HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-05 City Council (15)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
12
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:OCTOBER 5, 1998 CMR:382:98
SUBJECT:951-955 ADDISON: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR
OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ASSIGNING A
DESIGNATION OF NO HISTORIC MERIT UNDER THE INTERIM
HISTORIC REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Director of Planning and Community Environment to assign a designation of No Historic
Merit to the property at 951-955 Addison Avenue.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is an appeal by a neighboring property owner 0fa Historic Merit Evaluation
decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, assigning a designation
of No Historic Merit for the subject property. On July 22, 1998, the Historic Resources
Board (HRB) reviewed an Historic Merit Evaluation for the property under the Interim
Historic Regulations for Pre-1940 Residences (PAMC Section I6!50). The staff report
recommended a designation of Contributing Residence (see Attac~ent C). The HRB voted
to recommend a designation of No Historic Merit. On July 31, t998~e Director accepted
the HRB recommendation and issued a decision of No Historic Iv!erit! On August-7, 1998,
Mr. Robert Kuhar, 947-949 Addison Avenue, appealed that decision!
Three Craftsman style cottages, constructed circa 1927, and an accessory structure are
located on the property. They were built by William M. Bernard, an investor-contractor who ¯
built many small houses in Palo Alto during the 1920s and 1930; particularly in the area of
the Boyce Addition.
The three cottages are architecturally varied; with each exhibiting different characteristic
features of the Craftsman style: 1) the from house (955 Addison) is clad in wood shingles
CMR:382:98 Page 1 of 6
with wood divided-lite casement windows and deeply-overhanging rafters; 2) the middle
house (953 Addison) has a "Carmel-style,’ appearance, with stucco walls divided into panels
by carved wood beams, artfully shaped rafter ends, carved gable end fascia boards, and a
massive stone fireplace chimney; 3) the rear cottage (951 Addison) has wood siding, divided
lite Wood windows, and exposed rafters. The cottages are arranged in a staggered fashion
on a deep, narrow lot.
This long block of Addison, between Fife and Channing; is unusual in the variety of lot
configurations, including bungalow courts, lanes, and both period and modem residences
constructed at the interior of the lots, rather than at the street. The block includes several
other cottage groupings, and houses in the immediate vicinity include a number of other
modest Craftsman residences and builder style bungalows.
For a more complete historical and architectural description of the structures and their
surroundings, see the attached Historic Resources Board staff report (Attachment C).
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation to the HRB. The staff report to the HRB recommended a designation
of. Contributing Residence. The three cottages are listed as Category IV on the City’s
existing Historic Inventory. The State Historic Resources Inventory form prepared for the
property in 1978 and 1985 describes the historic significance of the property as follows:
"These small buildings are composed with skillful Craftsman details, and their grouping on
the site represents a subtle bid for urban planning. The presence of similar groups in the city
reinforces the visual impact of such design." The State Historic Resources Inventory form
is attached to this report (Attachment B).
The staff recommendation of Contributing Residence was based in part on the role of this
cottage grouping in continuing to support the unique period character of this particular
section of Addison Street. The report also stated that the cottages gain importance in part
due to their integrity, that they remain essentially intact. City permit history was referenced
in the report, showing relatively minor changes including new foundations, termite repairs
and reroofing in 1969 and 1972. Statements were made during the public hearing about
additional past alterations to the cottages. Since the HRB meeting, staff has been able to
clarify what exterior changes have been made to the buildings, as described below.
HRB review and decision.
During the public comment period, the property owner and two neighbors spoke in
opposition to the staff recommendation of Contributing Residence designation for the
property. The speakers commented that the cottages are very old and have no style, that they
are not consistent with the R-1 neighborhood and they generate overflow parking. One
person made a correction to the staff report, noting that the rear cottage does not have a
CMR:382:98 Page 2 of 6
chimney. Another speaker stated that the cottages had been extensively remodeled by the
former owner, including replacement of the stone chimney on the front house and installation
of all .new sidings on the cottages.
After hearing public comment, the HRB discussion focused on: 1) whether or not this section
of the street retains historic character, and 2) whether or not the cottages, particularly the
front cottage that is most visible from the street, are sufficiently intact to contribute to the
character of the neighborhood. See definition of Contributing Residence in the Standards
for Historic Designation attached to this report (Attachment E).
In considering whether the neighborhood retained sufficient period character, Board Member
Backlund noted that the HRB had previously designated a nearby house (965 Addison) a
Contributing Residence. Board Member Murden stated that she had voted No Historic Merit
on two previous Historic Merit Evaluations on this block because she believed the block had
lost its period character. To be consistent, she felt she would have to vote the same way in
this case, though she was reluctant to do so.
In considering whether the cottages on the property retain sufficient historic character to
contribute to the neighborhood, Board Members noted that the chimney in the front house.
was clad in wood shingles, which is not typical in historic buildings. Since the staff report
made no mention of this, they were unsure about what other changes might have been made
to the cottages. Statements made during the public comment period about extensive exterior
changes having been made to the houses further added to that uncertainty.
The first two motions failed; a motion by Murden to assign the buildings No Historic Merit
failed due to lack of a second, and a motion by Kohler, second by Alsman, for Contributing
status failed on a3-3 vote, with Kohler, Alsman, Bemstein voting.yes; Murden, Haviland,
Bacldund voting no; Mario absent.
Board Member Alsman istated that in order to resolve the impasse he would change his vote.
Board Member Backlund then made a motion, seconded by Murden, to designate the
property No Historic Merit, the reasons being: 1) a strong and even dominant modern
character to the block, and 2) because the front cottage which is most visible from the street
had undergone extensive surface alterations. This motion passed on a vote of 4-2-0-1, with
Backlund, Murden, Haviland and Alsman voting yes.
See excerpt minutes of the July 22, 1998 HRB meeting attached to this report (Attachment
D).
Appeal by Mr. Kuhar. On August 7, 1998, Mr. Robert Kuhar, a neighboring property owner,
appealed the decision of the Historic Resources Board. See the appellant’s complete
statement in the Appeal document attached to this report (Attachment A).
CMR:382:98 Page 3 of 6
Following is a summary of and staff comments on the main points made by the appellant,
Mr. Kuhar:
1) He agrees with the staff recommendation that the houses should have Contributing
status, noting that the property at 951-955 Addison is on the City’s existing Historic
Inventory, and citing the difficulty the HRB had in reaching a decision;
As discussed in the HRB staff report and on page 2 above, the subject property is listed as
a Category IV on the City’s existing Historic Inventory. Such a listing would seem to
support a designation of Contributing Residence, and HRB members noted this in their
deliberations. However, an issue that the Board considered in making its recommendation
¯ of No Historic Merit was whether the cottages might have undergone such extensive
alterations that they no longer retain historic integrity. As discussed on page 4 below,
subsequent to the HRB meeting staffhas been able to ascertain that between 1983 and 1992
exterior alterations were made to the cottages, with substantial changes to the middle cottage
and relatively minor changes to the front and rear cottages.
2) Mr. Kuhar makes a case for the continuing period characteristics of this section of
Addison Avenue by identifying a number ofpre-1940 houses on the street, including
several on the City’s existing Historic Inventory and several others on the historic
survey Study Lists, including a Bungalow Court across the street and a nearby
residence that are both on Study List 1.
Properties were identified Study Priority 1 and 2 in the historic survey based on visual
assessment by the architectural historian conducting the survey, with Study Priority 1
properties appearing potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
and Study Priority 2 properties being those that, while not likely to be eligible for the NRI~,
appear to have historic integrity, that is, they appear to retain their significant character-
defining features. Thus, the presence on the street of a substantial number of these properties
as well as properties listed on the City’s Historic Inventory would seem to support a
continuing historic neighborhood character. This specific information about properties in the
immediate vicinity being on the Study Priority Lists or on the existing Historic Inventory was
not presented in the HRB staff report nor discussed by the Board during its deliberations
regarding the historic character of this section of Addison Avenue. In their discussion, Board
members did note the presence of a slight majority ofpre-1940 houses on this block and
relied on a general impressionof the street, some observing that the large new houses had
a dominating and disproportionate effect in determining the character of the street.
Clar(~cation ofpast alterations to the cottage~s. In attempting to resolve the questions about
past alterations to the cottages that were raised at the HRB meeting, staff contacted the
previous owner, John Lereh, regarding changes made during his ownership and also did
further research in the City permit files.
C!VIR:382:98 Page 4 of 6
Based on this information, staff has determined that the exterior alterations that have been
made to the cottages are as follows:
Front cottage (955 Addison): This cottage retains the essential features of its original
appearance except for a new chimney, clad in wood shingles, that replaced the
¯ original stone chimney. Other less substantive changes include reroofing with
composition shingles, and replacing original wood shingles with new wood shingles.
Middle cottage (953 Addison): The exterior material of this house was completely
changed in the 1980s, with original wood shingle siding replaced by the "Carmel-
style" wood beam and stucco finish. The original wood divided-lite windows have
been replaced with metal divided-lite windows. However, this cottage retains its
massive stone fireplace, which was reconstructed using the original stone.
Rear cottage (951 Addison): This cottage is essentially unchanged, the only exterior
alterations to this cottage being new footings and reroofing with composition shingles.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative action to the staff recommendation available to the City Council would be
to uphold the appeal and assign the property a designation of Contributing Residence.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Appeal of Robert Kuhar, dated August 5, 1998
B. State Historic Resources Inventory form, 1978 and 1985
C. Historic Resources Board Staff Report, July 22, 1998
D. Excerpt sense Minutes of HRB meeting, July 22, 1998
E. Standards for Historic Designation in the Interim Historic Regulations
PREPARED BY: Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
ANNE. CRONIN MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY’ )N
Assistant City Manager
CMR:382:98 Page 5 of 6
CO:Historic Resources Board
Grace Wu, 4168 King Arthur Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tze-Ying Chiang, 727 Rosewood Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mr. Robert Kuhar, 947 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Don Price and Diethild Price, 960 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
John Lerch, 13631 Burke Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
CMR:382:98 Page 6.of6
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM TI-IE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COlVEVIUNITY ENVIRONMENT (HISTORIC RESOURCE BOARD)
To be filed in duplicate
Attachment A
1998
Name of Appellant "[F.DS~.,~" ~L. J~-~ 144k~-~Phone(b~:~. ~A, ~; ~l~
City ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. (,~O "~, ~,,~’. ~O~
Street Address Q~I " o~ /~l::~Dt $.,~
Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant)
Zone District
Street City ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated ~ L.H ~ I ~ l~ q ~
19.._~whereby the application of
(original applicant)
for historical evaluation review was ~d-~’t~contributin~/Landmark or atmrove(1/dcn~¢d, is hereby appealed for
the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date ~, _ ~- _ .’~v- Signature of
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Approved Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans (Applicant)
2.Labels (Applicant)
3.Appeal Application Forms
.4.Letter
5.Fee
By:,
By:
By:~_-~..:, (. ....(’_’~ ......~~"~~-By: {..~.:-Z,~ ,~ .~_ ,,~ ’--.~.~~
03/97
Attachment to: "Appeal from the Decision of Director of Planning and
Community Environment (Historic Resource Board),"
Submitted by Robert M. Kuhar
August5,1998
Please see attached data regarding this appeal.
Robert M. Kuhar
Attachment to: "Appeal from the Decision of Director of Planning
and Community Environment (Historic Resource Board),"
Submitted by Robert M. Kuhar
My wife and I are owners of 947-949 Addison Avenue, which adjoins the
subject property, 951-955 Addison. Our property contains two homes, 949
Addison, built before 1940, and 947 Addison, built after 1940. Over the
past two years we have significantly upgraded both homes. Believing that
949 Addison has historic significance, we made no changes to its exterior
and today it is a very charming home with a white picket fence in the
front. It currently is on the review list.
Adjoining our property, on the other side, is 945 Addison, which is a pre-
1940 on Study List 1. It has been upgraded significantly and today is
perhaps the most charming home on the block.
Continuing down the block toward Channing there are 7 contiguous
pre-1940 homes with only one intrusion, and continuing toward Fife
from the subject property the next three residences are all pre-1940. Of
the 15 pre-1940 addresses, seven are on a list study list and seven are on
the current inventory, including the subject property. Across the street is
a bungalow court which is on Study List 1.
My point, and the reason I am appealing the 951-955 decision, is that I
would like to assure that the city maintains a design standard suitable for
the neighborhood’ in the event the owner decides to significantly remodel
or knock down cottages on the property and rebuild.
The one intrusion mentioned earlier on our side of the street is at 941
Addison, which was knocked down and rebuilt within the past two years
but prior to the interim ordinance. It. replaced a charming small home.
The design, of 941 seems a disaster. Architecturally, it does not fit the
neighborhood and according to an experienced Seville Realtor, has
depressed values of other homes on the block.
I agree with Barbara Judy’s recommendation that the property at 951-
955 Addison should have a contributing designation. The HRB had
difficulty reaching a decision and a decision was arrived at only after
much debate and multiple motions and votes. These cottages are on the
current inventory. Additionally, in the absence of a permanent Historic
Preservation Ordinance, it is the only way we have of preventing
another inappropriate structure from intruding my neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
State of California - The Re=our¢~ A~cy
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
Attachment B
UTM
Let
Site Mo.Yr.
O NR ~ SHL~
Lon Ere~ Sig~
T2 T3 Cat ~HABS ~HAER ~
IDENTIFICATION Cat.
1. Common name:
2. Historic name, if known:
3. Street or rural add.ress 951-955 Addison .Street.
City:PafLo Alto ZIP:
4. Present owner, if known: ,.Jo.hn and .Kath’i_ Lerch
City:Palo A,].lx) ~ Ca ZIP:
5.Pre~nt. Use: £esidential
County: Santa~ Clara
Address: 951 Addison St
t
9A301 Ownership is: Public [--]
Original Use: ~esidential
Private
Other past uses:
DESCRIPTION .I
6.Briefly describe the present" physical a~pea~ance of th~ site or structure and describe any major-alterations from its original
con.dition:
~
. ~Theee small .structures compose on~ of a numberi-of simila~cottage 8roupings.’ ~ach
grouping consists: of Small’~%~ (~a~four, but~ onl~three in this case) placed-
in a staggered progression on deep, narrow lots. The units are sheathed in shin~les,
have an oddl~ batter~gable end, and chimneys of-~us%ic stone. The careful’plot
planning and unusual cluster relationship are impo~ant aspects of these small
Craftsman cottages.
7.Locational sketch map (draw and label site and
surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks)’:
~NORTH
¯FIFE; ~v~,
o
Z
[
8. Approximate property size:
Lot size (in feet) Frontage 50 ;
Dept h_____J~’;
or approx, acreage ..
9. Condition: (check ~ne) ’
a. Excellent r-] b. Good ~] . Fair [-=]
d. Deteriorated [~ e. No longer in.existence [~]
10. Is the feature a. Altered? [~] b. Una!tered? [~]
11.Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary)
a. Open land D b. Scattered 5uildings [--]
c. Densely built-up [--] . d. Residential [~]
e. Commercial [~f. Industrial [=-]
g. Other [’-]
12.Threats to site:
a. None known [~ b. Private development [~]
c. Zoning [~] d. Public Worksproiect
e. Vandalism [--] f. Other [~
951-955 Addison
NO TE : The following (Items I4-19j a, ~ for structul~s only.
14. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone [~] b, Brick [~]
f. Other [~]
15. Is the structure: a. On its original si|e7 [~] b. Moved? [--]
16. Year of initia~ ~or~truction 1927 _ This date is: a. F~ctual [~]
c.Unknown7 ~J
b. Estimated
e. Wood
e. Formal garden(s) [---J
i. None []
SIGNIFICANCE
20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, even.ts, and persons assg.c!atad with the site when known):
~ese small bu~idin~s~are c0~posed with skillful Craftsman details, ~d- their
ing on the site represents a subtle bid for urban planning. 2he presence of similar
groups in the city reinforces the visual impact of such design. W.M. ~ernard was
investor-contractor ~ho built ma~7 ~ houses in the city during the 192Os ~ 193Os o
He was especially active in this area south of Channing and east:of ~iddlefield. Local
memory identi£ies the owner to wh~ he sold the cottages as a Berkeley spinster .with
Pale Alto prope~y interests. Short-term tenants usua~ have occupied the ~ottages.
~he earliest, Arthur F o Winter, was an electrician and auto mechanic, a native ef Pale
Alto ~ho lived all his life in the city. From 1939 to 195&, the owners ~ere F~ed
and Helen Simpson. Simpson’s father, F~ed B., was constable ef Pale Alto township
1913-16, and his children were born in the 81mpson house at 361 ChanninE (~here the
Pale Alto Medical Clinic parking lot is now located)° Fr~l J. Simpson worked in
the local post office fo~ ~6 years ,a~d was a ~onside~able collector of books and
uments on CaLifornia history,
21. Main theme of the h,storic resource: (Check only one): a. Architecture ~ b. Arts & Leisure [~
c. Economic/Industrial [--’J d. Exploration/~ettlement J--J e. Government ~ f. Military ~]
g. Religion ~--~ h. Social/Education ~
22. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: P.A. City DirecZories;.
P.A. City Building Dept. files; P.A. Times, &/29,/16, 9/20/27, 10/1/69, 6/15/8&, interviews
1985, Mr. and Mrs. Walter C. Peterson; Mrs. Todd Peterson; Mrs. Dorothy Fiorini.
23. Date form prepared: ~’~~_~.~_ By (name): Lydia Horani Historic Resources Bo~rd and
Address: Planning Dept, 250 Hamilton Ave _City .... ParLe Alto,Ca 9A301 Hist, ~:n,
Phone:Organization:
(State Use Only)
Attachment C
STAFF REPORT
TO:HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJF, CT:
Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect DEPARTMENT: Planning
July 22, 1998
951-955 ADDISON AVENUE [98-1TRB-60]: APPLICATION OF
GRACE C. WU FOR HISTORIC MERIT EVALUATION OF
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESI])ENCES CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO
1940 (R-1 ZONE DISTRICT)
REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Historic Resources Board is requested to assign a historic merit designation to 951-955
Addison Street. Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be
assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing residence, or
Historic Landmark residence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends assigning an historic designation of CONTRIBUTING residence to the three
residences: 951 Addison, 953 Addison, and 955 Addison. The property is currently designated as
a Category IV historic resource under the City ofPalo Alto’s existing Historic Inventory.
DISCUSSION:
Architectural Description:
Date of initial construction: circa 1927
The.parcel at 95 ]-955 Addison has three Craftnman style cottages and an accessory structure
composed of one of a number of similar cottage groupings located on this block of Addison Street.
The grouping is placed in a staggered progression on a deep, narrow lot. The units are
architecturally varied, but all feature shingle gable-ended forms with ta~stic masonry chimneys.
William M. Bernard was an investor-contractor who built many small houses in the city during the.
1920s and 1930s. He was especially active inBoyce Addition area south of Channing Avenue
east of Middlefield Avenue. Short term tenants usually have occupied the cottages. The earliest,
Arthur F. Winter, a native of Palo Alto who lived all his life in the city, was an ~lectrician and auto
mechanic. From ! 939 to 1954, the owners were Fred J. and Helen Simpson. Simpson’s father,
Fred B., was constable of Palo Alto township between 1913-16, and his children were born in the
951-953-955 Addison Avenue - Historic Merit Evaluation
July 22, 1998
Page 2
Simpson house at 361 Channing Avenue (where the Palo Alto Medical Clinic.parking lot is now
located). Fred J. Simpson worked in the local post office for 36 years and was a collector of books
and documents on California history.
Characteristic features of, the Craftsman style include the following at each dwelling unit:
951 Addison, located at the rear of this property, is a single story gable-ended cottage with wood
siding, divided lite wood sash, open eaves with exposed, rafters.. ~.,.""a ,," ----~---~’;"~ ....._.~ erie ~
Alterations consist of addition of a wood trellis and deck along one side.
953 Addison, located at the center of the property, is a single story gable-ended cottage with
stucco siding divided in a panelized fashion by artfully battered wood trims, . cut-out porch
supported on similarly battered wood tresses, carved gable end fa.scia boards, wood divided lite
casement sash, and open eaves with exposed rafters. This residence appears intact.
955 Addison, located at the front of the property, is a single story hip/~ed,roofresidence with
deeply-overhanging rafters along the sides, a massive brick chimney’t~-at one end, wood divided-lite
casement sash, and wood siding at all facades. This residenee appears intact.
The City Permit history indicates that the a raised foundation and termite repair occurred in 1969,
and a reroof with tar and gravel took place in 1972.
This long block of Addison features a number of unusual lot configurations, expressed as
Bungalow Courts, alleys, and both period and modem residences constructed at lot interiors, The
block in the vicinity of 951-953-955 Addison presents a consistent ran of modest period
Craftsman residences and Builder Style Bungalows, among which 951-953-955 Addison are a
good fit.
Sanborn Map History:
The earliest Sanbom Map view of this block of Addison Street appears in December 1924. This
view of the parcel shows a Vacant lot. Initial development of the lot appears, on the December 1924
Sanborn Map with 1949 updates and includes four separate dwelling units. The 1962 Sanborn
Map shows the same dwelling configuration as it presently exists.
City Directories for successive years in Palo Alto identified the residents of 840 Hamilton Avenue.
1979 Inventory form .for this property.
Palo Alto Sanborn Insurance Maps, 1924-1962
Paio Alto Times 9/20/27
Palo Alto Times 10/1/69
Criteria for Bistoric Designation:
951-953-955 Addison Avenue - Historic Merit Evaluation
July 22, 1998
Page 3
Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 951-
955 Addison satisfies Criterion 4 because these residences employ period architectural themes that
are characteristic of residences of the 1920s.
Categorization:
Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 951-
953-955 Addison best fit the category of CONTRIBIITING residences. Staff concluded that
these residences, in its scale, style and setting, support the historic character of their neighborhood
grouping and district. These residences gain importance in part due to their integrity, as they have
retained all of their period features.
This property may be eligible in future evaluations for consideration as a Significant historic
resources, as the residences exemplify the crucial urban design function played by background
buildings that do not call attention to themselves, but rather provide a coherent frame of reference
for more important buildings, yet through the frequency of their appearance in period
neighborhoods establish a strong and memorable impression of period quality and integrity. The
role of this class of residence in Palo Alto’s neighborhoods was first discussed in the "Historical
and Architectural Resources of Palo Alto" dated 1979 and continues to be an important aspect of
period neighborhood quality today.
.TIMELINE:
All historic designations are subject to an appeal period, which allows for the applicant or members
of the public to file an appeal from the decision of the Historic Resources Board and the director
of the project. The appeal period is 10 calendar days from the mailing of the notice of the
decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
COURTESY COPY’:Applicant: Ca’ace C. Wu, 4168 King Arthur Court, Palo Alto, CA
94306
Property Owner: Tze,Ying Chiang, 727 Rosewood Drive, Palo
Alto, CA 94303
Prepared By:Barbara .ludy,
Reviewed By:Erie Riel, Jr.
Chief Planning Official
Designee of the Director of Planning & Community Environment
State of California -- The Resources AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIOI~
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary #
HR! #
Trinomial ....
NRHP Status CodeOther Listings
Review Code ~ Reviewer Date
114 of Sec ;B.M,
Zip 94301
mN
Page 1 of 4 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 951 - 955Addison Street
P1. Other Identifier:
P2. Location:[] Not for Publication [] Unrestricted a. County SantaC/ara
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T ; R ;1/4 of
c. Address: 951 Addison City Pale Alto
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/linear resources);mE/
e. Other Locational Data (Enter Parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
P3.
Parcel No. 003-25-007
Description (Desate re~oJ~eand Is rraj~ StaTer~ Indu~ d~si~ ~, ~ ala’at~s, size, seltt-G ard ~)
The parcel at 951-955 Addison has three Craftsman style cottages and an accessory structure composed of one of a
nnmber of similar cottage groupings located on this block of Addison Street. The grouping is placed in a staggered
progression on a deep, narrow lot. The units are architecturally varied, but all.feature shingle gable-ended,forms
with rustic masonry chimneys.
William M. Bernard was an investor-contractor who built many small houses in the city during the 1920s and 1930s.
He was especially active in Boyce Addition area south of Channing Avenue and east of Middlefield Avenue. Short
term tenants usually have occupied the cottages. The earliest, Arthur F. Winter, a native of Palo Alto who lived
all his life in the city, was an electrician and auto mechanic. From 1939 to 1954, the owners were Fred J.. and Helen
Simpson. Simpson °s father, Fred B., was constable of Palo Alto township between 1913-16, and his ct~ildren were
born in the Simpson house at 361 Channing Avenue ~where the Palo Alto Medical Clinic parking lot is now located).
P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 - Sinole Family ProDertv
P4. Resources Present [] Building [] Structure [] Object [] Site [] District [] Element of District [] Other (Isolates, etc.)
"~ ~ " i’P5b. D~saj~dPh~:(Vew, d~e,a~sion~
~...~ .~Front view of.front dwelling unit.
951-955 Addison, PA front unit-F
Pll. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none")
P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
[] Prei~istoric [] Historic [] Both
c, 1927
P7. Owner and Address
Tze- Ying Chiang
727 Rosewood Drive
Pale Alto, CA 94303
P8. Recorded by:(Narn~e~iJ~r~a~J~) ’Barbara Judy Presen/at/on Architect
P9. Date Recorded: 6/30/97
P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
.In~r~ive
Attachments [] NONE [] Continuation Sheet [] District Record [] Rock Art Record [] Other: (Ust)[] LocaUon Map [] Building, Structure, and Object Record ~ Unear Feature Record [] Artifact Record[] Sketch Map [] Archseologlcal Record ,-- Milling Station Record [] Photograph Record
iState of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREAT[ ;--..
CONTINUATION SHEET
Page 2 of 4 Resource Name or #; (Assigned by recorder)
Recorded by=Barbara Judy Preservation Architect
Trinomial
951 - 955 Addison Street
Date 6/30/97 [] Continuation [] Update
Simpson house at 361 Channing Avenue (where the Palo Alto Medical Clinic parking lot is now located). Fred J.
Simpson worked in the local post office for 36 years and was a collector of books and documents on California histo~.
The earliest Sanborn Map view of this block of Addison Street appears in December 1924. This view of the parcel shows
a vacant lot. Initial development of the lot appears on the December 1924 Sanborn Map with 1949 updates and includes
..four separate dwellin,~ units. The 1962 Sanborn Map shows the same dwelling co~figuration as itpresently exists.
Characteristic features of" the Craftsman style include the Jbllowing at each dwelling unit:
951 Addison, located at the rear of this property, is a single story gable-ended cottage with wood siding, divided lite
wood sash, open eaves with exposed rafters, and a chimney at one end. Alterations consist of addition of a wood trellis
and deck along one side.
953 Addison, located at the center of the property, is a single story gable-ended cottage with stucco siding divided in a
panelized fashion ~by artfully .battered wood trims, cut-out porch supported .on .similarl-y battered wood trusses, carved
gable end fascia boards, wood divided life casement sash, and open eaves with exposed rafters. This residence appears
intact.
955 Addison, located at the front of the property, is a single story hipped-roof residence with deeply-overhanging
rafters along the sides, a massive brick chimney at One end, wood divided-lite casement sash, and wood siding at all
facades. This residence a~pears intact.
The City Permit history indicates that the a raised Jbundation and termite repair occurred in 1969, and a reroof with
tar and gravel took place in 1972.
This long block of Addison features a number of unusual lot configurations, expressed.as Bungalow Courts, alleys, and
both period and modern residences constructed at lot interiors. The block in the vicinity of 951-953-955 Addison presents
a consistent run of modest periodCraftsman residences and Builder Style Bungalows, among which 951-953-955 Addison
are a good fit.
DPR 523L-(1/~5) I-listoP/Mo~r -8~n Buen~nt~’a Pa~earch-Assoc~e~
State of California -- "rhe Resources Agen"DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECRE )N "’~ ,=tima ry #
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD HRI#
Page 3 of 4 NRHPStatus Code
Resource Name or #.’ (Assigned by recorder) 951 - 955Addison Street
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name:
B3.Original Use:Mu/tio/e family B4. Present Use: Multil~le family
B5.Architectural Style; Craftsman bunoalow
B6,Construction History= (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) .......
Alterations include: a second story period enclosure addition built in 1946, Modern alterations include: aluminum
windows with wood framing on the second story, raised foundation in 1969, and roof repair in 1972.
B7. Moved?[] No [] Yes [] Unknown Date : Original Location:
BS. Related Features-" The property contains three cottages and a small accessory structure.
Bga. Architect: William M. Bernard b. Builder:William M. Bernard
B10. Significance; Theme; Architectural Area:
Period of Significance: 1927-1940 Property Type; Applicable Criteria;
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architecturaJ context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The residences, in their scale, style and setting, support the historic character of the district and employ period
architectural themes that are characteristic of the early 20th century.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
Palo Alto Planning Dept BODS files
Palo Alto Sanborn Insurance Maps, 1924-1962
Palo Alto City Directories
Palo Alto Times 9/20/27, 10/1/69
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator; Barbara Judy Presrvation Arch#cot
Date of Evaluation: 6/30/98
(This space reserved for official comments.)
HP2- $inale FamilY Prooertv
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
State of California - The Resources AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREAT
;CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
~11 #
Trinomial
Page of 4~ Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 951 - 955Addison Street
Recorded by: Barbara Judy PreservationArchitect Date 6/30/97 [] Continuation [] Update
~°-.". 9~I1955 Addison,PA center unit-B
Supplemental Photograph or Drawing
Front view of back unit
’5]-955 Addison, PA back unit~B
DPR 523L
Attachment D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVI: ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
July 22, 1998
REGULAR MEETING - 8:O0 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pal, Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order at." 8.’10 AM
Board members:
Roger Kohler," Chairman
Carol Murden, Vice-Chair
Ken Alsman
Dennis Backlund
Martin Bernstein
Susan Haviland
Council Liaison:
Sandra Eakins
Staff:
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Other:
Board member absent:
Mildred Mario
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
Ann Lafargue Balin, 2385 Columbia Street, Pal, Alto, CA 94306, spoke regaxding request that St. Ann
Chapel to be placed on the Pal, Alto Historic Inventory.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
City of Pal, Alto Page I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Public Hearings: None.
Other Items: None.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings..
1.840 Hamilton [98-HRB-78]: Application of Michael P. Santullo, for Historic Merit Evaluation
of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940
(R-1 Zone District).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends assigning an historic designation of
CONTRIBUTING residence to this structure.
Warheit summarized the staff report.
BM Bernstein commented on the letter received at places that all the houses on the block
have additions and are not original structure.
Warheit responded that the letter showed changes in the house over the years and the staff
report pointed those changes out. Contributing houses are does not required to be
unaltered.
BM Backlund asked about the period of the addition on the left side seeond-story~
Warheit responded that the only information she had was in the staff report prepared by
the Preservation Architect that showed it was added in 1946.
Public Hearing:
Mike Santullo, 840 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, wanted to clarify the two
page letter he turned in, the first line stating that the residence was a two-story Spanish
with an addition at the front and right side of the house. If you walk in the house, you will
notice that the front side of the house appears glued to the rest of the house. If you look at
the house from the right side; you will see that the left side is the front extension and the
upper right corner is a second story addition. The drawing submitted showed the addition
from the front and the right sides.
BM Murden wanted to clarify that he was saying all the second story was an addition.
Mr. Santullo responded that he believed the first and the second story of the facade was
an addition.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
Mr.Santullo responded, he doesn’t know.
BM Alsman asked: What is the front yard setback?
Mr.Santullo responded that the front yard is 22 or 24 feet.
BM Backlund referred to the meaning of Contributing residence. For contributing
residence, it is not necessary that the house be original, it can have additions but the
additions should be period additions which under this designation classification would be
pre-1940.What contributes to the neighborhood around it and not just the house its self.
The front facade bears a heavy weight on this desigflation. If the front facade was built
before 1940 then this house deserve a designation; if the front facade was built after 1940,
this house should not be given any designation.
Warheit commented that the definition of Contributing residence does not refer to any
dates for alterations. It refers to what the building contributes to the grouping of the
neighborhood.
BM Backlund responded that he recalled from the staff reports in the past, with extensive
alterations, if that was the case in this particular instance, does the substantial historic
message or the integrity of the house still show through despite the alterations, that was
the test. If the .substantial part of the house that contributes to the neighborhood was not
period, it would be considered to be a post-1940 presentation, whatever the style. Anyone
can build this house in 1970 with the greatest attention to historic detail and with the.
intention to send a message that this was a period structure, but it was not. No matter how
well done or compatible it was, the question still was does the historic message of the
pre-1940 collection of original features, despite alterations, still show through.
According to the owner’s presentation this was not the case, but the actual date is not in
hand.
BM Bernstein referred to the staff report on the page 2 that the second story addition at
the left was build in 1946. If there is a front addition to the house, it was still unknown
which year it was build.
Mr. Santullo responded yes, he doesn’t know which year the front addition took plaer:
BM Alsman asked Mr. Santullo why he was objecting to the designation of the house.
Mr. Santullo responded that he was objecting because he feared the unknown. He wanted
to get the status of the house before he can do any changes to it. This house was found to
be contributing and what does contributing mean. He doesn’t know.
BM Alsman commented that he would follow the Compatibility Review Standards which
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
are fairly reasonable set of guidelines for make changes to the building. If Council
approved the incentives, you might found that there are substantial advantages as well.
Mr. Santullo commented that one of the reasons they purchased house was the
Mediterranean style and it was our intention was keep that. On the other hand, what does
contributing and not contributing really mean. To be honest with you, I don’t know.
Chair Kohler commented that if the house is declared Contributing he could apply for
Home Improvement Exception and possible Variance, being a Contributing residence you
could get extra bonuses (i.e. extra floor area set back and daylight plane) for reasons
related to your building having been declared Contributing, so in sense it was a benefit to
be declared Contributing. Unfortunately, the message out there has been terrible, but in
fact it has been a benefit to a lot of homeowners in Palo Alto. If the Board felt that they
needed to know more about the dates on these possible additions, we can continued this
item to the next meeting.
Warheit clarified that if a property was designated Contributing, the house can be
completely removed and replaced, there was no requirement to stay with existing style. If
you are only doing alterations to the house and you don’t alter the front facade or take
away 50% or more of the house, then you have no review requirement whatsoever. If you
alter the front facade or take away 50% or more of the house then you have to comply
with the Compatibility Review Standards. Compatibility Review Standards will guide
you in keeping the existing style, if that is what you are attempting to do.
BM Murden asked: What is the year of the Sanbom Map in the staffreport?
BM Backlund commented that he examined the glass in the windows of the whole front
facade. Both first and second story had a large amount wavy glass in the windows; this
represents glass from pre-World II up to 1939 and you don’t see it afterward; this not a
proof of the date, but is an indication of age that it was not 1950 or 1960.
Chair Kohler advised the owner that if he felt he had not had enough time to react or
absorb the information in the staff report, he had the option of asking to continue this
item to the next HRB meeting, the first meeting in August. :
Mr. Santullo asked: Would the HRB decision be made today?
Chair Kohler responded yes, the Board would make their decision today; you had 10 ten
days to appeal that decision and the appeal would go directly to City Council.
Public hearing closed.
Warheit commented that the Sanborn Map in the staff report was not clear. Building
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
records usually don’t go back past World War II. The second story addition in 1946 was
in the records and there may not be records for work done earlier.
BM Backlund commented that Compatibility Standards Review would only come into
play if the plans include a removal of 50% or more of all the perimeter walls of the
structure.
BM Haviland commented that the key element was the 1945 Sanborn Map, if the current
configuration was shown on that map, we would have evidence that it was a period
addition and it seemed to be a straightforward matter to got hold of that map.
Warheit responded that the original 1924 Sanborn Map updated to 1962 is upstairs in the
Building Department. Suggested if the Board felt that they needed more information then
it was advisable to continue the item.
BM Alsman moved to approved the Staffs recommendation for Contributing
designation.
No second.
BM Haviland commented that she was extremely uncomfortable to make any kind of
decision without a little further information; this information should be easily accessible
and she would like to see it.
Chair Kohler mentioned that it would be difficult with the limited staffto go upstairs and
obtain the information, we should just continued the item.
BM Haviland moved to continue the item to the next HRB meeting, Wednesday,
August 5, 1998, BM Backlund seconded the motion.
BM Murden asked: Are the 1945 Sanborn maps in City Hall or just 1962 Sanborn maps.
Warheit responded that was the original 1924 map with updates to 1962 and the pasted
over, but with the flash light you could read through all the layers. ..
Chair Kohler commented that if you were looking for the 1945 Sanborn map and if was
available from the Library, we should try to get it to help us make our decisions, the best
thing to do was to continue this item.
BM Bemstein commented that it would be fair to ask the owner if he had any preference
to have a decision today or continue the item to the next meeting.
Public hearing opened.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
2i
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
City of Palo Alto
Mr. Santullo responded to he preferred sooner than later because of the Interim
Ordinance; this process was started two months ago, it took them two months to get this
far and he wanted to get going as soon as possible.
BM Backlund asked: Does the 1945 Sanborn map include changes that were made
between 1940 and 945.
BM Murden responded that the map would reflected changes between 1924 and 1945;
1945 maps were updated version of the 1924 maps, but it doesn’t indicate when the
updating occurred.
BM Backlund commented that changes were unlikely during World War II. He agreed
with Haviland to continued the item to the next HRB meeting.
BM Alsman clarified that the reason he made the original motion was that in his view this
was cl.early a Contributing building to the neighborhood, one of those building that added
some character to the neighborhood, the original building was clearly built before 1940.
Under the definition of Contributing, additions were permitted so long as in keeping.
Chair Kohler agreed with BM Alsman comments.
BM Murden commented that it was true that there could be a lot of alterations to a
contributing residence, but if the whole front facade had changed, the whole front facade
was an addition and was a later addition, therefore a part of the Contributing definition
was not met.
BM Haviland agreed 100% that this building contributed to the neighborhood and there
was no question about that, there was no question that she urged the owner to retain as
much as possible of the building character. This was a big issue for Palo Alto and was an
issue that had been much debated. It was not clear in her mind at this point whether to use
historic preservation to ensure that contributing nature of the building existed, that why
she requested further information.
Chair Kohler stated that our role here was under the Interim Ordinance. Even if we
personally felt that the Interim Ordinance was wrong, we can’t just change the Interim
Ordinance, and that is where we are. I had the feeling that most of you would like to
continue this item until we receive the data; we had a motion to continue this item and it
was seconded by BM Backlund.
Historic Resource Board Action: To continue Item No. 1,840 Hamilton, to the next
HRB meeting on Wednesday, August 5, 1998.
VOTE:4-0-2-i (Kohler & Alsman "no" and Mario absent)
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
t
City of Palo Alto
951-955 Addison [98-HRB-60]: Application of Grace C. Wu, for Historic Merit Evaluation of
a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 (R-1 Zone District).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends assigning an historic designation of
CONTRIBUTING residence to the three residences: 951 Addison, 953 Addison, and 955
Addison. The property is currently designated as a Category IV historic resource under
the City of Palo Alto’s existing Historic Inventory.
Warheit summarized the staff report.
Public hearing opened.
Tze-Ying Chiang, 727 Rosewood Drive, Palo Alto. Stated she had a correction to make to
the staff report: 951 Addition does not have a chimney.
Don Price, 960 Addison, Palo Alto. Questioned the role of"so called" old buildings
which are facing across the street from a whole row of new and modern style houses.
Most of the street had modem houses, not little old cottages. Noted that this was a R-1
street and believed that these little cottages are not conforming to the R-1 designation..
The block is impacted by the automobiles overflowing from these tenants, so the street
was looking more like a parking lot than anything historic. Would like to know why
historic designations were given to these little cottages.
Chair Kohler responded that these cottages were zoned R-1 because it has been R-1 for
many, many years.
Public Hearing closed.
BM Murden wanted to make another correction on 951 Addison that there was no
massive brick chimney that it was covered with shingles.
BM Backiund commented that there were already two houses on this block that were
designated Contributing in the past, Also, to set up the context for this house he did a
count. Of those houses that are clearly visible from the street, he got 16 modem structures
and 17 that were clear to him to be pre-1940 structures. The 16 modem houses, however,
included several large and dominant ones; they do set a strong character on the street.
Some of the historic houses were very, very small, and some were understated in style.
BM Murden commented that of the two houses previously reviewed on Addison, one was
designated Contributing and one was not.
BM Backiund noted that the one near Channing was designated No Historic Merit and
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
the house next to the subject property was designated Contributing.
BM Alsman commented that these buildings were clearly from the historic period and
they add character to the block. Unfortunately, he was not sure what that character was in
terms of being Contributing. At the last meeting there were several buildings that were
beyond meeting the definition of Contributing. This one, he felt, fell at the other end of
the scale; he was debating as to how it should go.
Chair Kohler declared the Public Hearing opened again.
Mrs. Chiang agreed with BM Alsman that if you had ever been there, these houses are
very, very old. She doesn’t know what these houses are contributing to the neighborhood,
as this house doesn’t have any style that would contribute to the neighborhood.
Public member Diethild A. Price, 960 Addison, Palo Alto. They moved into the house in
1969; she remembered very clearly that the former owner of the house owned a
construction company that built houses here in Palo Alto. He intensively remodeled those
little cottages. In 1985 they removed the stone on the chimney you see in the picture, he
re-did all the sidings new. The second house, 953 Addison, the outside was completely
re-done, it was done 15 years ago.
Public Hearing closed.
BM Murden disclosed that she spoke to Mr. and Mrs Price when looking at the houses.
These houses are historic and they form a bungalow court which was a type of
house-grouping used historically in Palo Alto. However, on the two houses on this block
that had previously come before the HRB, she had voted for No Historic Merit as this
block no longer seemed to be a historic neighborhood. She had to vote No Historic Merit
on 951-955 Addison to be consistent. She was not entirely happy to make that decision
but part of the Contributing definition, that a house contribute to the neighborhood, was
not being met.
BM Murden moved to designate 951,953,955 Addison structures as No Historic Merit.
No second.
BM Backlund commented that the Board designated one building on the block as No
Historic Merit; that one was down near Channing in that area where Addison meets that
cross street. Those structures in that area are mainly historic, on streets that are not
Addison but close by. As you move down Addison toward Fife, the houses are more and
more modem; these houses are large and dominant. He thought that the subject houses
themselves do have a certain amount of historic character. He was very thankful to the
last publ’ic speaker who talked about the alterations. Those were the very ones he
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
suspected might be modem alterations. He thought that a certain amount of historic
character still shows through, but the other aspect of the Contributing designation is the
kind of neighborhood around the house. Regarding the house we just reviewed on
Hamilton, there were 12 historic structures and 2 modem ones on the block; it was clearly
a very dominantly historic block. By his count, it was 51% historic houses and 49%
modem on the Addison block. This is a more debatable question, whether the subject
houses do have a sufficient historic neighborhood to contribute to. He believed that there
was a modem house next door and a period one on the other side. He thought that this
was a borderline case.
BM Murden commented that the vote on the house next to this one was 4 to 2, it was
designated Contributing on 4 to 2 vote. She was one of the ones that voted "no." She
wanted to be consistent and she would stick with "no" vote.
BM Haviland commented that walking around in the neighborhood particularly in this
little collection of buildings, she really felt that she was in a time warp. Once you were
back in the lot you felt you were in a completely a different year. In a sense, that is what
the aim of this Board is to preserve. The problems that she had with this particular
collection of buildings was that, it was unlikely that the public would be allowed back
there in the future. The character of buildings around, as BM Backlund had mentioned,
was not particularly consistent. She was really unsure, this was a borderline type of a
case.
Chair Kohler mentioned that this was one of those little streets, the first time he went
down the street, he remembered being surprised how rare that section of Addison was.
When he drove by and looked at these houses, he was taken by how each one individually
had its own look. The staff report did say that there were termite repairs and foundation
replacement done in 1969, re-roofed in 1972, etc. Unfortunately, today we were at a bit of
a loss without the staff who wrote the staff report present, whose knowledge and
experience had been a great help.to us in the past 18 months and was no longer present.
So, he thought it was a close call, but’he would make a motion ’to designate these
structures Contributing for the reasons in the staff report.. He thought that although the
neighborhood surroundings had changed, this section of the street was definitely
Contributing.
BM Backlund mentioned that he had reached his own conclusion. He had been working
with the intactness of the houses in relation to historic nature of the neighborhood. He
was impressed that the front cottage (which was most visible from the street) had
alterations that he was sure were not historic; one speaker had confirmed that, but he was
quite sure of that, and there were some questions about that portion of the street, whether
the historic was dominant. This combination of lack of intactness of the most visible
cottage, and the modem structures on the street, carded him over theline to a No Historic
Merit on this one.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
MOTION: Chair Kohler moved, seconded by BM Alsman, to designate these structures
Contributing as part of the staff report for the reasons in the staff report.
VOTE:3-3-0-1 (MOTION FAILED).
(Kohler, Alsman, Bemstein "yes", Murden, Haviland, Backlund "no")
BM Murden commented that she felt her hands are tied because she had voted "no" twice
on both of the houses on the street that had come before the Board. She felt the street did
not have historic character.
BM Backlund mentioned that the front cottage really was what dominated these houses.
The surfacing of the house and the chimney, which if those were original, the applicant
had asked what style this house, and the other two houses, would be. They would qualify
as rustic Bungalows. It was not a strong style like Arts and Crafts; they were more in the
Country style which this area was at that time. One could called them historic rustic
houses. If this front house were intact he would think differently, but the whole surface
had been covered with modem materials; that was a big change, so that, .in combination
with the modem elements of the neighborhood, was the reason for his vote. Maybe the
Board would like to evaluate the appearance of the front cottage.
Chair Kohler responded that the staff report said that the rest of the houses appeared to :be
intact.
BM Backlund mentioned that the staff report said there was a chimney on a house where
there was none. Also, the chimney that was surfaced in shingles he had never seen on a
historic house; there would be just simply a stone material of some kind.
BM Alsman responded that in order to move this along, he would like to change his vote.
He will be interested to see to what happens to the property without any historic
designation.
Chair Kohier asked for a new motion.
Historic Resource Board Action: BM Backlund moved, seconded by BM Murden to
designate 951 - 955 Addison Avenue structures of No Historic Merit for reasons of strong
and even dominant modem character on the block, and also ~e extensive surface
alterations to the street facing cottage of the three. ..............
VOTE:
Other Items.
4-2-0-1 (Kohler and Bemstein "no", Mario, absent)
3.Discussion of current, status of draft Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Survey.
No action will be taken.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34’
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Warheit commented that this item regarding how to proceed with the historic survey will
be on.the Council agenda on August 3, 1998. There were two reports: 1) how to proceed
with the historic survey which was underway, 2) future of the Interim Ordinance, i.e
incentives, etc. All those issues were going to be on the Council agenda August 3, 1998.
Chair Kohler updated the Board on the City Council meeting. Council decided to put a
fixed ending date on the Interim Ordinance and moved it from the June to
March 31, 1999. Council hoped that the permanent ordinance would be in place before
the Interim Ordinance expired. Staff was directed to come back with a report with all the
various requirements needed to complete the survey to implement the new ordinance.
Chair Kohler declared the Public Hearing opened.
Karen Holman, 725 Homer, Palo Alto, CA, spoke that she did not come intending to say
anything, but when she saw the wording ofthisitem it caused her to make her comments.
Her feeling about the current status of Historic Preservation Ordinance was that it was
underread and misunderstood. She requested that HRB should ask the City to put
information in the public’s hands with the correct information regarding the Ordinance.
There were people who spoke at the July 6th Council meeting that still think they can’t
add a bathroom or remodel their kitchens and that is incorrect information. We were not
doing ourselves any favor to let that kind of misinformation persist. She requested the
HRB support and try to get the fight information to the homeowners.regarding the
Preservation Ordinance.
Chair Kohler declared the Public Hearing closed.
Chair Kohler commented that the speaker brought up a good point, he asked the staff if
there were any changes made to the Ordinance.
Warheit responded that there had been no changes, the Council decided at the end. of May
that they-did not want to hold a public hearing on the draft the was represented to them
until after they had more complete information regarding the historic survey. There were
three technical issues that were clarified and recommended by staffto have changed. The
Attorney’s office was going to make those changes on the draft that was circulated and on
the Web site.
Chair Kohler mentioned that one of the items that you were going to present to the
Council was the required process for implementing the incentives. We had the discussion
here at the Board that each of these incentive had to be in place in each of the zone
districts individually; how is this issues to come about?
Council Eakins responded that she was not sure how it was going to be addressed
specifically on August 3rd, but for your information the item had gone to the Planning
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
411
41
42
43
Commission. The Planning Commission will work closely with this Board. The plan was
for the Planning Commission which was our land use recommending body to do this
work and that was very appropriate.
Chair Kohler responded that the Board had not been asked to be represented at that
meeting.
Council Eakins suggested that Chair Kohler and herself would have a separate
conversation regarding how the HRB would be plugged in on this and all of you would
know that.
Council Eakins stated that Chair Kohler needed to appoint someone to represent the HRB
at the Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Kohler responded he would represent the HRB on the August 3rd Council
meeting. He asked the Board if they had any ideas or information about Ms. Holman
concerns she addressed today.
BM Alsman responded that was an excellent idea, he suggested that we should continue
to give advise and information on changes to the Interim Ordinance and Incentive, etc.,
but not just send out notices telling the public what the Ordinance said.
Warheit responded that one of the items the City Manager was going to bring forth on
August 3rd was a Public Information Officer, work had been proceeding along in that
line. The situation was that a new Proposed Draft Ordinance was released in April and the
Council action in May was to put it on the shelf until they get more information about the
historic survey, so it was the survey they were trying to move forward with.
Just a clarification regarding the applicant who spoke earlier about his project that might
be subject to Compatibility Review. The incentives that had been proposed by staff to the
Council as part.of the Historic Preservation Ordinance would not apply to Compatibility
Review. The Historic Preservation Ordinance only applied to buildings that were on the
city’s Historic Inventory and these incentives were part of that package. ’ ....
Chair Kohler commented there had been a number of homes, up to 25 homes, that had
received beyond the normal incentives because their house was declared Contributing or
Landmark which meant that if they applied for HIE, .typically they would got an
exception for floor area for about 100 square feet, that seemed to be an unwritten rule up
in Planning, some people would got up to 150 or 180 extra square feet in floor area
because their house had been declared Contributing or Landmark, that was why he was
saying that right now the Zoning Ordinance was a gold mine in a way, you could get a lot
of incentives for those homes that had been declared Contributing or Landmark. If I were
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
planning remodeling, I would want to be declared Contributing myself.
4. Discussion of current status and HRB role in PAMF/SOFA area plan. No action will be taken.
-Chair Kohler updated the new HRB members that the Board had joined the meeting with
the PAMF/SOFA consultant committee. The Board had expressed interest in having
some review of the plan that being developed. Public speakers came before the Board
expressing their dismay that some of their properties which they knew were historic, and
some were on the inventory, had been blocked out as for new housing in this plan. Staff
was quick to pointed out that this was a very, very preliminary rough over-view of the
area. Part of the reason that was on the agenda was that Homer Street especially had
numerous stores, homes and commercial buildings. The Board expressed interest in
having some role or giving their input to this plan.
Chair Kohler declared the Public Hearing opened.
Public member Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, wanted to bring
information before the Board that they may have already or not, she had service on the
SOFA Advisory Committee and was a Board member of the University South
Neighborhood Group. In those arenas it had been very strongly supported and suggested
that the neighborhood was interested in-fill buildings, when the clinic left, to be
compatible with the existing neighborhood. The clinic had shown strong desire to work
with the neighbor’s wishes in the SOFA meetings. Staff was writing design guidelines so
the potential buyer would know ahead of time that this would be reviewed and what they
had to go through. The advantage is that the neighborhood character would be retained.
Chair Kohler asked where was the Committee process at the moment, any deadlines
coming up or anything liked that.
Ms. Holman responded that the Committee will not meet again until September, the plans
were in the hands of the Planning staff right now, they were going to be writing up the
guidelines among other issues further refining what the Committee came up with.
Chair Kohler declared the Public Hearing closed,
BM Murden commented that on the whole issue of South of Forest she knew that
everybody knew, the City, the Clinic, and HRB that this was a historic area and there had
been some discussion of that issue. She would like to see the HRB emphasize and be
more specific about the historic aspect of the SOFA area before the process got too far
with designating what was going to be done.
Chair Kohler recommended that Murden should make available to the HRB members the
information she had on the tour and he knew that Baeklund also had some information.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
BM Murden commented that she was thinking about taking a map of area and coloring in
red all the pre-1900 residences, so we could look at the whole area, because there were a
lot of historic structures not only on Homer, but in the joining areas.
Chair Kohler mentioned that the Sanborn Map Murden provided was truly enlightening
to show what the neighborhood looked like before the Medical Foundation.
Warheit commented that Planning Division had maps produced with the GIS system,
showing properties within that study area that are already on the historic inventory and
those that were pre-1948 and part of the historic survey. She understood from the Survey
Volunteers that the first 100 buildings that were assigned for archival research included
those in the PAMF/SOFA area in order to coordinated those two planning processes.
Warheit commented that the GIS system mapping lacked a certain amount of precision.
She suggested that those HRB members that had historic information about the
PAMF/SOFA area should come before the Committee and presented their information.
She would arranged with the PAMF/SOFA Committee to be ~here to hear you and you
could coordinate with them as you made your report.
¯ REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
Council Eakins announced that she had nothing additional to say, except she appreciated
the difficulty the Boardhad to face with the transition from having a Preservation
Architect to none at this point. She congratulated the Board for their patience and their
conscientious work to do the best job with less than ideal situation. She was aware that
the Board was concerned about the staff and the situation that they had been put in too.
She urged the Board to hold on to their visions, that you have a purpose. She appreciated
the positive attitude the Board had been showing.
BOARD MEMBER Q UES TIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
BM Backlund commented on an article from a newspaper that he wanted to clarify that
until the new Preservation Architect consultants were hired by the City there could be
significant delays for the applicant for the next two months or so. He anticipated a lot
of applications would be in the air during the summer months; was that a fair ~
statement in the newspaper or incorrect?
Warheit responded that it would depend on what the application was for. The Planning
Division might have professional~assistance with the Merit Evaluation applications
soon, but Compatibility Review was a different matter. It was more difficult, and we
don’t know what direction Council would take, so it was hard to tell people what is
going to happen. She did not want to be alarmist and it was not accurate to say that
people would be just languishing for months. The public has probably accepted that
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
things, aid not run as smoothly for a while, as ~ ~a witnessed this morning. She
asked the public to recognize the situation, show a little patience; we were doing
everything we could not to have delays and she hoped that we would be back on track
soon.
BM Bemstein wanted to know who in Planning Division the applicants would see ¯
regarding historic,,
Warheit responded that for Merit Evaluations those applications had been taken in for
months by the Planning Technician, there should be no changes in how that was
operated. For Compatibility Review, Amy French, was stepping in to take those
applications.
BM Murden responded to the Comments made by the public member regarding St.
Ann’s Chapel. She requested to put St. Ann,s Chapel on the agenda for further
discussion.
Chair Kohler declared to put St. Ann’s Chapel and Luce Stem Sea Scout Building on
the August 5, 1998 agenda per the approval of the HRB members. Backlund would
provide information he had on the Sea Scout Building to be put in the packet for the
HRB members.
Council Eakins suggested using the inventory to cross reference for both the Well
Tower and the Sea Scout Base Building, those of you who heard comments at the time
the Council extended the lease on Sea Scout Building, there were several very strong
comments from some Council members about how important that building was.
Chair Kohler informed everyone that the Board took a tour with Bill Fellman of the
Sea Scout Base, the Board felt at that time that the damage that had been done could
be repaired, but they learned that they had to go to various different agencies for
approvals because it was a wetland district and an airport district.
Chair Kohler complimented Council Eakins on her photography that was distributed in
the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested to the Board members that they read the
historical section in the Comprehensive Plan, that it was well written and will be part
of their working guidelines. "
BM Backiund asked about the Interim program, was the plan hard and fast to get a
new consultant or consultants working in the Planning Division by September 1 st.
Was it possible for the Planning Division to engage a consultant on an emergency
basis where the whole RFP process would not have to be done, but someone could
simply be put to work.
Warheit responded, yes, Planning Division was already working on that. The change
of staff was anticipated in June, when Barbara Judy had indicated that she Wanted to
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
¯ 29
30
31
leave, city, and she agreed to stay on for thre,. =lonths to facilitated a transitions.
So, an RFP process had been underway; we were going to have people on board very
soon.
Historic Resources Board represemative at City Council meetings:
Pro~Meeting date Representative
City Cotmcil 8/3/98 Roger Kohler
Next Meeting: August 5, 1998
ADJOURNMENT
ADA. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650)
329-2550 (voice) or 650-328-1199 (TDD)
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956.
Recordings. An audio tape of the proceedings may be obtained/reviewed by contact~g the Planning Division at (650) 329-
2440. A video tape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting Marcia Guy at (650) 329-2206.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Attachment E
Information Regarding the Interim Historic Ordinance
STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Criteria for
Evahtatfftg the
Significance of
Historical Resources
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5
The following standards for Historic Designation have replaced the former
Historic Categories and Criteria for Designation found in Section
16.49.020 (b) and Section 16.040 (b) of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance. The previous designation Categories 1,2,3 and 4 are replace -
by two categories-- Landmark and Contributing. The current designation
criteria is replaced by the new Criteria for Evaluation the Significance of
Historical Resources.
A property would be deemed to be historically significant of it is found to
be of significance to Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the State of California or the
nation under one or more of the following criteria. Historic property may
include building, structures, objects, landscape elements or natural
features,, e.g., El Palo Alto.
¯ It is associated with events or patterns of events, that have made a " .
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history
and cultural heritage of California or the United States.
¯ It is ~issociated with the lives of architects, builders, other persons or
historical events that are important to Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the nation
or to California’s past.
¯ . It is an example of a type of building or is connected with a business or
use which was once common, but is now rare.
¯ It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, is particularly representative of an architectural
style or way of life important to the city, region, state or nation, represents
the work of a master, possesses high artistic values or contains elements
demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail,
materials or craftsmanship.
.. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
’Prehistory or history of Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the state or nation..
standards for historic designation
Landmark
Properties
Contributing
Properties
D~signated historic property will categorized as Landmark or Contributing
according to the following definitions.
Landmark properties are exceptional or major building, groups of
buildings, structures, objects, landscape elements or natural features which
are of pre-eminent national, state, regional Or local importance, exhibit
meritorious work of the best architects, are an outstanding example of the
s.tylistic development of architecture or landscape architecture in the
’United States, California, the Bay Area or Palo Alto, or are identified with
historic people or with important events or activities in the city, region,
state or nation. A property may be designated a landmark when it is one
of a distinctive contiguous assembly of historically significant structures
with a unified architectural theme or setting that creates a significant and
distinguishable entity. The Landmark ’may have some exterior
modifications, but the original character is retained.
,.
Contributing properties are buildings, groups of buildings, structures,
objects or sites that relate to and support the historic character of a
neighborhood grouping or district because of historical or cultural
importance or in scale, materials proportions,, setting or other factors. A
contributin~ property may have had extensive or permanent changes mad~
to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal
of architectural details or changes to exterior materials.
standards for historic designation Page 2