HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-15 City Council (27)City
City ofealo A o8
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:DECEMBER 15, 1997 CMR:492:97
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A HISTORIC
PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS
OF 420 MAPLE STREET
RECOMMENDATION
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommends that the application for a Mills Act
contract with the owners of 420 Maple Street be delayed until after a Mills Act policy has
been adopted by the City Council as part of the update to the Historic Regulations. Staff
continues to recommend approving a Mills Act contract with the owners of 420 Maple Street,
subject to the terms and conditions of the attached Historic Property Preservation Agreement.
BACKGROUND
The request for a Mills Act contract was reviewed by the HRB on November 5, 1997. The
staff report to the HRB and the associated minutes from the HRB meeting are attached.
BOARD ’REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
Following is a list of questions/concerns raised by the HRB with a staff response/comment
(m italics) to each:
1.What is the actual tax break to the applieimt resulting from the contract?
The actual tax savings are based on a complex formula that is calculated by the Santa Clara
County Tax Assessor’s Office. The new property tax is based on a lower property
assessment. Reductions of up to 90 per cent are possible.
Why does the draft agreement establish $2,000 as a minimum of the tax savings to be
used for property maintenance and rehabilitation?
Such a provision does not exist in either of the two existing Mills Act contracts previously
approved by the City Council," however, staff believes that it is logical to ensure that some
CMR:492:97 Page 1 of 3
part of the tin" savings is returned to the properO,. Staff originally suggested to the applicant
that loper cent of the savings be used for such purposes. The applicant suggested a flat
amount be utilized so that the Ci(y andJor the applicant wouM not be required to re-establish
a figure each year. Information from the applicant indicates that the actual maintenance of
the property currently exceeds $2,000 annually.
Why not require an amount equal to the tax savings to be used for maintenance and
rehabilitation?
This type of provision does not exist in either of the two current Mills Act contracts, nor is
it required under State lcm,. In the absence of a specific Council policy, staff felt that 10 per
cent of the tax savings constituted a reasonable amount to ensure the provision of a
minimum level of property maintenance.
The house has been modified. Does the property still qualify for the National
Register?
As required for all City and National Register landmark sites, the additions to the house
were approved by the HRB as being in conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s
Standard; therefore, the property is presumed to still be eligible for the National Register.
Has the applicant specified what the tax savings will be used for o~ when maintenance
and rehabilitation will take place?
Not specifically, however, the drafi preservation agreement requires the owner/applicant to
provide an annual list of maintenance and rehabilitation items.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Santa Clara County Tax Collector confmned that a total of $18,172 in property taxes
was assessed on the subject property in 1997. The City’s Administrative Services
Department estimated that approximately 10 per cent, or $1,817, came back to the City as
general fund revenue. In addition, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) received
approximately 40 percent, or $7,269, as general revenue. If the proposed agreement is
approved, the City and the PAUSD would lose a substantial portion of this revenue for the
life of the contract.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
No policy, code or procedure currently exists which pertains to the Mills Act contract
request.
CMR:492:97 Page 2 of 3
TIMELINE
No specific legal tirneline has been established for Mills Act contract requests.
seeks to record the preservation agreement prior to December 31, 1997,
property tax savings for 1998.
The applicant
to realize the
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The application is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report to the Historic Resources Board dated 11/5/97, including draft Historic Property
Preservation Agreement
2. HRB minutes dated 11/5/97
PREPARED BY: George White, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY ]~MLRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc:Guy Blase, 356 Coleridge, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mike Levinthal, 420 Maple Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:492:97 Page 3 of 3
Historic Resources Board
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Staff Report
Item No. I. 1
Historic Resources Board
George White, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning
November 5, 1997
Request for the City to enter into a Historic Property Preservation
Agreement with the Owners of 420 Maple Street
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend that the City Council
approve a Historic Property Preservation Agreement pursuant to the provisions of the Mills
Act of the State of California, which would be effective upon recordation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The owners of 420 Maple Street request the City to enter into a Historic Property
Preservation Agreement, pursuant to the provisions of_the Mills Act of the State of
Califomia. The terms of the agreement are presented in the "Preservation Agreement"
section of this report and are included in Section 3 of the proposed Historic Property
Preservation Agreement, Attachment # 1.
PROJECT HISTORY
Site Description
The subject property is located at the end. of Maple Street in the Crescent Park
neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single family residences of
various early twentieth-century architectural styles that are located on estate parcels ranging
in size from 7,500 to 37,000 square feet with mature landscaping. The subject site is a
26,571 square foot rectangular parcel with a 178 foot street frontage and a 150 feet depth.
The property abuts residentialproperties on the west and south side and the San Francisquito
Creek to the north (see attachment #3, site location map).
Background
The subject building, known as the "Dunker House" after the original owners, is currently
listed as a Category II structure on the local Historic Resources Inventory and was placed on
the National Register of Historic Places as a locally designated landmark on February 19,
1982 (the National Register Nomination form is attached for reference).
The Historic Resources Inventory indicates that the subject house was designed by Birge
Clark and built in 1926. The two story residence is an early example of California Colonial
Style in Palo Alto. The standard elements of the California Colonial Style include an austere
front facade with the major interior spaces oriented toward an interior courtyard. The
architectural features of the subject house include ironwork grilles, recessed entryway,
exposed interior beams, and ceramic tile at the entry steps.
The subject house has been extensively renovated and remodeled. In 1994, the Historic
Resources Board approved a detached two story guest house with kitchen, bathroom and
garage located to the north of the original house. The addition incorporated appropriate
architectural design features, including fine detailing on the windows and at the end cuts on
rafter tails. There was also a remodel of the north wing of the residence which previously
housed the kitchen, service porch, maid’s quarters, cook’s quarter and two car garage into
a family room, gym and workshop.
Other renovations have included remodelingthe second floor bathrooms, first floor den and
sun room of the south wing. The garden has been updated to include a modern new entryway
trellis painted a non-historic, green color located on in the side yard and a new garden shed.
The property was originally landscapedby Leslie Kiler, the original owner’s son-in-law. The
front yard is landscaped with mature species of trees, shrubs and plants. There is a formal
garden located in the rear and side yard that include a rose garden, wishing well and stone
retaining wall with architectural fragments of a column capital and flagstone pathways.
The home sits at the end of a street that is lined on both sides by Southern Magnolia
(Magnolia grandiflora) that are in fair health and structure. There are very old and mature
landscape trees on the subject property that are all in good health. The front of the house is
dominated by a massive Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) and a leaning but stable Deodar
Cedar (Cedrus deodara) occupies the area in front of the carriage house. The side yard has
a large London Plane (Platanus acerifolia) on the property line. There are Japanese Maple
(Acer palmatum) and Dogwood (Cornus sp.) that are planted below that fit the landscape
theme. There are two original English Holly (llex aquifolium) that are excellent preserved
specimens and are in good health.
Current and Pending Cil3,. Historic Regulations
The property is currently protected from demolition and significant alteration by the Interim
Historic Regulations (Chapter 16.50 of the PAMC). These interim regulations are intended
to protect potentially historic residences built before 1940 while the City’s historic
ordinances and resource inventory are updated. It is uncertain whether this level of
preservation will exist after the permanent historic regulations are developed.
At this point in time no specific procegs or fee schedule has been adopted by the City for
Mills Act requests and, as a result, each application is evaluated on a case by case basis. The
City Council has placed Mills Act policies and procedures on the Planning Department Work
Program for 1997/1998. It is anticipated that this subject will be considered during the
aforementioned historic ordinance and resource inventory update process.
Mills Act Contract
A Mills Act contract is a voluntary agreement between a qualified owner of a historic
property and the local jurisdiction that provides property tax relief in exchange for
compliance with certain preservation restrictions. The local government has the option to
choose the properties that are suitable for the incentive by evaluating various factors such as
the significance of the building to the community, developmentpressure on the site, and the
need for rehabilitation. The Mills Act is flexible but has the following mandates:
A written contract for the minimum duration often (10) years, renewable annually
thereafter.
¯Terms to ensure preservation and rehabilitation of the property to be done in
compliance with State Historic Preservation Office regulations.
¯An agreement by the property owner to allow interior and exterior inspection;
typically one annual inspection.
¯A requirement for the property owner to supply all information required to establish
that the property is eligible for the Mills Act.
¯The right of the local jurisdiction to decide on a case by case basis whether a property
fits the local standards of suitability for this incentive program.
The Mills Act also allows local governments to require the costs to administer the program
be paid by the applicant.
The City currently has two Property Preservation Agreements, one with the owners of the
Juana Briones House, located at 4155 Old Adobe Road and the other with the owners of the
Squire House located at 900 University Avenue.
Page 3
Proposed Preservation Agreement
In addition to providing future protection to the exterior facade of the landmark residence,
the proposed agreement would require the current owners of the subject property to preserve
and maintain the interior entry hall and living room which includes original doors and
hardware, hardwood floors, light fixtures and plaster finish. The owners would also agree to
preserve, restore as needed, and maintain the original landscaping.
If the recommended Mills Act contract is approved, there will be a requirement that the
property owners would meet the following terms of the preservation agreement:
1. The property owner shall provide a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)
quality documentation of the property. This shall include the following elements:
a. The history and design of the landscaping shall be researched by a t-LABS
experienced historian or other qualified professional. Note: Appropriate
documentation of the house has been completed and submitted to staff,
and, therefore, is not required as part of this agreement.
b. The preparation of site plans, landscape plans, exterior elevations,
interior elevations of the entry hall and living room and floor plans by an
architect or other qualified professional.
c. The photographic documentation of the exteriorresidence, interior entry
hall and living room and landscaping by a qualified professional
photographer. This documentation shall include a minimum of 10 views.
Prior to undertaking the above, the property owner shall submit the credentials and
practical experience of the selected qualified professional(s) to the Planning
Department for review and approval. Once completed, the I-LABS documents shall
be provided to the City and subsequently deposited for public review at the Palo Alto
Main Library. This documentation shall be competed by July 1, 1998.
2. After the historical documentation of the landscaping is completed, the applicant
shall develop and provide to the City Planning Department a preservation plan that
identifies the remaining historically significant landscape areas. This plan shall
include a schedule for an ISA Certified Arborist to inspect and supervise any required
pruning of trees on the property.
3. The owners shall preserve and maintain the exterior of the residence, the interior
spaces of the entry hall and living room and the identified historical landscape
Page 4
features. Any future modifications or alterations to these areas shall be subject to
review by Historic Resources Board to determine compliance with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and with the Standards of the State Historic
Preservation Office.
4. On July 1 of each. year, the property owner shall provide a statement to the City
Planning Department outlining any intended repairs, maintenance and rehabilitation
projects for the duration of the agreement. A minimum of $2000.00 of the annual
property tax reduction resulting from this agreement shall be used for preservation,
rehabilitation and maintenance.
5. The owners shall open the property, including the interior of the house, on an
annual basis to a public tour conducted by the owners or by a civic or historic
organization selected by the owners and approved by the Planning Department.
6. The property owner shall allow City Planning staff to inspect the interior and
exterior of the property on an annual basis to ensure compliance with this agreement.
7. The applicant shall pay a $250.00 annual fee to cover the cost of City stafftime and
materials used in administering this agreement. An invoice shall be submitted the
property owners annually which itemizes these costs. This amount will be increased
annually by 3%.
The above listed terms also appear in Section 3 in the draft Historic Property Preservation
Agreement, Attachment # 1.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The preservationAgreement would result in property tax relief for the property owners. The
Santa Clara County Tax Collector confirmed that property tax in the amount of $18,172 was
paid for the subject property in 1997. The City’s Finance Department estimates that
approximately 10 percent, or $1,817.00, came back to the City as a general fund revenue. In
addition, the Palo Alto Unified School District receives approximately40 percent, or $7,269,
as general revenue.
If the proposed agreement is approved, the City and the school district would lose a portion
of this revenue for the life of the contract..
TIMELINE
The recommendation of the Historic Resources Board will be forwarded to the City Council
for final determination. If approved by the Council on December 1, 1997, the Agreement
would be recorded in the Office of the Santa Clara County Recorder on or before December
31, 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Action on the proposed Preservation Agreement is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 19, Section 15308, Actions
by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
COURTESY COPIES:
Guy Blase, Applicant, 356 Coleridge Avenue, Palo Alto
Kathy and Michael Levinthal, Owner, 420 Maple Avenue, Palo Alto
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Historic Preservation Agreement
B. National Register Nomination Form
C. Location Map
Prepared by:Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect of the Interim Historic Program; and
George White, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Division/Department Head Approval: Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
This document is recorded
for the benefit of the City
of Palo Alto and is entitled
to be recorded free of charge
in accordance with Section 6103
of the Government Code.
After Recordat±on, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
[Government Code section 50280]
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
, 1997, by and between MICHAEL J. LEVINTHAL,
TRUSTEE, under Trust Dated January 18, 1988 ("Owner") and the CITY
OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and California municipal corporation
’city").
RECITALS
A. Owner possesses certain real property located in the
City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, commonly known
as 420 Maple Street and described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
("Property"), which ~contains the historic residential structure
known as the Dunker House and which, as hereinafter set forth, is
a "qualified historic property" as defined in Government Code
section 50280.1.
B. Owner and City desire to protect ~nd preserve the
Property in a manner which retains and enhances its characteristics
of historical significance.
C. Owner has requested that City enter into an
historical property agreement with respect to the Property, in
consideration for which Owner will agree to perform certain new
obligations with respect to the Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties in consideration of the
mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein and the
substantial public benefit to be derived therefrom, do agree as
follows:
SECTION 1 -AUTHORITY
This Agreement is made and executed pursuant to Artd
12 (commencing with Section 50280) of Chapter 1 of Part
Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code. This Agr
establishes that the subject Property is a qualified ~
1
property under Government Code section 50280.1, in that it has been
designated as an historic landmark (Category II) by the City
pursuant to Chapter 16.49 of the Municipal Code, and is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places.
SECTION 2 TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of
recordation, and shall remain in effect until January i, 2008.
Such term will automatically be renewed on its Renewal Date as
provided in Section 5 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3 LIMITATIONS ON LAND USE
During the term of this Agreement, the Property shall be
subject to the following provisions, requirements, and
restrictions:
(a) On or before July i, 1998, Owner shall provide to
City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment
("Department") Historic American Building Survey (HABS) quality
documentation of the Property. This shall include the following
elements:
(i) The history and design of the landscaping
shall be researched and documented by a HABS
experienced historian or other qualified
professional.
(ii) Site plans, landscape plans, exterior
elevations, interior elevations of the entry hall
and living room, and floor plans shall be prepared
by an architect or other qualified professional.
(iii) The exterior residence, interior entry hall
and living room and entire landscaping shall be
documented with photographs by a qualified
professional. This documentation shall include a
minimum of ten (i0) views.
Prior to undertaking this documentation, Owner shall submit the
credentials and practical experience of the selected qualified
professional(s) to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment ("Director") or the Director’s designee for review and
approval. Once completed, the HABS documents shall be provided to
the City and will subsequently be deposited at the Palo Alto Main
Library to allow public access.-
(b) After the historical documentation of the
landscaping is completed, Owner shall develop and provide to the
Department a preservation plan for theAhistorical features of the
original landsc.ape. This plan shall irf~!ude a schedule for an ISA
Certified Arborlst to inspect and superJise any required pruning of
trees on the Property.~ ,
2
971023 lac 0080593
(c) Owner shall preserve and maintain the exterior of
the residence, the interior spaces of the entry hall and living
room, and those landscape features identified in the preservation
plan ("Protected Areas"). Any future modifications or alterations
to the Protected Areas shall be subject to review by the Historic
Resources Board to determine compliance with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and with the Standards of
the State Historic Preservation Office.
(d) On or before July i, 1998, and thereafter annually
on or before July I of each succeeding year while this Agreement is
in effect, Owner shall provide a written statement to the
Department describing any repairs, maintenance and rehabilitation
projects conducted during the previous year affecting the Protected
Areas of the Property. The statement shall itemize the
expenditures made by Owner to accomplish the work. A minimum of
Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) annually, representing a portion of
the annual property tax reduction resulting from this Agreement,
shall be used by Owner for preservation, rehabilitation, and
maintenance of the Protected Areas of the Property.
(e) Owner shall, once annually, open the Protected Areas
of the Property to a public tour conducted by Owner or by a civic
or historic organization selected by Owner. The annual statement
submitted to the Department shall include a description of the date
and nature of the public tour conducted during the prior year. The
tours need not accommodate more than twenty (20) persons unless
desired by the Owner.
(f) Owner shall provide for such periodic examinations,
by appointment, of the interior and exterior of the Property by the
County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the
State Board of Equalization and City, as may be necessary to
determine Owner’s compliance with this Agreement. Owner shall upon
request provide whatever information shall be required by City to
determine the Property’s continuing eligibility "as a qualified
historic property.
(g) Owner shall be responsible for the full cost of City
staff time and materials used in administering this Agreement. For
the administrative convenience of the parties, the cost of routine
administration shall be deemed to be the sum of Two Hundred Fifty
Dollars annually, increased by three percent (3%) each year. This
sum shall be due and payable on or before July i, 1998 and each
July 1 thereafter and shall be submitted to City together with the
report described above. Actual City costs associated with
investigating any alleged noncompliance with this Agreement, and
any administrative enfQrcement activities, shall be the
responsibility of Owner.
(h) Failure to submit in a timely manner the annual
report and administrative fee described in this Section 3 shall not
by itself be considered to be a material breach of this Agreement
if the submission is made within ten (i0) days of a written
reminder from City to Owner.
3
971023 lac 0080593
SECTION 4 -RECORDATION; WRITTEN NOTICE
On or before December 31, 1997, City shall record an
executed copy of this Agreement in the Office of the Santa Clara
County Recorder. Owner shall provide written notice of this
Agreement to the State Office of Historic Preservation within six
(6) months of entering into this Agreement.
SECTION 5 RENEWAL/NONRENEWAL
(a) On January i, 1999, and on January 1 of each year
thereafter ("Renewal Date"), one (i) year shall be automatically
added to the initial term of this Agreement, unless notice of
nonrenewal is given as provided in this Section and in Government
Code Section 50282.
(b) If either Owner or City desire in any year not to
renew the Agreement, such party shall serve written notice of
nonrenewal of the Agreement on the other party in advance of the
Renewal Date. Unless such notice is served by Owner to City at
least ninety (90) days prior to the Renewal Date or~by City to
Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the Renewal Date, one (i)
year shall automatically be added to the term of this Agreement.
Upon receipt by Owner of the notice of nonrenewal from City, Owner
may make a written protest of the notice. City may, at any time
prior to the Renewal Date, withdraw its notice to Owner of
nonrenewal. If either City or Owner serves notice to the other of
nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for
the balance of the term remaining since its original execution, or
since the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever the case may be.
(c) If either party has served notice of nonr~newal as
provided herein, the Property shall be valued by the County
Assessor in accordance with the provisions of California Revenue
and Taxation Code Section 439.3.
SECTION 6 CANCELLATION
(a) City may cancel this Agreement if the City Council
determines, following a public hearing noticed in accordance with
Government Code Section 50285, that Owner has breached any of the
conditions of the Agreement or has allowed the Property to
deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for
a qualified historic.property. City may also cancel this Agreement
if it determines that Owner has failed to maintain the Property in
the manner specified in Section 3 of this Agreement. As an
alternative to cancellation of the Agreement for breach of any
condition, the City may pursue all available legal remedies to seek
enforcement of the Agreement, including bringing a court action to
enforce the Agreement by specific performance and/or injunctive
relief.
(b) If this Agreement is canceled as provided in this
Section, Owner shall pay a cancellation fee as provided under
Government Code Section 50286.
971023 lac 0080593
4
SECTION 7 -ATTORNEYS’ FEES
The prevailing party in any action to interpret or
enforce this Agreement shall be entitled to recover its reasonable
attorneys’ fees.
SECTION 8 NOTICE
All notices hereunder shal! be given in writing and
mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows:
To City:Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To Owner:Michael J. Levinthal, Trustee
or Property Owner
420 Maple Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SECTION 9 - BINDING
This contract shall be binding upon, and inure to the
benefit of, al! successors in interest of Owner. A successor in
interest shall have the same rights and obligations under this
Agreement as Owner.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER have executed this
Agreement the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:OWNER
Senior Asst. City Attorney Michael J. Levinthal,
Trustee under Trust dated
January 18, 1988
Attachment:
Exhibit "A": Property Description
5
971023 lac 00~0593
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)))
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) tobe the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that he
executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his
signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf
of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
971023 lac 0080593
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her
signature on the instrument the persoh, or the entity upon behalf
of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
971023 ia~ 001~0593
7
EXHIBIT A
The property commonly designated by street address as:
420 Maple Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
94301, is more particularly described as follows:
Lot Numbered 3 in Block Numbered lll, as said Lot and Block are
designated on a Map entitled, "Map of Crescent Park, situate in
the city of Palo Alto, Santa Clara, California" and which map
was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the
County of Santa Clara, State of California, on July 17, 1923 in
Volume "R" of Maps, at Pages 36 and 37, records of said County.
Excepting therefrom that portion granted to Santa Clara County
Flood Control and Water District 4-15-69 in Book 8499, Page
355, and being described as:
Beginning at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 3; thence
along the Northerly line of said Lot N 84° 30’ 00" E 62.22 feet
and S 78° 00’ 00" S 89.72 feet to the Northeasterly corner of
said Lot; thence along the Easterly line of said lot S 07° 52’
00" W 29.62 feet; thenceleaving said Easterly line N 78° 00’
00" W 87.32 feet; thence S 84° 30’ 00" W 64.66 feet to a point
on the Westerly line of said Lot; thence along said Westerly
line N 07° 52’ 00" E 30.00 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 0.102 acres of land more or less.
APN: 003-06-039
United States Department of the Interior
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
~ational Register of Historic Places
Inventory---Nomination Form
See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms
Type all entries---complete applicable sections
1.Name RECEIVED
historic Dunker House "/i’N g 0 I~8~]
and/or common OHP
2. Location
street& number 420 Maple Street 1 not for publication
city, town Pal n A.1 tn ~ vicinity of congressional district
state , Cal ifgTnia code 06 county S~nta Clar.a code
3. Classification
Category Ownership Status P~esent Use
~ district ~ public ~ occupied ~ agriculture museum
_ building(s)~ private ~ unoccupied ~ commercial ~ park
_.._ structure ~ both ~ work in progress ~ educational ~ private residence
~ site Public Acquisition Accessible -- entertainment ~ religious
~ object ~ in process ~ yes: restricted ~ government ~ scientific
~ being considered ~ yes: unrestricted ~ industrial ~ transportation
~ no ~ military ~ other:
4, Owner of Property
name Mrs. G.C. Hoyt
street & number 420 Maple Street
city, town Palo Alto ~vicinttyof state California 94301
5. Location of Legal Description
courthouse, registry of deeds, etc.County courthouse
street & number 70 W. Heddin~
city, town San Jose state California 95110
6, Representation in Existing Surveys
Historical & Architectural Resources of
the City pf Pml n A! tO has this property been determined elegible? ~ yes ~ no
date February ! ~79 ~ federal ~ state ~ county ~ local
depository for survey records Planning Dept., City of P.alo Alto
Condition Check one Check one
..~ excellent ~ deteriorated ..~ unaltered ~ original site
~ good ~ ruins ~ altered ~ moved date
~ fair ~ unexposed
Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance
In the early ’20s a Palo Alto real estate firm composed of Hare, Brewer, & Clark
promoted the "Crescent Park Addition to the City of Palo Alto". This was the largest
single addition that had been promoted and went all the way from Chaucer Street
to the creek on both sides of University Avenue. It was also the first subdivision
which made an effort to attain architectural merit by setting minimum costs for
the building which was to be erected. The early effects were disappointing, as
several of the first houses built by contractors on"free lots" were of indifferent
merit, "pseudo-Spanish" or worse.
Mr. and Mrs. John Dunker, prominent Palo Alto citizens, selected this lot at the
end of Maple along the San Francisquito Creek, as both they and their architect
(Birge M. Clark) regarded it as one of the best lots in the subdivision. The
house itself has a length of over I00 feet on Maple and encloses on three sides
a patio as shown on the enclosed sketch plan. This patio was and is still used for
living purposes and serves as a setting for occasional musical entertainments. In
1926 the open end to the south was enclosed by trees and heavy shrubbery, but the
landscape atchitect, Leslie Kiler, soon designed a wall and wishing well to enclose
the fourth side. The patio has a long cloister on the west side and on the east
a two-story wing with overhanging balcony above the arched windows of a solarium.
The timber of the cloister and the balcony have heavily "adzed" surfaces. The interior
rooms which "flow together" through arches, have wide plank oak floors, textured
plaster, and a beamed cathedral ceiling in the living room. The heavy Wrought iron
stair rail and spindles is characteristic of the California style. The house
itself has had no significant alterations whatsoever, other than painting of plaster
on both the inside and outside. The original planting remains substantially as laid
out by the landscape architect, except that it has become, after half a century,
heavily overgrown, as can be seen on Maple Street where the little magnolias which
are barely noticeable in the 1929~photograph are now huge 40-foot trees. The low
brick wall along Maple Street was added subsequently by Leslioe Kiler and minor
additions and alterations by subsequent owners .were made.
8, Significanc
Period
~ prehistoric
~ 1400-1499 ~ archeology-historic
__ 1500-1599 ~ agriculture
~ 1600-1699 ~ architecture
__ 1700-1799 ~ art
~ 1800-1899 ~ commerce
~ 1900-~ communications
Areas of Significance---Check and Justify below
~ archeology-prehistoric ~ community planning ~ landscape archltecture~ religion
conservation ~ law
economics ~ literature
education ~ military
engineering ~ music
exploration/settlement ~ philosophy
industry ~ politics/government
invention
science
sculpture
soclal/
h~menltarlan
theater
transportation
other (specify)
Specific dates 1926 Builder/Architect Bi rge H. Clark, Architect
statement of Significance (in one paragraph)Wells Goodenough, Builder
Leslie Kiler, Landscape Architect
In 1926 the Dunker house was one of the first two houses to be built in Palo Alto
in the Early California or Spanish style as it was then called, California Colonial
as it is often known today. The Pettigrew house on Cowper Street by George Washington
Smith of Santa Barbara was the other. The two houses were built simultaneously,
and it was not believed that either architect knew anything about the other house.
]’he Dunker house was designed by Birge M. Clark, architect. Leslie Kiler, the landscape
architect was also the son-in-law of the Dunkers and participated as an owner. Birge
Clark,who had been trained in art and engineering at Stanford, followed by three years
in architecture at Columbia, returned from two years in the Air Force service in World
War I to design the Herbert Hoover house with his father, Professor Arthur B. Clark.
Following the completion of the Hoover home in 1920, Birge worked with his father and
presently began his own practice in 1922. This included in 1924 seven small Early
(~’lifornia style cottages built by Mrs. Hoover for young married instructors. He also
~_ igned various other homes, none as pretentious as the Dunker house. He did, however,
design Early California style stores and commercial buildings on Ramona Street in
1924 and the Palo Alto Post Office in 1931-32.
Immediately following World War I, the so-called Mission Revival, or Spanish Colonial
or Early California Style was evolving rapidly. The City of Santa Barbara espoused this
style with enthusiasm, and the work of George Washington Smith, a Santa Barbara architect,
became well known. The style as it was evolving had thick walls with the appearance of
masonry, iron grilles, balconies, deeply recessed and paneled front doors, and always tile
roofs. Many of these houses seemed to turn their back on the street, so to speak, and the
m~in rooms normally opened into a patio or a partial patio. The second floor fenestration
was minor and informal. Many of these elements occur in the Dunker residence with the
exception of the Maple Street elevation; as a transitional house in Birge’s work, it is
a little more formal with a strong vertical axis of the two-story portion and then the
stepped down roof running from the higher roofs of the living room, dining room, and down
to the wall and gate of the service yard. It should be noted that the tile roof is graded
from light tile at the eaves to darker tile at the ridge. Birge felt that this early
"California Colonial" was an indigenous style developed in California and eminently suited
to the increasingly informal indoor-outdoor life of the 20’s and 30’s. Eventually, the
Pettigrew house by George WashingtOn Smith and the Dunker house by Birge Clark were to
have a definite impact on Palo Alto architecture, although it did not come all at once
as the first reaction of many people was that it was too severe, lacking the filigree and
small tile copings, etc. of the pseudo-Spanish and Mission Revival styles. Birge always
felt that the Dunker residence was a definite ancestor of the large and more pretentious
Charles and Kathleen Norris residence on Cowper Street.
~-~, Major Biblio~.~’~phical Reference
Palo Alto Historical Association Archives
10, Geographical Data
Acreage of nominated property ~,/~, ÷
Quadrangle name Pal0 Air0,California
UMT References
Quadrangle scale 1:24000
Zone Eastlng Northing Zone Easting Northing
Verbal boundary description and justification
Lot 3639 Block III Crescent Park, Palo Alto, Assessor’s No. 3-6-.39.. The lot commences at
center of San Francisquito Creek 231’ + along SW side of Maple Street then 150’ SW, then
231’ NW to center of S.F. creek then NE along center of creek to ~]eint of origin.
List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries
state code county code
state .code county code
1 1. Form Prepared By
name/title Birge M. Clark, Architect
date July 15, 1980
telephone (415) 492-4545
organization Palo Alto Historical Association
strut & number 3200 Hanover Street
cityortown Palo Alto state California 94304
12, State Historic Preservation Officer Certification
The evaluated significance of this property within the state is:
national ~ state ~ local
As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-
665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certity that it has been evaluated
according’to the criteria and procedures set forth by the Hedtacje Cortservatton arid Recreation Service.
State Historic Preservation Officer signature
title date
DU~.," ~R RESIDENCE
~alo Alto, California Santa Clar County
Photo by C~rolyn Caddes,
~egative: Birge Clark, Palo Alto, CA
Camera facing east
4of7
Dunker Residence - patio
1981
DUNKER
?alo Alto, Santa Clara Co., Californie
Photo by Carolyn Ceddes,
Negative: 5ir~e~_~::."7
Camers facing
5of 7
Dunker Residence
1981
DU~q K~R ~ ~-SS ID~:CE
~alo Alto, S=nta Clara County, California
Photo by Carol~n Caddes, 195~
~’e~ative: Bir~e Clark, Palo Alto, CA
Interior view
6of?
Dunker Residence
1981
DU~IK~ RE~ IDE.;CE
LZalo Alto, S~nta Clara COunty, California
Photo by Carolyn Caddes, l.Q~o,~
h,’~e=~=-tive’. 3~==¯~o~ Clark, ?aio Alto, CA~.~erlor view
7of7
Dunke~, Res ~dence
1981
7
I
; I’~’ Sch
I
~nis striking home in the upper University Avenue section of Palo Alto -
was.designed by BArge Clark in 1926. Clerk, an active ~eninsula Architect,
also designed numerous properties already listed on the Ndtiona! Register,
including the Hoover House, the Norris House, and the Hamilton Street
Post ~ffice, all in Palo Alto. In the Norris home, post office, and this
structure, Clark exhibited great skil! in the use of design motifs from
the Spanish-Mexican period of California history. Clark, the applicant
as well as the arch~ect for this building, refers to his design as "Early
Californian," an elegant term for structures with elements of Mission Revival,
Spanish C lonial, and Monterey Co!onia! detailing. There is no reason to
dispute Clark’s own assessment of his stylistic intent.
Clark sees the D~nker House as an important landmark in the development of
his own career and the architectursl tradition of 9a!o Alto. This home,
along with George Washing<on Smith’s Pettigrew House, helped define ~he D!an
for the larger homes in the area, homes that "turned their-backs to the street"
~o create an enclosed courtyard with the more ornate elevations facing that
courtyard. The impact o~ this deve!opment is clear in the present-day
appearance of the upper University Avenue residential sector of 9alo Alto, one of
the loveliest ’and most architectura!ly-unified residential districts in
California.
The D<n~er ~ appears to oua!ify for ~=-~..._ ......5 on the Nationa! Re[Aster of
Historic Zlaces az the local leve! of significance under Crizerion C (type,
neriod of constr~ztion).
S DM
PF
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Wednesday, November 5, 1997 - Regular Meeting
8:10- t1:45 AM
Council Conference Room (First Floor)
Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto
ROLL CALL
Present: Kohler Backlund, Anderson, Willis, Bernstein, Mario, Murden
Absent: None
Staff Present: Riel, White, Warheit, Cauble
Council Liaison Present: Wheeler
Contract Planner Present: Judy
B.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
C.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: None.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 15, 1997 HRB
MEETING.
MOTION: BM Anderson moved to approve the minutes as amended by board
member comments. The motion was seconded by BM Mario.
VOTE: 5-0-0-2 (Kohler and Bernstein not yet present)
I.PUBLIC HEARINGS
420 Maple Street 97-HRB-235
Kathy and Michael Levinthal
Application for Historic Resources Board review and recommendation to
City Council for the City to enter into a Historic Property Preservation Agreement,
pursuant to .the provisions of the Mills Act of the State of California with the Owners of
420 Maple Street.
BM Mario not participating due to possible conflict of interest.
Staff Report; George White summarized the application, the background of the property,
the proposed property preservation agreement, and the requested action from the HRB as
being a recommendation to City Council regarding approval or denial of the proposed
Mills Act for the subject property.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 11/05, 1997 Page 1 of 14
BM Anderson asked whether it has been established that the landscape design is extant
and significant?
White: Its significance has not been confirmed at the moment, but there are indications
that the landscape may be significant.
¯ BM Anderson asked why staff had not requested documentation prior to processing the
application for the Mills Act?
White: the scope of preservation and historic significance for this property goes beyond
the potential merits of the landscape.
BM Anderson asked where in the contract is the 10 year maintenance plan? What of
significance is the City getting back in exchange for the requested tax relief?.
White: The contract includes a 10-year list of intended maintenanceand repairs. Also,
the City has negotiated to get interior preservation of significant spaces, and an annual
tour of the property.
BM Anderson asked what value is the tax relief?.
White replied that the exact amount is uncertain as it had not yet been calculated.
However, it will be based on a formula - note the Staff Report reference to a previous tax
payment of $18,172 - the formula would grant up to 90% relief for this amount.
Chair Willis commented that what is lacking is a policy decision regarding which
properties in Palo Alto should receive this relief.
BM Murden commented that in theory all the tax relief should go back into maintenance
of the property, but the agreement specifies only $2,000 to this end.
BM Anderson. observed that the total incentive is approximately $150,000 over the el 0-
year duration of the contract, with only $20,000 obligated to go back to maintenance of
the house.
White responded that that is correct.
Public Hearing
Public comment was received from :
Guy Blase, attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Blase commented that there seems to be some misinformation about the Mills Act.
There is no requirement in the Act that the savings be used to preserve the property. In
the original act, there was a public access requirement - this inhibited use of the Mills
Act. Since its removal, there has been a modest increase in use of the Act.
During the Squire House Mills Act, the public discussion was that this was an important
tool to encourage preservation. Both staff and the board seem to be of the opinion that
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 11/05, 1997 Page 2 of 14
the applicant should give a great deal to the city in exchange for implementation of a
Mills Act. Mr. Blase indicated that he would be glad to help the City develop policy in
this regard. Meanwhile, the Levinthals have agreed to an annual tour of no more than 20
people. Most Mills Acts address the exteriors of the property; this agreement is unusual
in agreeing to preserve the interiors and the landscape. It is a very interesting landscape;
one wall contains shards of Stanford University stones, and there is a wishing well that is
interesting.
Comment was received from Michael Levinthal, owner.
Mr. Levinthal added this information; there is a lower garden wall that is constructed of
stones reported to come from Stanford University. There are some substantial trees that
may be from original planting.
BM Murden asked whether the current remodeling was done by them.
Mr. Levinthal; yes, that project was reviewed by the HRB. A new structure was added,
and the existing exterior walls of the garage wing, for example the windows to the
courtyard, were altered and the garage doors removed on the north side of the house. The
footprint remained unchanged.
BM Bernstein asked for an explanation of why a Mills Act application is being brought
forward now.
Mr. Levinthal commented that he and his wife love the house and want to preserve it.
They have had to modify the house to update it - things like the kitchen have been
remodeled.
BM Backlund asked, given the National Register status, is there a statement that the
house is still in the form that it existed when listed on the register?
Mr. Blase responded that the National Register form has not been updated. This is also a
Category 2 property, which is the local historic designation, and this status alone should
be an adequate historic status to qualify for the Mills Act.
Chair Willis asked again - given the current level of integrity of the property with
alterations considered, would the property still qualify for the National Register?
Mr. Levinthal commented that the documentation on the property does not go into detail
on the building interiors.
BM Kohler commented that part of the board’s goal is to encourage preservation. He
recollected some Redwood City projects that received Mills Act contracts that included
specific 10-year descriptions of how the money would be used, as contrasted with the
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 11/05, 1997 Page 3 of 14
current agreement that is vague on these matters.
Mr. Blase replied that a tremendous investment has been made to put the property in the
good condition that it currently is in. Much more than $2,000 a year will be spent on the
property to maintain its condition. The proposed Property Preservation Agreement grants
annual tours, limited to 20 people total, once a year, these people to be selected by the
Levinthals. Also, the City has the right to inspect the residence once a year.
Comment was received from Ted Carlstrom.
Mr. Carlstrom indicated that he will not comment on the specifics of the contract, but
would like to address the broad policy issue. Essentially, preservation of private property
has two government approaches. One is the voluntary incentives approach - including the
Mills Act - and the other approach is mandatory and imposes involuntary requirements -
such as the Interim Historic Ordinance. He encourages pursuing the Mills Act because it
is cooperative. The other approach results in confusion and anger. If there is going to be
imposition of involuntary requirements, then the Mills Act ought to be extended across
the board to owners of all qualified historic structures and create a community/property
owner cooperatiye partnership in preservation.
Levinthal commented that the tour would work with the city and would be done in
cooperation with a local historic society.
Public hearing closed.
Discussion:
Chair Willis commented that the Mills Act can serve us well in Palo Alto, and we are
looking forward to it. Perhaps it will be extended to all major landmarks and perhaps
even some contributing buildings. But this particular residence is not threatened, and that
fact may give us the time to develop a comprehensive incentives policy.
BM Backlund commented that he supported the Staff Report direction. The Historic
Preservation portion of the Comprehensive Plan was approved last night, including
endorsement of an incentives plan and preservation goals as proposed by the HRB. The
HRB should support a Mills Act request that meets these goals. The residence appears to
be a qualifying historic building fit for the Category 1 or 2 designation, with intact
exteriors and an interesting garden.
MOTION: BM Backltmd moved that the HRB and City Council support a Mills Act for
420 Maple Street.
BM Murden seconded the motion.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 11/05, 1997 Page 4 of 14
BM Anderson commented that he is a supporter of the Mills Act, but will not support this
proposal because of the modest public benefit contained in the proposed agreement when
compared to other Mills Acts. Also, the preservation program will be better served if we
wait for a permanent ordinance with a policy to address granting this act among other
incentive options. Also, it is worrisome that the landscape may not be significant.
Finally, the contract doesn’t tell us what will happen to the house each year - it should be
clearly defined. Overall, the arrangements are too loose. Also, this property has already
been rehabilitated and this sets a bad precedent for alteration of a significant structure as
it is retroactive application of the incentive.
BM Kohler commented that he is struggling with this a bit. The Mills Act conference he
attended left him with a distinct sense that during the 10-year period there would be a
definite return in preservation. The proposed format is too vague. With more
staff/applicant work toward definition, it might be supportable. Also, recollecting the last
Council discussion of this issue in which the Council stated that they wanted a developed
policy regarding the Mills Act, we need to be careful now because the early Mills Acts
set a precedent for later ones.
Chair Willis commented that immediate development Wessure and the need for
rehabilitation are reasons for speedily deciding on a Mills Act. As these are not issues for
the subject property, the HRB may defer acting. It may ultimately be legitimate to
reward the owners of 420 Maple for a good rehabilitation job. However, there is a need
to assess the whole tool - the Mills Act and other incentives - with Council input. It may
be that a decision will be made to use the Mills Act only sparingly to encourage
preservation where it would not otherwise occur.
BM Murden concurred with comments by other board members, but added that this
house is very important to preserve, as it is among the most important in the city. Also, it
would not be for rewarding the work to date, but rather to ensure a continued high level
of preservation. The future of any building is uncertain - the Mills Act is a vehicle to
ensure preservation and reduce that uncertainty.
VOTE: 3-3-1-0 (Willis, Anderson and Kohler against; Mario not participating)
(Motion fails)
MOTION: BM Anderson moved-that the Mills Act proposal for 420 Maple be denied, as
the public benefit is not strong enough when balanced with the return to the applicant.
The contract should be more detailed, with the monies dedicated to preservation efforts
defined for each year of the contract.
Chair Willis seconded the motion.
BM Backlund commented that he was concerned about the basic rules of the Mills Act.
For example, if due to voluntary choice one Mills Act property goes beyond the
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 11/05, 1997 Page 5 of 14
requirements of the act - this approach should not be imposed on all properties.
BM Murden asked whether it is realistic, when some maintenance is done as needed - to
predict maintenance needs.
Chair Willis commented that the Mills Act allows the latitude for the local community to
define these matters. However, the key policy issues need to be worked out in the context
of larger considerations of tax dollars and other incentives. This is not an appropriate
time to recommend that the City make these commitments, as the broader discussion of
these issues is still pending.
BM Kohler commented that he does not fully support the current motion. His issue is the
that the contract is not clear. Actually, it is possible to have a list of anticipated work
items, and introducing them into this contract would make himself and perhaps others
more comfortable with the request.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION; BM Kohler moved that the contract be amended to address
work to the building for the 10-year period of the contract in detail - reference p. 4, item
10 - this is the item of the contract that would be augmented by more detail. (Motion
failed due to lack of a second.)
Riel observed that in light of today’s discussion, staff’s preference would be to delay the
matter rather than deny it.
MOTION (Revised): BM Anderson revised his motion to state that the matter of granting
a Mills Act for 420 Maple Street be postponed until the broader context of Milis Act
policy is resolved.
BM Bernstein seconded the motion.
VOTE: 4-2-0-1 (Backlund and Murden against; Mario not participating)
Cauble summarized the effect of this action:
The intent of the HRB motion was to recommend deferral of action on the item, as
immediate action is not appropriate in light of pending discussion of the permanent
ordinance and related policy.
That recommendation will go forward to the City Council with this motion being the
recommendation from the HRB to the Council.
2. 730 Bryant: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family
residence constructed prior to 1940 in the RM-30 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-233).
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING of 11/05, 1997 Page 6 of 14