City of Palo Alto Page 1

1 2 Call to Order/Roll Call 3 4 Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members David Bower, Beth 5

Bunnenberg, Patricia Di Cicco, 6 7 Absent: Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen 8 9 Oral Communications 10 11 Chair Bernstein: Thank you and welcome Council Member Holman and welcome members of the 12 audience and public. We’ll start with oral communications. If there are any members of the public that 13 would like to speak on an item, not on our agenda. Please make yourself known. Seeing none. 14 15 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 16 17 Chair Bernstein: Moving to if there are an agenda, changes, addition or deletions? 18 19 Ms. Amy French: None 20 21 City Official Reports 22 23 Chair Bernstein: Next, are City official reports. I see none are listed unless there’s any comment you 24 would like to add? 25 26 Ms. French: Just a quick comment. As you may be aware the Avenidas appeal goes to Council on 27 Monday. We have hope because there has been a mediation with the appellant, La Comida and it’s 28 anticipated that appeal will be withdrawn but, never the less, we’ve advertised it for a public hearing in 29 the event that Council does decide to pull it off the agenda. 30 31 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Anything else? 32 33 Ms. French: Nothing else. 34 35 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. 36 37 Public Hearings: 38 39 CONTINUED BUSINESS 40 41 Chair Bernstein: Next, is public hearings, continued business and that says none. 42 Study Session 43 44 1. 303 Parkside Drive (Greenmeadow community center) [16PLN-00395]: Study session 45 to conduct a preliminary Historic Review for an application for a Conditional Use Permit 46

HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: December 8, 2016

City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue

8:30 A.M.

City of Palo Alto Page 2

(CUP) and Minor Architectural Review to allow an 1800 of accessory structure near the park 1 and update to the existing pool and deck area within the gated area of the community center 2 that is included in the Greenmeadow National Register Historic. 3 4 Chair Bernstein: Then, next on our agenda says a study session. I’ll read the title of that study session: 5 303 Parkside Drive (Greenmeadow Community Center) study session to conduct a preliminary Historic 6 Review for an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Architectural Review to allow an 1800 7 square foot accessory structure near the park and update to the existing pool and deck area within the 8 gated area of the Community center that is included in the Greenmeadow National Register Historic 9 record. For additional information, contact Amy French. Shall Staff have a report for us, please? 10 11 Ms. French: Yes, thank you. I’ll just start by saying in the report, there is an error. I said it was received 12 on the – the application was received on December 7th obviously, it wasn’t just yesterday. Read the 13 report last week so, it came in on November 7th, that was the first error. Another thing is, we did get 14 revised plans last Thursday and so, you were able to get the plans but my report reflected an earlier set. 15 So, it does mention that there aren’t any, you know, finish and color schedules, which is no longer true 16 because, in the plans, it does show those. Then, finally, Page and Turnbull, [John] Rush did provide a 17 report which I emailed to you all – hope you got that last Friday and the applicant got that this week and 18 Mr. Rush is anticipated to be here but given that my train was late from Redwood City; who knows from 19 Oakland, how that’s going to go but I have summarized his comments in my power point. Oh, I was just 20 saying – well welcome John Rush. I got some of your items in my power point. 21 22 Mr. John Rush: Great. 23 24 Ms. French: Do you have a preference where I sit? 25 26 Ms. French: You can come up here. 27 28 Mr. Rush: Thank you. 29 30 Ms. French: Get comfortable. I should note that Page and Turnbull was awarded a contract for the Eichler 31 design guild lines, which is a City-wide effort for the Eichler built neighborhoods, designed by multiple 32 architects. This is a particular neighborhood, the Greenmeadow neighborhood is a National and California 33 Register listed resource – historic resource. On the screen, we have the 1954 plan for the Community 34 Center. Some fun little notes there. You can’t see all of them but privacy for the gregarious, I think it 35 says and you can see the original park pool, which has been modified but the Community Center to the 36 right. Here where there is a child care center, there’s this breezeway here which is passable through from 37 – you know, for the bicyclists. I went – I lived in Greenmeadow and rode my bike to [Wilbur] it was 38 (Inaudible). This is quite a well-travelled path to get to the schools and there’s a pool service building 39 with lockers and showers. The architect can go over why they’re choosing to create a new building rather 40 than revise the old bathrooms here, that need updating. It’s on the Register, it was built in 1954-1955 41 and here is today's swimming pool. Much larger than the original. You can see in the background the 42 pool office where people check in, the showers and restrooms over here. This is towards Parkside on this 43 side and the park is behind us in this photo. Here you can see past the wall. This is a kind of raised 44 grassy area and you can see the park in the background, with all its mature trees. Then down here, of 45 course, is the (Inaudible) Thomas Church; well-known an award landscape architect did design this park 46 but the National Register forum did not identify the park as either contributing or non-contributing. This 47 shows an image of the existing park with the full court or mini-court basketball court. You can see 48 Thomas Church is a characteristic kidney shaped lawn, mature trees, some alcoves around for picnicking 49 and there – this form did not indicate what had changed since the 1950s in that park. So, it’s not really 50 well known about that. Then this shows basically, the non-contributing pool, it was determined non-51 contributing because it had changed since the original. These have not changed since the original, the 52 multi-purpose room and the pool services building. We have a proposal for a new concrete block trash 53 enclosure. Here’s the parking lot out this way and then the new building here with the pavers around and 54 half basketball court. This kind of shows a close up of that. I’ll let the architect go in more detail on their 55

City of Palo Alto Page 3

proposal. Some of the things so – oh and they have ideas for restoring some originally removed features 1 as well as some of the other things I said. Here is the proposed elevation. This one would face the pool. 2 This one would face the park and then these are the ends where the restrooms are here and then facing 3 the basketball court and patio area over here. There is a finish and color schedule now on the plan that 4 indicates Eichler colors and similar materials and form. The discussion items here today for the HRB 5 would be we have a culture landscape, not identified as a contributor but potentially a district contributor 6 and I’ll let John talk about the study; what kind of study would be needed to find out more about that. 7 Then we have the issue of the compatibility of the proposed building with the neighborhood and the 8 effects of the project on the landscape there. Then we have the Secretary of Interior Standards, we know 9 that number one is met because they are continuing the use of the Community Center but the others are 10 for discussion. Basically, as per John’s report, I don’t know if you want to talk about these but there are 11 two areas of study that John brought up in his report, architecture compatibility. Looking at the 12 proportions and repetition of windows in the neighborhood and in the existing buildings on the site. Some 13 considerations there and in the cladding, which has the narrow, vertical siding. That would be an area 14 that is ideal too – you know for differentiation, to look at a proportion to that cladding. Just so we make 15 sure it doesn’t look like it built in 1954. Then there’s effect on the landscape. I really appreciated the 16 analysis that John was able to turn around in short order from the revised plans. It talks about the 17 circulation patterns not being interrupted, which is great in the park. Some space arrangements and the 18 boundaries between areas not being interrupted but it does disrupt some symmetrical arrangement 19 features so, that’s something for discussion. In any case, this is a study session but we do have an 20 application that has come in for a conditional use permit and architectural review so, this would be an 21 opportunity to provide some feedback to the applicant and architect and they’re here to present. 22 23 Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you. Before we invite the applicant to give a presentation, I’d just like to 24 make a – see if anyone has any disclosures. I visited the site, I walked the – got permission from the 25 pool personnel to walk into the property. Walked around the pool. Took a look at the building inside and 26 that was my visit to the site last week. Any other Board Members – Beth. 27 28 Board Member Bunnenberg: I have the disclosure to make that I was the Chair of the HRB when this 29 National Register nomination came in and I walked the entire area looking for each address. Then, I went 30 to the State hearing and testified that I had done this. So, my history goes way back and it was an 31 addition to all of the wonderful information that’s in it. It is a thing of special pride that Joseph Eichler 32 would sell to anyone. There were certain areas in town that had really quite discriminatory issues in their 33 sub-division and we were having lots of young, new hires in the tech industry that – HP and so forth and 34 many of them were able to buy because of Eichler’s personal beliefs that he would want to sell to 35 anyone. It’s nice to see this. 36 37 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Bower. 38 39 Board Member Bunnenberg: Oh, I did walk around the site and actually talked to one member of the 40 Community. 41 42 Board Member Bower: Yeah, I also visited the site last week and walked the park, which I didn’t even 43 know was there and looked at all the buildings. 44 45 Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. 46 47 Vice Chair Wimmer: I did – I didn’t enter to any of the buildings but I did walk through the site. 48 49 Board Member Di Cicco: I as well attended the project location yesterday and had a very welcoming 50 reception from the receptionist or the person in charge of the pool and she showed me how to get 51 around without climbing the fence to see the park and such and was very helpful. It gave me a much 52 greater understanding of what I’m looking at today. 53 54

City of Palo Alto Page 4

Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I’d like to invite the applicant to – for a presentation. Identify yourselves 1 please and then we’ll ask our questions at the end of the presentation. Thanks. 2 3 Ms. Sherry Listgarten: Hi, I’m Sherry Listgarten and I live in Greenmeadow. First, I want to thank you 4 guys all for helping with this project. It means a lot to our neighborhood. It’s not just historic in name, I 5 think the people grow up in the neighborhood, they live and they breathe it. They’re raising their kids 6 there now and they care a lot about this project. It’s been a discussion for about 3 -5 years. There’s a lot 7 of contention about what we do with this, you know – so, Martin you asked a good question or Amy 8 asked a question about why aren’t we doing all of this is the existing builds so, I can talk about that a 9 little bit. The purpose of this project, during a lot of discussion about what to do with this area. The most 10 active people are the people who use the pool. There’re a lot of families that use the pool, a lot of kids on 11 the swim team and so they want more lanes and they want nicer locker rooms and things like that and a 12 bunch of the neighbors stood up and they said, you know, we don’t even use the pool anymore. We don’t 13 have young kids. We want to fill in the pool. We want to build Community gardens, you know and so 14 there was a lot of contention and it was serious stuff. This is local politics. It’s difficult and I think what 15 we did was we listened to all of the feedback pretty carefully and we said, we need to engage more of 16 our demographics in this shared facility. It’s not ok to through all of our money into the pool. The pool 17 does need maintenance, you know every 30 years you’ve got to do the deck and the plaster, the tile, the 18 copying, the pump room etc. but we really wanted to take seniors, childless families, younger teens and 19 stuff who aren’t using the pool and find a way to engage them. The reason why we’re building the 20 clubhouse between the pool and the park is its dual use. That way people who use the pool can use it 21 but for people who don’t use the pool and they just want to use the park and they want to have a bridge 22 club or they want to have a musical rehearsal. They want to show slides from their recent vacation or 23 everybody wants to get together and watch the super bowl or something like that. It’s a completely 24 different set of uses, new uses and takes much better advantage of the site that we have. We have an 25 amazing site in the middle of our neighborhood and we want to put it to better use. So, that’s the goal of 26 this project. I will say that we’re a very active Community. We’ve been discussing all this information with 27 the Community. We had voted with preliminary plans. We had kind of a record turn out so, 64 28 households showed up, households, in person to hear about this and out of the 200 hundred, we thought 29 that was a terrific turnout. The vote was 62 to 2 in favor of this, it was remarkable. One of the holdouts 30 was something to do with the financial and then – so, it’s a very, very strong endorsement. So, that’s 31 some of the backgrounds to this project. We are concerned with the historic integrity so, we're really 32 looking forward to your feedback on this. You know, it’s difficult to do things like a (Inaudible) enclosure 33 and you know, all of this stuff and keep the redwoods and you do – a lot of constraints and so, we feel 34 like we have a good start at it but we’re interested in hearing what you have to say. So, that’s my part 35 and Bud is our architect. 36 37 Mr. Bud Kobza: Hello everybody, my name is Bud Kobza with Dennis Kobza Architects. I happen to be a 38 long-time Palo Alto resident myself, 57 years except for a few years away at school and I went to 39 Cubberley right around the corner as well as I know Amy did as well. I’m disappointed Rodger is not 40 here. His son was my shortstop in little league, so Mathew – so, there’s a lot of kind of coming home 41 here for me. When I was first contacted about doing this project, I was really excited because I rode my 42 bicycle through there, we spent time in the park playing basketball. Doing all that stuff as a kid so, while 43 the architecture is fairly basic and straight forward and I kind of knew it fairly well from living in three 44 different Eichlers over the course of my life in Palo Alto. The opportunity to work with the Community and 45 to work on this really cool site was certain something I look forward to. I thank Amy for giving us a great 46 presentation. The main things that we really kind of look to do here on this project, was to make sure we 47 that we integrated it with the existing building and I appreciate the Page and Turnbull report because 48 that actually gives us a little bit more flexibility I think, to modernize a couple of features on the building 49 and that was something exciting. We really to the approach that we wanted to integrate it completely 50 with the existing structures. So, we chase down, not only the Eichler color palette but also the wood 51 siding types and things like that, while trying to integrate – we’re going to have to integrate a more 52 modern window system and things like that for energy at the same time. After a lot of working back and 53 forth, I think we’ve created a building that will feel like it was part of the original facility as far as 54 concept. You know, getting a sort of grander stair to just a slight rise up to the park, to be able to get to 55

City of Palo Alto Page 5

the building. Having the barbecue facilities overlooking the pool area and being able to sort of integrate 1 people's functions with that amenity. We’re also looking at hopefully allowing for the budget, just above 2 the barbecue area, adding an upper terrace of sort of concrete and extending the historical sort of bench. 3 They’ve got a poured in place concrete bench, that if you walked around the pool, you saw it on some of 4 the perimeters. We want to recall that, we do have in our design as it goes right up against the building. 5 Then the terrace would be just above that and if we’re able to fit it into the budget, the secondary 6 terrace would extend that bench back to – pretty close to its original historical location too. We’re 7 definitely excited about it. The part of the reason I think, they chose to go this path was obviously, you 8 know this an older complex. Our accessibility standards are not met and they would have had a 9 significant investment in making all of those items accessible and then also losing some capacity for the 10 functional use of that. What we’ve done here is provided those accessible elements; the bathroom and 11 the shower. You know, we had the pleasure of having Mr. [Dunbar], your inspector of accessibility in Palo 12 Alto come through and look at the plans and I’ve worked with Robert before on other buildings and so, 13 having that basically, get a preliminary blessing was big to us and kind of reinforced the concept that 14 we’re heading in the right direction, by providing a modern application but into this, what has become a 15 really a historical Community Center. I really don’t have a power point, you know I probably could have 16 but if we end up coming back to you guys to show us or to share more, we can. I take no exception to 17 the Page and Turnbull report at all. I think it gives us good ideas to move forward with and we’re happy. 18 We’ve already discussed looking at these things and working on the items that they suggested and I just 19 would like to offer the opportunity to answer any questions for you guys. Just a pleasure to be here 20 really, on a rainy day. 21 22 Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you, Bud. Any questions for the applicant or Staff? Beth. 23 24 Board Member Bunnenberg: One question that came to mind and we always have to look at the 25 Secretary of Interior Standards, those are our guild lines. There’s one, that’s number nine and it can 26 often be a tough one because you’ve worked to make it compatible – it’s low but in terms of 27 differentiation, what do you see as a fact that would be a differentiation from what’s there? 28 29 Chair Bernstein: May I interrupt for a second please, for that question. Beth, could you actually maybe 30 read what Standard nine is so that members of the public can understand what – when we mention 31 Standard nine, what is Standard nine? It would be…(Crosstalk) 32 33 Board Member Bunnenberg: Let me get back here. 34 35 Chair Bernstein: …useful information for the public. I can read it for you if you don’t have it. 36 37 Board Member Bunnenberg: OK, you want to do it for me. 38 39 Chair Bernstein: So, I just wanted to add that just to that it helps complete the conversation for 40 understanding. Standard nine is new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not 41 destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the 42 old and shall be compatible with the massing, scale, size, architectural features, to protect the historical 43 integrity of the property and its environment. I just wanted to add that, k? Thank you. 44 45 Mr. [Cobesaid]: Thank you for that. Should I go ahead and respond Beth, to this point? 46 47 Board Member Bunnenberg: Pardon? 48 49 Mr. [Cobesaid]: Go ahead and respond? Is that – finish your question? Ok. I mean, obviously – maybe it’s 50 not obvious but we feel that the massing part of this definitely integrates with the existing Community 51 Center and the buildings that surround there. The differentiations is – was, I should say as designed right 52 now is mostly on the interior. Obviously, with it being a different function, modern sort of finishes and 53 things like that, that would take place. Certainly, the Page and Turnbull report have identified a couple 54 things that we can do on the outside with the exterior siding and stuff that would complete the picture of 55

City of Palo Alto Page 6

it being a new structure. I think that’s a path that we will certainly take. The amenities that are going to 1 be surrounding this building are going to be definitely new, right? We’re going to end up with, I’m sure 2 some LED site lighting and the barbecue is going to be new. We’ve integrated a barbecue place on the 3 outside of the building. My Eichler on Los Lobos, when I was growing up had an indoor barbeque, which 4 was awesome and so we kind of picked up on that idea but turned it around and put it on the outside so 5 that, there’s actually a place that people can use to barbeque when the pool is closed, for a park 6 function. It kind of gives it another opportunity to the residents to be able to have a birthday party or do 7 something in the park. So, we think that’s going to pick up the function of the park area as far as the 8 Community use. Yeah, [Sherry] would like to add something. 9 10 Ms. [Listgarten]: One idea – again, we just got this feedback so, we haven’t thought about that much but 11 for exterior cladding, one of the things a lot of the people in the neighborhood are doing is horizontal 12 cladding, instead of the vertical. A lot of times it’s Cedar wrapped. It’s very lovely. I don’t know if we can 13 afford it but something maybe in that vein. I don’t know if you guys would approve of that but if you look 14 at the vertical striping, almost every width is traditional Eichler, as far as I can tell. There’s the narrow, 15 there’s the medium, and there’s the wide, the plank (Inaudible). So, it seems unless we go like this, 16 which I don’t know, I haven’t thought about it that much but another approach might be horizontal, 17 which is being done in the neighborhood. Is constant but is a little more modern, that would be an idea. 18 I don’t know. 19 20 Chair Bernstein: Any other questions? Questions first before we start talking about design issues. Any 21 other questions? Board Member Di Cicco. 22 23 Board Member Di Cicco: Yeah, I have -- it’s a very kind of general question. The wall is going to be 24 removed to accommodate the new building and I couldn’t tell or read it anywhere, is there going to be 25 fencing between the cul-de-sacs public street, at the end of the park or is this new building going to be 26 just open all the way, from looking down from Alma? The other – on the other end, the building that is 27 now Montessori School, correct? Is that still owned by the association and it’s leased? 28 29 Ms. [Listgarten]: Yeah, we lease it. 30 31 Board Member Di Cicco: Is that – down the road, you would take back the use of that building to or is 32 that just something that’s not even on the radar? 33 34 Ms. [Listgarten]: That’s a great question. When we’re – so, right now, there’s not HOA or anything like 35 that that funds this stuff. We have two sources of income – two main sources of income. One is pool 36 memberships and one is the lease of the school and so, currently the neighborhood thinks the lease of 37 the school is working well. It’s generating a good amount of income and we like that use. There’s not too 38 much parking or traffic, you know and things like that. It’s relatively quiet. The neighborhood hasn’t 39 talked that much about reverting it but it’s an excellent question because we have thought about it and 40 we’re like, is this the best use of this space for the Community. Right now, it’s purely an income 41 generator. It doesn’t build Community at all, it doesn’t really serve the neighborhood at all but it’s 42 working for us. So, right now we want to maintain that and get the income from that. The other question 43 about the wall, you can answer. 44 45 Mr. [Cobesaid]: Sure, or you can? 46 47 Ms. [Listgarten]: That’s also a really good question. Right now, there is no – the park is private but it’s 48 not fenced in. So, it’s accessible to the public. Right now, we aim to keep that. There will be locks on the 49 doors of the clubhouse so the bathroom, for example, will not be public bathrooms. The people in the 50 neighborhood will have a key code and you’ll need to know the key code and we’ll monitor that and we 51 can adjust it as needed but we don’t plan right now, to fence it off because it’s just a little bit more open 52 and friendly the way that it is now. Yeah, so you would be able to see. So, from Alma, you will be able to 53 see the wall. Now, one thing that we are reintroducing, that was in the original plans but that doesn’t 54 exist today is a strip of trees on that – I don’t know whether it’s South, North, what but on that end of 55

City of Palo Alto Page 7

the park, which will help to screen the building. One of the things – one of the feedback that we got from 1 the people in the neighborhoods is that we like to have undeveloped space. That’s kind of rare in Palo 2 Alto to have this. It’s a park, we like to have a park and we don’t want it to – we don’t want this building 3 to be too much in your face. So, we’ve kept it low. We want to – and then we think the trees will help to 4 screen it a little bit and make it still seem natural. A bunch of the wall is staying and it’s going to be ivy-5 covered and lovely the way that it is today. So, that’s the current thinking. Those are good questions. 6 7 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower. 8 9 Board Member Bower: I’d like to congratulate you on, what I consider to be a very compatible building. I 10 have a couple – I’ll start with that because I think this is a nice design. I have a couple of small issues 11 that I’d like to hear about. 12 13 Chair Bernstein: We’re going to start with questions, then open to the public, then we’ll talk about design. 14 15 Board Member Bower: It’s actually an architectural question. 16 17 Board Member Bower: Great. Thank you. 18 19 Board Member Bower: The concrete block wall on the plan, says it matches existing but then, of course, 20 we need to differentiate that wall because it’s a new wall from the old wall. Have you thought about how 21 you’d do that? 22 23 [Mr. Cobesaid]: No, but we could, easily. It’s a standard you know, concrete block wall painted I guess 24 right now. It is pretty much normal. We could go to a split faced block. We could go to a fluted sort of 25 block or something like that. We were sort of leaning in the direction of – since we were taking away a 26 decent chunk of the concrete wall, of the sort of matching it. Even though it’s going to be, for the most 27 part low, where the bench is and things like that. Again, to Patricia’s point, we’ve integrated some 28 wrought iron fencing at the perimeter of the pool to secure the pool, which they have currently facing the 29 parking lot. So, that we’re sort of keeping that design and feel integrated a little bit. You know, when you 30 guys talk about the design, we’re going to be open to really any concept and looking at any of your 31 ideas. I think, you know to the Community Center and certainly to [Sherry], making this a success for 32 both themselves and for Palo Alto is really on their agenda. 33 34 Board Member Bower: Another question, where is the current refuge enclosure? I don’t… 35 36 [Mr. Cobesaid]: There is none. 37 38 Board Member Bower: Ok. Did you consider other locations for that? Besides the one on the plan? 39 40 [Mr. Cobesaid]: Not much. I mean, we looked at where it is shown on the plan right. We looked more to 41 the left, in the parking lot area. We’re definitely thinking it needs to be off of the parking lot to be able to 42 allow Palo Alto sanitation to get to it. The other location to the left, kind of made it feel like it was going 43 to be more of an alleyway. You know, more hidden, to get behind the building or behind the refuge 44 enclosure and get to the park. That was really the reason that we chose to integrate it more into the pool 45 area. It did take up a little bit of their lawn area but it seemed to feel like, as far as a people path, it was 46 a better decision. 47 48 Board Member Bower: The reason I bring that up is that when I was out on the site, I realized that that 49 refuge enclosure is going to actually have a significant visual impact on the way in which that property 50 now is experienced by people who are walking up. There’s that very nice long walkway, from the sideway 51 all the way in through that, which is a really beautiful architectural feature. To have that garbage 52 enclosure right next to that walkway, bothered me. I’m just wondering if you had other thoughts about 53 it. 54 55

City of Palo Alto Page 8

[Ms. Listgarten]: One – I just want to add – one of the things that Matt said – oh sorry – we talked to 1 Matt right before he left and he just gave us one piece of advice which was fewer structures. One of the 2 reasons why we embedded it was kind of one less structure but – yeah, we found out now that it’s on an 3 easement. I mean, we’re open to moving. One idea I had just putting it all the way in the front corner of 4 the parking lot. So, we don’t even pretend that it's historic and we just kind of get it out of the way and 5 we leave at least the main historic thing. You see what I mean? To pull it all the way forward, into the 6 front and then it’s out of the way of that and you maintain the walkways and things like that. 7 8 Board Member Bower: It’s a difficult problem. You have to have it – it has to be put on the site 9 somewhere –typically as I see properties – older properties around North Palo Alto developed. 10 Particularly, as an example, the property on the corner of Channing and Middlefield, which is a single 11 story, low dental office; L-shaped building. They put it all the way back on the side. As far away from 12 Middlefield as they can and it still matches the rest of the building but it doesn’t take away from the 13 majesty of that architecture as you approach the building. I guess those are the two questions and more 14 discussion (Inaudible). 15 16 Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. 17 18 Vice Chair Wimmer: Hi. I had a couple questions just about the heights. It looks like, from the pool 19 decking, you go up to this sort of raised terrace. So, you go up roughly four steps. So, that might be 24 20 inches, for this raised terrace and then I see that the overall height of the new building is 12 feet. I just 21 wanted to understand that in reference to the existing building to the right side of the pool and what’s 22 the overall height of that long linear building that’s currently there? 23 24 [Mr. Cobesaid]: I think we’re talking the same height as the lower portion of our building. It’s down in the 25 9 to 10-foot scenario. We did actually look at a completely one level building, originally. It was actually 26 me sort of pushing them a little bit to say, hey you’re going to have a Community room. I think a little bit 27 taller ceiling would feel good. There’s certainly quite a few different architectural steps in Eicher buildings 28 or Eichler homes, where you see different elevation heights being incorporated. I mean, that was really 29 the premise of taking that portion of the building a little bit higher and you’re right on the steps. It’s 30 going to be somewhere around probably, 24 to 28 inches. It will appear somewhat higher than the pool 31 structure but I think for the use and function, that’s probably a good thing because it is going to be a 32 little bit more of a dynamic use and building. It’s obviously going to be new to all these people and 33 having it have a little bit more substantial presence seems like the right things to me. 34 35 Vice Chair Wimmer: Then, I see a gate between the terrace – the raised terrace and then the – sort of 36 the terrace that’s between the Community room and the basketball court. It looks like those gates are 8 37 feet tall? 38 39 [Mr. Cobesaid]: They’re 8 foot wide. 40 41 Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, 8-foot-wide, not 8 foot tall. 42 43 [Mr. Cobesaid]: Yeah. 44 45 Vice Chair Wimmer: So, the height of those gates would be (Inaudible)(Crosstalk) 46 47 [Mr. Cobesaid]: It’s probably going to be about 6 -6 ½ feet. 48 49 Vice Chair Wimmer: That’s probably what you’re required to have around the pool for safety reasons. 50 51 [Mr. Cobesaid]: Exactly. 52 53 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any other questions? So, I’ve got a couple. One is for Staff, is this property – 54 does it fall into any of our historic categories, 1, 2, 3, 4? 55

City of Palo Alto Page 9

1 Ms. French: It’s Nationally and as you know, California Register – because it’s National Register but the 2 way our code is written it does not capture those as automatically being on our historic resource 3 inventory as a category 1, 2, 3, or 4 but the importance of it is such that – you know, this discretionary 4 application elevates it to this level where we do CEQA review and bring it to the Board. 5 6 Chair Bernstein: Ok. Great. My other questions is on page 3 of the Staff report, the chart says, cultural 7 resources with the project on A, I’ll read it. It says, the cause of substantial adverse change in the 8 significant of a historic resource and then the options on that questions are a potentially significant 9 impact, less than significant with mitigation, less than significant no impact. Does Staff or Mr. Rush have 10 any comment on which box might be checked? It’s on page 3 of the Staff report. The top chart. 11 12 Ms. French: Right. So, again because it’s on the California Register, it is subject to CEQA and that’s what 13 this checklist is about. Is Staff having to make sure that the project will get to a point that where there 14 won’t be an impact because if there is or it needs mitigation, then we have to go through a larger 15 exercise? 16 17 Chair Bernstein: So, my questions are there any indication of where this – as we’re seeing it today, which 18 box might be checked? 19 20 Mr. [John] Rush: Given the current design, I mean I think in a lot of ways it’s very compatible. In a 21 certain sense, it is – the – I’m trying to think of how to phrase this but the differentiation is an issue that 22 we’re looking for some improvement in. For that reason, it is not entirely Standards compliant so, I don’t 23 know if the current stage of development, we could say that it’s a less than significant impact but it’s 24 hovering around there. I don’t know how to – that’s a very precise way of putting it but it’s not far off 25 from that in my mind. I think there’s an additional question about the impact of the landscape and I 26 know that was brought up in our report. That I think it would be helpful to have a little bit more 27 understanding of what features in landscape date to the original construction of the park and 28 neighborhood, would be impacted. So, I understand that the pool has changed quite a bit but the wall, 29 itself has not and a section of that wall will be removed. That does seem to indicate that it’s – it would be 30 a removal of historic fabric. Again, not entirely Standards compliant for that reason but I think the larger 31 question is if that elevates it to a – something greater than a significant impact. I guess I’m still trying to 32 think through a few of those issues so having more information about the landscape and the history of 33 the landscape would be very helpful. 34 35 Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Thank you and welcome Board Member Kohler. Welcome. Another question I 36 had is for – I think it would be for the applicant. As you heard from Board Member Bunnenberg 37 mentioned, Standard nine can be a challenging Standard to address. One of the other issues that the City 38 of Palo Alto looks at when we look at that Standard Nine about compatibility and differentiation. Another 39 Standard we use is, how is any proposed new construction subordinate to the historical structure. The 40 question would be, how would your proposal be viewed as being subordinate to the historical aspect of 41 the existing buildings? 42 43 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Yeah, I’m not quite sure I understand the question either. You’re saying…go, ahead. 44 45 Chair Bernstein: That Standard about subordination is that so when a visitor comes to the property, they 46 can see the significant historical structures. So, that would be the existing Eichler structure there. So, that 47 when they – if a new structure is added to the historic property, the historical structure is the more 48 dominate character-defining form and then whatever is new is kind of subordinate to it and not standing 49 out as dominant. 50 51 [Mr. Cobesaid:] I see, thank you for the clarification. I think the basic premise of this would be as you 52 enter, as you mentioned on the very nice walkway from the street, that’s lined with trees and things. 53 You’re going to see all of the existing structures first. Those will all be in plain sight as you approach and 54 it really won’t be until you get quite close to the pool area, where you’re going to get a glimpse of the 55

City of Palo Alto Page 10

new building off to the side. The other piece – I think that just the right place, sight wise, to accomplish 1 that and it just happened to be the right place, site wise, to accomplish the tasks that they are looking 2 for and with the landscaping being added from the park area to help screen the building itself. That 3 should help minimize its impact. However, coming from the park area, there really wasn’t much of a view 4 of the existing buildings at all. You know, you have a fence there and a basketball court; it really takes 5 prominence. 6 7 Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that and the basis I’m asking that – yeah – the basis I ask that question 8 was that both you and [Sherry] mentioned some actually very good goals about the architectural 9 integrating and the idea of compatibility. It’s a good thing. We as an HRB, Historic Resources Board, 10 we’re given the City of Palo Alto task of that Standard nine, that’s why Board Member Bunnenberg 11 mentioned that; that’s a challenging thing. Sounds like – you answered that well so, thank you. Board 12 Member Di Cicco. 13 14 Board Member Di Cicco: I just want to kind of enlarge on the cultural landscape and the shrubbery and 15 trees, given very little separation from the public park. Is – I guess, is have there been further research 16 that what is really available, that was Thomas Church original design, what trees are there? How many 17 trees need to be removed? Yesterday, when I was at the park, in the park section, there were two folks 18 with four dogs. If those had been my dogs, they would leap into the pool, given the opportunity and it 19 kind of would concern that – you know, trees take a long time to grow to and whether this is enough 20 basically, I guess security for the members of the association? 21 22 [Ms. Listgarten:] I can address some of that. First of all, we’re only removing two trees. We were only 23 going to remove one and [Dave Doctor] said you need to remove that other one because he doesn’t like 24 Siberian Elm so, it’s fine. So, two trees are going to go and I think the neighborhood felt bad about one 25 of them. The structure integrity of the trees – one of the arborists said, take it down ASAP. Dogs – ok, 26 people – I was actually out there with my dog yesterday when Beth stopped by. People like to walk and 27 play with their dogs there. The perimeter is going to stay intact. So, there is no way that a dog can get 28 into the pool. That’s why there are the fences and the gates and these rules around self-closing and stuff 29 like that. There’s no concern at all about dogs running into the pool. My dog will run around the other 30 side and go in the gate. The pool is very friendly towards dogs and things like that but it’s not – 31 practically, it shouldn’t be a problem. There is one dog walker who is pretty incensed about this whole 32 thing but I think with the trees and the benches, it will still be very much like the park. 33 34 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Next, I’d like to open up this item to members of the public. If any 35 members of the public would like to speak on this event, please make yourself seen. Oh ok, sure, go 36 ahead Beth. 37 38 Board Member Bunnenberg: It would be very helpful to have color samples of the colors that you list and 39 maybe a sample of the concrete block because I don’t know whether they look the same or simply the 40 fact that it’s many years later and they may not look the same. Also, the report talks about the possibility 41 of using perhaps a wider spaced, vertical wood feature, rather than the thin space. Which is too typical of 42 the Eichler of this era? Would that be acceptable to you? 43 44 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Sure. I mean that would be sort of normal practice as we moved forward with the ARB 45 but we could put that together, very easily. 46 47 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Let’s bring it back to members of the public, who’d like to speak on this 48 agenda item. If there are any members of the public who’d like to speak? I’d also like to invite Council 49 Member Holman, please. 50 51 Council Member Holman: I have a question. It’s not clear who the applicant is. I mean, I know you’re 52 here speaking but I don’t know that the – everything says the applicant proposed – the applicant this, the 53 applicant that. So, are you a representative of the Greenmeadow Neighborhood Association or what 54 formal “authority” do you have? 55

City of Palo Alto Page 11

1 [Ms. Listgarten:] Ok – I don’t know. So, there’s the Greenmeadow Committee Association has – is a 2 formal body and they have set up a Committee, which is called the 20 Now Committee. This is – 3 whatever, the name and I am on that Committee with two or three other people. In my responsibility on 4 that Committee is design. So, somebody else’s responsibility would be like working with the contractors, 5 for example, and getting the surveys done and stuff like that. I am here as a member – I am definitely 6 on the Committee; the Committee is a formally approved part of the GMCA. That’s a good question. I 7 don’t… 8 9 Council Member Holman: But has the Committee, you know looked at these plans and approved them 10 (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) 11 12 [Ms. Listgarten:] Oh absolutely, absolutely. We voted – there was a big presentation, we’ve circulated all 13 kinds of things and hand them all out to all the households and they have voted on this and we have a 14 newsletter that goes out to the neighborhoods. There’s a lot of information about this. Not only has all 15 the neighborhood seen this but the Board has certainly seen this and is very supportive of it. 16 17 Council Member Holman: That’s really helpful. You understand the question because everything just says 18 the applicant. 19 20 [Ms. Listgarten:] Yeah and I am taking it for granted, just because our neighborhood is so active but 21 yeah, absolutely… 22 23 Council Member Holman: I know it is. 24 25 [Ms. Listgarten:] All of the neighborhoods know about this or if they don’t they’re not paying attention. I 26 mean, they’ve had handouts on their doorstep. There are emails going around. There’s a sign posted 27 there and the Board is very supportive and there was a three-year discussion preceding this. 28 29 Council Member Holman: That’s helpful clarification and great cohesive neighborhood. 30 31 [Ms. Listgarten:] (Inaudible) 32 33 Chair Bernstein: I also – that does spark one more question I do have for [Sherry]. Are there any 34 conditions, covenants and restrictions in this development that control what happens to this project? 35 36 [Ms. Listgarten:] That’s a good question. So, there are – CCRN’s – a single story I think would apply. So, 37 our neighborhood is all single story and needs to compatible with Eichler so, we cannot renovate our 38 houses in any way that is not compatible with Ickler and there’s an architecture – another part of GMCA 39 is there is an Architectural Review Board, like our own version of it, which looks at things. We have been 40 working with the Architecture Board in Greenmeadow to review some of the things, like colors and 41 lighting and stuff like that. They’re very busy people. They don’t weigh in as much as we would like I 42 guess but we’re working with them as well and they need to approve this. So, they need to write a letter 43 that says, that we approve this thing before we can submit it and that letter has to be a part of that 44 submittal. 45 46 Chair Bernstein: Ok and I do see the proposed height of the new structure still meets the definition of 47 one story so that’s good. Alright, I see no members of the public are present for this agenda item. We 48 can continue with our study session and that can include additional comments. I’m going to keep the 49 public hearing open. The study session, is this considered a public hearing even though it’s a study 50 session? 51 52 Ms. French: It is. It’s a noticed hearing. A regular meeting date of the Board. 53 54

City of Palo Alto Page 12

Chair Bernstein: So, I’m going to keep this open so we have an interactive conversation between us, Staff 1 and the applicant representatives. So, back to the Board for any comments. 2 3 Board Member Bower: Follow-up on my earlier questions. What I remember when I worked on Eichlers in 4 the 70s is that the siding was a unique dimension. In fact, we always had to have it milled. One of the 5 ways that I would recommend that you differentiate your new siding from the original Eichler siding is 6 not to reproduce that pattern and you’re right, there is the 4-inch groove, there’s the 6 inch. I don’t know 7 if they got wider than that. The point I’m trying to make is, I would use a readily available siding and 8 maybe even something like a v-groove siding, which is not what he used. They always had – Eichler, he 9 owned his own Redwood groves and he owned his own mill and he made everything, for all of his houses 10 the same way for the economy, that’s why they were half as much as all the other houses. That’s one 11 thing to consider. The second thing I would consider on the concrete block wall, I’m pretty sure those are 12 8 by 16 blocks. Rather than use a fluted block, which I don’t think is appropriate, I would just use a 13 different size. I’m pretty sure you can get a 4 by 16 so, you see the 4 inch. Even though it’s smaller in 14 scale and it’s going to – I’m a little bit concerned about how busy that would be but that’s a 15 differentiation. Same material but it’s clearly not the original material. They only used 6 by – I mean 8 by 16 16 blocks in the 60s and 50s because that’s what was there. Now, we have hundreds of styles – multiple 17 styles. So, that’s another issue. The other thing I just noticed on the plans is there is a 10-foot utility 18 easement right across the front and the refuge is right on top of it. Last time I looked, you can’t put any 19 perminate structure on a utility easement so, that will help me get you to move the – also, I don’t even 20 see how the garbage men get in to get the garbage because it’s back in the corner and could be parked 21 in. Not likely at 4 in the morning when they are coming to collect the garbage but just something to 22 consider. 23 24 [Ms. Listgarten:] We just found out about the easement. So, one approach is if it’s a paper easement, we 25 can appeal to the utility companies if we like where it is. I think your feedback is great. It’s tough to 26 figure out where to put this thing. If it’s a separate structure, is that a problem? Do we barrier it in 27 foliage, if it’s a separate structure? I don’t know. I think the refuge thing is going to be an issue that we 28 have to figure out. 29 30 Board Member Bower: One last comment, the way that I interpret this new building as being compatible 31 and subordinate to the existing buildings. First of all, it’s differentiated by the fact that’s going to be new 32 and the other buildings is pretty tired and really need to be renovated. Surprised me that you could have 33 a daycare center in a building that probably hasn’t been upgraded in, who knows, if ever. What I like 34 about the positioning of the building is it has a significant distance between the original buildings that are 35 on the property and this new building. It’s in the same style so, that’s compatible with me but the 36 distance and the fact that you don’t really see it when you are approaching the main complex, gives me 37 some comfort that this can be a little taller than the other buildings and still be subordinate because it’s 38 off to the side. I think this is a great project and I’m hoping when it comes back to us that these little tiny 39 nit-picking details that we’re giving you some grief about, will easily be resolved. 40 41 Chair Bernstein: Amy, will the – as the project proceeds because it’s considered preliminary. I’d like to 42 request that it does come back to the HRB, correct? Yeah, great, thanks. Beth. 43 44 Board Member Bunnenberg: I find it interesting that the – my understanding is that these plans have 45 been worked on for about 5 years and that they have involved everyone and I was particularly interested 46 to hear that the neighbor who would be most impacted by that garbage/refuge structure was pleased to 47 see it. I think that it sounds like you’ve been very respectful of letting people know and we don’t have 48 anyone here protesting it. So, that it feels to me also that I was surprised by the distance between those 49 surrounding houses and this new structure. I think the location looks like it has given them some space, 50 rather than feeling like it's backed right up to my back yard. I like that part of it very much. When we get 51 to discussing the CEQA phase, should I make comments on that now? 52 53 Chair Bernstein: Sure. 54 55

City of Palo Alto Page 13

Board Member Bunnenberg: In terms of whether it would cause the substantial adverse change to the 1 significant, I would almost see it as no impact. I don’t see how – I don’t know what the other Board 2 Members feel and we don’t have – well there were certainly some structures along time ago and we don’t 3 know what the Native Americans had but you’re not going deeply enough in the soil to end up with any 4 of that there and paleontology the same way and human remains buried, unlikely. That would be my 5 thought that it’s very respectful of the site. 6 7 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Di Cicco. 8 9 Board Member Di Cicco: What I think might be helpful at our next meeting or when it’s further reviewed, 10 would be to have perhaps a streetscape of the cul-de-sac and the building that are all – there’s 220 or 11 something that are contributing, which is a really great number for the total of 248 or something as I 12 read. If perhaps the streetscape and the colors, which have been selected by your association already. If 13 that’s what's going to go be the possibilities for the project, in proximity to it, I think it would be helpful 14 to see that. I also think, be given what we’re not at any phase as to what possibility is going to be used 15 for the building. My thought would be to have the full glass facing toward the pool and the rest of the 16 association property, as opposed to the park and have that on the site plan. The lesser glaze windows on 17 the – facing the cul-de-sac. I don’t – you know it’s hard to tell from just these plans and the difference 18 between how they’re going to sit. One number – number one says, facing the pool with the sliding doors 19 as opposed to the other side. It would make more sense to be but I think it would be nice to be able to 20 see the whole view of it, with the park and with the trees and the locations of them. 21 22 [Ms. Listgarten:] I just wanted to add a comment. We can’t have sliding doors facing the pool because 23 it’s a pool perimeter rules. So, those need to be the swing kind of door. So, that’s why the sliding doors 24 are on the other side. Yeah. 25 26 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. My question or comment or question/comment on your site plan A1.1. A1.1, 27 it’s called enlarged site plan. Anyway, you’re showing – I see the steps going up. Have you considered 28 having steps and ramps going up, having the same number of steps and ramp going down? That would 29 lower the building by about 2 feet or so. That would bring the tall structure from 12 feet, in essence, it 30 brings it down to about 10 feet. Brings then the proposed 9-foot structure down to about 7 feet high, 31 above those grade levels, just to help subordinate the new construction to the existing historic. Have you 32 considered, instead of going up, go down the same distance? 33 34 [Mr. Cobesaid:] We did consider essentially, I think leveling it. I think what you’re kind of getting to. 35 Where the plain of the pool surface would be equal. I think that would end up obviously, dropping the 36 building from the park side. You’d end up having to come down some stairs to get to the building and 37 then some retaining walls along the existing paving path. That would probably create, for safety sakes, 38 some additional railing. Just because if you’re going to have kids on bicycles or skateboards or whatever 39 and there’s a retaining wall where they can fall down. I think, the way we have it makes more sense, 40 certainly for the park side and in a way, being able to step up to the building, we kind of felt like that is a 41 little bit – makes it a little bit more special for the use portion and also gives the people that might be in 42 the building having a function or out on the terrace, a nice view of the pool versus just straight across. 43 Those were features that we did talk about. We did move the ramp, you know, sort of away from the 44 pool area a little bit so it has a clear path but it’s -- (Inaudible) it’s going to be somewhat longer, it’s not 45 invasive to the design really. It’s hopefully tucked away and we’re actually going to use it to hide the pool 46 cover too. So, we did think about those things, Martin. 47 48 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. I appreciate it. Board Member Kohler. 49 50 Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) 51 52 Board Member Bower: Oh sure. Thank you. I wanted to make a couple of comments just on the exterior 53 and how you’re approaching that and treating it and I’m actually in favor of lifting the height of the 54 building up a little bit, just because I know with Eichlers and the design of it, there’s a challenge to get 55

City of Palo Alto Page 14

the appropriate amount of insulation up in the ceiling cavity and the current Eichlers really don’t give you 1 an opportunity to do any recessed lighting. I don’t know how you were thinking about heating the 2 building. If you want to do the traditional radiant heat or if you want to do some kind of forced air 3 system so, I think given the low height approach that you are presenting here is going to present some 4 challenges with those very essential items. I think the building to me looks a little bit low and I know 5 there’s a conversation about subordination but maybe this is – instead of trying to make it subordinate to 6 the existing that have a significant distance between this new building. Maybe raising it up could offer an 7 opportunity for differentiation. I see that the bathroom only has two small windows and the bathrooms 8 are going to be used probably quite a bit so, if you can somehow get more natural light into the 9 bathrooms. So, maybe raising the height of the roof, maybe even 12 inches or something would allow 10 you to get some more windows in there. Some more natural light because people going in and out of 11 those, those are going to be highly used and if you don’t have the natural light, you’re going to have to 12 turn on artificial light and someone’s going to leave the light on and what have you. So, I’m just thinking 13 ahead or maybe a skylight would be something that you…(Crosstalk) 14 15 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Yeah, we’re planning on skylights. 16 17 Vice Chair Wimmer: I think you need more natural light in there. I kind of like what you're doing with the 18 sort of Nano doors or the expensive accordion to a glass that faces the park side but I’m not really crazy 19 about, in that same room, how you have different heights of windows and doors. So, I would keep that 20 consistent. I do see that you have a fireplace on the inside of that room but you’re not showing any 21 venting or flue mechanism. There’s a fireplace on the inside that faces the… 22 23 [Mr. Cobesaid:] We actually show a flue. It’s probably hard to see on your very small plan. 24 25 Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, maybe it is. Yeah, ok. I see it, I see it. I guess I would have a little question 26 about attaching the barbecue element on the outside, just for fire safety issues and I know there’s a 27 detached barbecue but it’s on the other side of the fence. 28 29 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Right. 30 31 Vice Chair Wimmer: Closer to the pool, maybe you can combine those (Inaudible) 32 33 [Mr. Cobesaid:] We did actually talk to the fire department about the barbecue and they were fine with it. 34 35 Vice Chair Wimmer: I was just questioning. Then, I guess I don’t – I think that Community room, it might 36 be – I don’t know – did you consider a vaulted ceiling because I know a lot of Eichlers have a vaulted 37 ceiling? I’m sure you did. 38 39 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Yes. 40 41 Vice Chair Wimmer: I just think that could be a really cool room with a maybe a little bit more value of 42 space and some of those exposed beams that are traditional with Eichlers. I think, just going in and 43 having a flat ceiling – I don’t know – it could just be more of a celebrated space, maybe? Then, -- I had 44 another thought and now I’m forgetting. I think about the trash, I see that the trash bins are located in 45 that corner. Maybe if you just rotate them 90 degrees and sort of face them to the left, so the doors are 46 on – it looks more detached and it doesn’t – you don’t read it as a part of the landscape elevation if you 47 just kind of rotate it and push it off to the side. 48 49 [Ms. Listgarten:] (Inaudible) 50 51 Chair Bernstein: Any comment, we need – this is a public hearing, we need to be mic because it's 52 recorded, thank you. 53 54

City of Palo Alto Page 15

[Ms. Listgarten:] I would love to do that. I am not sure if the truck can get there. It’s not a very big 1 walkway. That would be ideal if they could. 2 3 Vice Chair Wimmer: Sorry, I remember my last comment, sorry. On the elevation, the West elevation on 4 the bathroom sides, you don’t pull an overhang – that’s a flush fascia overhang and that looks – cause 5 the rest of the building has an overhang and that just looks like maybe – I would pull that same 6 overhang on that end. Those are my comments. 7 8 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Thank you. 9 10 Chair Bernstein: Rodger. 11 12 Board Member Kohler: I guess I have to disclose things, right? 13 14 Chair Bernstein: Yes. 15 16 Board Member Kohler: Ok. Well, it’s been years but I have two children, Heather and Mathew. We spent 17 hours and hours and hours at that wonderful place and so I know how it works fairly well. Also, I would 18 not be – I also have two dogs so, I’m a dog person. 175 pounds of dogs. I think this is a great project. 19 I’m not sure I have a whole lot of comment. There was – the only thing I was – part of the problem is 20 getting old, you forget to set the alarm and you have trouble remembering things. I think the raising of 21 the Community building level with the rear part of where the activity is, brings the whole building up, 22 what is it? 3 feet? 2 feet? 2 feet and having spent hours and hours watching the pool and the kids, that’s 23 going to be really a huge, nice thing to do. You’ll be able to see the pool really well. You’ll get a better 24 idea of what’s going on and it’s actually, I think a pretty good safety feature. I wouldn’t lower it because 25 it's so subtle. You’ve got to decide one way or the other, if you had it level with the pool, then there 26 would be retaining walls in the back and it does make a whole lot of sense to me that if there is a lot of 27 activity going in and out from the lawn area over to the Community building, is more active. As for where 28 the raising the house up on the poolside, you’re a little more careful of getting in and out of the pool and 29 it gives a tremendous view of what’s going on. Both for homeowners and – I mean moms and dads, as 30 well as for the actual life guard people. I think it’s a pretty good solution. If you go – you know, having 31 grew up here, all the different pools we’ve been to, Rinconada and Wilbur and things like – well, it’s not 32 Wilbur anymore but the pool is – I think that’s a pretty good solution myself. I think it’s actually a huge 33 improvement because for safety wise alone. Other than that, I think it's, you know, there’s all kinds of 34 different ways to that and basically, the building has the look of an Eichler, whether it’s got wide boards 35 or you know, -- in my mind, I don’t really care but I think it’s an appropriate structure. I’m ready to vote 36 for it. I guess we can’t yet. 37 38 Chair Bernstein: I have some other comments on the design. As I mentioned, I visited the site and I think 39 some other Board Members mentioned that when you approach from the parking lot to the existing 40 building that is there, there’s certainly a quality of horizontally and then the lowness. So, when you come 41 into the breezeway, between – you got the Montessori on the right and then – anyway, low, low, low. 42 Have you considered on this project of the new proposed buildings, to have those to help emphasize the 43 horizontality, to have horizontal siding on the proposed new structure? Just to keep that horizontal 44 feeling because I know, in Victorian, you got the vertical so, you put the – a lot of verticalities. I 45 understand this is a common Eichler approach. We see that at the edge of the shopping center, you see 46 that vertical same detail but to have the new structure, since we’re going up 12-foot height structure on 47 one of the buildings there, to have horizontal boards on there, just to see what that looks like. Have you 48 considered that or maybe that part… 49 50 [Mr. Cobesaid:] I would say we’re considering it now. 51 52 Board Member Kohler: I would not vote for that. Just to let you know. 53 54

City of Palo Alto Page 16

Chair Bernstein: Just the horizontally because of the architectural feel and that’s going to be one of the 1 other measures that as the project continues. That’s one of the other measures of compatibility is 2 architectural feel. Again, repeating the sense I had when I approached the property at the beginning, low 3 horizontality. So, what can you do with this proposed 12-foot structures and the 9-foot structure to keep 4 that horizon – so, again, it doesn’t change the function. You can look at what impact it has on a budget 5 but again just the architectural feel. With that I would like to invite Mr. Rush has any comments on the 6 idea of compatibility, in terms of horizontality, that’d be great. Excuse me, we have other Board Member 7 conversations going on. I’ll wait till we clear that up. Ok, go ahead. 8 9 Board Member Kohler: We’ll we’re trying to decide whether to go there to swim or not? 10 11 Chair Bernstein: Ok. Mr. Rush, please. 12 13 Mr. Rush; I’m sorry, could you repeat the question? So, my comments on the horizontality? 14 15 Chair Bernstein: (Crosstalk) My question is more of a general comment or a discussion that you would 16 offer about the idea of compatibility and differentiation with the proposed structure, regarding the 17 historical resource. 18 19 Mr. Rush: In terms of Standards Compliance, I don’t that that having a horizontal board – when you’re 20 thinking about compatibility, I don’t think that having a horizontal board is perhaps the very best solution 21 but I don’t know that it would automatically tilt in the direction of noncompliance. In my kind of 22 understanding of it, I don’t see having horizontal siding as being, you know, the needle that would break 23 the camel’s back so to speak. I don’t think it would tip this into a substantial adverse effect. 24 25 Chair Bernstein: Repeating why – the main reason why I brought this up is the architectural feel of the 26 historic – of the existing structure and then the new structure. Just something for you as the applicant to 27 design or to consider. That’s all. That’s my comment. 28 29 Board Member Kohler: Martin, I just don’t understand the switch. I mean, it’s a new building, it’s going to 30 be raised up, it’s taller than the other building. It’s obviously a newer building and it will be newer 31 because probably even the glazing, I don’t know, is the glazing going to match the existing or not? It will 32 be new, it will be double paint if the other one – so, I just – I think it’s going to make it more – I think it 33 becomes more of an eyesore in a sense that everything else is vertical and suddenly you got this building 34 that’s horizontal. Just to me seems out of touch with the general feel of the entire neighborhood. 35 36 Chair Bernstein: ok. Board Member Bower. 37 38 Board Member Bower: I’m a little confused about the height of the new building as it relates to the park 39 on the West side and the pool on the East side. It looks like you’re going down about 4 risers, something 40 like 30 inches – 32 inches. There’s no way to raise the building that I can see so, that it’s even with the 41 pool deck, without having on the other side, the West side to have some kind of ramping or stairs out of 42 there. I mean the point, as I understand the design is to get the building at the park level and then step 43 up to the pool level. So, raising the building finished floor to the pool level, creates another bigger 44 problem on the other side. Is that right, because… 45 46 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Nope, actually the building finished floor will closely mirror what the level of the park is, 47 currently. The pool level is about 30 inches lower so, you’re actually going down from our building to the 48 pool. I think we’re going to end up not quite having 30 inches. We’re looking more at probably 26-28 at 49 the most by the time it’s all said and done, with a little bit of slope on the deck and such. It is essential, 50 the opposite of what you’re saying David. 51 52 Board Member Bower: Because I couldn’t find the floor elevation on the new building. I can see it around 53 the pool, the survey. 54 55

City of Palo Alto Page 17

[Mr. Cobesaid:] Right. We can certainly add that so it’s a little bit clearer. 1 2 Board Member Bower: Well, I’m just trying – actually, a section of course, of the pool deck and the 3 building would be helpful when you come back to us because that would – make it easier to understand 4 this. 5 6 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Yep. 7 8 Board Member Bower: I don’t get a sense that that neighborhood had a lot of slope in it. I mean I grew 9 up there and watched those buildings being built. It was just fields when I was in elementary school. So, 10 they must have raised the grade in that park or somehow rearranged the grade to create that offset from 11 the pool and putting up a swimming pool below, sort of ambient grade, is counterintuitive. Especially, 12 when you consider, we use to have rain in this City. I’m not sure – you know I don’t want to be more 13 invasive -- to have this project become more invasive in the park area but maybe there’s a way to create 14 – have that building come up and still be able to get out of it – get out from the park side, without having 15 to go downstairs. 16 17 [Mr. Cobesaid:] You don’t have to go. From the park side, the building you walk outside and you’re going 18 to be right at the current level. 19 20 Board Member Bower: I’m thinking of trying to make the building – the new building flush or close to the 21 same level as the pool deck so, that flows into that space but then the other side of it, you know. You’re 22 going to have to depress the building and then you have to climb out of it. 23 24 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Right. 25 26 Chair Bernstein: I wasn’t sure – I just wanted to say thank you for your patience. We have a 121-page 27 booklet here called Secretary of Interior Standards and so, again we’re being responsive to the City of 28 Palo Alto’s regulations. That’s why you’re hearing these comments. Additional comments? Suggestions? 29 Board Members? 30 31 [Ms. Listgarten:] Can I respond to one or two things? 32 33 Chair Bernstein: Oh, please, yes. 34 35 [Ms. Listgarten:] So, Margaret asked about the eave on the bathroom side, that’s been a place of 36 contention (Inaudible). I had removed the eave because a bunch of the houses don’t have eaves so it’s 37 not the case that there are eaves everywhere. My house and lots of other houses don’t have eaves 38 uniformly. The reason on there is because the path on that side is not super wide and if you have the 39 eave, it encroaches further, it hides the sky. It’s more of a feeling of openness in that path as you’re 40 walking through and safety if you’re a women and more light and stuff like that if there’s not the eave. 41 That’s the thinking around it. I don’t know that we’re still – I don’t know if we’ve quite agreed on that yet 42 but at least I wanted to explain that. I think it’s [Johnathan], you asked about which structure were 43 original in the park, is that right? 44 45 Mr. Rush: We have the image on – in the presentation that shows a rendering of the park and structures 46 as originally designed but it’s still a question as to which of these elements were really put in place and… 47 48 [Ms. Listgarten:] I can answer that if you want because we went and tried to look at old photos and 49 things like that because we were curious. The oldest photo that we have, the trees were not there. The 50 wall was there but the basketball court was not there, in the very beginning. It looked like lawn and there 51 were people picnicking. I think that that was added a little bit afterward. As far as the neighbors can 52 remember, it’s been there for a really long time but I think that the wall was there and the basketball 53 court may have delayed by 5 or 10 years, something like that. The trees, I think were never there. 54 Everything else was built the way that it is now. The pool was sunk. The pool is a sunken feature, that 55

City of Palo Alto Page 18

whole thing is – right now, it’s not more that 2-feet down. It’s between 20-24 inches down and there is 1 that sitting wall, that sort of – kids would hang out on the sitting wall and it was – dangled their legs that 2 2 feet kind of things between the park and the pool. 3 4 Board Member Kohler: I have a quick question, over in the corner, it says privacy for [Greg Gregaria]. 5 What does that mean? What’s the last word? 6 7 [Mr. Listgarten:] I mean you guys know more about it – a lot about Eichler but go ahead. 8 9 [Mr. Cobesaid:] I think we’re talking playful people. They’re gregarious. So, the neighbors that want to go 10 out and have a good time and swim. 11 12 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Di Cicco, you had your, ok. Alright. Amy, is the next step, this goes to 13 Architectural Review Board and then back to us, is that next step? 14 15 Mr. French: Well, next step is getting to a complete application because it is a conditional permit and 16 architectural review application. So, we want to, I guess – sounds great that there are additional photos 17 that [Sherry] has possession of. So, those kinds of documents would be very helpful for us to submit a 18 documentation of that park. I mean because I think that’s the additional research that we need to do is 19 regarding the cultural landscape and what was actually installed verses that lovely photo – rendering, 20 that we have here. So, we can make some further determination regarding the proposal along the park 21 edge there. Then, yes, we would – you’ve requested to come back, I think that makes sense, we would 22 come back to you before going to the ARB, unless we determine that we’ll just have the HRB conduct the 23 hearing and then keep it kind of at a Staff level architectural review and let this body become the main 24 hearing body because of the kind of minor aspect of the project. The most important part about it is that 25 it’s National Registered District and we’re wrestling with Standards. 26 27 Board Member Bunnenberg: Are you needing a motion? 28 29 Ms. French: No, that’s fine. This is billed as a study session. 30 31 Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) CEQA, is there any motion necessary on the CEQA findings? 32 33 Ms. French: Again, I think because we’re not ready to make a CEQA determination on Staff without the 34 additional documentation. I mean, I’ve heard – I appreciate you’re considering this no impact. I mean, 35 we would like it to be no impact and so to do the research to make that determination, I think will be, 36 you know, something we bring to you and let you concur or not with our findings, at a future date. 37 38 Chair Bernstein: Also, I think – let's see, Board Member Di Cicco, you were suggesting there be a – some 39 kind of an elevation or – this is a question for the applicant. I think Board Member Di Cicco, I think you 40 were suggesting having a drawing or a view from the cul-de-sac, Greenmeadow Way, so we can see… 41 42 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Sure. 43 44 Chair Bernstein: Yeah, that’d be a good (Inaudible) 45 46 [Mr. Cobesaid:] We were planning, you know, obviously – typically the ARB is going to have a lot more 47 information coming from us, whether it’s photo surveys or rendering. 48 49 Chair Bernstein: Good, good. 50 51 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Certainly your point is taken. 52 53 Chair Bernstein: Good. Thank you so much. Another… 54 55

City of Palo Alto Page 19

Board Member Di Cicco: I guess, Martin – yeah, I think that would be very helpful and from what I’ve 1 heard too, all the original paths will remain intact? 2 3 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Yeah. 4 5 Board Member Di Cicco: Yeah. 6 7 [Mr. Cobesaid:] We’re invading it slightly with our pavers but the path itself stays intact. 8 9 Board Member Di Cicco: I’m sorry but I do not remember what the material was and what… 10 11 [Mr. Cobesaid:] It’s paving. Right now, the path is asphalt paving. 12 13 Board Member Di Cicco: Asphalt, is that what’s in store or will it maybe be DG? 14 15 [Mr. Cobesaid:] We’re going to leave that entire path the way it is. The basketball court will become a 16 half court; will remain paving. Then, sort of per our layout on the site plan, we’re mirroring the curve of 17 the path with some new hardscape that surrounds the building. So, we’re trying to be compatible with 18 the paths movement – original movement but then, where it starts to touch the building, upscale the 19 material that you’d be walking on. 20 21 Chair Bernstein: Anymore? Board Member Bower. 22 23 Board Member Bower: Comment on that, hopefully, you would consider some kind of pervious pavement, 24 like concrete so the water, instead of collecting the water and routing it off somewhere, we can actually 25 get it back down. That’s a big theme in the City after… 26 27 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Yep. 28 29 Board Member Bower: I was on the Storm Water Committee and we have a ballot issues coming up 30 where we’re trying to move the way we think about water from something to put in the storm drain, 31 towards something – towards a resource we can get back in the ground. Anything you can do to put – to 32 allow that water to get back down in the ground would be… 33 34 [Mr. Cobesaid:] Yep, totally agree. Totally agree. 35 36 Chair Bernstein: Alright, does the Staff need anything else – would like to request any other things from 37 the Board? 38 39 Ms. French: I appreciate all of your comments and no, not at this time. We’ll see you in the new year 40 with some revisions. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Bernstein: [Sherry] and Bob or a Bud, thank you so much. Really appreciate all your comments. 43 Thank you. Ok, that concludes this agenda item. 44 45 46 Approval of Minutes 47 48 3. Date 49 50 Chair Bernstein: Next, on our agenda will be approval of minutes. There are none. 51 52 53 Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 54 55

City of Palo Alto Page 20

Chair Bernstein: Next, is Board Member questions, comments or announcements. Any --Board Member 1 Bower. 2 3 Board Member Bower: I would like to ask Chair Bernstein, that you agendize a topic that I will call 4 ordinance changes that we want to recommend to the City Council. I have four topics on my list that I 5 think are repetitive because we’ve talk about them but I’ll just list them here. I think the HRB should 6 report directly to Council. I’m not comfortable reporting to the ARB because there’s no guarantee that the 7 recommendations that we make can be heard by the Council, without being filtered through ARB. 8 Second, I think we need to develop a mid-century building protection plan. Similar to what we have in 9 Professorville and along with that endeavor, I think we need to have hearings and encourage an 10 ordinance change to make demolition of buildings not ministerial but discretionary, just like San 11 Francisco. Finally, the last item that I’ve brought up before, is I think we need to have a Mills Act 12 Program that will encourage people to protect their buildings, rather than destroy them. I don’t how we’d 13 move this forward? We’ve had the mid-century building survey on our agenda from both Council – joint 14 Council meetings and also, just as a – in retreats from, maybe 6 years ago, and it just seems like these 15 things can’t move forward and I don’t know how to get them there. I think we need to get them an 16 agenda and try to move them forward as best we can. 17 18 Chair Bernstein: Amy, is that something you can discuss among – and how to make that – get that to be 19 an agenda item so, we can get that as a public discussion? 20 21 Ms. French: Sure. Well, recently there was a Council meeting where there was discussion about penalties 22 related to demolition and our liaison to my left, was a part of a discussion there to request that there was 23 something coming back in the new year at some point regarding how we look at our Chapter 1649, with 24 respect to the different categories of historic resources; then with respect to demolition and penalties. I 25 think – oh, the other thing I was going to say is that we were supposed to have a meeting with the 26 Council on the 12th but as you know, that got postponed. I don’t have a new date when that might be 27 but hopefully in the new year, you know, in the spring or thereafter, we can get ourselves a date and 28 leading up to that, I would like to target the late January meeting perhaps, or a meeting in February to 29 have a more full discussion and bring back – now, in the packet for – I think it was November 10th, I 30 provided that list of things that we are – kind of our work program that is out there. Maybe I can resend 31 that to all of you for consideration. Then, David, if you’re interested in flagging and annotating that and 32 sending that back to me, then perhaps get an agenda together that talks about moving forward. 33 34 Board Member Bower: The list that I just read off? 35 36 Chair Bernstein: Yes. 37 38 Board Member Bower: I could (Inaudible) 39 40 Ms. French: It’s in the record so I can get that from the minutes. 41 42 Board Member Bower: Ok, so I’m not sure I understand what you (Inaudible) 43 44 Ms. French: Looking forward into the new year, there’s an opportunity for Staff to come back with 45 direction from Council with some kind of discussion about demolishing and penalties certainly. That 46 brings up the ordinances itself and ordinance changes are part of that discussion. Of course, the new 47 year going to be the Eichler guidelines, meetings and outreach and those discussions with Council. Then, 48 of course, we have this opportunity yearly to have a joint meeting with the Council and so, to prepare for 49 that and then have a meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair, prior to that meeting. There’s work we can 50 do as a Board. 51 52 Board Member Bower: So, to follow-up on that, our next meeting is January 12th? 53 54

City of Palo Alto Page 21

Mr. French? I’m going to say no. The next meeting is January 26th. We’re going to do the second meeting 1 of January. We don’t have items as of yet for the 12th as far as project items – development projects and 2 given the holidays, I’m getting a packet reviewed by the management and out at Christmas time or right 3 around the new year is difficult. So, I’m going to say the 26th is our next meeting if that works for all of 4 you? January 26th, ok. 5 6 Vice Chair Wimmer: I wanted to suggest that maybe we have a meeting, knowing that there are no 7 project items that are on our agenda but we just have a kind of just a group study session, just to 8 casually talk about all these items because I think that there are a lot of these items that come up, in this 9 formal setting, we can’t really talk as openly and have a thorough discussion of a lot of these things. So, 10 maybe it’s kind of a retreat situation? I think January is actually a great time to do that because it’s a 11 new year and I know that we’ve gotten a lot of feedback, for instance, from the Council and things on 12 some directions that they want to see us going in. That we just never have a chance to cohesively get 13 together and discuss. I think it would be wise of us, maybe even before the 26th to schedule a meeting if 14 people… 15 16 Ms. French: I mean, we could have a meeting on the 12th as a retreat. It wouldn’t require Staff to 17 prepare a packet if we just want to have an agenda. 18 19 Vice Chair Wimmer: We meet in the other room like we’ve done before and we have, sort of a loose – 20 things on our agenda but maybe we could even come with our own ideas because it just seems like, after 21 the year, we have these kinds of brainstorms but we never really – they don’t go anywhere because we 22 don’t have an opportunity to really kind of discuss it. I think it's – it might be a great thing for our Board 23 to sit down and maybe every January and just sort of plan out our year or think – come up with a list of 24 things that we really want to sort of accomplish that year. I think that would be really helpful. 25 26 Ms. French: I’m trying to remember when the last retreat was. I remember the retreat when we talked 27 about the bi-law, it was in the Community room over here. 28 29 Vice Chair Wimmer: I think it’s all – for me, I felt like those meetings and even Karen had one had one 30 with us a year or two ago. I think those are really great because it just makes us kind of gel as 31 Committee because I always feel – I’m speaking personal, I feel like sometimes our meetings are so few 32 and far between, that we sort of lose momentum and I forget, like what were those things we were 33 working on? Everyone is busy and has their own professional lives but I think the more times we get 34 together as a group in a more casual setting, where we can talk about things, I think it’s really good for 35 us, as a whole. 36 37 Chair Bernstein: I would be (Inaudible) to having to do that on January 12th. Council Member Holman, 38 you had your light on. 39 40 Council Member Holman: Yeah, it wasn’t for this but since you brought it up. I appreciate the comments 41 and there was supposed to be this last year but then Matt departed but there was supposed to be follow-42 up to last year's retreat and there were several items that – I don’t think actually required that much 43 Staff input, it was more as Vice Chair Wimmer is talking about, about conversation that the HRB would be 44 having. I actually was wanting to make a couple of other comments, though. The Squire House tour, I 45 think you all know about this but just to be sure. The Squire house tour is this afternoon from 4-6. You 46 do have to get your name on a list so, email Squirehousepaloalto@gmail.com, 47 Squirehousepaloalto@gmail.com. It’s this afternoon from 4-6. Also, it’s looking very likely, it’s not a given 48 yet but it’s looking very likely that CPF Conference will be here in 2018. That’s a conversation I started 49 last year and you know, they book quite a bit ahead so, it’s looking promising though that the CPF 50 Conference will be here in 2018. First time since 1988, which was the year that an impetus for the 51 founding of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. There will be lots of volunteer opportunities so, stay tuned for 52 that. Typically, I wouldn’t do this but given the conversation today and the item that was before the 53 Board today. I found last night a book Mid-century Modern Architecture Travel Guild, that sells for $35 54 and I’m going to order one, another friend wants one. Some of the quotes about it, it’s a must have a 55

City of Palo Alto Page 22

guild to one of the most fertile regions of the development of mid-century modern architecture. It’s a 1 handbook. The first ever to focus on the architectural wonders of the Westcoast of the U.S, proving 2 visitors with an expertly curated list of 250 must-see destinations. I’m going to order it from my favorite, 3 local bookstore, Bells. If any of you want a copy of it, let me know and we can order how many ever at 4 the same time. Again, I wouldn’t typically do that but given the topic on today’s agenda. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Bernstein: Also, I’ll be attending – I already – I’ll be attending the Squire House tour today, from 4-7 6. I’ve already RSVP. I got a response on that back. 8 9 Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible) 10 11 Chair Bernstein: We need your mic on. 12 13 Board Member Di Cicco: I thought I turned it on, not off. I’m glad you brought that up because I had 14 looked in the Weekly and such and it certainly hasn’t been advertised, though I had heard from Beth. I 15 think it was pushed forward frankly, by Mathew because of the Interior Mills Act, that has to be done 16 once a year. 17 18 Ms. French: Yes, we… (Crosstalk) 19 20 Board Member Di Cicco: Very low profile, though. 21 22 Ms. French: …(Inaudible) and Code Enforcement Staff to talk with the owner about the need for a tour – 23 annual tour. 24 25 Board Member Di Cicco: Kept hidden very well, though, because I looked to see if there were any ads to 26 when it might take place. 27 28 Ms. French: It was published in the newspaper. The other things are, they are looking to terminate that 29 contract. To be aware of that when you do go today and enjoy it. It’s a process. 30 31 Council Member Holman: Quick follow up to that to give credit where it’s due. In addition to Staff, Gayle 32 [Wooly] was very active in trying to get this tour to happen because it hasn’t happened and just – I don’t 33 know how it could happen but if this owner does terminate the Mills Act contract because they're – I 34 know there’s a particular interest of yours, Board Member Bower. If they do terminate this contract, it 35 would be nice to rather than have that saving just go back into – as a Council Member I have to be 36 careful saying this – having that go back into some other fund or pool of funds. It’d be nice to be able to 37 try to apply those savings to some other properties who might take advantage of a Mills Act. Just a 38 thought. I don’t know if it would work or not but just a thought. 39 40 Chair Bernstein: When we have our discussion about the demolition, would we want to include that 41 discussion would be the definition of demolition – we talk about because that would be really useful for 42 property developers, just to know, ok what’s triggered demolition and what doesn’t. That I think would 43 be useful for people. Alright, anything else for today before we adjourn? 44 45 Board Member Di Cicco: (Inaudible) 46 47 Chair Bernstein: We need your mic, we need your mic on. 48 49 Board Member Di Cicco: Wonderful document about Eichler that we had – it was amazing all the 50 information and what they did to prepare for this National Register nomination. It’s pretty amazing and 51 so well written and really depicted how Joe did business. It was very educational for me. Really 52 enlightening. 53 54

City of Palo Alto Page 23

Council Member Holman: That was at the initiation of the neighborhood and maybe Amy remembers, I’m 1 embarrassed to say I can’t remember the name of the architect who then lived in Greenmeadow who 2 was – his name is just right here and not here – who was very, very involved in preparing this and 3 advancing it with – I’m sorry? No. At any rate, it was the initiation of the neighborhood and full support 4 of the neighborhood so, it was a great document. 5 6 Chair Bernstein: Amy, I think I had an email from Robin, saying there’s a potluck after this meeting 7 today? 8 9 Ms. French: That was going to be my announcement to close this. We have – Robin is out on medical but 10 [Alicia] has gotten us some treats for our holiday send-off. So, in the back. 11 12 Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer, you had a comment? 13 14 Vice Chair Wimmer: Yeah and I just wanted to mention, I think next Thursday, which is the 15th at 7 15 o’clock. I think there’s a Palo Alto Board recognition event. To remind you that – I think it’s at the Art 16 Center. Have you gotten an email on that? (Crosstalk) Yeah, I like these reminders. I need them. 17 18 Ms. French: Maybe I can rouse that up and send that out to all of you. Also, the day before the fire 19 station, you know the fire station 3 that came to you a month or so ago. They are having an open house 20 at the Art Center the night before that, the 14th. So, inviting the neighborhood to come because we’re not 21 hearing from anyone in the neighborhood about that project. Let’s see what they think of metal siding, I 22 don’t know. 23 24 Chair Bernstein: Ok, we are adjourned. Thank you. 25 26 Adjournment 27