair Bower: As amended, of course, Martin seconds. All in favor say aye.
Board Member Wimmer: I wasn’t there but I’ll approve it.
Board Member Corey: That’s a -- you can withhold right?
Chair Bower: Ok so that’s unanimous.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER MAKINEN ABSENT WHO LEFT
EARLY.
Chair Bower: So, there being – since we did the Board Member comments and announcements at the
beginning of the meeting. I move we adjourn. Thank you all.
[The Board adjourned]
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: If there are any Board Members that’d like to make any question or comments, please.
Board Member Wimmer: I did.
Chair Bernstein: Yes, Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I wasn’t here at the last meeting and I know that or when I was looking through
the minutes, I see that you guys were talking about potential subjects to discuss during the retreat. I was
wondering if we could discuss some of the latest City maybe changes and procedures. Specifically, I
wanted to ask about the – if someone has a property that’s deemed potentially historic, I think now
there’s – since January, there might be a new procedure that they have to go through or they have to
City of Palo Alto Page 35
get a Historic Evaluation Report. Is that correct? I just wanted to learn – understand that process and
learn more about it; whether that’s something we can discuss right now or at the retreat. I definitely
need to be educated on that process.
Ms. French: Hi, Amy French here. We definitely have that planned for the retreat. We were going to
speak about it at the retreat on the 11th but we had that snafu so it is going to be discussed. What you’re
referring to is basically the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan in November and it became
effective in December. Now we’re addressing the – there are an Environmental Impact Report mitigation
measures that became policy and that we are trying to scurry and come up with procedures for it. So, we
don’t have ready procedures at this time but we are operating with what we can do at this time so we
will explain that at the retreat.
Chair Bernstein: Other Members? Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: I was going through all my varying piles of stuff and I came across this. Let’s see,
I’ll give – this was – Martin, your name is on the front cover there and you can have two or three. This is
a downtown Palo Alto tour that we did in 2000 and I did it within May 11, 2001, Martin, who had just
gotten on the Board I think, and I did the tour and 2-years in a row we did this downtown Palo Alto
walking tour. We handed out these – so, here we had a photograph and we had a list of historic sites to
drive – to walk around. There’s a little list that showed where everything is to go. Now, I understand this
– I was thinking this was something that we should start doing again but I guess you just told me that
the – we have folks coming to do the same thing, is that it?
Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Good morning, this is Emily Vance. Yeah, for the California
Preservation Foundation Conference in May, we are planning a downtown tour that will be spearheaded
by Palo Alto Stanford Heritage but I can pass along this information.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah because it was – it has – I think – well most of the homes – this is a long
time ago, 17-years ago I guess.
Chair Bernstein: Dark ages.
Board Member Kohler: Dark ages, yeah. I think – I kind of looked over the list and I didn’t see any that
were – that are gone that I know of so it could still be used.
Ms. Vance: Great, thank you, this is very interesting.
Chair Bernstein: Any other Board Member questions or comments?
[The Board moved back up to oral communications.]
Adjournment