Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-09-15 City Council (26)
TO: FROM: DATE: City City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment September 15, 1997 CMR:384:97 SUBJECT:APPEAL BY THE OWNERS OF 1078 FOREST OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR-OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AND THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD TO DESIGNATE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AS A LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Historic Resources Board to designate the residence at 1078 Forest an Historic Landmark Residence, based on findings (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND - On May 15, 1997, an application was ~ubmitted by Hassan and Maryam Shakernia for Historic Merit Evaluation on the single family residence at 1078 Forest Avenue, also known as Rosedale Manor. On July 2, 1997, the HRB,:on a vote of 3 to 2 recommended that the residence be designated an Historic Landmark Residence pursuant to Chapter 16.50 (Interim Historic Regulations) of the Palo Alto Mtmicipal Code: On July 8, 1997, the Director’s i~ designee approved the recommendation. On July 16, 3997, the property owners requested -that the HRB reconsider their decision. The HRB declined, and this appeal was filed on July 17, 1997. The appeal seeks to have the residential structure .designated a Contributing Residenee.-Appeals of decisions under Chapter 16.50 must be considered by Council within 60 days offiling. " : Basis for Determination The five criteria for evaluating the significance of a building as an historical resource, as established under the Interim Historic Ordinance, are: CIvlR:384:97 Page 1 of 9 ", 1.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. 2.It is associated 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. ¯ ~ 3. It is an example of a type of building or connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare. ~- 4.It embodies the distinctiqze.charactedstics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, is particularly representative of an architectural = style ~r way of life important to the city,~region, state or nation, represents ::the work of a master, possesses high artistic values or contains element~ demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. 5.It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information :to the~ :prehistory or history of Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the state ornation. The residence at i078:Forest satisfies Cdted~ through 4~ Rosedale Manor ~s most impressive for itsclear adherence to the original idea of the Bungalow country house: a unique combination ofsophistication and simplicity that was more at home in California than ::?perhaps anywher~ els~ in the world. ~ This residence is als~oteworthy:for its early date of ~construction at atim~when development of the Ashby Addition was beginning,~for:its design bya prominent itr~hitect, and for its sequence of owners who each responded to the Arcadian ~emes of a healthylife lived in a natural setting. ~ ~: ~ The follow g summarizes the appeal of Herman Harrow and the appellant’s consultant i ~ :Mieger Mineweaser~Associates, and staff’s responseto the appeal arguments. Their letter is included as Attachment 2, and ’staffhas paraphrased and condensed their arguments in :::Demolition may be the most economical and efficient use for the property; if this ~ option is restricted the owner may not:be able to sell theproperty. Consideration should be gi.ven to the economic consequences of this decision. : ~ No documentary evidence has beenpresented to confirm that demolition will be the most economical and efficient use for the property, nor that there will be adverse economic impacts as a result of this decision. The City understands that the primary interest of the current owner is to sell the property. It has come to the City’s attention that potential buyers continue to be interested in the property, as individuals have come to the City’s Platming Division to discuss and clarify the historic status of the residence and the array of alterations that could be undertaken given the Landmark status. In addition, the issue of the economic xriability of retention of a structure properly should be considered at the time of application for modification or demolition, rather than at this time. Landmark Historic Residences may be demolished under exceptional circumstances~ Compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in developing alterations is a restriction on the property. Both staff and Council have acknowledged that enacting any design controls, whether they are zoning-related, construction-related, or preservation-related, imposes a burden on the property owner. In the case of Landmark Alteration Review for compliance with the Standards, the purpose of the controls is to protectcommunity character in pre-1940 neighborhoods and to preserve historic resources. The original house is believed to be apersonal residence of some 111700 square feet in size. The Current residence is some 3,200 square feet in size; the difference between the two versions indicating thg degree to which the residence has been. altered over the years. The original resldence consisted of a simple rectangular one story box, and -has°been altered successively over: the years. All alterations that change the re.sidence from its original 1905 design diminish its integrity. Period alterations that are consistent-with the building’s original design do not-_ diminish its integrity. Conventional practice within preservation includes establishing a "period of significant’ for each historic resoure.e evaluated; this information is contained on the Historic Inventory Form. Determining the building’s period of significance is ~eeessary:~o establish the significance of early alterations :that are compatible with the _original design. The period of significance enables both original features and~compatible early alterations to be interpreted as signitieant historical materials or~eonfigurations::The common-sense aspect Of this practice is evident on considering the frequency which with buildings are altered, especially older ones.-The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation state that "most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved." The period of significance used for residential properties evaluated under the Interim Historic Program is from the date of construction to 1940, as these dates coincide with the development of Palo Alto’s early 20th century neighborhoods. Photographs of 1078 Forest dating from the late CMR:384:97 Page 3 of 9 o !930s show the current building configuration, including the enclosed porch extending across the street facade. Conversely, it is important to recognize that historic properties may continue to change in modem times, and this is both respected and encouraged under National Standards. Staff visited the subject property and walked the exterior, as well as reviewing its permit history, newspaper history, and Sanborn Map history. Staff summarized non- period -alterations to the structure in the staff report of July 2, 1997, as being concentrated at the rear, and including two generations of rear wing additions, and a rear awning/porch addition extending across the balance of the rear of the structure. Finally, three side stairs have been replaced and/or added on both the let~ and fight sides of the residence, out of view of the main facade; these replacement stairs are not of the quality of the original structure. All other alterations, if any, would be characterized by staff as occurring within the period of significance and as not diminishing the integrity of the resource. The front porch is not original and its addition diminishes the integrity of the resource. _ As cited above in the definition of the bungalow form, a wide porch Or veranda is a character-defining feature of this style. Archival views of the property are consistent in showing the existingporch as being the current porch. Archival plan views of the residence occur in the Sanborn Maps, the first version being the map initiated in 1924 and updated through 1939. The subsequent flew, showing the identical plan view, dates from 1945. There are no earlier views of the property, :as the Sanborn Map initiated in 1904 did not encompass this area. - -_ - The appellant proposes that the original porch was a partial width from porch, a porch form that would be consistent with the Craftsman bungalow style. In citing the unweathered condition of woodmembers below the porch, the~appellant overlooks the degree to which the porch is sheltered and intrinsically protected from weather. Additionally, the appellant does not methodically-evaluate wood content, flaming strategy, nailing strategy and technology, among other available analytical tools. Given the integration of the flont porch into the overall massing of the building, and given the importance placed on creating ample porches in the bungalow style, and the balance-6farchival evidence indicatingthe consistent presence of the porch, it is staff’s opinion that the porch is part of the original structure. The left front facade corner is not original and its addition diminishes the integrity of the resource. Page 4 of 9 Evaluation 0f the left front facade comer with respect to finishes of wall, windows, trims, roof mass indicates that this area, if it is indeed an alteration, was constructed within the building’s period of significance, and therefore has historic merit due to its overall harmonious, integration into the building. 6.The residence is an Arts and Crafts style structure, and should therefore have large .imposing columns (often with sloped ~r battered sides) with a relatively simple delineation of, the base and capital. Columns may be grouped to form a strong visual. element. ~ The appellantis in error in describing this as an Arts and Crafts residence. As stated in the inventory form and staff report of July 2, 1997, the subject residence is a bungalow. The bungalow style, with its origins in the traditional stmctttres of India, emerged in the United States in the late nineteenth century as a suburban house form that was intended trprovide a living environment that was an antidote to the crowded and unPleasant conditions of America’s cities. The bungalow was widely described as a single story structure with a low spreading roof that encompassed one or more verandas; and allowed fora life lived nearly outdoors. The Arts and Crafts movement, which occurred in a time period that overlapped the emergence of the bungalow form, had its origins in =a~reaetion against industrialization, and a corresponding-enthusiasm for the hand~ and picturesque. The Arts and Cra~ movement eventuall~ adopted dements of the bungalowform and created the "Cmtisman" or "Catifomi~?’ bungalow, a re:sidential form that waswidely constructed in the 1910s and 1920s, and indeed often contains the battered porch- -supports and paired columns referenced elsewhere by the appellant.- Much scholaxly effort has been dedicated to describing the unique bungalow tradition,~ -including works by Clay Lancaster "The ~American Bungalow 1880 - 1930", Anthony King "The Buagalow’~, Robert Winter "The California Bungalow",-and Robert Winter "Toward a Simple,r Way of Life,. The residence lacks its original character-defining features. A standard practice in preservation evaluation:and analysis includes the process of architectural description. This description is lacking in the appellant’s report; the. appellant does not methodically describe what the character-defining features of the building are or might have been. The appellant does cite a conventional porch description for a Craftsman bungalow; however, as stated above, this is not an appropriate-reference. In the absence of an assertion regardhag what the character- defining features are for this residence: staff cannot~evaluate the claim that theY no longer exist. = : :~ CtvIR:384:97 Page 5 of 9: o The exterior walls of the residence exhibit variation in finish material at the rear left comer (board and batten siding) and at the rear poreh wall (stucco)," these changes in finish material destroy the historic fabric of the house. The statement of existing condition is consistent with the staff evaluation of the ~esidence; there are two generations of non-period rear wing construction, as well as non-period alterations extending across the rear facade of the residence that exhibit alteration of exterior materials. In select rear facade areas, the likely original exterior finish materials have been~emoved or obscured. The degree of historic fabric thus removed or destroyed is Iimited, and falls within the range established for Landmark Historic Residences: "The Landmark may have some exterior alterations, but the original character is retained.’’r It should be noted that the rear wings are additive alterations; in other words, they are reversible modifications that, if removed, would result in restoration of the period residence. Interior alterations have occurred; a select number of rooms retain their historic fabric while others do not. Most city planning ordinances do not deal with interior conditiOns. This fact is not relevantto the historic merit determination. As acknowledged by the appellant, the City ofPalo Alto’s interim Historic Regulations consider_the building exterior and not the~interior. ~- - - when development of the neighborhood was just beginning ,: the aerial rendering of i~this neighborhood (Attachment 8) shows how scattered this development was. Considered in the context in which it emerged, the residenee’s role as one of the earliest surviving structures in this entire sector of Palo Alto becomes clear. It should also be noted that the-subject residence is dearty-a period residence in a context dominated by period structures, including the previously-landmarked The context andsiting of the residence i/ not unusual The street is not composed of a cohesive groupingofhistori6houses; ratherjnfill has been so rampant and the changes tO the majority of properties on the street are significant enough thatthis house is now only contributing to the general fabric ofthe neighborhood Existence of a cohesive grouping of historic houses is not a requirement for a finding of Landmark Historic Residence status, nor is a finding of unusual context or siting: A key element in understanding the historic significance Of 1078 Forest lies in its early appearance in the Forest Court setting. The residence was constructed at a time "Standards for Historic Designation; definition of Landmark Properties." C!VI~384:97 Page 6 of 9 residences at i001 Forest,. 1023 Forest and 1055 Forest. Several other period residences existing on the block, including residences at 1012, 1022, I032, 1044, 1056, 1081, 1094, and 1095 Forest. ~ R Miller was not an important architect, the residence may have been designed by a drafter, Miller did notproduce a body of residential work, andMiller is only known for the work he did on partnership with.architect Timothy Pflueger. Miller was a substantial architect who participated in the major architectural events of his period, especially the reconstruction of San Francisco in the aftermath of the 1906 Earthquake and Fire. He competed with his peers, such as Willis Polk, Bakewell and Brown, and others, as an entrant in the San Francisco City Hall design competition. He executed numerous commercial projects in downtown San Francisco, as well as several hotel commissions. Historical evaluation of these structures is ongoing, and select Miller designs have beenconsidered for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. ~ ~ ~ There is no documentary basis for suggesting that 1078 Forest was designed by a drafter. Miller executed-numerous substantial residential commissions in addition to 1078 Forest; several of these works are cited in the sta:ffreport dated July 2, 1997. Miller’s pride in this category of work is evidenced by his seeking to publish versions of his work in The Architect and Engineer, the premierCaliforniapublication by and for design professionals of the day. . The City Council ha~ two alternatives to the staffrecbmmendationi i~ ~ 1.Uphold the appeal and find the residence at 1078 Forest Street to be a Contributing Residence. : ~ ~ ~ : ~ Uphold the appeal and fred the residence at 1078 Forest_Street to be a Structure .POLICY IMPLICATIONS ~: Review and action on this appeal does not change current City_ policy. However, Cotmefl decisions on appeals from the decisions of the Historic Resources Board and staff are valuable in helping the Council resolve the focus of future historic regulations. This appeal, along with others, helps to clarify the value the City’s historic regulations should place on preservation of residential structures that may merit aLandmark designation~ There are no fiscal .impacts associated with this project. CMR:384:97 Page 7 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE~ This project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL D~-mding on the outcome of the Council’s determination, the homeowner would be free to develop and submit plans for modification of the residence on the following basis: 1.Structure Without Merit~ Compliance with R-1 Regulations required. Contributing Residence: Compliance also required to the staff-administered Compatibility Review Standards, if the alteration meets the defmition of demolition, meaning more than 50 percent of the exterior walls are demolished or any portion of the front facade. If the modifications fall beneath this threshold, compliance with only the R-1 regulations is required. ~ ~ o 8. CC: Landmark Residence: Alterations must meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation per review by the Historic Resources Board recommending to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, appealable to the Ci~ Correct. Demolition is only permitted under exception circumstances, Notice of the Decision of the Director, dated July 8, 1997 Minutes of the HRB meeting of July 2, 1997 Stattreport, July2, 1997 Historic Merit-Evaluation Application Form Criteria for Historic Designation Aerial view of Palo Alto and Stanford University Illustrations~ of thebungalow style Letters received by the ~ and Planning Division Findings - Appeal submittal from Herman Harrow,~ hated July 17, 1997 including an inspection :report from consultant Mieger, Mineweaser & Associates. Historic Resources Board Owner: Hunn and Mann Kim, 5232 Eggers Drive, Fremont, CA 94536. Applicant: Hassan and Maryam Shakemia, 754 Southampton, Palo Alto, CA 94303.. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Noreen Harrow, Seville Properties, 1930 Bryant St: Palo Alto, CA 94301 Frank Tabar, 470 Ruthven Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Carla Rayacieh, Stanford Mortgage Co.,541 Cowper St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 George Patterson, 1095 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mary Morris, 1081 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:384:97 Page 8 of 9 , Bob K.vlberg, 1145 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Yvonne Armstrong, 1075 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Stuart Bowen, 1075 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mel Kronick, 1156 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Geri Hadley, 1044 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Kathy Reese, 1002 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 -Nancy Huber, 451 Lincoln, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 PREPARED BY:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect Consultant for Interim Historic Program DEPARTMENT : KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and - Community Environment CMR:384:97 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS 1078 Forest Street The residence satisfies Criterions I through4 for determining historic significance, as follows: Criterion 1, as Rosedale Manor is associated with the broad patterns of local history in its origins as a summer retreat for a successful city businessman,who introduced a highly qualified San Francisco architect to Palo Alto, thus contributing to the unique quality and architectural heritage of Palo Alt0’s early 20th century residential neighborhoods which are so much a part of the city’s identity today. Criterion 2, as Rosedale Manor was designed by an important San Francisco architect, J. R. Miller - whose architectural legacy for residential design is augmented by this structure. Consistent with thevision of California Bungalows, Rosedale Manor provided a home for several Palo Altans who individually and collectively made a commitment_to ideals ofhealth and quality oflife for their fellow Palo Altans, the Bay Area, and the national .Christian Science community. These residents - Charles and Myrtle Whitney, Arthur.and Eugenia Fosbery, Be .r~laa Wright and Mabel Weed, and Prottinger - were upstanding Palo Alto citizens who were united by the theme of Criterion 3, as substantial single story Bungalows are rare throughout Rosedale Manor is without peer in Palo Alto in its ample size and understated yet =~.:elegant rendition of the Bungalow style. =: : :repreCriterion 4, as’ the design of this residence is:particularly sentative of an architectural-style - the BungaloW Style : and~ontains ~lements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design and detail. The Bungalow architectural style embodied an ideal vision of healthy sub~irban riving in a sophisticated environment; a vision that reached its epitome in California. Rosedale Manor is a textbook example of the Bungalow style(This large single story Bungalow is unique in Palo Alto with respect to its size and understated artistry. The construction of this residence gign~ed development of the Ashby addition and its quality may be seen as a reflection of the owner’s ambitions for a flom~shing new neighborhood in Palo Alto. 2~Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1078 Forest best fits the category of HISTORIC LANDMARK R~SIDENCE. Staff concluded that the residence, in its architectural features, scale, style, setting and associated cultural history, satisfies the standard of exception!l or major building as contained in the definition of Landmark Properties. The Landmark Historic Residence category is one that permits some exterior alterations provided the original character is retained. Rosedale Manor has experienced exterior alterations; however, these alterations have not diminished the period presence of the structure, and may all be characterized as reversible (ad’ditive) alterations that might be corrected by sensitive repairs and restoration. To be fried in duplicate Application No. Mann Kim *Name of Appellant 5232 Eggers DriveAddress Receipt No. e/7-~, 19 PhoneL~_791 2626 Fr~mon~ Ca 94536 Street City ZIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. 003 21027 Zone District R 1 Street Address 1078 Fores~ Avenue Palo Alto Name of Property Owner (if other than appellan0 Street City ZIP Th~ deeis~n d the Director of Planning and Conimunity Environment dated July B 1997 _ - . _ 19 whereby the applieation of Hassan & M21qram Shakernia, who-~ve defaulted on their for historical evaluation review was ndmark,~, aoo.roved~;&l, ~s hereby ap~aled for--!/ -- the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate). ~z:L -:~ - ~~- - Date July 17 1997 Signature of Appellant ~/ ’ " * Ple~ase contact Ho-Errmn or Noreen ~, 1930:B~,3ro.nt St., Palo Alto- 415 326 9292 I~censed aeal Es~te .6gents re ros~a~n Mann Xim in CITY COUNCILDECISION:~p -g _~ sale Of t.his prope~y; Date Approved Denied "Remarks and/or Conditions:°: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1,Plans (Applicant) 2.Labels (Applican0 3.Appeal Application Forms 4.Letter 5.Fee By: (.// 03/97 " PEOPEETIES July 17 1997 To: Cit3~ Council Re: 1078 Forest Avenue Palo Alto ~A .ppeal of Landmark Designation We wish to cbmllenge the decision made by the Historic Resources Board on Jul_v 2 1997 to designate 1078 Forest Avenue as a Landmark, property. We had requested a re-hearing of the vote at the July 16 1997 meeting but this request was denied in spite of the fact that the Staff Report was only received by the parties on Friday at 4:00 ~M before the July 2 1997 meeting, in violation of HRB’s own procedure calling .for reports to be available to the parties one week prior to the meeting. We had indicated that~ we had ~ retained a consultant to review and refute the arguments raised by Staff for the Landmark designation, but this was not permitted. Our only recourse is to appeal to the City Council to desi_~mate this property as "contributory" rather than "Landmark". Our arguments refuting the Landmark designation will be available by the end of July when the consultant ccmpletes his evaluation and report. As-seen in the attached handout, the original house was believed to be a personal residence of about I~00 square feet, with 2-3 bedrocms, 1-1% bathrocn~, kitchen, dining rocm and living roc~ with an open porch at the front. Today the house is a nursing hcme with about 3300 squarefeet, 9 bedrocms, 8 bathrocms, kitchen, dining rosa and~living room, with an enclosed sun porch and ramps and decks surrounding the exterior walls. To say the current h~use warrants Landmark status denigrates the meaning of this desigD~tiono If this house is a Landmark, then a considerable portion of the housing stock in Pal6-~ Alto would be considered in the same category. The economic consequences of this decision and the restrictions placed on the property represent a taking of personal property without due process and without compensation.-The ability of a homeowner to sell a property that cannot be demolished even if this is the most econcmical and efficient use of the property will be~severely 5limited. ~dded to this are the restrictions imposed ~by regulations issued by the Secretary of the Interior .regarding° Landmark Structures. ~Aside from the fact that- the City Council relies on the HRB to apply its expertise in these matters in a fair and impartial manner,, it must also be stated that when there is a doubt as to the proper designation of a property, consideration needs .to be given to the econunic consequences of their decision. We recognize that HRB decisions must be made on the facts of the particular property-and not on the feelings of neighbors. We also feel that the specific justifica~on Of Landmark status must be supported by ~ factual, corroborative, apparent data that everyone would recognize as justifying the - Landmark designation. As you will see in the consultan%s report these are not evident in this case. We urge the City Council to designate 1078 Forest Avenue as "contributory". Licensed ~eal Estate Agent for Hun & Mann Kim, owners of 1078 Forest Avenue 801 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 ph 415.328.7040 fax 415.323.2254 161 South San Antonio Road Los Altos, CA 94022 ph 415.941.7040 fax 4t5.941.3094 12200 $aratoga-Sunny~e Road Saratoga, CA 95070. ph 408.996.7040 fax 408.257.0792 Jul_v 23 1_997 TO M~MB~%~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL Re: 1078 Forest Avenue Palo Alto Historic Merit Evaluation Staff Report 7/2/97 ~ Item No. I. 1 Staff Report 6/18/97 Item No. II.3 File No. 97 HRB i31 The Staff Report of June 18 1997 made no ’r~tion regarding assigning an historic designation to this structure and r~ed continuing the it~n for further investigation; its initial evaluation indicated that it. satisfied Criterion 4 but the "residence requires additional investigation to determine whether it also satisfies criterions pertaining to local history..". We suh~it that the added infor- -.mation cited in the July 2 1997 Staff Report do not warrant the upgrading to ~Historic Landmark - the added data is either incorrect.,, full of conjecture biased in favor of its conclusion or is not. supported by the evidence in Staff’S files .... We have retained~an architectural.preservationist, consultant (Mieger, Mineweaser & Associates) to evaluate the Staff Reports referenced above. Craig Mineweaser’s report and credentials are attached. Following the format of the Staff Report, ~ following points are pertinent: All of. the references incl~ded in the Staff file indicate, that J ’R Miller w~ a partner in the architectural firm, Miller and Pflueger, which was primarily known for large cc~mercial structures, not private residences. The February 1930 edition of Architects & Engineers Who’s ~¢no stated that Miller & Pflueger specialized in office buildings, stock exchange, schools, theatres and skyscrapers~ The Butterfield & ButterfieldAucticn Catalog of-12/5/89 mentioned cnly one house alteration in 25 pages- (and over 100 pictures)of their major projects. Even I~nily Panzel’s list of major projects handled by Miller ~ Pflueger between 1904 and 1928 mentions only two private h~es, one of which was 1078 Forest. The obituary for ~ J R Miller highlights large cc~m~rcial projects, not private hcmes. California Architecture (S B Woodbridge) p.218-219 stated that Miller & Pflueger was primarily noted for innovation in skyscraper and theatre design". Michael Crowe (architectural historian) in his "Deco by the Bay" article in Art Deco Architecture 1995 mentions -only Timothy Pflueger in connection with the landmark buildings cited in this piece. In fact Mr C rowe asserts that J R Miller was primarily on the "business and engineering side of the Miller & Pflueger firm". Finally, Architect-& Engineer referred .to J R Miller ~as-Pflueger’s assistant. The srr~ and substance of the infon~ation referred to by the Staff Report and in staff,s files is that the Miller & Pfluegr firm specialized in large c~n~ercial structures, not private residences, and that J R Miller is not to be re.~-as an "important San Francisco architect". If Miller & Pflueger had any prcminence it was ~due to Timothy Pflueger, not J R Miller. 801 El Camino Real 161 South San Antonio Road 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Los Altos, CA 94022 Saratoga, CA 95070 ph 415.328.7040 fax ~15.323.2254 ph 415.941.7040 -fax 415.941.’3094 ph 408~996.7040 fax 408.257.0792 www.sevilleprop.com 2 B~ ASSOciated~ Owners Staff R~port associates the Fosberys with Christian Science Practitioners and with the founding.directors of Mary Baker Eddy’s Church. Staff Report references Fosbery’s’brOther-in-law B!iss.Knapp. ’.%~hose legacy continues today in the form of the Bliss Knapp Association"~ B~t’Rr’Knappdi.d nOt’live inthishouse. He is not an Associated Owner. Hew Staff can construct an association to a brotb~_r-in-law is imaginative except ~f0r the fact that this association is meant to establish the importance to the Palo Alto ccm~/nity, which it does not. The reference is then made to Bertha Wright and Mabel Weed, who bought the property in 1939 but the 1078 porti.’on of the lot was sold to M M Prottinger in 1940, who operated it as a nursing hcme (which ~as continued to this day). Any ccmnents about the significance of Bertha Wright and Mabel Weed’s legacy must be viewed with the perspective that they may have lived there for one ye~x’. There is no. support for the notion that 1078 Forest ,provided a h~ne for several Palo Altans who...made a ccranitment to ideals of health and quality of life for their fellow Palo Altans, the Bay area and the national Christian Science community. To weave a single strand of evidence, no matter h~w slight, into a web of ~portant landmark historical legacies is truly magical and reflects mainly on thewriting ability of the Staff author rather than on the hard facts on file. Surely this ~mportant Landmark designation requires more substance than is evident in the Staff Report. ~ Permit History ¯ staff Report "observed that the envirorm~_nt and~setting that existed historically is extant if somewhat concealed by a wealth of foliage and reversible alterations. The porch infill, perhaps_ dating from the 1920’s is reversible and in Staff’s judgment does not detract frcm the period quality of the residence. The ample lot that once existed has been subdivided, but other than this legal.alteration...no physical alteration to ,the site. ~ .have occurred". _ The dictionary defines "extant" as ’,still existing, not extinct, D~t destroyed or lost...conspicuous, evident, ipublicly known’, -- None of this is true of 1078 Forest. In fact none of the statesp_nts made above by Staff is true. As ;far as we can surmise from a more detailed view of the property than Staff conducted; the original bungalow may have been about 1700 square feet (2-3 bedrocms, 1-1½ baths, kitchen, dining roan, living roan and an open partial front porch)o Today the structure ccmprises about 3300 square feet (9 bedrocn%s, 8 baths, kitchen, dining roan, living roc~ and closed front porch extending on both sides, together with ramps, decks, stairs and added _doo_rs surrounding the entire exterior). The roof lines have been ;extensively revamped to accammodate these additions. The original bungalow is not recognizable in its present configuration. These alterations are not minor, cannot be dismantled or reversed without major cost and now form an integral part of the current structure. 801 El Camino Real 161 South San Antonio Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Los Altos, CA 94022 ph 415.328.7040 fax 415.323.2254 ph 415.941.7040 fax 415.941.3094 ,~.mvillepmp.com _ 12200 Saratoga-Sunnys’ale Road Saratoga, "CA 95070 - ph 408.996.7040 fax 408.257.0792 P i~ OP E ~T i E 5 3 D. Criteria for Historic Designation The City’s own definition of Landmark properties are: .."exceptional or ~___jor buildings..~which are of pre-eminent national, stater re~onal or loca! .’..~rtance~ exhibit meritorious work of the best architects, are an~outstandin~ example, of .the stylistic development of architectUre...in~the United States, California, the Ba_v area or Palo Alto, or are identified~with historic people or with historic events or activities in the city, region, state or nation. The Landmark may have sc~e exterior modifications but the original character is retained". It is suhr~itted that none-of these criteria have been satisfied, despite the efforts of Staff to justify their supposed existence. Crfterion 1 Staff Report does not substantiate-that any of the c~ners ~have made "a significant contribution to the broad pattern of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the United States. Only tangential references have been made to Christian Science Practitioners or to persons who lived in the house for brief periods. Local business references constitute nothing more than a ~sun~er cottage - a bungalow - for a successful businessman, hardly justifying the Landmark designation.. Criterion 2 ~ " ~ ~ References to J R Miller as an important San Francisco architect are~ more properly made to his partner (Timothy Pf~lueger) but in any event this firm’s pre-eminence was in large cc~mercial stmuctures, not personal residences or st~mer cottages. (See Section A for furtb~_r ccrsng_n~ ts) References +~o "several Palo Altans who individually and collectively ~made a omm~tment to ideals of health and quality of life for-their fellow Palo AltanS; the Bay area and the nati’onal Christian Science ccmmunity...’, leaves one in admiration of the Staff’s talent for artful embellish~ent rather than establishment of the facts. ¯ "These residents - Charles & .Myrtle Whitney, Arthur & Eugenia Fosbury, ~Bertha Wright & Mabel Weed, and Pr0ttinger ~ ~ .w~re ~ Palo Alto citizens who were united by the theme of heal.thyliving that characterizes the Bungal~ style". Upstanding citizens perhaps but outstan ~d~ing or hist0riCall~, noteworthy_- hardly!! And how does ~he theme of healthy living characterize the ~Bungal~ style?? Criterion 3 Staff report says: "Posedale Manor is wit!xx~ peer in Palo Alto in its ample size and understated yet elegant, rendition of the Bungalow style". We are confused -- which building are we judging? The ori~nal 1700 square foot 2-3 bedrocm, 1-1% hath bungalow or the current 3300 square foot 9 bedrock%s, 8 bath residential care facility??? 801 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 ph 415.328.7040 fax 415.323.2254 161 South San Antonio Road Los Altos, CA 94022 ph 415.941.7040 fax415.941.3094 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 ph 408.996.7040 fax 408.257.0792 www.sevilleprop.com 4 Criterion 4 Staff Report. says: "o.oaS the design of this residence is particularly representative of an architectural style - the Bungalow style- and contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design and detail..~" _Once again, refer to the ~ts made above for Criterion 3 and also to ~theMineweaser report. Any qlmlity touches in this structure have been ccn~letely sutmerged by the subsequent additions._ How anyone could make these broad :sweeping characterizations by sh~ply viewing the front facade and not exploring the structure in detail is beyond belief. E..CategOrization Staff Report concludes that "1078 Forest Avenue best fits the categDry of Historic Landmark Residence. Staff concluded that the residence...satisfies the standard ~of e~ptional or major buildings as contained in the definition of Landmark Properties,,. One needs only to-re-read the definition of Landmark as described in t~e opening paragraph in Section D above. IS this _structure "exceptional" or "major"?? The City’s definition is meant to reserve this designation for a building that everyone would accept as "exceptional". Staff has indicated that only 6% of the historic merit eval~ations have w~rranted the Landmark designation. If this- building is iregarded as Landmark~ one Can only imagine the effect this will have ~ on other properties ccadng .up for their evaluation. : ~ ~ - Staff Report further states that "The Landmark Historic Residence category is one that permits some exterior alterations provided the original character is retained. - P~sedale Manor has. experienced exterior alterations, however, these alterations~ have not diminished the period presence of the: structure, and may all ~be characterized as reversible (additive) alterations that might be corrected by ~ sensitive repairs and restoration". ~ .Please refer to the Mineweaser report for an explanation of the changes made to the original structure and the conclusion that the alterations cannot be reversed.~ DoubLing the size of~the original structure and making exterior changes to the roof, front porch and all exterior surfaces ~ hardly qualifies this as a S’tructure that can easily be reversed. ~E URGE THAT C!TY COUNCIL~CANCEL T~E IANEMARK DESIGNATION AND C~NSIDER i078 FOREST s~tted Licensed Real Estate Agent, for Hun & Mann Kim, owners of 1078 Forest Avenue 801 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 ph 415.328.7040 fax415.323.2254 161 South San Antonio Road Los Altos, CA 94022 ph415.94L7040 fax 415.941.3094 www.soAlleprop.com 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 : ph 408.996.7040 f~x 408,257.0792 July 23, 1997 ARCH ITECT U I:W-,/CO~STRUC~IOI"i Noreen and Herman Harrow 1930 Bryant Street Pale Alto, CA 94301- 3711 4151326-9292 RE:Inspection of 1078 Forest Avenue Proj. 9747 A.P.N. 003-21-027 Dear Nore en and Herman: I have inspected the above named house for the purposes of determining how much of the "historic fabric" is left. My inspection was of readily observable materials only. NO destructive testing was performed. Inaccessible areas such as the attic and some parts of the crawl spaces were not entered. However I did inspect the basement and the framing in the main crawl spaces adjacent to it. I observed the following items which generally help determine the date of construction or remodeling of a sla’ueture :_ and assist in the determination of the amount ofhistode fabric remaining. I compared these observations to some of the information contained inthe existing City of PalOAlto file on this building ~ including some staff research and reports: I also compared this building to hundreds of historic buildings I have inspected and worked on in over 25 years in the field Of restoration architecture, as well as hundreds more I have been involved with during eleven years as the Architectural Advisor to the Landmarks ~omm~ssion of the .City of SantaClara, Additional information:may come to light which may modify or :change the opinions-expressed in this report, thus I make no warranties, exFessed or implied regarding this report. : ~ : : - Historic fabric refers to the character-defining features and materials of a building, as discussed in the Federal "Secretary’s Standards." These publications are the standard reference works used as the defini- tive guide throughout the. field of re-~toration and preservation~ Their stated goal is to have the owner retain the historic fabric of the building. For example, on page vi ofthe Federal Secretary ofthe Interior’s Standards-forRehabilitation (1992 and earlier) it says "The intent of these Standards is to assist the long term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of historic materi- als and features." On page ix it says the purpose is"To provide clefir and consistentguidanee for : owners,...so that a rehabilitation project may besuecessfully planned and completed--one that, first, ~ssures the preservation of abuilding’s important or "eharaeter-det~ming’’ architectural materials and features...." FINDINGS _ Constructed in 1905, during the Arts and Crafts period, as a simple rectangular, one story box of approxi- mately 1700 square feet (see diagram 1), this small house was set with its narrow end facing the street. | 154 Park~venue, 5an Jose, California 9.5126 ¯ Fax, i408) 947-19~4-(4081 947-1900 1078 Forest Ave.i9747 7123197 p. 2 By the time of the !924 Sanborn map, the front porch had been replaced with a new porch that was wider than the house, forming a T-shaped plan and accommodating two new bedrooms (see phota !). From 1924 to 1939 it was known as the Rosedale Christian Science Retreat. During this time, an additional bedroom was built at the back of the house (see diagram 2), Since then numerous other small and large additions have been built on every side of the house perimeter. From 1946 to 1954 furnished rooms were rented and an additional bedroom and two bathrooms were built on the left (see diagram 3). Since 1954 it has been known as RosedaieManor, an adult care home. During this time other bathroom additions have been made around the-perimeter (see diagram 4). The total square footage of all of these additions has doubled the size of the house; to approximately 3300 sq. ft. They have all but obliterated the origin- al, simple rectangular shape envisioned by the architect. Thus the original shape and massing of the house are no longer part of the historic fabric and are not character-defining features. Poreh~ The shallow hip roof is unbroken along the street facade except for a small triangular cross dormer containing an attic vent (see photo 1). The most notable feature of the front facade is the porch. The original small porch was removed and a new large porch built sometime around 1924. There is no weathering of the framing below the floor boards as there would be on an open porch, so this new porch was apparently always enclosed. _Yet this enclosure was done in a most curious way: It has been glazed in with a collection of mismatched, fixed window sash. The sash facing the street consist of 40 glass panes, except for the one to the left of the door, hidden behind the shrubbery, which is composed of only 12, much larger panes(see photos 2 and 3). Furthermore, this larger paned sash is not fitted around the column capitals like the other sash are. Between 1946 and 1954 another addition to the wrap-around porch was made (see diagram 3 and photo 4)sThis extension on the front left provides another bedroom, but destroys the symmetry of the second completed porch, and obliterates the appearance of its west end. The right hand portion of this newer porch also contains another bedroom. The windows on the ends of these two bedroom additions are a variety of mismatched casements and double-hung styl~es. In the 1960s or latera bathroom addition was placed on the back comer ofthisporch. Further additions and changes were made tothe rear corners of the porch during later years. (See diagrams 3 and 4.) - -~ ~- Because of its shingle siding, this house is assumed by many to be Arts and Crafts style. McAlester~s book"A Field Guide to American Houses" is a standard reference work for defining architectural styles of houses. According to this book, a Craf~man house°would usually have large, imposing columns . (often with sloped or battered sides) with a relatively simple delineation of the base and capital. Jn some cases such columns might’ extend n~t just from the roof to the railing, but all the way to the floor or the - :ground. Narrowercolumns are usually grouped, two or:three at each location, to form a strong visual element. :in this case, the column4s a straight-sided square withno base and only a highly simplified, coved, trim piece forming a capital. This.coved capital occurs on only two sides - not on the front and back, resulting in a flat silhouette look, like a cardboard cutout, rather thanthe usual robust oversize support. This~s uncharacteristic of the Arts and Crafts style. :- - A new front door was installed in the center opening of the porch, framed by two sidelights (see photo 3). When compared to hundreds of other Arts and Crafts houses,:there is nothing unique or outstanding about the shape of the front facade or the composition of its current design. The eharaeter~defining features of the center portion of the original front facade of the house, buried under the new porch, still exist as the outer living room walls. They could easily be exposed to the street if the new porch were removed, but the rest of the design of the facade and original porch is unknown and therefore impossible to reconstruct. This historic fabric has been irreversibly destroyed. t~liegero Mineweaser ~ A~_~ociat¢5 ~ I ! 54 Park Avenue, San .Jose, California 9512t5 ~ Fax {~08) 947-1984 ¯ 14081 947~! 900 1078 Forest Avg.?9747 7~3/97 po .3 Exterior Materials: The exterior walls of the house are mainly covered with very old, random width, wood Shingles with staggered coursing. However, upon closer examination it can be seen that the shingle pattern varies slightly with each new addition. The newest addition at the left rear corner of the house is sheathed with vertical board and batten siding (see diagram 3.) The outer wall of the original back porch has recently been faced with stucco with a ribbon of windows at the top unrelated to any other feature of the house. Again, these additions and modifications destroy the historic fabric of the house, and they do not provide a distinguishing character-defining feature in their own right. Additional Changes:__ Many, many other changes took place throughout the building over the years. Forexample, after one of the bedroom.additions at the left rear had been completed, its side wall waspuShed out an additional 6 feet or so to further enlarge the room (see diagram 3 and photo 5). No attemptwas made to match the existing trim and finishes on the interior of this second addition. Conversely, in the bedroom addition at the right rear (see diagram4), careful attention was paid to making a reasonable match of the interior doors and trim. Yet this entire addition is one of the newest ones, as the floor is framed with modern (smaller) sized Douglas fir lumber surfaced on all sides, rather than the large, rough sawn redwood or cedar framing used up until Word War II. However, as a result of all of these additions and ~hanges, the architect’s original concept has been lost. -The interior door hardware, window and door trim, and other stylistic markers vary throughout the interior. The only unaltered material is in the oldest (1905) portion of the house. Similarly the trim around the exterior windows, and indeed the window style itself, varies subtly with each successive addition. The exteriordoor styles vary, and are unrelated to the original style. All of these serve to further, irreversibly destroy the original historic fabric, _ ~ _ :_ There are only three rooms with enough historic fabric left to get a senseofthe cha~racter of the house. These are the original bedroom with bath, the living room and the dining room at the center of the house. However, they too have been highly modified, with~tlie additions wrapping around the house changing the location of windows, the amount of light entering the space and hence the entire feeling of the space. Thetrue nature of the house is:no longer displayed. Th~e changes are irre~ersibld, ask:is unknown what the houseto0ked li.ke before these changes were made. "" - = Kitchen and Bathrooms: : Plumbing fixtures and kitchen and bath designs, if original, are oftenkey :indicators of the date of a house and are character-defining. They provide important input to the historic fabric. However, here the entire kitchen - cabinets, equipment and finishes - is new within the last few _years as are all but one of the manybathr0oms. This one original bathroom,located in the oldest section ofthehouse, appears to contain original fixture~. Typical of the 1905~ime period;this bathroom is placed between two bedrooms and with a door to each, meant to be shared by both. One door was covered over a long time ago: Contribution to the Neighborhood: The siting~ location on the property and relationship of - thebuilding to the street has already been documented~by others. The house sits back from the street about 50 feet, centered on a simple, rectangular lot 85 feet wide by 170 feet deep. Although the island street is-a pleasant and Unusual historical feature of the neighborhood;Ihere is nothing Unusual about the : siting of the house or its relationship to this street. The garage is located in the rear, accessed bFa long drive on the right~ which is common inPalo Alto. Between Boyce and Lincoln, many changes have taken place to the neighborhood. This section of the street may once have been seen as a collection of historic homes, similar in size, massing and relation tO:~ ~ the street, pierced by a few modern infill houses. ("Infill" occurs when a new building is pt~t within a l~lieger, lvlineweaser ~ Associates ~ 1154 [’ark Avenue. 5an Jose, (~alffornia 95126 - FaX ~408 ~ 947- ! 98,~ = (z~08x 9~7~ 1900 107g Forest Ave,D747 7/23/97 p. 4 cohesive grouping of existing buildings, but doesn’t match those buildings due to a different height, massing, setback, street facade or other characteristics that set it apart from the group.) On this street, this infill of individual homes, each different than the others, has occurred repeatedly and steadily from the !920s through the 1980s. The result today is that the easua! observer can no longer comprehend this as a historic neighborhood of houses with an infill problem, but rather as a collection of single, somewhat disparate c011eetion grouping of various historic houses. The importance of 1078 Forest as a contributor to this collection is less than it would b~ if every house on the street were historic. Importance of the Architect: The architect of the original building is reputed to be J.R. Miller. After designing this house, he evetually opened his own practice and developed the business side of it quite well. He hired Timothy Pflueger who eventually became his partner in the firm of Miller and Pflueger (1924) in San Francisco. Thefirm was well known,’ but only for their commercial work and during this period, all of the famous work is attributed to Timothy Pflueger as.the "designer." At the time this house was designed, Miller was still just a drafter working for someone else, and not yet struck out on his own. This 1905 design is a small (1700 sq. ft.) structure of a very simple, common layout. Since few (maybe only one?) other houses by Miller are known, this house is not part of a "body of work" (and is not connected to Plueger’s work). Unless a single house is elan extremely unusual design, which this one isn’t, a body of work is the usual criteria for landmarking a building due to the significance of the architect. Furthermore, Miller’s original design is now completely wrapped with additions which double the square footage of the house. Little can be seen of the original historic fabric of the exterio.r,.and nothing of the original design is evident on the outside. Thus the importance of who designed it is a moot point, as the design cannot be seen. CONCLUSIONS Most of the major character-defining materials and features are either lost;modified, covered or rebuilt with modem sized lumber_and othermodern finish materials. On theexterigr, I found evidence of unmodified or truly character-defining materials only in the small exposed wall portions along the right and left side of the center of the house consisting of original shingle siding, windows and trim. The original design of 1905 may have been Arts and CraRs style, but other than the shingles, nothing of this is evident from the outside. Due to the many ehanges,-it is no longer an Arts and Crafts style house. Due to the influx and p~epohderane~ ofnew orremodeled houses on the block, this building can no~ longerbe seen as forming part era cohesive group of historic homes. Indeed, infill has been so rampant, and-the changes to the majority of properties on the street significant enough that this house is now only contributing to the general fabric of the neighborhood. iAlthough the Seeretary!s Standards deal with both the interior and tile exterior of buildings, most city planning ordinances regulating historic buildings do not deal with the interior. Thus, the discussion of the interior has been included in this report to show how little of the historic fabric remains inside the house, and how these interior changes reinforce the view that the changes to the exterior do not have historical merit on their own. Instead, these changes have altered or destroyed the existing character- defining features of the house_ Were this building to be a museum, some merit could be given to the view, as expressed in the Secre- tary’s Standards, that changes made to the building a long time ago have historical merit and become part ~lieger. Mineweaser ~ Associates ¯ I 154 Park_j~enuer 5arl Jose, California 95126 - Fax 1408) 947-1984 ¯ 14081 947-1900 i 07g Forest Ave.!9747 p. 5 of the historic fabric of the building. However, it is recognized throughout the preservation field, and suggested by the Secretary’s Standards, that one of the first tasks of restoration is to decide the time period to which the building will be restored. The time period that makes the most sense for this build- ing is the time in which it was built, circa 1905. This is when the building would have had a sense of design integrity. The numerous additions have irreversibly obliterated this original design, and as they have no integrity - either by themselves or as a modification to the original design, they do not have historical merit in their own right. The Secretary’s Standards also caution against using conjecture when re-creating a portion of the build- ing. It is easy to see the original rectangular shape of the main house if one studies the floor plan and the framing. However, without other evidence such as old photographs of the house the shape and details of the porch will remain unknown. Thus it is not possible to restore the missing historic fabric of the front porch to the 1905 time period without conjecture. It has been irreversibly destroyed. SUMMARY and RECOMMENDATION This house is historically significant and it may meet some, but not all oftheCity ofPalo Alto’s five criteria for historic significance. However, in order to be listed as a Palo Alto City Landmark structure it also must meet the following definition: "Landmark structures are exceptional or major buildings,.., which are of preeminent national,..(etc.) .. or local interest, exhibit meritorious work of the best architects, are an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture...in the Bay Area or .... Palo Alto, or are identified with historic people or with important events or activities in the city .... The Landmark may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. . Assigning Landmark status to this building would only serve to lower the standards and diminish the significance of other Landmarked buildings. While Landmark buildings are supposed to be exeeptional~ this building is not "’exceptional" and is not of "preeminent local interest." _It probably was not designed by "the best architect" (Pfl_ueger). In fact it may have been done by a drafter in Miller and Plueger’s office under Miller’s guidance. While the fifteen years of the Christian Science period of its history may be important, it is greatly overshadowed by the much longer period of use as an adult care facility, when manymore changes were made to the building. Lastly, "the original character," as seen from the exterior, is irreversibly obliterated. ~ - Therefore, this house is not of Landmark quality, but Should be listed as a Contributing Residence to the historic fabric of the neighborhood. I, hope this report is of assistance to you in determining the significance of the structure as it stands today. Please call me if-you have questions~- " - Sincerely, Craig Mineweaser, AIA Partner and Principal Restoration Arehitec~ encl.:Diagrams 1 through 4 and Photos 1 through file:\docs\9747Forest\ForestReport.lwp - L l~lleger, l*lin~wea-~er &~ Assoc|ate~ ~ l154 Park Avenue, 5an Jose, California 95126 - l~ax t408) 947-1984 * 1408) 947-1900 1078 Forest Aw.D747 7~3/97 l~* 6 Floor Plan Diagram q 1905 - 1919 Whitney Residence designed by Miller 1919- 1924 Whitney rented out P4leger÷ l~inet~e~ser ~ Assoctates~ 115# Park Avenue, 5an Jose, California 95126- Fax (408) 947~198-~- ~40B) 957-1900 _ = Floor Plan Diagram 2 ~ 1924-1939 Fosbery owned as"Rosedale Christian Science Retreat" Mieger, l~ineweas~rS¢ &s~octat~ ~ t 154 Park Avent=~, 5an Jos~,~al|forn|a 95126 * ~’ax ~408~ 947-1984 -|408~ 947-1900 Floor Plan Diagram 3 1940 - 1946 Prottinger Nursing Home 1946 - 1954 Simpson’s Furnished Rooms l~l|eger, l~lineweaser ~ Associates * I ~54 Park Avenue, San Jose, California 95126 ,, Fax ~408)947-1984 *~40B~ 9~-7~t900 t 078 Forest Av~./9747 7~3/97 p. 9 Floor lalan Diagram 4 1954-to Present - Several owners operated "Ros~dale Manor Adult Care Home" M|eger, ~linew~a~er~ A~ociatea * t 154 I’ark Avenue; San Jose, California 95126- Fax 140B~ 9A~7-1984 ¯ I408~ 947-1900 = Photo I - Street Facade Photo 2 - Right front of porch Plieger, HinewP_.aser ~t Associates ¯ I 154 Park Avenue. San Jose. California 9512~ ~t=a£ f408,947-1984 ¯ ~408~ 947-1900 Photo 3 - Front door of porch Photo 4 - Juncture of addition at left of porch ¯ Mieger, Mirleweaser ~ Associates. 11~ Park Avenue ~ian Jose, (2alifornia.95126 - Fax ~40~ 94~’-i 984 ~ {408~ 947-1900 Photo 5 -, Interior of 1946 - 1954 addition at left rear Photo 6 - original front wall and door at back side of front porch Mieger0 Mineweaser & Associates. 1154 Park Avenue. Sm] Jose, California 95126. Fax (408) 947-1984 ¯ ~408~ 947-t900 Photo 7 - New foundation at what was an exterior wall, before additional bath added Photo 8 - Old extarior cripple wall at left of porch, witI~ addition beyond TO 14i53232215~P.04 CRAIG ~IINEV~SEP~ AJ~Parta©r & Principal Ar~h|te~t Mr. Minew¢,~ser h~ ov~ 25 y~ ofe~ce ~ ~hit~ ~d ~n~ction in which he h~ emph~ ~ns~on ~ini~on ~d proj~t m~m~nt. He ~ s~l~ in ~ p~afio~ r~o~on ~dsd~five ~us~ of all Wp~ of~s~c building. For h~ fi~ ~Io~bn ~ojec~ ~ 1967, he worked ~ a " ~nt~r’s hclp~ on ~c resection ofa h~ori~ bu~d~. T~y his co~ul~g ~’s proj~ ~zludo National ~gistzr build~gs ~ well ~ s~t~ ~d l~l ~dm~ks for no~p~fit ~. ~~r r~ivcd his B~hclor Of~hit~ D~ ~m cmph~ ~ ~hi~mrat Engineering ~d ~~t~l 8i~. ~Iffomh. ~or to o~g his o~ f~ ~ 1993, Mr. Mincw¢~¢r wo~ for a n~r ogf~s on a v~¢~ of b~lding ~s. He s¢~ed ~ a Field A~is~ator for the hs~¢~g ~¢hit~t of~¢ S~ of Pcnnsylv~i~ Subsequently he ~ ~mplo~ ~ a Fi¢l~ gcprcsen~fiv¢ for a Co~ction Adminis~fion of over a do~ buildings at a ~ spr¢~ ~m~hou~ ~lifo~a. In his n~t ~sition ~ a Project ~¢hi~ he ~ in ~g¢ of all ind~al proje¢~ for Fai~hil~ ~W ~d o~or ~mp~¢S. ~. ~new~r h~dcsi~d a ~d¢ v~i¢~ ofbuild~, h¢lud~g ~ s~, and "hi~-tech l~-r~ms"~or Silicon V~iey complies ~ ~I! ~~e~i~ ~d ~si~nfi~ work ~ro~ghout th0 Bay ~ea, whlb continuing ~ s~cial~e ~ a p~s¢~ation His finn has qualified, seasoned professionals who have a wealth of experience in both engia~..ring and archit¢ctural~storation designfor a Variety of building types from many different .eras. For example, 1hey ompleted partial restoration workon the National Register listed First UnitarianChurch of San Jose then produced a restoration plan and Historic Structure Re_p~_ (92) and r~¢ently crzatcd-a twenty year master plan called a Space Utilization Plan (93) for future expansion and z~’toration. Also M~. Nlinzwe.ascr’$ firm has -been the architect for six difti:rent historic building r~10cation projects - working underthe Secr~tm7 of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the ,State Historical Building Co~.o. They hav~; designed buildings to fit in with old ones and given newtife to historic buildings. ~ ~ -Mz’. Mincw~a.scr spent 2 ~years as part of aj0int-v~ntur¢ consultant team contz-acf~ bythe City of San lose to update the Master Plan for the San 3ose Historical Museum The plan encompasses40 acres and 75 buildings ofthe museum. Iris work included traveling across th¢ country to vis~ and re.search ot~er historical muscunzs. C’u~ntly h~ continues to work with this group to do public presentations ofthe vision of this large muszum at various public meetings. This Master Plan has~ust been submitted to the awards progr~n ofthe American Planning Association as this facility is unique for the en~irg West coast. His firm has bcenlhe.architect or ~o.nsultant for over a thh’d ofthesixteea historical museums in the South Bay. As a preservation architect, he has ontinued his education by att~adidg sp~ialized classes and seminars in construction adraini ..s~ztion, wood performance, stn~¢tural pest control, roofing ~nd waterproofing, construction and business manage|neat, project delivery, estimating, building and other code revisions: Staze of California Energy, Conservation Kegulations, hazardous materials management, federal and stat¢ disabled access r~gulations, as well as CAD and other computer operation courses. ~Mr. Mineweasefs qualifications and affitiatio,ns include: Member:. Community Service Affiliations: : : : : ~: := : /: _ " Architectural Advisor to Historic Landmm’ks Commission, City of Santa Clam (9+ yearS) Preservation Action Counc’fl of San Jose (PAC-SJ) : ¯ Past BoardMembcr & curr~nt Ad#isory Board Memberand Memimr Seismic-Retrofit Task Forteand Paaelist for 1991 S¢ismicRC~ofitPan©l : :_ _~ : PastPresid~nt, BoardofDir~tors dfWestVailcy SymphonyAss~.jatio~ Past Adjunct Professor, Department of Architecture, California POlytechnic Jtato : UnivexsRy, San Luis Obispo=: : ++’: ~= ~: ~: ~ = + -PastAdjunctProf¢~or, Drpaxtment oflnte.xiorDesign, San Jose Stare University Past Guest Lecturer, Cogswell Polytechnic Colleg~ and San Jose Stt~ University Guest Lecturer, Department of Environmental Studio% San Jose State Univ©rsity . :H~Id posts, a~ Development Council Chair, ~lYe.a,surcr and ¥.P. of Long Range Planning of the ~ - Board ofthe San lose Historical Mu.~umAssociation (S~I-IMA) (g+¥r~} recently:appointed tothe SJHMA Advisory Board ~ Former Archit~’mral Advisor to the City of Campbell (5+ years) Liaison to the Kelley Pail<Task Force, City ofStm Jos~ for the- : ; : ~+ Kell~’y Park Mm~©rPlan (2years) : :: : " : Founding member, Citizen’s Committee to Save First Church (a project ofPAC_SJ} : : : -Past MembeT Peralta/Falion Complex Task For,efor the R~$ister~l Dis-aster Service Work~ with a Specialty in Assessment of’Historic Buildings for Office of Emergency Services (OES) of the State of California In addition, Mr. Mmewoaser ~s o-developer era b~si¢ preservation planning course slated to b¢ offex,d under the Urtlvexslty of Callfornla, Berkeley, Extension’s Environmental Management Program in the fall of 1996. American Institute of Architects (AIA) Past member Construction Sp~ifications Institute (10 years) Association for ~tion Technology (APT) "Forum Technical Associate" oftheNational Trust for Historic Presedvation (NTHP) Victorian Preservation Association (VPA) California Pw~rvation ]Foundation (CPF) International Council of Building Officials (ICBO) Historic Proservation Committee ofthe AIA at both the local and national levels A ~-TACHMENT 3 Historic Resources Board Notice of the Decision of the Director of Planning and Communi~" Environment on the Action Taken at the Public Hearing on Ju!y 2, 1997 on Agenda Item I. 1. DATE: TO: FROM: July 8, 1997 Owner: Hunnand Mann Kim, 1078 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim t-Iistorie Program PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Meeting of July 2, 1997 SUBJECT:1078 Forest: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-131.) REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The I-Iistofie Resources Board wasrequested to assign a historic merit designation to 1078 Forest. Under the City of Palo 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 recommended assigning an historic designation of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE to this HRB ACTION TAKEN: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating.the Significance of Historic Resources, 1078 Forest was assigned the category of LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE bythe Historic Resources Board. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approves that deeis!on as of this notice. ’-APPEALS: -- All projects approved 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 Director of the project. The appeal period is 10 calendar days from the date this notice of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environmen, or 5~00 p.m., Friday, July 18. If you wish to appeal this action, Contact the Planning Division (329-2~41) regarding time and fee’. If you challenge this land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto at or prior to, the public hearing. : ~ -: Prepared By:Barbara Judy COURTESY COPY:Applicant." Hassan amd Maryam Shakernia, 754 Southampton, Palo Alto, CA 94303. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale, Palo Alto, CA Noreen Harrow, Seville Properties, 1930 Bryant St. Palo Alto, CA 94301. Frank Tabar, 470 Ruthven Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Carla Rayacich, Stanford Mortgage Co.,541 Cowper St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 1078 FORKer - HISTORIC MERIT FINDINGS P~el Signed By: George Patterson, 1095 Forest, Paio Alto, CA 94301 Mary Morris, 1081 Fores~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 Bob Kylberg, ! 145 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Yvonne Armstrong, 1075 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Stuart Bowen, I075 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mel Kronick, 1156 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Geri Hadley~ 1044 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Kathy Reese, 1002 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 -- Nancy Huber, 451 Lincoln, Pal0 Alto, CA 94301 Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 J..ar~s E. Gi~liland, Acting Chief Planning Official - ~ ~i!gnee of the Direetorof Planning and Community Environment 7 1078 FOREST - HISTORIC MERIT FINDINGS P~e 2 EXCERPT of Historic Resources Board minutes of the meeting of july 2, 1997. H~STORIC i RE,Of R~ESBO:~RD Wednesday, Jui~ 2, 1997 - Regular Meeting 8:00 - 11:50 AM Council Conference Room (First Floor) ’ Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto A.ROLL CALL Present: .Backlund, Bemstein, Willis, Murden, Mario Absent: Kohler, Anderson , Staff Present: Gilliland, Woods Council Liaison Present: Wheeler Contract Planner Present: Judy MO~l~N~edthatltemL.2beheardbeforeltemI. l~dueto ¯ scheduh’h~constraints of the applicant. BM Murden seconded the motion. --- -__ -.MOT.ION: BM Backlund~ved-to_approve the_minutes as amended by board member comments. . ~ ’ Historic Resour~commendatio~l~o~ -- the Architectural " ~p aecessibleramp ~related improvements " .P.ubli_.c c.omm.ent ~as.r.eceive.d fr.o .m S.andy .B.ar.ke.r,a.p.plicant.--i-~" -~ HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07102, 1997 Page 1 of 16 City of Palo Alto ~approved by Building Division to minimize the height of the new ramp feature. ~ard Questions: _ In re~nse to Chair Willis, Mr. Barker indicated that he did examine maintaining -the exisl~tqch, widen at bottom an, d did not like the appearance of this design. :_ Public hearin~ed = MOTION: BM Ma~moved to acceptplan A.2. as it is less fussy than the other option., an. d. it bes! add’~es comments given previouily. BM Baeklund "- secon, ded the motion. NN~" ¯ ~ BM_BacNund:¢°ngratulated th~licant °n s°lving a very difficult pr°blem: Chair Willis offered a-FRIENDLY AWNDMENT: due to concerns that the arch ~ if constructed, as s~wn and also more readily restored in futur~ have opening at p~co incorporate the existing arch and widen out atbase" - ~ - ’BM Mafio indicated she would not accept this as a ~endly Amendment, as it C~x s then offered tfiis same item as a SUBSTITUT~I~OTION: it _BM B.~e .m. stein also con.gratulated applican.t.fo.r the.goo~ job o..f !nc.o.rp~t.ing tihs~ng ~:1. i!}78 Forest: ApplicatiOn for ItistoricMerit Evaluation of a single family: residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97- HRB-131) Staff Report: Staff presented a brief report describing the property and.staffs recommendation that it be designated a LANDMARK HISTORIC RESIDENCE. Board Questions: In response to a question from BM Backlund, Judy explained that the original architect, J. R. Miller, was a well-known practitioner associated with all the major architects of the day and all the major architectural events of the day. He HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07/02, 1997 executed a wide array of commissions, of which his commercial and hotel projects are best "known currently, while "knowledge of this residential commissions is just beginning. in response to a question from BM Bemstein, Judy explained that ample size refers t.othe 3,500 square foot size of the residence. Public Hearing: Comment was received from Noreen Harrow, of Seville Properties, representative of the owner and resident of 1930 Bryant. Ms. Harrow feels that the recommended designation is not warranted or justified; has prepared a handout with a sketch of what we think is the original house. There is no evidence that a highly qualified architect designed the house; no permit was found and no official records exist. -Staff says the designer was J. R. Miller; there is no proof that this is the Miller of Miller and Pflueger; besides Miller is most known for the design of large commercial and movie structures. This is too !mportant a process for decisions to be based on speculation. The original building is not recognizable. Today, the structure is approximately 3300 square feet Of area; the original bungalow has been surrounded by additions; roof lines have been changed in many ways to incorporate these additions. The staff report of June 2 was correct; no recommendation on historic status should be made, Comment was received from Mrs. Kim, owner. Mrs. Kim reported that she purchased the house three years ago; nobody mentioned it might be historic. Her family has been having financial difficulties, and have deeid~dIo Sell thehouse. She has workedverythard io support her family and has no other choice but to sell. They were to close escrow yesterday. She never imagined that th~ house would be a historic landmark; they have had to postpone close of escrow as aresult. She had a meeting with neighbors; a neighbor ,to!d her that the financial problem was for her to solve. Comment was received from Mr. Hassan Shakarnia, 754 Southampton, potential buyer. Mr. Shakemia indicated that he hadlooked for a good property for a long time ,and intends to build his dream house in the property. He loves the Palo Alto area and traditional houses, with a big yard with landscaping. He wants his architect to build a house that satisfied the neighbors - he placed an offer for the property without ithaving a historic designation. Comment was received from Mr. Frank Tabar; realtor representing the buyer Mr. Shakemia. Mr, Tabar indicated that he had had an architect look at the property; it was her opinion that because of additions it would not be a landmark o.r perhaps might not even be contributing. Mr. Shakernia is committed to working with the neighbors HISTOR1C RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07102, 1997 Page 3 of 16 to make a design that everyone likes. Comment was received for Iris. Carla Rayacich; realtor from Seville Properties. Ms. Rayacieh reported that a neighborhood meeting had been held to invite neighbors from the Surrounding area, as well as Martin Bemstein, tO discuss the residence. Mr. Shakemia wanted the meeting because he wants the residents to understand that he wants to build a residence that fits in. She understands that the neighbors are fearful of the processo£tearing downand replacing older structures. They are using the historic designation i~rocess tO preventa teardown. But there is another process; compatibility review- that will ensure that the neighborhood’s integrity will be protected. Chair Willis interjected a request that testimony focus on the historic merits of the residence in question, and not digress to other topics. The Historic t~esources Board can only eonsider this one issue. Comment was ree.eived from Mr. George Patterson; a neighbor and resident of 1095 Forest since 1973. Mr. Patterson noted that he was born and raised locally. He won’t make long general statements. House replacement in Palo Alto has been sometimes disastrous. He is very fond of 1078 forest; only recently aware of its historic = -: i ibaekground. Hewouldtiketoseethehousestaybasedonitsvisualeffectand effect onthe neighborhbod environment. He was Very interes~ted in its historic background., especially because he belongs to several historieorganizations - National Trust for Historic Preservaiion, and CPF. tt is his own opinion is that the should bu!ldjng should stay, and befievesit could bexemodeled~uceessfully ~-~:withoutxadical~lteration to neighborhood, lie would liketo~eethem explore .. saving the house and adding at the rear; :Comment was received from Ms. Mary Morris,)a neighbor living at 1081 Forest, =. across from Rosedale Manor for 38 years. ~She has been in all the other landmark houses on the street; and she:stated based on that knowledge that this i~ a ~-- substantially built house that shoutdbe a landmark;~ Comment was:received from Mr. Bob Kylberg, a neighborTivin~g at 1145 Forest, also known as the Ashby House:: Based on his own experience, it is possible to renovate a lfistoric property,: He observed that 1078 Forest contributes to the neighborhood and that’s important:t~ preserve. He doesfft know what landmark status involves and so he doesn’t know ifhe’s seenenough evidence to support that sfatus, but he does encourage preserving the existing residence. Comment was rebeived from Ms. Yvonne Armstrong, a neighbor living at 1089 Forest. She thought about this and read the staff report and certainly hopes that the board acts to prevent demolition of the residence, which is unique due to its :size and age and fit with neighborhood. She has always been proud of the HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07i02, 1997 Page 4 of 16 ne1~,hlgornooa; the older houses are the basis of the neighborhood - it is an addition to the historic theme in Palo Alto. Comment was received from Mr. Stuart Bowen, a neighbor, living at t 075 Forest._ He wanted to add his voice to the concern about destruction of the historic character of this block of Forest. The neighborhood needs something other than new million dollar -statements to preserve the character of the block. Although the house has been modified it is still in character with the original design and the block. Comment was received from Emily Renzel, a neighbor living at 1056 Forest, next door and once part of that property; has lived therefor 26years. Rosedale was one of the first homes built in the Ashby Addition; this is an unusually large and gracious bungalow, whose appearance belies its size. Because it has beerrrun as a care home, there has been regular maintenance over the years. She was in the home regularly and never felt unsafe. The reports of extensive alteration are untrue. The architect was L R. Miller; one of his great commissions was the designofthe dome of the City of Paris Dry Goods Store. He designed residential commissions on the peninsula, San Francisco and the east bay. His partnership evolved into more commercial structures when with Pflueger; Pflueger had no formal background in architecture and received his training from Miller. iThey worked closely until Miller retired in t933. I hope Rosedale will be landmarked as deserved due to its architectural heritage. Pflueger died an untimely death and has been credited after the fact with much of the work the partners accomplished jointly; further historic research w!lt rectify this oversight:of Miller’s accomplishments. Comment was received from he and his-wife strongly su~portthe proposed landmark designation. Comment was received from Ms. Geri Hadly, a neighbor iiving at 1044 Forest for 22 years. He does not believe the landmark designation is appropriate; the house is too modified and the_current structure is double the Size of the original. Also, it is not a Suitable family residence because it is’a hodgepodge of rooms on the interior. She does believe in the architectural integrity of the neighborhood; a replacement Structure should retain the current facade and retain the look and feel of the existing facade, so thatit is compatible. ~ Comment was received from Ms. Kathy Reese, a neighbor living at 1002 Forest for over 20 years. She would like to support preservation Of the house; this is one of the last remaini,ng houses that gives our neighborhood charm. Comment was received from Mrs. Nancy Huber, president of PAST and a resident of 451 Lincoln. She indicated support for the staff recommendation and observed that the house deserved landmark status due to its history and architecture. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07/02,1997 Page 5 of 16 Comment was received~om Ms. Pria Graves, a member of PAST and resident of 2130 Yale. She indicate support for the landmark designation and noted that not only grand houses deserve protection; preservation efforts should not be limited to houses with Victorian gingerbread. This residence is important not only for its archite.cture, but also forits long and interesting history. Comment was received fiT.om Ms. Kanen Holman, resident of 725 Homer. Ms. Holman indicated that she supports landmark status in particular due to its standing within a context; removal of this structure would irreparably erode the quality of the forest court block. Also~ she believes flaat many things can be done to work with the existing building, based on the experience in the community with older residences. Response by applicant: " ~-- , Applicanf’s response was given by Carla Rayacich~ who summarized previous points, including:questioning whether J~ R.:Miller was the architect, and noting that the structure has received extensive modifications. Msl Rayacich also affirmed’that the prospective owner, Mr. Shakernia, wants to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. = Public Hearing Closed Board Discussion: :: : ::~: MOTION: BM Mari0 moved that th~ residence at 1078 Forest be designated a Landmark Historic Residence based onthe staff report; there is an overwhelming pr0ofthat J. R.Milleris the architect: the onus is on-the i .appiicant to demonstrate lhis-eonneetiondoes not exist in the face of all evidence to the contrary. This is a good example of a type~fliouse that is fast fading in our neighborhoods; there are many things that could bedoneto rehabilitate it and retain it. ! : ~ BM Murden seconded the motion, and noted thatthe Palo Alto Times articles of 1904 (both)identifyJ. R. Miller as designer; thisevidence is frequently used as proofofthe architect,s identity. ~ :- ~ : BM Baeklund disclosed conversations about the residence with George Patterson, :Emily Renzel and also dRepresentative of Seville Properties (Herb Harrow) by telephone~ He is convinced that the architect is J. R Miller of Miller & Pflueger? -He was ~ot satisfied that Mr~ Miller contributed to the important commissions of the Miller andPfluegerpartnership; i He agrees with staff that ther~ are interesting detailso~the building; and the chargeqs to concentrate on the ifacade and sides visible from street; finds good details there, but the overall form of the house is so understated that it does not meet the landmark definition. The architecture must be of a high level of significance to merit landmark designation. He agrees that the building’s church history is highly relevant to its bungalow form, but HtSTORICRESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07/02, 1997 Page 6 of 16 believes that connecting church history to land use regulation raises the issue of the separation of church and state. He does not support a landmark designation. His findings are that Criteria 1 2, 3, and 4 are met, but not at the landmark level of significance. Based on satisfaction of Criterion 4, he would support a designation of Con!ributing Residence. BM Bemstein: disclosed receiving a 9alt from Noreen Harrow, the listing agent, with whom he toured the property. Also, he attended a neighborhood meeting that was very educational. On consideration of the partnership of Miller and Pflueger, he indicated that Miller was not an important architect relative to Pflueger. Based on the altered exterior, his interpretation of the residence is that only half of the construction now extant is period construction: a original house of 1700,square feet is not large. He will not support the Landmark Historic Residence designation because of the extent of modifications structure that he believed were observed during site visit. BM Bernstein then offered a SUBSTITUTE MOTION: to designate i078 Forest a Contributing Residence. BM Backlund seconded the motion. Chair Willis indica_tefl that she was disturbed by the different perceptions of the residence, which has a strong original street presence. The modifications that have been discussed are not readily in view. If the foliage were cut back the view of the building would change entirely and its historic character would read strongly. The residenceis, striking because of clear adherence to bungalow form as discussed in the Staff Report. This house has much to convey to our generation and future generations. Current tastedoes not endorse the understated approach that is characteristic of the Bungalow architectural:s~yle;=but that will change in future cycles. The house in its setting conveys the histo .ry of Palo Alto; the message was of recessive civic pride "its my town and i’m proud to be here," in contrast to a message of personal taste and individualism that is more characteristic of modern houses. The architect has a significant history in the Bay Area; he was a strong PlaYer in the reconstruction of San Francisco and carried out many fine residential commissions. :- ~ BM Mario; indicated she will not support the substitute motion; and she questioned how it would be possible to differentiate the Miller and Pflueger partnership, when Miller educated Pflueger and made him the architect he became. Just becauseit cannot be proven that Miller was significant for the same reasons that Pflueger was doesn’t mean that he isn’t an important architect. BM Murden; disclosed discussion with Renzeland Peterson, and Harrow, via an answering machine. She indicated agreement with Mario that Miller was involved with the projects that made the partnership famous; Miller’s own commission for the Adair Hotel was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places; it was turned down due to modern sash alterations but the ir~tact building would have qualified. She agreed that the landmark definition, mentions HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07/02, 1997 Page7of16 -- a result of the unified setting that creates a significant and distinct entity; this applies to and adds to the significance of 1078 Forest. BM Bernstein: He has not heard anything that meets all the criteria for landmark definition in describing this property. He cannot make the findings and he asked his fellow board members to be careful of decisions with respect to how they may affect the Interim Historic Program.’ BM Baeklundi agreed that Miller was a good and highly professional Bay Area architect. Some architects’ names alone trigger landmark status; these are seminal names, and anything of reasonably dramatic appearance by them should be preserved. Miller is not among this group. The building’s details are good and ~ interesting. But the overall form is not dramatic or impressive as it should be at the landmark level. Therefore, he will support the substitute motion., BM Bemstein:.MOTION to reopen the public hearing to make an opportunity for the owner to make closing statements. BM Backlund seconded the motion. VOTE: 5-0-0-2 Closing comments were received from Mark Kim; son of the Owner of the property. Kim indicated that he has heard many views on the property; thernain focus of neighbors is the appearance and BM Mario has indicated that itS:: ~ contributes to the neighborhood setting. :But that does not feel like landmark: status. He supports contributing residence status and thinks that the propertyis beautiful land but it does not deservd that level of landmark. In his mind, a landmarkis Coit Tower; this is just a residence. He understands that some homes may deserve to be landmarks. They have never had any.indication that this should be a landmark; surely someone would have toid them when they bought it; ~they th0u~hti~was quaint~vhen they bought it but not atandmark. If a Structure contributes to the overall setting; in this case the overall area has changed due to the new structures that have Changed its character. It is massively modified and doesn’t have the appearance itdid when first built.~ Closing comments were received from Mrs. Kim; owner. Mrs~ Kim indicated that she was about to dose escrowyesterday and the lives of the entire family depends on this matter. Now, something like the appearance of a house may change her family’s life. She left hercountry 30 yearsago and never took any vacation but only worked. The board is going to kill the family by this decision; they should have been given some time; she is loosing money over this. Other people should be~iid~isedin advance of this historic status matter. The buyer does not want~to buyJfdesignated a landmark; anyone can buy it, but the one she has now feels that they cannot l~ve with this designation. Reclose the public hearing HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 07102, 1997 = Page 8 of 16 Chair Willis: with respect to the overall context of this decision, she reminded those present that an overall inventoR, update is pending, and would have been - done in the last decade had council responded sooner to the urging of the Historic -Resources Board. Nonethe.iess, hard work to remedy this delay is underway. Also, ~e applicant requested historic merit evaluation at their own initiative, and should not be surprised that a finding of historic merit is a result. The board has to make decisionsbased on the languag,e of the ordinance; the Board’s charge is not a personal charge to respond to the desires of individual applicants, but rather is to decide based on the information available regarding historic merit. BM Bemsteini restated that, in looking at longterm issues every board member should consider the effect on the future direction of historic preservation in Palo Alto.. BM Marioi we have a difference:of opinion. Some board members are of the opinion that as:1078 Forest is not a large and stately residence, it should not be a landmark structure. Since it is a difference of opinion, conclude the matter by voting. - ÷ ~ VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: 2-3-0-2 (Willis, Murden, Mario against) : :S : VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: 3-2~0-2 (Bemstein and Backlund against) ~: ?~ ~ist.oric~Reso, .~s..13oard r’ev~ew andXecommendation to the Architectural : . Review Board to ~l~w new awnings, tenant signage program and an iron gate for : ~ ~ .C.o .m2~n. ~entwas re.ee!ve~dfro.m .~teet Charles Holman, appiican~ : ~ i~ ~ded th.e.board t~he project is for ne£v awnings at the ~ ~ ~ with revised de.of support bracket; a.simplified version. The 0wner does notwant to paint the buil~;’£o the existing spindle color has ~ MOTI~e bracket and awm~d .esign be approved. -- Cha}r Willis offe~:e.d a FRIE.ND.LY AMENDMENT: .approval to b~nditionat~ _ _ Mai-io and Backlund agreed to this amendment" ~ HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING ot"O7t02, 1997 ~Page 9 of 16 ATTACHMENT 5 Historic Resources Board Staff Report Item No. I. 1 TOi FROM: Historic Resources Board Barbara J~dy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program AGENDA DATE:July 2,1997 SUBJECT:1078 Forest: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97- HRB-131.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board is requested to assign a historic merit designation io 1078 Forest. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark =Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends assigning an historic designation of HISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCEXo ~s residence. ~" DISCUSSION: Architectural Description:":: ¯ Date of Initial Construction: 1905-~ This is an understated~ yet unusually attractive, early twentieth century ~ungalow.The large Crescent Park lot (85’ x 166’) is characterized by mature and overgrown foliage, shrubbery at house perimeter which hides the facade, and young birch street trees~Signature features of this sprawling H-shaped structure include the low-pitched hipped roof masses (dad in deteriorating replacement shingles); wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafters; and painted wood shingle exterior wall cladding. There is a lxiangle dormer with louver vents centered at front facade. Three recessed openings with uniquely carved comers dominate the unusuaIfront facade (these 6penings are repeated at side facades); it appears this was once an open, partial-width porch. The outer openings contain fixed wood window sash with a variety of numerous divided lites. An elaborate entry is located within the central opening and features shingled cheek walls, wood stairs, a large wood doo~ with glazed and recessed panels, divided lite transom window, and divided side P~¢I iites vat& ve~dcal recessed panels below. Additional fenestration includes simple double hung wood sash, French easement sash, and divided Iite French doors at side facades.’ Rosedale Manor is most impressive for its clear adherence to the original idea of the Bungalow country house: a urtique combination of sophistication and simplicity that was more at home in California than perhaps anywhere else in the world. This design aesthetic was expressed in the words of Greene and Greene, who stated that "It]he exterior should not be made to count very strongly in the landscape. It should sink, so far as is possible, it’s architectural individuality and tend to disappear in its natural background. Its color, consequently, no matter whether it is shingled or clapboarded, should be low in key and should correspond to that of the natural wood. Its most prominent architectural member swill.inevitably be its roof, because it will combine a considerable area with an inconsiderable height, and such a roof must have sharp projections and cast heavy shadows, not only for the practical purpose of shading windows and piazzas, but for the aesthetic one of making sharp contracts in line and shade to compensate for the moderation of color. Its aesthetic character will necessarily be wholly picturesque; and it should be both surrounded by trees and covered, so far as is eonvenien.t, with vines3 The property includes a detached garage at fight rearl This structure features a low-pitched gabled roof, variety of exterior wall cladding (painted brick, vertical wood siding at gable ends,, and rough lumber), with modem door, and is of no :historic merit. It was built circa 1940, and have been constructed by previous owner Bertha. Wright. This p0rtion.ofForest Avenue is distinguished by an unusual concentration of turn-of-the-century residences, including 1009 (Forest Court), 1023, 1145, and the recent landmark 1055, grouped around a graciously landscaped street-center¯park dominated by mature evergreen trees. Forest Court was subdivided from the Ashby Farmia the early 1900s.4-078 Forest was .one oftlde-ftrst five homes in Ashby Addition, as the tract was known. Early addresses were simply given as "Forest Court" until 1908 at which time 1078 was listed as #8 Forest Court. The unusual block is very wide and contains a landscaped island in the center. Large street setbacks, mature landscaping, and formal gardens characterize this distinctly elegant and historic neighborhood. The harmonious quality ’dfthis turn-of-the-century environment has been impacted by the recent introduction of several modern residences that do not relate to the architectural themes, scale, style, and massing of the~pedod residences on the block. Sanborn History~ ~ 1078 Forest A’~enue first appears on the 1924 Palo Alto Sanborn Map edition. Listed as 1018 Forest Court, the T-shaped structure was very similar to its current H-shaped configuration. A singlekstory garage was located at the right rear of the property. The1945 Sanborn Map gives two street addresses for the property, 1078 and 1020 Forest (Court), and features several changes: the rear garage no longer exists and a L-shaped, two-story residence with connecting single-story structure and detached small garage appears at rear of adjoining property (listed as 1018 and 1056 Forest). The 1962 updated Sanborn Map features 1078 Forest in its current H-shaped P~e2 corufiguration, without its present rear garage. The small two-story residence at 1056 Forest (also listed as 1018) also remains, its previous garage now replaced with a carport. Architect 3. R~ Miller (1969-1945) was the architect for 1078 Forest, with local businessman J. F. Parkinson, as the builder.2 Miller began his architectural career in the office of A. Page Brown, in San Francisco in. 1886, and was alternately an independent practitioner or practiced in partnership with San Francisco’s most notable architects for the balance of his lengthy career. He is most known ~ his association with Timothy Pflueger: Miller and Pflueger were competition winners for the design of San Francisco’s Pacific Stock Exchange, the medical-dental office building at 450 Sutter Street in San Francisco (1929), the Pacific Telephone Co. Building at 140 New Montgomery, the Paramount Theatre in Oakland (1930), and Roosevelt Junior High School in San Francisco (1934). The unusually productive association of these two architects began in 1910, when Pflueger entered Miller’s firm as an office boy, until his retirement in 1933.3 Prior to and during his association with Pflueger, Miller was associated with architects Bakewell and Brown (where he designed the post-earthquake repairs for the City of Paris Dry Goods Store), Thomas J. Welsh (designer of the State Court Building), and others. In undertaking residential design projects, Miller reflected the common practice of the times in which architects would undertake a variety of projects, from residential to commercial.to institutional. The portion of Miller’s architectural legacy that is most documented today is his commercial and hotel designs, including the 74 New Montgomery office building, the Hotel at Eddy & Mason, the Adair Hotel at 445 Ellis4, all in San Francisco. He is credited with several residential projects throughout the Bay Area, including the craftsman style 50 FiI~ Avenue, San Francisco5. In addition to working in the Bungalow style, Miller produced designs inidioms such as the Spanish Eclectics- and ColonialRevival styles? Nonetheless,his designlegaey.withrespe~t to residential buildings is significantly less known than his other works, perhaps beeaiase the process of survey and investigation of early 20th century residential areas has been undertaken only recently and is a largely incomplete task. Additionally, the archives for Miller’s practice have been dispersed and sold at auction, lessening the opportunity to fully evaluate him as an architect. As such, Miller, s role as the designer of Rosedale Manor, carried out during his earliest years as a solo architectural practice, significantly augments our understanding of his legacy as an important Bay Area architect byilluminatinganaspectofhisearlypraetiee. ::~ :°::: ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: 1078 Forest, commonly known as Rosedale Manor,was constructed in t905 for. Mr~Charles M. Whitney. Whitney, a San Francisco and Palo Alto businessman Connected withpaper manufacturing, wasreported to have constructed the residence as a summer retreat, but ultimately made it his full time home. Once sei:tled in Palo Alto, Whitney became involved in community affairs,, forming the Palo Alto Resident’s Club along with well-known local Citizens such as C. K. Sumners, S. S. Seward, J. Pearce Mitchell, etc.8 The club members proposed to promote the desirable features of Palo Alto, and was "...restricted to persons who are not in any way dependent upon profit derived from this community and therefore have no incentive to exploit the business opportunities which our city might offer.~"9 Charles and Myrtle Whitney moved across the street to 1055 Forest in 1919, where they resided until 1931. Rosedale Manor was then occupied by Arthur and Eugenia Fosbery, who purchased the property in 1924. It was perhaps during the Fosbery’s tenure that the adjacent gardener’s residence was constructed (circa 1928).. The Fosberys were Christian Science Practitioners, and were cotmected with the founding directors of Mary Baker Eddy’s church. A central tenet of Christian ~Scienee teaclaing is the use of faith as a vehicle for healing; this focus for the residents of Rosedale Manor continued in the residence’s later history as a Home Health Care facility. The Fosberys invited use of Rosedale Manor as a retreatfor Christian Science teaching throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The-impetus for this may have been Eugenia Fosbery’s brother-in-law Bliss Knapp, a Christian Science lecturer whose legacy as a practitioner continues today in the form of the Bliss Knapp Association. Mr. Knapp, who authored "The Destiny of the Mother Church" was a Christian Science Lecturer for over 20 years, in which capacity he traveled frequently throughout the United States from his home in Boston. He is described as follows: "His parents were early students of Mary Baker Eddy, Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, and pioneer*workers in Christian Science. His father was one of the Directors to Whom Mrs. Eddy deeded the land on which the Original Edifice of the Mother Church, the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, was built. At the request of Mrs. Eddy, Mr. Knapp was made a member of the Christian Science Board of Lectureship in 1904.mo Arthur Fosbery died in April 1937, and Eugenia died’in December of the same year. The estate was sold to Bertha Wright and Mabel Weed in 1939. Wright, a prominent nurse and founder of the Children,s Hospital Medical Center of Northern California, was responsible for subdividing the property; they~eventually moved to the gardener’s quarters next door iit 1056 (built by Whitney in t928), where Wright lived until her death in 1971. Minnie M. Prottinger bought the Rosedale Manorportion of the split estate in 1940 and operated it as a nursing home for her six year tenurg at the property. RosedaleManor has had several owners since the late i940s, all continuing the residential care home facility. Interestingly, both Wright and Prottinger continued the assoeiati0n with health that was~inaugurated by the Fosbery’s. Alteration History -Alterations to this structure are concentrated at the rear, and include twO generations of rear wing additions. The first addition was perhaps carried out in the 1920s:and while not of the quality of the original construction, is visually comPatible. The second addition isof more recent construction, and constitutes a etude addition to the residence. These added wings are aligned with the right side ofthe property, and extent one-third of the width of the property, creating a minor asymmetry in the building layout. A rear awning/porch addition extends across the balance of the rear of the structure. Finally, three side stairs have been replaced and/or added on both the left and right sides of the P~e 4 residence, out of view of the main facade; these replacement stairs are not of the quality of the original structure. Permit History Thee is an indexed card in the PAHA archives listing Minnie M. Prottinger as owner of 1020 Forest and builder of a $1000 addition; Palo Alto Times reference 10/22/41. This occurred prior to the Palo Alto Planning Department’s collection of recorded material. The City ofPalo Alto~s permit history for 1078 Forest begins in May of 1973. Its formal phrmit historyis as follows: 06/28/72 06/28/72 05/01/73 08/20/76 08/23/78 12/17/76 09/18/78 -02/04/83 Plumbing (gas outlets). Heating (furnace) Plumbing (water heater) Plumbing (fire sp " ~nnklers) Plumbing (water heater) Electrical (heating outlets) Roof (tar & gravel) Electrical (service equipment) In summary of these alterations, staff observed that the environment and setting that existed historically is extant, if somewhat concealed by a wealth of foliage and reversible alterations. The porch infill, perhaps dating from the 1920s, is reversible and in staff’s judgment does not detract from theperiod quality of the residence: The amplelot that once existed has been. subdivided, but- other than this legal alteration and its refleeti0n in a large hedge on the left side of the residence, no physical alteration to the site and its garden setting have occurred. Criteria for Historic Designation: ~ L ~ ~ = Under the City ofPalo Alto’sCdteria for Evaluating the Significance of.Historic Regourees, 1078 Forest satisfies Criterions 1,2;3, and 4, as follows: - Criterion 1, as Rosedale Manor is associated with the broad patterns ofioeal history in its origins as a summer retreat for a successful city businessman, who introduced highly qulified a San Francisco architee( to Palo Alto, thus ~ontributing to the unique quality and architectural heritage ~fPalo Alto’s early20th century~residentialneighb0rhoods which are so much a part ofthe eity!s identity today.~ ~:~ ~= ~ ~ ; Criterion2, as Rosedale Manor was designed by an important San Francisco architect - J. R. Miller - -whose architectural legacy for residential design is augmented by this structure. Consistent with the vision of California Bungalows;Rosedale Manor provided a home for several Palo Altans who individually and collectively made a commitment to ideals of health and quality of life for their fellow Palo Altan~-tii~ Bay Area, and the national Christian Science community. These residents - Charles and Myrtle Whitney, Arthur and Eugenia Fosbery, Bertha Wright and Mabel Weed, and Prottinger- were upstanding Palo Alto citizens who were united by the theme of healthy living that characterizes the Bungalow style.- P~e5 Criterion 3, as substantial single story Bungalows are rare throughout the Bay Area: Ro~edale Manor is without peer in Paio Alto in its ample size and understated yet elegant rendition of the Bungalow style. Criterion 4, as the design of.this residence is particularly representative of an architectural style - the Bungalow Style, and contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design and detail. The Bungalow ffrehiteetural style embodied, an ideal vision of healthy suburban living in a sophisticated environment; a vision that reached its epitome in California. Rosedale Manor is a textbook example of the Bungalow Style. This large single story Bungalow is unique in Palo Alto with respect to its size and understated artistry. The construction ~f this residence signaled development of the Ashby addition and its quality may be seen as a reflection of the owner’s ambitions for a flourishing new neighborhood in Palo Alto. Categorization: Under the City of Palo Alto~Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 1078 -Forest best fits the categoryofHISTORIC LANDMARK RESIDENCE. Staff concluded that the residence, in its architectural features, scale, style, setting and associated cultural history, satisfies the standard of exceptional or major building as contained in the definition of Landmark Properties. The Landmark Historic Residence category is One that. permits some exterior alterations provided the original character is retained. Rosedale Manor has experienced exterior alterations, however, these alterations have not diminished the period Presence of the structure, and may all ~be characterized as reversible (additive) alterations that might be corrected by sensitive~bpairs and restoration. ~ ~ COURTESY COPY: Owner: Hun and Mann Kim, 1078 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301; Applieant:_Hassan and Mar’yam Shakemia,754 Southampton;2Palo Alto, CA 94303. Barbara Judy ReviewedBy:E. Gilliland, Acting Official ~ Prepared By: - 1. Arthur C. David, "An Architect of Bungalows in California,,Arehitectural Record, October i906, p. 310. ~: ~ 2.Palo Alto Times, 12/30/04, 0i/04105, and 7/4105. " ~! : i ?~ 5 :: :: 3.San Francisco Claruniele, Allan Temko, "A True Uninhibited Original" April 14~ 1986, pp. 38-4L 4.The Architect and Engineer, Vol. 58-59, p. 82. P~e6 Inner Richmond District Survey, Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage. 6. The Architect and Engineer, Vol. 56-57, p. 83. 7. The Architect and Engineer, Vol. 52-53, p. 4t. 8. Palo AltoTimes, April 22, 19294 9. Palo Alto Times, April 22, 1929.~:: i:i - ’ 1 01 "Bliss Knapp, Christian Scientist," Charles T. Houpt, Clark-Sprague Inc, Brentwood, Missouri~ 1979, p. 351. P~©7 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIrv~ARY RECORD HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code 2,4Other Listings Review Code ~ Reviewer Date Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder). 1078 Forest Avenue PI. Other Identifier: Rosedale Manor P2.Location: DNot for Publication ~Unrestricted s. County SantaClara and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T ; R ;1/4 -of 1t4 of Sec c. Address: 1078 Forest Avenue City Palo Alto 23p 94301 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/linear resources); ,mE/mN e. OtherLocational Data (Enter Pamel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etC., as appropriate) Parcel No. 003-21.027 Description (Describe resource and its major elements. Indude design, materials’ condition, alterations, Size, setting, and boundaries) This is an understated, yet unusually attractive, early twentieth century bungalow. The large Crescent Park Jot (85’ x 166~ is charsctedzed by mature and overgrown foliage, shrubbery at house perimeter which hides the facade, and young birch street trees. Signature features of this sprawling H-shaped structure include the low.pitched hipped roof masses (clad in deteriorating replacement shingles); wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafters; and painted wood shingle exterior wall cladding. There is a triangle dormer with louver vents centered at front facade. Three recessed openings ~th uniquely carved comers dominate the unusual front facade (these openings are repeated at side facades); it appears this ms once an open, partial.width perch. The outer openings contain :lixed wood Window sash With a variety of numerous ~vided lites. An elaborate en~ is located within the central opening and features shingled cheek wafts, wood stairs, a:large wood door with glazed and recessed panels, divided lite transom window, and divided side lites with vertical recessed panels below. Additional fenestration includes simple double hung wood sash, French casement sash, and divided life French doors at side facades. There is a detached garage at dght rear. This structure features a low.pitched gabled roof, variety of exterior wall dad~ng (painted b.rlcko vertical wood siding at gable ends, and rough lumber), With modem door, and is of no historic merit. P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2- Single Fami~, Property HP39 - Other P4. Resources Present [] Building ~F-] Structure :D Object E] Site I-I District [~ Element of Distdct [] Other (Isolates, etc.) PSa~ Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buil~rmgs, structures, and objects)PSb. Descdpli0n of Photo: ~/iew, date, accessi0~ #). ~~078 Forest, par~ front facade P7. Owner and Address /0m, Hun and Mann 1078 Forast AvenuePado A/t~ CA 94301 ~ P6. Date ConstructedlAge and Sources: [] Prehistoric [] Historic [] Both Pll. Report Citation: (Cite sun/ey report and other sources, or enter =none") None ~: ::: Attachments [] NONE B Cont~nuat~)n Sheet E] Distdct Record [] Rock Art Record[] Location Map [] Building, Structure, and Object Record [] Unear Feature Record [] Artifact Record[] Sketch Map E] Amhasological Record [] Milling Station Record ~ Photograph Record [] Other. (Ust) P9. ~Date Recorded: 6/11/97 P10~ Survey Type: (Describe) L P8. Recorded by: (Name, a~liliation, and address)Cathedne Watts, Barbara Judy Preservation Architect S~te o_," CeJP;c, mJa -- "Fne Resou~ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTiNUATiON SHEET Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Recorded by: Catherine Watts, Barbara Judy Preservation Architect Primary # HRI # Trinomial 1078 Forest Avenue Date 6/11/97 ~ Continuation [] Update This portion of Forest Avenue is distinguished by an unusual concentration of turn-of-the-century residences, including 1009 (Forest Court), I023, 1145, and the recent landmark 1055, grouped around a graciously landscaped street.center park dominated by mature evergreen trees.. The hamonious quality of this tum-of.~he.contury environment has been jarred by the introduction of severa! modem residences that do not relate to fhe architectural themes, scale, style, and massing of the period residences on the block. Sanborn Map History , t078 Forest Avenue first appears on the 1924 Palo Alto Sanborn Map addition. Listed as 1018 Forest Court, the T.shaped structure was very similar tO its current H-shaped configuration. A single-story garage was located at the right rear of the property. The 1945 Sanborn Map gives two street addresses for the property, 1078 and t020 Forest (Court), and features several changes: the rear garage no longer e~Jsts and a L-shaped, two-story residence ~th connecting single.sto~y structure and detached smal! garage appears at rear of adjoining property #isted as 1018 and 1056 Forest). The 1962 updated Sanborn Map features 1078 Forest in its current H-shaped configuration, without its present rear garage. The small two-story residence at 1056 Forest (also listed as 1018) remains, its previous garage now replaced w~th a carport. s~e of c~. o~m~a--Th~ Re-sources Agency.Primary #DEPARTMEN-[ OF PARKS AND RECREATION i BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD HR! # Page 3 of 3 NRHP Status Code Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1078 Forest Avenue 2,4 B1. HistodcName:#8 Forest Court, 1018Forest B2. Common Name:1078 Forest Avenue, Rosedale Manor B3. Original Use:Residential B4. Present Use: BS. Architectural Style: Bungalow- B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Residential B7.Moved?~ No ~ Yes [] Unknown : Date : B8.Related Features: Bga. Architect: Unknown Odginal Location: b. Builder:. Unknown B10. Significance: Theme: Architectural Area: Period of Significance: 1905~1940 Property Type: Applicable Criteria: 2,4 (Discuss importance in terms of histodca~ or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) 1078 Forest, Rnsedale Manor, was constructed in t905 for Mr. Charles M. Whitney. Whitney, a Bay Area businessman connected with paper manuisctudng, sold the property to luthur and Eulia Fnsbu~y in the early 1920s after having moved across the street to the recently landmarked 1055 Forest. The Fesburys were Christian Science Practitioners, with ancestors actually founding :directors of Ma~y Baker Eddy’s church, and operated Rosed~le as a retreat through the 1930s. Miss Bertha Wright purchased the prope~ in 1939, where she lived bdefly before selling to Mrs. Morale M. Prottinger. Wright, a prominent nurse and founder of the Children’s Hospital Medical Center of Northern California, was responsible for subdivi~ng the prope~ and_eventually moved to the gardener’s quarters next door at 1056 (built by Whitney in 1928). Pmltlnger bought Rosedate Manor in 1940 and operated it as a nur~Jng home for her dx year duration at the prope~, Rosedale I~as had eeveraJ o~ers since the late t940s, all .centlnuing the residential care home facili~, Palo Alto Times adicies dating from 12/30/04 and 01/04/05 indicate tha! J. B. Mi!ler was the architect for 1078 ForeaL t F. Parldnsen, Buitder. MlYler beg_an his solo architectural prectice in Sen Francisco as eady as 1895 before working with noteable architects Baknwell and Brown on the City of Paris D~y Goods Company reconstruction in 1906. While Miller has worked on seve~ residential projects throughout the Bay Area, he is most known for his tater’work with the thrn Miller and Pflueger. 1928 compe~Jon winners for the design of San Francisco’s Pacific Stock Exchange, the medical-dental office bei/ding at 450 Suffer Street in San Francisco (1929), the Paramount Theatre in Oakland (1930), and Roosevelt Junior High School in San Francisco (1934). - Forest Court was subdivided from the Ashby Farm in the early 1900s. 1078 Forest was one of the first five~homes in Ashby Addition, as the tract was known. Early addresses were simply given as "Forest Court" until 1908 at which time 1078 was listed as #8 Forest Court. The unusual b!ock is very wide and contains a landcaped island in the cont#r. Large street setbacks, mature landscaping, and formal gardens charecte~e this distinc~ elegant and historic neighborhood. Bll. Additional Resoume AttributeSi.(List attributes and codes) HP2 - Single Family Property ~ B12. References: .... i~ ~:~: ~! ~ (Sketch Mapwtthnortharrowrequired.)Sanborn Insurance Co. Maps, 1924, 1945, 1962 San Francisco Chronicle ~ B13. Remarks: 06/25/97 Telephone conversation with Emily Renze/ Who’s Who in Califomia 1928 ~ Bay Area Houses ~:~~ /~ ~ ~ B~4. Evaluator: Barbara Judy- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ Date of Evaluation: 6/11/97 Palo Alto Dept. of Building & Safety!original Palo Alto City Dimctodes ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Architect and Enginee~ ~ : (This space reserved for official comments.) App~ic.~ti~ of P,do Aho Tel: (415) S~9-2441 Interim Regulations for Residential Buildings: J~ " Historic Merit Screening ][~[] Histodc Merit Evaluation __ L~- Historic Landmark Alteration Review [[[~- Compatibility Review E[[[[] Compatibility Standards Exception [[[[[[] - Histodc Property Survey - ATTACHMENT Other Historic Review: [~[[[]Non-residential Historic Review [[[~[]Dowr~town contributing Residential Review F-==~ Voluntary Review E[[[[] Non-residential Histodc Designation or Re-designation E[[~ Mills Act Contract O Pr°FergY Locat.ion Address of SubjectProperty :| C)"7 :g ’ F ~-~ ~" "T --~i/’e. : Zone District" ~ -|:AssessOr’s Pamel Number" ~O "~ --"~-I - O,$L’=/ :Historic Category(if applicable) : ~ A~IiGaR~NOTE: The APPLICANT & PROPE~ OWNER must be placed on the submi~ed .,mailing list.in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or a~ion ~ken. ~~ Prope~v Owner ~:, ~: The APPLICANT & PROPERW OWNER must be placed on ~e submi~ed IJ mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings oraction taken. Name: 1 hereby ¢~ify Ih~t lain lh~ ownerofm¢ord of Ih~ prope~descdbed in Box ~2 abov~ and lhat t approve of tbe requested action herein.: this~ppli~tion(s) is subject to 100% recove~ of planning Costs, I undem~nd that charges for staff tim~ spent pro~ssing lhi~ application(s: of these charges ATTACH ENT 7 Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Information Regarding the Interim Historic Ordinance STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION The following standards for Historic Designation have r~placed 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 thefollowing criteria. Historic property may include building, structures, objects, landscape elements or natural :features, e.g.,.E1 Palo Alto~ * It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contd~bufion to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural he.fitage of California or the United States. *It i~ associated with the lives of~hitects,_builders, other persons or ¯historical events that.are impo.rtant to Palo Alto, the Bay Area, the nation or to California’s past. ÷: o It is an example of a type ofbuilding or is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now ~, It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method ofconstrucfion, 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 architecttwal 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 P~el Designated historic property will categorized as Landmark or Conuibuting according to the following definitions. =Landmark Properties Contributing Properties Landnaark 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 stylistic 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 contributing property may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal - of architectural details or changes to exterior materials, slandards for historic designation Page 2 ATTACHMENT 8 ATTACHMENT 9 14Bungalow functions: oloniai dwelling on ~he plains, Punjab, 1860s. The characteristic compound and bungalow form, with comers enclosed for bathing rooms. Separate kitchen and servants’ quarters are at the rear (right); the well, located behind the tree in the foreground (Photograph, Samud Bourne) (India O~c.e Library) Figure 3.1 Country pad: the bungalow as’little country house’. Surre/, ".g~7-91. ’a cottage is a little house in the country but a Bungalow is a little country house’ (R.A.Briggs, 1891) Exerpts from "The Bungalow" by Anthony D. King, NewYork: Oxford University Prdss, 1996. 91 Suburban revolution, USA: 1890s- 1920s. In the USA more so than in Britain, the bungalow was to effect the transition from the vertical inner, to the horizontal outer suburb. Row o! Cozy Bungalows in California. 76 Close to hature: the ever-clinging vine, c~1912. - Accordingto the ideology, the vines ensured that the bungalow’clung closely to the ground’; they also : hdped secure privacy when the bungalow wasnear the sidewalk. Note the caption (Robert Winter) Exerpts from "The Bungalow" by Anthony D. King, NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1996. Historic R~ourees Board C~ity of Pale Alto Pale Alto, CA 94301 Dear Historic Resources Board: i032 Forest Avenue Pa!o Alto, CA 94301 June 17, 199"7 ATTACHMENT 10 i am writing about the proposal to demolish Rosedale,Manor, 1078 Fore_at Avenue. As a r~ar neighbor (tSmo houses away), I urge the board io protect this houseantl prohibit its demolition_ Rosedale Manor is important to our neighborhood not only because of itS historic character and vary unamally at~ctivc architecture, but because it is a qynehpin" house on our blocZ By "lynehpin~, I mean the following -- Our block consists of Forest Avenue, betwe2n Boyee and Lincoln. Forest bends in about the middle of the block, at about the start of 1078 Forest, to accommodate a ’large gravy median divider. Over the past several years, the half of the block nearest Lineoln has b~n devastated by the bulldozing of several historic horaes and their replacement with behemoth houses totally alien to the neighborhood’s character. Two of these homes are additionally sueh arehiteeUtral horrors that they would blight any neighborhood;historic or otherwise, and are re~orred to in tim neighborhood as "the tugboat" and ~the pagoda." . The Preservation Architect’s r~port charitably desen’b~ this as ’q’h* harmonious quality of this turn-of-the-century environment has been jarrezl by the introduction of s~vera! modem residences that do not r~lat, to the arehiteea~ thom~s, scale, style, and massing of the residences on the block_"~ : ~ By great good fomme, this devastation is not vi ibI from the yardsb~e half of Forest ou whieh I live, because of the. !xmd in the street. 1078 Forest, however, sits at this bend. The loss of 1078 would not only be a very significant loss b~ause of the unique value of the house, but would extend tha neighborhood blight onto our as y~t intact half of the street. Please dO not let this’ happen. ~ ~ Additionally, I wouId like tO add that I believe that the Kim’s statement in their application that thd house is "unsafe" is incon’eet. After all, Rosedale Manor has been a home for the elderly for many years. I believe the Kim’s ar~ misunderstanding the character and safety of historic construction (which is shnilar to that in my own house of the same vintage). I welcome our new neighbors, the Shakeaaaias, to the neighborhood, and hope that the historic character of 1078 Forest Avenue wilI be preserved. Sincerely, Karen Kolling (415)853-6547 Terry & Juliet Stewart 1141 Forest Ave. Pale Alto, CA 94301 item To Whom tt May Concern: We request that the home at 1078 Forest Ave., Pale Alto, CA 94301 be given Landmark Status. This letter is being sent became we will be out of town during the p,eriod oft’_tme in which this matter will come before the board for consideration. tt is one of the few single gory, turn of the century bungalows left in the city and certainly the largest. The house has been continuously occupied and well maintained through the years. I’ve visited inside the home on several occasions and found the interior to be well kept with large, gracious rooms exhibiting quality of workmanship. The home adds character to the neighborhood where many of the older homes have been replaced. To keep the character and flavor of the neighborhood it is important to keep in place the architecturally unique, period structures, such as1078 Forest. It is also a structure with "a story behind it" about who lived there and what went on. Those factors also add to the character and self worth of a neighborhood. It is neither an eye soar nor a hazard and replacing the house with a new structure and would take Pale Alto one step closer to "killing the goose that laid the golden egg." Thank you for your consideration in this matter. ~and Juliet Stewart Robert W. & Vivian E. B|omenkamp 1023 Forest Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301-3031 415-322-7782 Item No. 1.1 TO:HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Palo Alto, California FROM: Robert W..Blomenkamp Vivian E. Blomenkamp ~ DATE: 17 June 1997 RE: 1078 Forest Avenuei Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone We favor the granting of a historic merit designationto the structure known as 1078 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, California. This housewas built in 1907 and the appearance is pleasant but simple in design. It contributes to the diversity of the neighborhood. And, for your information; the two-story residence and small garage at rear left of 1078 Forest (per 1924 Palo Alto Sanborn Map) mentioned in the memo~om Barbara Judy; Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program to the Historic Resources Board are still standing and, in fact, is now theresidence of former City Couneit Member Emily Renzel known as 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto) We feel- 1056 Forest Avenue also deserves Historic Merit Evaluation: z Shaun M. Maguire ¯ 103 Forest Avenue Paio Alto California 94301 Tel: 4t 5-325-7726 - Item No. 1.1 Historic Resources Board City of Paio Alto - 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 June 16:1997, Dear Sirs, Re: 1078 Forest Avenue (Rosedale Manor) Application for Histodca, I Review I first resided in Palo Alto in 1974 and returned with my family in the mid 1980’s to reside firstin Old Palo Alto then here in Crescent Park. We have owned the 1103 Forest Avenue property since 1993. Our decision to corse_to this block of Forest Avenue was largely influenced by the preponderance of older properties and mature landscaping that existed here. -~ ~ i -~ ~:~:.~ ~ ~ .~ : Rosedale Manor, at 1078 Forest Avenue, merits receipt of Landrnark:~ designation for a number of reasons, mostimportantly because it represents one of only a few single story houses of this-scale and vintage that remain in this part of Palo Alto.tt is asubstantial house well situatedonagenerous iot and is an- asset to the neighborhood and city~ The house fits .in well with neighboring properties. Whereas the house may require some maintenance and renovation, its representation of early 20th Century residential architecture wen’ants its continued existence. ~ ~ I understand thatothers with greater knowledge ofthe history and architectural significance Of Rosedale Manor will be presenting information on these matters ~to you and so I will nottry to duplicate this. My purpose in writing was to register my support for the designation of the property asia Landmark property. I trust ~hat you fully consider themerits of preserving this charming and historical Sincerely, ~ _ _Shaun Maguire June 18, 1997 Dear Historic Resources Board:1078 Forest, Rosedale Manor Inthe years I have lived on Forest Avenue, i have enjoyed the historicflavor of our neighborhood. This has been eroding over the last decade or so with the demolition of smaller homes and construction of much larger ones of very modem design. It is shocking to me that Rosedale Manor, a large gracious old home, might also fall victim to this pattern. Rosedale is one.of the oldest_homes on the block and anchors the southwest end of ourstreet~sland. ~ I understand that this decision will probably be continued to July2, but I’m not sure I’ll be able t~ attend at that:time, so.I’ll urge you now to please designate Rosedale Landmark. Thank you very much. Sinc ly,ere Barbara- lntersimone ~ Item No. I.I To: Historic Resources Board From: Enid Pearson, 1019 Forest Court Date: June 16, 1997 Subject:1078 Forest Avenue - Historic Merit Evaluation I urge you to give Rosedale Landmark sta~x~s. This is one of the remaining houses on Forest Avenue that clearly has historic value. Others that might have qualified have been demolished and large, uninteresting~ expensive and architecturally flawed houses have taken their places. ¯ Forest Avenue is losing its historical uniqueness. Everytime another house in our neighborhood is demolished, we lose a piece of history. Every demolition diminishes the joy of walking and enjoying the differences the past givesus = -. = Rosedale is Rosedale. And Rosedale and its residents are part of our - neighborhood and our lives. ~= = :~ : ~ Give Rosedale Landmark status. Don’t let this his[oric home fall victim to the wrecking ball. : : :: : - June !6, 1997 item To: Historic Resources Board, City of Palo Alto From: jMel and Karen Kror~, 1156 F,~rest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Historic Merit Designation -for 1078 Forest It has come to our attention that the above mentioned property (1078 Forest) is under consideration for historic merit designation.- We very strongly support the Landmark status for this property, given its unique history and design. The character of our neighborhood (and probably that of all Palo Alto) is at risk if we continue to destroy the beautiful buildings that give our city its unique flavor. We request that you support the staff report and allow your staff time to do more research. We then would be very happy to provide a more detailed commentary on the property when the staff research is completed. Thank. you in advance for your consi~leration of this important matter. TO:Historic Resources Board FROM:Helena Chmura Kraemer 11 !6 Forest Avenue Pate Alto, CA 94301 DATE: June 17, 1997 item No. L1 This communications is to support the recommendation that a historic merit designation to RosedaleManor at 1078 Forest b’e continued under the City of Pale Alto’s Interim Historic Program. - - When we moved into this neighborhood in 1967, this neighborhood was a harmonious mixture of architectural styles, family dwellings, some, like Rosedale, quite old, thatereated a true neighborly feeling. Ours was a newly constructed house built on _ the site of a demolished older house, but one-story and consistent with the range of styles on the block, and therefore not ’~jarring" to the atmosphere of the block. - :: tn the last few years, as yo~ Architectural Description notes, several more of these older dwellings have been demolished, replaced by ’‘modern’t, showy, garish two- ~toryhouses, verylarge dwellings, dish~onious with each other, mud certainly with the rem~ug older buildings in this block. The constant cycle of demolition and construction has created havoc with both the atmosphere of the area, has destroyed the sense of community, and has made living on this block extremely uncorrffortable. Your ¯ report mentions the "graciously landscaped street-center park dominated by mature evergreen trees’!. It does not mention the deterioration of at leas~ one of those very old trees during this period of constant construction, and probably caused by it. ~ ~ What is now being proposed is that a gracious, handsome, well-established early 20t~ century house, that is well-maintained, that has had a historical presence in_the community, be demolished. It will likely be rel~laced by yet one more "modem", and if recent history has any predictive value, garish, two,storied showpiece of a house, that witl fiarther erode not onlythe visible history of the area~ but add t0fl~e architectural and social deterioration of this neighborhood. Item L1 June 17, 1997 RE: 1078 Forest Avenue Dear Members of the Historic Resources Board: I would strongly support the Historic Resources Board giving 1078 Forest Avenue Landmark status. -~ This 1907 structure is one of the few remaining bungalows along this portion of Forest Avenue and has always been a significant one to me due to it~ architectural detailing and presence. Iris, bymany standards, already a large home situated so as not to boast about its size. My hope is that the house on its own merits will satisfy the criteria forLandmark status basedon the research already done and still underway. I have watched the last few-years as this portion of Forest Avenue has lost one house afar another to the bulldozer. Craftsman houses gone...Bungalows scraped... Thankfully 1055 Forest saved... What once was truly an historic neighborhood is seriously threatened, and theloss 0fyet another 0fits]ongstanding members would, I believe, put it into an endaugered state: .... . Please give serious consideration to giving 1078 Forest Landmark status to preserve this home as well as the integrity of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Karen Holman 725 Homer Avenue June 18, 1997 Item No. L1 To the Historic Resources Board From Emily Renzel Subject: 1078 Forest Avenue, Rosedale Manor -Dear Members of the Historic Resources Board: Rosedale Manor is a 90+ year old gracious residence in our neighborhood. It was one of the first five homes in the Ashby Addition, as our "tract" was known. It shares this distinction with the notable homes at 1001 Forest and its carriage house at 1009 Forest Court, 1023 Forest, 1055 Forest, and 1145 Forest. Our neighborhood is grateful that you recently designated 1055 Forest as a Landmark home, and we hope that you.will also designate Rosedale a Landmark. Rosedale is deceptive. Because it is single story_ and has an 85’ frontage plus the 115’ of my gardeff (which once was part of Rosedale) Rosedale looks smaller than iris: Rosedale is 3500 square feet .1055 Forest is 3743 sqtiare fe6t Rosedale has 9 bedrooms, 8 baths 1055 Forest has 6 bedrooms, 4 baths Rosedale was built in 1905-1907 1055 Forest was built in 1896 So this is a substantial home, and aunique example of a large.single story bungalow: The older neighbors,-wh0 were here when t came in 1971,-said it was built by wealthy San Franciscans as a summer-home: Later it became a Christian Sdence Retreat. For more than 50 years it has been a residential care home. . Sometime between 1921 and 1925Rosedale was purchased by Arthur and £ugenia Fosbery. £ugenia Fosbery was a Christian Science Teacher. :Her brother-in-law, Bliss Knapp was also a Teacher based with the.Mother Church in Boston. He was the son of Ira Knapp, one of the five founding directors of Mary Baker Eddy’s church. Bliss Knapp would stay with the Fosbery’s when he "came to California and many of his :students and Christian Science friends from around the state would come to visit with him here. This is probably the origin of the lore among the elderly neighbors that this was a Christian Science retreat. Also at that time, there were no Christian Science "care centers" like today, so Rosedale may. have served as a local treatment center for those with health problems. Bliss Knapp’s letters have been published by a member of the Bliss Knapp Association, and I am hoping that they might shed some fight on this period of Rosedale’s past. Page Two ~ne architect for Rosedale was J.R. Miller. There was a James R. (or J.R.) Miller at that time who became a principle in Miller & Pflueger. J.R. Miller, then with Bakewell and Brown, architects, was responsible for the 1908 reconstruction of the interior and dome at City of Paris in San Francisco. Later, Miller & Pflueger’s ’ Medical-Denta! building. (1929) at 450 Surfer has been held out as "one of the major monuments in the United States" of the Moderne (Art Deco) style. The firm of Miller & Pflueger is ~"primarily noted for innovation in skyscraper and theater design". The Paramount Theatre in Oakland (1930) and the Alameda Theatre (1931) were both designed by Miller & Pflueger. Although Miller is a common name, it seems unlikely that at the turn of the century there were two architects by that name in the Bay Area. (Quotes from Guide to Architecture in S.F. and Northern CA.) Rosedale is safe. is fully sprinklered, so it i~’safe from fire. Each room has an alarm button and because Rosedale is single story, thereis little chance of perso.nal harm from an :earthquake. It has been inspected annually by the Palo Alto Fire Department. It Looking at the Criteri~ for Evaluating the Significance of Historical Resources, I would think that the Christian Science retreat/treatment center and dose association with the Mother Church in Boston would meet criteria #1. The fact that J.R. Miller, the architect was noted for his work on City of Paris and later for his Moderne (Art Deco) buildings would satisfy Criteria #2. The use asa Christian Science treatment center and later a neighborhood residential care home might satisfy #3. Rosedaleis a distinctive style of architecture in Palo Alto in that it is a very large, single story, lightly adorned, turn-of-the-centu~ bungalow. (This may reflect the architect’s bent toward the dean lines 0f the Moderne style) I agree with the Staff Report that~ Rosedale_ also satisfies Criteria #4. I don’t believe there is any potential to yield information on the pre-history of Palo Alto which is Criteria #5. For many of the same reasons outlined above, I urge you to designate Rosedale Manora Landmark structure. Thank-you for your dedicated work on these difficult designations. Sincerely; Emil~ M. Rer~zel 1056 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 JlJl~ 8 0 !997 Dear Members of the Historic P, eview Board, This letter is in regards to Rosedale Manorl-the property located at 1078 For~t Ave. It is our und~standing that this property is currently being reviewed for status as a Landmark .~a’ucture. We have been r~idents on this block for over twenty years now, and have been heart.broken as many charming older hom~ have been replaced by newer ~a-uctur~ that show no sensitivity to our neighborhood. Although not all of the newer buildings ar.e objeetionablelo us, some actually enhance the neighborhood, the pleasing on~ are fewand far between. It is ~= ~ = however particularly di.~urbing when one of the older and more charming hcan~ is in danger. Please designate Ro~ed-a~e° -Manor a Landmark structure and help tO protect the heritage of our community. :Thank .v~u Ibr your time and consideration. Sincerely, Todd & Kathleen Reece 1002 Forest Ave.956 Boyce St. l~alo Alto, CA. 94301 : Palo Alto, CA 94301