HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-10 City Council (3)alteration to the building prior to 1966. The rear of the building, which faces a pedestrian
alley, was altered in the 1980s by the current tenant, Medallion Rugs, to provide larger
windows for an upstairs conference room; and in its present altered form it does not
appear to possess historical significance. An interior photo of the 1930s in the archives
of the Palo Alto Historical Association shows that the existing extension of the rear
mezzanine along the side of the store to the front of the building is not original (although
the rear staircase and rear mezzanine are historic).
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW
The HRB, at its meeting on May 19, 2004, reviewed the application for the historic
designation ofthe building at 323 University Ave (see Attachment A).
The applicant's architect, Ken Hayes, informed the Board that the property owners are
considering restoration and redevelopment of the property. The Board noted that the
designation in Category 2 would also make the property eligible for certain development-
based incentives for preservation and rehabilitation including a floor area bonus, parking
exemptions, and participation in the Transfer of Development Rights program. Mr.
Hayes was unsure of whether the property owner would pursue use of these incentives.
The HRB voted unanimously to support the staff recommendation and recommend that
the City Council reclassify the property at 323 University Avenue as a significant
building in Category 2. The HRB motion identified character-defining features of the
building to be included in the Category 2 designation including, but not limited to (1) the
entire upper story fayade including the tile roof, (2) the eave detail at the roof, (3) the
arcaded windows, (4) the ornamental iron railing, (5) the first floor, the flanking pilasters
and the lintel, and (6) additional character-defining features that may be identified by
qualified opinion in the future.
DISCUSSION
• Upon designation in Category 2, demolition of the building at 423 Kipling Street, and
located in the downtown CD zone, would be prohibited unless certain conditions
were met as set forth in P AMC 16.49.060.
• Upon designation in Category 2, the Architectural Review Board review of proposed
alterations or additions to the building would be required to include referral to the
Historic Resources Board for recommendations, as provided in PAMC 16.49.050
(1)(A).
• Upon designation in Category 2, the building would be subject to maintenance
regulations for historic structures as set forth in PAMC 16.49.080 and the
enforcement provisions set forth in 16.49.090.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Historic Resources Board staff report of May 19,2004.
Attachment B: Verbatim Minutes of the HRB Meeting of May 19, 2004.
CMR:I04:05 Page 2 of3
, -
lower fac;ade shop front originally featured a pair of recessed entry doors, plate glass
display windows, and a tile base, a design approach that Clark would afterward use in
most of his downtown commercial buildings up through the early 1930s, most notably on
the 500 block of Ramona Street (see Attachment A).
The building is architecturally and historically significant as Birge Clark's first
commercial building in the Spanish style, although it retains classical elements from
Clark's earlier period when he designed buildings very similar to the classically inspired
stucco buildings seen on.Main Streets throughout America (see Attachments B and C).
Clark's [mal commercial building in his pre-Spanish period was the Roos Brothers
building (early 1925) which is still extant as a Category 2 Historic Inventory structure
serving retail and office uses at 121-125 University Avenue. After the construction of
323 University Avenue, Clark developed a more rustic and less classical approach to
Spanish design. Therefore, 323 University Avenue is a transitionalbuilding containing
both the classical elements of his earlier career and the Spanish approach that would
become his-signature style.
Alterations
. The upperfac;ade ,of the building:has been preserved' inits'originatform.· The existing
lower fac;adedesign, which,eIimiriated:theoriginabrecessed: entries,:'was.built in 1967 for
a neW tenant, Whitson' s: Drapeiies;·to'display drapery fabrics to :betteradvantage . (see
Attachment D): -Research by. staffandtheapplicanthas'noLuncoveted evidence of any
alteration to the building prior to 1967 .. The rearofthe:building, which faces a pedestrian
alley, was altered in the 1980s by the current tenant, Medallion Rugs, to provide larger
windows for.an upstairs conference room. The rear fac;ade is starkly utilitarian, and in its
present altered form it does not appear to possess historical significance .. An interior
photo of the 193 Os in the archives of the Pal~ Alto Historical Association shows that the
existing -interio.r staircase and mezzanine does not date from the. :early period of the.
building.
History of Use .
The building was built for Berton W. Crandall, a member of a pioneer Palo Alto family,
an early Sta,nford graduate, a prominent photographer, and a member of the Palo Alto
City Council, to house his camera and stationery business. In 1929 another camera and
stationery retailer, David Keeble, also occupied the building. In 1930 Crandall departed
and Keeble began sharing the building with Wightman'S Photo Finishing and, after 1933,
with R. B. Clark Photo Finishing. From 1941-1949 David Keeble occupied the entire
building, specializing in photographic suppiies, stationery, and art goods. In 1950 Keeble
shared the building again, this time with the William Norris Gift Shop. By 1955 the
building was vacant, but from the late 1950s to the early 1960s Don Le Rons Toys and
Hobbies occupied the building. In 1967, after the buildIng had been vacant for two years,
a longtime Palo Alto business, Whitson's Draperies, relocated to 323 University and
HRB Staff Report: 323 University Avenue Page 2
..
remained until 1979. Thomas T. and Eileen Whitson had opened their first Palo Alto
drapery shop in 1949 at 452 University Avenue adjacent to the Varsity Theater. After
several years the Whitsons moved to 405 University Avenue, and then to 323 University.
In 1980 the Whitsons closed their store and Medallion Rugs moved in.
CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Criteria for Designation and Definition of Historic Category 2
Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.040 (b) of the Municipal Code provides general criteria that
apply to all historic designations in Palo Alto. The criteria are: .
1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important
events in the city, state or nation;
2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of
life important to the city, state or nation;
3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common,
but is now rare;
4. The structure or site is connected with a,business or use which was once common,
. but is now rare;
5. 'TIhe architect or building was important;
6. The structure .arsite containselemen~s demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.020 (b) (definitions of the Categories) establishes the level
of importance of properties that meet the generaL criteria for designation. The focus of
the definitions of the Categories is on architectural significance. Category 2 structures are
defined as follows:
"Category 2: 'Major building' means any building or group of buildings of major
regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding
example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the
state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the
original character is retained." .
HISTORIC EVALUATION OF 323 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Based on an analysis of the criteria for designation and the defmition of Historic Category
2 found in lvIunicipal Code Chapter 16.49 staff concludes that 323 University Avenue
meets the criteria for designation and fits the definition of a Category 2 in that:
• It is identified with the pioneering Crandall faniily, several members of which are
important to the history of Palo Alto. The building is also associated with the
development of the photography industry in Palo Alto (Criterion 1);
HRB Staff Report: 323 University Avenue Page 3
description Architect: Birge Clark
(CO nt.) Builder: Wells P. Goodenough
Date: 1925 .
@ factual 0 estimated
Notes:
Featu'res:
D Barn
D Carriage House
OtherFeatures:
D Formal.Garden
D Windmill
Exterior Material: stucco
Other Material: reinforced concrete
Original Site:
D Outhouse
D Shed
Theme: architecture
D Watertower
IgjNone
significance . This is a typical building which helps to give University Avenue its consistent visual quality. The structure
was designed by'local architect Birge Clark, and relates importantly to other structures of similar stylistic
origins in the vicinity. It was the first building in the "Ramona Street Style" to be built on University
Avenue, replacing a Thoits Bros. structure erected in .
1894.' Berton W. Crandall (1882-1979) and his wife
Bertha were.the first owners. Crandall belonged to a pioneer Palo Alto family which first came to the city
in 1898. After graduating from Stanford in 1907, he became a major architectural photographer. The
building on University Ave. housed a photographic supply and equipment shop and, for a time,. his
studio. His fatlier, Franklin L. Crandall (1852-1933),'waslong established in bicycle and auto trades, and
a brother for many years owned the city's prinCipal "Homeware Store." . Berton Crandall was active in.
civic 'affairs, including membership on the City Council and leadership in the Palo Alto Historical'
Association.
sources P.A. Times 7/24/25, 8/4/25; Birge Clark Commercial Inventory; pA Historical Assn. obitiuary files.
preparation Organization:
By: Historic Resources Board; PA Hist. Assn.
Date: 1981,1985
DB Record Date: 8/5/94
Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue
. City: Palo Alto
Phone:
State: CA ZIP: 94301
page 894
All right. Our initial item is Oral Communications. Perhaps I should check just briefly
with Dennis Backlund to see whether there are any agenda changes.
Staff Backlund: There are no agenda changes this time for today. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: There are no agenda changes, all right, thank you.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Oral Communications, members of the public may speak on
any item not on the agenda, limited to three minutes and we need a request card. Do we
have any of those cards? All right, thank you.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 800 High Street [02-PC-Ol]: Request by Palo Alto High Street Partners, LLC, for
Historic Resources Board review of an application to allow a zone change from
Commercial Downtown Service Subdistrict/Pedestrian Shopping Combining District
(CD-S (P)) to Planned Community (PC), and request for Board review of a proposal to
demolish 17,632 square feet of existing buildings including an industrial building with a
footprint of 5,250 square feet that appears eligible for the California Register of
Historical Resources, and to construct an approximately 98,000 square-foot building that
would include 61 residential units totaling approximately 80,000 square feet and would
extend to a height of approximately 35 feet on Homer Avenue, two units of neighborhood
serving retail space totaling approximately 1800 square feet, a subterranean parking
garage, circulation areas, and related site improvements. A Focused Environmental
Impact Report will be prepared and circulated.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: We have checked to see there are no agenda changes and, therefore, we
will proceed to the public hearing on 800 High Street. Let's see, I think there were not any
minutes?
Staff Backlund: The minutes were continued to your next meeting of November 6.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Fine, thank you. So we will then proceed into the public hearing. The
public hearing is open, this is by request of the Palo Alto High Street Partners for the HRB
Review of an application to allow a zone change from Commercial Downtown Service
SubdistrictlPedestrian Shopping combining District (CD-S (P)) to Planned Conimunity (PC), and
request for the Board to review of a proposal to demolish 17,632 square feet of existing buildings
including an industrial building with a footprint of 5,250 square feet that appears eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources, and to construct an approximately 98,000 square-
foot building that would include 61 residential units totaling approximately 80,000 square feet
and would extend to a height of approximately 35 feet on Homer Avenue, two units of
neighborhood serving retail space totaling approximately 1800 square feet, a subterranean
parking garage, circulation areas, and related site improvements. A Focused Environmental
Impact Report will be prepared and circulated.
We are now opening the public hearing. Let's move to Staff recommendations.
Page 2 of29
· .
Staff Backlund: Thankyou very much, Vice-Chair Bunnenberg. As you just stated, the project
before us today is the subject of a Focused Environmental Impact Report, and in our audience I
would like to introduce Steven Turner from the Planning Department who has been a central
figure in the creation of the Environmental Impact Report and the conducting of the
environmental review. At any time that the Board has questions, he's very well prepared on that
subject and you can direct questions to him at your pleasure.
W ealso have in the audience the Chief Planning Official, Lisa Grote, who has been managing
the development of the South of Forest Area Plan Phase II and has been creating a central report
on that subject. If questions should arise in your Board discussion on the relation of this project
to the Draft Plan that's currently under discussion and review by the City Council, you may wish
to direct those questions to Lisa Grote.
The Staff recommendation was in four parts and before I mention those, as we had stated earlier
to the Board, this is a very large project, probably the largest that has ever been proposed in the
downtown area, except perhaps the parking garages now under construction. It is a very large
project and it is located in a Draft Plan area. It is also for your interest, of course, located in one
of the City's oldest heritage areas, and several members of the public have pointed out how Palo
Alto virtually began in this location, and that there are signs here and there ofthis early creation
of the City. And, therefore, the area has been the subject of a great deal of interest in the
conserving of that heritage, and we look to the HRB to assist the City with recommendations on
that subject.
We had also discussed with the Board that this subject today has been one of very limited time
for the Board Review, given the size of the topic. We actually had anticipated last week that
with the Focused Environmental Impact Report and with the City's desire that the Board make
formal comments about that document, a large document (and that that is not done in a day), we
anticipated that we would begin today with this project and then at the close of the meeting that
we would continue the discussion in order to reach a position of action at a subsequent meeting
of (probably) November 6 which is available. We have one other subject to cover that day but
only one other so far so it's a good opportunity.
A central purpose oftoday's meeting will be to gain a good deal of knowledge about this project
from the applicants who are represented by several people who are present here today and will
make a formal presentation to you. In the Staff Report, as you saw, we were still at a rather
tentative stage in our recommendations. We did reach a statement by the close of the Staff
Report that in Staffs opinion the separate small building--that is fronting on Homer Avenue and
going around the comer to the mid-block alley and to High Street--did appear to Staff for the
reasons given in the Staff Report to achieve compatibility with Homer Avenue in a number of
respects. Staff believes that that particular building is now, in the current proposal, at a position
where it appears to comply with the directions and the recommendations of the City Council
given in February 2001, the HRB in February 2002, the Planning Commission in July 2002, and
Staff in its review of the project. It did seem to meet those recommendations. We did detail
those recommendations in the Staff Report so that you could compare that previous record with
the images of the project that you have before you.
\ .
One of the attachments in the Staff Report, it is Attachment 0, gave you a kind of before and
after view, a portrait of the project on Homer Avenue as it was presented to the Planning
Commission (with a maximum height in the stairwell tower of approximately 61 feet); then the
Page 3 of29
bottom view (which is a little smaller scale in the original so it's not quite that much smaller but
it is substantially smaller as the image suggests) that is the current proposal. We have been
informed by the applicant that what you see in the current version is the outcome of the
application of all of those recommendations that we gave to you from the previous record. And
Staff thought that it was successful, or, at the very least, would recommend to the Board that it
has made great strides in complying with the compatibility recommendations of the City.
The Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report was actually triggered by concerns that you
have as a Board. The SOFA Environmental Impact Report only came to the conclusion that
development pressure, particularly for mixed-used projects, could create a strong pressure to
demolish buildings in the Forest Area, and that that could be a significant adverse impact of the
plan. But there were no such proposals before the City at that time. Subsequently, this project
[has been proposed and] is looking to bring forth certain provisions in the Comprehensive Plan
regarding housing, certain provisions that were discussed under the SOFA I Plan for mixed-use
developments. However, the project also includes the demolition of a building that has been
found by a consultant whose qualifications meet those of the Secretary of the Interior to be a
significant resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act and; therefore,
the project is subject to environmental review in that direction. That particular proposal was not
covered by the SOFA EIR. Consequently, we have a Focused EIR on this project that was
triggered by the [proposed] demolition of that building. Then in the course of the environmental
review, all of the other impacts were presented for public consideration as well. So we will be
looking in the very near future for the Board's comments on whether this EIR appears complete
and adequate, and we've defined those terms in the recommendation. "Adequacy" means
completeness as an informational document.
Then as you look at the specific subject of the ElR--the demolition of the Family Laundry
building--you will raise questions about the feasibility of the retention of that building. The
feasibility of retaining it also becomes an environmental issue and so we defined from the CEQA
guidelines (the paragraph just before the bold heading "Background") what the term "feasibility"
means. Then we moved on from the ElR into the project and included for your consideration (at
this meeting and at any subsequent meetings) the Staff Report from planner Steven Turner to the
ARB, which will be looking at this subject tomorrow. And, therefore, it would be appropriate
for a Board Member to come with an update for the ARB regarding what occurs today.
Then we provided you also with a number of documents that discuss compatibility.
Compatibility is a requirement of the SOFA II Plan. That plan has not been implemented yet but
there has been ample direction from the Boards, COinmissions, and the City Council that
compatibility would be a strong concern in reviewing this project. So we have forwarded to you
a number of documents and you can see that those documents, wherever they come from and
whatever particular year they were authored, that they all reach a very similar point of view that
is flexible but has definite standards on what compatibility is. It generally boils down to new .
construction possessing design linkages and relationships with the buildings that are adjacent and
in the nearby area. That does not mean that the [new] building has to be a particular style. All
styles are composed of certain kinds of elements necessary for human habitation and so
compatibility looks at whether those elements are oriented and sized and in materials and colors
such that there are design linkages. There can be design linkages between a contemporary
building and a group of Victorian homes. This has often been done, and we are looking for this
kind of principle to be applied in this building [the 800 High Street project].
Page 4 of29
· ,
..
I think that generally covers what we meant to convey to you today and we will be looking for
your questions at any time. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: And I will welcome Chair Bernstein and tum the meeting over to him
at this point.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Vice-Chair Bunnenberg. Thank you, Staff and Dennis for your
great work on this. Next on our agenda is the applicant's presentation, and if that person would
like to come up and introduce him or herself and present.
Douglas Ross, Managing Partners for Palo Alto High Street Partners: The bulk of our
presentation will be handled by the architect, John W orden. We also have Ed Meserve coming
here shortly, if anybody has any questions regarding the status of the existing building out there,
he's done an evaluation of it and I think that report is probably in your package.
We've been working on this project diligently for about 8Yz months. We've filed our application
at the end of January. We had been before you once on a prelim, that was with a different
architect of different style, a larger building. Subsequently, we have changed our team and we
have done two different iterations and I'll have the architect present them to you because we
submitted Iteration 1, I'll call it for simplicity, to the Planning Commission. They had a variety
of comments, many ofthem I think very on point and we subsequently revised the project to
address those concerns, as well as feedback we received from the initial HRB meeting and we
had two Study Sessions and one prelim ARB meeting. So, we've gone down many roads here.
This is just a continuing process of refinement. I think we're getting very close here.
So, let me tum it over to John Worden. Thank you ..
John Worden, Architect: I'd like to start over here, just to give you a brief introduction to the
building itself, and then come back over here and deal with the model. This is a general site plan
for the bUilding. High Street runs this way, Channing here, Homer here, Alma at the top. The
hardware store is here, the electrical sub-station there, and the current site for the Laundry
building is here. Our proposed building dia~rammatically is a series of townhouses and flats
lining High Street linked by a system of pedestrian walkways and then tying into a series of stack
flats at the rear that form a whole series of courtyards. Some of the courtyards working back
towards the alley and the sun, some of the courtyards working towards the front.
At the center is the garage entrance. We tried to pull it as far back into the block as possible,
both to create a meaningful break in the building itself along High Street by using the garage
entrance as a device to create that break, and also to keep the entrance to the garage as far back
into the block as possible and disrupt the sidewalk and the pedestrian atmosphere as little as
possible.
You have, I think, most of this information in your packets. We put up our first scheme and then
the revised current scheme. The first scheme is at the top, all the way along here and the revised
scheme is below. Originally, we were proposing as much as a five-story building going down to
four stories at Homer. Again, the garage entrance is still here at the center and then there's the
. pedestrian plaza at Channing. The pedestrian plaza remains, the garage entrance remains but the
building has been reduced in height to four stories maximum. The Homer portion of the building
has been reduced to three stories maximum, with a 35-foot elevation, maximum height along
Homer itself.
Page 5 of29
This is the original version of the Homer elevation. This is a sort of intermediate version of
Homer elevation and the model reflects our current version of the Homer elevation. And this is
the original version of the Channing elevation and that our revised Channing elevation minus one
floor. This portion ofthe building is actually set back substantially and there's a pedestrian plaza
here at the comer of Channing and High that relates to the existing Creamery across the street
with the idea that it would be a place to eat your lunch or to bring your ice cream cones to a
public place. .
These are a series of before and after photographs illustrating the current scheme and then
obviously these are photographs that Dennis has put up. This is the building that's on Homer
now, that's across the street from our site and that's further down Homer. I'd like to focus a
little bit on the Homer elevation right now. On the right-hand side, the model is the previous
scheme, on your left-hand side is the current scheme. You can see that there's been a substantial
decrease in scale and an attempt to break the building up in a way very similar to the verticality
that you see on the right-hand photograph further down in the more historic sections of Homer.
We changed materials as a way of emphasizing that break-up, also changed the way the
fenestration is handled and the way the roof is dealt with. The building itself as it turns the
comer, the brick portion of the building turns the comer and forms the pedestrian plaza, also
another public space between the Homer building and the series of row houses, vertical oriented
houses that march along High Street.
We see this, there is a retail space at the base here and we see this plaza as related to that retail
space--perhaps it's a restaurant or a coffee house or that type of use'. So that this whole comer
becomes a public space. At the other segment, along here there's also a small retail space and
then this is the public entrance to the parking garage. There are two layers of parking underneath
the building. One layer of which nominally is for the public and the other layer is for the
residents. And then here's the retail space itself. This center door is the entrance to the building
lobby which goes over here to the elevator and stair tower which unlike our previous scheme
where it was set forward, we've set it back as far as possible, so that in parallax I think it would
be very difficult to see from the street.
One of the things obviously that concerns you and concerned us as well is whether or not we
could save the existing building. And I would like to talk a little bit about why we're proposing
not to save the building as it is. There are the obvious structural reasons which I'll leave to the
structural engineer to talk to relative to this condition of the building as it currently exists. But I
think there are some design issues to that I'd like to address from our point of view. The current
building would be very difficult to adapt as a housing building because there are so few openings
in it as it currently exists and in order to add openings in it in such a way that it would be useful
for housing, it would substantially change the exterior of the building. So the use that the
building could be adapted to most readily would be a retail use or perhaps an office use.
Secondarily, we are parking underneath the entire site right now with two layers of parking and
part of our public benefit offering to the community is this public parking. In order to preserve
the building in its current condition, we would not be able to obviously to park underneath it and
so it amounts to a substantial decrease in the amount of parking that we would be able to provide
to the City, essentially two layers of parking pulled back to the back side of the current building.
Thirdly, the building as it currently stands pushes all the way out to the property line along High
Street, almost to the property line along Homer and all the way to the alley property line along
Page 6 of29
, f
. .
, '.
the alley itself. We're proposing to substantially set back our buildings along both Homer and
High as a way of increasing the quality of the pedestrian experience, when one is walking along
the streets themselves. And we're also proposing to increase the width of the alley to 25 feet, the
effective width ofthe alley to 25 feet by slicing 5 foot off our side all the way along the entire
length of the alley. So this, if we were to retain the building in its current condition, current
form, the alley would be 20 feet at that particular point and the sidewalks and the two sides of the
building would be smaller.
That coupled with the condition of the building itself and the cost of bringing it up to required
conditions, we feel that the building would either be substantially different than it is right now,
essentially a new recreation of the existing building with either a lot more openings in it which
would change its character in order to adapt it to housing, or reverting back to a retail or a
commercial use and not having housing in this particular site. Or perhaps we could do
something else. Perhaps we could look as we move down Homer, look at some of the historic
buildings that are there and try and pick up on the character of those buildings and bring some of
that character to this particular site using a scheme similar to this .
. We tried to work with the scale of the pedestrian experience and borrowed directly from the
scale of the pedestrian experience in the more historical sections of Homer. We've taken
essentially a 12-foot head height for the glazing, used a human scale, 6-foot 8-inch doors, not
mammoth doors because most of the historic buildings have the smaller doors, and then have
glass above the doors, and so there is a strong line that sets a human scale all the way along and
then a higher line that allows additional light into the storefronts and gives them a little more
height. We've tried to pick up on that same type of element. We've broken up the rhythm of the
building, very similar to what you see on the right-hand side into a 6 foot glazed base with solid
elements in between so that that marches along, some of them are doors, some of them are
windows. Where they are doors, we've recessed the doors and then provided some sort of trellis
or covering over the top of them in addition to that and you can see that that, too, is part of the
historic pattern that display windows would be out to the front of the street and the doors are
recessed back behind. And so we've done that on here and here and here and here, all the way
along the street itself. And we've tried to break the building up rather than having it read as a
monolithic building across the entire street front as the existing building does. We tried to break
it up in a meaningful way and to reinforce that break-up, not only just with doo-dads but with
material changes with significantly different window treatments with a different type of roof and
a different type of cornice ..
So, all in all, I feel comfortable that what we're able to offer the community is compatible with
the historic district and perhaps is superior in the sense that it offers residential and additional
setbacks to what the renovation of the current building would be. Questions?
Chair Bernstein: Any questions from the Board right now for Mr. Worden or Mr. Ross, or Staff?
Michael.
BM Makinen: I have one question. When I looked at the plans here, it appears that your garage
goes completely under the street.
Mr. Worden: The garage goes underneath the alley.
BM Makinen: Yes, the alley. And that you restore the alley after you complete your garage, is
that correct?
Page 7 of29
Mr. Worden: Yes, that's true. And it also offers another potential benefit in that if housing is to
be developed at the sub-station site, affordable housing, which is the current proposal that it
would be very difficult to feed any sort of parking garage off Alma, given its busyness and it
would be difficult as well to feed it directly off the alley because the site is small enough that in
order to get any sort of ramp within your parking garage, it would use up most of the site in order
to get a ramp down into a parking garage. Because of the way our parking garage abuts that
particular site, one of the potential benefits we're able to offer is direct access to that garage site
using the ramps that we're building on our site so we'd be popping an opening into the adjacent
site that would allow that affordable housing site to have a more efficient parking garage.
BM Makinen: Well, does your project own the rights to. the land underneath the alley?
Mr. Worden: It's a right of way situation. It's an easement.
BM Makinen: Okay. There's a number of commercial merchants that use the alley for access to
their properties and I know the hardware store is one of those. Would they not be deprived of
access to their businesses if the alley is completely tom up, below this underground garage?
Mr. Worden: Well, I've talked to Larry personally about access to the hardware store and Doug
Ross has done a series of studies of different ways to face the construction of the garage itself,
leaving that comer that Larry needs unexcavated for the first phase of construction. And then
providing a structural platform that would still allow him to use it during the later phases of
construction. So we feel that there'd be very little inconvenience and very little interruption in
his delivery schedule based on the construction.
BM Makinen: Have you coordinated with other merchants who may have similar concerns
about access?
Mr. Ross: We've talked with Ole about it. Ole as you may know, his property doesn't go to the
property line. He has a place to park cars t4ere so we've met with him and he's okay with it.
The other thing we're able to offer here is that ultimately, if those other projects or properties on
Alma should be developed, they have access through our common ramp to that same garage. I
mean it's possible some day, maybe 30 years from now but that entire block becomes one large
underground parking structure using our ramp as an easement to make those properties more
developable similar to what John was explaining on the sub-station site, if that should go to a
housing.
BM Makinen: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Carol.
BM Murden: I have a question for either of you. What to me is the right-hand side of the
building facing Homer between the two gable elements, or on either side, I guess it would be, of
the two gable elements, it looks as if these windows are recessed slightly. Is that true?
Mr. Worden: That is true. They're not in the model but they are.
BM Murden: That's what I thought and they're just recessed about what?
Page 8 of29
. . ..
Mr. Worden: It's probably 6 to 8 inches.
BM Murden: Okay, thank you, that was really helpful.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I had a question about the brick treatment particularly, not the Homer
side, but in here. What is this distance right in here?
Mr. Worden: It's 1 foot 8. And the doors below are actually recessed 3 foot 4.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Thank you.
BM Kohler: Is there any kind of concept landscape plan yet?
Mr. Worden: Yes, we do have a concept landscape plan.
BM Kohler: On the first level, is it all the units running along High Street, it says planter .. In
. front ofthe planter, is that concrete or is that more planting?
Mr. Worden: That's additional sidewalk. So we're widening the sidewalk ~long that front.
BM Kohler: So for a good portion, for a number of the units, basically they're on the sidewalk?
Mr. Worden: It's probably easier to see on the earlier scheme just because the model is a little
more complete. You can see that there's a whole series oflayered elements that happen along
the sidewalk itself. Some of the houses actually do come all the way out to the street. These
stacked townhouses that occur here at the ends where the roofs come down lower, same situation
here. Some actually do come right out to the street itself, and then there's a series oflayered
setbacks with different layers of plantirig and planter heights happening in between them. But
the rooms that are coming out to the front face, the windows are actually recessed back behind
the face of the wall about 8 inches and those are all living rooms. It's a double-height living
room at that particular instance. And then all of the houses, all the way along the street, not the
retail space but all the houses all the way around the street are set up 22 inches off the ground so
that the window sill--it's a standard urban method--the window sills are actually more or less at
eye level of the pedestrians as they walk by.
So the reasons why we have some of the elements corning out like that is when you're walking
down the street itself, by having things that move in and out in a substantial way, I feel that it
serves to break up the building in a more discrete elements. And then this relatively complex
layer of planting,some lower planters, some higher planters and these recessed stoops all the
way along all of the ground level units have direct access stoops into their living room space
from the sidewalk itself, going up 3 steps through their own private gate and on to their own
private little porch. So those stoops provide privacy insulation for the bedroom spaces in the
particular units that are moved out to the sidewalk. But yes, there are 4 of the houses along High
Street that do come out to the affected property line.
BM Kohler: Then I can kind of see why it worked out but on the Channing end, you've got a
public plaza on the comer and on the Homer end, you've got a public comer around the comer
which is somewhat remote but I can see why you did it because of the windows and everything.
Was there ever a thought to putting a plaza here in the comer rather than around the comer?
Page 9 of29
Mr. Worden: We actually studied it both ways. This is the north side, so we felt that to have a
contrast between the two public spaces that we're offering along High Street and have them be
distinctly different from one another, there was some advantages to that so the public space could
be on the comer on this comer as well. We did study that. We felt that this actually offered us
the ability to create what appears to be a totally distinct building along Homer of a different scale
and it allowed us to break the mass of the building as a whole up into a series of discrete
elements. Whereas if this thing starts to move over here and join with that, the building tends to
become more monolithic and less distinct. Plus we felt that having this space, I can't think of the
name of the restaurant, Doug. It's very similar in scale to the Empire Tap Room's little
courtyard, adjacent to the Empire Tap Room so it's similar in scale to that.
BM Kohler: I have a question for Staff. So it's a foregone c~nclusion that the existing building
is going to be taken down?
Staff Backlund: It is not a foregone conclusion. It will be brought to the City Council for a final
decision and a determination would be made whether or not there are overriding considerations.
Historic preservation, as was laid out in one of the CEQA documents we put in, I think it was
Attachment C, does say that there are often competing public benefits on a site. Historic
preservation is certainly considered a benefit by many communities. And if a project comes
along that has other benefits to the community, then you have to weigh them all together, and the
Council will be looking at it in that light. But the question of the feasibility of preserving the
Laundry building will also enter into that decision. And so the Board at any time can raise
questions about that subject.
BM Kohler: And then today we're just taking in information and not making any decisions, is
that correct? .
Staff Backlund: At your discretion, you can do that and we would return to you at a subsequent
meeting in early November.
BM Kohler: Okay, thank you.
Chair Bernstein: I have a question for Mr. Worden. And that is, I am seeing on the site plan, I
see 3 buildings across the street on High Street. It looks like the Watercourse Way, there's
another office building and then I think there's another office building in the middle. Those are
one-story buildings basically except for the two-story over there. Can you comment if all the
storefronts will be in shade during most of the business hours ofthose establishments across the
street?
Mr. Worden: Part ofthe Planning Commission's recommendations and the Staffs
recommendations, was to establish a daylight plane line which goes up 35 feet at the face of
curb, it goes back at a 45 degree angle in order to preserve sun to that side of the street. This
building does conform to that.
Chair Bernstein: That's my question. Thanks. Beth. '
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Is the structural engineer going to do any kind of presentation?
Mr. Worden: He's supposed to be here at 9:00 o'clock.
Page 10 of29
Mr. Ross: Yes, Ed should be here momentarily. I wanted to clarify one statement made earlier
just so we're clear. The existing alley width is 15 feet. We are proposing to make the alley 20
feet which provides emergency access to vehicles, etc. Most of the alleys are 15 and when new
projects develop, they often times either split that difference on each side or the earliest property
developing takes the 5 feet off their property and that's what we're doing. So in doing that, we
would actually chop 5 feet off the existing Laundry building because that does go to the property
line. The other comment was that earlier there was a question about going into the alley and how
that works. One, we can't take credit for this creative solution. It was Steve Emslie's idea and I
think it was a good one. This enables our project to get into a better parking module and then it
enables us with two levels of parking to actually give the City 60 spaces of parking which is
much needed in this area because much of the area was developed without a lot of parking. This
solution has been done before on 390 Lytton, 250 University, 100 Hamilton and probably several
other buildings in town. So it's kind of a partnership between the development community and
the City to take an alley, and we've already checked it out with the Utility Department, to make
it work for everybody.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I'm just following up on my question ahout sun, Mr. Worden.
Would you describe on those the storefront themselves, would they be getting sun, for example,
today in October? Would they be getting sunlight onto their ground floor retail spaces then,
using the daylight plane that you were describing?
Mr. Worden: The storefronts on the other side of the street? I'd have to say I really don't know.
We haven't done sun shade studies ofthe building as it currently exists, as it's currently
proposed.
Chair Bernstein: Question for Staff. Is there any requirement for a project like this to do a sun
shade study?
Staff Backlund: I'd like to defer to Steven Turner or Lisa Grote on that question.
Steven Turner, Planner: Solar studies are not specifically required for these types of projects, but
often the ARB does ask for those studies to be completed and this is showing the sun angles at
times of the year, Spring/Summer or during Fall. That usually gives a good indication of the
maximums and minimums of solar light and shadowing on sites and surrounding areas.
Chair Bernstein: Thanks. Yes, Mr. Ross.
Mr. Ross: Just another clarification. We've actually done two sun studies up at PG&E where
they can simulate the sun, given with our original design which was taller' and didn't have the
break in the fenestration in the bUildings. We did a second sun study on the upper scheme
presented on the top which is the 5-story. So those findings exist and I can have maybe Barry
Watkins, John's partner, elaborate a bit on'what that actually revealed, if you'd be interested.
Mr. Barry Watkins: We studied that and we did the Spring/Fall average, not the
Winter/Summer. And the line on the current scheme fell somewhere in the parking across the
street, it didn't even reach the curb. So I would expect that in towards the Winter, it may reach
the base of the buildings across the street but it shouldn't run up the buildings. And the other is
the major breaks in the building where intended to get southwest sun through on to the sidewalk
on our own side and a few spaces to help break up the monolithic character that if it was a
continuous building on the street would have. So it was another reason that we put this courtyard
Page 11 of29
here just because in the afternoon, you will get southwest sun coming in from this orientation,
while if it was over here, you would never get any sun to this public space.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you very much. Any other questions for Staff? Carol.
BM Murden: I have one and this is for my clarification. One of the reasons given for not
keeping the Family Laundry was that one could not put parking underneath it. Could you
amplify on that? Is this is a question of practicality? I presume if you move the building out of
the way, perhaps you could amplify that.
Mr. Worden: It's apoured-in-place concrete building so it would be very, I mean you can, as
Doug says, move the Golden Gate bridge three feet to the right if you want. It's not that it's
impossible but it's impractical. It would be very costly.
/
BM Murden: You'd have to move the building out of the way and add lots of reinforcing?
Mr. Worden: If it were of wood frame building or something like that, it's more conventional a
building that you would imagine, putting cribs underneath and moving over and doing something
underneath and putting it back on top. But a poured-in-place concrete building is essentially a
big heavy rock that's not in particularly good shape as it stands. It would be very difficult and
very expensive to move a poured-in-place concrete building.
BM Murden: Thank you.
BM Kohler: Just to comment on your pa~ners about the sunlight coming into the courtyard. In
fact, those are walkways, I guess. Are they enclosed or open?
Mr.Worden: They're open walkways.
BM Kohler: But they're still all the walkways, though?
Mr. Worden: There are a series of things that did happen. We're trying to keep them as
transparent as possible, as in the previous scheme.
BM Kohler: Okay.
Chair Bernstein: Beth.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Just to continue to think about the sun, would the back buildings along
the alley then shade most of the rest of the building?
Mr. Watkins: In our previous scheme when we did sun studies, we were asked if this was the
best orientation for these courtyards. So this is about southwest, courtyards get the best sun from
about 1:00 o'clock to sunset. And they asked, what if you turned it 90 degrees? Well then, you
get sun from 7 :00 a.m. to noon and we thought the afternoon sun was of more benefit to the
residents and the units opening into it than th~ morning sun would be. This space along High
Street will get morning sun, but that's about it. But at the same time, we have orientation on the
back side so they can get some sun coming in in the afternoons through their back side, and that
was one reason for this whole orientation is to provide the maximum of exterior. The only
problem is on this desirable side because of the alley and the service character of it, the first two
Page 12 of29
Staff Backlund: I just wanted to recall that Mr. Meserve's report is included in your Staff Report
as Attachment M and the conclusions he reached on the state of the concrete are on page 2 of this
report, paragraphs 3 and 4.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, I see that. Any other questions for Staff or applicant? Carol, go
ahead.
BM Murden: I'm sorry, I do have a question for Staff actually. For Lisa, !think this would be.
In the Staff Report on page 14, it says, "It is expected that the 800 High Street project will be
subject to the policies and regulations of the SOFA II CAP at the time the plan is adopted." So
does this mean that this project will go forward and then when SOFA II is adopted, the project
will then have to conform to SOFA II, if in any way it does not?
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: The direction from Council so far is that the 800 High
project should not be heard by them until such time as they have an opportunity to comment and
make a decision on the SOFA II plan. It is expected that the project is then subject to the f\lles
and regulations in place at that time which would include the SOFA II, whatever is adopted in
SOFA II. The Council is expected to consider that and make a decision on November 18th of this
year.
BM Murden: Thank you .. I just wasn't quite clear on what the process was. Thank you.
BM Kohler: So a follow up question is then, has this been reviewed based on the SOFA II plan?
Ms. Grote: We have made some preliminary review and comments, because it's unknown what
the policies and goals and actual development standards will be as approved by Council, it's
premature to do a complete review in regard to SOFA II but we have done what we know so far.
There are several things that it does comply with. There are goals and policies iIi both
Coordinated Area Plans that are in front of the City Council now which call for increased
housing and some higher densities with regard to housing in the area, that certainly complies
with that. The applicants have made ·significant changes to the Homer Street frontage and the
High Street frontages in order to conform with the pedestrian orientation and emphasis in the
goals and policies of the plan. The primary concerns have to do with the Floor Area Ratio. This
is higher than either the Working Group's recommendations or the Planning Commission and
Staff recommendations which range: Working Group is about 1.15, Planning Commission and
Staff goes up to about a 2.0 to 2.1 FAR with specific public benefits. This is slightly higher than
that so there is a potential conflict there. There are some concerns with the historic preservation
goals and policies as currently written in both Coordinated Area Plans or both the Drafts. Those
Drafts do not currently allow for the removal of the State Eligible Historic Resource. Staffhas
proposed for Council to consider a suggestion which would give the City Council, with a
recommendation from the HRB, the authority to authorize the removal, again with an
environmental review, but the removal of the State Eligible Historic Resource if one of three
conditions are met. One is that there is no economic value left in the building. The second
would be that it's been determined to be unsafe ~ccording to the Chief Building Official. The
third would be that the removal wouldn't impede the goals or purposes of Chapter 16.49, which
is the Historic Preservation Chapter of the Municipal Code. That's a similar authority that the
Council has for downtown significant res~urces currently in Chapter 16.49. Staff is
recommending that the Council at least consider that in the SOFA II area, to provide that same
sort of flexibility in certain cases for the SOFA II Historic Resources. That recommendation is
actually coming back to the HRB, I believe on November 6th so that you'll have an opportunity
Page 14 of29
· .
to comment on that before it gets back to the City Council on November 18th• Those are the
primary areas.
BM Kohler: I guess the question is, why are we reviewing this if the rules of the game aren't
decided yet? All the Staff being hours and hours over the weekend because the data didn't come
in in time and now we don't know what the rules are going to be.
Ms. Grote: I think that we know a significant direction and aspects of the rules. We don't know
the details. The applicant did request at least this opportunity to get some preliminary and initial
comments from the HRB and the ARB so that there is some direction on how they might be able
to modify the building so that it does better fit with your goals and objectives.
BM Kohler: . Does the applicant reimburse the City for all the extra hours the Staff spent on
putting this all together over the weekend?
Ms. Grote: Actually, this is a Planned Community application, Zone Change application so the
applicant is billed on an hourly basis for all Staff time.
BM Kohler: So basically, we're just looking at it today and then when everything is final, you
figured out what we're supposed to do, then we'll look at it again. Is that what we're going to
do? .
Ms. Grote: If you are prepared to make comments on the environmental documentation that's
been put before you and on the project as it stands now, that's perfectly acceptable to do today.
If you want to make initial comments and then make additional comments at a later date, on
November 6th I believe. Dennis has suggested you can do tliat as well. It will need to return to
you at some point for that analysis of whatever is approved in SOFA II.
BM Kohler: But we didn't get these packets until 8:00 o'clock last night. So it's not fair for me
to make a decision on it.
Ms. Grote: Y QU might want to make your initial comments today and then continue it to
November 6th I believe it is.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Lisa. Any other comments or questions at this point? Doug, go
ahead.
Mr. Ross: I just want to comment on the SOFA II study and our process. First of all, the motion
that was passed by the Council back in March was stated as follows: that the City Council will
not initiate the preliminary review of the proposed development project that 800 High Street is
allowed by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.97 and to delay the review until the
completion ofthe SOFA II plan. SOFA II plan is complete. It's been presented to the Council.
From my perspective, there is a chance that one, the Planned Community Zone will remain intact
with the SOFA II plan which means the review you make today will not change if that's the case.
There is certainly a equal opportunity given the divided vote that the SOFA II plan may never
pass. So there's not a moratorium in town presently for our project and we requested that we be
processed. The Planning Commission has reviewed this project based on the same constraints
before it was even presented to the City Council. So I think from our perspective; we are
processing in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. At the end of the day, if the SOFA II plan
Page 15 of29
changes our application, that's our risk. But I think to hold us in limbo until that passes, which
may be questionable at best, is inappropriate.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Mr. Ross. Any other comments or questions right now? All right.
Next, I'd like to open our meeting up to any public comments. Is there anyone from the public
who would like to speak to us on this item? I see none, so we would bring it back to the Board.
I'm going to keep the public hearing open to allow for any interactive comments between the
applicant and the Board.
So, if the Board would like to make any comments now, I'd like to hear what the Board
Members have to say. Michael.
BM Makinen: One of the thingsl think would be appropriate that we have not seen is in the
study of the alternatives that would include retention of the Creamery building, even if they're
negative. I see no proposals or planning that relates to the retention ofthe historic property.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any other comments by the Board? Roger.
BM Kohler: I tend to agree with Michael that there's at least some simple study showing the
building, either the entire building or part of the building, or shell of the building or something
that at least we can say, yes, we had a chance to look at that and it really doesn't work or may be
it would work, I doubt it. But in my mind, I'd like to at least see something like that. I don't
think we got something from the previous project either. But that would probably help us all
make a final decision on the solution to see at least the attempt to say that it mayor may not
work. I don't know, I agree with Michael basically.
Chair Bernstein: Michael, go ahead.
BM Makinen: I'm glad to see that Roger concurs with my feelings on that. I think, again, we
have to have something, some documentation that shows that there has been some reasonable
level oflooking at the alternatives. There's always a consideration that has to be made when
historic properties are taken down, even with the due diligence regarding the historic properties.
I don't feel it's been done until that process has been completed.
Chair Bernstein: Mr. Ross would like to comment on that.
Mr. Ross:. Well, from our perspective the report by Ed Meserve and the testimony you heard
today states that that building really needs to be removed and reconstructed and would never be
reconstructed in the current seismic ordinance in its existing configuration. So we could provide
economic data to show you how unrealistic it is from a cost perspective, but I think in terms of
restoring that building the way it is today, you're going to get a building with a new interior, a
new exterior, a new roof, new windows, smaller openings·and nothing that is at all close to the
character of the existing building. So we thought that that study was sufficient for you to reach
that conclusion. If you want us to do some other studies, maybe we can be very specific as to
what else is needed. We thought when it's determined that the building is not salvageable and
would never ever get restored to its existing condition, that that was the appropriate place to stop.
So if you need additional information, we're certainly glad to furnish that but with the building
not ever being the same ever again, I question what additional information would be needed but
we certainly can furnish it if you need it.
Page 16 of29
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Mr. Ross. Roger.
BM Kohler: I have a question for Staff. Has the Chief Building Official reviewed the report
from Ed Meserve? Has he walked through the building with Ed or any of us, any Staff to make
his own determination?
Staff Backlund: There was a meeting at the Family Laundry building. I don't know if any of
you were there.
BM Kohler: I was there.
Staff Backlund: I can't recall if Fred Herman was at that meeting. No? Then in that case, he's
not reviewed the conditions or the reports relating to that building.
BM Kohler: I think that would be a modest step to take.
BM Makinen: The other comment I would have is I would like to see a study done by somebody
who's a little bit more impartial to the process right here like a historic preservation architect that
has not the more connected vested interest perhaps of people that have looked at it to date.
Chair Bernstein: Any other comments by the Board? Okay. I'm looking at our EIR, looking on
page 65. It talks about the impact of demolishing a Historic Resource and it talks about, a couple
of pages or so, about what would be lost if this is demolished. However, I also see in the report,
on page 19, it's under Appendix B, Initial Study and on page 19. It does talk about a
Comprehensive Plan consistency of Policy L-51 and L-58 that ifboth building was demolished,
it would be in conflict with those two policies of encouraging, keeping and preservation of
Historic Resources and promote adaptive reuse. But I do see after that, there are 16
Comprehensive Plan Policies that this project with the demolition would probably meet. And so
we just have to balance out the loss of Historic Resource but still there is a majority of
Comprehensive Plan issues being met by this project. That will be part of our thinking, too, I
believe, of giving comment about the demolition of this project.
Going back to the EIR on page 84, I believe that's the first section, it does give what Board
Members Michael and Roger were talking about, and that is Alternative 2. It reads, "Retain the
Creamery Building Alternative." And it talks about what's involved to do that. It does also say
inthis EIR that this alternative would not meet many of the applicant's objectives. As a Board,
we also need to take a look at objectives of the community. And ifit's of importance to keep
some aspect of the historical resource alive, that's our chance now to talk about that.
And one of the thoughts I had was similar to other historic buildings that have been demolished
is that there is some retaining of some characteristic of that building. So perhaps as this EIR
does talk about the steel framed window fenestration, the step-up parapet and there are other
details that are talked about in here. From a design point of view, that maybe an exercise that the
applicant could decide to entertain is that, yes, it would not be the building but at least there'll be
some design aspects of it so just as the EIR is requesting, there'll be some documentation ofthe
building that there is a photographic history of it or a written history of it and that written history
be preserved somewhere in some archive. Perhaps a way of documenting part of that history to
is have a physical element of it so maybe that becomes part ofthe public art of this project.
Those are just some ideas of that, well, let's not throwaway everything but take some element of
it and incorporate it. The architect was mentioning the word doo-dad. But some item that is
Page 17 of29
like, well, here's a recollection of it and just to have something so that the entire structure is not
. recycled into landfill. Any other comments? Carol.
BM Murden: I would like to make it clear I have not read the Draft EIR. I simply didn't have
time. I tried to read some of the other things. I felt I would understand the presentation of the
project much better by reading some of the other things. Michael and Roger and perhaps
adapting what they're saying in that I think the Board would like to see the whole building
retained but if that is not possible, perhaps retaining outer walls, that type of thing, some sort of
study showing that kind of use of the building might be a good idea. Just briefly looking at this,
the DEIR, it seems to be saying, keep the building or don't keep the building. That doesn't seem
to be an alternative which talks about perhaps retaining outer walls rather than the whole
building. Perhaps that's been looked at, I don't know.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Beth.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Basically, I also feel like I need more time to study the Draft EIR. I
just feel like it's a very large document and this is a very large and important project. I feel like
it's just premature to make many statements in terms of what I see in here.
Chair Bernstein: I see also in the EIR, I'll just read the sentence, and it says, "In order for this
building to be demolished, the City Council is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations that outline the benefit that the proposed project would bring to community that
exceed the benefits that would be realized by retaining the Historic Resource." So that'll be one
of the motions that we would be making, recommending to the City Council that they adopt the
Statement of Overriding Considerations or that they do not adopt Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
So, one of the tasks that we have today is to either make a motion or recommendations to the
Councilor continue this to November 6th• That's one of the things we'll need to decide today.
Any other coinments? Carol.
BM Murden: From my perspective, I think it should be continued. As somebody said, I guess it
was Roger, we didn't get this packet until fairly late yesterday evening and I really have not had .
time to look at all the materials and I definitely have not looked at the Draft FEIR.
BM Makinen: I agree with Carol.
Chair Bernstein: Yes, Mr. Worden
Mr Worden: We have done several studies looking at how we might retain a building, how we
might retain aspects of the building, how we might retain some echo of the building in terms of
the design itself. So the next time I come before you, so that I could bring a study that would
answer what you're asking for, could I hear a little bit of discussion about what it is about the
building that you feel is significant. Is it really the profile of the fa<;ade itself? Is it the historic
memory of the fact that there were these types of buildings in these types of uses in this
particular place? Is it the character of the interior of the building? Could you give me some
indication from your points of view as to what it is about this specific building? I'm certainly in
sympathy with preserving historic buildings in general. But what is it about this specific
building that you feel that we might be able to respond to?
Page 18 of29
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. We'd love to do that. Let's go down the line. Who would like to
start? Carol.
BM Murden: In looking at the building and this is why I mentioned keeping the walls perhaps,
where you would retain the windows, and so forth. Homer Avenue does have this particular
character to it, that is it's very much a local area. There were a number of very, I think Dennis
actually used the term, modestly scaled early 20th century buildings. This was a slightly
industrial area. And the building that is there now obviously adds to the historic character of the
area and that is somewhat what I would like to see kept. I do appreciate that in this building you
have related it to other buildings on the street. But the Family Laundry building was obviously
an industrial building and perhaps keeping some of that character there, I don't know ifthat's
very helpful to you or specific enough to you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Beth.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I think that in some ways looking at the cun;ent photographs with the
sort of shed like structure over there, in some ways loses some of the nice lines of the building
and certainly, I don't consider that shed on the Homer Avenue side a part of the historic
character. But there are some very nice lines in this building. I have not been inside the building
in some time. Many of those buildings had some very interesting truss work on the ceiling,
although I don't know whether that is a possibility of saving in this building but there ar~
certainly a number of those buildings downtown, in the downtown area, that have that wonderful
truss work.
I think that as I look at it, maybe this building does have enough openings or the possibility of
openings to make some storefronts in there. It's hard to tell as you look at the part that's covered
what possibilities of openings are there. But I think the building works with the rest of Homer.
It does bring up some very important echoes of the past, certainly there was an entire Laundry
district, almost, down in that. area. There were between 16 laundries at one time in that area. So
it's both some of the feel of the building and some nice lines I think that have perhaps gotten
blunted over the years with pieces that have been packed on the outside.
Chair Bernstein: Michael.
BM Makinen: Well, I would be more interested in the fa<;ade of the building, not so much on the
interior but to give essentially the feel that street had originally, and not necessarily be so
concerned with what was inside of it. Most people wouldn't get inside the building anyway. If
they experienced, as they go down Homer Street, the project proposed here, nobody would
recognize that as part of Homer Avenue that they were used to, when they came back 20 years
later. I'm trying to motivate you to give some respect for the character of the street as it existed
in the past. Maybe that fa<;ade can be retained somehow in your project. I know it's very
difficult to do that with this type of project but to retain the feel of the streetscape, I think is the
important thing.
Chair Bernstein: Roger.
BM Kohler: You said you had some studies, maybe you really don't have to do anything, just to
do sketch forms would be something. I'm not asking you to do a whole lot more work. Ijust
want to point out that in the ARG report, it does state that this building does appear to be
qualified for the, eligible for the California Register and that it would fit in well with the historic
Page 19 of29
district, if one was such established for Homer. So it has some significance and I think it's worth
all the comments we've said or at least to be looked at.
Chair Bernstein: One of the issues or features that really struck me th~t I thought was quite
remarkably wonderful and that was the interior when I saw the trusses up there and then the
lighted monitor or the clear-story windows with natural light coming through, so that's right out
of 1930's industrial design. As I believe the project is being described, that portion of the site is
designed for public use, is that correct? It looks like a restaurant or something?
[Comments not miked]
Chair Bernstein: ... So, if there was some kind of design that incorporated the monitor,
theoretically speaking, that maybe part of the retail use of that site is the possibility.
Mr. Worden: Could I go into a little bit more detail?
Chair Bernstein: Sure.
Mr. Worden: We've tried really hard to actually retain the form of the building in some of the
earlier schemes. And if you look at this particular elevation, this is kind of an intermediate
elevation. It was subsequent to what we did here and then this is moving back down in scale,
similar to what we're doing now. But this is a different treatment of the Homer elevation. Here,
we had talked about retaining the profile of the building setting the housing back slightly and
having the form of the existing building echoed in the fac;ade of the new building. Our concern I
guess as we started looking at it, is comparing the character of the building as it exists right now,
if you remove the shed is a relatively monolithic building that stretches the entire length of the
Homer elevation of this particular street. In comparing that to what is happening further down
Homer and so the question for us was is it better for us to re-create or incorporate this crenelated
fac;ade within the building itself with a relatively straight street front and the industrial windows
along the way and ending up with a relatively monolithic building along Homer? Or is it better
to take the building itself and break it down since it's a new building anyway, break it doWIi in
such a way that it starts to reflect the character ofthe other portions of Homer? Because in a
way, the scale of the building as it currently exists is somewhat foreign to the scale of the portion
of Homer that I think people think about when they think about Homer Avenue. I know there
are other larger buildings, I'm not saying there aren't. So it was really a question for us and I
guess, relative to the Board, we've erred in the wrong direction because we were essentially'
saying maybe it's not better to create a new relatively monolithic building that echoes the profile
of the existing building, maybe it's better since we're doing a new building anyway, at least we
think we're doing a new building to echo the character ofthe other portions of Homer, the more
pedestrian scale.
So I guess what I'm hearing from you is that perhaps it would be better to go back to a scheme
that presented a more monolithic fac;ade along Homer that in some way reflected the character of
the existing building. Is that what you're saying?
Chair Bernstein: Just to have some reference to it, Michael, since you were talking more about
the exterior, do you have any comment on Mr. Worden's question?
BM Makinen: I think you've stepped a couple of steps beyond where I was really thinking. My
thought was really trying to incorporate the fac;ade pretty much as it would appear today so that
Page 20 of29
if one went down the street after returning from 20 years from not being in Palo Alto, they'd say,
oh yes, that's where the Creamery Building was. The back part of it doesn't exist anymore but at
least one would recognize the fact that this was the Creamery building. That's the challenge I
see of trying to build that into your project, the fayade, so you don't have this new town that's
been created in this particular area which is essentially what's resulting here. You've got a new
interpretation of this area of Palo Alto.
Mr. Worden: Oh, I understand.
BM Makinen: That's where I'm coming from. It's not to make something that's mimicking
something.
Mr. Worden: Well, no, neither one, I'm not trying to mimic, other than the fact that if we are to
retain the fayade itself, it's going to be very difficult given the structural quality of the building
to literally retain the fayade.
BM Makinen: You may have to disassemble and re-assemble, there's no doubt about that. The
effect that I'm trying to get is if one returns to the street after along period of absence, it won't
be a new town. They would at least recognize what you see as a returning visitor. So it's
accepting history as it's delivered to you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I'm looking also now on page 31 of the Draft EIR and the bottom
of that page. It talks about public benefit package. It says, "The applicant has proposed
essentially two public benefits that are above and beyond the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan." And both of those on page 31 talk about the automobile. It says, "Public benefit that will
allow the Alma Street site in the future to be developed without a vehicle entry on Alma Street is
considered a public benefit." And then the next one it says, "63 parking spaces in the garage
would be available for public use." Because we are appointed by the City Council to represent
the concerns of historic issues, I think public benefits, where it talks about parking is a benefit is
not so much our concern but I think as a Board, our concern is really what's happening to
historic resources. So I think it's appropriate that we focus on that.
Again, we will need to recommend to the Council if we recommend that they adopt a Statement
of Overriding Considerations that outlines that the public benefits for this project would be
bigger than any ideas or any project that respects the historical aspects of the site. We need to
decide if these public benefits listed in the Draft EIR that involve about vehicle access and
parking is a bigger benefit from our point of view regarding historic resources. So we need to
move today to either continue this item to our November 6th meeting or even talk about making
such a requirement at this point recommending to the Council if that's an overriding concern or
not based on the stated public benefits of parking.
I just want to ask the applicant, am I reading this correctly that those are the two proposed public
benefits as stated in the Draft ErR? Mr. Ross.
Mr. Ross: The primary public benefit is actually 60 cars available to the public and this is an
area that is very short on parking as I mentioned earlier. The added benefit in the configuration
of the ramp and the alley for the future development but the comer park on Channing is also.
another public benefit that's defined in the Comprehensive Plan. I think the City recognizes that.
I'd like to just step back for a moment and try to get a little better direction personally so that
Page 21 of29
next time we come back before you, get something that something that works for everybody
hopefully.
I think that the challenge here is that we're trying to do a housing project and create the public
benefit with the parking and work with a structural fayade that really combats those uses and is
structurally impaired. So we have taken another direction, which I think Dennis has helped us'
with, that stresses the compatibility in the district and John, I think; has explained toyou the
efforts we've taken there. Perhaps there's a middle ground where we could take some of the
special elements of the building. Take those trusses that exists and reconfigure that material and
make it into awnings or create a special treatment in that exterior outdoor dining area, maybe
even inside the cafe. Or take portions of the building and saw cut the concrete and use an area
where the structural concrete is not important, it could be planter walls, it could be fountains, it
could be things like that so that we can retain portions of the building and I think one of our
plans is to, we certainly are going to, assuming we move forward here, photograph the building
and have a history and that would be part of maybe the lobbies and things like that so people
would have a sense of what was there before. We're not trying to just trample on history but
we're trying to get a project that we thiTIk is important to the City as well.
So going back to John's earlier comment, we didn't use the fayade ofthe building because it
really didn't work. But we did try to echo that shape and we've shown that to a variety of people
and I think it actually looked a little trite, to be quite honest with you. I think what we have now
is more expressed with the other parts of the district. So, I just like to offer to you maybe sort of
an adaptive re-use, not generically the same fayade but take essences of the building. The
monitor, the trusses, some of the concrete and maybe constructively reuse that and retain the
memory of the building in that particular way.
Ms. Grote: Thank you. I did also just want to clarify one point. When you do come to the point
of considering the benefits of the project and whether or not you would want to recommend the
Statement of Overriding Considerations to the Council, you're not confined to just the public
benefits as defined in the Planned Community process. You can look at the other benefits of the
project if you think that meeting 19 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies is of benefit, then
you can consider that in your recommendation about a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
So you're not confined to just a narrowly defined set of public benefits, you can look at the
overall benefit providing housing, doing other things that the project may accomplish.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Lisa. Roger.
BM Kohler: Just a quick question, a follow up on that. Has the neighborhood association seen
all these plans? Have they had a chance to comment on it?
Ms. Grote: The applicant may want to elaborate on this but the President of the Downtown
South Neighborhood Association has been sent the Draft EIR and I believe a copy of both the
Staff Reports. I know a couple oflocal business owners have had many conversations with the
applicant so there has been an attempt to notify everyone.
Chair Bernstein: Dennis.
Staff Backlund: I wanted to, if! may, amplify something that was in the Staff Report that has a
bearing on the discussion of saving portions of the building or what the architectural benefit to
the street may be with replication in a new structure, or whether the new structure should require
Page 22 of29
"
a more monolithic character in portions of it because the Family Laundry building does that. I
think there is a difficult problem here that needs to be sorted out in dealing with any historic
building.
Historic buildings, as they are considered by most communities and community groups that
specialize in preserving historic buildings, are factors of cultural value that no law can deal with
and never has. But the law must try to deal with them in certain locations like California because
of the California Environmental Quality Act and there are many benefits that come from the law
applying to cultural artifacts. But as we know, the fields of culture and art and the field of law
are uneasy partners at best. There is something that separates the two and this has a bearing on
this building. We know that in the Draft EIR they talk about the history of the building (which is
one factor in ARG's historic report) and that that, with loss of the building, could perhaps be
mitigated by writing a history of the Family Laundry with photographs that could be visually
displayed somewhere. And then there is the architectural value for which there is no mitigation,
and that is why a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required, because there is no way
under CEQA that you can mitigate that loss. But one can see that in the application of the law,
there is a certain separation between history and architecture and that that is the very format of
historic surveys: that the building is eligible for a Register, perhaps only under Criterion A (its
history) but not for its architecture. Or as is more usually the case, it is significant under
Criterion C (architecture) but not for the historic events or historic persons element That is the
way that surveys that are connected with the law must deal with things because the law has to
analyze things by breaking them up into components that may not be entirely natural to the
subject at hand. But it is, indeed, the only way that you can deal with it, and benefits do flow
from that.
In the Family Laundry building, what we pointed out at the bottom of page 5 and the top of page
6 in the Staff Report, is that this is a historic industrial building. That is what it is. And its
architecture and its history--there is no separation between the two (not in reality, but in order to
deal with it through law, we do have to separate these factors). We said that it was the only
substantial industrial building on Homer that is remaining and, therefore, it is the principal
indicator of the light industrial past of the area. In fact, because it is one of the least altered
buildings in the area, it is a principal indicator of the industrial past of Palo Alto. The materials
that we provided in the Staff Report show that that shed addition on Homer Avenue was merely
meant to be a fence and the ARB asked that this fence be given the appearance of a wall for the
sake of a more pleasant ambience on the avenue. This was done in 1976 .. But it is simply a lean-
to on the building. They did remove the multi-pane windows [behind the wall] so there would be
access to the tanks in the building but the window openings were left and there's documentary
evidence on the building what those windows were like, so they can be replicated under historic
standards because of this documentation.
So it is a very little altered building and that is the value. There is no mitigation for that loss.
There is no reason whatever that a new construction cannot be in the direction that the applicant
is proposing: something that is different but recalls various buildings along Homer. There is no
need to replicate the Family Laundry building. Its monolithic character on Homer is acceptable
because it is only one-story high and it has a dramatic roof monitor to break up that massing and
add visual interest along with the parapets, etc.
But, in essence, from the historic preservation point of view, this is a historic light industrial
building. In many cities industrial mill buildings are saved and preserved, electric power stations
are saved and preserved. Architecturally, there is no reason why these buildings, if demo'd, need
Page 23 of29
to be replicated in new construction if that would not be harmonious with the use of a new
building. And it only points up that there is no mitigation for the removal of the historic
building, and there is no separation of architecture from history. We often hear comments that a
certain building is not beautiful and, therefore, we won't keep it. History and aesthetics are very
different subjects. What is valuable historically may not meet all the aesthetic qualifications, but
the history may more than make up for that; it's a very special case, it's a historic building--
architecture, the history, the persons involved, it's all there as a unity, and there is no mitigation.
And that is why it is one of several competing public benefits. There's no need to try to mitigate
this architecturally, not really. But what there is a need to do is to assess the competing public
benefits, and the Council will do that in a public hearing in concert with the community. The
community through the Council will look at this and say, there is a real value in this building (if
they are interested in history) and they would be right. But they and many other people may say
there are other factors of this project that we regard as more valuable. No two communities are
going to put together the same apparent public benefits in the same way, and at different times
the same community may decide differently. If a city becomes a major tourist center because of
historic buildings, then the decision on historic buildings may be very different than it was 5 or 6
years.earlier.
And so at this point in time Palo Alto has certain needs. And those will be weighed against the
benefits of the building. But I would just like to leave you with the thought that CEQA brings
forward to us: there is no mitigation for the loss of a historic building. There is only a
perception of a greater competing benefit.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you very much, Dennis, very eloquent. I also wanted to thank Mr. Ross
for coming back to us with these designs and specifically showing the lowering of the building
height along Romer Avenue.. I remember in the last presentation I believe along Homer Avenue,
the structures were near 50 feet high roughly and now they're around 35 feet. That is a direct
response, I believe, to the Board's comments from the last review ofthis so in keeping and
moving toward that character of Homer, so thank you very much for responding to that.
The idea that was also mentioned today that there would be additional ideas that come before us
that reflect some of our concerns today about what happens with the Family Laundry building
and what aspects of that may be incorporated in this project. We're at least looking at on paper
what those ideas might look like. I believe the Board would be very much interested in seeing
that and so if there's any opportunity for you to take a look at and presenting some of those ideas
that you heard today and how that might be incorporated, I think the Board would welcome very
much seeing those. Beth.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I would like to echo the words of Chair Bernstein that there have been
definite efforts to make the building not so tall, not as huge looking as it was before and I think
that it does indicate some real listening to some of the characteristics of Romer.
Chair Bernstein: We need to make some decisions today on what's happening l}ext. We have
that overriding concern issue. We have contiilUation. I heard some comment about continuing.
We probably need a motion of what our next step is, I believe, is that true? Yes. Michael.
BM Makinen: I'd like to make a motion that we continue on deliberations on the subject until
our next meeting. I believe it's November 6th.
BM Murden: I'll second that.
Page 24 of29
"
Chair Bernstein: Any discussion on this? Carol.
BM Murden: I seconded it because I just don't think the Board has had time to really absorb all
the material that we have and look at the Draft EIR.
Chair Bernstein: As far as looking or taking action on the comments that the Board made today,
this is a question for Staff, is it appropriate to make a request to the applicant to actually do some
more studies incorporating the design or is that premature at this point?
Staff Backlund: At your discretion, it's appropriate for you to make comments at your pleasure.
Chair Bernstein: Are there any other comments or request to add to the motion? Michael.
.BM Makinen: 1'd like to modify the motion. That the proposed project reflect the inco~oration
ofthe comments made by this Board and that we review those additions on November 6t .
meeting.
Chair Bernstein: Is that acceptable to the seconder?
BM Murden: Yes, it is.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Are there any other comments before we vote on the motion? All in
favor of that motion, say by saying' aye.'
All: Aye. (Haviland and Mario absent)
Chair Bernstein: Opposed? It passes unanimously by all those present.
Historic Resources Board Motion: The BM Makinen moved, seconded by BM Murden, that
the 800 High Street project be continued to the HRB meeting of November 6, 2002, and that
revisions to the project be prepared for the November 6 meeting based on the Board's comments
at the October 16, 2002 meeting.
Vote: 5-0-0-2 (Haviland and Mario absent).
Chair Bernstein: Any concluding comments by Staff before we close this public hearing?
Staff Backlund: Only a request that the Board would retain all the materials that you have
received and to bring those materials to the meeting on November 6th• We would appreciate it.
BM Murden: I just would like to thank the architect, too. I found his explanations and
comments extremely helpful. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: All right. Mr. Ross, thank you very much. Mr. Worden, thank you very much
and Staff, thank you. And for tomorrow's ARB meeting, the ARB is going to discuss this
project, I believe?
Staff Backlund: They will at 8:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. And we would recommend that
the Board send a representative to that meeting.
Page 25 of29 .
Chair Bernstein: Is there anyone on the Board who would be willing to do that tomorrow? We
all have very busy schedules. Beth. .
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I think I can do that.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Do we know yet where it is 'On the agenda for tomorrow?
Staff Backlund: You might inquire of Steven Turner. It is the first item on the agenda, I
understand.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, wonderful. It's at 8:00 a.m. and that's here, Council Chambers, good.
Beth, thank you very much, I appreciate that. I'll close this hearing on this item.
2. 445 Colorado Avenue [02-HRB-04]: Application by Guy Pluchon for removal of a
Category 3 building from the City's Historic Inventory based on loss of historic integrity.
Board review and recommendation to the City Council
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is Item #2, 445 Colorado Avenue, application by Guy
Pluchon for removal of a Category 3 building from the City's Historic Inventory based on loss of
historic integrity. Is there a Staff Report on this issue?
Staff Backlund: Thank you, Chair Bernstein. The owner of this property was the owner at the
time that this property was designated to the Historic Inventory. It was designated in Category 3
and what that has meant over the years is, as a building outside of the downtown area, the status
is essentially honorary under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. There is no review whatever
of any proposed activity at a home in Category 3 and 4 unless the project at that property
becomes discretionary, usually through a request for a variance. And then under the California
Environmental Quality Act, we do have to look at it historically. But variances are rare
compared to the number of applications, and this particular application simply remodeled the
whole front fac;ade of the house. The reason that the owners gave me was that the entire front
fac;ade was infested with termites and dry rot to a degree that they judged that it was
unrepairable. There were no historic preservation architects or contractors that reviewed the
property but in the opinion of the owners at the time, which was about 10 .years ago or so, they
remodeled the house.
As we judged the street facing facades of historic properties to usually be the locale of the most
important character defining features, when a front fac;ade is removed, it probably has lost its
historic integrity. In this case, most of the character-defining features were on the front fac;ade,
and we provided you with before and after photographs. The photograph in Attachment B was
taken 1978 and what it indicates is a very rare species in historic homes, a Mission Revival
Craftsman. It was a complete fusion of strong character-defining features of both ~tyles which
are rarely combined together with the flamboyance that you saw at 445 Colorado Avenue.
In the photo in Attachment B, we are looking at a property that by today's standards would be
unquestionably a Category 2 p~operty because of its uniqueness. But there was no review for
Category 3 and so there was no opportunity for the owners to engage in discussion. They are
European and were unaware of some of the particularities of these local California styles and
how unique this was. And so it was changed to what you see in Attachment C, and with a
change that great we felt that it had lost its historic integrity. That was also the judgment of
Page 26 of29
Dames and Moore. Dames and Moore was requested by the City a couple of years ago to look at
the integrity of the Category 3 and 4 properties for the reason that those received no review, so
there was a greater likelihood that they lost integrity when they had remodels. Dames and
Moore looked at this one and said it is no longer a historic property. So we believed it was
appropriate to honor th,e owner's request and ask you for a recommendation to forward to the
City Council that this property be removed from the Historic Inventory. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Dennis. Any questions for Staff? Seeing none. The applicant is
not here? Is the owner here?
Staff Backlund: No.
Chair Bernstein: I'd like to open up for public comment. I see no one in the public is here, I'll
bring it back to the Board. Questions, comments, discussions from Board? Roger:
BM Kohler: It has some historic significance because there's a little cottage in the back of that
. house where my wife and I lived for a year when we were first married. [laughter] Actually, the
original owner was very active in the Boys Scouts, and there's a rifle range at Camp [inaudible]
named after the owner of the house.
BM Makinen: Based upon the esteemed testimony of my colleague Roger Kohler, I think we
should consider moving it up to Category 1. [laughter]
Chair Bernstein: Beth.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I should disclose that I did drive by this property. I was carrying the
copy of the photograph from the Historic Inventory and I had difficulty locating the property.
Chair Bernstein: Carol.
BM Murden: In spite of Roger ... maybe, Roger, in 50 years we could put it back on the
Inventory. [laughter] But I move that we recommend to the City Council that the property at
445 Colorado Avenue be removed from the Historic Inventory. On the front fa<;ade it does still
retain the gable and the knee braces and the rafter coming out of the right side that I can see, but
it has lost the Mission Revival ends and the central portion which was Craftsman is gone. I think
it has completely lost its historic integrity.
Chair Bernstein: Do I have a second?
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I second.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, it's been seconded. Any discussion on this? I have a comment and that
is I'm wondering if the Craftsman style house that existed previously and then if the proposal
came before us today to approve this design, would we approve the design of the [Mission
Revival] addition as compatible with the historic nature of the building?
BM Murden: I had actually wondered when I saw the picture, and I hadn't read the Staff Report,
if the Mission Revival elements had been added but then you said they were originals.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, is that right? The Mission and the Craftsman, that's all original?
Page 27 of29
Staff Backlund: Oh, yes. Attachment B is the original design.
Chair Bernstein: That's amazing.
Staff Backlund: We have never seen a property, and .certainly not in the Bay Area, that had both
the Mission and the Craftsman features so classically strong and yet strongly combined like this.
So it was one of the most interesting properties in the entire City.
Chair Bernstein: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion before we
bring it to vote? All in favor of the motion, say by saying 'aye.'
All: Aye. (Haviland and Mario absent)
Chair Bernstein: Opposed? Passed unanimously by all those present.
Historic Resources Board Motion: BM Murden moved, seconded by BM Bunnenberg, that the
Board recommend to the City Council the removal of the house at 445 Colorado Avenue from
the Historic Inventory based on loss of historic integrity.
Vote: 5-0-0-2 (Haviland and Mario absent).
Chair Bernstein: Thank you very much. That closes this issue. Thank you, Dennis. Next on the
agenda is Status Reports, Staff Announcements, Correspondence, Reports from Officials.
STATUS REPORTS ON HISTORIC PROJECTS/SITES.
Staff Backlund: At the AME Zion Church, the character-defining triangular window has now
been covered with a substance to prevent debris from being thrown at it. We looked at that
window telescopically and determined that there is no damage whatever in that window. There
is a little deterioration of the metal separators, but it looks fundamentally intact, and is the
primary character-defining feature of the Church. So we were happy that on request of the City
the new owners immediately complied by protecting it.
STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Staff Caporgno reported on the Architectural Review Board recommendation regarding the final
location of the Homer Avenue Fence Monument and indicated that the Director of Planning
w.ould refer the item to the City Council for a decision.
CORRESPONDENCE. None.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. None.
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
BM Kohler commented on the October 25,2002 California Preservation Foundation workshop at
Stanford University. BM Murden commented on an Eichler Homes event scheduled for Palo·
Alto. BM Makinen commented on the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference in
Page 28 of29
, ,
Cleveland, Ohio, and on the rehabilitation of Cleveland's historic warehouse district. BM Kohler
commented on his trip to Florence, Italy and on planning processes there.
ADJOURMENT: 10:30 AM
* Historic Resources Board representative at City Council meetings:
Project Meeting date Representative
Agenda changes, additions and deletions. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior
to meeting time.
Questions. If interested parties have any questions regarding the above applications, please contact the Planning Division at (650) 329-2441. The
files relating to these items are available for inspection weekdays between the hours of 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM and 1 :00 PM to 4:00 PM and staff
reports will be available for inspection on 2:00 PM the Friday proceeding the hearing.
ADA. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like
information on the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (voice) or
(650)328-1199 (TDD)
Page 29 of29