HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 448-10City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: DECEMBER 13,2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING &
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 448:10
SUBJECT: Approval of Record of Land Use Action for Historic Review application for
minor revisions to a previously approved project at 661 Bryant Street.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Historic Review Board (HRB) recommend that the City Council the approve
attached Record of Land Use Action on 661 Bryant Street (Attachment A) approving a minor
revision in the amount of bonus floor area utilized on the site of the building previously known
as the FirstChurch of Christ, Scientist that is undergoing historic and seismic rehabilitation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has requested a minor change to a approved project that would add approximately
380 square feet of floor area to the total on-site use of bonus floor area granted as p~rt of a
historic and seismic rehabilitation of the building previously known as the First Church of Christ,
Scientist. This additional floor area would increase the amount of on-site use of bonus floor area
from 1,146 square feet to 1,526 square feet resulting in a total building floor area of 12,862
square feet. The additional floor area would be used to expand the size of an interior mezzanine.
No exterior changes are proposed as part of this request.
The City Council approved the original project on January 10, 2010, which included a request
for a floor area bonus consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAM C) as part of a historic
and seismic rehabilitation of the building. A total of 5,668 square feet of bonus floor area was
granted to the applicant, with 1,146 square feet to be used on site and 4,522 square feet to be
used as transferrable floor area, subject to the findings and conditions contained in Land Use
Action 2010-01 and the Transfer of Development Rights regulations in the PAMC.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On November 17, 2010, the Historic Review Board (HRB) reviewed the request for use of the
additional floor area for expansion of the mezzanine. The building is a historic resource
designated as a Category 2 structure on the City of Palo Alto historic inventory. It has been
determined that the HRB' s purview extends to interior modifications of this resource.
CMR:448:10 Page 1 of2
The HRB review focused on the increase in area of the mezzanine and the reduced distance
between the outer edges of the expanded mezzanine and the interior wall of the rotunda. This
distance would be reduced by approximately two feet, resulting in a separation between the
rotunda walls and the mezzanine in the range of two to four feet. The HRB commented that
although there would be reduced views of the rotunda from the perimeter of the main room at the
first floor, the primary views of the rotunda and oculus would be retained through the center
opening in the mezzanine. The HRB recommended approval of the revision, with conditions (5-
0-0-2, board members Bower and DiCicco absent). The HRB staff report and verbatim minutes
are contained in Attachment C.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs,
the P AMC. The HRB concluded that the project would be consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,
subject to conditions contained in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment A.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS
This project was deemed categorica~ly exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Section 15301.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
~~
STEVEN TURNER
Advance Planning Manager
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action
Attachment B: Project Description Letter
Attachment C: HRB Staff Report from November 17,2010 and verbatim minutes
Attachment D: Project Plans (City Council Only)
CMR:448:10 Page 2 of2
ACTION NO. 2010-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTiON
FOR 661 BRYANT STREET: HISTORIC REVIEW APPLICATION, 10PLN-00349,
(BLAKE REINHARDT, APPLICANT)
On December 13, 2010, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved a request for a minor revision to the previously approved
on-site use of 1,146 square feet of a 5,668 square-foot Combined
Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Floor Area Bonus from a
proposed historic rehabilitation and seismic retrofit to increase
the floor area of a property listed on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory as a Category II historic resource and on the Seismic
Structures Inventory as a Seismic Category II building, making the
following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The Council of the City of Palo
Al to ("C ty Council") finds, determines, and declares as, fOI;Lows:
A. On May 27, 2009, Blake Reinhardt, in behalf of ECI
Three Bryant, LLC, applied for major Historic Review, minor
Architectural Review, and a Combined Historic and Seismic
Rehabilitation Floor Area Bonus ("Combined Bonus") regarding a
project for historic and seismic rehabilitation and adaptive office
reuse, including a 1,146 square-foot interior addition utilizing a
portion of the Combined Bonus, of the former First Church of
Christ, Scientist.
B. On January 11, 2010, the Council of the City of Palo
Alto approved a request for on-site use of 1,146 square feet of a
5,668 square-foot Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation
Floor Area Bonus from a proposed historic rehabilitation and
seismic retrofit to increase the floor area of a property listed on
the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as a Category II historic resource
and on the Seismic Structures Inventory as a Seismic Category II
building, making the findings, determination and declarations in
Record of Land Use Action 2010-01, contained in Exhibit A.
C. On October 8, 2010, Blake Reinhardt, in behalf of
Embarcadero Capital Partners, LLC, applied for a minor change to
the amount of Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation bonus floor area
to be used on-site. The request included the use of approximately
380 square feet of additional floor area, which would be used to
expand the previously approved interior mezzanine (the "Project") .
The total floor area to be utilized on-site would increase from
1,146 square feet to 1,526 square feet. The use of this floor area
on-si te would reduce the bonus square footage that could be
transferred off-site consistent with the Transfer of Development
Rights program contained in Palo Al to Municipal Code, Section
18.18.080.
1
The Project proposes to utilize a por-tion of the Combined Bonus on
site which requires that the City Council approve the Project by
making two findings cited in Municipal Code section 18.18.070
(b) (8) (A) :
1. "The exterior modifications for the entire
proj ect comply wi th the U. S. Secretary of the
Interior's 'Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings' (36CFR Section 67,7); and
2. The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not
otherwise be inconsistent with the historic
character of the interior and exterior of the
building and site."
C. Following staff review, the Historic Resources Board
(HRB) , at a duly noticed hearing on November 11, 2010, reviewed the
interior design of the Project and recommended approval based on
the Findings cited in Section 3 of this Record and subject to the
historic Conditions cited in Section 4.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines,
per section 15301.
SECTION 3. Findings for Approval
Historic Review
The action of the Historic Resources Board on November 11,
2010 includes the recommended Findings of Project approval:
1. The proposed expansion of the previously approved
mezzanine as presented in the applicant's "Written
Project Description" document, dated October 8, 2010
[Attachment A of HRB staff report, will comply with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings, as conditioned, and
2 . The proposed expansion of the previously approved
mezzanine will comply with respect to preservation of
character defining features and with respect to the
compatibility of new features, as conditioned.
SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
2
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance
with the plans received on October 8, 2010 except as modified
to incorporate these conditions of approval. The plans are on
file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division.
2. A copy of this letter shall be printed on any plans that are
submitted to the City for a building permit, if required.
3. Upon determining that the project has been completed as
approved, the applicant shall secure a written certification
from the city which shall state the total floor area bonus
utilized at the site and the amount of remaining floor area
bonus which is eligible for transfer to another site. This
certification shall be recorded in the office of the County
Recorder.
4. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied
to all eligible aspects of the historic rehabilitation of the
site and the building exterior and interior when needed to
preserve character-defining features.
5. The revision to the previously approved project at 661 Bryant
Street shall be based on the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation and on a
consideration of recommendations provided in the Department of
the Interior's "Preservation Briefs" including, but not
limited to, #18 ("Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic
Buildings: Identifying and Preserving Character-Defining
Elements"), #41 ("The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings:
Keeping Preservation in the Forefront"), and "Preservation
Tech Note: Specifying Temporary Protection of Historic
Interiors During Construction and Repair~"
6. The final design, materials, finishes, and colors of the
proposed auditorium mezzanine, including the supporting
columns and the glass railing around the perimeter of the
central opening of the mezzanine (shown on Sheet A2.02 of the
plan set as 17'-2" in diameter), shall be submitted for review
by the Historic Preservation Planner.
7. All other conditions included in the City Council Record of
Land Use Action 2010-01/ approved on January 11/ 2010/ and
contained in Exhibit A, shall continue to apply to the
project.
3
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Deputy City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared by Lundberg Design titled "661 Bryant
Avenue Palo Alto, CA", consisting of five pages, received October
8, 2010.
4
October 8, 2010
661 Bryant Street Project Description
Attachl11ent B
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
661 Bryant Street is located on the northwest comer of the intersection between Bryant Street
and Forest Avenue. The original building was designed by Elmer Grey in the Mission Revival
Style for the First Church of Christ Scientist as a place of worship and was built in 1916. A
second-story wing along Bryant was added in 1929 along with three (3) one-story wings fom1ing
a central courtyard in the rear of the property . The central courtyard was enclosed during a later
phase in 1 947. The structure consists primarily of a wood frame structure with exterior white
stucco walls over wood lath, wood framed windows and doors and a clay tile roof.
The property is zoned CD-P, is listed as a Category 2 "major building" on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory and is a Category 2 Seismic building.
On November 12,2009, the Architectural Review Board application 09PLN-00116 was
conditionally approved by planning staff as it was found to meet the applicable findings set forth
in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(d) as well as having been found by
the Historic Resources Board to comply with the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guideline for Rehabilitating Historic, Buildings. On January 11,2010 the
Palo Alto City Council conditionally approved the same application. With these approvals the
property is now eligible to receive 5,668 square feet of bonus square footage ("Bonus") and
eligible for onsite use of 1,146 square feet of the Bonus once seismic retrofit and historic
preservation scopes of work are certified as complete. These scopes of work are currently
underway.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We are requesting an increase in the amount of bonus density square footage to be used on site.
Currently the project is eligible for onsite use of 1,146 square feet. We are requesting that an
additional 380 square feet of the 5,668 square feet of eligible bonus be used on site. This
additional square footage would be added to the mezzanine perimeter and to the existing bridge
area connecting the mezzanine to the former organ loft in a manner that carries the design intend
approved by the HRB, ARB and City Council earlier this year.
After several meetings with Historic Preservation Planner Dennis Backlund regarding the
proposed change it is our understanding that he is in agreement that the change would not be a
deviation from the design intend and would still comply with the Secretary of Interiors
Standards.
The proposed design change is the result of the relocation of the mezzanine staircase from the
main auditorium to the "back-of-house." Relocation of the staircase provides a more open floor
October 8, 2010
661 Bryant Street
Project Description
plan for the area under the mezzanine and improves the view of one of the opalescent windows
that was previously behind the staircase.
The dimension of the gap between the existing auditorium wall and the exterior wall of the
approved mezzanine was originally set based on code requirements for a stair width. Now that
the staircase is being relocated out of the auditorium space the gap size can be reduced.
Additionally, the approved design includes a bridge between the mezzanine and the fonner organ
loft that with a bridge size driven by symmetry around the organ loft opening. We did not
propose to widen the bridge in the original design because we would only be able to do so on one
site (opposite the stair) resulting in an asymmetrical design. Now that the stair has been
relocated we are proposing to widen the bridge but limit the widening to the area just in front of
the organ loft.
FLOOR AREA RATIO
The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on this property is 1.0 to 1. Existing gross square
footage of the property equals 16,869sf. The usable square footage of the original building was
11,336 square feet.
With the addition of the 1,146 square feet of bonus area approved for onsite use the total
approved square footage of the building equals 12,482 square feet or an FAR equal to 0.74.
With the proposed addition of 380 square feet the total building square footage would equal
12,862 square feet or a Floor Area Ratio equal to 0.76.
In conclusion, we believe the proposed increase in mezzanine and bridge width is consistent with
the previously approved design concept, meets the Secretary of Interiors Standards for
Rehabilitation and can presumably be handled as a staff level HRB approval and as a consent
calendar item at the next available City Council meeting.
Note, we are requesting a 3% increase in the building square footage. For this reason we hope
the city will consider this as an insignificant increase that can be handled administratively.
2
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
November 17, 2010
Historic Resources Board
Steven Turner
Advance Planning Manager
Attachment C
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
661 Bryant Street [10PLN-00349]: Request by Embarcadero Capital
Partners for a minor historic review of revisions to a previously approved
project (09PLN-00 116) including an expansion of the mezzanine floor
area by 380 square feet resulting in a total building floor area of 12,862
square feet. The project would increase the previously approved bonus
floor area utilized on the site to 1,526 square feet. Other revisions include
alteration of the mezzanine bridge and a revised location of an interior
stairway for the mezzanine. Environmental Assessment: Categorically
exempt from the provisions of CEQA, Section 15301. Zone District: CD
C(P).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend to the City Council that
the proposed expansion of the previously approved mezzanine as presented in the
applicant's project description document, dated October 8, 2010 is acceptable and
consistent with the findings for approval previously made by the HRB, including
consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings with respect to preservation of character
defining features and with respect to the historic compatibility of new features, subject to
the following conditions of project approval:
1. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied to all eligible
aspects of the historic rehabilitation of the site and the building exterior and
interior when needed to preserve character-defining features.
2. The revision to the previously approved project shall be based on the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation and on a consideration
66 i Bryant Street: Project Revision Page 1 ofS
of recommendations provided in the Department of the Interior's "Preservation
Briefs" including, but not limited to, # 18 ("Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic
Buildings: Identifying and Preserving Character-Defining Elements"), #41 ("The
Seismic Retrofit of Histori~ Buildings: Keeping Preservation in the Forefront"),
and "Preservation Tech Note: Specifying Temporary Protection of Historic
Interiors During Construction and Repair."
3. The final design, materials, finishes, and colors of the proposed auditorium
mezzanine, including the supporting columns and the glass railing around the
perimeter of the central opening of the mezzanine (shown on Sheet A2.02 of the
plan set as 17'-2" in diameter), shall be submitted for review by the Historic
Preservation Planner.
4. All other conditions included in the City Council Record of Land Use Action
2010-01, approved on January 11,2010, shall continue to apply to the project.
COMMENTS ON THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Staff requests that the HRB detemiine if any of the recommended Conditions of Approval
need to be modified for adequate compliance with the Secretary's Standards for
Rehabilitation; or if additional Conditions of Approval should be provided. As the HRB
reviews the revision, staff recommends that the Board consider the statement in the
Introduction to the Secretary's Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings that loss
of a building's character can often be caused "by the cumulative effect of a series of
actions that would seem to be minor interventions."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The revisions to the previously approved project, as shown in the attached project plans,
include:
• Expansion of mezzanine floor area. The project applicant has requested a revision
that would expand the area of the mezzanine by approximately 380 square feet.
This would be accomplished by increasing the diameter of the circular mezzanine
by approximately 5'4" and increasing the area of the "bridge" connecting the
mezzanine to upper level lounge. The distance between the edge of the mezzanine
and the existing rotunda walls would be reduced as a result of the expansion. In the
previously approved project, the distance between the mezzanine and rotunda
walls was in the range of 4-feet to 6-feet, 9-inches. The revised project would
reduce this distance to a range of 2-feet to 4-feet, I-inch. There would be no
change to the diameter of the open area in the center of the rotunda, which is
approximately 17-feet.
• Revised stairway location. The stairway from the main floor to the mezzanine is
proposed to be relocated to a room adjacent to the rotunda area.
661 Bryant Street: Project Revision Page 2 of5
The following revision is provided to the HRB as information only. No recommendation
of acceptance from the HRB is required.
• Reduced height of mezzanine above the first finished floor. Two changes arose
after the original project approval. The first change included a revision to the
height of the re-built first finished floor in order to create a consistent floor height
throughout the building. The second change included revision to the "thickness" of
the mezzanine to accommodate air conditioning apparatus for the mezzanine. The
result is a reduction in height between the first finished floor and the bottom of the
mezzanIne.
DISCUSSION
Previous HRB Review
The HRB reviewed the original project at their meeting on September 2, 2009. The
original project included a request for a historic and seismic rehabilitation of the Category
2 building, which would result in the City granting bonus floor area as described in Palo
Alto Municipal Code (P AMC), Section 18.18.070. The project was eligible for 5,668
square feet of bonus floor area, of which 1,146 square feet was to be used on-site for the
construction of the nlezzanine. The remaining 4,522 square feet of bonus area would be
transferred of-site via the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program as described in
PAMC 18.18.080. A copy of the staff report is available on the City's website and at the
Planning Division upon request. The staff report described the issues related to the
nlezzanine:
Interior Issues-The Proposed Mezzanine
The most significant new construction issue in the interior is the proposed
circular mezzanine and associated new. staircase in the auditorium's
rotunda. This proposal must be found to comply with the Secretary's
Standards for Rehabilitation (a) by preserving an adequate sense of the
rotunda's historic volume, and (b) by achieving a high level of compatibility
in massing, size, scale, railing and supporting column d~sign, materials,
finishes, and colors with the historic character of the church rotunda and the
auditorium in general. The presentation of the mezzanine floor plan on
Sheet A2.02 of the project plan set suggests that the central opening in the
floor of the mezzanine cannot be larger than the proposed 17 feet, 2 inches.
However, this dimension must be evaluated as to whether it will provide the
required visual sense of the rotunda's historic volume as seen through the
opening from the ground floor (see Attachment L). Condition of Approval
# 20 requires that the final details of the mezzanine be submitted for review
by the Historic Preservation Planner. Staff requests HRB comment on
Condition # 20.
661 Bryant Street: Project Revision Page 3 of5
At the Septen1ber 2, 2009 n1eeting the HRB discussed various aspects of the project,
including the mezzanine. HRB questions regarding the mezzanine focused on the
construction of the finished surfaces of the mezzanine, the construction type, materials,
and height of the perimeter walls of the mezzanine. The applicant acknowledged that that
the mezzanine would obscure a great deal of the dome as seen from the main floor. The
applicant also stated that the dome would still be visible from the perimeter of the main
floor, but view would disappear at this angle towards the center of the dome.
The HRB recommended approval of the original project, based upon the definition of
"historic rehabilitation" and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings with respect to
preservation of character-defining features and with respect to the historic compatibility
of new features, subject to the stated conditions of approval. This recommendation was
forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
The City Council reviewed the proposed project, including the HRB recommendation on
January 11, 2010. City Council review was required based upon the applicant's request
for bonus floor area and the transf~r of 4,522 square feet of development rights. The City
Council approved the project, subject to conditions.
Project Revisions
Expansion of mezzanine area. The additional floor area would increase the floor area of
the mezzanine and reduce the distance between the edge of the mezzanine and the walls
of the rotunda. This revision would reduce the views of the rotunda as seen from the main
floor area, especially at the perimeter of the main floor area under the rotunda. Staff's
opinion is that the reduced views do not represent a substantial change from the
previously approved project. The views of the rotunda from the center of the main floor
would not be reduced, in that there would be no change to the size of the center open area
in the mezzanine.
Revised stairway location. Staff's opinion is that the relocation of the stair to a "back of
house" location is a substantial improvement as compared to the previously approved
project. The previously approved stairway obstructed a window at the northeast wall of
the rotunda room. Relocation of the stairway will remove this obstruction and will result
in a "cleaner" and more open room below the mezzanine.
NEXT STEPS
City Council Review
661 Bryant Street: Project Revision Page 4 of5
The proposed revision would increase the amount of floor area added to the building by
approximately 380 square feet. This would adjust the amount of bonus floor area used on
site and the amount of floor area that could be transferred via the TDR process. Since the
original bonus area and transferrable area was reviewed and approved by City Council,
the project revision would also need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council.
Following the HRB review of the revision, the project is expected to be placed on the
City Council's consent calendar on December 6,2010.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
"Written Project Description," dated August 13, 2009, submitted by
ECI Three Bryant, LLC.
Department of the Interior: "Preserving Historic Church Interiors."
Project Plan Set, dated July 17, 2009, submitted by Lundberg Design
(HRB Members Only).
~lV------
Steven Turner
Advance Plann'
661 Bryant Street: Project Revision Page 5 of5
October 8, 2010
661 Bryant Street Project Description
ATTACHMENT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
661 Bryant Street is located on the northwest comer of the intersection between Bryant Street
and F o rest Avenue. The original building was designed by Elmer Grey in the Mission Revival
Style for the First Church of Christ Scientist as a place of worship and was built in 1916. A
second-story wing along Bryant was added in 1929 along with three (3) one-story wings forming
a central courtyard in the rear of the property. The central courtyard was enclosed during a later
phase in 1947. The structure consists primarily of a wood frame structure with exterior white
stucco walls over wood lath, wood framed windows and doors and a clay tile roof.
The property is zoned CD-P, is listed as a Category 2 "major building" on the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory and is a Category 2 Seismic building.
On November 12,2009, the Architectural Review Board application 09PLN-00116 was
conditionally approved by planning staff as.it was found to meet the applicable findings set forth
in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(d) as well as having been found by
the Historic Resources Board to comply with the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guideline for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. On January 11, 2010 the
Palo Alto City Council conditionally approved the same application. With these approvals the
property is now eligible to receive 5,668 square feet of bonus square footage ("Bonus") and
eligible for onsite use of 1,146 square feet of the Bonus once seismic retrofit and historic
preservation scopes of work are certified as complete. These scopes of work are currently
underway.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We are requesting an increase in the amount of bonus density square footage to be used on site.
Currently the project is eligible for onsite use of 1,146 square feet. We are requesting that an
additional 380 square feet of the 5,668 square feet of eligible bonus be used on site. This
additional square footage would be added to the mezzanine perimeter and to the existing bridge
area connecting the mezzanine to the former organ loft in a manner that carries the design intend
approved by the HRB, ARB and City Council earlier this year.
After several meetings with Historic Preservation Planner Dennis Backlund regarding the
proposed change it is our understanding that he is in agreement that the change would not be a
deviation from the design intend and would still comply with the Secretary of Interiors
Standards.
The proposed design change is the result of the relocation of the mezzanine staircase from the
main a!!ditorium to the "back-of-house." Relocation of the staircase provides a more open floor
October 8, 2010
661 Bryant Street
Project Description
plan for the area under the mezzanine and improves the view of one of the opalescent windows
that was previously behind the staircase.
The dimension of the gap between the existing auditorium wall and the exterior wall of the
approved mezzanine was originally set based on code requirements for a stair width. Now that
the staircase is being relocated out of the auditorium space the gap size can be reduced.
Additionally, the approved design includes a bridge between the mezzanine and the former organ
loft that with a bridge size driven by symmetry around the organ loft opening. We did not
propose to widen the bridge in the original design because we would only be able to do so on one
site (opposite the stair) resulting in an asymmetrical design. N ow that the stair has been
relocated we are proposing to widen the bridge but limit the widening to the area just in front of
the organ loft.
FLOOR AREA RATIO
The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on this property is 1.0 to 1. Existing gross square
footage of the property equals 16,869sf. The usable square footage of the original building was
11,336 square feet.
With the addition of the 1,146 square feet of bonus area approved for onsite use the total
approved square footage of the building equals 12,482 square feet or an FAR equal to 0.74.
With the proposed addition of 380 square feet the total building square footage would equal
12,862 square feet or a Floor Area Ratio equal to 0.76.
In conclusion, we believe the proposed increase in mezzanine and bridge width is consistent with
. the previously approved design concept, meets the Secretary of Interiors Standards for
Rehabilitation and can presumably be handled as a staff level HRB approval and as a consent
calendar item at the next available City Council meeting.
Note, we are requesting a 3% increase in the building square footage. For this reason we hope
the city will consider this as an insignificant increase that can be handled administratively.
2
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
National Center for Cultural Resources
ATTACHMENT B
----------------------------------------------------------~---
11~S Interpreting
NUI\lBER 6 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
Subject: Preserving Historic Churchlnteriors
Applicable Standards: 1. . Compatible Use
2. Retention of Historic Character
5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes and Craftsmanship
10. Reversibility of New Additions/Alterations
Issue: The appropriate rehabilitation of a historic structure must always preserve
significant interior spaces, features and finishes. Large, multi-story interior spaces are
often found in theaters, school auditoriums and gymnasiums, meeting halls, and
religious buildings. These spaces characterize such building types and should be
preserved in rehabilitation projects.
Redundant churches have often been rehabilitated for other uses, some more success
fully than others. In historic churches, architectural features such as stained glass
windows, choir lofts, altars, and large open spaces are important in defining the
historic character of the building. Libraries, museums and historical societies, per
forming arts centers, community centers, and artists' studios are often appropriately
selected as new uses for historic churches, as there is no need to introduce major
architectural changes into the sanctuary space. However, the conversion of churches
into apartments, shops or offices may not be as successful since these new uses are
likely tore quire too many changes that are not compatible with the historic character
of these interiors. Alterations which compromise or destroy these spaces or which
cause the removal of distinctive architectural features and finishes, or which subdi
vide these two-story spaces and that result in compromising the integrity of these
significant spaces, will not meet Standards 2 and 5, and, in some cases, also will not
·meet Standards 1 and 10. .
Application I (Incompatible treatment): A simple Gothic Revival church con
structed in 1858 was rehabilitated for combined office and residential apartment use.
The interior still possessed a high degree of in tegrity before its rehabilitation with its
tray ceiling, twelve large stained glass windows, choir loft, and the large, two-story
space of the sanctuary itself. Dur
ing the rehabilitation the choir loft
was demolished, and the construc
tion of a full second floor resulted
in bisecting the two-story interior
space horizontally. The combina
tion of these treatments resulted in
a loss of interior features and loss
of the interior space itself in this
historic church building. Insert
ing the new floor level removed
the choir loft and, most impor
tantly, resulted in the loss of the
1858 Gothic Revival church buildingprior
to rehabilitation.
Sanctuary with choir loft prior
to rehabilitation
Sanctuary after rehabilitation
with new floor and newly
divided windows.
SIGNIFICANT SPACES
historic spatial volume so characteristic of church building interiors. The new second floor also negatively impacted the tall
Gothic-arched windows by cutting across them, effectively reproportioning them and reducing their appearance to smaller
segments. This rehabilitation, because it did not preserve the integrity and historic character of the church interior, did not meet
Standards I, 2, 5 and 10 . Although this particular rehabilitation was not successful, some subdivision may have been possible if a
sense of the historic interior space and volume had been preserved, as was achieved in the second example.
Application 2 (Compatible treatment): In another example, a small, two
story, rectangular Shingle-style church, built in the late-19th century, was
rehabilitated into a single-family dwelling. Prior to rehabilitation, the inte
rior historic finishes still remained intact, as did the sanctuary space itselflit
by original clear glass casement windows. As part ofthe rehabihtation,
approximately a third of the first-floor sanctuary ~pace was partitioned off
at the rear and modified for use as two bedrooms. The remaining two
thirds ofthe sanctuary was retained intact as the living room, and the apse
becamethe dining area. The corner rooms (the cloakroom, vestry and rear
entry vestibule) were kept in their historic configuration and converted
into a bathroom, kitchen and mudroom, respectively. To permit more light
into the interior, plaster panels at the back of the apse were removed and
replaced with clear, single-paned glass windows. The existing stairway
provided access to the choir loft which was converted into a master bed
room and bath with only a minimal amount of alteration, even allowing Shingle-Style church.
retention of the historic church organ. This rehabilitation successfully North and east elevations after rehabilitation.
preserved the primary, character defining features, finishes and spaces of
this historic church interior.
Sanctuary and apse before rehabilitation.
Before rehabilitationfirstfloor plan with reflected line of
balcony.
Sanctuary after rehabilitation. View toward kitchen and dining area
from living space.
Firstfloor plan after rehabilitation .
Adapted from ITS by Mary Grzeskowiak. Mid·Atlantic Region. and Camille M. Martone . Technical Preservation Services. National Park Service
These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U .S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations. based on the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case .
JULY 1999, ITS Number 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I 14
I 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MINUTES
ROLL CALL:
Board Members:
David Bower, Chair --absent
Natalie Loukianoff, Vice-Chair
Martin Bernstein
Roger Kohler
Patricia DiCicco --absent
Wednesday, November 17,2010
REGULAR MEETING -8:00 AM
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1 st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staff:
Julie Caporgno, ChiefP&T Official
Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Clare Campbell, Planner
Alicia Spotwood, Admin. Associate
Beth Bunnenberg -absent for item 3
Michaellvfakinen
Board Member Kohler: Public Hearing, the first item on the agenda is 661 Bryant Street.
A request by Embarcadero Capital Partners for a nlinor historic review of revisions to a
previously approved project including an expansion of the mezzanine floor area by 380
square feet resulting in a total building floor area of 12,862 square feet. The project
would increase the previously approved bonus floor area utilized on the site to 1,526
square feet. Other revisions include alteration of the mezzanine bridge and a revised
location of an interior stairway for the mezzanine. Environmental Assessment:
Categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQ A, Section 15301. Is there a Staff
Report for this?
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. 661 Bryant Street [1 OPLN -00349]: Request by Embarcadero Capital Partners for a minor
historic review of revisions to a previously approved project (09PLN-00 116) including an
expansion of the mezzanine floor area by 380 square feet resulting in a total building
floor area of 12,862 square feet. The project would increase the previously approved
bonus floor area utilized on the site to 1,526 square. feet. Other revisions include
alteration of the mezzanine bridge and a revised location of an interior stairway for the
mezzanine. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions of
CEQA, Section 15301.
City of Palo Alto November 17,2010 Page 1 of 12
1 Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Yes there is, thank you Board Member Kohler.
2 Staff is recommending that the Historic Resources Board recommend to the City Council that the
3 proposed expansion of the previously approved mezzanine, as presented in the project's
4 application project description, dated October 9, 2010, and as described in the project plans is
5 acceptable and consistent with the findings for approval that were previously made by the
6 Historic Resources Board, and also subject to the Conditions of Approval that are contained
7 within your Staff Report.
8
9 Board Members, as Board Member Kohler indicated, this is a minor historic review of a revision
10 to a previously approved project. That project involved an historic and seismic rehabilitation of
11 the building that was previously known as the Christian Science Church. As you may remember
12 that project involved extensive interior renovations throughout the building. All of the exterior
13 features of the building would remain. There would be minor changes to the courtyard at the
14 comer of Forest and Bryant. The biggest interior change was the construction of a mezzanine up
15 in the rotunda of the previous church. On September 2, 2009 the Board reviewed that project
16 and recommended approval of the project in that the Board felt that the interior and exterior
17 changes were consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, and the HRB
18 recommended an extensive list of Conditions of Approval to ensure that the project would retain
19 its consistency with the Secretary's Standards throughout construction and after construction as
20 well.
21
22 The applicant received approval from the City Council for that project earlier this year, in
23 January, and has since applied and received a building permit, and is now under construction for
24 the renovations. I have a feeling you might see some progress reports in the photos that the
25 applicant will present a little bit later.
26
27 What the applicant is now requesting during their construction is an expansion of the size of the
28 mezzanine up in the rotunda area by approximately 380 square feet. What is also being
29 requested is that as part of the seismic and historic rehabilitation that was performed on the
30 building the applicant received bonus square footage. They had requested previously that they
31 wanted to use approximately 1,400 square feet of that bonus floor area to construct the
32 mezzanine. That was approved. Council approved that as well. However, the Council approved·
33 a very specific amount of floor area. Since the applicant is requesting to add more floor area, to
34 use more of that bonus floor area onsite, we have to go through the process again of historic
35 review and City Council review so that Council can approve the use of those 380 additional
36 square feet to be used in the mezzanine. So that is the process that we are starting today.
37
38 As I mentioned in terms of increasing the size of the mezzanine the diameter of the mezzanine
39 essentially would be increasing as part of this project by approximately two feet around the
40 mezzanine area. As a result the distance between the edge of the mezzanine and the dome walls
41 would be reduced. The distance would be reduced so that the distance is between anywhere
42 from about two feet to approximately four feet, eight inches. There was an acknowledgement in
43 the previous review that the mezzanine would obstruct the view of the donle. The previous HRB
44 comments also questioned kind of the use of the materials and the finishes of the mezzanine
45 materials. There wasn't a lot of significant discussion with regards to the views of the donle.
46 Although it was acknowledged that the dome would be obscured. As you also remember, there
City of Palo Alto November 17, 2010 Page 2 of 12
1 is essentially a center area of the dome that may be referred to as the donut hole that would be
2 open whereby if you stand in the center of the ground floor you could look up through the
3 mezzanine and see the dome. That size of the donut hole would not be changed as a result of
4 this. That is not getting any smaller it is simply the distance between the edge of the mezzanine
5 and the dome around it is being reduced.
6
7 Staff feels that that reduction in distance does not appreciably change the views from the ground
8 floor up above to the dome. Although it would be a smaller distance you could still see the dome
9 standing around the perimeter of the room below, and still see features of the dome. Certainly
10 you would be able to the dome looking up through the center of the mezzanine as well.
11
12 As part of the revisions that have been taking place since the project was approved, the applicant
13 has revised the location of the stairway to get up to that dome. Staff has reviewed that at a Staff
14 level with the Historic Preservation Planner and we think that that is a very good revision. It
15 takes the stairway out of the rotunda and essentially puts it at the back of the house so that the
16 mezzanine is accessed at a rear stairway. The bridge to the mezzanine from the stairway is also
17 increasing as part of this project, and the plans reflect that change. That essentially describes all
18 of the changes that are happening as part of this project. That does conclude the Staff Report.
19
20 The applicant, represented by'Blake Reinhardt, is here to make a presentation and show you
21 photographs of the proposed project. Thank you, and with that I open the presentation to Blake.
22
23 Mr. Blake Reinhardt, Embarcadero Capital Partners: Good morning Board Members. Thank
24 you for your time this morning. This is a project that.
25
26 Board Member Kohler: Could you state your name for the record.
27
28 Mr. Reinhardt: My name is Blake Reinhardt. I am with Embarcadero Capital Partners. We are
29 the property owners and the project sponsor.
30
31 This is a project that we brought before you, as Steven mentioned, last year. We are really
32 excited about it. We think it is going to be a tremendous property. It is already a tremendous
33 property and we think the changes we are in the process of making are really making it that much
34 more fantastic.
35
36 I am joined here today by Olle Lundberg the project architect who is also here to answer any
37 questions you might have.
38
39 I thought I would just flip through a few images for you to hopefully illustrate what it is that is
40 that Steven summarized in his Staff Report. Presenting to you the changes that we are proposing
41 and hopefully demonstrating that they are fairly straightforward and not significant changes to
42 what we have previously had approved by the HRB.
43
44 So last year the HRB approved, I will highlight the mezzanine here. This is the image that was
45 in th~ package that was approved by the HRB, as well as by the ARB, and City Council. As you
46 can see there is a curved stair that exists in that approved set of plans. You will also note that
City of Palo Alto November 17,2010 Page 3 of 12
1 there is an offset from the sort of --this angular wall here is the existing, if you can see the
2 mouse here that is the existing structure of the former church. There is a gap between the
3 mezzanine, the curved what we call the donut, fondly named the donut edge, and the existing
4 structure. That is the size of the staircase. Essentially what I want to highlight is the space
5 between the mezzanine and the existing structure was driven, the size of it was driven, by code
6 requirements for a staircase. The original concept that we presented to you last year and that was
7 approved was the idea of a floating donut, this floating mezzanine that has, and if you go back
8 and look through the Staff Report or the presentation to HRB, the concept that Ole presented was
9 that along the edge of the mezzanine you would see the rotunda disappearing up above. So you
10 would look up and you would see it curving and disappearing above.
11
12 I will flip to the next slide. What has been approved through the building permit process is a
13 relocation of that curved staircase, as Steven mentioned, to the back of house, which is an area
14 that is currently the restroom area. Essentially what that does is it frees up underneath the
15 mezzanine to be an open space that is really more consistent with the rest of main auditorium
16 space. We feel it is just a tremendous improvement to the flow and t6 the space plan for the area
1 7 underneath that mezzanine.
18
19 What happened when we relocated the staircase is we were left with an illogical gap. A gap that
20 has no relevance to anything other than the shadow of the former staircase So what we are
21 proposing is that we maintain that gap around the perimeter of the mezzanine but reduce it to a
22 point that is still allowing us the same amount of light that is coming through, the same idea of
23 having the ability to stand on the edge and look up. to the dome above, but giving us a little more
24 square footage, and making it not having this irrelevant gap size anymore that was really just
25 referencing the old approved staircase.
26
27 Here is a section of the same HRB approval. What I will point out here is if you note when we
28 had the HRB hearing the gap dimension actually on this side is quite small. It is not actually the
29 size of the staircase. Over here it is a little bit larger. The reason I point that out is just to
30 suggest that when we brought this to the HRB the dimensions were not specific. It was real I y
3 1 this unclear -we were still working through the design. We were working on --the construction
32 drawings still needed to be developed and ~e were working through the actual design of the
33 mezzanine, and that gap was really not defined. .
34
35 Once we got to the building permit process you will see that the gap, I will go back to the HRB
36 drawing there the gap is small, here on the building permit process the gap is larger than it was
37 on the HRB section. It actually grew. The reason it grew was because through the process of the
38 building permitting, developing those plans, the construction drawings, we wanted to keep the
39 size of it a consistent circle, and we had to increase the gap size to make it consistent all the way
40 around.
41
42 So all we are asking for, this is the proposed mezzanine, to go .back to a gap that is essentially if
43 you look at the section, is consistent with and very similar to the gap that is shown on the section
44 presented to the HRB a year ago. I will just flip back one more time. That is the proposed
45 section. That is the approved building plan permit revision. That is the HRB approval. So it just
46 sort of gives you the comparison.
City of Palo Alto November 17,2010 Page 4 oj 12
1
2 The HRB approval, here is a close-up section of what was approved. You can see the silhouette
3 of the ramp below, which actually is below the staircase, and it mirrors that dimension. The
4 staircase on the other side of what we refer to as the bridge here with the cursor is driving the
5 dimension of that gap. The approved building permit revision actually defined for the first time
6 the radius of the mezzanine. We didn't have a radius defined on the HRB plans. So what we are
7 asking for is a radius change from 21 feet, four inches to 23 feet, four inches still maintaining a
8 gap on the perimeter.
9
10 The other thing I would like to highlight is the bridge that we have referred to was not something
11 that was discussed at all in the prior HRB presentations. So this, where my cursor is, is the edge
12 of what we refer to as the bridge. What we are requesting is a modest increase in that bridge
13 dimension to give us a little bit of extra square footage while still maintaining the design
14 integrity of a floating mezzanine.
15
16 Very quickly I will show you a progress photo from the former organ loft. This building is really
17 an exciting project. You can see this is the level of the floor. We have actually installed 100
18 percent of all of seismic retrofit steel. This is serving as the seismic retrofit steel as well as the
19 mezzanine floor structure.
20
21 Then this is from below. You can kind of get a sense of what these big -what was required in
22 order to do this seismic retrofit work. The gap you will see is a two-foot gap instead of a four-
23 foot gap. So you will have in areas where you have a wall it is two-foot gap. Then in areas
24 where the two walls meet, because the donut is obviously curved the gap at these comers is four
25 feet. So as you stand in there and look up you still have these four-foot gaps where you can see
26 up inside of the dome space. That's it.
27
28 Actually, the one last thing I will mention is that if you recall, one of the things that we did was
29 remove a skylight that was obstructing the lantern above. I will tell you that was an amazing
30 decision. It was an incredibly positive decision. This is a view up into the structure that has not
31 yet been finished out. It just creates so much volume and improves the space of the auditorium
32 tremendously. It was just a great decision. I applaud you for recommending the approval on that
33 decision. So thank you very much. I will take any questions you have.
34
35 Board Member Kohler: I have a quick question. I just wanted to point out that all those years
36 ago when Edward Durell Stone designed this building, and he designed this countertop, he knew
37 you were coming because this desktop is two feet. So from the edge of your circle upstairs to the
38 wall is this width right here. So if anyone needs a visual aid we have it right here. So this is it.
39 So the edge of the upstairs circular area wall. Martin.
40
41 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Kohler. Thanks for your presentation. Steven
42 mentioned something about there were some minor changes on the exterior. Would you explain
43 what those would be?
44
45 Mr. Reinhardt: I am sorry. On the exterior?
46
City oj Palo Alto November 17,2010 Page 5 of 12
1 Board Member Bernstein: Steven mentioned that there were some changes on the exterior.
2
3 Mr. Turner: Well, there are no changes proposed as part of this project.
4
5 Board Mernber Bernstein: Okay.
6
7 Mr. Turner: The changes that I described were for the previously approved project.
8
9 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, fine, no problem. Very good. Blake, also in your building
10 section sheet A-4.01 it says 'remove existing frame and screen, finish edge of wall to match
11 adjacent plaster.' Is there perhaps any photograph of-what that existing frame and screen?
12
13 Mr. Reinhardt: You are referring to --let me get to that sheet. This was in the plan view?
14
15 Board Member Bernstein: It is the section where that note is.
16
17 Mr. Reinhardt: Right, the organ loft.
18
19 Board Member Bernstein: Is that an interior feature?
20
21 Mr. Reinhardt: It is an interior feature, yes.
22
23 Board Member Bernstein: That addresses my question. Thartks.
24
25 Board Member Kohler: Anybody else?
26
27 Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I had several kinds of questions. First of all, just a quick
28 review. Is there no elevator in this building?
29
30 Mr. Reinhardt: There is no elevator.
31
32 Board Member Bunnenberg: Because the same functions could be performed on the ground
33 floor. Is that correct?
34
35 Mr. Reinhardt: Correct.
36
37 Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay. Now then I am wondering it talked a little bit about a less
38 then distance on the height of the first floor and an inclusion of air conditioning in the floor of
39 the donut.
40
41 Mr. Reinhardt: Correct.
42
43 Board Member Bunnenberg: Does this increase the size of the donut floor?
44
45 Mr. Reinhardt: It does. It increases the thickness of the actual mezzanine structure. So when we
46 were here with the HRB this was really a conceptual thickness. We didn't have a sense of what
City of Palo Alto November 17, 2010 Page 6 of 12
1 was actually going to be in the interior of this mezzanine. So when we actually got the approval
2 from City Council we very quickly engaged a MEP consultant to help us design an HV AC
3 system for these open offices in the mezzanine. One of the options was to run visible ductwork
4 above the top of the mezzanine, floating kind of similar to the track lighting here, which we were
5 not really crazy about. We love the volume. So the alternate option was to actually put it in the
6 mezzanine structure and run it under floor, and come up underneath the floor. So in doing so the
7 mezzanine thickness grew because it just needed to accommodate that ductwork.
8
9 Board Member Bunnenberg: So we have the issue of the view of the dome. Do we have any
10 [hank] on one of these as to how much of the dome might actually be visible from the ground
11 floor? I know we looked when we went in and viewed what the donut would be, but it is two
12 feet that you are looking up through rather than in some places four or more.
13
14 Mr. Reinhardt: Yes, I think the experience of the view of the dome is really and has always been
15 about the oculus. It has always been about the center of the donut hole as opposed to the
16 perimeter, which is really an opportunity to flood light down below. It is also an opportunity to
17 at moments as you walk through the space to have glances up through and seeing the dome
18 above, but it is not to see the whole dome. It was never to see the whole dome,Land you really
19 could never see the whole dome either in prior design or in the current design. So that is really
20 what I would differentiate as far as the view opportunity. It is really about. ..
21
22 Board Member Bunnenberg: From the outside walls.
23
24 Mr. Reinhardt: Yes, looking up into the center, experiencing the lantern, seeing the volume of
25 the dome, and then belowit is really the light that comes down, and really providing a floating
26 a floating nature is really provided by that gap.
27
28 Board Men1ber Bunnenberg: Is the design concept to make the mezzanine as transparent and
29 lightweight in terms of materials? What is your design concept in terms of .... ?
30
31 Mr. Reinhardt: Well, I think the intention is to have it look like a floating structure. There are
32 also some practical matters to consider. It is a structure to be used by people in an office
3 3 environment. So to the extent we could make it that way that would be fantastic, but offices are
34 made of hard materials.
35
36 Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, and that is part of my question. In terms of the support
37 columns, have you thought any at all about what those might look like?
38
39 Mr. Reinhardt: So we have actually designed this so that there are no columns. There are no
40 columns.
41
42 Board Member Bunnenberg: It is totally supported from the outside?
43
44 Mr. Reinhardt: It pins into the existing structure. So when you walk in it looks like a floating
45 structure.
46
City of Palo Alto November 17,2010 Page 7 of 12
1 Board Member Bunnenberg: Okay.
2
3 Mr. Turner: Mr. Reinhardt might also want to comment on the above the floor of the mezzanine,
4 the construction of say the walls around the mezzanine itself.
5
6 Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes.
7
8 Mr. Reinhardt: The exterior?
9
10 Mr. Turner: Yes.
11
12 Mr. Reinhardt: Okay. The walls that we have in our approved building permit set, again it is a
13 combination of a glazed element on the exterior, and hard wall below it. So you have a four foot
14 curved structure with a sectional glass structure on the top of it. So that provides a total of an
15 eight foot barrier for the office environment, which is sort of typical well, it is actually lower
16 than a typical office height wall, but we have a big open volume above it so that works out.
17
18 On the interior of the mezzanine, in the oculus itself, we have a curved glass railing the full
19 perimeter of that interior of the oculus. The railing actually extends from three foot, six all the
20 way down to the bottom of the mezzanine structure. So it is roughly six feet high or something.
21 A six-foot high piece of curved glass. So I guess to answer your question about the feeling of
22 light and airy that is really helping to accomplish that. It is sort of lining the inside of the oculus
23 with this piece of glass all the way around it.
24
25 Board Member Bunnenberg: If there are partitions inside would they be like sections of an
26 orange kind of thing or is it designed to be mainly open?
27
28 Mr. Reinhardt: Well, you know again if we go back to what the HRB approved the idea was
29 sections of an orange. Let me see if I can find the image. Here we go. So this is what the HRB
30 approved. The idea was you would have these private offices, orange sections, and then you
31 would have glass door front here. In reality we are not going to build any of this out until we
32 have a tenant, and the tenant is really going to drive how they use that space. There have been
33 some folks who have expressed interest that we are talking to that have sort of a creative bent,
34 and they want to use that space as an open space without walls, so a lot of sort of communal
35 dialogue. Some folks are interested in having private offices or conference rooms. So it is really
36 going to be -we have designed this in a way so that it is flexible, a flexible use for the tenant to
37 really decide how they want to use it.
38
39 Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you.
40
41 Board Member Kohler: Anybody else have any questions or comments?
42
43 Board Member Makinen: Just a general question. That annular space right there is it serving
44 any purpose in your design?
45
46 Mr. Reinhardt: I am sorry, which?
City of Palo Alto November 17,2010 Page 8 of 12
1
2 Board Member Makinen: The annulus.
3
4 Mr. Reinhardt: You mean this oculus area here, the circle?
5
6 Board Member Makinen: No, around the perimeter.
7
8 Mr. Reinhardt: Oh, this here?
9
10 Board Member Makinen: Yes.
11
12 Mr. Reinhardt: Well, it is an open space. So it is just a volume. It is a volume.
13
14 Board Member Makinen: I got you. It is floating from the inside.
15
16 Mr. Reinhardt: Yes, so it is a volume. There is no floor, and it is open to the floor above and
17 below. Does that make sense?
18
19 Board Member Kohler: Did you have more comments or questions?
20
21 Board Member Bernstein: Yes. I do appreciate Blake. I know you have a special connection to
22 Italy. I am glad to hear you using classical terms like 'oculus.' Instead of a donut we could also
23 use the word 'torus' for a shape.
24
25 I think this is a superb revision. I would like to move that the ....
26
27 Board Member Kohler: Martin, we have to have public comment first and our discussion.
28
29 Board Member Bunnenberg: I have a question of Staff at one point.
30
31 Board Member Kohler: Okay. We will now go to public comment. Is there anyone here or do
32 we have any cards? I guess not. So then we will go to applicant closing comments if you have
33 any comments. Okay.
34
35 Mr. Reinhardt: I don't know if this is something that we can introduce into this conversation or
36 ifit is something that we have to handle separately, but one of the things that we are now
37 working on is the finish of the wood paneling that goes back into the space. So our request
38 would be to make it consistent with the interior of what we are doing is to paint it. I wanted to
39 talk to you about that and whether that is something that we can address in this forum, or how
40 best do we go about that? Our request would be to make it more consistent with the
41 contemporary look of the space while being respectful of the old in painting it. We want to paint
42 it white is what we want to do.
43
44 Board Member Kohler: Steven has a comment about that.
45
City of Paio Alto November 17,2010 Page 9 of 12
1 Mr. Turner: It sounds like that might be kind of a minor change. You could do a couple of
2 things. You could recommend that the Historic Preservation Planner work with the applicant to
3 review that request for finishes of the wood paneling material. You could also designate one or
4 two members of the HRB as a subcommittee to review the proposal with the applicant offline or
5 perhaps at a subcommittee type of meeting. So there are a couple of ways that you could do it. I
6 don't think that we could introduce anything new here today for the HRB to make a comment on.
7
8 Board Member Kohler: It has not been noticed as part of our discussions.
9
10 Mr. Turner: Right. It sounds like it is a minor project or revision that either the Historic
11 Preservation Planner could review or that one or two members of the Board could review as
12 well.
13
14 Board Member Kohler: Martin.
15
16 Board Member Bernstein: It is a great topic of a small debate. I have done several historic
17 structures where the interior wood is beautiful but it doesn't work with the interior design intent
18 of the owner, homeowner in my case. We went back and forth and our conclusion was to ,paint it
19 because it made it consistent. That wood is of a certain history. HRB doesn't usually get
20 involved in any interior issues. So I am open to having it ....
21
22 Board Member Kohler: I am a little uncomfortable making a decision on that when it hasn't
23 been noticed. I think that a small committee or working with the Historic Planner would be fine.
24 Beth.
25
26 Board Member Bunnenberg: I have one very small question. The Palo Alto History Museum
27 would like to send a letter of thanks for the little booth that was one of the conditions. Should it
28 be sent to your office, attention you?
29
30 Mr. Reinhardt: That's fine, yes.
31
32 Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you very much from that History Museunl.
33
34 Mr. Reinhardt: No problem, you are welcome. I guess one sort of clarification is that I believe
35 in our Conditions of Approval it does identify the paneling review process. I think essentially
36 what it says is that the final finishes are to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner I
37 think is what it says. So really more than anything we were hoping to get an opinion or render
38 an opinion if possible from the HRB, 'but also we leaning on our Conditions of Approval
39 anyway. The wainscoting that is what I mean, yes.
40
41 Board Member Kohler: Okay, if there are no other questions or people we will bring it back to
42 the Board for discussion and decision. I think basically thisjs okay. When I sit here and look at
43 the two foot depth I am somewhat uncomfortable that it is so close. I would prefer, this is two
44 foot, nine because to me it is taking away from the floating donut aspect that it is getting so close
45 like it was shoehorned in there. But I will go along with whatever the Board tends to feel like. I
46 think two foot, six or two foot, nine just something like that, a little bit more would make it feel
City of Palo Alto November 17, 2010 Page 10 0[12
1 more floating than it would with just two feet. That is a little close. So that is my only
2 suggestion.
3
4 Board Member Bunnenberg: I had a question of Staff. Now then when we look at Conditions of
5 Approval on a project that has TDRs is it true that those conditions must be met?
6
7 Mr. Turner: Absolutely.
8
9 Board Member Bunnenberg: Even though this is interior they were conditions of approval and
10 they must be met in order to get the TDRs among other things.
11
12 Mr. Turner: That is correct.
13
14 Board Member Bunnenberg: It is possible to even have a stop work order if things are not going
15 appropriately.
16
17 Mr. Turner: Yes. If the construction is not following plan then there can be an intervention by
18 the City to essentially correct any sort of deficiencies.
19
20 Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright. So that just to then throw into the discussion here with the
21 Board, I looked and there are eight Conditions of Approval and this may be a ninth or there may
22 be a ninth one involved in some of our discussion today. So that is a huge number of interior
23 changes that need to be followed closely. I think our experience with Children's Library and an
24 inappropriate material getting ordered and installed then causes huge problems down the road.
25 So I would lik~ to propose thinking about recommending that the Historic Preservation Planner
26 be allowed to make periodic visits to the site because it is almost all interior, and it is not where
27 the public would see it going on. So that just to make sure there are not any misunderstandings.
28
29 Mr. Turner: I might have a comment on that. Informally, we are in a way already doing that.
30 The City feels that we have a very good working relationship with the applicant. It helps that
31 they are right across the street, and often times when there have been questions that come up
32 from the applicant side or fronl the City side it has been very easy to contact the applicant,
33 arrange a site visit, take a look at the issue, and see what resolution can be done. So in a way we
34 are already doing that on an informal basis. Certainly, if the HRB wanted to recommend that
35 that continue on a more formal basis that the Historic Preservation Planner be allowed to conduct
36 regular site visits to determine the consistency with the approved plans and the Secretary's
37 Standards that would be appropriate.
38
39 Board Member Loukianoff: I think on that one if the City is okay with the level that they are
40 seeing that really we don't need to put another condition on this applicant.
41
42 Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, it is actually just making certain that things are going well.
43
44 Board Member Loukianoff: I know, and I understand the concern. If this were an applicant that
45 were being unresponsive I would definitely feel the need to do this, but with the applicant being
46 so responsive and responsible.
City of Palo A Ito November 17,2010 Page 11 of 12
1
2 Board Member Kohler: I think we are fine with this. You are welcome to, Beth, stop by.
3
4 Mr. Turner: Board Members, the fact that this a TDR program means that at the end of the day if
5 it is found that they have not met the Secretary of the Interior's Standards they are in jeopardy of
6 losing their TDR square footage and bonus. So the applicant has a very strong interest in making
7 sure that they are doing the project the right way.
8
9 Board Member Kohler: Sounds good to me. Shall we move onto a motion and vote?
10
11 MOTION
12
13 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Board Member Kohler. I would like to move that the
14 Board approve this project as presenting including the conditions. One of those conditions
15 discusses the final design, material, finishes, and colors are reviewed by Historic Preservation
16 Planner.
17
18 Board Member Kohler: Is there a second?
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Board Member Loukianoff: I will second.
23
24 Board Member Kohler: That has been seconded. Any discussion?
25
26 Board Member Bernstein: The reason I proposed this motion is that there would be no changes
27 from what the HRB approved for the exterior.
28
29 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, with Board Members DiCicco and Bower absent)
30
31 Board Member Kohler: Okay. All those in favor? (ayes) All opposed? That passes with a
32 five-vote majority and two members absent. Thank you very much. Good luck and it is going to
33 be a fun proj ect.
34
35 This is item number three, Public Hearing, 405 Lincoln. A request by Michelle Arden and Allen
36 Akin for Historic Resources Board review of plans for a new single-family house in the
37 Professorville Historic District for consistency with the mitigation measure described in the Final
38 Environmental Impact Report for the project. Is there a Staff Report?
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Palo Alto November 17,2010 Page 12 of 12