HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-22 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Historic Resources Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: June 22, 2017
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
2. Presentation and Discussion of the Stanford Research Park Framework for Historic
Resource Evaluation Prepared by Heritage Services Staff of Stanford University’s
Division of Land, Building and Real Estate
Action Items
Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All
others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN‐00147]:
Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to allow the Replacement of
the Junior Museum and Zoo Building With a New 15,033 Square Foot, One‐Story
Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo with Netted Enclosure, and
Reconfiguration of and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire
Access, Accessible Parking Stalls, Multi‐Modal Circulation, Storm Drainage
Infrastructure, and Site Lighting. An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance
With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: Public Facilities. For
More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
4. Approval of May 25, 2017 and June 8, 2017 Minutes
Subcommittee Items
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at
the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair,
provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers
are:
Chair Martin Bernstein
Vice Chair David Bower
Boardmember Brandon Corey
Boardmember Beth Bunnenberg
Boardmember Roger Kohler
Boardmember Michael Makinen
Boardmember Margaret Wimmer
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning
& Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be
included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before
the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8268)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/22/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments
Title: Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate.
Background
Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is
provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from
a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.
No action is required by the HRB for this item.
Attachments:
Attachment A: HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (PDF)
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8184)
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/22/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Stanford Research Park Framework Document Presentation
Title: Presentation and Discussion of the Stanford Research Park
Framework for Historic Resource Evaluation Prepared by
Heritage Services Staff of Stanford University’s Division of
Land, Building and Real Estate
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
This is a study session and no formal action is requested. Staff requests that the Historic
Resources Board (HRB):
1. Receive a presentation from Stanford University Land Buildings and Real Estate Heritage
Services staff, and
2. Provide comment on the document (Attachment A).
Background
At the department’s request, cultural resource professionals with Stanford University prepared
the attached framework to assist city staff members who are tasked with evaluating the
significance of individual buildings within the Stanford Research Park. City planners are tasked
with preparing environmental review documents for major projects involving the demolition of
potential historic resources (any building that is more than 45 years of age), to satisfy the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These buildings require
evaluation pursuant to State and National criteria, and an understanding of their context is
important for this evaluation.
The Planning and Community Environment Director has invited Stanford Heritage Services staff
to present the attached report to the HRB so that the Board can provide comments and
questions and learn how the document is being used by planners for environmental
evaluations.
Environmental Review
The document is not a ‘project’ and therefore not subject to CEQA review.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Stanford Industrial Park Framework (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
STANFORD
RESEARCH PARK
FRAMEWORK FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
HERITAGE SERVICES
LAND BUILDINGS AND REAL ESTATE
Stanford University
NOVEMBER 3, 2016
1
Introduction
The development of the Stanford Industrial Park was one component of the rapid post-War expansion of the
City of Palo Alto, replacing orchards and farms with modern development. The City grew on three sides during
this period: 1) The Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto-Stanford Hospital, VA Hospital and Industrial Park
southwest of El Camino Real; 2) large modern suburban subdivisions along Highway 101 and across Oregon
Expressway to San Antonio Road with associated commercial districts at Edgewood Plaza, Alma Plaza, and
Midtown; and 3) a golf course and light industrial uses on the bay side of Highway 101 near the airport (which
had opened before the war in 1940).1
South Palo Alto, 1948 South Palo Alto, 1967
(El Camino Real bisects each aerial photograph; Arastradero/Charleston Road near bottom edge; Highway 101 at right. Stanford
Industrial Park is located to the left side towards the top of the image.)
Palo Alto’s residential population more than tripled from 16,774 in 1940 to 52,287 in 1960, requiring more
schools and public facilities as well as commercial services to serve its growing population. By 1960 agricultural
uses had nearly disappeared within the city limits, replaced by a thriving local economy based on education,
technology and health care.2
Arastradero Road circa 1948 (left) and 1964 (right) with the new Veteran’s Hospital at center3
1 Ward Winslow, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993).
2 http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PaloAlto50.htm#1940
3 Ben Hatfield with Barry Anderson, Over Time: Palo Alto 1947 – 1980 (Arcadia Publishing, 2008).
2
Additional light industrial areas were also developed on West Bayshore Road and in the San Antonio corridor.
New retail centers, restaurants and hotels were constructed along El Camino Real. Downtown Palo Alto also
experienced growth – mainly in a vertical direction as taller buildings appeared: the fifteen story Palo Alto Office
Center completed in 1966, the new city hall in 1970, and several high rise residential buildings during the same
period before Palo Alto adopted a 50-foot height limit in the 1970s.
The Stanford Industrial Park sits near the center of this enlarged city as a major employment center, and at the
northern edge of what was soon to be known as “Silicon Valley” sprawling through the orchards to the south in
the Santa Clara valley. Much has been written about the emergence of Silicon Valley in the post-War period;
not all of this literature is entirely factual. For example, it is often repeated in the literature that the Stanford
Industrial Park was the first university-affiliated industrial park, but that distinction belongs to the Swearingen
Research Institute at the University of Oklahoma. The University of Oklahoma founded its business-research
partnership institute in 1940 and its business park facility opened in 1950.4 Some sources date the Stanford
Industrial Park to 1949 but the correct year for the opening of its first facility, Varian Associates, is 1953. (Varian
was founded in San Carlos in 1948.) Cornell University’s Research Park also opened earlier (1951), as did
Princeton’s Forrestal Research Center (1952), than Stanford’s Industrial Park.
This brief narrative describes the evolution of the Stanford Industrial Park and provides a context for historic
preservation review of properties in the Park. Three maps follow the text: 1) a map showing the sequence of
development from 1950 -1980, 2) a map showing the extent of redevelopment since 1980, and 3) a map showing
the construction dates of existing structures in the Park today.
Evolution of the Stanford Industrial Park
Stanford University president Donald B. Tresidder, who assumed office in September 1943, faced several
immediate challenges.5 The university had not yet recovered financially from the Great Depression when
America joined WWII in December 1941. The university’s endowment fund was not performing well. In 1910 it
was worth $18 million but by 1950 it was worth only $39.6 million ($13 million in 1910 dollars).6 Worse, the
school’s national reputation suffered during the 1930s. Being known as “a sunny place with a good golf course
and football team,” combined with a policy of accepting legacy students regardless of their academic status,
had caused Stanford to be ranked number twelve in the nation, in a five-way tie with four other universities.
The war years had seen the university struggle to take on thousands of additional military students and operate
on 18-hour days year-round while simultaneously losing a large portion of the faculty to the war effort. In 1945
4 Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional Economic Development. Michael I. Luger and Harvey A. Goldstein. University
of North Carolina Press. 1991.
5 An enthusiastic Stanford alumnus, Tresidder had served as governor of the Stanford Associates beginning in 1936. He was tasked
with raising funds for the university, which had been hard-hit by the Great Depression. Tresidder joined the Board of Trustees in 1939.
In 1942 he was chair of the presidential search committee seeking candidates to succeed Ray Lyman Wilbur as president of the
university and toured the country interviewing numerous candidates. Instead the Board voted unanimously to appoint Tresidder as
president of the university. Edwin Kiester, Junior, Donald B. Tresidder: Stanford’s Overlooked Treasure (Stanford: Stanford Historical
Society, 1992) 30-34, 43, 53-54.
6 Michael Luger and Harvey Goldstein, Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional Economic Development (Chapel Hill and
London: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 123.
3
Tresidder set up the first campus planning office, staffed part-time by San Francisco architect Eldridge “Ted”
Spencer. Tresidder charged Spencer with developing long-term plans for both campus lands and campus
buildings with the expectation that once the war ended, the university would experience a rapid increase in
students due to the creation of the GI Bill of Rights in 1944.7
In addition to Spencer, Tresidder made another significant hire in January 1946 with Stanford alumnus Alf
Brandin as the new Business Manager.8 Brandin’s responsibilities included: 1) feeding and housing the
incoming students, 2) constructing, operating and maintaining all campus buildings, 3) coordinating architects,
landscapers and contractors, 4) negotiating labor agreements, 5) managing police and fire services, 6)
managing the faculty residential area, and 7) managing the university’s farmlands.9 Brandin was also tasked
with financing all of these responsibilities, and he believed that income could be had from more intensive use
of Stanford land previously devoted to agriculture. While focusing on the most immediate project—housing the
projected return of a much larger student body—Brandin also began thinking very hard about developing
campus lands.10 His initial two ideas were the creation of a shopping center and an industrial park on Stanford
lands. The two projects received Tresidder’s whole-hearted support from the beginning.11
Brandin later recounted that he visited the San Carlos plant leased by Stanford alumni Sigurd and Russell
Varian to attend Varian Associates’ one-year anniversary party.12 Russ Varian told Brandin he “would like to get
back on the campus,” preferably on “about ten acres.”13 Brandin believed that a fifty-acre site on the northeast
edge of campus bisected by an old railroad line could be used to “start an industrial park” that “could be
screened by trees and in all sorts of ways.”14 After Brandin visited a residential suburb in Denver, Colorado that
featured broad lawns and no fence lines, he became convinced “that’s what we can do with the industrial park
7 The controversial GI Bill guaranteed veterans education and training, loans for homes, farms or businesses and unemployment pay
in an effort to offset an anticipated economic downturn following the war’s end. “The GI Bill: History and Timeline, ”United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, http://benefits.va.gov (accessed 9 June 2016).
8 After Brandin graduated from Stanford in 1936 and became a fund-raising alumnus, he wondered why so much Stanford land was
still being utilized only for agricultural leases. He later understood that the local population was still too small to support extensive
development; this situation changed radically with the Bay Area post-war population boom. Robert de Roos, “Oral History with Alf
Brandin,” (12 June 1987), unpaginated, Stanford Oral History Project Interviews: 1971-1995, SC1017, Box 8, SUA.
9 C. Stewart Gillmor, Fred Terman at Stanford: Building A Discipline, a University and Silicon Valley (Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 2004), 322-323.
10 One source of outside income pursued by both Tresidder and Dean of Engineering Frederick Terman was academic research funded
by industrial partners. Tresidder and Terman had corresponded throughout the end of the war—Terman was working on the East
Coast on war leave—about the potential for expanding and modernizing the university through the creation of the Stanford Research
Institute in November 1946, which would potentially attract top flight scientists to the university and would develop new industries
shaped by academic research. The proposed industrial park was another expression of this kind of symbiotic thinking. Kiester, Donald
B. Tresidder, 86-87.
11 Kiester, Donald B. Tresidder, 92.
12 The Varian brothers had worked closely with Stanford physics professor William Hansen, a former classmate of Russ Varian,
beginning in the mid-1930s. The Klystron tube generated high-frequency waves at a macro level to alert a pilot flying blind at night or
in fog through a radar signal that reflected an object was in the vicinity. British war planes were outfitted with the six-pound tube and
gained a vast advantage over German war planes that did not carry a similar technology. The two brothers established Varian
Associates in 1948. Thomas Mahon, Charged Bodies: People, Power and Paradox in Silicon Valley (New York and Ontario: New American
Library, 1985), 157-158.
13 Frederick Terman was on the Varian Associates Board of Directors, along with other Stanford faculty, and several former Stanford
faculty also worked at Varian. De Roos, Brandin Oral History, unpaginated; and Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, 218.
14 Brandin’s fifty-acre site was actually closer to 35 acres. De Roos, unpaginated.
4
and that’s what we’ll call it, because it is going to be in a park-like setting. We’ll set the buildings back in and
keep the roads clear. The landscaping of parking lots would be essential to block the cars out of the line of
vision. You’d just be driving through a green belt with setbacks of the buildings and the landscaping
unobstructed by things coming out to the sidewalk.”15
Tresidder died unexpectedly at the age of fifty-three in 1948. In October 1949, J.E. Wallace Sterling was
inaugurated as Stanford’s fifth president. In his nineteen-year-long term Sterling, in close alliance with Dean of
Engineering Frederick Terman—whom he would make provost in 1955—would work tirelessly to promote
Stanford as a world-class university and oversee more campus construction than any of the previous
presidents.
Sterling and Terman wanted Stanford to implement an organizational philosophy of “steeples of excellence”
in which only the very best faculty members in rapidly growing fields were hired, subsequently producing a
large number of students who were “outstanding in quality,” particularly in fields relating to the western
states.16 Although Tresidder and Brandin had originally conceived of the Park as a site for light manufacturing
to earn income for the university, Terman pushed for a new focus on “research and development activities of
science-based industries.”17 Based on his experience at MIT doing war research during WWII, Terman believed
that a new post-war relationship would now exist between the government and universities. Stanford
University would be strengthened by focusing on research, and an alliance with industry would benefit both
entities while strengthening the regional economy.18 In Terman’s mind, the income derived from the leases was
incidental; the key factor was creating a strong research base near the university that “provided an important
interchange between faculty, students, and neighboring scientists and engineers.”19
Varian Associates was the first tenant in the Stanford Industrial Park; they signed a ninety-nine year lease in
October 1951 for a ten-acre site, with already completed drawings by architect Erich Mendelsohn, who was
tasked with producing a building without “industrial character.”20 Construction began in February 1952.21
Landscape design was done by Modernist San Francisco landscape architect Thomas Church.
15 Brandin did not coin the term “industrial park.” It was in use three decades before the Stanford Industrial Park was even in the
planning stage. Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, 127; and Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism, 140.
16 Gillmor, Fred Terman at Stanford, 254.
17 John M. Findlay, Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture After 1940 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992),
118.
18 Findlay, Magic Lands, 122-123.
19 Although Terman’s seminal role in the creation of the Stanford Industrial Park is widely accepted by numerous authors and scholars,
Henry Lowood believes that Terman was motivated to promote the park only after Varian Associates had already signed their lease.
Lowood posits that the development of the park was the outcome of complex pre-war and post-war conditions that existed at the
university, rather than Terman’s singular vision. Gillmor, Fred Terman at Stanford, 329; and Henry Lowood, From Steeples of Excellence
to Silicon Valley: The Story of Varian Associates and Stanford Industrial Park (Palo Alto: Varian Associates, 1987), unpaginated.
20 After Mendelsohn’s death, Varian hired his surviving partner, Michael Galis, to design their next three buildings to retain continuity
and ultimately developed 70 acres. Mozingo, Lowood, From Steeples of Excellence to Silicon Valley, unpaginated; and Pastoral
Capitalism, 167; and Findlay, Magic Lands, 137.
21 Lowood, From Steeples of Excellence to Silicon Valley, unpaginated.
5
Varian opened in 1953, inserting their nonindustrial building and its park-like lawns into a hayfield.
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM) were hired by Stanford in 1953 to prepare a master campus land use plan
for the entire university. They concurred with the planned industrial park and the development of the shopping
center —the latter sixty-acre plan had already been announced to the public—and recommended homes be
built for 40,000 people on 2,933 acres.22 SOM also recommended that the Park be increased from 100 acres to
165 acres.23 The Stanford University Committee on Land and Building Development, which had been
established by Sterling in 1951, studied the report and recommended that much of the undeveloped lands
should be reserved for future academic uses rather than massive residential subdivisions. The committee did
approve of the development of the shopping center and industrial park, both of which were already under way.
1953 also saw the Park site annexed to the city of Palo Alto and its zoning “added to Palo Alto’s municipal
regulations, with additional requirements for a 90-foot landscape setback along roadways and the placement
of parking behind structures to screen it from view.”24 By 1954, Terman was arguing that the Park, then at 209
acres, “may be too small.”25
While Brandin and Terman had their competing visions for the Park, no master plan was ever prepared. The
Park grew organically within a changing regulatory context of zoning guidelines, rather than following a clearly
defined plan or program. A suburban park-like setting was the core concept, thus projecting values associated
with the campus and neighboring communities that flourished in the twenty-five year boom that followed
WWII.26 These values were reflected in the early guidelines the university promoted: no buildings could be
higher than two stories in the early years, no smokestacks were allowed and, most importantly, noise, odors
22 Gillmor, Fred Terman at Stanford, 324.
23 Ibid.
24 Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism, 168.
25 A Stanford Industrial Park map indicated only 120 acres had been developed so far. Lowood, From Steeples of Excellence to Silicon
Valley, unpaginated.
26 Findlay, Magic Lands, 130.
6
and emissions were prohibited so as not to offend the neighbors.27 Ultimately, however, the Park was
developed piecemeal by tenants or by local developers within evolving city and university guidelines.
As land was annexed into Palo Alto, the city created zoning restrictions that supported the park-like aesthetic.28
The city’s zoning required a minimum one-acre lot and that buildings take up only 40% of the lot—later no more
than 20% on foothill plats—with fifty-foot setbacks composed largely of lawn. The university had approval of
all architectural and landscaping plans prepared by tenants in the Park.29 Both the city and the university
oversaw signage, architectural screening and other restrictions; the university regularly examined properties
and informed lessees of any infractions. Potential clients were not put off by these restrictions; they responded
favorably to the exclusivity and prestige associated with such an arrangement.30
Sterling, Terman and Brandin vigorously promoted the Park to potential tenants. In 1954 Industrial and Housing
Review published an issue that featured twelve tenants of the Stanford Industrial Park, including one up-and-
coming company called Hewlett-Packard.31 Although most of the tenants met Terman’s science-based criteria,
some such as Eastman Kodak and two publishing companies—Houghton Mifflin and Scott, Foresman and
Company—were strictly commercial entities, although Houghton Mifflin did publish several Stanford faculty
authors, including Terman and Wallace Stegner.32
Terman and Brandin were featured in an article on the Stanford Industrial Park, along with university founder Leland Stanford.
As the Park continued to expand, Brandin continued to recruit business tenants that did not fit into the concept
of light manufacturing or science-related endeavors. In 1956 Brandin wanted to lease land for a gas station and
27 Findlay, Magic Lands, 131.
28 Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, 127.
29 In 1983 Palo Alto also required approval of architectural standards. Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, 127.
30 Eastman Kodak decided to build in the park once their representative realized no Quonset huts—in popular use after WWII due to an
ongoing shortage of building materials—would be allowed. De Roos, Brandin Oral History, unpaginated
31 “Stanford Industrial Park,” Industrial and Housing Review (September 1956), 5-39.
32 “Stanford Industrial Park,” Industrial and Housing Review (September 1956), 25.
7
a bank. This required rezoning from light manufacturing to planned community and the City Council, bowing
to pressure from local business owners, refused. The university persevered and the city ultimately rezoned the
individual parcels.33 1956 also saw the Park expand another 125 acres to a total of 345 acres, in part to
accommodate a component of Lockheed Corporation’s Missiles and Space Division.34 In 1958 American Trust
Company and Banking moved in. Within one month the institution earned $1.3 million in deposits and
advertised an intention to make loans to other businesses to promote the further growth of the Park.35 The Park
continued to attract high-technology industries such as Varian and Hewlett-Packard, whose research and
production focus was in line with Terman’s thinking, while several national corporations established local
branches within the Park, which suited Brandin’s purpose.
In 1957 Ampex Corporation, based in nearby Redwood City, was looking to build a new campus and requested
a 31-acre site in the center of the Park.36 The company subsequently requested an 80-acre site located further
into the foothills.37 The university offered 254 additional acres for annexation to the City of Palo Alto; the City
Council accepted and zoned the area LM-5, which required “minimum five-acre lots, a maximum fifteen-
percent footprint, 100-foot setbacks, a thirty percent floor area ratio and a thirty-five percent open space set-
aside.”38 This move caused a group of local citizens, including Stanford faculty member Wallace Stegner, to
organize an effort to “keep the factories out of the foothills.”39 The group -- later formalized into the Committee
for Green Foothills in 1962 with Stegner serving as president—forced a vote by the public. In November 1960
Palo Alto voters passed a referendum allowing the Park to expand further southward into the foothills.
The new Veteran’s Administration Hospital opened on land acquired from Stanford just north of Foothill
Boulevard in 1960. Nine parcels adjacent to the hospital were developed by Park tenants in the same period
and Foothill Boulevard was widened to four lanes in 1963.
33 Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, 131.
34 Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden,126. Most of Lockheed’s Silicon Valley facilities were located in Sunnyvale.
35 Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden,129.
36 Ampex later asked for an 80-acre site located in the foothills. “Ampex Plans Plant in Stanford Tract,” Stanford Daily (28 January
1957), 1; and Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism, 169.
37 Ampex ultimately abandoned their plans and built a new campus in Redwood City. Mozingo, Pastoral Capitalism, 169.
38 Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden,131.
39 “Our History,” Committee For Green Foothills; http://www.greenfoothills.org (accessed 21 October 2016).
8
This aerial photograph of the Stanford Industrial Park was taken in 1960. Page Mill Road runs through the center of the image with
Foothill Blvd at the lower edge. Four new Hewlett-Packard campus buildings (center) were recently completed.
(Photo courtesy Palo Alto Historical Association)
Although Palo Alto residents realized the contributions of the Park to the quality of life in the City, the prestige
of the successful park was shadowed by traffic and air pollution concerns beginning in the early 1960s.40 One of
the most controversial responses to the worsening traffic that led into the Stanford Industrial Park was the
conversion of two-lane Oregon Avenue in Palo Alto between the Bayshore Freeway and El Camino Real into the
four-way Oregon Expressway. Palo Altans were fiercely divided on the project, which initially called for the
destruction of 107 homes. A modified plan that removed ninety homes passed a referendum in June 1962 “by
a razor-thin margin of 9,432 votes in favor to 9,030 opposed.”41
Environmental concerns were not the only problems associated with the Stanford Industrial Park. The Stanford
campus became increasingly radicalized in the late 1960s with students and faculty focused on diverse and
divisive issues, one of the most compelling being the Vietnam War (1955-1975).42 Terman’s patriotic vision of a
new relationship between universities and the government following WWII had been realized in the Park during
the 1950s and 1960s with numerous companies in the Park tied to defense-related contracts. As opposition to
the Vietnam War continued to swell beginning in 1965, defense-related research facilities on the campus and
in the Park became targets of protesters including many Stanford students and faculty. These activities peaked
in 1969 when companies such as Watkins-Johnson, Syntex (“Rumor has it that a super-secret IBM facility is
located in this building”),Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Teledyne and numerous others, even Eastman Kodak
40 Findlay, Magic Lands, 140.
41 “The Oregon Expressway: Residentialists Unite,” Palo Alto History, http://www.paloaltohistory.org/oregon-expressway.php
(accessed 21 October 2016).
42 Issues included civil rights, Third World liberation, women’s liberation, the counter-culture, gay rights, labor organizing, university
reform, anti-draft work, anti-imperialism, and several versions of socialism, but anti-war activity was the largest and most sustained
thread. The April Third Movement (1969-1975) was one of many protest groups that were active on the Stanford campus. April Third
Movement, http://a3mreunion.org (accessed 21 October 2016).
9
(“ordnance (explosives), $118 in DOD contracts in fiscal 1968”), became targets for protesters who picketed or
blockaded buildings and blocked Park streets in order to disrupt daily business.43 These protests had little
lasting effect on the businesses in the Park but led to the abandonment of defense-related research on the
university campus and separation of the Stanford Research Institute from the university in 1969. The open,
park-like character of the Park was however permanently impaired as companies installed fences, gates, and
guard houses to their facilities many of which remain today.
SRI-Hanover instituted new No Trespassing signs and security patrols in response to protests in 1969.
Concerns about traffic and air pollution continued into the 1970s with noise pollution, ever-increasing capital
improvement costs, higher housing costs and open space protection joining the list. In 1972 the Committee for
Green Foothills sued the university and Xerox Corporation to prevent Xerox PARC from locating in the foothills.
The university compromised in 1973 by agreeing to rezoning with stronger design controls and assigning four
parcels of land adjacent to the site to Williamson Act contracts allowing only agricultural uses.44
By 1980 the Park had expanded to its current land area with over 100 companies located on 700 acres.45 In 1984
the Park was renamed the Stanford Research Park to reflect the decline in industrial uses and to promote the
association with the university.46 That year the City of Palo Alto earned some $20 million in net utility outcome,
sales taxes and property taxes from businesses in the Park.47
In 1988 Palo Alto published a staff report on the Park, noting that while most firms had no interest in relocating,
open land for expansion was no longer available and existing 30+ year-old buildings were requiring expensive
43 Stanford Industrial Park map drawn by April Third Movement, April Third Movement, http://a3mreunion.org (accessed 21 October
2016).
44 “Coyote Hills Rezoning Meeting,” Stanford Daily (31 January 1973), 6; and Luger and Goldstein, Technology in the Garden, 131.
45 Ibid.
46 “Stanford Abolishes its Industrial Park,” Palo Alto Times (15 January 1984); and Lowood, From Steeples of Excellence to Silicon Valley,
unpaginated; and Jon Sanderlin, “The Story of the Stanford Industrial/Research Park,” unpublished paper (International Forum of
University Science Parks, China, 2004), 4.
47 Sanderlin, Story of the Stanford Industrial/Research Park, 5.
10
upgrades causing some tenants to relocate to other cities.48 A major phase of redevelopment was beginning.
This redevelopment increased density and by 2007 the Stanford Research Park had 150 companies with 23,000
employees occupying 162 buildings. Electronics, space technology, biotechnology, computer hardware and
software, law offices, consulting firms and office space all co-existed within the park.49 Nearly half the
properties in the Park were redeveloped between 1980 and 2016. Today a large majority of the buildings are
less than 45 years old and others have undergone substantial alterations over the decades. See attached maps.
Evaluating Properties in the Stanford Research Park
The City of Palo Alto may require historic resource evaluation reports for properties with structures built more
than 45 years ago that are proposed for major alterations or demolition. The California Register criteria have
been applied to evaluate properties in the Park. The criteria ask if a property:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion 1).
• Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (Criterion 2).
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3).
• Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of
the local area, California or the nation (Criterion 4).
The California Register was consciously designed on the model of the National Register of Historic Places and
the two programs are extremely similar, although not identical in all respects.50 Accordingly, the application of
the California Register criteria is informed by the guidelines prepared by the National Park Service for
evaluating properties for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 51
Proposed Guidelines
Criterion 1: Association with Events
While it might be observed that properties in the Park are associated with the broad patterns of development
in the City of Palo Alto and “Silicon Valley,” this is not by itself sufficient to justify a finding of historical
significance. All the properties in the Park are within Silicon Valley and all the businesses in the Park (like all
businesses in Palo Alto) contributed to the local economy. Additional research is required to demonstrate that
specific significant events took place at individual properties. Significant events generally should have taken
place more than 45 years ago.
48 “Stanford Research Park Survey,” (Palo Alto: Department of Planning and Community Environment, 1988).
49 Jon Sanderlin, “Co-Evolution of Stanford University and the Silicon Valley: 1950 to Today,” presentation (Stanford: Office of
Technology Licensing, 2007), 31.
50 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6/California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for
purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register), p. 1.
51 Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; Bulletin 22: Guidelines for the Evaluating and Nominating
Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years and Bulletin 32: Guidelines for the Evaluating and Nominating
Properties Associated with Significant Persons.
11
Historic resource evaluations should provide property-specific tenant history for the buildings under study,
focusing primarily on the period between the construction of the property and 45 years ago. For properties
with multiple tenants within the same building, year-by-year tenant lists may be difficult to reconstruct; at a
minimum tenant lists for five year intervals should be provided (these can be determined by searching business
and telephone directories). A newspaper archive search should be performed for the major tenants in the
property to address whether specific, individual newsworthy events took place on the site that might prove
significant even after the passage of time.
To address the issue of whether significant discoveries or technological innovations associated with the growth
of Silicon Valley took place on the property it is important to document the projects that were underway in the
buildings during the study period. Sources for this information include newspaper archives, company histories,
collections of company papers, and oral histories with company personnel. Once it is determined what projects
were undertaken on the property, objective scholarly sources should be consulted to assess the significance of
the work and its relationship to the study site. Many companies in the Park had facilities at multiple locations:
if significant discoveries or innovations took place it is important to link those significant events to specific sites.
If the significant discovery or innovation took place less than 45 years ago the analysis should consider whether
sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.52
Criterion 2: Association with Persons
Assessment of properties for association with significant persons builds from the property-specific history
conducted for Criterion 1. Company founders and principal research staff may have achieved historical
significance. This should be documented with objective scholarly sources that identity specific achievements
and explain the reason for their significance.
If specific named individuals are recognized in the literature, then their personal association with the study site
should be investigated. How long were they active at the study property? Was this the primary location of their
work during the period they achieved significance? Did their significant contributions take place at the study
site or elsewhere? If they made significant contributions to history at more than one location investigate the
current status of each site and determine which surviving site is most closely associated with their
contributions to history. When was the person associated with the property? If the association was less than
45 years ago, or the person is still living, additional documentation for the significance of the person’s
achievements may be required.53
For example, a company founder may have achieved significance in local civic affairs or philanthropy. These
activities are unlikely to have taken place in the Stanford Industrial Park. They may have hosted important
meetings or events at their home, or served on board and commissions at other locations. Documentation of
the association between this person and the various sites where s/he was active would be required to
demonstrate that their place of business was (or wasn’t) the location most closely associated with their
significant activities.
52 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6/California Register and National Register: A
Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register), p. 3.
53 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6/California Register and National Register: A
Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register), p. 3.
12
Criterion 3: Architecture
Buildings more than 45 years old should be evaluated as examples of mid-20th Century commercial
architecture. The original architect should be identified and an overview of his/her career provided. The
building(s) should then be compared to 1) other notable buildings by the same designer and 2) other notable
buildings of the same period and style. It is not sufficient to be “typical” architecture of the period – the criterion
asks for the property to “embody” or exemplify the reasons for its significance. To be a significant property for
design, the building should represent a fine example of its style and period, or represent an important
contribution by a recognized master architect. A master architect will have achieved awards for their work,
earned honors such as election as a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, have been included in
scholarly publications and/or designed other buildings that have been listed on the California or National
registers.
Criterion 4: Information Potential
This criterion is generally reserved for sites with buried archaeological deposits but is occasionally applied to
examples of unique building or construction methods. Archaeological deposits are present on some properties
in the Park and should be separately analyzed by a qualified archaeologist. Stanford University maintains
surveys and records for archaeological deposits and will provide additional information as needed.
Archaeological site locations are confidential under State law; care should be taken in planning documents to
safeguard these locations from potential damage from looters.
Integrity Considerations
If a property meets one or more of the criteria it should be assessed for integrity – the ability of the property to
convey its period and the reasons for its significance. National Register guidance should be followed regarding
how to assess integrity.54 The California Register relies upon the National Register framework for integrity but
allows that “a resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for
the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information.”55 The
most obvious example would be an archaeological deposit associated with the site of a house that has been
altered or demolished – subsurface features that might yield scientific information may be intact even if the
house is not. This circumstance may exist on some properties in the Park, but would be the subject of an
archaeological survey rather than a historic resource evaluation report. (It is unlikely that buried features
associated with Park tenants would merit consideration under Criterion 4.)
Once the period of significance has been established through the evaluation process, documentation of
physical alterations to the property since the period of significance is critical to establish whether or not the
property retains integrity. There are multiple sources of information for alterations:
1. Stanford University has copies of architectural and landscape plans for many properties in the Park
(contact Heritage Services for assistance).
2. The property owner may have retained building records.
3. City of Palo Alto retains building permit records, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board
54 Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
55 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6/California Register and National Register: A
Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register), p. 3.
13
minutes. Building permit records may describe alterations for which Stanford has no copies.
It is not generally necessary to address every alteration to a property: the focus should be on the exterior
facades visible to the public or to visitors to the property. The integrity of setting should also be addressed
within this “public viewshed,” specifically the park-like quality expressed through the vegetated buffers along
the street.
Summary
Properties in the Stanford Research Park (formerly Stanford Industrial Park) were gradually developed
between 1953 and the early 1980s under varying zoning regulations and with no master plan(s). Many of the
early buildings have been replaced or substantially altered over the decades. For these reasons, there is no
concentration of buildings from any particular era within the Park, and the Park as a whole has a diverse and
inconsistent architectural and landscape character.
The Stanford Industrial Park reflected a national trend towards suburban, “clean” industrial areas, often
located near college campuses. Many university-affiliated business parks emerged in the same period: “Fifty
university-affiliated research parks were established in the 1960s, and by the early 1980s one study counted eighty-
one.”56 Within the Santa Clara Valley, “A survey conducted by county planners in 1967, before the research-
oriented economy had matured fully, tallied thirty-eight industrial parks in the corridor between Palo Alto and San
Jose…” 57
The recommended evaluation approach, by focusing on specific activities associated with the properties will
contribute to the growing literature on Silicon Valley history. Addressing the architecture in a comparative
framework will similarly engage other efforts in the region in a productive fashion that builds our understanding
of this important era in local history.
56 Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture After 1940. John M. Findlay. University of California Press. 1992.
57 Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture After 1940. John M. Findlay. University of California Press. 1992.
HI
L
LVIE
W A
V
E
PAGEMILLRD
FOOTHILLEXPY
FOOTHILLEXPY
HANSEN WAY
HILLVIEWAVE
PAGEMILLRD
COY OTE H ILL RD
PAG E MILL R D
PAGE MILL RD
DEE R CREEKRD
PORTER D R
HANOVERS
T
STANFORD RESEARCH PARK
Sequence of Development 1950 – 1980
Year Range
To 1953 (35 ac.)
1953 - 1955 (120 ac.)
1956 - 1960 (350 ac.)
1961 - 1965 (500 ac.)
1966 - 1970 (575 ac.)
1971 - 1975 (600 ac.)
1976 - 1980 (700 ac.)
This map shows the gradual expansion of land area annexed and rezoned for commercial development by the City of Palo Alto. Some properties were developed many years after rezoning, or had later infill buildings added, and others were developed and later redeveloped with lot line changes. Therefore while the general pattern has been verified, boundaries should be considered approximate. Updated Oct. 28, 2016.
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
I
HI
L
LVIE
W A
V
E
PAGEMILLRD
FOOTHILLEXPY
FOOTHILLEXPY
HANSEN WAY
HILLVIEWAVE
PAGEMILLRD
COY OTE H ILL RD
PAG E MILL R D
PAGE MILL RD
DEE R CREEKRD
PORTER D R
HANOVERS
T
STANFORD RESEARCH PARK
Redevelopment Since 1980
Site Redeveloped after 1980
Year Range
To 1953 (35 ac.)
1953 - 1955 (120 ac.)
1956 - 1960 (350 ac.)
1961 - 1965 (500 ac.)
1966 - 1970 (575 ac.)
1971 - 1975 (600 ac.)
1976 - 1980 (700 ac.)
This map shows lots where buildings have been demolished and replaced, and lots where building exteriors have been extensively altered such that they are no longer representative of their original design or period.Updated Nov. 2, 2016.
0 0.25 0.5 MilesI
HI
L
LVIE
W A
V
E
PAGEMILLRD
FOOTHILLEXPY
FOOTHILLEXPY
HANSEN WAY
HILLVIEWAVE
PAGEMILLRD
COY OTE H ILL RD
PAG E MILL R D
PAGE MILL RD
DEE R CREEKRD
PORTER D R
HANOVERS
T
1962
1967
19561957
1965
1963
1997
1983
1996
2007
1979
1993
1991
1977
2002
1979
2017
1997
19992000
2008
1999
1998
199920171998
1977
1998
19971997
1980
1984 1994 19721972 1974
2001
1972
1986 19721972 198319791983197919791983
19771998199019981981
20001983
20122005
2000
2012
2002 2002 2002 2002
2002
1976 20021975
1976
1991 197719912007
1974
19912007199119911977 1991
19792002
19791978
1978
2014
1978
19771977
1979
200720072007
20072007
2007
1975
1992
1975
20002000
2002
2013 2013
2014
2011
2015
2017
1979
2017 2017
2017
2017
1970
1962
1960
1971
1967
1955
1955
1952
1966 1962
1962
19571966
1966
1957
19571957
1957
1964 196219631962
1959
1957
1967
1967
1958
1971
19701971
STANFORD RESEARCH PARK
Age of Existing Structures
Construction Date
1952 - 1971
1972 - 2017
Extensively Altered
Housing under Construction
Dates should be considered approximate as it is not known in all cases whether these represent design approval, start of construction or final occupancy.Updated Nov. 2, 2016.
0 0.25 0.5 MilesI
SoccerFields
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8154)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/22/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield: Junior Museum and Zoo
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road
[17PLN-00147]: Consideration of an Application for
Architectural Review to allow the Replacement of the Junior
Museum and Zoo Building With a New 15,033 Square Foot,
One-Story Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo with
Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and Improvements
to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire Access, Accessible
Parking Stalls, Multi-Modal Circulation, Storm Drainage
Infrastructure, and Site Lighting. An Initial Study is Being
Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental
Quality Act. Zone District: Public Facilities. For More
Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Emily Foley
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following actions:
1. Review and provide comments on the attached Rinconada Park Historic Resource
Evaluation (HRE Attachment B); specifically, the portions related to the JMZ project
scope. The HRE addresses the significance of the Girl Scout House (aka Lou Henry
Hoover House) and the site context of the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), whereas the
JMZ HRE (Attachment D) addresses the significance of the JMZ, and
2. Provide preliminary comments regarding the revised site improvements with respect to
the Secretary of Interior’s Standards (SISR) noted in the HRE analysis (pages 58-61), and
3. Provide input regarding the project’s compliance with the Architectural Review (AR)
Findings, with particular focus on AR Finding 2B, to assist staff and the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) in developing a recommendation to Council.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Report Summary
Staff is seeking the HRB’s comments on the HRE and recommendations on the revised project
design now on file as a formal Architectural Review application. The HRB reviewed concept
plans for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) in early 2017. The revised site layout
and massing concepts were reviewed by the ARB in a second study session after the HRB’s
study session. The City Council will make the final decision on the AR application.
The JMZ project includes removal of the 1941 JMZ building and construction of a new JMZ that
would include an outdoor zoo with netted enclosures. Significant improvements to the site are
proposed, with multi-modal circulation, access, storm drainage facilities, and parking lots
designed to meet City standards to better serve users of the current and new facilities on the
city’s 18.26-acre parcel. The project scope was developed in coordination with the Rinconada
Park Long Range Plan (RPLRP). The new layout now considers the site in context of the City’s
bicycle master plan improvements. Plans for the JMZ project (submitted April 27, 2017) are
viewable online at the project address; https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. An aerial
view of the existing conditions is shown in the next report section.
Background
Project Information
Owner: City of Palo Alto
Architect: Sarah Vaccaro, Cody Anderson Wasney
Representative: John Aiken, Community Services Sr. Program Manager
Legal Counsel: City Attorney
Property Information
Address: 1451 Middlefield Road (JMZ)
Neighborhood: Community Center
Lot Dimensions & Area: JMZ/ Stern Center site has 800’ frontage on Middlefield Rd (JMZ key
frontage), 245’ on Melville Av, 215’ on Harriett St, and 245’ of shared
property line with Walter Hayes School; parcel:795,841 sf (18.3 acres)
Housing Inventory Site: No
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes
Historic Resource(s): Lucie Stern Community Center is a Category 1 Resource (includes CSD
Administrative offices, Community Center, Children’s Theatre, Stern
Theatre, Boy Scout facility, Children’s Library); JMZ is not on National
or California historic register; city parcel includes Rinconada Park,
Pool, Fire Station, Substation, and the Lou Henry Hoover House aka
Girl Scout House (GSH)
Existing Improvement(s): JMZ: 9,000 sf, 2-stories, built in 1941
Existing Land Use: Community Center
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North of parcel: Residential (R-1 zone)
West of parcel: Residential (R-1)
East of parcel: Public Elementary School (Walter Hays, PAUSD)
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
adjacent, and Art Center and Rinconada Library across Newell Road
South of parcel: Residential (R-1)
Aerial View of Property:
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Public Facilities
Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institutions/Special Facilities
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Not applicable
Downtown Urban
Design Guide: Not applicable
South of Forest Avenue Coordinated
Area Plan: Not applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable
El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 /
2002): Not applicable
Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts
(150'): Yes, across from single family residences
Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable
Special Setback 24 feet on Middlefield Road
Utility Easement/Corridor Water, sewer and storm drain main lines
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: Study session conducted on 11/21/16; Staff Report link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54681
PTC: None
HRB: Study session conducted on January 26, 2017; HRB report contained
a link to January 19, 2017 ARB report that contained the JMZ-specific
HRE (Attachment D); Verbatim minutes are available at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56819
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
ARB: Preliminary reviews conducted on January 19 and March 16, 2017
Verbatim Minutes are available, respectively, at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55690
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56819
PRC: Two Study Sessions in 2015; One session April 26, 2016; Report link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52063
The PRC supports reconfigured relationship with Park; Minutes:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52999
Project Description
The project is the removal of the JMZ building and construction of a new JMZ building having
gabled roofs of varying heights, with new outdoor environments, and site improvements,
including a major reconfiguration of the existing parking lots. The applicant’s project
description found in the attached letter (Attachment A):
Describes the architect’s design approaches to site organization, promenade experience,
building and zoo program, massing and materiality, landscape materials and planting,
and surrounding site improvements;
Provides background as to the process and goals;
Describes a future phase 2 project: construction of a two-story classroom and exhibit
building in the location of the proposed outdoor classroom, and addition of a tree fort
to the zoo; and notes phase 2 is unfunded and only shown on plans for reference (it is
not part of the project under evaluation at this time); and
Highlights criteria, developed during a 2012 Master Plan process, for (a) Visitor
Experience, (b) Collections and (c) Operations goals.
Project Type and Review Process
The project application type is Architectural Review (AR). No other planning entitlement
applications are required. The applicant will submit additional details to make the AR
application ‘complete’ prior to the first formal ARB public hearing, tentatively scheduled for July
20, 2017. Because the project site is part of an 18.3-acre parcel that contains an identified
historic resource (Lucie Stern Center, Inventory Category 2) and an eligible historic resource
(Lou Henry Hoover House), the HRB is tasked to review the project.
The HRB will be invited to comment on the Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study/Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) currently being prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the JMZ project and for the longer term
Rinconada Park project (not yet a submitted AR application). The estimated publication date
for the IS/MND is July 15, 2017.
Historic Resource Evaluations and Site History
The staff report for the January 26, 2017 HRB study session included the HRE prepared in 2016
for the JMZ building. The HRB is now asked to review the Rinconada Historic Resource
Evaluation (HRE, Attachment B) and provide any comments specifically related to the JMZ
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
project scope. The park improvements are not part of the JMZ project scope. The January staff
reports provided background regarding the JMZ building and site context, as well as the HRE
that only addressed the JMZ building, also attached to this report (Attachment D).
JMZ
As noted in the JMZ HRE, the zoo was established in 1934 (before the construction of the
building) and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early
20th century. That HRE determined that the 1941 JMZ building, remodeled and expanded in
1969, is ineligible for listing under any criteria as a historic resource on the National Register of
Historic Placesand California Register of Historic Resources, due to significant alterations
resulting in a loss of historic integrity. The image below is from 1944 (from the Rinconada HRE).
Lou Henry Hoover House
The Rinconada HRE provides information regarding the National Register Eligible Girl Scout
House (GSH) aka Lou Henry Hoover House, which is the closest historic building to the JMZ site
on the City’s parcel; it is located approximately 45 feet to the north. The GSH was built in 1925
by local craftsman and laborers who donated their skills. Designed by Birge Clark, this structure
is the oldest active scout meeting house. The building predates Clark’s Lucie Stern Community
Center (comprised of the main theater, Boy Scout facility, children’s theater, and children’s
library and listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 Historic Resource). The GSH,
relocated from elsewhere on site in 1936 to the current site (to make way for the Children’s
Theater), then modified by an addition in 1945, is eligible for listing on both the California and
National Historic Registers. The HRE also provides information about Lou Henry Hoover. The
below image from the Rinconada HRE of the GSH is from 1939.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Parking Lot Reconfiguration/Features
The existing parking lot at Lucie Stern/JMZ appears to be similar as the original design (by an
unknown designer) as shown on a 1941 Public Works drawing (image on prior page was taken
from the Rinconada HRE). The reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lots will improve
fire access, provide accessible parking stalls and pathways, necessary drainage improvements,
and site lighting. Key components are as follows:
Elimination of the vehicular driveway opposite Kellogg Avenue and creation of a bicycle
and pedestrian path within a park-like setting with protection of existing oak trees, to
provide multi-modal circulation through a forested ‘street side yard’ of the Stern center,
Westward adjustment of the driveway entrance to the JMZ, as the only Middlefield
Road entrance to the parking lot serving the complex of facilities (Lucie
Stern/GSH/JMZ/Rinconada Park),
Creation of standard 90 degree parking spaces replacing the inefficient diagonal parking
spaces in the existing lots. Some of the existing parking spaces are not striped; there
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
would be no loss of striped parking spaces within the project site; 98 stalls would be
provided in the reconfigured parking lot, plus loading spaces, whereas there are only 95
striped spaces currently; the number of accessible spaces would be increased by one
space (from 7 to 8),
Provision of a landscaped buffer area between the GSH and parking spaces, and
landscaped pathway at the rear of the Stern theater shop,
Creation of two-way vehicle circulation throughout the parking lot, with restrictive gates
at one of two Hopkins Avenue driveways to allow only emergency egress,
Establishment of a new raised pedestrian and bicycle crosswalk connecting the new
Kellogg Avenue access path to the Rinconada Park pathway,
Installation of new parking lot trees and stormwater drainage infrastructure (storm
water treatment areas are proposed within both lots shown on plan sheet C2.1),
Provision of parking lot and pathway site lighting, and lower, pedestrian-level lighting,
Creation of concrete seat walls provided near the GSH (semi-circular) and along the JMZ
entry and in the Jurassic Garden courtyard (straight-line benches), and
An increase in the number of bicycle parking spaces (25 short term bike parking spaces
representing an increase of five spaces, located both at the JMZ entry and next to the
outdoor classroom, and 10 long term parking spaces, located near Middlefield (there
are no long-term bicycle spaces currently).
The Rinconada HRE provides historical information about these existing landscaped areas:
(1) picnic/landscaped area west of the JMZ parking lot (circa 1940s, designer unknown),
(2) landscaped area southwest of JMZ parking lot (circa 1940s, designer unknown),
(3) the open lawn area west of Lucie Stern Center (circa 1936 – 1940, Clark), and
(4) paved area and garden west of GSH (circa 1936, designer unknown).
JMZ Building and Fences
The main building is a modified ‘U’ shaped building designed to preserve existing, mature Pecan
and Dawn Redwood trees. The new, one-story building would house the museum as well as
zoo support functions. Museum components include exhibit rooms, multi-use room,
entry/lobby, offices, collection hub and storage rooms, shop, conference rooms, classroom,
restrooms, animal care and supply rooms, and zoo work room, and other building support areas
(trash, plumbing, data, electrical, and bike storage; the last three rooms are joined, separated
from the main building by a ‘tunnel’.) The zoo uses would include animal control/program and
storage rooms. Plan sheets A4.0 through A4.4 provide building renderings, elevations, and
sections. Sheet A5 shows colored images of the exterior materials and colors.
Building Height, Site Coverage, Floor Area, and Heights
An 18 foot ridge height is proposed near Middlefield Road. The height of the attached, vaulted
one story building (the JMZ entrance) would be 27 feet. The height of the central supportive
column for the netting over the zoo would be 36 feet.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
The existing buildings cover approximately 81,400 square feet (sf) of the 18.3 Acre site; of this
coverage, 72,900 sf of coverage is from buildings other than the JMZ building, which covers
8,500 sf. The proposed JMZ buildings would cover an additional 6,533 sf, for a JMZ coverage of
15,033 sf(a total coverage of 87,933 sf on the site). The lot coverage after construction would
be 11% of the site where 30% maximum lot coverage is allowed.
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the 18.3 acre site would be 0.11:1 (given current Fire Station #3
building footprint of 3,469 sf), where a 1.0:1 FAR is allowed for PF zoned sites. The Fire Station
#3 footprint will be reduced by 79 sf, to 3,390 sf.
Fence Heights: Several types of fences or wall enclosures are proposed with varying heights,
materials and functions.
Standing Seam Metal Walls: This maroon-colored wall type would be used at two
different locations, with different heights:
(1) Outdoor Classroom and Zoo: A twelve foot tall, standing-seam metal outdoor
enclosure wall would be the nearest structure to the GSH. The proposed height is taller
than the plate height of the GSH building. The wall would face the parking lot and GSH
and Rinconada Park, and would continue around the zoo until the wall type and height
changes, next to the ‘rabbit meadow’.
(2) Zoo Management Area: At the raccoon exhibit, the (red) standing-seam metal wall
would resume at a height of eight feet, to enclose the outdoor zoo animal management
area facing the park.
Lithocrete Concrete Wall: At the Rabbit Meadow and facing the park, the zoo enclosure
wall would be a brownish, ten-foot tall wall alongside the zoo until the raccoon exhibit.
Middlefield Road Fence: The height of the fence facing Middlefield Road would be eight
feet, and made of steel frame with vertical wood slats and an ‘artistic pattern.’
Entry and Garden Low Mesh Fence: A three-foot-tall metal fence with mesh infill
panels, facing the parking lot, would enclose the Jurassic garden and JMZ entry area.
Two gate locations are proposed facing the parking lot, and additional gates are
proposed facing Middlefield Road and the GSH.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
Outdoor Zoo Design
The proposed outdoor zoo area includes an outdoor classroom, separated from the building by
the ‘pecan tree plaza’. Several ‘bridges’ would lead pedestrians from Middlefield Road sidewalk
to the tunnel, and connect to the other entry plazas (promenade entry plaza, pecan tree plaza,
and park arrival plaza). The ‘Jurassic Garden Courtyard’ would be sheltered in the ‘U’ of the
building. The netted enclosure area, “Loose in the Zoo”, would contain various zoo exhibits.
The outdoor area east of zoo would provide an animal management area, and would also be
covered with netting, at a lower level.
Site Lighting, Landscaping, and Trees
Lighting Design
The two “E” sheets of the project plan set show proposed site lighting, proposed as follows:
LED Parking lot lights manufactured by Bega (shown on plan sheet E1.00, with
photometrics shown on plan sheet E1.0P), with the following specifications:
o 14-foot tall, single-head pole lights (type B1, flush-base mounted, lower-wattage
(14 Watts)) next to Middlefield Road (3), lining the JMZ sidewalk (3), and the
raised walkway marking the ‘two’ parking lots (3);
o 14-foot tall, double-head pole lights (type A1, flush-base mounted, lower-
wattage (14 Watts)) near Lucie Stern (2), and GSH (3);
o 17-foot tall, double-head pole lights (type A, mounted on 36-inch base, higher
wattage (39Watts)) in the center aisles of the parking lot (7);
o 11-foot tall, single-head pole lights (type B, mounted on 36-inch base, higher
wattage (26 Watts)) alongside the edge of Stern ‘park side yard’ and back of
Stern (6), and
LED pedestrian-level lighting (by an as-yet unknown manufacturer) in the JMZ garden
and sidewalk under benches and lattice, on the low fence, and up-lighting (of trees,
signage, and the flagpole).
Landscape Design
Plan sheet A1.1, the proposed site plan, provides an overview of the landscape plan for the
reconfigured parking lot and JMZ site. Plan sheet L1.1 shows a landscape plan around the
proposed JMZ building perimeter and images of the proposed landscape character. Plan sheets
L1.2 – L1.4 show landscape sections. A planting plan, showing the proposed plant materials, is
provided as Plan sheet L1.5. The applicant has worked with the City’s Landscape Architect to
ensure the selected plant materials will meet the Architectural Review approval finding that
requires regionally indigenous and drought tolerant plant materials.
Tree Protection and Plantings
A tree protection plan is provided as Plan sheet T-2. The plan is excerpted on the next page of
this report, to illustrate the applicant’s proposal to retain most of the trees on the site, as are
bullets that provide specifics about the tree retention and plantings.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
The heritage Pecan and Dawn Redwood near the new JMZ building would be retained.
All trees in the Lucie Stern ‘side yard’ would be retained.
Only two street trees on Middlefield would be removed; one to make way for the new
driveway and another to allow free passage and visibility of the JMZ tunnel gateway.
The Arborist Report indicates that 23 of the 49 assessed trees would be removed, and
all protected trees (oaks) would be retained.
The Tree Protection Plan and Draft Arborist Report provide more detailed information
regarding the condition of existing trees and proposed tree removals. The Arborist Report is
being finalized and will be provided with the ARB staff report.
The planting plan indicates planting of 51 new 24” box sized trees, for a net increase of 28 trees
on the JMZ and parking lot site. Bullets below provide specifics:
o Many of the new trees would be located within the parking lot (most of the 27 Texas
Redbuds and six of nine new Gingkos, meeting the shade requirements.
o Three Gingkos and two Texas Redbuds would line the Middlefield Road elevation.
o Three additional Redbuds would be placed on PAUSD property, and likely screen the
southwesterly corner of the new building.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
o Two London Planes would be planted at the Hopkins parking lot entrance.
o Two Coast Live Oaks would be planted in the ‘front yard’ of the GSH.
o Seven Vine Maples would be planted along the parking lot edge of the JMZ walkway.
o Two of four Persian Ironwoods are proposed as accent trees in the parking lot and
the other two Ironwoods would be located elsewhere (to be clarified).
The new trees list from the planting plan is excerpted below.
Analysis1
This analysis is focused on the areas covered by the HRB’s purview, and also provides some
background for why certain modifications are needed. Additional project analysis will be
provided in the ARB staff report, once additional project details have been received.
Consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan2
With 150,000 annual visits, JMZ provides a strong start for children; JMZ is integral to
Rinconada Park and the park is integral to the JMZ. The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ)
works closely with researchers and professionals to provide a rich environment that stimulates
children’s natural curiosity and creativity. The proposed project is consistent with Policy C-26 of
the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park
facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new
community facilities to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
New Building Design Character and Neighborhood Setting/Character
The preliminary review staff reports had described the context, proximity to the one-story
Walter Hayes School and public facilities, and one- and two-story residential neighborhood.
These reports noted the significance of the Birge Clark designed Lucie Stern Community Center,
circa 1932- 1940, with its Spanish Colonial Revival style and status as a historic category 1
building, as well as the likely significance of the Lou Henry Hoover House. The report noted the
historic buildings on the site as primarily one-story with some two story components. The HRB
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A
change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this
report.
2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
viewed a two-story project at that time, and the ARB was able to view a conceptual one-story
project and provide input.
The now-gabled, one-story JMZ building appears to have greater compatibility with the existing
older buildings on the site. The HRB can provide assistance to staff and the ARB regarding AR
Finding #2b.
Rinconada HRE
The Rinconada HRE dated June 8, 2017, includes an analysis of the proposed JMZ project with
respect to the Secretary of Interiors’ Standards for Rehabilitation. The HRE states that the JMZ
project does not comply with all of the SISR and notes (page 62) that “further analysis is
required.” However, the following paragraph provides that further analysis and concludes, “the
JMZ project does not cause a significant impact to historic resource at Rinconada Park”. Staff is
in agreement with this finding. Additionally, staff supports the relocation of the bird bath (circa
1925) to the Boy Scout Building as appropriate, and the enhancement of the picnic area.
The Rinconada HRE notes that the Girl Scout House (GSH) is eligible for California Register of
Historic Resources under Criterion 1 for its early role in Scouting and Criterion 2 for association
with Lou Henry Hoover. Staff intends to work with members of the HRB and Girl Scouts
organization to prepare a nomination form for the HRB to recommend Council place the GSH
on the City Inventory.
Modifications to the Lucie Stern Center Site
The existing parking lot design from 1941 (when the JMZ was built) was not part of Birge Clark’s
Lucie Stern Center and the designer is unknown, according to the Rinconada HRE. The proposed
project would not adversely impact the significant features at the Lucie Stern Center. The
modifications will provide organized, efficient circulation for automobiles and safe, continuous
circulation for bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed pavement removal to establish a
forested “street side yard” of Lucie Stern Center would result in an appearance more closely
resembling the original design of the Center.
Stormwater Design
The site plan indicates storm water system connections and treatment infrastructure. The lot
reconfiguration is designed to meet storm-water discharge requirements of the provision C.3 of
the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11).
C.3 regulations apply to the project, since the project would replace 10,000 sf or more of
impervious surface, and the parking lot would create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more
of impervious surface. Permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment
controls to protect storm water quality are subject to the approval of the Public Works
Department. Landscape-based treatment controls (bio-swales, filter strips, and permeable
pavement) are proposed to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” prior to discharge to
the municipal storm drain system. Public Works requires applicants to contract with a qualified
third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The applicant is working toward obtaining this certification.
Parking Lot Shade and Tree Planting Requirement
The revised project appears to meet the City’s requirement for 50% shading of parking lots and
a requirement for one parking lot tree for every ten parking spaces in a row. The project
architect has worked with the City’s landscape architect to balance the requirements for shade
and tree numbers with pedestrian wayfinding and storm water drainage needs.
Compliance Review and Logistics
The parking lot design has been evaluated to ensure it meets standards for driveways, curbs
and sidewalks. Building permit applications would involve further disclosures, including
submittal of a logistics plan(s). Logistics plans include pedestrian and vehicle traffic controls,
truck routes and deliveries, contractor parking, on site staging and storage areas, concrete
pours, crane lifts, noise and dust control. Conditions of approval and other measures can be
designed to minimize adverse, temporary impacts of construction on residential
neighborhoods.
Zoning Compliance3
This project is subject to meeting the AR approval findings. The AR findings are attached to this
report (Attachment E). AR finding 2b is likely of particular interest to the HRB. The project is
not subject to Context Based Design Criteria, nor to any interim ordinances or moratoriums.
The project was evaluated to ensure adequate infrastructure provisions such as meters and
transformers, backflow prevention devices, and trash and recycling facilities, to meet other AR
findings.
The project plans indicate conformance with lot coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks and height
development standards within the Public Facilities Zone District. The additional 6,033 sf of floor
area proposed for the JMZ is not intended to increase the need for parking spaces on the site.
Community Center use has an open-ended parking requirement – the Planning and Community
Environment Director can determine how many spaces are required to meet the need. No
Director’s Parking Adjustment is required associated with the increased building area, given the
proposed parking lot reconfiguration and accompanying transportation and parking alternatives
(Transportation Demand Management Plan).
Multi-Modal Access, Parking and TDM
The transportation staff have reviewed and guided development of the revised plans with
respect to addressing the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and Safe Routes to School. The
traffic study and TDM plan will be reviewed by the City’s CEQA consultant, and included as
source documents for the CEQA document. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review
the TDM plan as well as the Initial Study following publication of those documents. Staff has
confirmed the revised plan is likely to result in efficient and safe circulation and minimization of
3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
conflicts. The project would improve facilities for bicycle and pedestrian routes, including
bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding and accessibility enhancements on and off-site. The revised
project features a passenger drop off area at the new JMZ entry, and other improvements for
safety related to the longer-term Rinconada Plan. Transportation Division staff had provided
comments during the preliminary review phase of the project, regarding the need for coverage
over bike parking, secured parking provisions, and the disadvantages of wall-mounted bike
parking. The revised plans address these comments.
The applicant has prepared a transportation demand management (TDM) plan, which is a
source document for the CEQA document currently being prepared. The TDM plan is intended
to not only reduce parking demand, but also to provide clear transportation options to
residents and visitors.
Green Building
Earlier this year, City Council adopted the new Green Building and Energy Reach so that
compliance with the 2016 building code requirements will satisfy the City’s LEED Silver
equivalent alternative for City buildings.
Environmental Review
Environmental review of the most recent version of the JMZ proposal is underway. In
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City’s consultant (Powers)
is preparing an Initial Study for publication with the packet for the formal ARB review hearing,
tentatively scheduled for July 20, 2017. The Initial Study will cover both the JMZ project and the
Rinconada Park Long Range Master Plan. Technical reports that were prepared for this project
cover several subjects. The Initial Study is supported by these documents: Air Quality Report,
Arborist Assessment, Noise Assessment, Traffic Assessment, and Historic Resource Evaluation
(HRE).
As noted, the HRB will have a role in commenting on the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources
sections of the CEQA document. Meanwhile, the Historic Resources Evaluation prepared by the
City’s consultant, Page and Turnbull, is attached for HRB review and comment.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto
Weekly on June 9, 2017, which is at least 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing
occurred on June 9, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the HRB meeting.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received regarding
the formal submittal. Public comments have been provided in public hearings of the City’s
Parks and Recreation Commission.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
Next Steps
The Architectural Review Board will conduct a public hearing, tentatively scheduled for July 20,
2017. As noted, the project decision will be made by City Council.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may:
1. Continue the public hearing discussion until after the publication of the Initial Study, to
allow full board discussion of the cultural resources section.
Report Author & Contact Information HRB4 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Applicant's April 27 Project Description (PDF)
Attachment B: HRE Rinconada June 8 2017 (PDF)
Attachment C: Tree Assessment Plan - JMZ June 2017 (PDF)
Attachment D: Jr Museum and Zoo HRE (PDF)
Attachment E: AR findings (DOCX)
4 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology
Page & Turnbull
RINCONADA PARK
HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
[16280]
PREPRARED FOR:
DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
JUNE 8 2017
DRAFT
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 1
II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS ............................................................................ 2
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .................................................................................... 2
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 2
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ..................................................................... 2
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .................................................................................................. 2
HISTORIC RESOUCE EVALUATIONS .................................................................................................. 3
III. RINCONADA PARK DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 4
IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 23
PALO ALTO HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 23
RINCONADA PARK DEVELOPMENT BY DECADE ........................................................................... 26
ARCHITECT / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BIOGRAPHIES .................................................................. 41
V. EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 48
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES .................................................................... 48
INTEGRITY ......................................................................................................................................... 50
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 52
VI. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 53
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................................................. 53
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 55
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS: JMZ PROJECT ....................................................... 58
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA ............................................................ 62
ANALYSIS OF LONG RANGE PLAN PROGRAM-LEVEL IMPACTS UNDER CEQA ........................... 62
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................... 62
VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 64
VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 65
PUBLISHED WORKS .......................................................................................................................... 65
PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................................................................................................. 65
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS .................................................................................................... 66
INTERNET SOURCES......................................................................................................................... 67
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 1 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION
This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of David J. Powers &
Associates for Rinconada Park in Palo Alto, California. (Figure 1). The official address of the 19-
acre multipurpose park is 777 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, California 94303 (APN 003-46-006).
The first part of this report provides a reconnaissance survey of all features and buildings in
Rinconada Park; outlines an overall history of the park’s development; and evaluates the park’s
features and buildings for eligibility to the California Register as individual resources and/or as a
designed historic landscape. In consideration of all designated and identified historic buildings and
features, the second part of the report analyzes the potential project-level impacts of the proposed
Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project and the program-level impacts of the Rinconada Park Long
Range Plan under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and
pursuant to CEQA.
Figure 1. Parcel map of Rinconada Park).
Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports, 2016.
METHODOLOGY
Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including
the Palo Alto Public Library, Palo Alto Historical Association, City of Palo Alto Planning and
Community Environment Department, Online Archive of California, and various other online
sources. Information from Page & Turnbull’s Historic Resource Evaluation for the JMZ (July 2016)
also informed this report. Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit in April 2017 to review the existing
conditions of the property and formulate the descriptions and assessments included in this report. All
photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull in April 2017 unless otherwise noted.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 2 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS
The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to
Rinconada Park.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive
inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service
and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural,
engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.
Rinconada Park is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as
part of a registered historic district.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant
architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be
listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and
National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can
also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.
The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on
those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
Rinconada Park is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources individually
or as part of a registered historic district.
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE
Properties listed by, or under review by, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are
assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) between “1” and “7” to establish
their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register
or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR). Properties with a
Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National
Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of “3”
or “4” appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to
support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be
locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of “6” are not
eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource either has
not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation.
Rinconada Park is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS)
database with a status code. The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara County
that lists the Status Codes was in April 2012.
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY
The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important
individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is
associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The inventory is
organized under the following four Categories:
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 3 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
▪ Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These
buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States.
These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the
overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
▪ Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious
works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate
stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some
exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
▪ Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an
architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials,
proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent
changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
The subject parcel, which encompasses all of Rinconada Park, is designated in City of Palo Alto
records as a Category 1 property because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1
designation does not apply to any other building or facility within the park.
HISTORIC RESOUCE EVALUATIONS
Page & Turnbull completed a Historic Resource Evaluation for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and
Zoo in July 2016 and found the building not to be a historic resource.
Garavaglia Architecture completed a Historic Resource Evaluation for Palo Alto Fire Station No. 3
in August 2016 and found the building not to be a historic resource.
Other buildings and features, such as the Girl Scout House, swimming pools and building, tennis
courts, and parking lot, have not previously been assessed and will be examined in this report.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 4 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
III. RINCONADA PARK DESCRIPTION
The following section provides a general description of physical features and relationships that
comprise Rinconada Park. The character of the park is expressed by a range of built and natural
features, including buildings, swimming pools and tennis courts, playgrounds, vegetation patterns,
and numerous small-scale features. These features continue to convey the spatial and functional
relationships that define the park. In order to capture the site’s features and spatial relationships, the
following description employs categories outlined in the National Park Service publication: A Guide to
Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques. Numbers at the left side of the tables
correspond to a site plan that follows the tables.
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
1
Name: Lucie Stern Community Center
Address: 1305 Middlefield Road
Designer: Birge Clark
Date of Construction: 1934-1940
Brief Description: Complex of attached
buildings, including a theater, children’s
theater, and Boy Scout meeting room. The
buildings are designed in the Spanish Colonial
Revival style with stucco and brick cladding,
multi-lite steel sash windows, glazed wood
doors, and clay tile gable roofs. The mass of
the main theater’s fly loft extends above the
rooflines and features buttresses and blind
arch decoration. The buildings are organized
around exterior courtyards with outdoor
hallways.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 5 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
2
Name: Children’s Library
Address: 1276 Harriet Street
Designer: Birge and David Clark
Date of Construction: 1940
Brief Description: Rectangular building clad
in stucco with brick accents, multi-lite steel
sash windows, glazed wood doors, and a clay
tile gable roof. Recent additions are located at
each end and feature the same materials,
though the facades are panelized.
3
Name: Roy A. Ginsburg outdoor children’s
theatre stage (aka “Magic Castle”)
Address: 1276 Harriet Street
Designer: John Northway
Date of Construction: 1993-98
Brief Description: Rectangular-plan, two-
story building clad in stucco with two tile-
roofed turrets, wrought-iron balconies, multi-
light arched windows, and wood doors.
Outdoor stage opens to a lawn adjacent to the
Secret Garden.
4
Name: Storage Building east of Lucie Stern
Community Center
Address: 1305 Middlefield Road
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1970s
Brief Description: Rectangular plan, one
story building with stucco cladding, a roll-up
metal loading door, awning sash windows, and
a hip roof covered with clay tiles.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 6 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
5
Name: Mechanical enclosure
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1998-2002
Brief Description: Stuccoed walls around
mechanical equipment, no roof.
6
Name: Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
Address: 1451 Middlefield Road
Designer: Dole Ford Thompson, renovations
by Kal H. Porter (1968-69)
Date of Construction: 1941
Brief Description: One-and-two-story
building designed in a vernacular Ranch style.
The wood frame building sits on a concrete
foundation. The walls are clad in textured
stucco. The building is composed of a U-
shaped arrangement of two main volumes
with central, connecting hyphens. The
building features solid and glazed wood doors
and fixed and double-hung wood sash
windows. Gable and hipped roofs are clad
with wood shakes or built-up roofing.
7
Name: Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House
Designer: Birge Clark
Date of Construction: 1926, addition in 1945
Brief Description: T-shaped building with
board-and-batten siding, multi-lite wood sash
windows, concrete steps, solid and board-and-
batten wood doors, and a cross-gable roof
covered with wood shingles. The building also
features a stone chimney and a pair of garage
doors. Signs next to and above the main
entrance read: “Girl Scout House” and “The
Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House.” The
garage portion was constructed on the south
side in 1945.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 7 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
8
Name: Large west playground
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: Location: 1957-59;
equipment: 1997
Brief Description: Partially fenced-in
playground consisting of swing set, zip
line/bars, and climbing structure with slides.
Ground cover consists of tanbark.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 8 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
9
Name: Tiny tot playground
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: Location: 1957-59;
equipment: 1997
Brief Description: Fenced-in playground
consisting of climbing structure with slides,
swing set, and rockers on springs.
10
Name: Pump House
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1950s
Brief Description: Square-plan building with
horizontal wood cladding, pair of solid wood
doors, and hip roof covered with wood
shingles.
11
Name: Shed adjacent to tennis courts
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: Unknown
Brief Description: Prefabricated and portable
shed with vertical wood siding, solid door, and
shed roof.
12
Name: Tennis courts
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1934
Brief Description: Six tennis courts grouped
into four and two, enclosed by chain link
fence. Paved in green and blue with white
lines delineating the courts.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 9 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
13
Name: Public restroom
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1953
Brief Description: L-plan wood frame and
concrete block building with concrete block
and vertical wood siding, vertical board and
solid wood doors, vertical wood entry screens,
and cross-gable roof with wood shingles. The
former activities room features plate glass
windows.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 10 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
14
Name: Lap pool
Address: 777 Embarcadero Road
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1938-40
Brief Description: Rectangular lap pool, 14
lanes, 100’ x 75’, with two diving boards.
Enclosed by a wood fence and surrounded by
a concrete deck.
15
Name: Children’s wading pool
Address: 777 Embarcadero Road
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1998-99
Brief Description: Cloverleaf-shaped wading
pool with fountain features. Replaced the
original water tank pool. Enclosed by a wood
fence and surrounded by a concrete deck.
16
Name: Pool Equipment Building
Designer: Edward Durell Stone
Date of Construction: 1968
Brief Description: Rectangular one-story
reinforced concrete and concrete block
building with glazed doors. The building is
capped with a flat roof supported by extended
rafter tails. Appears altered compared to
original drawings.
17
Name: Pool building (Dressing Rooms)
Address: 777 Embarcadero Road
Designer: Stedman and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-58
Brief Description: Rectangular plan, one-
story building with concrete block cladding,
wood framed plate glass windows, glazed
wood doors, and a flat roof with extended
eaves and rafter tails. Two areas—one at the
far west end and another between two
enclosed portions— are open to the elements,
covered by lattice roofs on joists which are
supported by metal poles. The open portion
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 11 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
between two enclosed portions is screened
from the south by a wood fence.
18
Name: Electric substation
Designer: Edward Durell Stone
Date of Construction: 1968
Brief Description: Rectangular plan building
with concrete columns, gypsum board panels,
metal pedestrian doors, roll-up metal loading
doors, and a deck roof covered with wood
shingles.
19
Name: Palo Alto Fire Station No. 3
Address: 799 Embarcadero Road
Designer: Morgan Stedman of Stedman,
Libby & Gray
Date of Construction: 1948
Brief Description: T-plan, one-story building
clad in stucco and vertical board-and-batten
wood siding. Covered with a flat roof and
metal mansard roof. The building features
fixed aluminum-framed and wood casement
windows.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 12 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
CIRCULATION
20
Name: JMZ parking lot
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1940s, additional
parking to the east in 1967-69
Brief Description: Paved parking area with
painted stalls and concrete parking curbs.
Parking area to the north divided by two
parallel concrete curbs.
21
Name: Southwest driveway to JMZ parking
lot
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1940s
Brief Description: Paved driveway from
Middlefield Road, framed by wood logs and
flanked by planted areas.
22
Name: Southeast driveway to JMZ parking lot
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1940s
Brief Description: Paved driveway from
Middlefield Road.
23
Name: Brick walkways west of Lucie Stern
Community Center
Designer: Unknown (possibly Birge Clark)
Date of Construction: ca. 1936-40
Brief Description: Brick walkways paved in a
basket weave pattern: two walkways extend
from Middlefield and Melville Avenue toward
the Lucie Stern Community Center while the
sidewalk adjacent to the turnaround is also
paved with brick.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 13 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
24
Name: Turnaround at Lucie Stern
Community Center
Designer: Unknown (possibly Birge Clark)
Date of Construction: 1936-40
Brief Description: Paved U-shaped driveway
that extends from Middlefield Road to Melville
Avenue and passes the primary entrance to the
Lucie Stern Community Center.
25
Name: Paved area and garden west of Girl
Scout House
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1936
Brief Description: Paved area and garden
immediately west (the “front yard”) of the Girl
Scout House’s main entrance. Landscaping
includes low shrubs and a variety of trees.
26
Name: Central paved walking path loop
Designer: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-59
Brief Description: Paved walking path loop
that extends in a tear drop shape around the
main recreation lawn and intersects south of
the tennis courts at the public restroom. A
triangle of paved walking path also surrounds
the tiny tot playground.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 14 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
27
Name: Paved walking path at southeast park
area
Designer: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-59
Brief Description: Paved walking path that
extends in a parabola shape with two street
entrances off Embarcadero Road, and
intersects with walking path offshoots in front
of the pool building.
28
Name: Parking lot north of tennis courts
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1930s
Brief Description: Paved parking lot off
Hopkins Avenue, separated from the tennis
courts by a tall hedge.
29
Name: Multi-use bowl
Designer: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-59
Brief Description: Roughly four-cornered,
amoeba-shaped paved area framed by a
concrete curb and accessed from the north by
a paved walking path near the public restroom.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 15 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VEGETATION
30
Name: Demonstration Garden
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: Unknown
Brief Description: Garden to the west of the
Girl Scout House includes a protected coast
live oak and several ruby horse chestnut trees.
31
Name: Picnic/landscaped area west of JMZ
parking lot
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1940s
Brief Description: Small picnic area between
the JMZ parking lot and driveways, featuring
one picnic table and an arched trellis
surrounded by ivy and various types of trees.
Plantings likely updated over time.
32
Name: Landscaped area southwest of JMZ
parking lot
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1940s
Brief Description: Area between southwest
driveway to JMZ parking lot and Middlefield
Road, landscaped with a variety of shrubs,
flowering trees, and pine trees. Plantings likely
updated over time.
33
Name: South courtyard of Lucie Stern
Community Center
Designer: Birge Clark
Date of Construction: 1936-40
Brief Description: Lawn, brick steps and site
wall, and plantings including wisteria. Enclosed
to the south by a tall hedge and only accessed
via the exterior galleries of the building’s
wings. Plantings likely updated over time.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 16 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
34
Name: West courtyard of Lucie Stern
Community Center
Designer: Birge Clark
Date of Construction: 1936-40
Brief Description: Lawn, brick walkways with
basket weave pattern, wood benches, center
quatrefoil-shaped planter, and various
plantings including wisteria. Framed on north
and south by exterior galleries of the building’s
wings. Plantings likely updated over time.
35
Name: Lawn to the west of Lucie Stern
Community Center
Designer: Birge Clark
Date of Construction: 1936-40
Brief Description: Open lawn area framed by
walkway and driveway. Two brick pathways
cross the lawn. There are a number of mature
trees. Plantings likely updated over time.
36
Name: The Secret Garden
Designer: Birge Clark
Date of Construction: 1936-40
Brief Description: Located between the
Children’s Theatre and the Children’s Library,
the Secret Garden is enclosed by a tall brick
wall. It features lawn, rows of sycamore trees,
blossoming shrubs, wood benches, walking
paths, and garden follies. Plantings likely
updated over time.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 17 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
37
Name: Recreation Field
Designer: N/A; Renovation by Eckbo,
Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1920s; renovation in
1957-59
Brief Description: Open multi-use lawn
framed by walkways and trees.
38
Name: Landscaping by gazebo
Designer: Architect Edward Durell Stone;
landscape architect Edward Durell Stone, Jr &
Associates; landscape architect Jack C. Stafford
Date of Construction: 1968
Brief Description: Landscape consists of
lawn, trees, ground cover, and concrete paths
(altered from original red rock paths).
39
Name: “The Magic Forest” redwood grove
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1934
Brief Description: Grove of redwood trees,
ground cover, and wood benches north of the
swimming pool complex.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 18 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
40
Name: Southeast lawn area
Designer: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-59
Brief Description: Lawn and trees with metal
benches along paths.
41
Name: Oak tree and stone wall
Designer: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-59
Brief Description: Prominent oak tree
framed by a curving low stone wall adjacent to
walking path and east of multi-use bowl.
SMALL-SCALE FEATURES
42
Name: Brick wall west of Children’s Theater
Designer: Birge Clark
Date of Construction: 1936-40
Brief Description: Brick wall west of the
Children’s Theater, which features an intricate
brick-laid pattern at the top.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 19 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
43
Name: “Movement IV” sculpture
Designer: Steven Jay Rand
Date of Construction: 1977
Brief Description: Blue metal intersecting
cube sculpture on a cylindrical concrete
podium.
44
Name: Bird bath
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: 1925
Brief Description: Concrete bird bath located
west of the Girl Scout House. The inscription
reads: “In memorium Edward Philip Sheridan,
Scout, 1886 – 1925.”
45
Name: Sequoia picnic area
Designer: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-59
Brief Description: Paved and partially
fenced-in area east of the Girl Scout House
and north of the playground, which includes
wood tables and benches on metal supports
and barbeque grills.
46
Name: Drinking fountain
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: Unknown
Brief Description: Concrete drinking
fountain located immediately east of the Girl
Scout House. The fountain is covered with a
pebble dash coating and has one spigot.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 20 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
47
Name: Well in the Secret Garden
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: Unknown
Brief Description: Garden folly made of a
brick base, wood posts, and a gable roof
covered with clay tiles.
48
Name: Alice in Wonderland Sculpture
Designer: Susan Dannenfelser, Dannenbeck
Studios
Date of Construction: 2007
Brief Description: Ceramic sculpture of a
tree trunk on a brick base. The base includes
the artist and the inscription: “ ‘She found
herself at last in the beautiful garden, among
the bright flower-beds and the cool fountains’
– Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.”
49
Name: Drinking fountain
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: Unknown
Brief Description: Concrete water fountain
located between small playground and tennis
courts. The fountain is covered with pebble
dash coating and tile decoration. Two levels of
spigots.
50
Name: Picnic tables and barbeque grills
Designer: Unknown
Date of Construction: ca. 1998-2002
Brief Description: Four circular concrete
paving areas with wood and metal picnic tables
and barbeque grills.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 21 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
51
Name: Lamps at gazebo area
Designer: Edward Durell Stone, Edward
Durell Stone, Jr. & Associates (landscape), Jack
C. Stafford (landscape)
Date of Construction: 1968
Brief Description: Prescolite plexiglass
spheres on metal posts
52
Name: Gazebo
Designer: Edward Durell Stone
Date of Construction: 1968
Brief Description: Six-sided wood frame
gazebo with shake roof. Within the gazebo at
center is a six-sided wood bench with a planter
in the middle.
53
Name: Shuffleboard and horseshoe courts
Architect: Edward Durell Stone
Date of Construction: 1968
Brief Description: Three concrete
shuffleboard courts and one horseshoe pit
framed by wood benches.
54
Name: Multi-use bowl light fixtures
Designer: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Date of Construction: 1957-59
Brief Description: Lighting around the multi-
use bowl consists of five galvanized pipes
supporting a metal “Shelfex” cylinder with
heavy duty fiberglass within.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 22 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
SPATIAL ORGANIZATION, TOPOGRAPHY, VIEWS & VISTAS
The park is organized with the Lucie Stern Community Center, JMZ, Girl Scout House, and paved
parking lots to the west; a large open field framed by picnic areas and playgrounds at center; and the
tennis courts, swimming pool complex, and more lawn to the east. Topography is generally flat,
though some landscaped areas have been built up to form small hills and recessions. Views and vistas
generally look to the surrounding streets and residential neighborhood, as well as to the back of the
adjacent Walter Hays School, classroom trailers, and playground.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 23 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT
PALO ALTO HISTORY
The earliest known settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people. The region was
colonized by Gaspar de Portola in 1769 as part of Alto California. The Spanish and Mexican
governments carved the area into large ranchos, and the land that would become Palo Alto belonged
to several, including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San
Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.1 The subject property at
Rinconada Park was located on what was formerly Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito,
and, at more than 2,200 acres, covered all of the original Palo Alto town site. The northern and
eastern boundaries were distinguished by San Francisquito Creek, while the western boundary was
located near El Camino Real and the southern boundary paralleled Embarcadero Road farther
south.2 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but parcels
were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century.
The current city of Palo Alto contains the former township of Mayfield. In 1882, railroad magnate
and California politician Leland Stanford purchased 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his
larger estate. Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. The Stanfords’
teenage son died in 1884, leading the couple to create a university in his honor. Contrary to
contemporary institutions, the Stanfords wanted a co-educational and non-denominational
university.3 On March 9, 1885, the university was founded through an endowment act by the
California Assembly and Senate. Using the Stock Farm land, they established Stanford University
In 1886, Stanford went to Mayfield where he was interested in founding his university since the
school needed a nearby service town to support its operations. However, the Stanfords required
alcohol to be banned from the town because they believed that the university’s mission and
community would be negatively impacted by any nearby presence of alcohol.4 With 13 popular
saloons then operating in Mayfield, the town eventually rejected the Stanfords’ request. Seeking an
alternative, Stanford decided in 1894 to found the town of Palo Alto with aid from his friend
Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of
private land.5 Known as both the Hopkins Tract and University Park, it was bounded by the San
Francisquito Creek to the north and the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the south
(Figure 38). The subject property of Rinconada Park was located at the northern edge of the first
platted portion of Palo Alto.
1 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed December 22, 2014,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12.
2 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical
Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17.
3 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, accessed December 22, 2014,
http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/.
4 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed December 22, 2014, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the-
historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA
5 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 24 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 2. Map of the original town of Palo Alto.
Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University.
Palo Alto was a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. A new train stop was created
along University Avenue and the new town flourished serving the university. Palo Alto grew to be
much more prosperous than its southeastern neighbor Mayfield. Many people employed at Stanford
University chose to move there, and it was considered the safer and more desirable alternative of the
two towns.6 The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of University
professors clustered in the neighborhood deemed Professorville. The development of a local
streetcar in 1906 and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910 facilitated access to jobs outside the
city and to the University, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto.7 In reaction to the decline
of Mayfield, its residents voted to become a “dry” town in 1904, with sole exception of allowing the
Mayfield Brewery to continue. However, the town was plagued by financial issues and could not
compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into
the city of Palo Alto.8
6 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com,
website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php.
7 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames &
Moore, 1-4.
8 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 25 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). In
1917, zoning matters were tasked to this advisory commission in order to control development and
design. Regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and appropriateness within
residential areas fell under the purview of the CPC. From this early period, Palo Alto has maintained
control over the built environment, which has resulted its relatively low density and consistent
aesthetic. However, the zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century played a part in the
racial segregation of the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several
neighborhoods were created with race covenants regarding home ownership and occupation, until
this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.9 The academic nature of the town prevented
factories or other big industries from settling in Palo Alto, limiting the range of people who would
populate the area.
Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not
grow substantially. World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the
Peninsula. When the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many families who had been stationed
on the Peninsula by the military or who worked in associated industries chose to stay, and the baby
boom began. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in 1953.10
Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and development in the city. The city
center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s (Figure 39), gathering parcels that would house
new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.11
Figure 3. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952.
Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University.
9 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7.
10 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, website
accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html.
11 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 26 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west of
the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into the
1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to
Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other
sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon Valley. Palo Alto consciously
maintains its high proportion of open space to development and the suburban feeling and scale of its
architecture.
RINCONADA PARK DEVELOPMENT BY DECADE
Rinconada Park has developed into its current form over a period of over 95 years, with
improvements that reflect a variety of civic and park design influences.
1890s-1900s
Prior to development of a city recreation area, the location that is now Rinconada Park was used as
the city’s first waterworks and power plant (Figure 4). The waterworks was established in 1897 and
replaced the area’s early collection of wells, tanks, and distribution pipes. An electricity-generating
unit in the water plant was installed in 1914. The pumping station and electric light works and the
powerhouse were photographed around the turn of the twentieth century.
Figure 4: Water tower at the waterworks and power plant.
Source: “Palo Alto Water Works and Sewers,” Live Oak, 22 September 1897.
The 1908 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showed that Talula Avenue bisected the area between
Embarcadero Road and Hopkins Avenue that would become Rinconada Park.
1910s-1920s
The cooling pool of the power plant was converted into a public swimming pool ca. 1918 (Figure
5). The pool was exceedingly popular with both local residents and out-of-town tourists. Local
papers described the overcrowded pool scene and the adjacent “public automobile campground”
favored by weekend out-of-towners. Though some pool-goers chose to camp in their cars, most
visitors simply came for the day to enjoy a swim and a picnic.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 27 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
The pool and picnic grounds were sold by the University Realty Company to the City of Palo Alto in
1922 in exchange for a property at University Avenue and Waverly Street.12 The park was the second
established in Palo Alto after El Camino Park, adjacent to El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road,
which was acquired from Stanford University in 1914.
At the time of the acquisition, the power plant and waterworks structures were still present on the
site.13 The pool’s popularity and the associated automobile camping culture continued to grow. The
Daily Palo Alto Times reported: “Automobile parties from near and far may be found camped for a
day or a week or even longer in the broad fields surrounding the pool.”14 Official city programming
such as swim classes also attracted visitors to the public pool. Very quickly it became necessary to
charge admission fees to decrease attendance, and plans for a second pool were discussed.15 A ten
cent admission was charged, and reserved hours were established for women and children only.16
In 1924, the City sponsored a public contest to decide upon an official park name for the popular
“Waterworks Park.” The winning submission came from Mrs. Marion Star Alderton, who proposed
“Rinconada Park.”17 Rinconada, meaning “little corner” in Spanish, was accepted as an appropriate
name. The name was taken from Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Franciscquito, the Spanish
land grant that covered part of present-day Palo Alto.18
Figure 5: 1924 Sanborn Fire insurance map showing Walter Hays School and concrete plunge
surrounded on three sides with dressing rooms/showers. Source: San Francisco Public Library.
With the new name decided, the City pushed forward development plans that included six tennis
courts, three baseball diamonds, and a football field. Plans were also announced to convert the
12 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto: Palo Alto
Historical Association, 1993), 47.
13 Bobbie Riedel, “Happy Birthday, Rinconada Park! Let’s Celebrate!” Lucie Stern Community Center Neighbors
News, Summer 1997, vol. 1 no. 1.
14 “Palo Alto’s Great Summer Playground,” Daily Palo Alto Times, (July 15, 1922).
15 Ibid.
16 “Restrictions on Swimming Pool Enacted,” Palo Alto Times, (August 23, 1923).
17 “Balloting Begins Tonight in City’s Park Name Contest,” Palo Alto Times, (February 29, 1924).
18 “Rinconada Park,” City of Palo Alto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Henry_Hooverhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?Ne
wsID=118&TargetID=14
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 28 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
swimming pool into a children’s wading pool and to construct a deeper, larger tank for advanced
swimmers.19 The estimated cost of development was $72,330, and the estimated cost of maintenance
was $9,525 a year.20 A redwood grove on the park grounds on Hopkins Street, adjacent to the north
side of the swimming pool complex, was informally named “The Magic Forest” by Edith Ellery
Patton, principal of the Walter Hays School adjacent to the Rinconada Park grounds.
Because bond measures to finance the development of the park were defeated, the full 1924
development plan appears to have gone unfinished. Despite delays and cuts to the extensive
development plan, four tennis courts, a baseball diamond, and a children’s playground were
constructed.
Funding for the log cabin-style Girl Scout House was provided in 1922 by Lou Henry Hoover and
two other board members of the Palo Alto Girl Scout chapter (Figure 6). Hoover established the
first West Coast troop in Palo Alto and served as president of Girl Scouts of the USA from 1922 to
1925 and again from 1935 to 1937. According to the Girl Scouts of Palo Alto:
Lou Henry Hoover, the wife of President Herbert Hoover, had been active in Girl
Scouts on the East Coast and was the president of the National Council of Girl
Scouts. She grew up in California, went to San Jose State University (then known as
the San Jose Normal School) and then studied geology at Stanford University, where
she met her husband. She met Juliette Gordon Low, who founded the Girl Scouts
of America, at the end of World War I. When her husband moved the family to
Washington D.C., Hoover started her own troop of scouts, which included both
white and African American girls — a rare occurrence at that time.
Her historical files reveal that she was committed to the changing roles of women
and girls and the opportunities the movement provides. This desire to provide
expanded opportunities for young women everywhere led her to establish the Girl
Scout movement in the western part of the United States — starting in Palo
Alto. After her husband's presidency concluded, Hoover's family moved back to
California, and she brought the Girl Scouts with her. In later years, as she continued
in her devotion to scouting, she went on to serve as President of Girl Scouts USA.21
The Girl Scout House was completed in 1925, following designs by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge
Clark. Reputedly, local craftsman and laborers donated their skills to help build the structure. After
four years from concept to completion, Lou Hoover dedicated the building in June 1926 at its
original location near Melville Avenue where the Children’s Theater exists today.22 The building was
named the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House after the former First Lady who was its benefactor.
The building is the oldest active scout meeting house in the country.23
Also in 1925, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom donated the Children’s
Peace Fountain, designed by Robert Paine and placed near Middlefield Road, together with a grove
19 “Park Plan Approved by Commission,” Palo Alto Times, (March 5, 1924).
20 “City Engineer Lists Items of Expense in Project,” source unknown, likely Palo Alto Times, (May 20, 1924).
21 Girl Scouts of Palo Alto, “History: First in the West,” website accessed on 16 May 2017 from:
http://www.girlscoutsofpaloalto.org/
22 “First Lady Biography: Lou Hoover,” National First Ladies Library, website accessed on 2 May 2017 from:
http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=32
23 “Lou Henry Hoover House,” Girl Scouts of Northern California, website accessed on 2 May 2017 from:
https://www.gsnorcal.org/en/rental-properties/properties/lou-henry-hoover-house.html
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 29 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
of walnut trees and a lawn (Figure 7). The grove was described as an oval about 125 feet in length,
incorporating two oak trees.24 The fountain was installed in late 1926 but is no longer extant.
Figure 6: Lou Henry Hoover as national
president of the Girl Scouts of the USA, 1925.
Source: National Archives & Records
Administration.
Figure 7: Rendering of Children’s Peace
Fountain, which was installed in 1926.
Source: “Peace Fountain Dedicated, Children
Participate in Park Program, Mayor Accepts Gift
for City,” Palo Alto Times, 30 October 1926.
1930s
In 1932, one hundred flowering cherry trees were planted in the park. The San Jose Mercury-Herald
reported, “Soil taken from the famous Washington grove of cherry trees and sent to Palo Alto by
President Hoover was scattered by Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts at the base of each tree in the new
grove.”25
In the early 1930s, Lucie Stern (1871-1946), widow of Louis Stern who was a nephew of Levi Strauss,
and her daughter Ruth gifted the city with money to build what would be the Lucie Stern
Community Center. Lucie’s donation was for a community theater, a children’s theater, and a
children’s library. Ruth’s donation was applied to the development of an administrative wing and a
large swimming pool at the park.26
The theater was the first part of the Lucie Stern Community Center to be completed in 1934
following designs by Birge Clark. It appears as though master plan development of the park re-gained
momentum in 1934 following a donation from the Garden Club of Palo Alto.27 Blueprints by H. E.
Dekker were produced, titled “General Plan of Recreational Facilities and Beautification of Available
Area in Rinconada Park” (Figure 8). These plans, dated February 5, 1934, do not appear to have
been fully implemented. The “sunken garden” bowling green planned on Middlefield Road between
Melville Avenue and the Walter Hays School is known to have been eliminated. The Palo Alto Times
reported park advancements, including a second wing added to the Civic Theatre; two six-foot paths
laid out around the park, one from the swimming pool to the theater and the other branching off to
Middlefield Road; about 150 cherry trees transplanted from their original location to border the
24 “Paine’s Design Is Adopted for Peace Fountain,” Palo Alto Times, (March 12, 1925).
25 “Palo Alto Sets Out 100 Trees,” San Jose Mercury-Herald, (February 22, 1932).
26 “Rinconada Park,” City of Palo Alto.
27 “Club Provides Fund for Park Master Plan,” Palo Alto Times, (January 23, 1934).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 30 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
paths; ground leveled for a volleyball court; a picnic area in the redwood grove; and a Community
House proposed.28
Figure 8: “General Plan for Recreational Facilities and Beautification of Available Area in Rinconada
Park,” February 5, 1934. The site plan shows existing Girl Scout House, Community Theater, Walter
Hays School, four tennis courts, baseball diamond, playground, and swimming pool, along with other
park features that were not all implemented.
Source: City of Palo Alto.
Figure 9: Swimming pool in the 1930s, prior to construction of second pool.
Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
28 “Work Is Progressing Rapidly in Rinconada Park Development,” Palo Alto Times, (February 2, 1934).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 31 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 10: Rinconada Park tennis courts, ca. 1930s.
Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
The Girl Scout house was moved in 1936 to its present location to make room for Children’s
Theatre (Figure 11).
Figure 11: Girl Scout House behind the Girl Scout “Star Wagon,” 4 May 1939.
Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
From 1938-40, the swimming pool was converted to a children’s wading pool, and a long-awaited 75
by 100-foot lap pool was constructed. Between 30 and 40 Works Progress Administration (WPA)
workers were reportedly engaged on the job.29 The new adult pool, completed at a cost of $25,000,
and funded by Ruth Stern, was dedicated as the Lucie Stern Pool.30 The new pool and the converted
children’s pool were proclaimed to be the finest swimming facilities on the Peninsula.31
1940s
Construction of the Spanish Colonial Revival style Lucie Stern Community Center was completed in
1940, and included the main theater, Boy Scout headquarters, Children’s Theater, and the Children’s
Library (Figure 12– Figure 13). The library is the oldest freestanding children’s library in the
29 “Work Starts on Adult Pool at Rinconada,” no source, (April 12, 1939).
30 The Tall Tree (a Palo Alto Historical Association publication), vol. 21, no. 1. (September 1997)
31 “$25,000 Swimming Pool Will Be Completed May 4 (For Next Heat Wave),” no source, (April 13, 1940).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 32 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
country, and was designed by Birge and David Clark in the Spanish Colonial Revival style to match
the Lucie Stern Community Center. One of the unique architectural features was a fireplace tiled with
scenes from fairytales. Behind the library and abutting the rear of the Community Center, a “Secret
Garden” was designed within tall brick walls.32
Figure 12: Lucie Stern Community Center, ca. 1939. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Figure 13: Children’s Library, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
A February 1941 Palo Alto Department of Public Works site plan titled “Physical Layout Rinconada
Park” showed the completed Community Center and Children’s Library, a parking area with flag
pole, the Girl Scout House in its current location, and baseball field at center with a proposed
location for a museum overlapping with the baseball diamond (Figure 14). To the east, the park
included a small pump building in its current location, a field house, tennis courts with an adjacent
playground and game area, two swimming pools, and a parking area and driveway among open space.
32 “Children’s Library,” City of Palo Alto. Website accessed 2 May 2017 from:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/lib/branches/childrens.asp
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 33 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
At the far east, adjacent to Newell Road, was the gas center, power plant, and well. The Walter Hays
School property extended farther than it does today (Figure 15).
Figure 14: Palo Alto Department of Public Works site plan of “Physical Layout Rinconada Park,” 21
February 1941.
Source: City of Palo Alto.
Figure 15: Aerial view of Rinconada Park in 1941, looking southeast. Tennis courts, swimming pools,
grassy picnic area, and parking lot are visible.
Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 34 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
In 1941, a gift of $10,000 was made by the local Margaret Frost Foundation to fund construction of a
new facility for the Palo Alto Junior Museum (Figure 16 – Figure 17). The City of Palo Alto offered
a portion of land in Rinconada Park, and the museum found a permanent home. Almost immediately
after the building’s opening, a $12,000 grant was awarded to the Museum by the philanthropic
Columbia Foundation of San Francisco to build a new science wing.
Throughout the 1940s, various park improvements were also made, including the addition of park
benches purchased from the Golden Gate International Exposition in 1941, which were placed
around the swimming pools.33 The Girl Scout House received an addition in 1945 on the south side
of the building.34 The basketball court and horseshoe court were repaired in 1947, and the adult pool
was renovated in 1948.35 36
33 “City to Install Outdoor Benches,” no source, (May 7, 1941).
34 Palo Alto Architectural Review Board report, (January 19, 2017).
35 “City Council votes $765 for cage, ‘shoe courts,’” unknown source, (February 11, 1947).
36 Palo Alto Historical Association files.
Figure 16: Construction photos for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building. Source: Palo
Alto Historical Association.
Figure 17. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building, 1944. Source: Palo Alto Historical
Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 35 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Also in 1948, the fire station at 799 Embarcadero Road was constructed (Figure 18). It was designed
by architect Morgan Stedman of Stedman, Libby & Gray, and was the third station constructed in
Palo Alto, following one in downtown Palo Alto and a second in Mayfield.37 38
Figure 18: Fire Station No. 3, ca. 1950.
Source: Andrew Christensen, Jr., Palo Alto Historical Association.
Figure 19: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing, from west to east, Lucie Stern Community
Center, Girl Scout House, Junior Museum, Walter Hays School, a small clubhouse, swimming pool,
and concrete plunge with dressing rooms.
Source: San Francisco Public Library.
37 Garavaglia Architecture, “799 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA Historic Resource Evaluation-Draft,”
(August 1, 2016) p.21.
38 Note: the fire station has been altered in a number of ways, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, which are
outlined in detail in Garavaglia’s Historic Resource Evaluation report.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 36 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1950s
Additional park improvements were made through the 1950s. An activities house to store
recreational sports gear was constructed in 1953 (Figure 20).39
Figure 20: Activities house/public restroom building.
Source: “Open for Business,” Palo Alto Times, 22 June 1953.
Figure 21: Two swimming pools and previous bath house.
Source: Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, Pictorial Map of Palo Alto and the San Francisco Peninsula, ca.
1955.
Plans were produced in 1957 by the landscape architecture firm Eckbo, Royston and Williams of San
Francisco to modernize the park (Figure 22). This site plan is generally what is in place today. Their
plans called for eliminating the central parking area and putting a paved multi-use area in its place,
surrounded by landscaping. They also intended to integrate the park with the neighboring Walter
39 “Open For Business,” Palo Alto Times, (June 22, 1953).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 37 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Hays School play area to almost double total park area. Red rock paths were designed to wind
through the park, and the adult pool was renovated.40 In 1958, bond funds were used for a new tiny
tot and picnic area and relocation of walkways (Figure 23).41
In addition, a new $48,000 dressing room building for the pool was designed by architects Stedman
and Williams of Palo Alto (Figure 24). The building was situated on the opposite (south) side of the
pools from the old pool building. The building opened in 1958.42
Figure 22: Eckbo, Royston, and Williams plan for park improvements. Of note, there was a picnic area
west of the tiny tot playground and a picnic area at the southeast which are no longer extant.
Source: “You’ll Hardly Recognize the Park When This Job is Done, Palo Alto Times, 9 February 1957.
40 “You’ll Hardly Recognize the Park When This Job Is Done.” Palo Alto Times (February 9, 1957).
41 “Rinconada Park Tiny Tot Area,” Palo Alto Times, (June 6, 1959).
42 “New Rinconada Swimming Pool Building,” Daily Palo Alto Times, (May 22, 1957).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 38 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 23: New tiny tot playground installed as part of the park modernization. The larger playground
to the west was also developed.
Source: “Rinconada Park Tiny Tot Area,” Palo Alto Times, 6 June 1959.
Figure 24: Perspective drawing of the new swimming pool building.
Source: “New Rinconada Swimming Pool Building,” Daily Palo Alto Times, 22 May 1957.
1960s
Further developments were pursued in the 1960s. Master architect Edward Durell Stone was hired in
1966 to prepare master plans and perspective drawings for the improvements. Stone drew up plans
that included reflection pools, but the City Council decided not to approve the proposal, primarily
due to cost and safety concerns.43
The park was expanded in 1967 to include a half-block piece of land that the city owned across
Hopkins Avenue. In 1968, Edward Durell Stone, landscape architect Edward Durell Stone, Jr. &
Associates, and landscape architect Jack C. Stafford collaborated on a project to design a new electric
substation at the corner of Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue, construct a small pool service
building, improve heating and filtration systems for the swimming pool, design the new tennis courts,
and design a horseshoe pit, shuffleboard courts, benches, and a gazebo east of the swimming pool
43 “Committee Pares Estimate: Rinconada Park plans slashed,” Palo Alto Times, (November 8, 1967).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 39 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
complex.44 The eastern portion of the park was re-landscaped as part of this project, replacing a
straight asphalt driveway and butane plant building.45
The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo continued to grow in size and popularity, and in 1969, a
remodeled and expanded museum and zoo opened.
1970s
In 1970, three more tennis courts were constructed across Hopkins Avenue at Newell Road,
occupying the site of an abandoned electrical substation, which was relocated into the new structure
across Hopkins. The project was completed by the construction firm Hueting & Schromm of Menlo
Park and cost $39,927.
Figure 25: Additional land provided for park purposes and developed as tennis courts, 22 September
1970. Source: City of Palo Alto.
Irrigation was renovated in 1970. The Magic Forest was officially dedicated as such in 1971 in
memory of Edith Ellery Patton (1877-1970).46 The walkways were renovated in 1973 and the pools
were renovated in 1978.47
1980s
By 1980, park facilities were reported to include a jog run of ¼ mile, apparatus play area, picnic
facilities, tiny tot area, lighted tennis courts, swimming pools, and rest rooms.48 The adult swimming
pool was once again renovated in 1986 (Figure 26).49 The tennis courts were renovated in 1989.50
44 “Palo Alto Park Job On Again,” San Jose Mercury, (December 5, 1968).
45 “City Council summary,” Palo Alto Times, (November 21, 1967).
46 Letter to the Palo Alto City Council (March 13, 1971).
47 Peter Jensen, Palo Alto Planning Department, comments regarding project plans.
48 Voter, October 1980, pg. 23.
49 Palo Alto Historical Association files.
50 Peter Jensen.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 40 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 26: Rinconada Park’s two swimming pools in 1987. The children’s pool in the foreground was
originally used as a waterworks reservoir.
Source: “Happy Birthday, Rinconada Park,” Palo Altan, 28 March 1987.
1990s
In 1993 and 1998, the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre underwent two phases of additions designed by
architect John Northway. The first phase was completed by Jack and Cohen Builders Inc., and the
second phase by Fernandes and Sons General Contractors. The exterior stage, accessed from the
Secret Garden, was named the Roy A. Ginsburg Stage in honor of a generous donor.51
In 1997, $115,000 worth of new playground equipment was installed at the two playgrounds.
In 1998-99, the children’s pool (the old cooling pool of the power plant) was finally replaced at a cost
of $400,000. The new pool was designed in a cloverleaf shape with fountain features. A new pool
storage facility was constructed, and the adult lap pool was also renovated at this time.52
In 1999, the “Rinconada Oak” at the east side of the park was designated as Palo Alto Heritage Tree
#2. The Coast Live Oak is 52 inches in diameter, 75 feet in height, with a 120-foot crown, estimated
to have been planted ca. 1800.53
2000s
In 2004, a land swap occurred with Walter Hays Elementary School, which had unknowingly
expanded into Rinconada Park with portable school trailers.54
In December 2005, the first major renovation began on the Children’s Library. The building was
closed for two years and re-opened on September 29, 2007. Two new wings were built that add
nearly 2,500 square feet for programming and collections. The interior was upgraded, and the Secret
Garden was renovated.55
51 Plaques in the Secret Garden adjacent to the Children’s Theater addition.
52 City Manager’s Report, (February 22, 1999).
53 City Manager’s Report, (October 18, 1999).
54 “City Council votes for outright land swapping,” Palo Alto Daily News, (December 15, 2004).
55 “Children’s Library,” City of Palo Alto.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 41 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
2010s
From 2012 to 2017, a Long Range Development Plan has been under development and city review,
which includes proposed concept designs for park upgrades over the next 20 years.56
ARCHITECT / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BIOGRAPHIES
The following sections provides biographical information and discussion of the works of various
architects and landscape architects who contributed to the buildings and features at Rinconada Park.
Birge M. Clark
Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House (1926)
Lucie Stern Community Center (1934-40)
Children’s Library (1940)
Birge M. Clark was born on April 16, 1893 in San Francisco. His father had moved the family west
the year before from Syracuse, New York to take a position as head of the Art and Architecture
Department at Stanford University. Clark grew up around architecture as a child, and after high
school he went to Stanford to study art and engineering, graduating in 1914. In 1917, he graduated
from Columbia University with a graduate degree in architecture. That year he enlisted in the Army
and went to France, where he served as a captain and a company commander in the Balloon Corps
during World War I. Clark returned to Palo Alto in 1919, where he took part in the design of his
first commission, the Herbert Hoover House, on the Stanford campus. In 1922, he married Lucile
Townley and started a family that would eventually include four children. Clark taught architecture at
Stanford from 1950 until 1972. In 1980, he joined the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board. In 1984,
Clark retired from active participation in his firm Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom and on April 30,
1989, he died at the age of 96.57 All told, Birge Clark designed approximately 450 buildings in the
Bay Area. Many of his buildings have been listed in local registers and the National Register of
Historic Places.58
Birge Clark was the most active and influential architect to work in Palo Alto during much of the
twentieth century. He played an especially large role in the creation of Palo Alto during the boom
times of the 1920s. A proponent of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, which he called “Early
California,” Clark’s prolific output and stylistic consistency helped to give Palo Alto its current
character. Clark designed a variety of commercial, residential and industrial buildings, including 98
residences in Palo Alto and 39 on the Stanford University campus. Some of Clark’s most prominent
residential commissions in Palo Alto include all the houses on Coleridge Avenue between Cowper
and Webster Streets, the Dunker House at 420 Maple Street and the Lucie Stern residence at 1990
Cowper Street (1930). Well-known non-residential commissions include the former Palo Alto Police
and Fire Station at 450 Bryant Street (now the Palo Alto Senior Center), the Hamilton Avenue Post
Office (1932), the Lucie Stern Community Center (1936-40) and the 500 Block of Ramona Street
(1929).59
Clark’s business tapered off during the Depression and World War II, when little construction was
going on. Just as he was considering a new career, Clark contracted with Henry Kaiser to design the
56 Palo Alto Historical Association files.
57 “Birge Clark Dies at 96,” San Jose Mercury News, (May 2, 1989).
58 Rick Kushman, Palo Alto Historical Association website, “Birge Clark: The Man Behind the Blueprints,” (April
15, 1994). http://www.service.com/paw/Centennial/1994_Apr_15.1920SE.html.
59 Ward Winslow, Palo Alto, A Centennial History, (Palo Alto: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 42 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
massive steel mill in Fontana, California. He then designed the first Hewlett Packard building on
Page Mill Road (1942), and another at 1501 Page Mill Road in 1957.
David B. Clark
Children’s Library (1940)
David Clark, younger brother to Birge Clark, was born in 1905 in San Francisco. Historian Dave
Weinstein, author of Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area, wrote: “There are those who
think [Birge] Clark didn’t care much about “style” at all; that he was more interested in how a
building worked, and that David Clark- his brother and, from 1928 until he died in 1944, partner-
was the impetus behind the wrought iron and tile.”60 Perhaps the brothers’ best-known design was
the Sea Scout Base, constructed in 1940-41 and financed by Ruth Lucie Stern.61 They also designed
Palo Alto’s first junior high school, David Starr Jordan Middle School, which opened in 1937.62 The
pair is credited with designing a Pontiac showroom and service department, located at 780 High
Street. In addition to collaborations with Birge under the partnership Clark & Clark, David Clark is
known to have independently designed 155 Island Drive in Palo Alto.63
Dole Ford Thompson
Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (1941)
Dole Ford Thompson received his architecture degree from the University of Michigan in 1927. He
is known to have designed at least eleven buildings in Palo Alto, where he was based.64 Most of his
projects appear to be residences, but he also designed several small facilities buildings at Stanford
University, including the janitors’ quarters across from the men’s gymnasium.65
Kal H. Porter
Renovations to Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (1968-69)
Kal H. Porter was a San Jose-based architect who primarily designed school facilities. He worked
throughout Santa Clara County, including the New Inverness School in Cupertino, which featured all
moveable walls, and schools for the Jefferson School District in Daly City. He founded the firm
Porter, Jensen, Hansen, Manzagol Architects (now PJHM Architects) and Kal Porter, AIA and
Associates, which became PSWC Group.66
Edward Durell Stone
Pool equipment building and substation, gazebo, and shuffleboard and horseshoe courts (1968)
60 Dave Weinstein, Signature Architects of the Bay Area (Utah: Gibbs Smith, 2006) p. 72.
61 City of Palo Alto, “Staff Report: 2560 Embarcadero Road,” (August 6, 2008) p. 1.
62 “Birge Clark,” Palo Alto Online, (May 25, 1994).
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1994_May_25.CREATOR7.html
63 “Prominent Architects and Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage.
http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html#c
64 Page & Turnbull, “Historic Resource Evaluation: Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield
Road,” (July 20, 2016) p. 28.
65 “New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion,” The Stanford Daily, (August 15, 1935).
66 Past Consultants, San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement, (June 2009) p. 142.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 43 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Edward Durell Stone (1902-1978) was a highly prolific architect who made a substantial and lasting
impact on the built environment of mid-century America. Born in Fayetteville, Arkansas in 1902,
Stone attended the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University in 1925, followed by MIT in
1926. Traveling through Europe on a scholarship in 1927, he was strongly influenced by the work of
Mies Van Der Rohe and other European Modernists of the 1920s.67 Stone was among the early
practitioners of the International Style in the United States and gained attention for the influential
1937 Museum of Modern Art in New York City, designed with Philip Goodwin and considered to be
“at the time the most advanced architectural statement of European modernism in New York.”68
Stone continued in the modernist vein through the 1940s for residential as well as commercial and
public projects, “believing that its rigid structural system was well suited for the demands for
efficiency and economy.”69 However, Stone’s growing disillusionment with the strict minimalism of
the International Style in the 1950s led to an exploration of ornamentation, materials and texture that
resulted in an alternative modern aesthetic. His new approach is most clearly reflected in two
projects, the American Embassy in New Delhi, India (1953-59) and the United States Pavilion for the
Exposition Universelle et Internationale Bruxelles (1958), both of which brought Stone international
attention.70 Both projects used modern forms and materials, but incorporated decorative yet
functional elements like grillework and deep overhangs for sun shading that also created more
formal, elegant and approachable designs. From these and other projects in the 1950s that returned
decoration and historical references to buildings, Stone was among the architects to define what
would become New Formalism.
Stone’s New York-based firm grew significantly in the 1950s and 1960s with branches in Northern
and Southern California. Among the West Coast projects in this period are the New Formalist Stuart
Pharmaceutical Company Plant and Office Building (1958) and Caltech’s Beckman Auditorium
(1963) in Pasadena, and the Edward T. Foley Center at Loyola Marymount University (1964) in Los
Angeles, as well as the textile block campuses of Stanford Medical Center, Palo Alto (1955) and
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont (1959). Stone also designed Palo Alto’s main library and (now
demolished) Mitchell Park branch, as well as Palo Alto’s Civic Center in the late 1960s.71 When Stone
finished his Palo Alto designs he returned to New York, but the small office he established in Palo
Alto remained and thrived.
Starting about 1962 and through his retirement in 1974, Stone also worked on larger commissions
like skyscrapers, corporate offices, capitols and universities where his alternatives to the glass-and-
metal buildings moved away from the delicate grillework to explore other modern interpretations of
classical forms, shapes, and layouts.72 The projects from this period reflected continued explorations
of alternatives to the International Style with designs that may not fit neatly in the current definition
of New Formalism but represent Stone’s desire for permanence, beauty, and timelessness. Perpetual
Savings and Loan in Beverly Hills with its arched concrete shading wall and the Venetian-influenced
Huntington Hartford Gallery (2 Columbus Circle, 1964) in New York are among these examples.
Among other local, national, and international projects of this period are:
67 Ibid., 21-22., Paul Goldberger, “Edward Durell Stone Dead at 76; Designed Major Works Worldwide,” New
York Times, August 7, 1978.
68 Christopher Gray, “Streetscapes: Edward Durell Stone and the Gallery of Modern Art, at 2 Columbus
Circle,” New York Times, October 27, 2002.
69 Mary Anne Hunting, Edward Durell Stone: Modernism’s Populist Architect, (New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 2013), p. 15.
70 Hunting, p. 80-89.
71 “Busman’s Holiday: Edward Durell Stone & Palo Alto,” The Tall Tree (2011).
http://www.pahistory.org/talltree/TT-2010-11.pdf
72 Hunting, p.18, 122-124.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 44 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
▪ John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Washington D.C. (1962)
▪ General Motors Buildings, New York City, NY (1964)
▪ Von KleinSmid Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (1965)
▪ Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan (1965)
▪ PepsiCo World Headquarters, Purchase, NY (1967)
▪ Ahmanson Center, Los Angeles (1970), also for financier Howard Ahmanson
Stone’s experimentation with alternative forms of modernism was one of several reactions to the
International Style at the time, and was among the more commercially successful and popular forms
of modern architecture. Although he received stinging criticism from the architectural establishment
that saw his work as kitschy, populist, and decorative, Stone’s talents and innovation as a designer
merits his status as a master architect.73 His body of work and New Formalism has increasingly
gained recognition with Pasadena’s Stuart Pharmaceutical Company Plant and Office Building listed
in the National Register in 1998 and the Von KleinSmid Center at USC listed as a City of Los
Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument in 2013.
Edward Durell Stone, Jr. & Associates
Landscaping by the gazebo (1968)
Edward Durell Stone, Jr. (1932-2009), was the son of Edward Durell Stone. Stone attended Yale
University, where he received a degree in Architectural Design. He served three years as a pilot in the
U.S. Air Force before pursuing landscape architecture. Earning a graduate degree in Landscape
Architecture from the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University, Stone began his career in
1959. In 1960, he founded Edward Durell Stone, Jr. & Associates, and began to collaborate on
projects with his father. The firm enjoyed considerable success and expanded to become one of the
nation’s most respected landscape architecture firms. Stone was elected a Fellow of the American
Society of Landscape Architects and received the 1994 ASLA Medal.74
Jack C. Stafford
Landscaping by gazebo (1968)
Jack C. Stafford (1921 – 1998) is a notable landscape architect whose collections are today held at the
University of California at Berkeley’s Environmental Design Archives. The following is the
biographical entry from the Jack Stafford Collection:
Jack Stafford was born in Casper, Wyoming. He attended the University of
Wyoming for three years before joining the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War
II. As a pilot, Stafford flew numerous missions in the South Pacific and earned a
Silver Star medal and seven separate oak leaf clusters for his outstanding service.
After leaving the Air Corps in 1944, he moved to California with his wife,
Bonnie. Stafford soon enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley,
graduating with a B.S. in Landscape Architecture in 1950. He began working with
Thomas Church and took on management of Church’s projects on the San Mateo
peninsula south of San Francisco. He later established his own “Peninsula” practice
focusing on residential designs for homes in Palo Alto, Woodside and
73 Hunting, p. 110-114.
74 “Paid Notice: Deaths. Stone, Edward Durell, Jr.,” The New York Times, (July 14, 2009).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 45 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Hillsborough, among other cities. Stafford eventually became a member of the
Architectural and Site Review Board in Woodside. He earned numerous awards for
his work, including several design awards from landscaping contractors.75
Jack Stafford is primarily known for his residential landscapes and was particularly active in
Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, Woodside, Palo Alto, Atherton, and Portola Valley. He
also completed several commercial landscape designs and some instances of municipal landscape
planning for Menlo Park and Woodside.76 Stafford donated plans for the Woodside Library Native
Plant Garden in 1970.77
Eckbo, Royston, and Williams
Multi-use bowl, renovation of recreation field, southeast lawn area, new walking paths, picnic table area, and
playgrounds (1957-59)
The California-based landscape architecture firm Eckbo, Royston & Williams was established in 1945
by Garrett N. Eckbo, Robert N. Royston, and Edward A. Williams. Brothers-in-law Eckbo and
Williams formed a partnership in Los Angeles that operated from 1940 until 1945, with Royston
joining as a third partner in 1945. Prior to joining his brother-in-law, Williams served as a consultant to
the San Mateo County Planning Commission on park design and public works.78 Eckbo, Royston &
Williams’ firm began designing landscapes in the San Francisco Bay Area before expanding to
southern California. The firm quickly became one of the country’s leading landscape architecture firms,
completing hundreds of residential, church, commercial, educational and office landscapes. In the
1950s, they worked on a number of larger scale projects that combined landscape design with urban
planning. This included designs for parks and institutional landscapes.
The firm’s northern California commissions include the roof garden of the Fairmont Hotel in San
Francisco (1946) and residences for the following clients: Marshall Hale in Hillsborough
(1947), Joseph Allen Stein in Mill Valley (1947), C.I. Stafford in Los Altos (1948), Mrs. Frederick
Faust in Berkeley (1949), Walter Von Der Lieth in Marin County (1949), A.M. MacDermott in
Larkspur (1949), L.L. Olds in San Rafael (1949), and Jack Wilsy in San Rafael (1949).79 They also
worked on Dwinelle Plaza at UC Berkeley (1950), Gragg Park in Houston, Texas (1956), the Main
Library and Civic Center in Palo Alto (1954-58) and Mayfield Park (1957).80
The partnership was amicably dissolved in 1958. Eckbo engaged in progressively larger commissions
throughout the 1960s, including the strategic open space plan for the entire state of California.81 Together,
Eckbo and Williams took on a new partner, landscape architect Francis Dean, to form Eckbo, Dean
& Williams. During that time, the company worked on the San Francisco Diamond Heights Housing Project
#3 (1962) and the Fulton Mall in Fresno (1964). In 1964, Eckbo formed the prolific firm of Eckbo, Dean,
75 “Jack Stafford,” University of California Environmental Design Archives.
http://archives.ced.berkeley.edu/collections/stafford-jack
76 “Records of Jack Stafford,” Online Archive of California.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4n39s1hk/admin/#descgrp-1.3.12
77 “Woodside Library Native Plant Garden: History,” Woodside Atherton Garden Club.
http://woodsideathertongc.org/cgi-bin/p/awtp-custom.cgi?d=woodsideatherton-garden-club&page=9513
78 Peter Walker, Melanie Louise Simo, Invisible Gardens, (Boston: MIT Press, 1996) p. 133.
79 Carey & Co., “Historic Resource Evaluation for One Spring Street,” (March 28, 2013).
http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2012.0267D.pdf
80 The Cultural Landscape Foundation, “Eckbo, Royston & Williams,” website accessed on 17 May 2017 from:
https://tclf.org/pioneer/eckbo-royston-williams
81 Marc Treib, “Thomas Church, Garrett Eckbo, and the Postwar California Garden,” National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/suburbs/Treib.pdf
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 46 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Austin and Williams (EDAW). In 1979, Eckbo left EDAW and established Garrett Eckbo and Associates,
and ultimately, Eckbo Kay Associates.82 Eckbo also served as head of the Landscape Architecture
Department at University of California, Berkeley from 1963 to 1969.
Meanwhile, Royston joined landscape architect Asa Hanamoto, and their partnership ultimately
developed into Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey (RHAA) in 1979. RHAA is still in existence and
has offices in San Francisco and Mill Valley.22 Royston became known for his constructivist play
sculptures in tot lots for neighborhood parks, such as Krusi Park in Alameda, CA; for the Standard Oil Rod
and Gun Club in Richmond, CA; and for Mitchell Park, in Palo Alto.83 He also worked on College Terrace
Park (1962) in Palo Alto. Royston completed designs for St. Mary’s Square in San Francisco, Bowden Park
in Palo Alto, Central Park and the Santa Clara Civic Center in Santa Clara, and Cuesta Park in Mountain
View. His vast body of work includes residential, commercial, educational, civic and transportation
projects.84
Stedman, Libby & Gray / Stedman & Williams
Fire station by Stedman, Libby & Gray (1948)
Pool building by Stedman & Williams (1957-58)
Morgan Stedman (1905-1978) was born in Brooklyn, New York and received his BA in Graphic Art
from Stanford University before taking Masters-level coursework at Harvard University. While at
Stanford, he studied under architect Arthur B. Clark, father of Palo Alto’s most well-known architect
Birge Clark. He moved to Palo Alto in 1921 and obtained his registration as an architect in California
in 1945. He practiced in Palo Alto within the partnerships Sumner & Stedman (with Charles Kaiser
Sumner) and Stedman, Libby, and Gray (with Furber Merrill Libby and Eugene Mills Gray). His first
partner, Charles Kaiser Sumner, is a well-known regional architect who came to California in 1906
after working for the prominent New York firm of McKim, Mead and White. Stedman appears to
have partnered with Sumner from the late 1930s until 1941; the work during this period is notably
eclectic in style, based on the revival styles popular during the Interwar period. It is likely that
Stedman was influenced by Sumner’s focus on the relationship between the garden and the house.
During World War II, Stedman worked with Kaiser Industries in Santa Clara County, in Los Angeles,
and at a submarine base in New London, Connecticut.85 Palo Alto Fire Station No. 3 was designed
by Stedman, Libby & Gray around 1947. Stedman is known to have designed 2000 Bryant Street,
Palo Alto (1930) and 351 La Questa Way, Woodside (1948).86 He also designed the Hogle Japanese
teahouse with rice-paper doors for Oak Meadow, an eleven-acre property in Los Altos Hills.87
Stedman primarily completed residential designs, and became known for signature design details
including “low ceilings with exposed beams, built-in cubbyholes and cabinets, a unique fireplace,
Arts-and-Craft tile shower stalls, and wrought iron fixtures.”88
82 “Garret Eckbo,” Los Angeles Conservancy. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/garrett-eckbo
83 Walker and Simo, p. 141.
84 “Inventory of Robert N. Royston Collection,” Online Archive of California.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt8b69q7nx/admin/
85 Garavaglia Architecture, “799 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA Historic Resource Evaluation-Draft,”
(August 1, 2016) p. 21.
86 Architectural and Site Review Board, Woodside: Meeting Minutes. November 4, 2013.
https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/351_la_questa_way_attachments.pdf
87 Lauren McSherry, “Los Altos Hill lands large gift: Environmental pioneer Lois Crozier Hogle donates 11-
acre property,” Los Altos Town Crier (January 25, 2005).
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/sections/news/215-news-briefs/30154-J26789
88 “Palo Alto: Spanish Revival by Stedman,” Redfin.
https://www.redfin.com/blog/2007/05/palo_alto_spanish_revival_by_stedman.html
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 47 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
By the late 1940s, his projects were sometimes in conjunction with his wife, landscape architect
Kathryn Imlay Stedman (1900-1997). Kathryn worked with Joseph Eichler in the 1950s, designed the
landscaping for Eichler’s personal residence, and was published in Life Magazine. Some of the joint
projects of the Stedmans were profiled within House Beautiful. By 1954, Stedman had entered the
partnership of Stedman & Williams (with Russell E. Williams). Three houses on the Stanford
University campus were designed by Morgan Stedman on Governor’s Avenue, Santa Teresa, and
Searsville Road. 89 He designed the clubhouse building at the Palo Alto Little League field. Stedman’s
identified residential work in Palo Alto and around Stanford included new construction, additions,
and renovations that were reflective of revival styles. He also designed a shopping center and a
medical office in Palo Alto, neither of which remain today.90
In 1959, Morgan and Kathryn Stedman were among the founding members of the Committee for
Green Foothills, and were open space preservation advocates for the foothills west of the Palo Alto
area.91 Stedman was a member of the Palo Alto Planning Commission from 1947-1954, and served as
Chair from 1951-1953. Additionally, he served as Vice President of the American Institute of
Architects (AIA), Coast Valley Chapter.92
Russell E. Williams (1909- 1998) was born in Milbank, South Dakota. He received his Bachelor of
Architecture from the University of Minnesota in 1934. He moved to New York City and began
working for prominent industrial designer Norman Bel Geddes, and then with architect Morris
Sander on the New York World’s Fair in 1939. In 1940, Williams joined the Ellerbe architectural firm
in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he primarily worked on hospitals and clinics designs, including the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. By 1948, he moved to Los Angeles, where he worked for
industrial designers Raymond Loewy and Henry Dreyfuss. In 1951, Williams designed the residence
at 2040 Louis Road in Palo Alto. He worked with Wurster, Beranrdi & Emmons in San Francisco
and then formed the architectural partnership Stedman & Williams in Palo Alto in 1954. Williams
received NCARB certification by 1955, and became a member of AIA, Coast Valley Chapter, in
1955. In 1963, he became a Senior Planner at Stanford University. He later joined James W. Fong &
Associates in Palo Alto as a corporate partner until his retirement in 1976.93
89 Jason Yotopoulos, “Application for Historic Assessment by Palo Alto Historic Resources Board: Palo Alto
Little League Baseball Field at 3672 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto,” (September 29, 2014).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44234.
90 Garavaglia Architecture, p. 21.
91 https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/351_la_questa_way_attachments.pdf
92 “Henry Morgan Stedman,” PCAD. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/578/
93 “Williams, Russell Emanuel,” Monterey County Herald, (September 11, 1998) p. B3.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 48 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
V. EVALUATION
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant
architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be
listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and
National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can
also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.
The California Register of Historical Resources follows nearly identical guidelines to those used by
the National Register, but identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically.
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant
under one or more of the following criteria.
• Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the
cultural heritage of California or the United States.
• Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important
to local, California, or national history.
• Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master,
or possess high artistic values.
• Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the
potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local
area, California, or the nation.
The following section examines the eligibility of Rinconada Park for listing in the California Register.
As the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Fire Station #3 have been evaluated in separate Historic
Resource Evaluation reports, they will not specifically be discussed in this evaluation.
Criterion 1 (Events)
Rinconada Park was the second public park developed in the City of Palo Alto. Originally formed
from the conversion of a waterworks tank to a swimming pool in 1922, the park developed over time
through a number of construction projects and landscape design plans. The original pool is no longer
extant, replaced in 1997 by the current children’s wading pool. Other early features of the park, such
as the tennis courts and recreation field, have been redesigned over time. The “Magic Forest”
redwood grove, which appears in park plans from 1934, and the lap pool, installed in 1938-40, are
somewhat notable for their relatively early development; however, they are not individually
historically significant as landscape or recreation features and do not contribute to a larger significant
cultural landscape. Thus, the park as a whole does not appear to represent its early role in the
development of public recreation spaces in Palo Alto such that it would be significant under
Criterion 1 (Events).
Several buildings at Rinconada Park do appear to be individually significant under California Register
Criterion 1 as resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of local or regional history. The Lucie Stern Community Center (Offices, Main Theater, Boy
Scouts headquarters, original Children’s Theater) and related Children’s Library are significant as a
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 49 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
complex because they provided important community gathering spaces and amenities; the theaters
are unique within Palo Alto and in the area.
In addition, the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House is individually significant under Criterion 1 as
the first recreation-related building to be constructed at Rinconada Park in 1925, and as the oldest
active scout meeting house in the country. The bird bath in the garden to the west, dedicated to
“Edward Philip Sheridan, Scout, 1886-1925” contributes to the building’s significance since it relates
to scouting from the same time period in which the building was constructed.
Criterion 2 (Persons)
Rinconada Park does not appear to have been associated with persons important to the history of
Palo Alto or the State of California to the extent that the park as a whole would be considered
eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons).
The Lucie Stern Community Center is individually significant in association with Lucie and Ruth
Stern, local benefactors who funded the development. Lucie and Ruth had inherited a portion of the
Levi Strauss clothing empire from Lucie’s husband, Louis Stern. They were major benefactors of
community amenities in Palo Alto, but are best known for their contributions to the Community
Center at Rinconada Park.
The Girl Scout House is also individually significant for its association with its namesake and
benefactor, Lou Henry Hoover. Hoover established the first West Coast troop in Palo Alto and
served as president of Girl Scouts of the USA from 1922 to 1925 and again from 1935 to 1937. The
Girl Scout House was constructed while she was actively involved in both Palo Alto Girl Scouting
and at the national level of the Council. The Girl Scout House represents Lou Henry Hoover’s
significant contribution to the Girl Scouts, particularly since Palo Alto was the first location
established on the West Coast.
Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design)
Rinconada Park as a whole does not appear to be significant under Criterion 3
(Architecture/Design), as it was designed and altered incrementally and in a series of master plan
campaigns. Portions of the park landscape, such as the paved parking lot and adjacent landscaping
between the Lucie Stern Community Center and the JMZ, appear to have been installed in the 1940s
as those buildings were constructed and opened. The landscaping in the interstitial spaces does not
appear particularly intentionally designed, and the plantings have likely been updated throughout the
years, including at the demonstration garden adjacent to the Girl Scout House.
Most of the park as it appears today is largely the responsibility of the well-known mid-century
landscape architecture form of Eckbo, Royston, and Williams. They designed the amoebic multi-use
bowl, renovated the recreation field and southeast lawn area, designed new walking paths, picnic
table areas, and playgrounds in a master plan developed in 1957 and completed in 1959. Their plan
did not extend to the western part of the park mentioned above. The Rinconada Park landscape re-
design occurred at the end of the partnership, before the three designers went on to form new
partnerships. The partnership of Eckbo, Royston, and Williams is best known for their landscape
projects for private residences and other civic projects such as the main library and civic center in
Palo Alto. Their project at Rinconada Park does not appear to have been recognized in publications
and trade journals at the time. While the amoebic-shaped multi-use bowl and associated light fixtures
were very mid-century landscape features, the other changes to the park are not particularly
noteworthy. Royston was recognized for his pioneering tot playground designs, but the equipment
installed in the late 1950s has since been replaced. His most recognized public park projects are
discussed in Modern Public Gardens: Robert Royston and the Suburban Park (Reuben Rainey, and J.C.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 50 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Miller, 2006), but Rinconada Park is not mentioned in the book. Thus, the 1957-59 landscape plan
does not appear significant in association with Eckbo, Royston, and Williams or for its design.
Similarly, the prominent modernist architect Edward Durell Stone designed the new substation
building, gazebo, and landscaping at the northeast end of the park with his son, Edward Durell
Stone, Jr., and Jack Stafford in 1968-69. Compared to his other recognized works in Palo Alto and
around the country, Stone’s contribution to Rinconada Park does not best represent his body of
work. The same can be said for Edward Durell Stone, Jr. and Jack Stafford, the latter of whom is
best known for his residential work.
Likewise, the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House, while designed by prolific Palo Alto architect
Birge Clark, is a rustic cabin-style building that does not best represent Clark’s penchant for the
Spanish Colonial Revival style for which he is best known. The building was constructed in the mid-
1920s during a time when Clark was quite busy in Palo Alto, and thus does not represent a
particularly early or unique period in his career, either. It has also been moved and was added onto in
1945, changing the original orientation and design to an extent so that it cannot be found significant
for its architecture.
The pool building by Stedman & Williams represents the mid-century period and architectural style.
It is a relatively modest building, however, and does not appear to rise to a level of significance such
that it would be considered individually eligible for listing in the California Register. Stedman &
Williams are best known for their residential projects reflective of revival styles. The design of the
Rinconada pool building does not appear to have been recognized and published in architectural
journals at the time.
While the park as a whole and many of its buildings and features are not significant for design, the
Lucie Stern Community Center and associated Children’s Library, as well as the landscaping
surrounding that complex (lawn, brick walkways, and turn-around driveway at Middlefield and
Melville; two landscaped courtyards, and the Secret Garden) that were built between 1936 and 1940,
do appear to be individually significant under California Register Criterion 3. This complex of
Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings, integrated garden courtyards, and surrounding landscaping
represent a type, period, and method of construction and are also excellent examples of the work of
Birge Clark and David Clark.
Criterion 4 (Information Potential)
Rinconada Park was not evaluated for significance under Criterion 4 (Information Potential).
Criterion 4 generally applies to the potential for archaeological information to be uncovered at the
site, which is beyond the scope of this report.
INTEGRITY
In order to qualify for listing in the National Register or the California Register, a property must
possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. Integrity is
defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity by the survival of certain
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as
“the ability of a property to convey its significance.”94 The process of determining integrity is similar
for both the National Register and the California Register. The same seven variables or aspects that
define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used
94 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the
California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, September 4,
2001), p. 11; National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), p. 44.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 51 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the National Register and the California Register.
According to the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, these
seven characteristics are defined as follows:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure,
and style of the property.
Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the
landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).
Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the
historic property.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period in history.
Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.
Of the buildings and designed landscape elements that have been identified as significant under
California Register criteria in the previous section, all retain sufficient integrity to represent their
significance. The Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s Library, Secret Garden, and other
related landscaped areas have been minimally changed over time. They retain the same location,
design (aside from replacement of some plantings and construction of the outdoor children’s theater
stage), general setting at Rinconada Park in a residential neighborhood, materials (aside from
replacement of some plantings), workmanship, and the feeling and association of a ca. 1930s Spanish
Colonial Revival style theater and community center complex. Likewise, the Girl Scout House retains
overall integrity; while it was moved early on, it has been located in its current position since 1936
and retains integrity of general design (aside from the 1945 addition of the garage), setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. It is still able to convey its significance in association with Lou
Henry Hoover and the establishment of the Girl Scouts since it continues to be used by the Girl
Scouts today.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 52 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
The following buildings and features appear significant and eligible for listing in the California
Register:
Name of Building/Feature California Register Eligibility
Lucie Stern Community Center Complex Site
▪ Community Center (offices, theater, children’s
theater, Boy Scout headquarters)
▪ Children’s Library
▪ Secret Garden
▪ Brick walkways
▪ Turnaround driveway
▪ South courtyard
▪ Lawn to the west of the Community Center
▪ Brick wall west of the Children’s Theater
Criteria 1, 2, and 3
Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House Site
▪ Girl Scout House
▪ Paved area and garden immediately west of the
building’s main entrance
▪ Bird bath
Criteria 1, 2
Figure 27. The Lucie Stern Community Center Complex site is colored peach (Note: numbers 3, 43,
47, and 48 do not contribute, as they are later additions). The Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House
site is colored blue.
Source: Open Street View Map, edited by author.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 53 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VI. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the proposed project for project-specific and cumulative impacts on the
environment, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) is state legislation (Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.),
that provides for the development and maintenance of a high quality environment for the present
day and future through the identification of significant environmental effects.95 For public agencies,
the main goals of CEQA are to:
• Identify the significant environmental effects of projects; and either
• Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or
• Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible.
CEQA applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval from state or local
government agencies. “Projects” are defined as “…activities which have the potential to have a
physical impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the
issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps.”96 Historical and
cultural resources are considered to be part of the environment. In general, the lead agency must
complete the environmental review process as required by CEQA. The basic steps are:
1. Determine if the activity is a “project;”
2. Determine if the project is exempt from CEQA;
3. Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the Project and determine
whether the identified impacts are “significant.” Based on the finding of significant impacts,
the lead agency may prepare one of the following documents:
a) Negative Declaration for findings of no “significant” impacts;
b) Mitigated Negative Declaration for findings of “significant” impacts that may
revise the Project to avoid or mitigate those “significant” impacts;
c) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for findings of “significant” impacts.
Status of Existing Building as a Historic Resource
A building may qualify as a historic resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are:
▪ A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code
SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
▪ A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources
Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must
treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates
that it is not historically or culturally significant.
95 State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013,
http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary.html.
96 Ibid.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 54 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
▪ Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals
of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s
determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally,
a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the
resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
(Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
▪ The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical
resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an
historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Pub. Resources
Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an
historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
In general, a resource that meets any of the four criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(a) is considered to be a historical resource unless “the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates” that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.”97
Based on analysis and evaluation contained in this evaluation, the Rinconada Park in its entirety was
not found to be eligible for listing in the California Register under any criteria. However, the Lucie
Stern Community Center complex site (including the Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s
Library, as well as the landscaping surrounding that complex—lawn, brick walkways, and turn-
around driveway at Middlefield and Melville; two landscaped courtyards; and the Secret Garden) was
found significant under Criterion 1 for its role in providing community gathering spaces and
amenities, Criterion 2 in association with benefactors Lucie and Ruth Stern, and Criterion 3 for its
Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings and integrated landscape design. The Lou Henry Hoover
Girl Scout House site was found significant under Criterion 1 for its early role in scouting and
Criterion 2 in association with Lou Henry Hoover. Meeting the criteria for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources, the Lucie Stern Community Center complex site and the Lou Henry
Hoover Girl Scout House are considered qualified historic resources under CEQA, following the
third of the categories listed above.
The subject parcel, which encompasses all of Rinconada Park, is designated in City of Palo Alto
records as a Category 1 property because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1
designation does not apply to any other building or facility within the park. The Lucie Stern
Community Center is considered a qualified historic resource under CEQA under the second of the
categories listed above.
Determination of Significant Adverse Change Under CEQA
According to CEQA, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.”98 Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an
historic resource would be materially impaired.”99 The significance of an historical resource is
materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those
physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” and that justify
97 Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.
98 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b).
99 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(1).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 55 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in a local register of historical resources
pursuant to local ordinance or resolution.100 Thus, a project may cause a substantial change in a
historic resource but still not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined by
CEQA as long as the impact of the change on the historic resource is determined to be less-than-
significant, negligible, neutral or even beneficial.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed work at Rinconada Park includes a project-level and program-level component: 1)
replacement of the existing Junior Museum and Zoo building with a new facility, and 2)
implementation of the Rinconada Long Range Plan (LRP). Implementation of the plan is anticipated
to take up to 20 years. The JMZ project is one portion of the LRP.
Junior Museum and Zoo and Adjacent Parking Project
The project includes the demolition of the existing 9,000 sf, one and partial two-story museum
building and construction of a new one-story 15,033 sf museum and educational building in the same
location as the existing building. The new building would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum
height of 27 feet. Amenities in the building would include educational classrooms and educational
courtyard, a teacher area, general storage area, a small exhibit maintenance shop, indoor exhibits, and
restroom facilities. The main JMZ entrance plaza would lead into the lobby and reception area of the
JMZ building. New walkways near the new JMZ building would connect with parking lot
improvements, Middlefield Road, and the Rinconada Park.
The project would also construct a new open-air netted enclosure and supporting outdoor animal
management area. The 17,415 sf, 36-foot tall netted enclosure would be accessible from the JMZ
building. The netted enclosure, referred to as “Loose in the Zoo,” would feature animal exhibits with
landscaped features. The netting would allow for exhibition birds to fly about the enclosure.
Parking Lots Redesign
The existing parking lots located adjacent to the JMZ and between the Lucie Stern Community
Center and Girl Scout House would be reconfigured to improve traffic flow, maximize parking
spaces, improve landscaping and lighting, and increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Vehicular
access to the Girl Scout House’s existing garage would be maintained, and the bird bath dedicated to
a Boy Scout leader is anticipated to be relocated near the Boy Scout building in the Lucie Stern
Complex.
One of the existing driveway curb cuts on Middlefield Road to the parking lot would be eliminated,
and a bus drop off zone in front of the JMZ would be provided. The reconfigured parking lots
would be connected for automobile traffic and provide improved pedestrian pathways to the many
surrounding facilities. The components include:
▪ Dedicated bike and pedestrian entrance at intersection of Kellogg and Middlefield
(separated from vehicular entrance), raised pathway through the parking lot and direct
connection to pathways in the park;
▪ Safe pedestrian pathway through parking lot leading to JMZ entry plaza defined by
colored concrete;
▪ New, single vehicular entrance mid-block on Middlefield Road and new vehicular
entrance onto Hopkins;
▪ Fire truck and bus access through the parking lot with dedicated driveway onto Hopkins
(no standard vehicular use);
100 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(2).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 56 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
▪ Two-way circulation through the parking lot with dedicated drop-off and loading zone
near JMZ entrance and park arrival plaza;
▪ Efficient stormwater treatment system: pervious paving, shallow treatment area, and
connection to storm drainage line in utility corridor;
▪ 50 percent shading requirement met by existing and new trees; and
▪ Increase in bicycle parking (including racks at the entrance to JMZ and the park) and
increase in long-term bicycle storage for staff.
The current demonstration garden on the west side of the Girl Scout House would be relocated
within the park near Walter Hays Elementary School as part of the parking lot renovations.
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
The Rinconada Park LRP was developed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department to guide
the future development and renovation of Rinconada Park. The LRP includes the following
components that are not already covered in the JMZ project:
Entry Plazas, Internal Pathways, Access, and Alternative Transportation Improvements
Two main pedestrian entry plazas would be developed at the west and east entrances to the park. The
west entrance to Rinconada Park, north of the proposed JMZ building, would be improved with an
entry plaza that would showcase the large existing trees and provide elements such as an enhanced
entry noting the point of arrival, way-finding signage, and pedestrian scale art work.
A formalized entry would be located at the east edge of the park on Newell Road, north of Fire
Station #3, and would include improvements such as an enhanced entry, reduction of turf with
accent drought tolerant plantings, and way-finding signage.
The existing pathways in the park are asphalt and in need of renovation. Pathways within the park
would be expanded and enhanced. The project includes multimodal circulation improvements to
connect the site to the surrounding neighborhood. Perimeter sidewalks and on-street parking would
be expanded and enhanced along Hopkins Avenue and Embarcadero Road. Bike racks would be
provided throughout the park. An enhanced shuttle stop would replace the existing stop on Newell
Road to promote the use of alternate forms of transportation to the park. A new bus drop off area
would be installed on Middlefield Road to provide a direct access to the park amenities from the
many school programs that utilize the park, reducing the impact of bus parking on Hopkins Avenue
and in the adjacent parking lots.
West Playground Area/Girl Scout Picnic Area/Large Turf Area
The two existing playgrounds in Rinconada Park are proposed to be combined into one playground
located in a defined children’s play area at the west end of the park in close proximity to the JMZ and
Walter Hays School access points. An expansion of the existing picnic area would be part of the new
playground configuration. Adult exercise equipment would be provided at the eastern edge of the
playground. The existing trees in this area would be protected and maintained. The area next to the
Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House would serve public use but cater to use by the Girl Scouts, with
a fire pit, food preparation table, benches and picnic tables in a small gathering area.
The existing turf area in the central portion of the park, south and east of the picnic areas, is highly
used and would be maintained in its current condition to the extent possible. This area is currently
utilized for community gatherings such as outdoor performances, movies and concerts and is used by
the community services department for youth activities and camps. The turf area will continue to
maintain the current schedule of use and programming.
Street and Access Improvements on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, and Embarcadero Road
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 57 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
New sidewalks and crosswalks aligning with adjacent sidewalk curb cuts are proposed along Hopkins
Avenue. Additionally, new head in parking stalls are proposed to be installed along Hopkins Avenue,
west of the tennis courts. The City is also exploring shifting the sidewalks along Embarcadero Road
northward to provide additional street parking and a turning lane.
The topped redwood trees along Newell Road would be replaced with small scale trees that would
not interfere with the overhead power lines. In the area gained from the removal of the redwoods,
new plantings and a meandering pathway pulled away from Newell Road will provide a connection
from the park’s main east entry to the crosswalk at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road.
An enhanced shuttle stop would also be located along this new pathway. Artwork panels are
proposed to replace the existing fencing currently screening the electric substation located at the
northeast corner of the park when replacement of the fence is required.
Tennis Court Area
The existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue would be shifted to the west to allow for a
pedestrian access route along the east side of the courts. The proposed shifting of the courts would
occur when the tennis courts paving receive full renovation and replacement.
Magic Forest
The area consists of over 60 mature redwoods which would be preserved. Minimal
improvements to this area would include a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and into
the park, a new sidewalk at the curb edge to provide pedestrian access along Hopkins Avenue,
picnic tables and benches, and a proposed children’s natural play area.
Pool Area Improvements
The existing pool deck areas would be expanded on the east and west sides for lounging, supervision,
and aquatic events. The area east of the pool and adjacent to the electric substation would include a
new picnic area, and seating. Other amenities such as a bocce ball court will also be considered when
the area is renovated. On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving, shaded
seating areas, and artwork to support the pool area activities and concessions, would be installed.
The LRP includes a full renovation of the existing 4,700 sf pool building, which includes locker
rooms, offices, and pool storage. In addition to the renovated building, a 2,300 sf wing would be
added to the west end to include a public restroom, activity room and possible concession area. The
restroom would replace the existing restroom building currently located in the same area.
Arboretum
The priority of this area in the LRP is to maintain the native and heritage oak trees for years to come.
The current pathways would be upgraded throughout this area with a permeable material and new
oak trees will be planted to preserve the oak stand.
Special Event Area (Concrete Bowl)
The existing concrete bowl space south of the pool area will maintain its current use as a small
performance space with the same seating capacity. Small outdoor events are currently occurring at
the bowl; therefore, this is not a new use on the site. The hours of operation and number of events
scheduled for the bowl would continue. The project proposes to install a new stage to replace the old
undersized stage. The stage would be oriented to the southwest, away from the nearest residential
uses. Coordination with Walter Hays Elementary School to utilize the bowl for educational
gatherings is also proposed as part of the LRP.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 58 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
JMZ Phase II: Outdoor Zoo Building
The JMZ project includes a proposed future two-story 3,600 sf building adjacent to the zoo area.
The building, which would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum height of 25 feet, would consist
of a classroom on the first floor and a butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The massing and
material of the future Outdoor Zoo Building would be similar to the proposed JMZ building.
With construction of both Phase I and Phase II of the JMZ redevelopment, the project would result
in a net increase of 9,600 sf of floor area compared to the existing JMZ facility. It is anticipated that
build out of Phase II may not be completed for up to ten years.
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS: JMZ PROJECT
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
(Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated
goal of making possible “a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions
while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural
values.”101 The Standards are used by Federal agencies in evaluating work on historic properties. The
Standards have also been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing
proposed rehabilitation work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The
Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of
substantial changes to historic resources. Projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a
regulatory presumption that they would have a less-than-significant adverse impact on a historic
resource.102 Projects that do not comply with the Standards may cause either a substantial or less-than-
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource.
The Standards offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties:
Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four distinct treatments are
defined as follows:
Preservation: The Standards for Preservation “require retention of the greatest amount of
historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have
evolved over time.”
Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation “acknowledge the need to alter or add to a
historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building’s historic
character.”
Restoration: The Standards for Restoration “allow for the depiction of a building at a
particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and
removing materials from other periods.”
Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction “establish a limited framework for
recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive
purposes.”
Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. In this case, the
proposed JMZ and parking lot project scope is seeking to alter and add to a park that includes
historic resources. Therefore, the Standards for Rehabilitation will be applied.
101National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, accessed online 19 November
2013, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/.
102 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3).
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 59 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Standards for Rehabilitation
The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation to the proposed JMZ
project. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by Cody Anderson Wasney Architects,
dated 27 April 2017, as submitted to Page & Turnbull by the City of Palo Alto. The analysis focuses
on the project as it relates to the Lucie Stern Community Center site and the Lou Henry Hoover Girl
Scout House site.
Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
Discussion: The proposed project does not change the overall recreational uses of Rinconada Park,
including the historic uses of the Lucie Stern Community Center and Girl Scout House.
Therefore, as planned, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1.
Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be
avoided.
Discussion: As proposed, the project involves the demolition and new construction of the JMZ, as well
as reconfiguration of the parking lot to the south and east of the Lucie Stern Community Center and
to the west of the Girl Scout House. The JMZ building and site are sufficiently separated from the
Girl Scout House across a paved and planted “park arrival plaza” that the new construction will not
directly affect the character of the historic building.
The redesigned parking lot would not affect the Lucie Stern Community Center site; the pavement
would occupy a smaller footprint compared to the current paving at the south side of the complex,
adding more lawn and plantings to the building’s setting. While the driveway approach would be
removed from Middlefield Road to the south, a pedestrian circulation approach would replace the
driveway. Thus, the view on approach to the south courtyard would remain. The historic building
complex and landscaped courtyards and lawn to the west would not be affected.
The parking lot would be enlarged at the northeast, coming closer to the primary façade of the Girl
Scout House. The space of the “front yard” of the Girl Scout House would change, as the paving
would extended across the full length of the building’s façade. The area would be paved with an
organic concrete pathway, new oak trees, bark mulch ground cover, and native grass plantings. The
bird bath would be moved to a location near the Boy Scout Building at the Lucie Stern Community
Center. This part of the project would affect the spatial relationship between the Girl Scout House
and the bird bath, dedicated to “Edward Philip Sheridan, Scout, 1886-1925,” which contributes to
the building’s significance since it relates to scouting from the same time period in which the building
was constructed. However, moving it to the Boy Scout Building appears to be an appropriate
alternate location given the feature’s significant associations.
Most of the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2. However, because the
landscaped spaces and spatial relationships that contribute to the Girl Scout House will be altered,
this portion of the proposed project is not fully in compliance with Standard 2.
Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other
historical properties, will not be undertaken.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 60 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Discussion: The proposed project seeks to build a modern museum and zoo complex that does not
attempt to copy or use conjectural features related to the rustic cabin style of the Girl Scout House or
the Spanish Colonial Revival style of the Lucie Stern Community Center.
Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3.
Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
Discussion: As designed, the proposed project would not affect any changes to the Lucie Stern
Community Center site and the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House site that have acquired historic
significance in their own right. Some changes have taken place since the Girl Scout House was
constructed—in particular, it was moved to its current location 10 years after it was constructed. No
changes have been made to the Community Center that have acquired significance in their own right,
although newer additions to the Children’s Theater and Children’s Library are compatible with the
historic buildings and are included within the historic site.
While the majority of the proposed project does not affect any elements that have acquired
significance in their own right, the northeast portion of the proposed reconfigured parking lot does
affect the “front yard” setting and relationship between the Girl Scout House and bird bath. While
most of the project is in compliance with Standard 4, this aspect of the proposed project does not
fully comply with Standard 4.
Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Discussion: As proposed, the project would not directly alter the historic buildings at Rinconada Park.
All distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques will be preserved.
Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5.
Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture,
and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
Discussion: As designed, the proposed project does not involve replacement of deteriorated or missing
features at either the Lucie Stern Community Center or the Girl Scout House.
Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6.
Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Discussion: As designed, the proposed project does not introduce chemical or physical at either the
Lucie Stern Community Center or the Girl Scout House. Therefore, the proposed project is in
compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 61 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measure will be undertaken.
Discussion: If any archaeological material is encountered during this project, construction should be
halted and the City of Palo Alto’s standard procedures for treatment of archeological materials
should be adhered to. If standard procedures are followed in the case of an encounter with
archaeological material, the proposed project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 8.
Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment.
Discussion: As discussed in Standard 2, the proposed project would demolish the existing non-historic
JMZ and construct a new building in its place. The new construction would not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic Lucie Stern Community
Center site or the Girl Scout House site.
The new building would be distinctly of its time, but would be compatible with the nearby Girl Scout
House in the use of vertical wood siding, wood slats on steel frames at the primary entrance, and
wood slat ceilings under the eaves. The color palate would use earth tones of natural wood, dark red
and gray standing metal seam roofs, and brownish lithocrete on the site wall that are compatible with
the brown-painted wood Girl Scout House and the clay tile roofs of the Lucie Stern Community
Center buildings. The proposed design for the new JMZ also takes a cue from the Lucie Stern
Community Center courtyards in the use of a U-shaped building that wraps around a central
courtyard. It references both the Community Center and the Girl Scout House in its use of cross-
gable roofs with pronounced end gables.
At the north end of the JMZ site, a one-story wall would enclose an outdoor classroom and the
“Loose in the Zoo” enclosure would be 36’-0” in height. The wall and netted enclosure would be
separated from the Girl Scout House by the park arrival plaza and walkway, and would not affect the
integrity of the Girl Scout House.
As mentioned previously, the proposed parking lot redesign would not affect the Lucie Stern
Community Center, but would have some effect on the integrity of the Girl Scout House’s
environment.
Therefore, the proposed project is partially in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 9.
Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such
a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.
Discussion: If the proposed new JMZ and parking lot improvements were hypothetically removed in
the future, the Lucie Stern Community Center site would be unimpaired. The landscape/hardscape at
the primary façade of the Girl Scout House would remain altered, affecting the form and integrity of
the building’s environment to an extent, but the bird bath could be moved back to reintroduce the
relationship between the object and building.
Overall, the project would be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 10.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 62 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
ANALYSIS OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA
As the above analysis demonstrates, the proposed project as currently designed will comply fully with
six Standards (1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8) and will partially comply with four Standards (2, 4, 9, and 10). The
partial compliance for all four Standards relates to the changes proposed to the parking lot in front of
the Girl Scout House. According to Section 15126.4(b)(1) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA), if
a project complies with the Standards, the project’s impact “will generally be considered mitigated
below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” Because the proposed JMZ project at
Rinconada Park does not comply with all of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, further analysis is
required.
While the proposed project includes removal of some landscape features, particularly at the “front
yard” of the Girl Scout House, the significance of the historic building (California Register Criteria 1
and 2) would continue to be represented through the building. The building’s T-shaped form, board-
and-batten siding, multi-lite wood sash windows, solid and board-and-batten wood doors, stone
chimney, and cross-gable roof would not be altered and would continue to physically convey the
building’s significance. The bird bath would be moved within the park to the Boy Scout Building.
This is an appropriate treatment for the bird bath. Overall the project maintains sufficient historic
character for the Girl Scout House to continue to convey its historic significance, which justifies its
eligibility for listing in the California Register. Thus, the JMZ project does not cause a significant
impact to historic resources at Rinconada Park.
ANALYSIS OF LONG RANGE PLAN PROGRAM-LEVEL IMPACTS UNDER CEQA
As the two identified historic resources at Rinconada Park are located adjacent to the JMZ project,
the scope of the Long Range Plan across the remainder of the park has limited effect on the Lucie
Stern Community Center and the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House. Alterations would be made
to the picnic area behind the Girl Scout House in order to add a fire pit, moving the group picnic
area to the southeast corner of the building. The Children’s Play Area would also be altered to
incorporate an older children’s play area, a shared tot play area, and adult exercise area. In general,
these changes retain the general uses that currently exist on the east side of the Girl Scout House. A
number of trees will remain in the vicinity, so that the Girl Scout House retains its rustic “woodsy”
setting. Overall, the LRP maintains the historic character of the Girl Scout House and its
environment, which justifies its eligibility for listing in the California Register. Thus, the LRP does
not cause a significance adverse impact to historic resources at Rinconada Park.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as follows:
“Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts.
a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a
number of separate projects.
b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other
closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 63 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant projects taking place over a period of time.103
The JMZ project and the LRP together comprise potential cumulative impacts. No other new
construction is anticipated at the site for the foreseeable future. The JMZ project and LRP, in
combination with recently completed projects, do not compound or increase environmental impacts.
Overall, the proposed project does not appear to contribute to any cumulative impact as defined by
CEQA.
103 CEQA Guidelines, Article 20, subsection 15355.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 64 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VII. CONCLUSION
Rinconada Park was the second public park developed in the City of Palo Alto. Originally formed
from the conversion of a waterworks tank to a swimming pool in 1922, the park developed over time
through a number of construction projects and landscape design plans. Major projects took place in
1936-40 to build the Lucie Stern Community Center; 1938-40 to build an adult lap pool; 1957-59 to
redesign a number of features at the park and construct a new pool building; 1967-68 to redesign the
northeast corner of the park; and 1997-99 to replace playground equipment, install a new children’s
wading pool, and construct an outdoor stage for the Children’s Theater.
The park in its entirety was not found to be eligible for listing in the California Register under any
criteria. However, the Lucie Stern Community Center complex site (including the Lucie Stern
Community Center, Children’s Library, as well as the landscaping surrounding that complex—lawn,
brick walkways, and turn-around driveway at Middlefield and Melville; two landscaped courtyards;
and the Secret Garden) was found significant under California Register Criterion 1 for its role in
providing community gathering spaces and amenities, Criterion 2 in association with benefactors
Lucie and Ruth Stern, and Criterion 3 for its Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings and integrated
landscape design. The Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House site was found significant under
Criterion 1 for its early role in scouting and Criterion 2 in association with Lou Henry Hoover.
For these reasons, the Lucie Stern Community Center complex site and the Lou Henry Hoover Girl
Scout House site at Rinconada Park qualify as historic resources for the purposes of review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A proposed project for new construction at the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo was evaluated
according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project was
determined not to fully comply with all of the Standards, due to changes to landscape features that
contribute to the Girl Scout House. Nevertheless, the project does not appear to cause a significant
impact on the Girl Scout House according to CEQA. Likewise, the Rinconada Long Range Plan
does not cause any impacts to historic resources at the park, and there are no identified cumulative
impacts to historic resources.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 65 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VIII. REFERENCES CITED
PUBLISHED WORKS
California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to
the California Register of Historic Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4
September 2001.
Hunting, Mary Anne. Edward Durell Stone: Modernism’s Populist Architect. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 2013.
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997.
National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties,
http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/.
National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997.
Walker, Peter and Simo, Melanie Louise. Invisible Gardens. Boston: MIT Press, 1996.
Winslow Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto
Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993.
PUBLIC RECORDS
Palo Alto City Manager’s Report. February 22, 1999.
Palo Alto City Manager’s Report. October 18, 1999.
Past Consultants. San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement. June 2009.
City of Palo Alto Development Center
City of Palo Alto. “Staff Report: 2560 Embarcadero Road.” August 6, 2008.
“Comprehensive Plan.” City of Palo Alto, section L-3.
Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,”
Dames & Moore.
Garavaglia Architecture. “799 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA Historic Resource Evaluation-
Draft.” August 1, 2016.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Palo Alto, Calif., 1945.
Page & Turnbull. “Historic Resource Evaluation: Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451
Middlefield Road.” July 20, 2016.
Palo Alto Historical Association
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 66 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Palo Alto Architectural Review Board report. January 19, 2017.
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS
“Balloting Begins Tonight in City’s Park Name Contest.” Palo Alto Times. February 29, 1924.
“Birge Clark Dies at 96.” San Jose Mercury News. May 2, 1989.
“Club Provides Fund for Park Master Plan.” Palo Alto Times. January 23, 1934.
“Committee Pares Estimate: Rinconada Park plans slashed.” Palo Alto Times. November 8, 1967.
“City Council Votes for Outright Land Swapping.” Palo Alto Daily News. December 15, 2004.
Goldberger, Paul. “Edward Durell Stone Dead at 76; Designed Major Works Worldwide.” New York
Times. August 7, 1978.
Gray, Christopher. “Streetscapes: Edward Durell Stone and the Gallery of Modern Art, at 2
Columbus Circle.” New York Times. October 27, 2002.
“New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion.” The Stanford Daily. August 15, 1935.
“New Rinconada Swimming Pool Building.” Daily Palo Alto Times. May 22, 1957.
“Open For Business.” Palo Alto Times. June 22, 1953.
“Palo Alto’s Great Summer Playground.” Daily Palo Alto Times. July 15, 1922.
“Palo Alto Sets Out 100 Trees.” San Jose Mercury-Herald. February 22, 1932.
“Palo Alto Park Job On Again.” San Jose Mercury. December 5, 1968.
“Paid Notice: Deaths. Stone, Edward Durell, Jr.” The New York Times. July 14, 2009.
“Paine’s Design Is Adopted for Peace Fountain.” Palo Alto Times. March 12, 1925.
“Park Plan Approved by Commission.” Palo Alto Times. March 5, 1924.
“Restrictions on Swimming Pool Enacted.” Palo Alto Times. August 23, 1923.
Riedel, Bobbie. “Happy Birthday, Rinconada Park! Let’s Celebrate!” Lucie Stern Community Center
Neighbors News, Summer 1997, vol. 1 no. 1.
“Rinconada Park Tiny Tot Area.” Palo Alto Times. June 6, 1959.
The Tall Tree (a Palo Alto Historical Association publication), September 1997, vol. 21, no. 1.
Voter. October 1980.
“Work Is Progressing Rapidly in Rinconada Park Development.” Palo Alto Times. February 2, 1934.
“You’ll Hardly Recognize the Park When This Job Is Done.” Palo Alto Times. February 9, 1957.
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 67 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
INTERNET SOURCES
“A Flash History of Palo Alto.” Quora.
http://www.quora.com/How-is-the-historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA \
Architectural and Site Review Board, Woodside: Meeting Minutes. November 4, 2013.
https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/351_la_questa_way_att
achments.pdf
“Busman’s Holiday: Edward Durell Stone & Palo Alto.” The Tall Tree. 2011.
http://www.pahistory.org/talltree/TT-2010-11.pdf
Bowling, Matt. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto
History.com.
http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php.
“Birge Clark.” Palo Alto Online. May 25, 1994.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1994_May_25.CREATOR7.html
“Children’s Library.” City of Palo Alto.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/lib/branches/childrens.asp
“Depression, War, and the Population Boom.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health.
http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html.
“First Lady Biography: Lou Hoover.” National First Ladies Library.
http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=32
“Garret Eckbo.” Los Angeles Conservancy. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/garrett-
eckbo
“History of Stanford.” Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/
“Inventory of Robert N. Royston Collection.” Online Archive of California.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt8b69q7nx/admin/
“Jack Stafford.” University of California Environmental Design Archives.
http://archives.ced.berkeley.edu/collections/stafford-jack
Kushman, Rick. “Birge Clark: The Man Behind the Blueprints.” Palo Alto Historical Association.
(April 15, 1994) http://www.service.com/paw/Centennial/1994_Apr_15.1920SE.html.
“Lou Henry Hoover House.” Girl Scouts of Northern California.
https://www.gsnorcal.org/en/rental-properties/properties/lou-henry-hoover-house.html
McSherry, Lauren. “Los Altos Hill lands large gift: Environmental pioneer Lois Crozier Hogle
donates 11-acre property.” Los Altos Town Crier (January 25, 2005).
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/sections/news/215-news-briefs/30154-J26789
Historic Resource Evaluation Rinconada Park
Draft Palo Alto, California
June 8, 2017 68 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
“Palo Alto: Spanish Revival by Stedman.” Redfin.
https://www.redfin.com/blog/2007/05/palo_alto_spanish_revival_by_stedman.html
“Prominent Architects and Builders.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage.
http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html#c
“Records of Jack Stafford.” Online Archive of California.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4n39s1hk/admin/#descgrp-1.3.12
“Rinconada Park.” City of Palo Alto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Henry_Hooverhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/dis
playnews.asp?NewsID=118&TargetID=14
State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 5 June 2017,
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf.
Treib, Marc. “Thomas Church, Garrett Eckbo, and the Postwar California Garden.” National Park
Service. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/suburbs/Treib.pdf
Weinstein, Dave. “Signature Style: Birge Clark/California Colonial/Palo Alto’s Favorite Architect
Mixed Romance with Realism.” San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SIGNATURE-STYLE-Birge-Clark-California-
2576779.php
“Woodside Library Native Plant Garden: History.” Woodside Atherton Garden Club.
http://woodsideathertongc.org/cgi-bin/p/awtp-custom.cgi?d=woodsideatherton-garden-
club&page=9513
417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211Los Angeles, California 90013
213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax
2401 C Street, Suite BSacramento, California 95816
916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax
417 Montgomery Street, 8th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94104
415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING & RESEARCH
PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY
www.page-turnbull.com
FF=29.0
FF=29.0
FF=29.0
FF=29.0
TOS=27.18
ADA RAMP
FF=28.3
FF=28.2
EXIT DOOR=27.65
PHASE 2
FF=29.0
FF 27.5
PHASE 2
FF 28.5
FF=29.0
FH
(E) FH
(E) BFP
(N) FH
FIR
E
RIS
E
R
UTILITY CORRIDOR
RECONFIGURED
PARKING LOT
HOPKINS AVENUE
UTILITY COORIDOR
EXT
E
R
I
O
R
N
E
T
T
E
D
ENC
L
O
S
U
R
E
RELOCATE (E)
JMZ SIGN
(N) CURB CUT FOR
TRASH DUMPSTERS
T
R
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
(N) TRANSFORMER
(E) TRASH ENCLOSURE
(E) BRICK PATH
LP
LP
(N) CROSSWALK
(BY CITY)
(E) BRICK PATH
(N) BFP
(E) BOBCAT EXHIBIT
(E) BFP (E) FH
(N) FH
H
A
Y
ST
O
R
A
G
E
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
PROJECT SCOPE
BOUNDARY A
SCHOOL
PARKING LOT
LUCIE STERN
COMMUNITY
CENTER
GIRLSCOUT
BUILDING
CHILDREN
PLAY AREA
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
KEL
L
O
G
G
A
V
E
N
U
E
OUTDOOR ANIMAL
MANAGEMENT AREA
PARK ARRIVAL
DAWN REDWOOD
COURTYARD
PROPOSED
MUSEUM &
EDUCATION
BUILDING
PHASE 2
RINCONADA
PARK
WALTER HAYS
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
SECONDARY
ENTRY
EXTERIOR NETTED
ENCLOSURE
PROPOSED
LOOSE IN THE
ZOO
NET
T
E
D
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
+ (27.39)
+ FFE 29.1
+ FFE 29.1
+ FFE 29.0
FS 29.0 +
FS (27.18) +
FS 29.0 +
FS 27.0 +
FS 28.5 +
+ FS 28.0
FS 26.6 +
+ FFE 28.5FUTURE BUILDING
(N) TRANSFORMER
42"
T
A
L
L
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
+ TC 28.5
BIKE PARKING
LOW
E
R
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
A
B
O
V
E
CLIM
A
T
E
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
E
D
STO
R
A
G
E
COL
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
H
U
B
DAT
A
LON
G
T
E
R
M
BIKE
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
BIKE
CLA
S
S
R
O
O
M
FS (27.75) +
FS 29.0 +
FS (27.1) +
FS (25.05) +
3,653 S.F.NON PERMEABLE
+ FFE 28.0
FS 27.75 +
+ FFE 28.25
+ FFE 28.25
6,245 S.F.
NON PERMEABLE
6,002 S.F.
NON PERMEABLE 6,002 S.F.
NON PERMEABLE
7,212 S.F.
NON PERMEABLE
2,701 S.F.NON PERMEABLE
#253
#255
#260 #261#262 #263
#280
#281
#279
#283#282
#286
#287
#288
#289
#304
#305
#306
#307
#308
#309
#310
#311
#339
#312
#313
#314
#317#341
#342#343
#340
#315
#316
#327
#328
#326
#325
#322
#323#324#318
#329
#330
#331
#332 #333
#334
#335
#336
#321
#320
#348 #344
#345#346
#347#349
#350
#351
#352
#354
#353
#364
#362
#363
#361
#355
#356
#357
#358#359
#360
#364
#365
#366
#367
#368
#369 #370
#278 #277
#285
#284
#371
Tree Legend
#XXX
#XXX
#XXX
TREES TO REMAIN
TOTAL: 29
TREES TO BE REMOVED
TOTAL: 39
PROTECTED TREES REMOVED: 0
TOTAL CANOPY: 23,963 SQ.FT.
TREES TO TRASNPLANTED
TOTAL: 2 - (1) OAK #284 AND (1) REDWOOD #285
Tree Assessment Plan - Junior Museum and Zoo Renovation Project Scale: 1" = 30'
#XXX NATIVE OAK TREE TO REMAIN
TOTAL: 12
imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology
Page & Turnbull
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO
1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
[15188]
PREPRARED FOR:
DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES
JULY 20, 2016
REVISED
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 2
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2
II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS ............................................................................ 3
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .................................................................................... 3
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 3
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ..................................................................... 3
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .................................................................................................. 3
HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT (2004) ....................................................................................................... 4
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 5
SITE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
EXTERIOR ............................................................................................................................................ 6
INTERIOR ........................................................................................................................................... 12
OUTDOOR ZOO .............................................................................................................................. 13
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................ 14
IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 16
PALO ALTO HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 16
HISTORY OF JUNIOR MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................................ 19
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO ...................................................................................... 20
CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY ................................................................................................. 22
OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS ........................................................................................................... 28
ORIGINAL ARCHITECT & BUILDER .................................................................................................. 28
V. EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 30
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL
RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 30
INTEGRITY ......................................................................................................................................... 32
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 33
VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 34
VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 35
PUBLISHED WORKS .......................................................................................................................... 35
PUBLIC RECORDS ............................................................................................................................. 35
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS .................................................................................................... 35
INTERNET SOURCES......................................................................................................................... 36
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 1 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION
This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) Part 1 has been prepared at the request of David J. Powers
& Associates for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo in Palo Alto. The building was constructed
in 1941 and is located within Rinconada Park on the north side of Middlefield Road (Figure 1 and
Figure 2). The property is officially addressed at 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California 94301
(APN 003-46-006).
Figure 1. Parcel map of Rinconada Park and 1451 Middlefield Avenue (outlined in red).
Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 2 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 2. Detail of subject parcel map showing the current footprint of 1451 Middlefield Road in pink.
Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull.
SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION
Constructed in 1941, the building at 1451 Middlefield Road has continually housed the Palo Alto
Junior Museum and Zoo. The institution of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo was founded in
1934 and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th
century. The building at 1451 Middlefield Road has undergone significant alterations over its history
and the building has been found not to be eligible for listing the National Register or California
Registers under any criteria.
METHODOLOGY
This Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 provides a summary of previous historical surveys and
ratings, a site description, historic context statement, and an evaluation of the property’s individual
eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of
Historic Places. This report discusses the institutional history of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and
Zoo as well as the physical history of the building at 1451 Middlefield Road which was constructed
to house the museum in 1941.
Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including
the Palo Alto Public Library, Palo Alto Historical Association, City of Palo Alto Planning and
Community Environment Department, Online Archive of California, and various other online
sources. Information from Page & Turnbull’s previous historical assessment in 2004 also informed
this report. Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit in February 2016 to review the existing conditions
of the property and formulate the descriptions and assessments included in this report. All
photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull in February 2016 unless otherwise noted.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 3 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS
The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to
the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building at 1451 Middlefield Road.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive
inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service
and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural,
engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.
1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually
or as part of a registered historic district.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant
architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be
listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and
National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can
also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.
The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on
those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
individually or as part of a registered historic district.
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE
Properties listed by, or under review by, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are
assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) between “1” and “7” to establish
their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register
or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR). Properties with a
Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National
Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of “3”
or “4” appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to
support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be
locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of “6” are not
eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource either has
not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation.
1451 Middlefield Road is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System
(CHRIS) database with a status code. The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara
County that lists the Status Codes was in April 2012.
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY
The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important
individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is
associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The inventory is
organized under the following four Categories:
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 4 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These
buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States.
These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the
overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious
works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate
stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some
exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an
architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials,
proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent
changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
1451 Middlefield Road is not currently listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category.
The subject parcel, which encompasses all of Rinconada Park, is designated in City of Palo Alto
records as a Category 1 property because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1
designation does not apply to any other building or facility within the park.
HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT (2004)
In 2003, Page & Turnbull conducted a historical assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and
Zoo facility as part of the Conservation Assessment Program grant awarded by Heritage
Preservation. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the potential architectural and historical
significance of 1451 Middlefield Road and to evaluate whether or not the building contributed to the
significance of the adjacent Lucie Stern Community Center.
Page & Turnbull’s report included a building description, brief history of the Palo Alto Junior
Museum and Zoo, and a preliminary assessment of the building’s individual and contributing
significance. The report concluded that the building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be
individually eligible for listing in a local, state, or national register, and that the building does not
contribute to the significance of the Lucie Stern Cultural Center. The report also indicated that in the
event of a proposed project at the site, the building’s significance under National and California
register Criterion A/1 (events) should be further investigated.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 5 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
SITE
The building at 1451 Middlefield Road, which houses the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, stands
along the southwest edge of Rinconada Park, an 18,257-acre parcel in the Community Center
neighborhood (Figure 3). A large surface parking lot separates the building from the Lucie Stern
Community Center and the Girl Scout Hall. A wood-post and wire fence encloses a lawn, open
“science yard” used for activities, and covered sitting area near the primary entrance at the northwest
side of the building. The outdoor zoo is located northeast of the museum building. A tall wood slat
fence surrounds the zoo area and animal enclosures, separating it from the parking lot and nearby
playground.
Originally constructed in 1941, the one-and-two-story building was designed in a vernacular Ranch
style. The wood frame building sits on a concrete foundation and occupies approximately 7,051
square feet. The walls are clad in textured stucco. The building is composed of a U-shaped
arrangement of two main volumes with central, connecting hyphens. The northwest and southeast
volumes have side-gabled roofs. A two-story tower capped with a hipped roof is located within the
northwest volume. Between the building’s two main volumes is an enclosed courtyard with a flat
roof. The gable and hipped roofs are clad with wood shakes and the central flat roof is covered with
built-up roofing.
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of 1451 Middlefield Road, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (outlined
in red). North is up. Source: Google Maps, 2016; edited by Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 6 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
EXTERIOR
Primary (Northwest) Façade
The primary façade faces northwest onto a small lawn and a parking lot. The façade is composed of
two one-story, side-gabled wings extending from the two-story tower, all a part of the northwest
volume (Figure 4). The north (left) wing contains a band of three wood-frame sliding windows, set
within the upper portion of the wall (Figure 5).
The two-story tower contains the building’s primary entrance at center, accessed by a wide concrete
landing with stairs and a ramp. A fully glazed, wood-frame double door leads into the entrance lobby.
The door is flanked by two-lite fixed wood-frame sidelights. Two square stucco-clad posts are
located on either side of two-story ground floor. The second story of the tower projects slightly from
the main plane of the façade. The lower half is clad in flush horizontal wood siding and features a
full-width wood sign reading “Palo Alto Junior Museum.” The upper half is clad in wood lap siding
and contains three double-hung wood-frame windows with wood-frame screens. A metal spire sits at
the peak of the hipped roof (Figure 6).
The south (right) wing is approximately twice the length of the north wing. The left portion of the
wing contains a bay of seven almost full-height fixed wood windows. The eighth bay contains a solid
wood door with fixed transom (Figure 7 and Figure 8). Right of these windows is a band of three
wood-frame sliding windows, set in the upper portion of the wall, and a solid wood door with fixed
transom (Figure 9).
This façade terminates in overhanging roof eaves with exposed rafter tails, simple fascia, and metal
gutters.
Figure 4. Primary (northwest) façade of 1451 Middlefield Road, view looking southeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 7 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Southwest Façade
The southwest façade faces Middlefield Avenue and a lawn with a large hedge (Figure 10). The west
(left) portion of the façade, part of the northwest volume, contains no fenestration and terminates in
an end gable (Figure 11). A small wood vent is located below the gable peak. At center is a
connecting hyphen that features a side-gabled roof, which contains paired solid wood doors with
Figure 5. Windows at the north wing of the
primary façade, view looking northeast.
Figure 6. Two-story tower and primary entrance
at primary façade, view looking southeast.
Figure 7. South wing of primary façade, view
looking southwest.
Figure 8. Detail view of window bay at south
wing of primary faced, view looking northeast.
Figure 9. Southernmost portion of the south wing
at primary façade, view looking southeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 8 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
metal vents. Above this entrance is a band of five windows. The fixed wood-frame transom window
above the entrance is flanked by metal-frame awning windows (Figure 12). The east (right) portion
of the façade, part of the southeast volume, contains one wood door east of center accessed by a low
concrete landing, and a wood vent below the gable peak. This portion of the façade terminates in an
end gable, similar to the west portion of the façade (Figure 13). The entire southwest façade has a
wide overhanging roof eave, which features exposed rafter tails and a simple fascia.
Rear (Southeast) Façade
The rear (southeast) façade faces the paved parking lot of the adjacent Walter Hayes Elementary
School. This façade of the one-story southeast volume contains no fenestration (Figure 14 and
Figure 15). A continuous side gable extends the full width of the façade. The north portion of this
volume is an addition that features a slightly taller gable roof. The gable peaks of the two roofs are
parallel but off-set by a few feet (Figure 16). The shallow roof eave at the rear façade contains a
simple stucco soffit and metal gutter. Several full-height vertical cracks were observed in the stucco.
Figure 10. Southwest façade, view looking
northeast across Middlefield Road.
Figure 11. Left portion of the southwest façade,
view looking northeast.
Figure 12. Connecting hyphen, wood double
doors, and band of windows, view looking
northeast.
Figure 13. Right portion of the southwest façade,
view looking northeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 9 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
The second story of the two-story tower contains two wood-frame double-hung windows on its
southeast façade. Vents and ductwork on the roof are visible at this façade between the two windows
(Figure 17).
Figure 14. Southeast façade, view looking
northwest from the adjacent school parking lot.
Figure 15. Southeast façade, view looking
northeast.
Figure 16. Taller gable-roof addition at the north
portion of the façade, view looking northwest.
Figure 17. Southeast façade of the two-story
tower, view looking northwest. Double-hung
windows and mechanical equipment are just
visible.
Northeast Façade
The northeast façade faces the outdoor zoo and exhibit area. This façade features the northwest and
southeast volumes, as well as a recessed center portion and an L-shaped patio (Figure 18 and
Figure 19). The northeast façade of the southeast (left) volume contains a single wood door and a
small wood vent below the gable peak. The rafter tails on the northeast façade have been removed
from the overhanging roof eave. The inner northwest façade of the southeast volume has a band of
four wood-frame awning windows and three large fixed wood-frame windows further south (Figure
20 and Figure 21). An open trellis overhang extends from the shallow roof eave of the northwest
façade. This volume’s inner southwest façade contains one wood door (Figure 22).
The center portion of the northeast façade contains the entrance to the museum space and the
enclosed courtyard. It features a five-bay bank of full-height wood-frame windows, flanked by single
wood doors in the outer bays. A wood-slat bee enclosure projects from center. This portion of the
façade terminates in a side-gabled roof, obscured by a wood trellis and partially open roof sheltering
the patio (Figure 23-Figure 26).
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 10 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
The northwest (right) volume (the north wing from the primary facade) features several embedded
display cases, set low in the wall to be at a child’s eye level and with wide sills containing interpretive
panels. The inner southeast façade contains three display cases and a solid wood door (Figure 19
and Figure 26). Display cases are wood frame with a metal lip along the upper edge. The northeast
façade of this volume contains two display cases, a solid wood door accessed by a concrete ramp, and
one fixed wood-frame window (Figure 27 and Figure 28).
Figure 18. Northeast façade of the Junior Museum, view looking southwest from the zoo area.
Figure 19. L-shaped patio at center of northeast
façade, view looking southwest.
Figure 20. Awning windows at the inner
northwest façade of the southeast volume, view
looking southeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 11 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 21. Wood windows at the inner northwest
façade of the southeast volume further south,
view looking southeast from patio.
Figure 22. Inner southwest façade of the
southeast volume, view looking northeast from
the L-shaped patio.
Figure 23. L-shaped patio, bee-enclosure, and
bank of windows at center portion of northeast
façade, view looking south.
Figure 24. Wood door left of bee enclosure, view
looking southwest.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 12 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
INTERIOR
The central interior space of the museum is the enclosed courtyard at the center of the building
(Figure 29). The perimeter of the enclosed courtyard has an angled plaster ceiling, while the center
portion is raised and features exposed beams. Classrooms, storage, and staff rooms are located along
the southeast and southwest sides of the building. The northwest portion of the interior contains an
open exhibit room, lobby at the ground floor of the two-story tower, and staff room in the north
wing. The second story contains offices.
Figure 25. Windows and entrance at northeast
façade, view looking northeast from museum
interior.
Figure 26. Entrance to museum interior at
northeast façade, view looking southwest.
Figure 27. Northeast façade of northwest volume,
containing display cases, wood door (shown
while open), and fixed wood window, view
looking southwest.
Figure 28. Detail view of low display cases, view
looking southwest.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 13 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 29. Enclosed courtyard interior exhibit space, view looking southwest.
OUTDOOR ZOO
The outdoor zoo area is located northeast of the museum building (Figure 30-Figure 33).
Surrounded by a wood-slat fence, the zoo is a collection of enclosures arranged around a pond.
Landscaping surrounds the concrete-basin, which features an arched wooden bridge. The northwest
side of the zoo contains four polygonal concrete enclosures. Three are capped with hipped conical
roofs that are clad in wood shake, while the raccoon enclosure is covered by large wood beams.
Some enclosures are clad with stucco while others are exposed rough-faced concrete masonry units
(CMU). The enclosures contains both wood frame and metal frame windows. A raised concrete
fountain and a concrete tortoise enclosure are located in the north portion of the zoo. The southeast
side of the zoo contains a bobcat enclosure with a CMU viewing area and wood post fence, as well as
a wood-framed and screened aviary.
Figure 30. Zoo area with pond and bridge at
center, view looking north.
Figure 31. Enclosures at northwest side of the
zoo, view looking west.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 14 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is located in the Community Center neighborhood, which is
bounded by Middlefield Road to the west, Channing Avenue to the north, Newell Road to the east,
and Embarcadero Road to the south. The neighborhood is characterized by the large open space of
Rinconada Park in the southern portion, and single-family residential buildings in the northern
portion. The Walter Hayes Elementary School is adjacent to and southeast of the subject property
(Figure 34). The Lucie Stern Community Center is located northwest across the surface parking lot
and the Girl Scout Hall is northeast of the subject building (Figure 35). Construction of the Spanish
Colonial-style Community Center was completed in 1940, and the log cabin-style Girl Scout Hall was
opened several years before, in 1926. The remainder of Rinconada Park is open lawn and contains a
children’s playground (Figure 35). Residences across Middlefield Road are one- and two-story
English Revival, Mission Revival, and contemporary styles, and were constructed from the mid-1920s
through the 2000s (Figure 37).
Figure 32. Raccoon enclosure and fountain at
northern portion of zoo, view looking northwest.
Figure 33. Bobcat enclosure at southeast side of
zoo, view looking northeast.
Figure 34. Walter Hayes Elementary School,
view looking northeast from Middlefield Road.
Figure 35. Rear façade of the Community
Center, across parking lot from the Junior
Museum and Zoo, view looking northwest.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 15 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 36. Open space of Rinconada Park, view
looking north.
Figure 37. Residence across Middlefield Road,
view looking southwest from the museum.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 16 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT
PALO ALTO HISTORY
The earliest known settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people. The region was
colonized by Gaspar de Portola in 1769 as part of Alto California. The Spanish and Mexican
governments carved the area into large ranchos, and the land that would become Palo Alto belonged
to several, including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San
Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.1 The subject property at 1451
Middlefield Road was located on what was formerly Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San
Francisquito, and, at more than 2,200 acres, covered all of the original Palo Alto town site. The
northern and eastern boundaries were distinguished by San Francisquito Creek, while the western
boundary was located near El Camino Real and the southern boundary paralleled Embarcadero Road
farther south.2 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but
parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century.
The current city of Palo Alto contains the former township of Mayfield. In 1882, railroad magnate
and California politician Leland Stanford purchased 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his
larger estate. Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. The Stanfords’
teenage son died in 1884, leading the couple to create a university in his honor. Contrary to
contemporary institutions, the Stanfords wanted a co-educational and non-denominational
university.3 On March 9, 1885, the university was founded through an endowment act by the
California Assembly and Senate. Using the Stock Farm land, they established Stanford University
In 1886, Stanford went to Mayfield where he was interested in founding his university since the
school needed a nearby service town to support its operations. However, the Stanfords required
alcohol to be banned from the town because they believed that the university’s mission and
community would be negatively impacted by any nearby presence of alcohol.4 With 13 popular
saloons then operating in Mayfield, the town eventually rejected the Stanfords’ request. Seeking an
alternative, Stanford decided in 1894 to found the town of Palo Alto with aid from his friend
Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of
private land.5 Known as both the Hopkins Tract and University Park, it was bounded by the San
Francisquito Creek to the north and the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the south
(Figure 38). The subject property of 1451 Middlefield Road was located at the northern edge of the
first platted portion of Palo Alto.
1 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed December 22, 2014,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12.
2 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical
Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17.
3 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, accessed December 22, 2014,
http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/.
4 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed December 22, 2014, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the-
historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA
5 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 17 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 38. Map of the original town of Palo Alto.
Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University.
Palo Alto was a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. A new train stop was created
along University Avenue and the new town flourished serving the university. Palo Alto grew to be
much more prosperous than its southeastern neighbor Mayfield. Many people employed at Stanford
University chose to move there, and it was considered the safer and more desirable alternative of the
two towns.6 The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of University
professors clustered in the neighborhood deemed Professorville. The development of a local
streetcar in 1906 and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910 facilitated access to jobs outside the
city and to the University, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto.7 In reaction to the decline
of Mayfield, its residents voted to become a “dry” town in 1904, with sole exception of allowing the
Mayfield Brewery to continue. However, the town was plagued by financial issues and could not
compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into
the city of Palo Alto.8
6 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com,
website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php.
7 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames &
Moore, 1-4.
8 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 18 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). In
1917, zoning matters were tasked to this advisory commission in order to control development and
design. Regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and appropriateness within
residential areas fell under the purview of the CPC. From this early period, Palo Alto has maintained
control over the built environment, which has resulted its relatively low density and consistent
aesthetic. However, the zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century played a part in the
racial segregation of the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several
neighborhoods were created with race covenants regarding home ownership and occupation, until
this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.9 The academic nature of the town prevented
factories or other big industries from settling in Palo Alto, limiting the range of people who would
populate the area.
Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not
grow substantially. World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the
Peninsula. When the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many families who had been stationed
on the Peninsula by the military or who worked in associated industries chose to stay, and the baby
boom began. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in 1953.10
Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and development in the city. The city
center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s (Figure 39), gathering parcels that would house
new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.11
Figure 39. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952.
Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University.
9 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7.
10 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, website
accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html.
11 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 19 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west of
the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into the
1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to
Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other
sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon Valley. Palo Alto consciously
maintains its high proportion of open space to development and the suburban feeling and scale of its
architecture.
HISTORY OF JUNIOR MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED STATES
The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, located at 1451 Middlefield Road, belongs to a nation-wide
movement of children’s museums focused on nature and science education that began at the turn of
the 20th century. The development of museums for children and young adults is underrepresented in
museum historiography, partially due to the fact that most institutions evolved out of local
motivation. The inherently local nature of these museums thwarts developing a widespread
understanding of how many developed and when they were founded. Differences in naming between
“children’s museums, “junior museums,” and nature, science, and “discovery” centers geared
towards children also contribute to the lack of a comprehensive history. Some histories draw strict
distinctions between these types of institutions while others considered them part of the same
movement.12
The first children’s museum to open was the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, established in 1899.
Envisioned as a place where children could touch and play with the exhibits, the purpose of the
museum was to engage children’s imaginations and attention while learning about science and natural
history. The museum occupied the historic Adams House, formerly used as a storage building for the
Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences.13 The success of the Brooklyn Children’s Museum led to the
establishment of the Boston Children’s Museum in 1913, Detroit Children’s Museum in 1917,
Children’s Museum of Indianapolis in 1925, and several more in the 1920s and 1930s.14 The Palo
Alto Junior Museum opened in 1934 during this early wave of museum popularity.
Having a children’s museum separate from traditional museums is noted to be a “particularly
American museological phenomenon.”15 Many European and other American museums contented
themselves with children’s rooms, if they allowed children in at all. Despite this American trend, it
was not a wide-spread practice for early institutions. In 1941, it is believed that only eight children’s
museums occupied their own facility – and not necessarily one constructed for their use.16 Early
museums almost universally made use of large, empty homes and expanded or moved as necessary.
The ideology behind children’s museums was not just to educate children, but to inspire them with
an institution that they felt was created for them. They were not intruders or barred from
12 Shannon O’Donnell, “Junior Grows Up: The Development of the Tallahassee Museum, 1957-1992”
(Masters thesis, Florida State University, 2009), 6-7; Edward Porter Alexander and Mary Alexander, Museums in
Motion: An Introduction to the History and Fundamentals of Museums (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008), 15, 167;
“Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times,
June 22, 1950, 22.
13 Edward Porter Alexander, The Museum in America: Innovators and Pioneers (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press,
1997), 133.
14 “Timeline,” Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, accessed February 29, 2016,
http://thehistory.childrensmuseum.org/timeline; “History,” Boston Children’s Museum, accessed February 29,
2016, http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/about/history.
15 Thomas Schlereth, quoted by Rebecca Stiles Onion, “Picturing Nature and Childhood at the American
Museum of Natural History and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, 1899-1930,” Journal of the History of Childhood
and Youth, 4.3 (2001), 450-451.
16 Ibid.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 20 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
participating as they might be at a traditional museum. These institutions provided educational tools
outside of regular classrooms during an era of heightened interest in childhood education reform and
in the study and appreciation of nature. Museum collections consisted of a range of items and
exhibits, including dioramas, fossils, taxidermy, wiring and radio systems, and anything that could be
donated or collected from local sources or cast-offs from other museums. They also offered outdoor
trips, art classes, lectures, and sometimes classes for adults. In this manner, children’s museums
fostered an active and continuing community that traditional adult museums lacked.
One figure that looms large in the history of children’s museums is John Ripley Forbes. He is
credited with establishing over 200 nature centers and science museums for children throughout the
United States. From a young age, Forbes was influenced by his neighbor William T. Hornaday, noted
naturalist and director of the Bronx Zoo. In the late 1930s, Forbes convinced the city to convert an
abandoned mansion and opened his first museum, the Kansas City Museum of History and Science.
In 1937, he established the William T. Hornaday Foundation to fund children’s museums, which
would later become the National Science for Youth Foundation.17 Forbes’ museums had a strong
outdoor education component, based on a belief in the benefits of exposing children to nature.
During the 1950s, he lived in Sacramento and influenced several institutions throughout California.
Forbes died in 2006, and his impact on the children’s museum movement is only recently coming to
light.18
During and after World War II, the youth museum movement gained momentum. Science education
was placed in a national spotlight by the war, Cold War politics, and the space race. The United
States government provided funds for museums, recognizing their education potential and
widespread influence.19 By report of the Association of Children’s Museums, by 1975 there were 38
children’s museums in the United States. Based on the strict criteria by which the Association defines
“children’s museum,” it is likely that far more youth museums were operating by that time. Other
studies postulate that by the 1960s, over 40 children’s museums, youth and junior museums were
open.20 Today, there are over 200 specifically children’s museums in the United States, as well as
hundreds of youth-centered education centers.21 The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is not a
member of the Association of Children’s Museums, which officially lists 33 institutions in California.
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO
In the midst of the Great Depression, Palo Alto resident Josephine O’Hara proposed that the
community create a small museum to occupy the area’s young children. A “leisure time” committee
existed for adults, but there were hardly any activities or engagements for children. O’Hara had
visited the children’s museums in Brooklyn and Boston and decided that a similar institution would
appeal to the Palo Alto community. In January 1934, O’Hara presented the idea of a children’s
museum to the community center commission and the public. A nine-member committee was
formed to study the feasibility of such a scheme and to prepare a small exhibition for a spring fair.22
17 Margalit Fox, “John Ripley Forbes, 93, Who Planted Many Nature Museums, is Dead,” New York Times,
September 5, 2006, accessed February 24, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/obituaries/05forbes.html; “Mr. Appleseed,” Time, December 21, 1953,
65-66.
18 Gary Ferguson, Nature’s Keeper: John Ripley Forbes and the Children’s Nature Movement (Helena, MT: Sweetgrass
Books, 2012).
19 O’Donnell, “Junior Grows Up,” 2009, 12.
20 Herminia Weihsin Din, “An Investigation of Children’s Museums in the United States – Their Past, Present,
and Future: A Proposed Study,” Marilyn Zurmuehlin Working Papers in Art Education 15 (1999): 63-69.
21 Association of Children’s Museums online database, accessed February 29, 2016.
http://www.childrensmuseums.org/childrens-museums/find-a-childrens-museum/
22 Phyllis Mackall, “Palo Alto Junior Museum’s 25th Year Observed,” Palo Alto Times, July 16, 1959.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 21 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
The idea caught immediate public support, and the first iteration of the museum was housed for four
months in the art room of the Palo Alto Public Library. In July 1934, the Children’s Museum (as it
was known then) officially opened. Josephine O’Hara was the curator and 4,342 children visited the
museum during its first year.23 Inspired by the burgeoning children’s museum movement on the East
Coast, this institution appears to be the first museum of its kind west of the Mississippi River. In
November 1934, the museum formalized its board of directors and established a membership
program. The exhibits moved from the library into the basement of Sherman Grade School.
Constantly growing, the main branch of the museums and its offices were established in the
basement underneath a wing of the Community Center in 1937, while some exhibits remained in the
school basement for two more years. During these early years the museum staff were partially
supported by WPA (Works Progress Administration) and NYA (National Youth Administration)
funds, and volunteers were key components of the museum’s operation.
This early period from 1934-1940 saw significant growth in the volume of exhibits and items for the
collection, as well as popularity among the community. Summer activities were held at the Addison
School, outdoor activity and hikes were led by Josephine O’Hara, and temporary exhibits rotated
through five local schools. Attendance continued to increase; by 1940, child visitors totaled 12,702.24
Part of the motivation behind the museum was to imbue the children with initiative, interest, and
inner resources that would equip them to deal with another economic depression and to be leaders in
the future.
In 1941, a gift of $10,000 was made by the local Margaret Frost Foundation to fund construction of a
new facility for the museum. The City of Palo Alto offered a portion of land in Rinconada Park, and
the museum found a permanent home. Contemporary reports claim that Palo Alto was the first
children’s museum to construct its own facility, and research has not uncovered any evidence to the
contrary. In order to appeal to young patrons who objected to being called “children,” the museum’s
name was officially changed to the Palo Alto Junior Museum.25
Almost immediately after the building’s opening, a $12,000 grant was awarded to the Museum by the
philanthropic Columbia Foundation of San Francisco to build a new science wing. Local newspapers
constantly reported new activities of the museum, from new acquisitions or traveling exhibits of
Native American baskets or African masks to the meetings of hobby groups that included art,
ceramics, archery, woodworking, and stamp collection. During the summer vacation, the museum led
at least four activities six days a week, not including the regular collection. The variety of programs
offered by the Junior Museum seemed almost endless.26 According to local press, as of June 1950
there were only sixteen children’s museums in the United States.27 Given the varied nature of youth
museums, their focuses, and their names, it is difficult to know if this was indeed true, but research
has not found evidence contradicting this claim.
23 Gene Hammond, “Children’s Museum: First in the United States,” Peninsula Life, August 1948, 20.
24 “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times,
June 22, 1950, 22; “Children have place to ride their hobbies,” Palo Alto Times, March 7, 1941; “Brief History of
Formation and Development of the Children’s Museum of Palo Alto, Inc.,” August 1941, Palo Alto Historical
Association.
25 “Junior Museum building will open in October,” Palo Alto Times, 1941, 8A; Gene Hammond, “Children’s
Museum: First in the United States,” Peninsula Life, August 1948, 20; Palo Alto Junior Museum “Golden
Anniversary” program, 1984.
26 Verdella Rose, “Youngsters will get lots of sun riding Children’s Museum hobbies,” Palo Alto Times, June 18,
1941.
27 “Palo Alto Community Center: Junior Museum here one of 16 in the entire United States,” Palo Alto Times,
June 22, 1950, 22.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 22 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
The institution continued to grow in size and popularity, and in 1969, a remodeled and expanded
museum opened. The adjoining zoo was opened, creating great excitement about a permanent
collection of birds, snakes, raccoons, a bobcat, and even a golden eagle. During the mid-20th century,
children’s museums all over the country began having live animal collections, zoos, or partnering
with wildlife preserves to foster a better appreciation and understanding for animals and the natural
world. Economic difficulties for the City of Palo Alto in the 1980s threatened the zoo’s
continuation.28 The local community rallied to save it, and today the zoo features more than 50
animal species.29 The zoo remains an essential amusement for children today.
The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo continues to play an active role in the community and is
beloved by generations of Palo Alto and San Francisco Bay Area residents. Its mission to educate
and engage children in the fields of science, nature, and art remains strong, and over 150,000 people
visit the museum each year.30
CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY
The chronology in the following table provides a list of alterations for the Palo Alto Junior Museum
and Zoo based on available building permits:
Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work
1941 None
available
Dole Ford
Thompson; Aro &
Okerman
City of Palo
Alto
Original construction of the subject
building
1948 84-913 None listed City of Palo
Alto
Front office remodel: create new
lobby office and remove existing
doors at back wall
4/12/1968 27421 GMI Construction City of Palo
Alto
Construction of addition and
remodeling of museum building
6/21/1968 16853 Stanford Electric City of Palo
Alto Electrical work
6/26/1968 11569 GMI Construction City of Palo
Alto
Installation of “electrical
apparatus”
6/13/1975 4026 Menlo Oaks
Plumbing
City of Palo
Alto Plumbing work
6/10/1983 83-450 None listed City of Palo
Alto
Remove interior pocket doors and
replaced with hinge types
4/13/1987 87-758
City of Palo Alto
Facilities
Management
City of Palo
Alto
Renovations to enclosures at
northwest side of zoo, including
new cut-faced block wall cladding
and wire partitions
28 Paul Gullixson, “A plan to save children’s zoo in Palo Alto,” Palo Alto Times, June 10, 1988, A-1.
29 “About the Junior Museum and Zoo,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 20, 2016.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/
30 Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, “The JMZ Initiative,” 5.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 23 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work
7/6/1988 89-858
City of Palo Alto
Facilities
Management
City of Palo
Alto
New trellis canopy at northeast
façade entrance
1/17/1992 92-467 None listed City of Palo
Alto Installation of door at raccoon cage
12/6/1994 94-3253 Ernie Erickson City of Palo
Alto
Install ADA hardware, accessible
threshold and stair hardware
8/21/1996 96-2661 CSS Associates City of Palo
Alto
Install door hardware, landing, and
ramp hardware (presumed to be at
primary façade)
12/9/1996 96-3837 Hugo Estrada City of Palo
Alto
Install two water heaters and new
electrical outlets
1996 96-3817 Z. Johnson City of Palo
Alto
Unspecified plumbing and
electrical work
2/5/1999 99-315 Salas O’Brien
Engineers
City of Palo
Alto
Install new fluorescent strip
lighting in exhibit hall (enclosed
courtyard)
4/13/2001 01-0923 Hugo Estrada; Gidel
& Rocal
City of Palo
Alto
Conversion of storage room at
southwest side of building into
classroom; Some demolition of
non-bearing interior walls, electrical
work, and removal of kiln hood in
ceramic kiln room
6/13/2002 02-1567 Lehrman Cameron
Studio
Renovation of bat habitat: new
CMU wall and new wood-frame
viewing area
10/26/2009 09-2342 Devcon
Friends of Palo
Alto Junior
Museum
Partial demolition of CMU wall at
aviary to build new bobcat
enclosure, relocate aviary, relocate
coastal stream display
10/26/2009 09-2343 Devcon
Friends of Palo
Alto Junior
Museum
Construction of new bobcat
enclosure at southeast side of zoo
The Palo Alto Junior Museum building was originally designed and constructed in 1941 by architect
Dole Ford Thompson and builders Aro & Okerman. No original building permit was available. The
design was a symmetrical arrangement of two one-story wings extending north and south from a
two-story tower (Figures 40-42). The central tower contained a foyer, offices, and storage, while the
north wing held a workroom and the south wing contained the museum and exhibits. Each wing
contained four sliding windows on the northwest façade. The ground floor entrance was recessed
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 24 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
below the second story of the tower, with large wood posts at the entrance and a fully glazed double
wood with no sidelights. Two windows flanked the entrance.31
A new science building (the current southeast volume) was completed in 1943 as a separate gable-
roofed, wood-frame volume southeast of the main building. The buildings were connected by a patio
for outdoor activities. In 1944, a glass-enclosed nature studio was constructed between the northwest
and southeast volumes, creating a U-shaped floorplan (Figure 43). In 1955, two rooms were added
to the southeast volume.32 In 1956, an addition by architect Harold Ahnfeldt extended the south
wing of the main building towards Middlefield Road. Today, the south wing of the primary façade
has been extended by approximately twice its original length. Throughout the 1950s several other
changes occurred to reconfigure the connection of the different volumes and enclose the courtyard
(Figure 44).33
Between 1968 and 1969, the museum underwent a comprehensive remodeling and expansion.
Classroom and workspaces, including a kiln room, were remodeled. Roof repairs were also
completed. The outdoor zoo was added as part of the institution’s expansion. The zoo has remained
largely unchanged except for the material and shape of the some of the enclosures. The expansion
was completed by architect Kal H. Porter and GMI Construction. In July 1968, the cast iron weather
vane with a flying eagle, which had been donated by a community member at the time of the
building’s opening, was stolen. The new building formally opened on February 1, 1969.
Based on physical observation of the property, several alterations occurred at unknown dates. The
four windows at the north wing of the primary façade were replaced with a band of three slider
windows. The four windows at the original south wing of the façade were replaced with an eight-bay
assembly of almost full-height windows and a door. The original recessed entrance at the primary
façade was removed and the ground level wall brought forward to be even with the façade planes of
the one-story wings. Based on historic photographs, these changes occurred prior to 1980 and were
likely part of the 1968-69 renovation (Figure 45).
A wood trellis was added at the northeast entrance to the zoo and the L-shaped patio was designed
in the spring of 1989 by Page Sanders and the California Landscape Contractors Association. Minor
improvements to the interior and site have recently occurred, such as interior partition
reconfigurations, new enclosures in the zoo, and electrical and mechanical work.
31 Description of the original building is based upon contemporary newspaper reports and historic
photographs; “Junior Museum building will open in October,” Palo Alto Times, 1941, 8A.
32 “Junior Museum addition favored,” Palo Alto Times, February 14, 1955; Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment
of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, April 7, 2004.
33 Page & Turnbull, 2004.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 25 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 40. Illustration of the new Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1941, published in
the Palo Alto Times. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Figure 41. A series of construction photos for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building.
Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 26 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 42. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1948.
Source: Peninsula Life magazine, 1948 via Palo Alto Historical Association.
Figure 43. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1949.
Source: San Francisco Public Library Digital Sanborn Collection.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 27 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 44. Sketch of building floorplan from undated county assessment form, likely circa late
1950s, prior to the enclosure of the central courtyard.
Source: City of Palo Alto Community Development Center.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 28 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS
The subject building was constructed for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo and has been
continually occupied since 1941. The City of Palo Alto assumed ownership of the building in 1943
from an association of volunteers. The museum is currently owned by the City of Palo Alto and
managed by the non-profit organization, Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo.
ORIGINAL ARCHITECT & BUILDER
The original Palo Alto Junior Museum building was designed by Dole Ford Thompson and
constructed by Aro & Okerman. Thompson received his architecture degree from the University of
Michigan in 1927. He is known to have designed at least eleven buildings in Palo Alto, where he was
based. Most of his projects appear to be residences, but he also designed several small facilities
buildings at Stanford University.34 Research did not uncovered further examples of his work.
Contractors Aro & Okerman also worked primarily in Palo Alto constructing residences and
additions, as well as several fire stations in the 1930s through 1950s.35
34 Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment, 2004, 4; “New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion,” The
Stanford Daily, August 15, 1935, 3.
35 “Architects & Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, accessed February 26, 2016.
http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html; Amy French, “Historic Resources Board Staff Report: 2330
Figure 45. Primary façade of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building in 1980. The recessed
entrance has been filled in and the full-height windows have replaced the band of four sliding
windows at center. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 29 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Kal H. Porter, the architect of the 1968-69 renovation, was a San Jose-based architect who primarily
designed school facilities. He worked throughout Santa Clara County, including the New Inverness
School in Cupertino, which feature all moveable walls, and schools for the Jefferson School District
in Daly City. He founded the firm Porter, Jensen, Hansen, Manzagol Architects (now PJHM
Architects) and Kal Porter, AIA and Associates, which became PSWC Group.36
Bryant,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.conlon.org/Schwartz-
Conlon/remodeling/planning/historic_merit/HRB_staff_report.PDF.
36 Past Consultants, San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement, June 2009, 142.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 30 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
V. EVALUATION
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic
resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings,
structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological,
or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age
are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance
and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be
determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are
contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National
Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. There are four basic
criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing
in the National Register.
Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our
past;
Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master,
or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable
entity whose components lack individual distinction; and
Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant
architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be
listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and
National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can
also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.
The California Register of Historical Resources follows nearly identical guidelines to those used by
the National Register, but identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically.
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, it must
be found significant under one or more of the following criteria.
Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the
cultural heritage of California or the United States.
Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important
to local, California, or national history.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 31 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master,
or possess high artistic values.
Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the
potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local
area, California, or the nation.
The following section examines the eligibility of the property at 1451 Middlefield Road, containing
the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, for listing in the National Register and California Register.
Criterion A / 1 (Events)
The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road appears to be individually
significant under California Register Criterion 1 as a resource associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad pattern of local or regional history. The institution of the Palo
Alto Junior Museum and Zoo is associated with the early development of children’s museums in the
western United States. Founded in 1934, the Palo Alto Junior Museum appears to be the first
children’s museum in the western United States. The museum’s founder Josephine O’Hara was
directly inspired by the pioneering institutions in Brooklyn and Boston, and brought those ideas to
Palo Alto. However, the building at 1451 Middlefield Road was not constructed at this time and was
not part of the museum’s original founding.
The Palo Alto Junior Museum had several homes during the period 1934-1941, in keeping with the
larger pattern of the early children’s museums. Typically, museums were housed in empty historic
homes or temporary locations, moving and expanding to accommodate institutional growth. Only in
the 1960s and 1970s did most institutions begin to construct their own facilities. The building at 1451
Middlefield Road was noted in contemporary newspapers as being the first building in the West to be
constructed to serve as a children’s museum, made possible by a generous local foundation.
The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo has become culturally valuable in Palo Alto as an established
institution with a clear mission and widespread community support. The significance of the Palo Alto
Junior Museum and Zoo institution lies in its association within the ideological development of
children’s museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the
building at 1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. Thus, the period of significance under Criterion 1 is 1941.
The building does not appear to rise to a level of significance for association with broad patterns of
national history as to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A.
Criterion B / 2 (Persons)
The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to have been
associated with persons important to the history of Palo Alto or the State of California to the extent
that the property would be considered individually eligible for listing in the National Register or
California Register under Criterion B/2 (Persons). The founder of the museum, Josephine O’Hara, is
a notable figure in the history of the institution and as an early proponent of the values proposed by
children’s museums. However, she does not appear to have participated further in the nation-wide or
statewide museum movement, and therefore does not rise to an individual level of significance such
that the building would be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register under
Criterion B/2.
Criterion C / 3 (Architecture/Design)
The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be individually
significant under Criterion C/3 (Architecture/Design). The original architect Dole Ford Thompson
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 32 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
and the builders Aro & Okerman were active in Palo Alto but are not prolific or sufficiently known
enough to determine that the subject building is the work of a master. The building is designed in a
vernacular Ranch style. Although the simplicity of the design complements its use and its setting
within the park, it does not possess high artistic value, nor is it a distinctive representation of a style.
For these reasons, 1451 Middlefield Road does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National
Register or California Register under Criterion C/3.
Criterion D / 4 (Information Potential)
The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road was not evaluated for significance
under Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). Criterion D/4 generally applies to the potential for
archaeological information to be uncovered at the site, which is beyond the scope of this report.
INTEGRITY
In order to qualify for listing in the National Register or the California Register, a property must
possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. Integrity is
defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity by the survival of certain
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as
“the ability of a property to convey its significance.”37 The process of determining integrity is similar
for both the National Register and the California Register. The same seven variables or aspects that
define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used
to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the National Register and the California Register.
According to the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, these
seven characteristics are defined as follows:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure,
and style of the property.
Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the
landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).
Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the
historic property.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period in history.
Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.
The Palo Alto Junior Museum building at 1451 Middlefield Road remains in the same location in
which it was construction, so the building retains integrity of location. The use of the building has
37 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the
California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September
2001), p. 11; National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), p. 44.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 33 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
not changed and the institution that it houses remains as important today as when it was founded.
Therefore, the building retains integrity of association and feeling. Rinconada Park and the
surrounding environment have changed little, but the nearby public school, the large surface parking
lot, and the addition of the outdoor zoo encroach upon the original setting of the building. For this
reason, the building does not retain integrity of setting.
The Palo Alto Junior Museum building has undergone extensive changes during its history. The
original building comprised the two-story tower and two symmetrical one-story wings. Successive
additions have occurred to the site, including the construction of a new wing to the southeast,
connecting hyphens built between the two volumes, and new volumes constructed in the northeast
portion of the building. The enclosure of the courtyard at center has obscured the sense of the
building’s original scale and linear volumes. The original southern wing has been extended to almost
twice the original length, interrupting the symmetry of the original design. The recessed entryway has
been replaced, as have the windows at the primary façade. The cumulative impact of these changes
has compromised the building’s integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. For these reasons,
the building does not retain historic integrity.
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo at 1451 Middlefield Road was found significant under
California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the ideological development of children’s
museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at
1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. However, the building has sustained a number of alterations and
additions which obscure its original appearance and compromise its integrity. As both significance
and integrity are required for eligibility for listing in the California Register., the alterations render the
building ineligible.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 34 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building was originally constructed in 1941 by local architect
Dole Ford Thompson. The building housed the Children’s Museum (now the Palo Alto Junior
Museum and Zoo), an institution founded in 1934 to provide education and entertainment for youth
in Palo Alto. As an early part of the children’s museum movement, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and
Zoo embraced tenants established by the first children’s museum on the East Coast and was the first
institution of its kind west of the Mississippi River. In order to appeal to young patrons who objected
to being called “children,” the museum’s name was officially changed to the Palo Alto Junior
Museum. It has become an important civic and cultural institution for the Palo Alto community.
The Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo at 1451 Middlefield Road was found significant under
California Register Criterion 1 for its association with the ideological development of children’s
museums, which was physically represented by the relatively early construction of the building at
1451 Middlefield Road in 1941. However, the building has sustained a number of alterations and
additions which obscure its original appearance and compromise its integrity. As both significance
and integrity are required for eligibility for listing in the California Register., the alterations render the
building ineligible.
For these reasons, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo building at 1451 Middlefield Road does
not qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 35 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VIII. REFERENCES CITED
PUBLISHED WORKS
Alexander, Edward Porter and Mary Alexander. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and
Fundamentals of Museums. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2008.
Alexander, Edward Porter. The Museum in America: Innovators and Pioneers. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira
Press, 1997.
California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to
the California Register of Historic Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4
September 2001.
Ferguson, Gary. Nature’s Keeper: John Ripley Forbes and the Children’s Nature Movement. Helena, MT:
Sweetgrass Books, 2012.
Onion, Rebecca Stiles. “Picturing Nature and Childhood at the American Museum of Natural
History and the Brooklyn Children’s Museum, 1899-1930,” Journal of the History of Childhood
and Youth, 4.3 (2001), 450-451.
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997.
Page & Turnbull, Historical Assessment of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, April 7, 2004.
Past Consultants, San Jose Modernism Historic Context Statement, June 2009, 142.
Winslow Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto
Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993.
PUBLIC RECORDS
City of Palo Alto Development Center
“Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3.
Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,”
Dames & Moore.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, Calif., 1945.
Palo Alto Historical Association
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS
Hammond, Gene. “Children’s Museum: First in the United States.” Peninsula Life, August 1948.
“Mr. Appleseed.” Time, December 21, 1953, 65-66.
“New Janitor’s Quarters Are Nearing Completion,” The Stanford Daily, August 15, 1935, 3.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 36 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Palo Alto Times, clippings referencing the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo available at the Palo Alto
Historical Association.
INTERNET SOURCES
“A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed 12/22/14, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the-
historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA
“About the Junior Museum and Zoo,” City of Palo Alto, accessed February 20, 2016.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/jmz/
Association of Children’s Museums online database, accessed February 29, 2016.
http://www.childrensmuseums.org/childrens-museums/find-a-childrens-museum/
“Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health.
Website accessed 11 June 2013 from:
http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html.
Herminia Weihsin Din, “An Investigation of Children’s Museums in the United States – Their Past,
Present, and Future: A Proposed Study,” Marilyn Zurmuehlin Working Papers in Art Education
15 (1999).
Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University,
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.h
tml
Fox, Margalit. “John Ripley Forbes, 93, Who Planted Many Nature Museums, is Dead.” New York
Times, September 5, 2006, accessed February 24, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/obituaries/05forbes.html
Amy French, “Historic Resources Board Staff Report: 2330 Bryant,” City of Palo Alto, accessed
February 26, 2016, http://www.conlon.org/Schwartz-
Conlon/remodeling/planning/historic_merit/HRB_staff_report.PDF
Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, “The JMZ Initiative,” 5.
http://www.friendsjmz.org/capital_campaign/jmz_initiative.html
“History,” Boston Children’s Museum, accessed February 29, 2016,
http://www.bostonchildrensmuseum.org/about/history.
“History of Stanford,” Stanford University, website accessed 12/22/14,
http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/
Matt Bowling. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto
History.com. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-
beginning-of-mayfields-end.php
O’Donnell, Shannon. “Junior Grows Up: The Development of the Tallahassee Museum, 1957-
1992.” Masters thesis, Florida State University, 2009. Lib-ir@fsu.edu.
Historic Resource Evaluation, Part 1 Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road
Revised Palo Alto, California
July 20, 2016 37 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
“Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed 22 December 1014 from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12
“Prominent Architects and Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Website accessed 26 February
2016 from: http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html
“Timeline,” Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, accessed February 29, 2016,
http://thehistory.childrensmuseum.org/timeline
417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax
2401 C Street, Suite B
Sacramento, California 95816
916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax
417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211
Los Angeles, California 90013
213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING & RESEARCH
BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
www.page-turnbull.com
Architectural Review Findings
1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan;
Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant
design guides.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants,
visitors, and the general community,
b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute
positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the
area when relevant,
c. is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone
district,
d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land
uses and land use designations, and
e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in
adjacent residential areas.
3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and
appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other
details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g.
convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and
amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its
surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous
drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be
appropriately maintained.
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to
energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair David Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Beth
Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, Michael Makinen
Absent: Rodger Kohler
Chair Bernstein: Welcome to the June 8th meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Would staff please
call role? Thank you.
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: Next is oral communications. The public may speak to any item no on the agenda with
3-minutes per speaker. Are there any members of the public who would like speak to us and seeing
none?
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Moving onto are there any agenda changes, additions, and deletions?
Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Only to report that Amy regrets not being here this morning. I’m
Jonathan Lait the Assistant Director for the Planning and Community Environment Department filling in
for Amy. I’m here with Emily to help in any way that we can with your study session discussion.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you.
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Chair Bernstein: Next is City official reports. None to report for Board meeting schedule and assignments.
Study Session
2. Mills Act Discussion: Consideration of Potential Pilot Program for Palo Alto
Mills Act Properties
Chair Bernstein: Study session, public comment is permitted with 3-minutes per speaker. The study
session is on Mills Act discussion. Any introduction by Staff on this topic?
Mr. Lait: Let me just first introduce Sandy Lee, who an attorney with the City’s Attorney’s Office and I
don’t know if individually you have had a chance to meet her but she’s joining us on this discussion. Also,
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: June 8, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
to answer any questions that may come up from a legal perspective. So, welcome Sandy. Thanks for
being here.
Chair Bernstein: Welcome, Sandy.
Mr. Lait: We’re – we don’t have any formal presentation for this. I understand that this was an item that
was continued from a previous meeting and we’re here to listen to the Board’s conversation on the
matter.
Chair Bernstein: Great, ok, thank you. So, let’s then open that up to the Board for continuing the
conversation about Mills Act. Are there any Board Members who would like to start? Beth, you have your
light on? Beth, you have your light on? Ok. Any Board Members who would like to start with comments,
please? Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: If the Chair would allow, I would be happy to review what the subcommittee prepared.
It’s part of our packet but I think I’d actually like to hear from the City’s Attorney’s Office because I
presume that you’ve seen what we’re – the sketch of what we’re proposing and I’m curious to know what
the City’s Attorney’s Office has to add or suggest in regard to that or in any other capacity. I presume
that you are here to talk to use about this from the City’s Attorney’s Office perspective.
Ms. Sandy Lee: Good morning. I have had a chance to review this – the subcommittee’s work product to
date and there are several aspects of it that I think will potentially work in a program that the City puts
forth but there are some aspects that we would need to think about. As you know, the Mills Act Program
is authorized under State law so there are some State law limitations on what a local program can look
like. There’s also a significant local discretion in terms of the administration of the program. Typically, it’s
adopted – a formal program would be adopted by an ordinance. An informal program, for instance, a
pilot program that is contemplated, could be adopted by a resolution. The Mills Act contracts do run for a
minimum of 10-year. When notice of non-renewal is put forward, that basically means that it continues
for 10-years and then it will end. Then the property tax incentive will reduce over time and in the 10th-
return to what it would otherwise be; the tax rate. There are certain aspects like the amount of the tax
adjustment that may well be out of our hands as local jurisdiction. The Assessor’s Office for the County
would handle that and to my knowledge, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, that distinction is not made. I think it
would be administratively cumbersome, even if its authorized under the law. The primary focus, I think,
of Mills Act program would be determined eligibility. There are minimum eligibility requirements under
State law. The property must be on the National Register or a local register so if a property is not
currently on the local register, the application for a Mills Act contract would likely go forward with an
application to put that property on the local register. Those would both be – those could go through the
Historic Resources Board for recommendation together and would be acted upon by the City Council.
There’s one item on this list about properties being open to the public, that I think may be problematic.
In – I believe in 1985 – I can’t quite remember the year that the Mills Act was amended but previously,
there was a requirement that properties be open once a year but that item was removed from the State
law so we may not want to include that in case that conflict presents a problem. They application fee
item that is addressed in this recommendation is that we are limited in terms of what we can require for
an application fee. State law says that essentially, it’s based on cost recovery so unless a property of
significant value requires more administrative work on the park of staff, you wouldn’t be able to assess
different amounts for the application based on property value. These are all – this is just kind of an
outline of Mills Act requirements and our local discretion. My understanding is that staff will take the
recommendations from the Historic Resources Board and work to…
Mr. Lait: (Inaudible)
Ms. Lee: I’ll let the Assistant Director to speak to this.
Mr. Lait: Right, so this is sort of a starting place for developing a program and as you – I think you know
that you’re scheduled to have a meeting with the City Council – a joint meeting I think in August. So, that
City of Palo Alto Page 3
would be a time to present this and if we got Council direction, this is a starting place for us to go
forward in developing the program.
Chair Bernstein: The – I just – August – I’m not familiar if we have an established date yet but if there is
a date, that would be great.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we think it’s August 28th but I’ll make sure that we confirm that and send an email out to
the Board Members.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Thank you. CC and HRB. Vice Chair Bower, thank you for those comments.
Any other Board Member, including Board Members that were on that subcommittee? Any comments or
David, if you have more comments, yeah.
Vice Chair Bower: Thank you for that. That makes it a little bit easier to craft this. I think that – what I
would like to do is just go over this proposal. Again, I want to stress that this is a – it’s an outline of what
we think that we can do and there would be much more to add to this to actually make it qualify as an
ordinance to be presented – a proposed ordinance to be presented to the Council. When we put this
together and Corey and Margaret where the other two members of the subcommittee, the idea was to
summarize some of the past experiences of or attempts by the Historic Resources Board to create a Mills
Act that would help – Palo Alto could then offer to the community. In the eligibility section – again, I’m
not an attorney and I don’t write ordinance code either so I mean I am responsible primarily for the
language. The idea was that all Category One to Four building would have – would be eligible
automatically but also to capture other buildings that aren’t categorized currently. We have had those
properties come before the Historic Resources Board and ask to be included and then we as Board has
made a determination. Usually, they come before the Board because they are interested in the Historic –
California Historic Building Code application which helps historic buildings. Whatever language that we
use, I think the purpose of this first paragraph is to capture any build that not already categorized as a
one to four building. We don’t want to exclude any building that would have historic significant but just
hasn’t been on the register. Secondly, local requirements, of course, all of this has to comply with State
law. The structure would be a 10-year period, which I think is standard. The maximum – we’re proposing
one million dollars in property value as a redirection and I think what’s important to understand is that
when – the purpose of this proposal and the Mills Act Program, if it’s enacted in Palo Alto, is on to
eliminate property taxes but to redirect the same amount of property tax towards the rehabilitation and
the preservation of historic buildings. There’s going to be tax savings but there’s not going to be a dollar
for dollar saving. So, by being a member of this group of Mills Act participants, you are still going to
spend the money you would have spent on property taxes but it’s redirected to the preservation of the
building. The million-dollar amount is probably conservative. Then I am not sure how – I know that there
are three different ways the assessor can provide the number. So, I’ not – I read that over and over and
I don’t understand it. Somebody else is going to have to do that calculation but I think that we – the
three of us felt that maybe a million and a half dollars of asset value would be more appropriate.
Especially in a City like Palo Alto where the property values are extortionary high. A million – roughly a
million dollars of tax – redirected tax funds would be about $12,000 a year and if it ran for 12-years, it
would be about $120,000 for a single contract and we’re proposing to start with 10 to see if there is
interest and see how we can move this forward. If it went to $1.5 million, it’s a little higher but not
significantly higher. I think the projects of course are – have to be approved by planning. Presumably, I
would assume they would before the HRB but I am not sure that’s required and that’s not in this
proposal. I don’t know whether that’s necessary. Most important is that the kinds of projects that would
be appropriate for a Mills Act Contract would be those projects that retain the historic character of the
building as a requirement but also, ensure that the building is upgraded. In other Mills Act – other
communities that have adopted Mills Act programs, the first thing that they want is the building to be
anchored to the foundation, which typically is very difficult in a historic building and that usually requires
a new foundation or some kind of structural upgrade after that. Then the building is more resilient during
an earthquake. Other kinds of projects could include window replacement so that there -- the – which
tends to be a vulnerable point of historic buildings. Electrical upgrades because many historic buildings
have very old wiring systems and they don’t provide enough safe power to a modern house uses
City of Palo Alto Page 4
appliances and then weatherization projects. When one considers, say a 10-year program at – let’s just
say the million-dollar level and you have $12,000 to spend per year. $120,000 probably wouldn’t replace
the foundation of any building in Palo Alto so this is a relatively small amount of funding for major
projects and the purpose – in some way, I thought we should have language in here that allowed an
owner to accumulate the funding or to make a plan with the Planning Department that allowed for the
full 10-year funding to affect a project. I am not sure how that would work but – because you can’t
spend 10-years paying off your contractor for a new foundation. Somehow that has to be worked out in
language that I am – I can only imagine. The application fees in the projects that I reviewed in other
Cities – I’m sorry, the application fees for Mills contracts in other Cities varied a lot. Oakland waives all
design review fees in their program. In the seminar that I attended on the Mills Act that focused on
southern California communities, they also had very minimal fees and some didn’t charge any fees. The
purpose of that is, again to encourage that the funding for these projects – the construction projects is
focused on the needs of the building to preserve and extends its lifetime. That’s why in this, under item
six, the base application fee is just ‘x’. I don’t know – City staff would have to figure that out. Then
penalties, I think that’s a State law issue and I just took language right out of Dennis Backland’s earlier
proposal. I wanted to also address one other thing. In this proposal, we are focusing on residential
properties and I understand and appreciate that commercial properties have the same value to the
community but I think we felt that commercial properties have many other incentives. Especially in
downtown Palo Alto and as a result, the biggest incentive, of course, that a commercial property has is
that it has rent income that can accelerate rapidly and in many cases, triple net lease. There was less of
a need for that. Downtown Palo Alto buildings have TDR incentives so, at this point, we are focusing this
just on residential properties but I would hope that the rest of my Board Members would review that and
offer inside. I guess that’s my sort of overview of this.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower has brought up a common theme that I have heard on the HRB,
including my common theme which is to encourage and foster the idea of historic preservation. That is to
lessen the burden of applicants who have historic buildings and so Vice Chair Bower talked about – on his
eligibility, if it’s a Category One through Four or National Registered or California Register, even eligible –
only – even only eligible for those listings. It’s – because of the applicant – it still has to have an
application process so I think you are proposing that this is not right. You still have to apply for it,
correct?
Vice Chair Bower: Exactly.
Chair Bernstein: So, having this proposal being not as a right to the Mills Act contract approval, it still
does have to have an approval process but just make it easier to enter into that application process. I
mean of the cultural goal of Palo Alto is to encourage historic preservation, make it easy. Again, it’s not --
- we are not proposing a right so it still has to be applied but just make it easier to apply. Does that
summarize one of your goals of eligibility?
Vice Chair Bower: Exactly and I think that for a – from a process standpoint, prior to any application –
prior to any Mills Act application, we ought to have a separate HRB hearing about the eligibility. So, that
we don’t move down the planning – we don’t start using planning staff time to review projects before
knowing whether the project could – the building is eligible. I think those – they could be combined but I
think the staff would have to tell us what’s the most appropriate way to do this.
Chair Bernstein: Other Board Members? Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I would like to enquire about whether there is a yearly reporting that
the recipient of the Mills Act needs to do. It seems to me that that’s been one place where we’ve really
fallen down in terms of not asking – you receive so much money this year, what did you spend it on and
you know, if necessary, even some check by one member of the planning staff to see whatever progress
is there. Did you consider that?
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Vice Chair Bower: I think that’s required. I think that’s probably a State – isn’t that a State law
requirement?
Ms. Lee: The State law requires that an exterior and interior inspection be conducted every 5-years. We –
by City staff. However, an annual reporting requirement could be included. So, State law is silent as to
that but that would be within the purview of the local jurisdiction to include that in the program and then
include it in the contract.
Vice Chair Bower: I would certainly expect that to be the case. Can I ask one other question? I read the
contract -- the only existing contract we have in Palo A lot, which is with the Squire House owners. I
didn’t see any language in that contract and this is a very old contract, that required anything to be done
to the building. I – there was no requirement for – that I could see delineated. Am I missing something?
Ms. Lee: I haven’t seen that contract so I can’t really speak to that.
Mr. Lait: I’d only say that I – in speaking with Amy French about it, I had a similar question about it and
asking, so where’s the benefit going and it doesn’t seem that there’s any identified benefit in that
particular contract,
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, well, that was my impression. This proposal is designed to actually specify a
benefit because there’s no point in the City of Palo Alto entering into an agreement that doesn’t benefit
the residents.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Of course, the Squire House also had the façade easement, which was I
assume, not part of the Mills Act but the front was to be preserved.
Vice Chair Bower: Right.
Chair Bernstein: City Attorney…
Board Member Bunnenberg: I think maybe the front two rooms.
Chair Bernstein: Sandy Lee?
Ms. Lee: I just wanted to add that what Board Member Bower or Vice Chair Bower observed is a reason
why the City may be better served by adopting some sort of program that would provide for those types
of requirements. I believe previously, the City of Palo Alto when it entered into this Mills Act contract and
there may have been one other. They were done pretty much on their own, without the vetting of a
process for general requirements for these contracts.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, so I had just a question of whether if a State law mandates any maximum
tax adjustment levels? I mean it’s just the pilot program here is proposing one million dollars. Is there
any language in the State law that restricts that or is this it?
Ms. Lee: No, there’s no restriction with respect to that. The City could decide that the value of the
property not exceed a certain dollar amount to be eligible for the program in this jurisdiction.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, other Board Members? Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: I did have one question as far as David’s comments on specifying. So, can we put
in language to say that since it’s not a right, that it – for instance, that it could only be applied to
residences or could only be applied to certain things that are within our jurisdiction?
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Ms. Lee: Yes. I just wanted to point out that this is a contract between the City and the property owners
so even if the City felt that a minimum threshold of the requirements were made, it’s still a negotiated
contract. I think what we would contemplate though is having a template agreement so that we don’t
have to do a lot of negotiation for each Mills Act contract.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: Along those lines, it seems to me to make this a successful program, we need to have
examples of the kinds of projects that we want to encourage in the ordinance. Does that make sense? Is
that something that is valuable or useful?
Ms. Lee: Yes, absolutely. I think that is one major function of the adopted program and that is really
specifying what are the eligibility requirements, what types of structures – properties that the city would
like to see benefited through a Mills Act program?
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey, did you have you're – a question? Ok, yeah. Alright, Board
Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, so I think there are several presidents of this program in other Cities and
we’ve had it here ourselves but there’s some information from the Office of Historic Preservation. I mean
I just have some information on – in my notes. I think – I mean we should just sort of follow the State
lead on what the State’s already established for this program. In terms of adopting it for ourselves, I
think that – I mean, first I think that we just have to find some willing participants but I mean, do we –
since it’s a State program and since the City of Palo Alto has already engaged in these contracts. I mean
what is holding us up from continuing this or having – do we have to get approval from the City Council
to do this? It seems like it’s an already established program and we just don’t have any participants
willing to go through the process. I mean obviously we have one contract and we’ve heard that they are
interested in canceling their contract but I just think that we are – I think, as a City, we just need to put
the opportunity out there and allow our residents to realize and maybe learn for the first time that this is
something that’s an established program and that it’s available. I guess the impact is on the City staff
because it does require more of their time and work but I think there – it just seems like there is a lot of
information that is already established on the program. Also, other Cities have applications and things
that we can use as a guideline and how other Cities have gone about offering this to their residents.
Chair Bernstein: City Council – City member – City Attorney Sandy Lee.
Ms. Lee: So, Cities that have programs typically adopt ordinances setting out more clearly what the
eligibility requirements are for that jurisdiction. I’m not sure I would describe this as a State program.
The State provided authorization for local jurisdictions to create a program consistent with State law.
There are different programs in every City so in terms of the number of contracts a City might want to
enter into per year, the types of buildings that they would like to eligible for the program, where the
historic preservation need is the greatest, what their preservation requirement needs to be supplement
by a requirement to rehabilitate, the amount of property values that the City is willing to include in the
program and monitoring requirements such as reporting. All of these things, I think to make sure that the
public is aware that this is available. It would be much more clear and transparent for the City to have a
true adopted program through an ordinance or by resolution.
Chair Bernstein: I do see on the – on our staff report the Mills Act pilot program in our packet that Vice
Chair Bower has referenced. It says the purpose of this program is to establish a basis for instituting a
permit incentive program. So, the program already exists, is that correct? Oh, City Attorney Lee.
Ms. Lee: I don’t think I would say a program exists. We have entered into one or two contracts. A
program is typically setting out the parameters for who may participate. As I mentioned, the State law
actually has a pretty minimal threshold for eligibility of properties so in order to truly – if the City wants
City of Palo Alto Page 7
to exercise its jurisdiction to specify something further, then that should be laid out in either a policy
adopted by a resolution or an ordinance.
Chair Bernstein: The process right now is if a property owner wants to enter into a Mills Act contract, the
City – they just make the request to – who do they make the request to?
Mr. Lait: I think – I don’t know how the Squire House got set up but I’d actually say we probably – we
don’t have a program. We don’t have a Mills Act program and so if somebody wanted to get – take
advantage of this incentive program, I’d say you are kind of out of luck right now. We need to establish
that program either by ordinance or resolution to get it established and then I think that’s by this Board is
tackling that important issue.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, good.
Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to mention that we – there is somewhere online that the City of
Palo Alto is listed under Mills Act. It just – it has Mathew Weintraub on this matrix because it says that for
each jurisdiction, it lists who the contact person is and I think this is 20 – this document is February of
2015 but we are listed here with Mathew Weintraub and his email address. I don’t know who generated
this list because it’s like of all the Cities so someone is generating a list and we are identified on it. Just
an FYI.
Mr. Lait: Yeah and I am actually looking at that list now. It’s from the Office of Historic Preservation.
Board Member Wimmer: Right.
Mr. Lait: It’s got the list of everybody’s thing. We clearly need to update that and I think – while we don’t
have a Mills Act program, we have a Mills Act property and I think that we’re taking advantage of that
opportunity to sort of promote our historic preservation interest with the State and I think that there’s an
opportunity for us to take a giant step forward in enhancing that program.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so that will support – I’m sorry, Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: I have seen that report and noticed that as well and when I talked to Shannon at
the State, she said if you have an existing Mills Act property, that they put you on that list but that
doesn’t mean you – we can actually add new properties. I will say that there clearly doesn’t seem to be
an existing program because I talked to a neighbor who actually told me that they called a couple years
ago and tried to get a Mills Act property and spoke to Dennis; I think it was about 5-years ago. They –
that was the best he could – the best they could figure out was there was no existing way for a new
applicant to apply. They said they would have to go the City Council at the very least but there was not
existing process. We had existing properties but we would have to put a new process in place so at least
that’s what the public is being told when they call to talk to planning.
Chair Bernstein: Yes, Historic planner Vance?
Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Great, good morning everyone. Happy to be here and I’m really
excited that we’re having this discussion altogether. I think we are all in agreement that a program
doesn’t currently exist so I would like to guide our discussion back to really flushing out some of the –
what we want this program to be. If we can create a strong, robust Mills Act program in Palo Alto instead
of this kind of picking here and there. My biggest questions to the HRB would be what are our – what are
the communities needs and priorities that can be addressed through this Mills Act program? What
properties do we want to prioritize and also, what kind of push back can you envision because I’ve been
hearing lots of chatter about resistance to this program? So, there are three major things that I would
like to continue our discussion on.
Chair Bernstein: The – thank you for that. Board Member Corey, did you have you're – yeah, yeah.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Board Member Corey: So, resistance to the program, where has that been coming from? I’ve heard about
property taxes but that’s – or about – or the School Boards.
Ms. Vance: Yes, that’s what I have been hearing. Since our public schools get 71% of their money from
local property taxes, any kind of pulling from that fund is going to be seen as taking from them but I
believe there are some answers to that question. At least from a – the earlier paperwork.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member a – Beth, down there. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: But that would include the right to make some monetary limits in terms of
how many contracts and what amount the contracts would be so that it’s something that we, in fact,
could pretty well control.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I think historically in Palo Alto, there’s been pushback from the school district about
any revenue that would be redirected from their budget. I did some research on the 2016-17 school
district budget, just to get a sense of what funds they have to work with. Their budget for that – this is
the school year that is just ending and that was $231.5 million dollars and of that, they get 74.7% or
$165,772,079 from property taxes. Out of – and they – I learned from the Finance Department – the
Cities Finance Department that Palo Alto school district gets 54% of all property tax dollars, County gets
23%, then Palo Alto gets 8%, the Foot Hills college district gets 6%, Santa Clara Valley Water gets 4%
and then 5% goes to other places. In thinking about the cost of this program over a 10-year period,
which would be $1.5 million per year if we had 10 contracts time 10 and then looking at a $231 million
budget, which over 10-years would be $2.3 billion if it was just fixed and I am not making assumptions
about whether that taxes stay the same because they never do. They do go up and down, that’s a drop
in the bucket, really, for any of the entities that are collection property taxes. Since we have an equal
interest in having not only strong schools, which of course I support. I went 12-year in school in Palo
Alto, as did my parents, my children, and maybe my grandson. I don’t want any misunderstanding to
occur. It’s important to have strong schools in Palo Alto. It’s one of the reasons people want to live here
and that’s one of the reasons why I live here still. Nonetheless, we have lots of issues and lots of needs
in the City and we can’t focus entirely on one so I think it’s a reasonable amount of money to think about
spending. I think that that’s something that we address when we actually have a program to propose.
This is the flushing out period and we’re still trying to think about it. I wonder if we could go back to one
thing that I mentioned earlier, commercial versus residential. I’m open to commercial properties being
included in this program. I don’t think I really want to exclude them but I think we should have limits on
if a commercial property, for instance, has another source of an incentive then this would not – they
would not be able to apply for a Mills Act. I don’t want somebody who gets TDRs and sells them off, to
then get another benefit but maybe that’s not – I don’t know if that’s legal but I suppose we can define
the program in any way that we want. As long as we’re not contravening some law but I would like to
hear what my other Board Members…
Chair Bernstein: Historic planner Emily has a comment.
Ms. Vance: I would strongly encourage including all property types; industrial, any kind of public space,
commercial, residential because otherwise, these are going to be viewed as just private homes that can
only be enjoyed by a very small amount of people. As opposed to a commercial space or public place
where the entire community would be about to see the benefits of having a Mills Act property. I think it
should absolutely be open to all property types, include potentially even schools. If that would be
something that we could work in. I know, I understand that there are some issues with that but if there’s
some way that we can pick the buildings that we want to prioritize, that would be a good thing to do.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Board Member Makinen: Yes, thank you, Chair Bernstein. Is there any experience that we have with
other communities throughout California and whether they have like industrial sites or commercial sites in
their Mills programs? Does anybody have any knowledge on that?
Ms. Vance: Yeah, there’s – for example, in Beverly Hills, there is a theater that was a Mills Act property –
a historic theater that they renovated and put to wonderful use.
Board Member Makinen: Well, that’s a very good example. Some of the theaters right now, are in dire
need of preservation and also, what comes to mind is places like bowling alleys that are (inaudible) to
destruction. I think it makes a lot of sense to consider other than residential properties as part of this
program.
Chair Bernstein: Historic planner Emily Vance mentioned a question about the communities needs and as
Vice Chair Bower mentioned that school funding is a community need. Then also, the other need of or
value to be – that we are discussing is about just historic preservation in itself like the quality of
neighborhoods and look at historic districts. We’ve had the common comment about well, here’s another
historic structure in a historic district that is being demolished or being delisted and then that starts
degrading perhaps, the definition of the district. That’s another community need that some groups that
have expressed. Board Member Bunnenberg, yeah?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, and I would point out that Palo Alto High School is on the historic
inventory so it could profit from.
Chair Bernstein: City Attorney Sandy Lee.
Ms. Lee: I just wanted to point out that understand State law, that a qualified historical property means a
privately-owned property that is not otherwise exempted from property tax.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so that would eliminate commercial buildings. Oh, no, no, just public – ok, I
understand. Thank you. One of the goals is to get this program activated as a pilot program. Board
Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: The one thing that I would like to encourage as we – as I guess we finally put this
together is that we make it really simple. I want to – well, I want to make sure that we do keep the
balance between – if we are going to keep the balance between residential and commercial, that’s
assuming that everybody is ok with that and that sounds reasonable. I do want to make sure that we
have a process in place where we don’t have to review every one of the – I mean, it seems like it would
be a big burden to have to review every one of these or have every one of these go through the City
Council. Is there a way we can form this so that it’s generic enough that it doesn’t put a big burden per
property but also addresses the concerns like David has. I think when we talked about priorities for
people doing individual upgrades on their property, one of the things that we felt was that we did want
people to use it, for instance, remodeling kitchens and things of that nature. How do we word something
like that where we can say – we can prioritize things or have it so the process is a bit similar to that these
processes and just go through without a lot of intervention for every single one. I feel that if we’re going
to end up having a look at every single one, assuming we get activity and we get interest from the
public, that it could be kind of a big pain. How do we make this simple so that it’s – so that there’s rule
that kind of can get these through? I think that’s going to be important because nobody is going to want
to go to the City Council and have to deal with that. Not only do we not want that but I don’t think the
public is going to want that because that is a burden.
Chair Bernstein: Any response from the rest of the Committee on that question? Yeah?
Board Member Wimmer: I guess if an applicant came in and is wanting to benefit from this program, I
guess would that be a staff review? We were just saying that it wouldn’t have to necessarily come in
front of our Board but I guess the City Council would have to approve the overall program but I think
City of Palo Alto Page 10
you’re right in making it very easy to understand and user-friendly. So, maybe that’s our next step to
take on the great work that David has done and put together an actual package of some sort of
instruction sheet and sample application forms and things. Then maybe we can put a package together
that is more or less the instructional information and the application process; put a draft together of that.
Board Member Corey: I would propose that for instance if we were concerned about residential versus
commercial, we could put in out of the ten, six should be residential and four should be commercial or
something like that. Then if we hit those limits then we can have a conversation but that way again, you
have a process where you don’t have to say oh, well, we have nine commercials and should we really
approve another what have you?
Mr. Lait: Oh, we’re both – ok. I think we’re also – staff would be interested in having a process that was
streamlined and orderly and not burdensome not only to applicants but also to staff resources. I think
that there’s a tremendous number of examples that exist. I think there is some close to 90 Cities that are
participating in the Mills Act program in California and some of us have worked in organizations where
they have robust Mills Act programs. I think the staff that is before you even have a whole lot of
experience working with this. So, we can certainly put together some sort of flow chart and a path and a
process together that we would present to the HRB as a framework for how we want to do that. Because
the City is entering in with an agreement with the property owner, the Council is going to have to
involved on some level and so it doesn’t mean that there has to be a public hearing. It can be something
that is done on consent and we can move it along that way. I also don’t think that despite all of our best
efforts to develop a very robust and comprehensive program and that should something like that get
adopted. I don’t think we are going to get a whole rush of applications coming in. In my experience, if
we get one or two of these coming in a year, I think we would be excited about that and that’s a
workload that we can certainly can manage. I wouldn’t want to develop a program that was fearful of an
onslaught of applications. That should be – we should fortunate enough to be in a situation where we
can sort of pick and choose the projects that we want that go forward. I’m not concerned about that and
I’m usually the one waving the flag about impacts to staff resources and things like that but I’m not
concerned about it in this context.
Board Member Corey: I was – that’s great feedback. I guess my feeling was more about is there a lot of
processes involved for the applicants where it becomes so burdensome that they don’t actually want to
do it in the first place. I can imagine having a City Council meeting where they have to talk about it and
there are members of the public and from the School Board coming up saying oh, this is bad for the
schools and it’s just no one wants to – in our year process, no one is going to want to go through it. In
order to incentives, we should make sure that – that’s where I was more focusing on the streamline. I
agree that there’s going to be people knocking on the door but that’s great feedback.
Mr. Lait: Just to that point, I think that conversation is probably going to get vetted out in the
development of the program. Maybe for the first couple of application that comes in, we may hear some
comments from supporters and people who may be against the program. I think that gets ironed out
over time and you are right, you’ve actually mentioned the need for – to be thinking about our
application fees and making sure that the barrier to entry is not so high that we discourage people from
wanting to enter into the process.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen, yeah? Oh, did you – please.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, that as exactly my thought. The application fees should be minimal or
perhaps non-existent just to encourage people to get into the program. If we decide that we have an
overwhelming subscription to the program, we can institute some fees on it at that time. I think for a
pilot program, you want to keep the fees almost down to nothing to see what types of interest you get.
Vice Chair Bower: I wonder if you could – staff could develop your part of this in some kind of outline
form and share it with the subcommittee so we could see what you're concerned are prior to having the
Board see it for the first time at say a Board meeting. I’m thinking that we’re at the beginning of this
City of Palo Alto Page 11
process and I can’t imagine this would actually now go before the Council because of the complexity of
developing a process like this. Summer is horrible for the Council and then when Council comes back
from vacation in the fall, there is always heavily compact Council agenda. We’ve been talking about this
for 2-years and we want to get this done and we want to get it done in a coherent manner. Maybe we
could try to share the program outline and the staff concerns with the Council when we meet with them
in August. Just as a preliminary of here’s what we have and tell us what you think about this approach.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, I think in response to that, I think that what we can do is – I think there’s probably more
information that we can give the Board or subcommittee, however you want to work through it and sort
of collect more information like pros, cons, pitfalls and things to be aware of. Just important priorities and
you’ve already talked a little bit about the types of structures that you want to see included. We’ve talked
about incentives such as waiving fees. We can put all of this together in some kind of report with the
intent that we’re trying to capture the Board’s interest in this program. So, that when you do have that
meeting with the City Council, all Board Members are aware of what your interests are and that we’ve
had some preliminary conversations about this. That can be presented to the City Council and they can
say hey, this sounds like a great idea or we have some concerns or go back and study this but at least
we have a foundation by which to think about the program. I think Emily would be more than happy to
be a participant in that process and working with the subcommittee and then coming back to the Board
and just kind of sharing what we have learned from some other Cities and how those might – you know,
put together the beginnings of this for you.
Vice Chair Bower: I’m recommending that the subcommittee because we can do that on an informal
basis. We can’t do anything with the whole Board without doing it in this room.
Mr. Lait: OK, so yeah, the subcommittee is fine.
Vice Chair Bower: The subcommittee can look at it and then, we can work through those issues and of
course, all Board Members have input when we get it to the point where we want to present it to the
public.
Male: That sounds great.
Vice Chair Bower: I’m not trying to exclude any Board Members but I’m just trying to make the process
more flexible.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: One question, if we put together a framework that goes to the City Council and
gets approved for say 10 properties with a certain set of requirements and set of the objective. Does that
still mean that each property would actually have to go through the City Council to be approved, is that…
Mr. Lait: Each individual contract would be reviewed independently.
Board Member Corey: So, hypothetically, if the contract was identical but just had a different address and
there’s no way we could templatize that? That would have to go through each one.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we could develop a template. There might be some fine tuning between one property and
the next. Your work group over the next 10-years of how you’re going to invest the property tax savings
into the work is going to be different for probably each project. The process could be one that is
streamlined and the only reason it would get pulled off consent is if there was kind of controversy
associated with it.
Board Member Corey: Do we have to lay out in the contract the actual work ahead of time or is there
something – don’t we have the flexibility to do that on an ongoing basis?
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Mr. Lait: My experience and others may have some different perspective on this but you are entering into
a contract for 10-years. I’d like to see 10-years’ worth of improvements that you are planning on your
structure. Now, that may change over time and we can amend it. We can amend the contract but we
want to have a sense that this money is being used to rehabilitate the historic resource.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Once it gets started, there is, of course, the process of putting it on the
consent calendar for the Council and if it becomes enough of a routine, they could put it on and then only
when Council Members ask to pull it, would they have a full discussion.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, that’s absolutely correct.
Chair Bernstein: So, a possible action plan is by August of our joint City Council and Historic Board, is that
– that could be a time where HRB then asks the City Council during that joint study session – joint
meeting. Council Members, what do you guys think about putting it on – adopting our pilot program?
Board Member Corey: Sounds good to me.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Vice Chair Bower: Can you confirm the Council/HRB meeting date? You mentioned August 28th?
Mr. Lait: Yeah, that’s my understanding and we’ll send an email confirmation about that date.
Vice Chair Bower: Because it gets tougher and tougher and the further we get into summer, summer
which seems not to arrive yet but…
Mr. Lait: I think we’ve been trying to schedule this for almost a year now.
Vice Chair Bower: I know and some years we meet with the Council because they have so many…
Mr. Lait: I think last year was one of them.
Vice Chair Bower: …higher priorities but any rate, you can – I know that it’s not your decision but if you
can get any information to us as soon as possible, that would be helpful.
Mr. Lait: So, yeah, certainly happy to do that. I wanted to just make one – I want to clarify our work
distinction. I mean, we’re going to put together some data from other Cities and talk about the
framework and outline – develop your outline further with the subcommittee. The work of developing the
program, getting some ordinance and some code language and vetting all that stuff out, that would
happen after the Council endorsed the program and asked us to go develop that. Ok.
Chair Bernstein: Any other discussion or comments on this agenda item? Ok, seeing none. Thank you for
your valuable comments to this.
Action Items
Chair Bernstein: Next, is – on our agenda is action items. I see none listed on our agenda.
Approval of Minutes
Chair Bernstein: Next is the approval of minutes of April 27th. Any motion to approve or amendments?
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Vice Chair Bower: I saw no issues so I move that we approve the minutes.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Second.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, any comments? Seeing none. All those in favor say aye. That passes unanimously.
Thank you.
MOTION PASSES 6-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER KOHLER ABSENT
Subcommittee Items
Chair Bernstein: Next is subcommittee items. I think we’ve already addressed some of those already, I
believe.
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Board Member question, comments, and announcements, any? Seeing none. That brings
us to adjournment. All those in favor of adjournment say aye. Ok, that’s – we’re done. Thank you.
Adjournment