HomeMy WebLinkAboutCMR- 480-02TO:
14
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 16, 2002 CMR:480:02
REFERRAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT OF A RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FOR
APPROVAL OF DESIGN DETAILS OF THE HOMER AVENUE
UNDERCROSSING PROJECT, AND A RECOMENDATION FROM
THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REGARDING
PLACEMENT OF A FENCE MONUMENT AT THE TERMINUS OF
HOMER AVENUE AT ALMA STREET
RECOMtVIENDATION
The ARB recommends that the design details of the Alma Street!Homer Avenue
Undercrossing Project be dpproved with the condition that the existing fence monument
be relocated to another intersection along Alma Street. The HRB and staff recommend
that the City Council approve incorporation of the monument into the undercrossing
project in the center of the project near the bottom of the semi-circular stairway, facing
the center of the T-intersection of Alma Street and Homer Avenue.
BACKGROUND
The Alma Street/Homer Avenue fence monument has been the subject of discussions by
both the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
The HRB first reviewed location options for the fence monument at meetings on May 1
and June 26, 2002. On June 26, after having considered a staff presentation of four
location options for the monument, the HRB found the fence monument to be of local
historic interest and recommended preserving the monument at its original location and
incorporating it into the undercrossing project, where it would continue to function as a
contributing element to the historic character of Homer Avenue.
CMR:480:02 Page 1 of 6
The HRB restated its recommendation at its August 7, 2002 meeting and at a joint
meeting of the HRB and ARB on August 15. At that meeting, the ARB expressed a
desire to relocate the monument offsite. The ARB considered the monument to be
incompatible with the design of the undercrossing project with respect to scale and to
negatively affect the project's sight lines and spatial character.
As a result of the disageement, the two Boards requested that staff contact the project
architect to "look at the location of this fence monument, considering the opinions of
both Boards, and look at the [location] problem in three dimensions" in an attempt to
identify a siting solution. On September 21, 2002, the project architect responded with a
memorandum entitled "Fence Monument located at Homer/Alma Intersection" that
supported retention of the monument within the undercrossing area but not in a central
location. The project architect identified five possible locations for siting the monument
(see Attachment A). These included:
Relocating the monument at its exact current location, considered its historic location.
At this location, however, the top surface of the monument would be higher than the
ceiling of the tunnel.
Locating the monument closer to the tunnel portal so that its base can be at a lower
elevation. This results in a reduction in the visual mass of the monument from Homer
Avenue, but it increases the dominance of the monument from the vantage point of
the tunnel.
Shifting the monument off axis and reducing the visual mass by lowering the
monument partly into the steps of the undercrossing. This would reduce the visual
scale and dominance of the monument from and through the tunnel; however, ful!
views of the monument's tripartite form from all sides would not be retained.
Relocating the monument within the project area but not in the central area of the
Alma Street side of the undercrossing. In this location, the monument would not be
on axis with Homer Avenue and views of oncoming traffic for pedestrians and
bicyclists approaching crosswalk at Homer Avenue would be partially obstructed.
Relocating the. monument on axis with another nearby street at the intersection with
Alma Street.
The architect considered the on-axis location of the monument important to its historic
integrity. The architect's opinion was that placing the monument in the center of the
project might compromise sight lines. In addition, he commented that he considered the
scale of the monument is a bit too massive for the scale of the project and that locating
the monument in the center of the project would compromise the sense of openness and
expansiveness along Alma Street.
CIvIR:480:02 Page 2 of 6
Nonetheless, at its October 2, 2002 meeting, the HRB recommended retaining the
monument on axis with Homer Avenue near its present location. It concluded that the
fence monument would maintain a coherent design for the undercrossing project, satisfy
safety issues, and achieve historic preservation goals (see Attachments B and C).
The ARB, at its October 3, 2002 meeting to review the design details of the
undercrossing project, recommended that the fence monument be relocated to another
intersection along Alma Street completely out of the undercrossing area. It felt that the
overriding and predominant architectural statement of the undercrossing is at variance
with historic preservation in this instance. The undercrossing is considered a model
project artistically, with its provision of openness and good sight lines and the monument
detracts from the homogeneity of the overall design of the undercrossing (see
Attachments D and E).
DISCUSSION
Research performed for the City of Palo Alto by the historic consultant firm of Carey &
Co. indicates that the fence monument was part of an early beautification plan for Alma
Street which, then as now, was a primary gateway to the downtown area. The Alma
Street Fence Monument project of 1909 along Alma Street was a gift to the City from a
member of the City Council, William Dean, and it was part of the City Beautiful
Movement that influenced urban planning in numerous American cities during the later
19th and early 20th centuries (see Attachment F).
According to the architect for the undercrossing project, two historic elements in the area
of the project have traditionally defined the western edge of the City: the series of fence
monuments located on axis with streets terminating at Alma and the dense tree line along
Alma Street. The architect stated that "preserving the monument is highly valuable"
because "retention of historic urban features helps gound our public psyche and define
our place in time and space"; however, its location should not create a conflict with the
provision of long open sight lines, a wide range of vision, and adequate lighting, which
are among the most important aspects of undercrossing design.
Staff and the HRB recommend that the City Council approve the location of the Fence
Monument in the center of the undercrossing project near the bottom of the semi-circular
stairway based on the following:
Historic Preservation Issues
1. It would maintain the monument's historic on-axis relationship with Homer Avenue.
2. It would preserve the monument's historic tripartite concrete form.
CMR:480:02 Page 3 of 6
Comprehensive Plan Issues
It would balance implementation of the Comprehensive Plan's historic preservation
policies (Goal L-7), and the Plan's policies for high quality, coherently designed
public facilities (Goals L-6 and L-9).
Coherent Design Issues
It would preserve the integrity of the undercrossing project's coherent symmetrical
radial design because the monument would be sited symmetrically at the center of the
project.
o It would reduce the apparent height of the monument from pedestrian viewpoints on
Homer Avenue and inside the tunnel and this would enhance the compatibility of the
monument with the undercrossing project with respect to scale.
It would allow the monument to function more strongly as a marker for an opening as
well as a terminating point for Homer Avenue because it would appear to be as
strongly related to the plaza at the tunnel opening as it is to Homer Avenue.
It would bring the monument into association with the project's plaza area in front of
the tunnel opening. A plaque containing a short history of the monument could be
provided.
Safety Issues
o It would maintain planned sight lines through the tunnel from Homer Avenue and
sight lines from within the tunnel because the main body of the monument would be
sited approximately fifteen feet away from the tunnel entrance.
Staff considers that the monument located on-axis in the center of the project site
would not be significantly over-scaled in relation to the project. The monument is
considerably less in width than the tunnel opening and significantly less in width than
the semi-circular stairway at its widest point.
Staff concurs with the HRB that maintaining the monument on-axis with Homer Avenue
but locating it near the bottom of the project stairway would inte~ate the monument into
the undercrossing design and balance both the historic preservation goals and the public
facility design goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes that the limited width of the monument would not cause a significant
impact on the sense of openness of the project tunnel, although the open feeling would be
lessened. Staff also believes that sight lines through the tunnel from Homer Avenue
CMR:480:02 Page 4 of 6
would be preserved from most viewpoints in the Homer Avenue intersection with
placement of the monument in the recommended location.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The cost of retention of the Fence Monument either at it present location or relocating
offsite at another intersection along Alma Street should be similar.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Memorandum to the Historic Resources Board and the Architectural
Review Board, "Fence Monument located at Homer/Alma Intersection"
submitted by Steven Grover Associates
Attachment B Historic Resources Board Staff Report dated October 2, 2002
Attachment C:Minutes of Historic Resources Board Meeting of October 2, 2002
Attachment D:Architectural Review Board Staff Report dated October 3, 2002
Attachment E:Meeting Notes from Architectural Review Board Meeting of October 3,
2002
Attachment F:Two Articles from the Palo Alto Times: June 21, 1909, "Fence
Monuments Give Fine Effect" and May 8,1909, "Alma Street Is Being
Improved"
Attachment G: Memorandum from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee to the
Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board, "Homer
Avenue Undercrossing"
Attachment H:Two Photos of the Fence Monument: The On-Axis Current Location
and a Close-up of the Monument
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
tVl-anager
STEVE iSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: "- .....
EMILY HARRIS ON "
Assistant City Manager
CMR:480:02 Page 5 of 6
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Steven Grover & Associates, 800 Heinz Avenue, #11, Berkeley, CA 94710
Nolte Beyond Engineering, 1731 N. First Street, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95112
Dave Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:480:02 Page 6 of 6
STEVEN GROVER
&ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE
ENGINEERING
BERKELEY. CA
Attachment A
September 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To:Mr. Dennis Backlund/City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board
Mr. Steven Turner/City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
Subject:Fence Monument located at Homer/Alma Intersection
Background
This memo is in response to requests made by City of Palo Alto staff, as well as the
Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board, that SGA, as project architect
for the Homer Avenue Underpass, "look at the location of this fence monument,
considering the opinions of both boards, and look at the problem in three dimensions.1'' A
cassette tape of the recent HRB/ARB joint meeting was made available to SGA, and we
reviewed its contents carefully. We also reviewed staff reports and other documents
pertaining to the monument.
The monument is located on axis with Homer Avenue, and is one of five monuments that
were placed along Alma Street on axis with important streets. From the ~ound, it sits
approximately 6'-10" tall, and its entablature is 3'-10" square. As far as we can tell, the
pedestal it sits on is about 5'-0" square. We first photographed the monument in 1998
while studying trees on the site for a feasibility study for the undercrossing project. At that
time it was completely obscured by vegetation from views from the street.
Historic Social Context of the Fence Monument
The monument was provided as a gift to the City by a local businessman in 1909 and was
undoubtedly given in a spirit inspired by the City Beautiful Movement. The American City
Beautiful Movement of the late 19th Century, xvas triggered by reactions to a period of
unplanned urban development. Encouragement of community thinking, standardization,
imposition of order on the physical environment, civic grandeur, and development of clear
planning strategies, were all aspects of this social movement when business development,
unplanned growth, and the ravages of a civil war had left our country in some disarray. A
broad community of the general public, wealthy patrons, and the professional design and
art communities joined the City Beautiful Movement. The movement carried influence in
the architectural design community through the early decades of the twentieth century.
Homer Avenue Axis and PAMF landing
The basic plan layout of the facility involves a tunnel axis skewed to connect the Homer
Avenue axis with a landing circle designed in the PAMF campus plan specifically with a
bike/pedestrian crossing in mind.
Quoted as transcribed from cassette received from City staff.
800 HEINZ AVE. STUDIO 11 BERKELEY CA 94710 TEL. 510 549.9258 FAX. 510 549.9157 SGA@STEVENGROVER.COM
Design Philosophy and Basic Formal Geometry for the Undercrossing
Although not a legal City boundary, the dense row of trees along Alma remains a
psychological boundary for the City of Palo Alto. How we cut through this boundary to
create a bicycle and pedestrian connection is thus of central importance in the design of
the undercrossing facility. We have chosen to adopt a design philosophy that makes no
apologies for the crossing facility itself, yet respects and embraces the historic tree line as
an important design element.
The architecture of the tunnel is a bold new formal statement that is washed over by
informally placed trees. The hard concrete and soft arboreal gestures complement each
other: the open, unchannelized space created by the concrete steps and ramps allows
people to find their way amongst the trees and to inhabit up close what they have
formerly only seen from a car or from across the street. They can now touch the bark of
the trees that make up the Alma urban edge, and feel dappled sunlight as they use the
underpass. The trees contrast with and soften the hard concrete forms, and form a natural
canopy that is an integral part of the three dimensional architectural design.
A small vocabulary of design elements and a simple and consistent grammar has been
used to develop coherence throughout the project: radial wall elements emanating from
each portal slice into the landscape and merge with it. These walls can also be seen as
emerging from the landscape and converging on the portals. New contour lines as well as
plants and trees included in the project also follow a radial pattern, reinforcing an
integrated relationship between the natural and urban landscape.
The radial walls have relatively hard edges and a light earthtone color consistent with
many stucco buildings in the area and the sandstone of the Stanford Quad buildings. The
material of the underpass will nevertheless have a unique identity because the material is
different; concrete colored with a reactive stain. The stepped walls break down what
might otherwise be large vertical surfaces next to tight ramps. They also provide planting
terraces for overflowing rosemary and jasmine that soften and contrast with the wa!ls and
help discourage graffiti.
Circumferential elements mark passage to and from the portals. These are made from
dark slightly warm charcoal colored concrete to contrast with the radial elements and to
make an association with asphalt trave! surfaces that the project connects to. The dark
color of the traveled surface also helps to cut down glare for users of the facility. The
association with f!ow and movement on circumferential elements is reinforced by soft
rounded edges and by the public art element metal inserts.
Fa.cade
To create a sense of invitation, the fac~ade of the tunnel portal is designed to describe a
break in the landscape rather than as a hole in a retaining wall. The retaining walls
therefore end at each side of the tunnel opening and frame the opening. The spanning slab
is then seen as what it actually is; a bridge structure spanning across the opening. Use of
colored concrete allows the spanning element to be subtly colored; it's bottom edge is
lighter to help lighten the 4' thick concrete slab spanning over the 8'-3" high opening.
The stepped theme established by the radial retaining walls outside the tunnel is carried
into the opening as transition elements to the narrower width of the tunnel passage itself.
0i-!!Monument Memo v4.doc 12/10/02 Page 2 of 13
At night the transition walls are washed by light to enhance the sense that the glow of
light coming from the tunnel interior is the primary light sources associated with the
tunnel fac~ade. Direct glare light sources mounted on the fac, ade exterior have been
avoided so that the primary light beacon for users is the interior of the tunnel rather than
the surface of the facade. The relationship at night between the tunnel and the landscape
retaining walls is retained through use of recessed fiber optic light sources placed behind
the vertical end of each landscape wall which graze the surface of each wall behind.
The Monument in its Modern Context
This earliest gift to the City was intended to enhance civic unity and morality by defining
and beautifying its edge. Several large concrete monuments punctuated the termination of
major streets and strengthened the idea of an urban edge, and a redwood fence linked them
and further defined the border along Alma. The function of the fence has now been greatly
overtaken by a line of trees, and the monuments have been dwarfed and entangled in the
trees and other vegetation. This project represents an opportunity to allow the monument at
Homer Avenue to be observed up close and to establish a stronger connection with the
history of Palo Alto.
Issues with Retaining the Monument at its Current Location
There are no significant technical issues related to retaining the monument at its current
location as long it is structurally secured against overturning and located where it will not
impede the flow of bicycle and pedestrian traffic or create a hiding place. There are
however some architectural/urban design issues:
The monument symbolically terminates the Homer Avenue axis, while the intent of
the project is to create an opening. This contradiction between opening and edge
becomes an opportunity when the edge is defined by a permeable barrier of trees.
The monument is not such a banier; it is a hard end punctuation to the Homer axis.
Tunnels are by nature confined, sometimes uncomfortable spaces. A primary
project design goal has been to make the user experience as open feeling as
possible. The broad steps are designed to give a sense of expansiveness for people
emerging from the tunnel. Placement of the monument in the central steps area wilt
dominate the view from the tunnel and impact the expansive effect. We have also
worked to retain a view through the tunnel from Homer Avenue so that people
seeing it from the Homer Avenue area will not think of this underpass as a long
dark passageway. Placed on axis with Homer Avenue, the monument would
partially obstruct this view through to the daylight on the PAMF side.
The classical form and white color of the monument was not used as a starting point
for the undercrossing design development. Retaining it may therefore result in some
perceived clash with the materials and geometries adopted in the undercrossing. It
will for example be in strong contrast to the nearly black concrete steps.
Do Scale. In its current context, partially buried in the railroad embankment and
surrounded by large vegetation, the monument appears smaller than it will standing
with open air behind it and next to new 36" box trees. The monument also appears
smaller when seen from Homer Avenue than it will for people emerging from the
tunnel. The impact of its visual mass on all views should be carefully assessed.
0!-i!Monument Memo v4.doc 12/10/02 Page 3 of 13
Strategies for Incorporating the Monument into the Undercrossing Design
1. Re-locating the monument at its exact current location in 3-dimensional space within the
steps area may be the best option from an historic preservation point of view. The top
surface of the monument would be higher than the ceiling of the tunnel. The wood posts
would be removed from the monument if placed here. This location is represented in
Figures 1, 2, and 3.
2. An alternative is to locate the monument closer to the tunnel portal so that its base can be
at a lower elevation. This option is shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6 and as location A in Figure
9. The visual mass of the monument from the point of view of Homer Avenue is reduced,
however the dominance of the monument in views from the tunnel is increased.
3. Shifting the monument off axis and reducing the visual mass by lowering the monument
partly into the steps, is a way to reduce the visual scale and dominance of the monument on
views from and through the tunnel. Full views of the tripartite form of monument from all
sides would not be retained however. This is represented in Figures 7 and 8, and as location
B in figure 9.
To avoid compromising the formal integrity of either the undercrossing design or the
monument, it could be located outside the central area of the Alma side of the underpass
facility. There are two basic alternatives under this scenario:
4. Retain the monument in the project area but not in the central area of the Alma side. The
challenge is to create a space that both celebrates the monument and retains its presence in
the Homer/Alma intersection area. Blocking views of traffic from the undercrossing ramps
or creating a place where people could hide behind the monument should be avoided.
We have identified one location on the north side of the ramp area that could be designed to
receive the monument. It could be placed adjacent to a proposed future pathway to the
Caltrain parking lot to the north, near an existing oak tree and at about the same distance it
currently is from the curb. In this location it would be accessible from all sides, and would
create a visual landmark associated with the crossing facility for cars traveling southward.
Unlike south side placements, this location would not afford a good hiding place, as anyone
behind it would be in the headlight beams of cars. The disadvantages of this location are
that the monument would not be on axis with Homer, and that views of oncoming traffic
for pedestrians desiring to crossAlma from the project area would be partially obstructed.
This location is represented as location C in Figure 9.
5. Locate it on axis with another nearby street at the intersection with Alma, on a newly
made pedestal with up-lighting. The advantage of this approach is it retains the monument
in the urban spatial configuration it was intended for. The compromises are that it would
not remain at the intersection where it was originally placed, and would not necessarily
allow for people to easily go right up to it.
SGN
0!-i!Monumenz Memo v4.doc 12/10/02 Page 4 of 13
Figure 1. Monument in its current location viewed from Homer Avenue Intersection.
0!-ii Monument Memo v4 .doc 12/10/02 Page 5 of 13
Figure 3. Monument in its current location viewed from tunnel.
0!-i!Monumenu Memo v4.doc 12/10/02 Page 7 of 13
Figure 4. Monument at location A viewed from tunnel.
0!-ii Monument Memo v4 .doc 12/10/02 Page 8 of 13
Figure 5. Monument at location A.
0!-i!Monumenc Memo v4.doc 12/10/02 Page 9 of 13
Figure 6. Section showing monument at location A.
0i-i!Monument Memo v4.doc 12/10/02 Page !0 of 13
Figure 7. Monument at location B, viewed frbm Homer Ave. intersection.
0!-!!_.~o:.u,m .~ rn~n~ Xemo v4 .doc _72/10/02_ Page _i 1 of 13
Figure 8. Monument at location B viewed from tunnel.
0i-!!Monument Memo v4.doc 12/10/'02 Page 12 of 13
z
/
Figure 9. Plan showing monument locations discussed.
0!-!!Monument Memo v4.doc 12110102 Page 13 of 13
Attachment B
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Date:October 2, 2002
To:Historic Resources Board
From:Dennis Bacldund,
Historic Preservation Planner
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject:Alma Street/Homer Avenue Undercrossing [02-ARB-23, 02-DEE-03,
02-EIA-02]: Review of a recommendation by the Project Architect
regarding location options for the early 20th-century Fence Monument
currently situated on the site of the proposed Undercrossing project.
(Continued from the HRB meeting of September 4, 2002.)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board recommend approval of Location A for the Fence
Monument (in the center of the project near the bottom of the semi-circular stairway) as
presented in the attached memorandum from Steven Grover Associates entitled "Fence
Monument located at Homer/Alma Intersection," based on the following:
Location A would balance implementation of the Comprehensive Plan's historic
preservation policies (Goal L-7), and the Plan's policies for high quality, coherently
designed public facilities (Goals L-6 and L-9).
2. Location A would preserve the Monument's historic tripartite concrete folan.
3.Location A would maintain the Monument's historic on-axis relationship with Homer
Avenue.
Location A would reduce the apparent height of the Monument from pedestrian
viewpoints on Homer Avenue and inside the tunnel and this would enhance the
compatibility of the Monument with the Undercrossing project with respect to scale.
s:\plan\plandiv~rb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 1
o Location A would maintain planned sight lines through the tunnel from Homer
Avenue and sight lines from within the tunnel because the Monument is 3' to 3' 9"
wide while the tunnel would be approximately 19' wide.
°Location A would maintain planned light levels inside the tunnel because the main
body of the Monument would be sited approximately 20' away from the tunnel
entrance.
o
o
Location A would preserve the inte~ity of the Undercrossing project's symmetrical
radial design because the Monument would be sited symmetrically at the center of the
project.
Location A would allow the Monument to function more strongly as a marker for an
opening as well as a terminating point for Homer Avenue because Location A would
appear to be as strongly related to the plaza at the tunnel opening as it is to Homer
Avenue.
Location A would bring the Monument into association with the project's plaza area in
front of the tunnel opening. Staff notes that monuments are most appropriately
located in plazas and other public gathering places. A plaque containing a short
history of the Monument would be placed in front of the Monument facing the plaza.
BACKGROUND
At the June 26, 2002 Historic Resources Board meeting, the Board reviewed four location
options for the Fence Monument. The Board recommended preserving the Monument at
its original location and incorporating it into the Undercrossing project where it would
continue to function as a contributing element to the historic character of Homer Avenue.
The Board restated this recommendation at its August 7, 2002 meeting and at the
Architectural Review Board Retreat meeting with the Historic Resources Board on
August 15. At the Retreat meeting the ~7o Boards forwarded a recommendation to the
project architect to "look at the location of this Fence Monument, considering the
opinions of both Boards, and look at the [location] problem in three dimensions." On
September 21, 2002, the project architect responded with a memorandum to the HRB
entitled "Fence Monument located at Homer/Alma Intersection" (see Attachment A).
DIMENSIONS OF THE FENCE MONUMENT
The square concrete Monument is designed in a simple classical tripartite form consisting
of a base, main body and cap. Staff performed a partial excavation at the foot of the
Monument to reveal what appeared to be the entire height of the base, and measured other
elements of the Monument. The base is 1' high and the total height of the portion of the
Monument that has the principal visual impact (hxcluding the shallow pyramidal top) is 6
s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 2
1/2'. The tripartite Monument varies in width: the base is 3 1/2' wide, the main body is 3'
wide, and the width of the cap is 3' 9". The projecting cap is a strong visual element due
to its height of approximately 1' including the ovolo molding at the base of the cap.
Wood fence posts 5 1/2" square are attached to the north and south sides of the
Monument by large metal bolts. (The HRB recommended at the June 26, 2002 meeting
that the fence posts be removed from the Monument for reasons of safety and design
compatibility if the Monument is placed in the project stairway). In its current historic
location, the base of the Monument is approximately 9 1/2' from the outer face of the curb
on Alma Street.
DIMENSIONS OF THE UNDERCROSSING PROJECT
The east (Alma Street) side of the project is approximately 70 feet wide at Alma Street
and increases to approximately 140' wide at the walls that flank the tunnel opening. The
project's depth is about 37' from the Alma Street curbto the tunnel opening. The semi-
circular staircase has a maximum width of about 40 feet, and the pavement at the base of
the staircase is around 3 !/2' below the top step of the staircase. The tunnel opening is
approximately 19' wide and 8' high. The concrete tunnel structure appeared to staff to be
approximately 6 feet higher than the top step of the stairway. The distance between the
top of the concrete tunnel structure and the top of the tunnel opening appeared to be about
4 feet. (These dimensions clarify that the top of the Monument at the historic location
would be higher than the top of the tunnel opening. According to Figure 6 of the
Memorandum [see Attachment A], the top of the Monument at Location A would be even
with the top of the tunnel opening.)
MEMORANDUM FROM THE PROJECT ARCHITECT
Syttopsis
The Memorandum provides a short history of the Monument, describes the unifying
principles of the architectural design of the Undercrossing project and the features of the
project that would be inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists, outlines issues related to
placing the Monument in the historic location at the top of the semi-circular steps, and
presents several alternative location options.
Preservatiott Goals
The Memorandum identifies two historic elements in the area of the project that have
traditionally defined the western edge of the City: the series offence Monuments located
on axis with streets terminating at Alma and the dense tree line along Alma Street. The
Undercrossing Design Philosophy, as presented in the Memorandum, includes the
replication of the Alma Street tree line along the semicircular stairway of the project and
the preservation of the Homer Avenue Fence Monument: "Preselwing the monument is
s:\plan\plandiv'~hrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page _3
highly valuable" because "retention of historic urban features helps ground our public
psyche and define our place in time and space."
Arch#ectural Design Principles of the Project
The Memorandum presents a design concept that attempts to combine the maximum
possible sense of openness on a somewhat constrained site with a classical symmetrical
radial design of great coherence (reminiscent of a Greek theater) in which every element
relates in a precisely planned manner to every other. Staff is aware that the more tightly
coherent and symmetrical a design is, the less it can tolerate the addition of an
unanticipated element. It is essential that such an element be distinctly subordinate in scale
and character to the overall project design, and that its placement be worked out with great
care.
Issues with Retainhtg the Monument at its Current Location
The Memorandum presents four architectural/urban design issues related to maintaining the
Monument in its current historic location and incorporating it into the project at the top of
the wide semi-circular stairway leading down to the tunnel entrance. The four issues are
quoted below from the Memorandum followed by staff comments.
"The monument symbolically terminates the Homer Avenue axis, while the intent
of the project is to create an opening. This contradiction bet~veen opening and edge
becomes an opportunity when the edge is defined by a permeable barrier of trees.
The monument is not such a barrier; it is a hard end punctuation to the Homer
axis."
Staff comment: Staff concurs that the historic location at the top of the stairway would
cause a visual separation of the Monument from the project because the top of the
Monument would be higher than the top of the tunnel opening when seen from Alma
Street, and when seen from within the tunnel the Monument would significantly loom over
the stairway as shown in Figure 3 of the Memorandum. Staff recommends Location A
(Figures 4-6) because it would lower the height of the Monument from all points of view.
"Tunnels are by nature confined, sometimes uncomfortable spaces. A primary
project design goal has been to make the user experience as open feeling as
possible. The broad steps are designed to give a sense of expansiveness for people
emerging from the tunnel. Placement of the monument in the central steps area
will dominate the view from the tunnel and impact the expansive effect. We have
also worked to retain a view through the tunnel from Homer Avenue so that
people seeing it from the Homer Avenue area will not think of this underpass as a
long dark passageway. Placed on axis with Homer Avenue, the monument would
partially obstruct this view through to the daylight on the PAMF side."
s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 4
Staff Comment: Staff concurs that undercrossings are generally perceived by users as less
secure than bridges or at-gade crossings because they require a highly predictable,
confined, and concealed course of movement by users that becomes an ideal setting for
crime (see Attachments B, C, and D). Therefore, the provision of long open sight lines, a
wide range of vision, and adequate lighting are among the most important aspects of
undercrossing design. However, staff believes that the 3' width of the main body of the
Monument would not cause a significant impact on the sense of openness of the
approximately 19' wide project tunnel although the open feeling would be less (see
Attachment E). Staff also believes that sight lines through the tunnel from Homer Avenue
would be preserved from most viewpoints in the Homer Avenue intersection even if the
Monument were placed in Location A nearer to the tunnel entrance.
"The classical form and white color of the monument was not used as a starting
point for the undercrossing design development. Retaining it may therefore result
in some perceived clash with the materials and geometries adopted in the
undercrossing. It will for example be in strong contrast to the nearly black
concrete steps."
Staff Comment: Staff concurs that the potential presence of the Monument in the
Undercrossing stairway was not included in the project review process until after the design
of the project was essentially completed. Staff also concurs that the Monument would be
perceived as a contrasting element within the project. However, strong contrast can
dramatically enliven a site if the scale-of the contrasting.element is appropriately
subordinate--the steel and glass entry pyramid of the Louvre is the best known example--or
strong contrast can destructively frag-ment the coherence of the built environment if the
contrasting element is too large. Staff considered the dimensions of the Undercrossing and
the dimensions of the Monument and concluded that the 3'-3 l/T-wide Monument would
be subordinate in relation to the 19' width of the tunnel opening and the 100' width of the
project. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the Monument would function as an enlivening
contrast!ng element--if the height in relation to the project were reduced at Location A--and
would not compromise the overall formal inte~ity of the project. Regarding the issue of
compatibility of materials, the Monument is concrete and the walls of the project will be
concrete also. The current weathered and damaged surface of the Monument would not be
compatible with the project, but an expert historic concrete conservationist has been
retained by the City to restore the surface of the Monument under national historic
standards. Regarding the compatibility of the Monument with the geometries.of the
project, staff concluded that the design of the Monument and the design of the
Undercrossing project both appear to be based on classical principles. The remaining
compatibility issue is that of scale.
s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 5
"Scale. In its current context, partially buried in the railroad embankment and
surrounded by large vegetation, the monument appears smaller than it will
standing with open air behind it and next to new 36" box trees. The monument
also appears smaller when seen from Homer Avenue than it will for people
emerging from the tunnel. The impact of its visual mass on all views should be
carefully assessed."
Staff Comment: Staff reviewed the dimensions of the Monument against the dimensions
of the Undercrossing project and concluded that the Monument at Location A would not
be significantly over-scaled in relation to the project: the Monument is 6 times less in
width than the tunnel opening and 14 times less in width than the semi-circular stairway
at its widest point. The 7' height of the Monument appeared to staff to be acceptable in
relation to the 8' height of the tunnel opening. However, the Monument would require a
new foundation base to be installed below the historic base, and staff has not yet received
information on what the height of that new element would be.
Strategies for Incorporating the Monument into the Undercrossing Design
The Memorandum concludes with a presentation of five strategies for locating the Fence
Monument in or near the project area. Strategies 1, 2, and 3 would incorporate the
Monument into the wide semi-circular stairway leading down to the tunnel entrance.
Strategy 4 would place the Monument on the railroad embankment approximately 60'
north of its existing location (Location C in Figure 9). Strategy 5 would place the
Monument on axis with a nearby street terminating at Alma Street. The five strategies are
quoted below from the Memorandum followed by staff comments.
"Re-locating the monument at its exact current location in 3-dimensional space
~vithin the steps area may be the best option from an historic preservation point of
view. The top surface of the monument would be higher than the ceiling of the
tunnel. The wood posts would be removed from the monument if placed here. This
location is represented in Figures 1, 2, and 3."
Staff Comment: Staff concurs that maintaining the Monument in its historic location would
be the best option under national historic standards. However, the Undercrossing project
must respond to several policies of the Comprehensive Plan that promote high quality,
coherent, and inviting designs for public facilities as well as to the Comprehensive Plan's
historic preservation policies (see Attachment F). Staff believes that the Monument in its
historic location could impact the coherence of the Undercrossing design because the top of
the Monument would be signitqcantly higher than the top of the tunnel opening as viewed
from Alma Street and Homer Avenue (see Figure 1 of the Memorandum) and the
Monument would loom over pedestrians emerging from the tunnel (see Figure 3). Staff
concludes that maintaining the Monument on axis with Homer Avenue but lowering its
s:\plan\plandiv~Lrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page
height as provided by Location A (near the bottom of the project stairway) would better
integate the Monument into the Undercrossing design and, therefore, would better balance
both the historic preservation goals and the public facility design goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
o "An alternative is to locate the monument closer to the tunnel portal so that its
base can be at a lower elevation. This option is shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6 and as
location A in Figure 9. The visual mass of the monument from the point of view of
Homer Avenue is reduced, however the dominance of the monument in views from
the tunnel is increased."
Staff Comment: Staff supports Location A for the nine reasons provided in the
Recommendation section above. Staff also believes that the geater the height of the
Monument as seen from the tunnel, the geater would be its sense of dominance, and
therefore the Monument would appear to be more dominant in its historic location at the
top of the stairway than it would in Location A (compare Figures 3 and 4 of the
Memorandum).
o "Shifting the monument off axis and reducing the visual mass by lowering the
monument partly into the steps, is a way to reduce the visual scale and dominance
of the monument on views from and through the tunnel. Full views of the
tripartite form of monument from all sides would not be retained however. This is
represented in Figures 7 and 8, and as location B in figure 9."
Staff Comment: Staff concurs that this strate~r would reduce the height and scale of the
Monument to a geater degee than would any of the other strategies. However, staff would
not recommend this approach because it would adversely impact the historic tripartite form
of the Monument by submerging the projecting base below gade. Also, staff believes that
the off-center location proposed by this strategy could adversely impact the symmetrical
radial design of the project.
"To avoid compromising the formal integrity of either the undercrossing design or
the monument, it could be located outside the central area of the Alma side of the
underpass facility. There are two basic alternatives under this scenario:
Retain the monument in the project area but not in the central area of the Alma
side. The challenge is to create a space that both celebrates the monument and
retains its presence in the Homer/Alma intersection area. Blocking views of traffic
from the undercrossing ramps or creating a place where people could hide behind
the monument should be avoided.
s:\plan\plandiv~Lrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 7
We have identified one location on the north side of the ramp area that could be
designed to receive the monument. It could be placed adjacent to a proposed
future pathway to the Caltrain parking lot to the north, near an existing oak tree
and at about the same distance it currently is from the curb. In this location it
would be accessible from all sides, and would create a visual landmark associated
with the crossing facility for cars traveling southward. Unlike south side
placements, this location would not afford a good hiding place, as anyone behind it
would be in the headlight beams of cars. The disadvantages of this location are that
the monument would not be on axis with Homer, and that views of oncoming
traffic for pedestrians desiring to cross Alma from the project area would be
partially obstructed. This location is represented as location C in Figure 9."
Staff Comment: Staff concurs that this strategy would provide a location for the
Monument that would be accessible to users of the Undercrossing project. However, staff
does not recommend this strategy because it would not balance the Comprehensive Plan's
design goals for public facilities with the Plan's historic preservation goals as they relate to
the integrity of the Monument and the historic character of Homer Avenue.
"Locate it on axis with another nearby street at the intersection with Alma, on a
newly made pedestal with up-lighting. The advantage of this approach is it retains
the monument in the urban spatial configuration it was intended for. The
compromises are that it would not remain at the intersection where it was
originally placed, and would not necessarily allow for people to easily go right up
to it."
Staff Comment: Staff concurs that this strategy would maintain the Monument's on-axis
orientation with a street. However, staff does not recommend this strategy because it
would not balance the Comprehensive Plan's design goals for public facilities with the
Plan's historic preselalation goals as they relate to the integrit)1 of the Monument and the
historic character of Homer Avenue.
TIMELINE
Location options for the Fence Monument will be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Board on October 3, 2002 (see Attachment G), and the overall Undercrossing project will
be reviewed by the Public Art Commission at a meeting in October 2002. The award of the
construction contract is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2003.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Memorandum to the Historic Resources Board, "Fence Monument
located at Homer/Alma Intersection" submitted by Steven Grover Associates.
s:\plan\plandiv'vhrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page
Attachment B: Minnesota Department of Transportation: Bicycle Transportation
Planning and Design Guidelines, Excerpt: Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpasses
and Tunnels.
Attachment C: Iowa Department of Transportation: Recommendations for Grade-
Separated Crossings.
Attachment D: Online Document from Australia: "The Design of Public Spaces and
Buildings using Crime Prevention through Environmenta! Design Principles,"
published by the Cities of Unley and Mitcham, South Australia.
Attachment E: Set of Two 100% Plans for the Homer Avenue Undercrossing Project:
"Elevations" and "Section at Tunnel."
Attachment F: Excerpts from the Land Use & Community Design and Transportation
Elements of the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment G: Architectural Review Board Staff Report dated October 3, 2002.
PREPARED BY:
Dennis Backlund,
Historic Preservation Planner
REVIEWED BY:
JULIE CAPORGNO
Advance Planning Manager
COURTESY COPIES
Steve Emslie
Director, Department of Planning
City of Palo Alto
Mike Sartor
Assistant Director
Department of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
Elizabeth Ames
Department of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
s:\plan\plandiv\hrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 9
Woojae Kim
Department of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
Gayle Likens
Transportation Division
Department of Planning
City of Palo Alto
Steven Grover & Associates
800 Heinz Avenue # 11
Berkeley, CA 94710
David Bubenik
Palo Alto Stanford Heritage
420 Homer Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
s:\plan\plandiv~hrb\staffreport\HRB staffrep, template Page 10
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26
Wednesday, October 2, 2002
REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center; First Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
PaIo Alto, CA 94301
Attachment C
ROLL CALL:
Board members:
Martin Betvzstein, Chair
Beth Bunnenberg, Vice-Chair
Roger KohIer - absent
Michael Makinen
Carol Murden
Mildred Mario - absent
Susan HaviIand
City Council Liaison:
Jim Butch
Staff."
JuIie Caporgno,
Advance Planning Manager
Dennis Backlund,
Historic Preservation Planner
Diana Tamale, Staff Secretaty
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Please be advised the notTnaI order of public hearings of agenda items is ~ts
follows:
Announce agenda item
Open public hearing
Staff recommendation
Applicant presentation - Ten (l 0) minutes lhnitation or at the discretion of th.e Board.
Historic Resources Board questions of the applicant/staff
Public comment - Five (5) minutes limitation pet" speaker or limitation to three (3)
minutes depending on large number of speakers pet item.
Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes
Close public hearing
Motions/recommendations by the Board
Final vote
Chair Martin: Good morning everybody. I see we have a quorum for today's HRB
meeting of October 2rid. Will the secretary please call the roll?
Page3_ o£ 25
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Alma Street/Homer Avenue Undercrossing [02-ARB-23, 02-DEE-03, 02-EIA-02]:
Review of a recommendation by the Project Architect regarding location options for the early
20th-century Fence Monument currently situated on the site of the proposed undercrossing
project. (Continued from the HRB meeting of September 4, 2002.)
Chair Bernstein: Next, is Unfinished Business. Item #1: Alma Street/Homer Avenue
Undercrossing, Review of a recommendation by the Project Architect regarding location options
for the early 20th century Fence Monument currently situated on the site of the proposed
undercrossing project. This is continued from our meeting of September 4th. Staff, is there a
presentation you'd like to make?
Staff Backlund: Thank you, Chair Bernstein. In the Staff Report, we made a recommendation.
Staff would like to recognize clearly that the Board in the past made a final recommendation on
the subject of location options for the Fence Monument. However, as the Board ~knows, at an
ARB retreat meeting where the HRB was a guest of the meeting, the two Boards recommended
that the Project Architect would look at the location options again and make recommendations.
And because this was being requested of the Project Architect, the Director of Planning believed
that it would be consistent if Staff also made a recommendation in loo ~king at the information that
the Project Architect would submit.
We did make a recommendation for what is called in the Architect's presentation Location A,
which is essentially the same as the Board's recommendation but would locate the Monument
several steps further down the stairway of the project than what the Board had previously
recommended, which was at the top of the stairway. And that recommendation was the only one
that the Board had before it to consider if the Monument were to be incorporated into the
stairway. The other options were located elsewhere in the Project area and, therefore, the Board
acted.
However, by today, we've uncovered another possible option. The reason that that was
recommended was because Staff, in !ooking at the much more advanced renderings submitted by
the Prgje(t Architect, believed that indeed locating the Monument at the top of the stairway
could have a strong looming quality over the project. The fact that the Monument would look
large was not the issue; it is an object of historic interest. And the size in and of itself was not
our primary consideration but the relation of the Monument to the overall project design into
which approximately four years of work has gone was of concern.
As we were able to survey the 100% plans, what we noticed and stated in the Staff Report was
that it was a formal, conception in which all of the parts from the top of the stairway down
through the wails of the project, the opening, the decorative features, the preliminary
considerations on public art, the general architectural style of the whole project, that all of this
was a grouping of related features so that an overal! concept became apparent throughout the
project. And when that is the case, then one is talking about the art of architecture and like art
Page2 off 25
that some of us are more familiar with, for example, a painting in which all elements are related
to each other, the appearance of an unanticipated element could affect the structure of the entire
work. So we felt that there was this potential and that we needed to look at it and we did and
concluded that Location A would sufficiently be integrated into the project in our opinion, but
wil! leave the final discretion on this matter to you. We felt that because from the Homer side,
the top of the Monument would be lower than at the position previously recommended. And
being lower, it would become more embedded into the total concept of the project and not appear
so much a disparate element.
Then the other critical view is emerging from the tunnel and one of the renderings in the Staff
Report which was, I believe it was Figure 3, showed the Monument at the top of the steps and we
believe that the renderings successfully conveyed a potential for the Monument to look less
integrated into the project than those renderings that showed it located further down the steps,
where as you emerge from the tunnel, the semi-circular stairway itself forms a partial backdrop,
a backdrop to the lower part of the Monument which has the effect of integrating it more
successfully, we believe, into the project than the position at the top of the stairs.
However, in considering all of these factors, there's something that the architect may wish to
expand further on, as he is more familiar with the details of the plans than we could be as Staff..
and that is the matter of measurements. Since the Staff Report was released, the architect
clarified to us that the scale indications that are at the bottom right of each of your plans are not
in a final form. There are many other pages to these plans that we did not include because they
were highlighting other subjects than the subject we have before us today. But in the light of all
of the plans, the architect indicated that there is variance in these scales and these are not
construction plans and, therefore, they don't have the precision that those kinds of plans would
have.
We were happy to learn that the plans that we included in your Staff Report were those that had a
greater precision than some of the other pages. Nevertheless, while the measurements we gave
are, I think, sufficient for the discussion today, there is one exception that I would like to point
out. In the recommendation section, we gave 9 reasons why we believe that the Monument
would successfully integrate with the project and meet preservation standards. It is number 6
under the recommendation that I would like to point to especially: that the light levels in the
tunnel would be maintained because the Monument would be approximately 20 feet away from
the runnel entrance. We scaled and measured the initial, it is the final plan in your Staff Report
which is the Site Plan. And we saw that on either side of the runnel opening, there were walls
that stepped back, kind of a sharp step pattern. It was at the end of the stepping, as the stepping
moves into the tunnel, that is where we measured the tunnel opening. And what we neglected to
see was a fine line that is overhead, and that line marks the concrete structure that is overhead so
that the stepped walls are underneath that concrete structure.
In the foldouts in your Staff Report, there is a rendering of the tunnel. This rendering which I
did not have at the time of these measurements but had after the Staff Report was completed in
its text form. That rendering does indicate that those stepped walls are underneath the overhang,
so that the overhang itself marks the true tunnel entrance and the architect very helpfully pointed
out to us that that causes the Monument to be 16 feet away, the main shaft of the Monument
would be 16 feet away from the actual tunnel opening and we quoted 20 feet.
What is critical in this difference is whether the Staff recommendation would change because of
this factor of 4 feet. We had a meeting of several Staff people to discuss this matter and we
Page 3 of 25
decided that in the context of the project's depth of about 35 feet to 40 feet and the width which
is well over 100 feet, that the factor of 4 feet would not be significant enough for us to change
our recommendation. But we would like number 6 to read, °~the Monument would be sited
approximately 16 feet from the runnel opening," and for the Board to exercise its discretion
based on that fact.
Now, in a closing statement, it is incumbent on me to tell you the overall approach that we took
in reaching the recommendation. It was not only from measurements. Where we began and we
ended is where we believe that we should begin and end in all plarming decisions, and that is
with the Comprehensive Plan of Palo Alto, the Constitution for all Land Use development,
including public uses and including specifically undercrossings. We included as Attachment F,
excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan that show us that we not only have historic preservation
policies but we also have design policies for new construction. We have statements for a
guideline on attractive inviting public spaces but also on the principles of coherent design. We
had already detected a coherent design in this project and we saw that in the Comprehensive Plan
that working towards and preserving coherent design concepts is a policy of the Comprehensive
Plan, but so is historic preservation.
In our various Staff meetings on the Comprehensive Plan, we have always concluded that a
successful project will bring together as many relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan as
possible because each one of these policies is important but also has sectors of the community
that are particularly interested in those policies. And when we can bring together as many
policies as we can into a project, then we feel that we have done our job to satisfy the greatest
majority within the community for whom we work. Therefore, we looked at our
recommendations specifically in that light and found it important whether the placement of the
Monument at Location A would also preserve a sense of coherence in the project and, therefore,
meet both the architectural design and the historic preservation policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff. concluded that this location would do that, but that is only our recommendation and we
leave it to your discretion in the light of the larger record that will be presented to you by the
Project Architect and perhaps by other Staff. We have with us Staff. from the Public Works
Department who would be very happy to respond to your questions, and the architect would also
be happy to respond to your questions. Thank you very much.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you very much, Dennis. I believe you are the architect of the project?
Okay. Now, would you please introduce yourself and welcome to the HRB.
Steven Grover, Architect: My name is Steven Grover, I'm the Project Architect for this project.
I first became involved in this project in 1998 when my firm prepared a Feasibility Study for an
underpass for an at-grade crossing or a bridge at Homer Avenue. We looked very, very carefully
at all three of those options. In the course of my reconnaissance, I was poking around near the
railroad tracks that covered this concrete object, wl~ch was at that time completely hidden from
view from the trees. I snapped a photo of it and put it in my report and did a little bit of calling
around and spoke with people from the local Libraries and such and got a little bit of background
information on it.
I'm here today because your Board and the ARB had a joint meeting in which you requested that
I look at the question of the placement of this Monument within the context of a changed
landscape, that is an underpass. I got a cassette of that meeting and, of course, I listened very
Page4 of~ 25
carefully to it and transcribed it. It was extremely helpful to understand the points of view that
everybody was bringing to the table. One of the things that I know that I was asked to do was to
consider the opinions of both Boards and to come back and present my analysis and thoughts on
the subject, specifically look at the location of the Monument in three-dimensions, consider the
opinions of both Boards and report back to you. That's what I'm here to do today.
I assume that you have had all the opportunity to read the memo that I prepared on the subject. I
will avoid going back through that in great detail; of course, I would prefer to save time for
Q&A. But I would like to just lead you through some of the logic that I went through as I
thought about this. One of the things that we take ~eat pride in at my firm and one of the things
that we have developed somewhat of a reputation for is to very, very carefully consider every
aspect of a project. We specialize in bicycle and pedestrian facilities and we almost always
come across difficult situations that require careful analysis and often require careful
compromise.
So, I'm just going to present this to you in sort of two parts. First, what are the issues presented
by this Monument by introducing it at this location? What are the issues with potentially moving
a Monument like this? It seems to me that the primary impact is we've lost an opportunity.
We've lost an opportunity to enhance our understanding and contact with something from our
historic past. As I mentioned, it was hidden from view and this project gives us the opportunity
to bring it out in full light literally, restore it, come into contact with it and understand something
of our past. I think that this would be a sad opportunity to lose.
The other questions that you need to ask is, if you move it, do you lose its value as a historic
object? If you were to take this thing and put it away in a closet, then I think certainly we would
all agee, we would lose its historic value if we locked it away from view-. But we also have to
ask the question, do we impact its historic value by building a project around it? Of course, we
probably do as well. We isolate it from the other fence posts that it is colmected to on either
side. It no longer reads as much as an element of a fence line, it reads as an object in the middle,
centered in the middle of a project.
The valid question there is, "How much have we impacted its historic value by doing that?"
Looking at this from the other point of view and, unfortunately, we are in the position of truty
looking at this from another point of view which is what is the impact of placing the Monument
in a completed design. Now, could we go back and say, "Okay, let's start fresh and design this
integrally for the project." That would be a different situation. But we have so many millions of
dollars into this design at this point. We are literally in a position where we have to say, "Okay,
we had a blank. This is what we designed and now what does introducing this element do to this
design?"
One of the main things that I've learned practicing architecture, coming to it having been an
engineer, is that architecture has a lot of aspects to it which are like music and are very
subliminal and psychological. So when we talk about what something does to a project, it does
not necessarily affect the ADA compliance and affect this physical passageway or something
like that. It affects how the space feels. A tunnel, it turns out, is really one of the hardest things
to design as an architect. It's an intensely psychological space. It's a place where people have
inherent fears about being underground and we have gone to great trouble and thought to try
do everything that we can to make this as comfortable a space as possible.
Page 5 of 25
One of the things that we've done, and I'll show you some slides in just a moment, is to make the
interior of the tunnel feel as open and well-lit as possible. For example, we've developed an
innovative lighting system, which will light the tunnel brighter during the day than at night. It's
on a dimmer. And this will allow the tunnel not to feel dark during the day, which is often the
case. I'm sure you've seen it at California Avenue and other underpasses here.
The other thing that we've done, we've gone through a great trouble to try and trick the eye into
feeling that there is a sense of expansiveness and openness as you emerge from the tunnel at
either end. And we basically pulled out all the tricks in the book, sweeping stairs, smooth lines,
keeping the view and the side lines open. One of the things I just called to my attention when
Dennis Backlund was preparing the Staff Report was he found a bunch of guidelines from
various states. For example, Iowa says "Long sidelines at the enlv'ance and exits of an underpass
should be provided" all these kinds of guidelines, of course, we read them all but as you do more
and more of these projects, you start to see they all kind of converge on the same thing, which is
maximize the sense of openness for [inaudible].
So, coming back to this premise, what does placing the Monument there do? Now, we could
argue rhetorically about whether this becomes a beacon or whether it is an obstruction. But in
either case, I think we need to agree that there is an impact in either case. And I think given the
plethora of opinions that have been expressed on both sides of this, we probably also need to
acknowledge that there probably are some negative impacts of placing this here. There is a
matter of compromise at hand. There is a difficult dilemma, there is a difficult decision to make.
So I was asked to look at this in some detail and see if1 could come up with any creative
solutions that would help mitigate, make compromises but try and retain as much of everything
as we can possibly have. The first thing that we note when we look at this Monument is its sheer
mass. It's a very large object. It's about 6½ feet measured from its tripartite base to the top. It
appears smaller in scale in its current context than it will with [air] behind it. It's something we
need to take into account. Now, of course, we also mocked up a full-scale version of this thing
and looked at it. But we have to be careful there, too, because if we look at it in a closed small
room, it'll look bigger. But nevertheless, even taking that mock-up out into a parking lot, we find
this is a large object. It's not something that we can just place there discreetly. It's going to have
a very, very strong presence.
So the first thing that we looked at is what are the ways that we can reduce its massiveness. The
most obvious thing to do is simply to move it down the steps. Unfortunately, there are very few
of these steps and they're only 4.86 inches high. They're very, very gentle landscape steps. So
we can gain at best, a foot or 15 inches by lowering it down the steps before we start running into
our trench drain and such. So we're really stuck in this case, maybe a foot. And what that gets
us is a slightly less visual impact from the point of view of coming down Homer Avenue. Now,
from my point of view as a designer of this facility, that's the impact I have least concern about.
I think this thing could be a presence as it is on Homer Avenue. I have raised the issue that it
was intended as a terminus object and now we're trying to create a sense of opening. I have
raised the issues of the ability to see light through as you're coming from Homer, being able to
sufficiently advertise the project by seeing through it and so on. But again, those are the points
of view that I'm less concerned with.
I'm most concerned with the psychological impact of this object on the views coming out of the
tunnel. So, like I said, one of the strategies, the most obvious strategy is to try and lower it down
the stairs. Another strategy is to, in fact, lower it even more. Then we start, though, to
Page 6 o£ 25
compromise the tripartite form of this object because we lower it into the steps area. You can
lower it down even more and you can shift it off axis. That way, when you're coming out of the
tunnel, your clear view lines of this open area are not as impacted.
However, you have to ask yourself., does this compromise the historic integrity of this object too
much to lower it into the stairs? I think w-e showed you some images of that. I apologize that
this is difficult to see. I was mistaken; I thought that we were going to have this meeting in the
small chamber. So I just wanted to give you a couple of slides just to generally familiarize you
with the project. The project is based on, it's kind of surprising coming from my office but that's
the way it grew out a very formal scheme with some informally placed landscaping or semi-
informally placed landscaped elements throughout. The little gray, what are perceived as little
gray dots throughout here are little embedded metal wheel and circle-like forms that form part of
the public art element for the project.
This is one of the fa,cades. This is an interior view where you could see we've tried to use white
concrete on the ceiling to create the largest sense of openness that we could with a very
constrained ceiling height. We've only got 8'1" from the sidewalk area. It's the ceiling height
there. And here, just recapping some of the images from the report we prepared, the view from
inside the tunnel. We used this view to try and assess the impact of this object on the design
emerging from the tunnel. You can see here we tried, we played around with this as requested.
We played around with other ways of dealing with this. This, of course, is shifting it to the side
and lowering it somewhat more which clearly has less of a visual impact than the first of these.
And then that's skewed and rotated, the impact from the point of view of Homer Avenue is really
minimized in this case.
In cross section, I think it's very hnportant to point out, one of the unintended impacts of placing
a large 3 foot plus wide object in the steps here is we do something that we've really worked
extremely hard to avoid doing throughout the design of the project. We have regarded all the
areas on either side of the project. We have selected all landscaped materials which will stay
close to the ground. We've done everything we can to maintain clear and open side lines from
every point of view in the project. And now we've introduced an object which creates potentially
a hiding spot. Somebody could be crouching here out of the view of car headlights, behind this
object or somebody could fear that somebody is there. Anad at night, people may be less inclined
to use the facilities because of that. That's a challenge that we have really not found a good way
of addressing. That is my biggest concern is the issue that we've introduced something that
people can hide behind. Just to note on that count, we have on this site of the project, traffic
signal boxes, electric boxes and such and we went through some difficult5, to negotiate their
placement up against these walls, integrated into the landscape wails so that they would not
become objects out in the landscape that could be a place for people to urinate or hide or jump
out as somebody is using the underpass. So I think that's the last image that I will leave you
with. I'll take any of your questions that you may care to have.
Chair Bernstein: I also want to recognize that Elizabeth Ames from Public Works is here.
Before we ask any questions, Elizabeth, do you have any comments you'd like to make? Yes,
please.
Elizabeth Ames, Public Works: Good morning. Thank you. I just wanted to thank Dennis a~d
Steven for all their hard work on this. They've really analyzed this. They spent hours and hours
evaluating these impacts expressed at the meeting and Dennis worked on the weekends to figure
Page 7 of 25
out what would be the best approach and I really believe that he came up with a very good
reconm~endation.
In addition, I also wanted to talk a little bit about the timeline, just to give you an update. We're
going to have the ARB meeting tomorrow here at probably around 9:30 a.m. because it's the
second item on the agenda. Then on the 10th of October, we're going to have the Art
Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. also in this room. We also got verbal confirmation from
Caltrans that we will receive our E-76 which means we're going to get authorization to proceed
with construction. It's only a verba! but I think it's pretty solid and we're going to hope to
construct and start work in the Spring 2003. That's all I have. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: May I have that Art Commission date?
Ms. Ames: October 10th.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Elizabeth. Dennis, please.
Chair Backtund: Yes, I'd also like to add the advisory of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Committee. They had a meeting last night and they called me at 10:30 last night at the close of
the meeting in which they had the HRB Staff Report and this was looked at by the Committee
members and they discussed the subject. The Chair of the Committee, Paul Goldstein, said that
their number one priority, of course, is that this project, so valuable for bicycles, will go through
in a timely manner and will not be delayed. On the question of the Monument, they wanted to
forward their recommendation to the HRB that they supported the conclusions of the architect as
given in his memorandum to you.
Finally, as you noticed when we gave you the letter of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, we also
attached the Web page of the Committee that clarifies that this is not a private group. This is one
of the Committees of the City of Palo Alto. And as such, we are forwarding their
recommendation to you. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you all. I see we have questions from Board Members or comments.
Steven, thank you very much for your excellent, excellent presentation. It's been very helpful.
Why don't we start? Board Member Makinen, would you like to speak first?
BM Makinen: Well, one of the questions I have is not directly related to the location but when
you plan on incorporating this Monument, has there been given any thought to protecting it from
graffiti when you restore it? Because I can see that as being a big problem if it ends up being a
magnet for graffiti.
Mr. Grover: I should say we've put quite a lot of thought into graffiti issues on the project in
general and how- these walls were designed and treated so that they have landscaping on them
which deters graffiti. The type of coding, we've put a lot of research into types of coatings inside
the tunnel to protect from graffiti and we've tried to select colored treatments and so on that
would not be compromised by those graffiti coatings.
Unfortunately, I really don't have a good solution for the Monument. The only viable way of
protecting it from graffiti that I ~know of would be to paint it with the same type of graffiti
Page 8 of 25
compound that we are using in other places in the project. But, that material changes the
character of the surface that you're painting it on. It gives it a kind of a darker, glossier quality.
And while we feel this is acceptable in certain !ocations where we have designed it to receive
that and we're expecting that tone, I would hesitate quite a lot before I put it on a historic object
like this. I don't have any other suggestions to offer unfortunately.
BM Makinen: Well, I guess the plan is if it does get graffiti on it, is it going to be an impossible
situation to remove it and become a real eyesore?
Mr. Grover: Typically, the way the graffiti is dealt with is if you don't have a graffiti compound,
let me back up one step. A graffiti compound is a material which is impervious to most solvents
and it's impe~dous in particular to the mating of solvent ~affiti that is used to clean off graffiti
when people put it on. If you graffiti that object, typically you either have to spray paint over
~affiti or you need to sandblast it off or take it off of solvents. In either case, I think you would
be hurting this object and the restoration of [inaudible].
BM Makinen: I guess my thought is that some serious consideration should be given to
preventative means before this starts to happen which is pretty much suspect that it will happen.
The other question I had is regarding any type of commemorative plaque to inform people what
they're looking at right here. Has that been part of your plan?
Mr. Grover: It's been discussed on several occasions.
BM Makinen: Like a brass plaque under it so people look at this thing. Otherwise they don't
have the faintest idea what it is; like it's just something that's sticking out there. Maybe some
type of educational program that goes along with this. Otherwise it kind of misses the point.
Mr. Grover: We have discussed, in fact, in addition to a plaque, we have discussed some
representative photographs that we have researched, some methods of presenting photographs of
historic features in a permanent outdoor way. I'm familiar with some that are used in Berkeley
and other places in the East Bay, so that is also something that's been discussed. I agree that
when this thing is isolated from the redwood fence post and other linear features that it was tied
to, it definitely needs something for people to understand what it is.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, thank you, Michael. Carol.
BM Murden: I agree with you. This is a comment, but it's related to the question that it needs to
be lowered. It's full height where it is now; It would be very overwhelming, I think. But I had
wondered if, building on the idea that you have, if you had thought about bringing the Monument
closer to the wall. What I had in mind was bringing the steps around and then having a cut-out, I
guess, so that you would see the full Monument but it would be submerged somewhat and then
the steps in front of it, which would bring it closer to the street. There would be less chance of
somebody hiding behind it because Alma is a very busy street.. It might give a better feeling of
security to people in the tunnel. I don't know whether you had considered that or whether that's
possible.
Mr. Grover: What is brought to mind is a favorite restaurant of mine that I go to sometimes
where you put your feet down into a well around the table. I can see a definite positive impact of
making that move by bringing it further away from the portal of the tunnel where it can be
perceived as a looming mass. I do see some issues with creating a well around the object,
Page9 of 25
especially where we are already dealing with some pumps and such and trash and debris
removal. So the answer is yes and no. I don't think we took it very far. If you could re-design
this entire area so that you created a larger space that the Monument was set down into and not
just a little well around it, I think that holds some potential.
Chair Bemstein: Thank you, Carol. Beth.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Yes, I was working a little bit on the line of sight and thinking about
the placing of the Monument there, and what it would do in terms of line of sight for pedestrians
and, bicyclists coming from Homer.. May'be I should back up. One point is, did you in talking
with bicyclists get a sense that they would be coming up and down Alma? It's so narrow. I don't
see many bicyclists there. Did you have to take in consideration bicyclists coming dow~ Alma
Street?
Mr. Grover: We've been to PABAC probably 5 times in the course of our study and our design
for this project. And on most of those occasions, the issues of bike access and all the bike routes
in the vicinity and how they tie into this project is always brought up. Of course, the potential tie
to traffic on Homer is brought up but also the issue of bike traffic on Alma itself currently which
uses the sidewalk, and that's legally permitted although it's not ideal.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: But it's safer?
Mr. Grover: Yes. So the answer is, yes, we've considered that. I'm not sure if you have a more
specific question.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: No, I was just thinking that one of my assumptions had been that most
of the bicycle traffic would be coming from the sidewalk there at Ole's Garage or at the Pringle
Gas Station, that little historic gas station. As I looked at it, it seemed like some of our
discussions had been on the assumption that the tunnel goes straight under but it does not. It
looks like it's slanted so that from the Pringle Gas Station, you~would see an angle very much
like I'm seeing now and really not see down the tunnel at all. You would see simply into the
tunnel a tiny bit from that straight comer, and then the other side there would be some line of
sight coming down by Ole's Garage that you would see into the runnel. Is that a correct
assumption or tell me a little more about it.
Mr. Grover: I now understand your question better or your comment. We have, of course,
created 3-D computer models of this as wel! as where we put the buildings and sidewalks on this
site. If you're in a car anywhere on Homer Avenue, you can see the light on the other side
[inaudible], if you're on the sidewalk, on the north sidewalk, you do get a piece of sunlight from
the other side. But because of the skew of the tunnel, you only get a piece of that. So that's back.
here.
When you cross the street, of course, you lose that. You cannot see all the way through the
runnel from this point of view, from this crosswalk and so on. From this crosswalk, you get a
view, a very nice view through the tunnel and you retain that view even as you get close to this
crosswalk.
Vice-Chair Bulmenberg: But that view is on that side of the Monument, not so much directly
through the Monument. Is that correct?
Page lO of 25
Mr. Grover: Yes.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: So that I guess in some ways, I see the Monument as less of a barrier
than perhaps in your mind's eye because, in fact, as the trees grow, it's possible the tree trunks
will provide some visual barriers or some difficulty seeing down the tunnel. And I use the
California Avenue tunnel all the time so I know what you're talking about, some of the aspects of
tunnels. One of my other wonderings was that in all the presentations, you've talked about the
Monument being very white. Certainly, it isn't white now, it's a tone of gray. That tone of gray
would be less contrast with the dark stairs, there was some comment in your report about the
color of the Monument being a tone. And had you taken into consideration the fact that to my
mind, at least for a lot of time, certainly the summertime, when these trees have leaves, are these
to have leaves all year long or are they deciduous trees?
Mr. Grover: Deciduous.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Deciduous trees, so that certainly during a tot of the year in California,
the canopy would provide a lot of shadow, which would again make the Monument appear a bit
grayer as it did in one of the.pictures, I think it was number 5, that showed that there were
shadows that would be on the Monument that would keep it from being a stark white. How'd
you arrive at white for the Monument?
Mr. Grover: I'm sorry I didn't bring samples of the concrete, but it's almost a black that we're
looking at for the paving surface. In contrast to that, this I think will appear virtually white
especially after it's restored. As you know, in the City Beautiful Movement--it was also, I think,
Daniel Bum_ham's Chicago Exposition which was also called, I think, the White City or
something--white buildings and white elements were very much the standard. So I suspect when
it's restored, it will appear basically white, and that's where my comments and analysis came
from.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: And then just a basic comment that I agree that this is a modern design
and I think is a very handsome modem design but you did point out that there was symmetry and
a little bit more formal balance than sometimes happens. So there are some classical undertones
which I think are very nice. Thank you.
Mr. Grover: May I comment on that?
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: Yes.
Mr. Grover: I think that the thing about symmetry here is symmetry is a very, very powerful
device. And by using symmetry in the design of this project, we've attempted to use the power
of that symmetry to enhance the openness of the proj ect so that by literally not placing something
right at the center, it's the absence, it's the rest in the music, it's the absenceof that wt~ch creates
that, "Oh, you expect something to be there," and instead there's not something there. So it's
kind of open. That's the psychology that we base this design on.
Now by placing something there, the power of symmetry confers on that a great importance. It
becomes the dominant element in the design as you pass through. You see it as you come along.
It's very, very centrally important. So those are our considerations about symmetry and
formality.
Page i! of 25
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Beth. Susan, any conmaents?
BM Haviland: Yes. Thank you, Steven, for a very thoughtful and intelligent presentation. We
a!l appreciate it very, very much. I have several comments and questions all mixed together so
bear with me, maybe we could go through them one by one. I was wond4ring if we can have this
image back up. And I thought it was kind of interesting that this was sort of left up for a while
because it shows the whole area at night with the Fence Monument kind of looming there. It
causes me to wonder what has been provided in the way of nighttime illumination for this area. I
mean, I think it's obviously a problem whether the Fence Monument is there or not and I was
wondering if illumination could be included in the design. It could be very festive, it could be up
in the trees or it could be flood lights that are installed in the steps and that actually illuminate
the Monument which might then reflect light into .the surrounding area and make it a very
attractive place to be at night. And so I was wondering what your thinking was on nighttime
illumination in general?
Mr. Grover: Let me telt you about the lighting scheme here in general. For a project like this,
we focused on lighting the traveled way rather than up lighting objects. We focused on
nighttime trying to create a brighter glow inside the tunnel so that you're drawn into it rather than
lighting the fa,cade and the opening appearing a darker hole that you are leery of stepping into.
Inside the tunnel at night, we're aiming for an average of about 5 foot candles and we are up-
lighting the ceiling and we're also providing accent down-lights to mark your progress through
the tunnel.
Outside, we have some very attractive light standards that provide an indirect light source. We
think that it's very important on a project like this to provide good color rendition light and also
to provide light that is as uniform as possible. Bright glare sources have been identified for
pedestrian and bicycle projects as a potential for safety hazards, but we've stayed away from
glare-source type of pole lights and use indirect pole lights.
We've also tried to mark the path of travel with step lights. They're not shown in this rendering
and they don't significantly add to the area but they do help draw you up through your path of
travel. There are step lights that lead you up the steps here and up the steps here and at the
central line up here. In addition to those pole-mounted lights outside the tunnel, which occur
here, here, here, here and here, and in addition to the step lights, we are also working with tree
up-lights as we mentioned to hit the underside of the trees mad give kind of a shimmering effect.
In general, we are trying to create an even glow throughout the area and not create any
particularly bright spots. That's the general philosophy of the lighting design.
BM Haviland: And I guess my comment here is that just as you don't want the tunnel to appear
to be a dark hole at night that you don't want to go into, once you're in the tunnel, the exits at
either end to appear to be dark places where you don't want to go. And it sounds like you've sort
of got this under control. Another comment might be that one goal of nighttime lighting is to
some de~ee replicate the condition that you have in daytime. And in your simulation of the
daytime natural daylight illumination, the tunnel is illuminated, it's lit but it's a little lower
illumination than on the outside spaces on either side. I think that would be a good way to
handle the illumination in the tunnel.
I guess the comment in terms of this Board is more that I don't see how the Fence Monument
actually affects it one way or the other. I mean it's an opportunity to provide another way of
lighting by having a sort of softly glowing object there, rather than something that would be
Page 12 of 25
negative or a problem. Similarly, given that the Monument is sort of out there by itself.. I see it
as less of an attractive place for someone to crouch than these little wing walls that are on either
side of the ramps going up towards the sides. I don't see that you're, again, creating more of an
opportunity for a place for people to lurk.
I'm really happy that you built this model and we've enjoyed seeing it in several meetings. But it
occurs to me now as you talk that it would have been helpful for us if the tunnel had actua!ly
been represented in the model because we don't even have a sense of the lintel piece overhead.
We have no sense of it as an opening. We're seeing it just as these two walls with this big space
behind them.
Mr. Grover: Let me just interject a comment on that. We have the other side modeled and we
have the runnel modeled and we will bring all 3 pieces tomorrow. This is actually a new model,
it's not the one you saw before. And as you can see, only this side is completed. So when I take
this back to my office today, they'll quickly finish that side and tomorrow I'll have a helper and
I'll bring all 3 pieces. So I apologize for that.
BM Haviland: It's would just be very helpful for us to be able to come and peer down from this
end and look at the Fence Monument.
Mr. Grover: That's an oversight on my part.
BM Haviland: It's just hard for us, we have to use our imagination perhaps more than you or
others might like us to. Then I guess one last comment has to do with symmetry and the uses of
symmetry. And, of course, you're correct, symmetry is a very powerful device and it does focus
on the object that's at the center of a symmetrical composition. But it's also such a predictable
device that in many ways, it's something that can be used to aciualty diminish the importance of
something and my sense in looking at all the materials that you've presented is that Alternative
B, which kind of moves the Fence Monument off the axis; just slightly tilted it actually calls
attention to it more because you're kind of surprised by its location and you think to yourself,
"Hmm, ~,hy is thing over tl~ere?" Actually in my practice, I have often used symmetry as a way
of disguising elements that are not particularly attractive but that have to be included such as
fluorescent lighting in the kitchens as required by the Building Code. Or sprinkler heads to make
them into a formal pattern and they tend to disappear whereas if they are disposed
asymmetrically, they're called attention to.
So, in a funny sense in my evaluation, the scheme of putting the Fence Monument on axis with
Homer Avenue actually makes it a little bit less intrusive than putting it slightly off axis. And
then one final question, in your excellent memorandum, you've come up with a number of ways
of incorporating the Fence Monument. I understand this is a bit of a j ott having discovered it for
yourself, then being told that it wasn't important and didn't have to consider it, now being told,
oh yes you do.
Do you have a preference for any of the incorporation methods that you have indicated and what
is your preference?
Mr. Grover: Like I said at the outset, I think it's a very difficult problem and I do sincerely
believe that there are compromises no matter what you do in a situation. I sincerely believe that
placing this large and mass of an object at this location does compromise the design goals of this
project. Including not just esthetic but also safety and psychological perception goals. I think
Page:L3 o£ 25
your points about lighting it are very well taken and we, of course, would try- and do ever~thing
we could to light it nicely at this location and such.
I'm just going to think out loud with you for a moment. If we place the monument somewhere
out here, it really takes it out of its original location. It's like, what the he!l is this thing doing
here. I put it back here though and I say, what the hell is this thing doing here because it no
longer reads as part of the fence so it really is a dilemma for me on how do you place this thing
properly. Now, how do you retain its historic value and integration with the urban fabric?
We've also looked at placing it out here and out here so it has a little bit more in line with the
fence post that it was, it still has more of a presence in the intersection and so on. But once
again, it's not performing the function that it was intended for which is to terminate the axis of
Homer and be co-linear with this fence mark.
So, nay preference, if there were these oppommities and I'm frankly not sure if there is, my
preference would be to place it in its intended configuration on another street where there
previously was a Monument. In other words, use it to replace one that was already removed. I
think that that would not take it away from its historic context. I think it would be well lit and
well rehabilitated and placed in its most historic context. You don't compromise the underpass
design and we keep it as intact as possible, historically. That would be my decision were it mine
to make.
BM Haviland: Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Susan. Steven, your presentation is exce!lent and I see that your
good sense of design is most excellent. This is a wonderful project. I was thinking last night
what kind of presentation you were going to make to our Board and also tomorrow to the ARB.
There are design professionals on both Boards. They have experience in classical and
international designissues and I. hear that you have a good sense of that also.
The model, is it possible to at least put maybe some piece of paper where the top of the tunnel is
so we can see a simulation? Okay. And then can you place the Monument, it helps to address
the issue that Board Member Haviland asked about, the scale of openings. Thanks. That really
makes a big difference on the relationship to the runnel to the location of the Monument. This
helps gives us a view here.
Mr. Grover: I can turn the model around as well.
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Well, that helps. One of the concerns I had when I was tooking through
the materials was comparing the location of the Monument from the Homer Avenue side which
was always the historic view of that Monument, compared that with the proposed idea of
Location A. And what I did, I took the articles that we had in our packet and did a little drawing
of what that would look like and I'll show this to the Board. There was a drawing of Location B
which is off the axis from Homer at its location. And then Location A is actually lower down
than Location B is, according to the articles we have here.
Mr. Grover: Let me clarify. The image that you took that height offofhad the Monument
submerged so you could not see the full height of the tripartite form. So it was rotated off axis
and submerged significantly. So if you put it in Location A, it would appear taller than you have
depicted.
Page l4 of 25
Chair Bernstein: Okay, this was the drawing I was showing the audience and so what Stevenjust
mentioned was that in Location A, we would see more of the Monument than my sketch is
indicating.
Mr. Grover: The top of the Monument, well, 6~/~_ feet plus the top of the Monument would be
approximately at the ceiling height of the runnel.
Chair Bemstein: That's with Location A?
Mr. Grover: Yes.
Chair Bernstein: Right, that addresses my concern. It looked like this thing was being
submerged so much that we were losing the historical connection between Homer Avenue and
the Monument. I also highly respect the Staffs comment and I believe, probably your belief
also, is that it's the relationship between all parts that is so important about placing an object
here. I also respect the difficulty that you would have as a design professional to not having the
information that this is part of a project requirement until so late in the design process. I'm sure
many of us design professionals have had similar experiences where it can really be very
disruptive in our creative thought processing.
But looking at this, I do see that with the modern design that you've done here which is a very
excellent design and the historical piece here, it seems pretty comfortable to me visually. So
with your comment of the Location A being more visible than my ske{ches, that seems to address
a lot of the issues of how the City respects a gift that was given to it a hundred years ago, and it
seems like it's going to be visible and still relate to the historical district there.
Still going on with our hearing today, we'll have opportunity for members of the public to speak
to us. I don't have any cards. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to
us on this item? I see none. Next we have Applicant closing comments but I'm just going to
leave the public hearing open so there Could still be some interactive discussion. What the Staff
is looking for us to do today is to make a recommendation on a location. Is that the task before
us today?
StaffBacklund: It is to make a final recommendation to the ARB and the City. Staffwould
recommend that when you make your recommendation, that the reasons for the motion be stated
in reference to those subjects that have been discussed today, in reference to safety issues, in
relation to whichever option you choose, the effect on its significance, on the coherence of the
overall design as that is a policy of the Comprehensive Plan, and we would appreciate your
comment on that. Thank you.
Chair Bernsten: Elizabeth? Yes.
Ms. Ames: I just wanted to make a comment about the safety discussion related to this
Monument. We did discuss this with the Police Department. As Susan suggested, it's no
different than somebody coming from maybe at the side of the approach ramp; on the ramp side
there are places where possibly somebody could jump out but it's going to be well lit. Also the
up-lighting softens the entrance but yet makes it atso a safe enviromnent for people to be in. I
just wanted to comment on that. Thank you.
Page l5 of 25
Chair Bernstein: I have another comment. That is when I look at in our packet Attachment G
and that's the Staff Report to ARB, those are the last pages in our packet today. In it, it refers to
a September 12, 2002 meeting with ARB sub-committee. And I'll just quote that one sentence
on that, it's on page 204 of the Staff Report. "The .4RB sub-committee a~'eed that the
massiveness of the Fence Monument ~,ould m, er~,helm the scale of the project and prefers the
Fence Monument and attached u, ood posts to be relocated north of the Homer Avenue
intersection in the landscaped area." So, is that something where the ARB could decide to
choose that location for the project?
Ms. Ames: Yes, that was just an informational report basically noting to the ARB that we did
meet and we met with two ARB members. We did not talk about this lowered location. We
really were thinking right at the exact location, off to the side, off axis and then also way off to
the side in the landscaped area. We didn't actually bring up the recommendation that Dennis had
at that sub-committee meeting which we will present, obviously, to the Board tomorrow.
Chair Bernstein: So, tomorrow will be the first time the ARB will be looking at the design of
having it on center with Homer Avenue?
Ms. Ames: Well, we did have the joint meeting, b.ut we didn't really have a recommendation
from Staff at the time. We did add two new locations after our joint meeting. We had that off-
axis, lowered location and also the lowered location on axis. Those were the two that were
added to that.
Chair Bernstein: And the follow up to that, in terms of procedure, if the ARB tomorrow, if their
recommendation to the Council is to have this located off axis, does the HRB have any appeal of
the decision to the City Council on their recommendation?
Staff Caporgno: It's my understanding that the project is not going back to th.e City Council.
The ARB will be making a recommendation to the Director of Planning and then the Director of
Pla~ming will make a final decision on where the Monument is located.
Ms. Ames: I do want to say that the ARB sub-committee did seem somewhat flexible. They did
recommend it going in a landscaped area but I don't think that was a total final decision. I think
that they were more acceptable at an alternative location, it's just that that was their preference.
So we'll see what happens tomorrow.
Chair Bernstein: Susan.
BM Haviland: Just to revisit this issue of alternative locations. My memory, unfortunately, is a
little dim but I know that we did discuss possible intersections at which the Fence Monument
could be relocated, and I believe we found significant problems with a!! of them. Is there
someone on Staff who has a better memory of that who could repeat that so that we have it for
the record?
Staff Backlund: If you are speaking of on-axis locations at other streets?
BM Haviland: Exactly.
Staff Backlund: Wel!, the historic record was not entirely clear to us, all of which streets were
involved. There was discussion for the entire length of Alma Street beginning down near the
Page :k6 o~ 25
railroad bridge area and then extending to Embarcadero. We're not exactly sure how many
locations were finalized, but probably a lot of that length was involved. But when the train
station was constructed in 1940, followed by a series of parking lots that extend down to the
south of Forest, this changed the configuration of those potential on-axis locations and the Fence
Monuments--in those days that did not have strong historic awareness, or before our Ordinance
was adopted--they would have been just simply removed.
At Forest Avenue, it would not be possible to place it exactly on-axis because of a configuration
of the parking lot, there's a wide planting strip that is just south of the intersection and we
showed that as an option at an earlier HRB meeting, that would be as close to the intersection as
you could get it but it wouldn't be on-axis. And then none of the areas north of that would be
possible because all around University Avenue has changed so radically. And then at
Embarcadero, there was also a possibility there to at least locate the Monument adjacent to the
intersection. But in 1936, the undercrossing that we see there now which itself is now eligible
for the National Register was constructed and any Monument there would have been simply
disposed of. There are M~)numents at Channing and Addison, I think the only other possibility
would be at Lincoln. There are historic houses at that intersection and on the railroad
embartkment across from Lincoln, there might be a possibility. But what I recall is that there is
an underpass system there where the train stops for the Stanford games and is actually referred to
as the Stanford station stop and I believe that those ramps occupy the on-axis area now. And all
of that was part of what was installed in I936. So there is not an on-axis location available, I
don't believe.
BM Haviland: Thank you, Dermis.
Chair Bernstein: I also see in the ARB Staff Report on pages 3 and 4, those are the last pages of
our packet. It does say regarding signs, the last sentence on the bottom of page 3, it says,
"Although the Plan set does not indicate new signage, traffc circulation and signage plan will
be submitted to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee for review and comment, a separate
application will be required for the signs." I'd like to request that since this is something of an
area that we're reviewing that those signages, programs and proposals, if that could be brought
before the HRB also so we can look at the scale of the signs and just graphically how much they
contribute or pollute the area. So I'd like to request that.
All right. I'd like to ask if there are any comments from Staff for the appiicant. If not, we can
bring it back to the Board for comments, motions, recommendations. Would any Board Member
like to speak to this? Michael.
BM Makinen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After looking at the number ofrecormaendations
here, I guess my preference actually is, Steven, on what you proposed as your reconmaendation
number 4, retain the Monument in the project area but not in the central area of the Alma Street.
You alluded to that, putting it off to the side right there. I think contextually, it just doesn't fit
with the type of project that you're working with. It does corm~emorate the original location,
that's a strong point of it and I guess that is a strong consideration. But I think the contextuatity
is just what disturbs me so much, on the way it's presently located. My preferences would be
your recommendation to retain the Monument in the proj ect area but not in the central area of the
Alma side, located off to the side.
Mr. Grover: Just to clarify what you're saying so I understand. Your preference is to have the
Monument not on-axis with Homer Avenue?
Page 17 of 25
BM Makinen: That is correct.
Mr. Grover: Is there a specific location that you have mentioned?
BM Makinen: I'm going back to the recommendation number 4.
Chair Bernstein: What page are you on, please?
BM Makinen: This is packet from Steven Grover, Attachment A, Strategies for incorporating
the Monument into the undercrossing design. Go to Attachment A, go back 4 pages.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, I see that, yes. I see on the bottom page 4.
BM Matdnen: No, I don't have that.
Chair Bernstein: I'm lost.
BM Makinen: The top caption is "Strategies for incorporating the Monument into the
undercrossing design." That's at the top.
Chair Bernstein: I see,
BM Makinen: And recommendation number 4 is what I'm referring to on that particular page.
Chair Bemstein: I'm recording it, it says, "Retain the Monument in the project area but not in the
central area of the Alma side." I'm not clear what that means.
Ms. Ames: That would be Location C.
BM Makinen: Why don't you clarify that a little bit, Steven, since it's your own words we're
reading from right here.
Mr. Grover: What I meant to say in that language and, use it as you will, but what I meant to say
in that language is basically an exclusion area option, in other words, not put it here then that
leaves you with this location or another axis. It occurred to me at the Forest Avenue location, one
thing we should at least be considering is losing a parking place, creating a proper space for this.
Chair Bemstein: Susan.
BM Haviland: Can I ask a question of Staff?. Is that all that would be required to relocate the
Fence Monument at Forest to lose one parking space?
StaffBacNund: I believe. Elizabeth might like to confirm this. But I believe that that is Joint
Powers Board-owned land where the parking lot is. And so the arrangement would need to be
made with them but it is true that at Forest Avenue, if you removed a certain amount of parking
area, you could place it on axis with Forest. It would result in the loss of a couple of spaces that
are now at the site. I wondered if I could point to a photograph on the wall that we took for this
meeting for another potential location that was shown by the project architect as Location C that
Page!8 of 25
was just north of the existing oak tree and that is the last colored page of the Architect's
memorandum. And where that would be, I can show you on the wall.
Chair Bernstein: All right, thank you. Board Member Murden.
BM Murden: Dennis, I've been sitting here frantically trying to remember what the Lincoln
Avenue crossing is. I seem to remember walking across the railroad tracks there, too. My
question is, what is on the Alma side there between the train tracks? I just don't remember.
Staff Backlund: There is a ramping and pathway system there for the train stop, whether that
would make an on-axis location at Lincoln impossible, we did not verify for this meeting. It is
true that, for instance, there is a National Register eligible home of some importance to the City,
the Sanor home, that is directly across the street and there are other historic homes that are
clustered in that area so it is a historic environment that very likely did have a Fence Monument
at the time.
Chair Bernstein: I would like to remind the Board of our very strong position and very strong
vote throughout this project on how we looked at this Monument as a gift to the City a hundred
years ago, and what is the message that we'd be conveying of what the City of Palo Alto does for
benefactors to the City? And as I recall, our discussion was very strongly voted on by the HRB
in past discussions that this Monumeni~ is importantly placed, the important position of it is on-
axis with Homer Avenue to relate to the historic character of that district. So I just want to
remind the Board that we voiced very strongly in the past about that. So as we come up with a
recommendation and a motion for this, I'd like for us to remember on how strongly we voiced
those comments. Carol.
BM Murden: This is just a comment. I'm not going to make a motion at this point. I find
myself in something of a dilemma in that as you said, we have taken a strong position on this. I
feel the Monument should be on axis because that was its original location. I also like the idea of
the Monument being on axis with Homer because I think there is a very large segment of the
community which includes probably this Board that Homer Avenue does have a great deal of
historic significance. At the same time, having seen the model and I do feel, too, that the
Mc;nument needs to be lower than the height of the tunnel. Aesthetically, I feel that that's
something that should be. And I must admit that when I first saw these plans and saw- the
Monument lowered on the steps, I have the sense that it's not conveying anything particularly
historic. So I'd be interested to hear what the other Board Members say. I have something of a
dilemma here.
Chair Bernstein: I have things to say but I'll defer until other people speak. Beth.
BM Bunnenberg: Well, I also feel that it is very important for this Monument to be still in
relationship to Homer Avenue because I feel that is one of the more intact historic districts. It is
closer to what was the downtown development at that point. I see it as really a beacon as I look
at the design and I very much like that beacon effect. I think that it is not that far away from its
historic location where it is right now so that basically, I look at A and C as a very pleasing kind
of solution.
Chair Bernstein: Susan.
Page!9 of 25
BM Haviland: I agree with Beth. I think it is extremely important that the Fence Monument
stays on-axis. I may be a little bit more willing than other members of the Board to consider it
located to another street in the downtown area. It just doesn't appear that that is going to be an
easy solution, however. So, I would have to say that I think of all the compromises we've seen,
alternative A is the best one. It moves this Fence Monument slightly, but it does retain the axial
relationship. But I would like to say that I would vastly prefer to see it moved to another street
than to see it slightly off-axis on Homer or sort of off to the side. I think once those moves have
been made, I don't "know, it's ahnost being treated as if it's something inconvenient and we sort of
want to shove it out of the way.
So, I would like to make a motion perhaps that incorporates this sense of priority. And perhaps
after Martin has made his comments, I'll attempt to put words to it.
Chair Bemstein: I'd like to respond to Board Member Murden's comment about hearing what
other Board Members have to say. I would say, simply there's a precedent for this kind of design
where it is on-axis, there is a historical piece and then a contemporary piece. In the example that
was mentioned in our Staff Report, where you have I.M. Pei's triangle or pyramid at the Louvre,
so here is a very modem piece on-axis with a very" historical background. But it's showing how a
modem feature and a historical feature can work and perform a good marriage. So I think this
project is a very clear example of another successful way of merging old plus new. I think
compatibility- and design-wise, it's a wonderful design to do this for Location A. I think it
supports many things from the Comprehensive Plan including encouraging preservation
especially if there is a plaque and signage that helps educate about that. We're using the
Monument in its relationship to Homer Avenue. So I think it addresses a lot, it's public art. It
addresses a lot of the goals of the City. I'm also in support of the on-axis location because of its
relation to the historical nature of Homer Avenue. Carol.
BM Murden: I would just like to make a comment or a plea to the City that when you have these
historical elements that come to the HRB, several times recently, it seems to me that it has come
to us sort of after the fact and it has created a lot of problems, I think, both for the architects, the
Board, and the City. So it's a plea to bring these things to the HRB a little sooner.
Chair Bemstein: Susan, did you want to continue?
BM Haviland: Just one comment about the plaque or some kind of information material. I think
it's a wonderful idea. I would like to make a plea though that such material not be applied
directly on to the Fence Monument. I know it's going to be tempting to want to just like stick
that plaque right up on it. For two reasons: one is that it isn't part of the historic Monument; and
the other is I think there's room for a little mystery on our lives. And one of the things that I find
actually so immensely appealing about Alternative A is that this object is sort of here and it'll
lead you to wonder, "Welt, why is this here?" "What is it?" "Where did it come from?" And
then if you could look around and perhaps on the tunnel walls, see some information about it.
The mystery might be dispelled but at least it isn't in your face and intrusive. So I would just like
to encourage that the signage material not be located directly on the Monument.
Chair Bemstein: We're still looking for a motion.
BM Haviland: Well, I will attempt something here. Beth is usually so good at doing it. I move
that the Board recommend Alternative A as the location for the Fence Monument. And for all
the reasons that are cited in the Staff Report, I think the Staff Report is very eloquent about the
Page20 of 25
reasons why Alternative A is the best compromise. In addition, the HRB recommends that if
Alternative A is in any way infeasible or impractical that the Fence Monument be relocated to
another intersection where it can be placed on-axis with the street in the downtowT~ area. And
I'm certainly willing to entertain any changes to this motion.
Chair Bernstein: I'm wondering about the second part of your motion, if that would give other
review bodies more flexibility in negating all the design work that this presentation is indicating.
BM Haviland: You're maybe correct. I would accept having that removed.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second?
BM Makinen: Could you repeat your motion again?
Chair Bernstein: I think I can summarize it, if you want me to. It's basically, adopting and
rec0nmaending Location A and based on the comments from the Staff Report including that it
meets the recommendations for safety and reflects the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Does
that basically summarize it?
BM Haviland: Yes.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: I second that motion.
Chair Bernstein: Okay, we have a second on that. Is there any comment on it? Carol.
BM Murden: I had wondered about adding that the Monument should not be placed off-axis
which is somewhat referring back to, well, I agree with your comment that it's encouraging it.
On the other hand, like Susan, I feel that if it can't be on-axis on Homer, then I'd rather see it on-
axis somewhere else rather than off-axis. And so I wondered if we could put in the motion that
we feel it should not be placed off-axis.
BM Haviland: So, it could be something the Board feels, that it is a paramount importance that
the Fence Monument be retained in an on-axis position and, therefore, we recommend
Alternative A for all the reasons that are given in the Staff Report.
Chair Bernstein: I agree that that makes our case stronger. Any other comments on the motion?
Michael.
BM Makinen: Well, I'll support Location A though that's not nay main preference right there. I
do understand the historic reasons for keeping it in its present location, and that your other
alternatives that may make sense also, but I'll support the present location.
Chair Bernstein: Is the Staff satisfied with our reasons for the motion? I made reference to the
safety issues and Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Caporgno: That is what Staff had requested is that you give us a reason for your
recommendation. I also would like to emphasize that we would like one of the Board to attend
tomorrow's ARB meeting to explain to the ARB your recommendation if at all possible.
Chair Bernstein: Thanks, I'll be able to attend that. That's tomorrow at 9:30, I betieve? Dennis?
Page2J_ of 25
Staff Backlund: Yes, just for last time, the Board can consider if the finding in relation to the
coherence of the design of the project would be satisfactorily met with Location A or what your
conclusion would be, we would appreciate it.
BM Haviland: Could we add that to the motion?
Chair Bernstein: Yes.
BM Haviland: That we find that the coherence of the project is retained by locating the Fence
Monument at Location A.
Chair Bernstein: All right. I tkink we're ready for a vote. Beth, go ahead please.
Vice-Chair Bunnenberg: And I definitely accept those additions.
Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Now, we are ready to vote
on the motion. All in favor, say aye?
All: Aye. (Kohler and Mario absent)
Chair Bernstein: Opposed? It passes unanimously with those present.
Historic Resources Board Motion: BM Haviland moved, seconded by BM Bunnenberg,
that the location on axis with the Homer Avenue-Alma Street intersection is an essential
characteristic of the Fence Monument and therefore the Board recommends Location A
(several steps down the semi-circular stair~vay at the center of the Undercrossing project
on axis with the intersection) based on the following findings:
Location A would preserve the historic on-axis location of the Fence Monument;
Location A would maintain the architectural coherence of the Undercrossing design;
Location A would be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to
the Undercrossing project;
Location A would meet all safety, light level, and sight line standards for the project.
Vote: 5-0-0-2 (Kohler and Mario absent)
Chair Bernstein: Thank you very" much.. Steven, thank you very much for your excellent
presentation and I'll see you again tomorrow morning. And Dennis, Julie and Elizabeth, thank
you very much for all your wonderful help. We are closed with that issue. Thank you, Board
Members very much for all your contributions and comments.
STATUS REPORTS ON HISTORIC PROJECTS/SITES.
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda would be Status Reports on Historic Projects/Sites. Dennis?
Page22 of 25
Staff B acklund: The status of historic projects, once again, we will refer to the French Laundry
building on Homer and the AME Zion Church. This is an update. We have traced the boarding
up of that building to the Code Enforcement department of the City of Palo Alto. It did not come
through Planning and it was not referred to the Preservation Planner. It was referred directly to
Code Enforcement and they oversaw the boarding up of the windows in the manner in which it
was done. Staff concluded that the boarding process does protect the glass from any further
breakage. We also concluded that the way the boarding was put on may have resulted in some
damage to the stucco that would have to be repaired at all locations of the boarding.
However, to remove the boarding at this time and replace it with a boarding in a correct historic
style as was done at the Roth building would not remove the fact of the damage having occurred.
And so we would have to assess whether that damage left un-repaired could result in water
intrusion which would not be the case at the Roth building but potentially is with these two
buildings. Also, we are exploring the need to cover the triangular leaded glass window at the
AME Zion Church, that's the critical historical feature of the street facing fagade. If someone
threw a stone, it is vulnerable and it is in a completely undamaged condition at present.
STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Staff announcements? Julie.
Staff Caporgno.i I just have one thing I wanted to make sure that the Board is aware of, that at
your next meeting, which is on October 16, we are anticipating bringing back 800 High to you.
The project has been revised and I believe this will probably be the first time or at least you'll be
seeing it again, but they have revised the project and would like your input. And I just wanted to
ensure that we would have a quorum at that meeting so if anyone is planning on not being here
on the ! 6th of October, you could let me know now.
BM Havitand: I will not be here.
Staff Caporg_9_9i Okay. But the rest of you are planning on being here?
BM Makinen: What was the date again, Julie?
Staff Cap~ 16th of October.
BM Makinen: I'll be here.
Staff Cap0rgnoI And then one other announcement. Diana reminded me, we have the City
Council/HRB dinner next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. And we still
have to finalize the agenda but that will be distributed to you prior to the meeting.
Chair Bernstein: What I recall from our last meeting was that Mayor Ojakian and I would
coordinate the agenda together, is that true?
Staff Caporgno: It is my understanding he should be contacting you. I know the City Clerk sent
him something with your telephone number. So if he hasn't contacted you already, he should be
shortly.
Page 23 of 25
Chair Bernstein: Okay. Dennis.
StaffBacklund: Yes. One final announcement. You've received the brochure for the CPF
workshop at Stanford University. To answer a question the Board raised at an earlier meeting,
this workshop which was postponed from an earlier date to October 25th is on the whole
essentially the workshop that the Board attended last time. However, myself, I am intending to
re-apply to go because with the greater experience now than a year or two ago, I feel that I will
understand what is being presented by this formidable array of experts that CPF has lined up. I
will understand what they are saying much better than I did last time. So I would like an update
myself and Board Members might like that, too.
BM Haviland: I just want to announce that I will be attending this and this was going to be my
training for last year and I guess retroactively, it will still be my training for last year because I
had registered for it and then it was postponed.
Chair Bernstein: Carol.
BM Murden: Can this be my training for last year, too? But I didn't register. When does the
period end? Do we go on a calendar year?
StaffBacklund: The CLG report, it goes from October 1st to October 1st. It's kind of a special
preservation fiscal year and we'll have to inquire.
Staff Caporgno: What we can do is check with the state to see if it's possible, given the fact that
this was scheduled, you were intending on attending and then it was re-scheduled. So maybe
they will be receptive to that.
Staff Backlund: Especially in conjunction with a second training of some kind that would occur
in this current fiscal year.
Chair Bernstein: All right. Board Member questions, comments or announcements. The last
thing on our agenda.
BM Haviland: I just wanted to reiterate that I will not be at the October 16th Board meeting and,
unfortunately, will also not be able to attend the dinner with the City Council.
Chair Bernstein: If you have any comments that you'd like presented at that Council meeting, if
you can get those to me somehow, I'll incorporate your comments.
BM Haviland: Thank you.
Chair Bemstein: Anything else? Michael.
BM Makinen: I'm planning on attending the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference
in Cleveland, Ohio this coming week. So I hope to bring back some information for the rest of
the HRB. They have one tour that should be especially interesting, bringing buildings back from
the ruins, that should prove to be interesting. I won't be able to attend the October 8th event that
you mentioned, Julie.
Page24 of 25
Chair Bernstein: Again, if you l~ave any cormnents you'd like presented at that meeting, October
8th, let me know. Great. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.
CORRESPONDENCE. None.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. None
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMIVIENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
*Historic Resources Board representative at City Council meetings:
Pio___ject Meeting date Representative
None
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 CiU' facilities, services, or programs or who would like
information on the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (,ad3A) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (voice) or
(650)328-1199 (TDD)
Page25 of 25
Attachment D
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date:
To:
October 3, 2002
Architectural Review Board
From:
Subject:
Elizabeth Ames, Project Manager Department: Public Works
Alma Street/Homer Avenue Undercrossing [02-ARB-23]i Application
by City of Palo Alto PuNic Works Department for Architectural
Review Board review and recommendation for design details related
to the construction of a pedestrian tunnel, located approximately
between the intersection of Homer Avenue and Alma Street, and
connecting to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation under the
Caltrain/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board railroad right-of-
way-. Design details include fence monument location, portal
treatments, pedestrian access, landscaping and lighting features.
¯ Zone r~: ~._:_÷.~,~m~. PF.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the design details of the previously approved project as submitted
are found to be satisfactory to the Architectural Review Board.
PROJECT OVERVIeW-
The project involves the construction of a bicyclist and pedestrian tunnel that would
cormect the area around the Palo Alto Medica!.Foundation with the South of Forest Area
and Downtown Pa!o Alto. See the plan set and Applicant's Project Description from
Steven Grover & Associates (Attachments A and B).
BACKGROUND
Over the past year, Staff and Nolte Associates conducted meetings with Caltrans,
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), utility companies, Public Art
Commission (PAC), Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Historic
Resources Board (HRB) to assist in the development of the preiiminary and 100% design
documents. Most recently, on June 20, 2002, the ARB reviewed and recommended the
Alma Street/Homer Avenue Undercrossing Page 1 of 4
approval of the project, tunnel alignment and approach ramp layout subject to the
recommended conditions of approval including the additional condition that the design
details return to the ARB for review-. On July 22, 2002, the City Council approved the
project. See the ARB Staff Report, dated June 20, 2002 (Attachment C).
On June 26, 2002, the HRB made a formal recommendation to the City Council to
preserve the fence monument in its-original location where it would continue to function
as an appropriate termination for the Homer Avenue historic corridor and where it could
clearly mark the entrance to the undercrossing. On August 15, 2002, the ARB and HRB
held a joint study session to discuss the location of the fence monument. The consensus
was to have the project architect recommend a location that considers the preservation of
the fence monument and the architectural design philosophy and scale. On September 12,
2002, staff and the project architect met with the ARB subcommittee. The subcommittee
agreed that the massiveness of the fence monument would overwhelm the scale of the
project, and preferred the fence monument and attached wood posts be relocated north of
the Homer/Alma intersection in a landscaped area. See Memorandum from Steven
Grover Associates, Figure 5, Location C (Attachment D).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Architecture
A radial effect is seen throughout the architecture. The portal areas span ou~vards from
the undercrossing. The facades form a center for the radial effect by using stepped
retaining walls gradually appearing to widen the opening of the undercrossing. The
retaining walls also act to provide the radial theme following and almost parallel to the
approach ramps. At night, the stepped retaining wails will have fiber optic lighting,
uplighting into the trees on both sides of the undercrossing and pathway lighting to
minimize glare and invite the user to pass through. Inside the undercrossing, the light
along the wails beaming upwards onto the w-hite concrete ceiling surface creates more
reflectivity and openness while glowing strips of fiber optic lighting on the floor separates
modes and guides the user through the undercrossing. During the day, skylights instead of
openings in the upper roof decking of the undercrossing will allow natural light inside but
prevent water and bird intrusion. The circumferential elements of the stairs and buffer
wall complement the radial pattern, associating flow and movement to the undercrossing.
PROJECT ISSUES
Art and Architectural Details
Lighting, decorative railings, color, metallic grout and irdaid metalwork will be
incorporated as an art element and.art locations identify the metalwork to be embedded
into the concrete. The metalwork will spill out onto the portal, ramps, and stair surfaces.
Alma Street/Homer Avenue Undercrossing Page 2 of 4
Colors, exterior, interior finishes and metallic grout materials will be presented at the
meeting. Staffwill meet with the Public Art Commission in October to review the theme,
selection of the art components and where they wil! occur. The project architect was
directed to present the design proposals to the A_RB subcommittee before the project
returned to the ARB for the discussion of the design details.
Fence Monument
Relocation of the fence monument on the Homer/Alma axis, lowered in the stairway,
(Figure 5, Location A), is recommended by staff. The KRB Staff report (Attachment E)
and the Memorandum from Steven Grover Associates (Attachment D) identifies this
location and others for the monument. Staff will discuss these alternative locations with
the KRB on October 2, 2002. Staff will report the HRB's recommendations to the ARB
on October 3, 2002.
Landscaping and Oak Trees
A stepped grate allowing for trees to be planted in the stairs wil! create an "urban forest"-
concept on the Alma Street side entrance. A landscaped area between the buffer wall and
the Alma Street curb and terraced landscaping along the approach ramps is also proposed.
The Palo Alto Medical Foundation side is articulated with goundcover, trees and a
bench. New oak trees located on both sides of the undercrossing will be planted as
mitigation for oak trees removed on the site and will help to maintain the existing tree
canopy in this vicinity. A complete site plan with planting iayout is located on page A-lb
of the plan set.
Signs and Circulation
The buffered wall along Alma Street side approaches will follow the curved pattern of the
center stairway leading to the undercrossing. This wal! is flush with the back of curb at
the center of the intersection on Alma Street. This eliminates any potential of creating an
appearance of a flat surface for pedestrians to cross outside this wall. The undercrossing
will direct slower traffic to the sides by creating a grade differential giving the appearance
of a sidewalk, but only raising the.surface a few inches. All traffic signai poles will be
replaced and new pedestrian pushbuttons will be installed on each side of the crosswalks
for use by the cyclists and pedestrians. A narrow median to separate a bicycle-only lane
on the fight side of the Homer Avenue approach is necessary to prevent vehicles from
entering this lane and triggering the video detection for bike lane movements. Video
detection activates the traffic signal and will only be used for the westbound vehicle and
bike lane movements on Homer Avenue. Although the plan set does not indicate new
signage and a raised concrete median, a traffic circulation and signage plan will be
submitted to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee for review and comment. A
separate application will be required for the signs.
Alma Street/Homer Avenue Undercrossing Page 3 of 4
NEXT.STEPS
Milestone Timeline
Right-of-way and Environmental Certification by Caltrans Sept. 2002
Caltrans Certification of Project Plans, Specifications and Estimate Sept, 2002
ARB review of design details and 100% plans Oct. 2002
Public Art Commission Oct. 2002
Award of Construction Contract Spring 2003
Staff has received verbal conftrmation-from Caltrans that the project wil! meet the
September 30, 2002 deadline, and written confma-~ation may be received within the
month. Desigm details will be incorporated into the bid set documents and will be
resubmitted to Caltrans in the Fall 2002.
ATTACtt2VIENTS
Attachment A: (ARB members 0nly) Plan set
Attachment B: (ARB members only) Applicant's Project Description
Attachment C: ARB Staff report: dated June 20, 2002
Attachment D: Memorandum entitled Fence Monument located at Homer/Alma Intersection
Attachment E: HRB Staff report, dated October 2, 2002 (without attachments)
Prepared by:Elizabeth Ames, Project Manager ~-~z~z
Manager Review:Lisa Grote. Chief Planning Of ciaCt
Alma Street/Homer Avenue Undercrossing Page 4 of 4
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
October 3, 2002
Meeting Notes
Attachment E
Alma Street Undercrossing [02-ARB-23, 02-EIA-02, 02-DEE-03]: Application
by City of Palo Alto for Architectural Review Board review and comment of
design details, including portal treatments, landscaping, lighting, location of public
art and pedestrian amenities of a pedestrian tunnel, located approximately between
the intersection of Homer Avenue and Alma Street, and connecting to the Palo
Alto Medical Foundation under the Peninsula Joint Powers Board railroad right-
of-way. The City Council approved the project and associated funding on July 22,
2002. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared, which was reviewed at the April 4, 2002 ARB meeting and approved by
the City Council at the meeting of April 8, 2002.
Staff Presentation
Staff Elizabeth Ames, Public Works, introduced the project, presented a
chronology of the City's review process to date, and summarized the materials the
Board had received including the HRB staff report of October 2, 2002, and a
Planning Division memo of October 3rd that outlined the HRB's review and
motion. She indicated that the architect would present design details, including
lighting, colors, and textures of concrete, that the Board had asked to see at its
June 20, 2002 meeting.
BM Kornberg asked staff what the course of action would be if the ARB and HRB
had different recommendations on the location of the fence monument.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote responded that the recommendations of the
ARB and HRB would be forwarded to the Director of Plalming and Community
Environment for a final decision.
Architect's Presentation
Steven Grovel Project Architect, presented the project to the Board. He said that
the undercrossing project was defined by its radial theme, and that it addressed
general concerns about tunnels by creating an open expansive feeling on each side
of the tunnel, and by maximizing light inside the tunnel. The architect had
attempted to integate the project into the landscape, to make it compatible with
the loca! context, and to provide an art component. Regarding the fence
monument, it had been previously obscured from view, but the project has made
the monument visible. The on-axis location of the monument was important to its
historic inte~ity because it was intended for an on-axis termination. But placing
2
the monument in the center of the project would isolate it from its linear fence
character that it was part of previously. In addition, locating it in the center of the
project would compromise some important sight lines, and the scale of the
monument is a bit too massive for the scale of the project. Finally, locating the
monument in the center of the project would compromise the sense of openness
and expansiveness on the Alma Street side, and would make the monument a
dominant and central feature in the project (which could be taken as a positive or a
negative). The architect described the characteristics of the concrete color samples
and indicated that he had fixture samples available.
Public Art Commission Presentation
Leon Kaplan, Public Art Commission, briefly discussed the public art submittal.
He said that asubcommittee of the Public Art Commission had approved the
direction the project architect was taking.
Public Comment
None
Board Questions
BM Wasserman asked about the art treatment of the tunnel walls
Steven Grover described the art components that were being considered, including
laser-cut metal shapes that would be embedded in the dark concrete..
BM Wasserman asked the project architect for his recommendation regarding the
location of the monument.
Steven Grover responded that he would recommend relocating the monument on
axis at another intersection on Alma Street.
BM Kornberg commented that the architect had been very careful with the
consistency of the project's theme and details, and that the scale of the monument
was not in the realm of scale that the architect had been working toward for so
long. The ARB understood the clarit-y of the project's design, but with the
monument added to the project it was not clear anymore. He said that a
component of a project of the past was being placed in this project. He asked the
Historic Preservation Planner about the value of the fence monument project in
1909. Was it equivalent to the five million dollar Alma Street undercrossing
project?
StaffBacklund said that the fence monument was an early gift to the City. It was
an example of the City Beautiful movement and was meant to dress up what at
that time was the border of the City. Today the series offence monuments are a
3
memory .of that movement and that gift. The value of the monument for the HRB
is its contribution to the historic character of Homer Avenue, and, consequently,
the HRB wants to retain the monument on axis with Homer. StaffBacklund said
that the HRB understands the quality and unity of the project and therefore had
considered carefully the height and width of the monument in relation to the
height and width of the project. These measurements had helped the HRB
determine that the monument would be in scale with the project as long as the
monument's apparent height were reduced by locating the monument near the
bottom of the semi-circular stairway.
BM Kornberg asked if the HRB, in making their location recommendation, felt
they had a better understanding of the project than the architect did who believed
that it was inappropriate to locate the monument in the project.
StaffBacklund said that the HRB had taken a different approach from the architect
because the HRB had based its recommendation on the City's Comprehensive Plan
which contains both urban design and historic preservation policies. He also
explained that the appearance of the monument would improve significantly after
it was restored by the historic concrete conservator the City had contacted.
BM Bellomo wanted it clarified to the City Council that the staff recommendation
regarding the location of the fence monument was not the recommendation of the
project architect. He asked the architect to clarify his recommendation.
Steven Grover said he recommended relocating the monument on axis at another
intersection on Alma Street.
Staff Lisa Grote said that at the ARB Retreat on August 15, 2002 the ARB and
HRB had asked the architect to come back with alternatives for locating the
monument, and that the architect's report contained those alternatives including
possible approaches if the monument were located in the project area.
Chair Lippert said he wanted to clarify that at the ARB Retreat the ARB and HRB
had asked the architect to consider the comments and questions of both Boards
regarding how the monument might be located in the project--should it be on axis
or off axis, should it be farther forward or farther back? The recommendations in
the architect's report are responses to the request of the Boards. The architect's
personal preference is to locate the monument off-site at a different intersection.
BM Bellomo said that at the Retreat the architect had also been asked to come
back with his recommendation for locating the monument. He asked the architect
to describe the lighting plan including how the monument would be lit if it
remained in the project area.
4
Steven Grover discussed the lighting fixtures for the tunnel, the steps, and the
landscaping, and described how an even glow inside the tunnel would be achieved.
Chair Lippert asked about the Director of Planning's decision on the monument's
location. He believed that the ARB ordinance required projects to go to the City
Council if the Director and the ARB disagreed.
Staff Grote responded that the Director of Planning would make the final decision
regarding the monument's location, unless the Director's decision were appealed to
the City Council.
Chair Lippert asked the HRB representative to make a statement to the Board.
Chair Martin Bernstein of the HRB explained the Board's position that the
monument would be compatible with the project with respect to scale. He said the
fence monument would be a compatible historic element in a modern setting just
as the pyramids of the Louvre are a compatible modern element in a historic
setting.
Board Comments
BM Wasserman supported the project's architectural design and the art project.
She agreed that the Comprehensive Plan has many aspects and that a public
agency needs to balance those elements, but in the case of this project the
excellence of the overriding and predominant architectural statement is at variance
with historic preservation. The historic object was being called a monument, but a
monument is a memorial to something and this object was a fence post. Restoring
it to its original condition would not make it attractive. She said it is neither
beautiful nor well-designed and has little to recommend it except that it is old. If
the City wanted to maintain a reference to the 1909 event that the object
represents, then the fence post should be placed on axis with another intersection.
Also, the eclecticism of Homer Avenue would be helped by the excellence of the
project itself. She said the fence post was out of scale with the project.
BM Maran said that the architect was directed to design the undercrossing project,
and then after it was designed the monument became part of the project's program.
This situation has resulted in an excessive review process. The City's policy
should be that elements missed initially cannot be subsequently incorporated into a
project's program. This policy would cause programs to be more thorough at the
beginning. He said the monument is not really a monument and should not be
included in the project.
5
BM Kornberg said he concurred with the previous two Board members. He said
that the monument has been given a different definition, and that this has opened
up a level of scrutiny that the monument does not deserve. The monument is not
what it was. It should not be examined as an object within the project because it
was never intended to be that. The monument does not have the project's level of
quality and detail and texture because it was a fence post. It had been part of
something else. It is now being called a monument and a central object in the
middle of the project. It is necessary to analyze it for what it is and how it works--
and it fails. We are trying to make it work because it was there at one point. That
is the first problem, and the second is that it is not attractive. Yet it is being
celebrated and elevated so that it will be observed from many different viewpoints
as it was never intended to be. It is being located in a place where it will indeed be
treated as a monument although it is just a fence post, and it can't hold up to that
kind of scrutiny. He supported the undercrossing project.
Chair Lippert noted that this was Board member Bellomo's last ARB hearing and
that he wanted BM Bellomo to make the last comments on the project and to craft
the motion. Chair Lippert said the HRB had done a good job with the history of
the monument. The HRB had shown that in !909 some people wanted to make
Palo Alto a beautiful place and to define the boundary of the city. He said he
would have considered retaining the monument in its current location except for
the fact that the monument does not define a boundary anymore. The boundary of
Palo Alto has expanded and the former boundary is gone. In light of that, he
found the monument to be incompatible with the project design as proposed. He
supported the architect's recommendation to locate the monument off site at
another intersection.
BM Bellomo said that this is a model project artistically, and that it has provided
openness and good sight lines. The monument, however, is not part of the whole,
and is not homogeneous with the overall design. He said it is shockingly
misdirected to put it on axis at this location. As a celebrated object, as a gift to the
city, it should find another location. He supported the architect's recommendation
to relocate the monument on axis at another street.
Architectural Review Board Action
BM Bellomo moved, seconded by BM Kornberg, that the Board approve the
project with the condition that the monument be relocated to another intersection
along Alma Street (5-0-0-0).
HRB Vice-Chair Beth Bunnenberg commented that the historic element of the
undercrossing project came to the HRB at a late stage in the review process, and
that there should be project checklists that would identify historic elements at the
earliest stage.
PALO AI,TO, CALIrO NLA, .\IOND..\Y, !UXl-2 21, ~9cO
Attachment F
5I.i~t~ bread In three min-
ute.s, and better th&n you
~ss do i~ by ~d. We ~
for you 1o m~y plead
~s ~how them [o yo~t
the
Com y.
0
~-eCatlSe I ',van~ vokl-
believe--~n me.
urdav_morning 1 received
ten cases of merchandise
from the East, some were
consigned t~ Van A. kX~I-
lace, the balance to mE,
I've agreed to accept goods
ordered by Mr, Wallace
and besides getting my own
in I've CERTAtNI.Y got
'plenty, so it means ]ust-one
thing,
Sell Qui<Rly,
Sacrifice
Because Fail Good~ wil!
be coming a!on.g.~o_.O.~?._a_n_d
must be payed for. So-I.
said to myself "I'm going
to cut the -very life out of.
everything the balance ~f
this.lnonth." ..... : .........
Time passes quickly, so
don't ddayl " We carry
standard makes inall line~"
and everything musc~"be
sold at cost and belowl
FENCE/ IONU, IENTS-'UNKNOWN, YIAN ..
ADD blUCH TO THE EKAUTY ""
OF TItS TOIVN.
-] Belly That of l,,~borvr, " but
I lan ~m the No~ing on It to l~ve
~ : tothe ~ek.
~N
Identity,
The l~provement of Mma street~ . T~ b~dy of a drowned.man was
resulting from th~ erection of ~]f0und in the San Francisquitb creek
the footbridge, yesterday afternoon
tlceable and gives a g~d Idea of theist 4 o'clock. The body was oa the
excellence-o[ the plan. rot Improving ~.San Maieo counly side¯ of the ~tream
that street. ~ve of these monut{.ln about five reef o~ wateg, whlle
meats have been placed from the~the ~lo~es were on tb~ Sent}
Circle to Forest a, enue and one affigOnnty~lde' It was ~&dent that th~
the Emha~dero r~d. -man had gone,In bathing and had
The monuments are built of con-
crete and are three and one-halt
feet square and seven feet hlgh,with
base and caD. The)' ~:reate ~,n Re'r-
tlstic effect ~nd give to 'he fence
!been seized with cramps, as the
;bodvwas on Its hands and
i covered wi~._h water. ~.~ ~UlS Wilkinson. son ot an
of the Illinois Central railroad,- who
~ls visiting ~t the borneof Joseph t
built alon:~ the rr.ilr.odd right of way i McMullen.
'a balustrade .appearance.- The mon-
uments .cost~ $-3.0 'each and the ex-
pense of ~rectl~g them was donated
by {he owners of the adJ.acent prop-
erty.
wag built-dlong the railroad right
of way between these poluts, the
gravel for which was furnished by
the Southern Pacific CornpanL and
recently a curb has been constrtlot-
e<l. on tho same side ~f th~ street.
Posts have -also begs_ ~et for. a- fence
and on theue posts woven wire Wil!
be strung as a ~upport- for climbing
v|hes, the combl~ed effect of which
will give the rallw_ay- frontage a
-charm-that:~lllapi~eat to"all: "= .....
SUIl a further Improvement could
ba made,, however, as the distance
from Forest avenue to Embarcadero
Henry ,Harklns' a
son of MaJor Charieu t~Iarklns, werei playlng In the-sand along the crock
i~hen" they discovered the body.
~They called Frank Andrews, who
o~ the 'Monahan place, ahd
around th~ body. The doroner .of
San Marco c.ounty was noUfled and
sent. out men to get Ihe body, but
they failed to find tt as It was dark
when they reach~ the scene,.~ This
m6rMng the body w~ taken Io Red-
-wood Chy.
but ~ ~bort time when the body was
found.". He w~ " medium.
a~d a blue eottoh" hdn~keiehl-~f~-,~e
cl~th~ .of ~e man indl~te that he
values in
Co!t and-
priced.
for '
eriem
ordered by Mr. \Va!lace
and b~sides getting my own
in I've cE~,'rAI.~LY got
plenty, so It means, rest one
thing,
Sell Qu!gkl),
Sacrifice
Because Fall Good~ will
be coming aloQg s~on and
must bc p.ayed t'or, So-
said ~o mvself"l'm going
to cut the .very life out of.
everythit~g the balance of
this month.' ........
°I'~me passes quickly, so
don't delay. We 'carry
standard makes in all line, s"
and everything mustS'be
sold at cost and below. " ¯
B. V. D.. U~derwear .
Porosknlt Under~ear ....
Pre~Id er~t .Suspe~der'~
Fast bla~k ..and..tan Hose--
thrtm pair ............75c
All 25c Hose, box ~ pr,
Elegant ~:0c Hdkfs at ....
New styles men's and boys
All 5Oc and 75c Ties In
the house .............
$1.00 $1.25. Shirts, while
the)" la~t ........... 75(:
$!.50 $2.00; $2.50 Shirts.-
while they- last .....
All nr.w up-to-date Hats
at 40 to 50 per ecat,,~.llsconnt
YOU'LL lie TOO LATE IF
YOU DELAY.
OPEN-EVENINGS TH~ BAL-
MONTH.
'The Regent'
~ucccs~or~ to ga~ A. W~llacc.
125-127 Univer~ty Ave,
feet s~uare and seven r~'et high, with covered with water.
---~--~Louis "~Vllkinson, son o~ an o~#lalbase and cap. They create an ~-
of the Illinois Central railroad,- w~otlstlc effect and give to 'he fence ls visiting at the home of Josephbuilt along the rallrogd right of way~
McMullen, and Henry .Harkias,balustrade app~rance. The mon-~
son of MaJ0r.Char{es Uarklns,uments cost g30 each and the ex~,-"~plaving In the sand along)ense of br~ting them was donat~i " .; whee they discovered the body,by {So owners of the adjacent prop-: They called Frank Andrews, who
erty.
lives on the 'Monahan place. and
'wa~ built ~long the railroad r ght
of way between these points " the
gravel for which was furnished by
the Southern Pacific C~)mpany, and
recently a curb has been coast.reef-
ed on the same side of the street.
Poets hu\'e also been set for a fence
around the body. The coroner of.
San Mateo county was notified and
sent mtt men Io get the body, but
they failed to find it as it was dark
when they reached the scene.' This
mbrning the body' was taken to Red-
The railroad, company is much in-
terested In having !the proper_ty
along Igs right o~ way improved, and
will do" whatever is practicable, to
some such manner as has been start-.
"~d In Pale Altq. It is ahm prbbabl~
that all th~ progressive .communf-
ties along tt~e peninsula will
into I no" In fact it will be obliga-
~ory for'them to'do so"unl~s-th~'~
'are to be outshone by the more
der two and C, Bernasek one,
Prizes ware won as follows:. O.
Schroeder, order-for $2 in trade at
thd C~h market;- E,-A~i-Hetttnger,
bu~v .~'hlp, donated~.by W. T. Met
Kinney; J Mersfelder, order for the
News Letter for ong year; A: Schulz,
vase, donated by>the Nippon;.
Berne=ok, two-"~i~ks "coal, donated
by B. F. BelL-
The first best shot was made by
Mersfelder with 24 and the last best
let-active appearance of the unlver-! shot by Sch~:beder with 24 out of a
sit)" town.
$60<}----50-foot lot. in a w~ b~ll .]possible 25.
Up I~atlon on ~w~r ~U~-" ,
~t buy tn P~o 'H~u San Fran~t~o C~ntract.Harol& Howe, a h!gb school pu-
rger in quick ~d bm ~e Caitahan MacCarthy has the con-~lptl, will spend the summer In B2r-
I.CALIFOR2,[L~ SATURDAY, MAY &
!i
Dew Iaurcl~ by th.~
'The Libr~.ri,u n.'"
"ausiaied Irum
n~:~r ~chool OtCh~-
the -apI~earance
~are; ...._ ,
€.4_1I order~ -careful)
c i r~s,s ccndiLton.
OUR MCrTrO :
T~ephone 37 and
delivered by our spec!.
Mouse (_
Attachment G
August 12, 2002
To:
From:
Azchitectm:M Review Boazd, Historic Resources Board
Paul Goldstein~ Chub: Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Comz~ttee
Subject: Homer Avenue Undercrossing
At its meeting on Tuesday, August 6, 2002, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee discussed the
placement options for the historic monument at the end of Homer Avenue. The plans and pictures
that we had available for.our discussion did not permit us to have all of our questions answered, but
we did want to express the following concerns.
1)Any object placed at the entrance to the undercrossing should not interfere with the normal flow
of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The central placement option looked like it mi~t present an
obstacle.
2)Sight lines are very important for the safety of cyclists. The monument should not obstruct
visibility. This is a concern both upon entry to the undercrossing and upon eme~-ging from the
tunnel.
3)There should be no obstacle to the mrme! entrance that might lessen the sense of security. A
person in the tunnel should fee! safe and should be able to see out deafly. A person entering the
tunnel shouid feei that he or she will be seen. Nothing should be done to lessen the amount of
light that would enter the mrmel.
4)The undercrossing should be an in~iting destination. There was some concern that a montument
that represented a fence post may be a fitting marker for the end of a road, but that it would.not
serve well as a gateway feature.
We anticipate that this undercrossing will be heavily used, and should be as safe and attractive as
possible. We would Eke the issues of safety and esthetics to be primary in any decisions regarding
design.
Respectfully yours,
Paul GoldsNin
Attachment H