Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-04-26 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 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 two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Historic Resources Board Regular Meeting Agenda: April 26, 2018 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. 2018 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00067]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Discuss a Preliminary Architectural Review Application for a Mixed Use Building to Replace Existing Residential Structures on Three Separate Parcels Determined Ineligible for Listing as Historic Resources 3. 864 Boyce Avenue [19PLN-00030]: Historic Resources Board Study Session Review to Discuss a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exception for Subdivision of the Property at 874 Boyce Avenue into Two Parcels and Addition of a One-Story Dwelling on the Proposed Rear Parcel. The single-family residence at 874 is listed on the Local Historic Resources Inventory as a Category 4 Building 4. 1107 Cowper Street [Application Not Yet Filed]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Discuss Preliminary Plans for Replacement of a Professorville Historic District Two-Story Home Built in 1997 with a New Two-Story Home 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 _______________________ 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 two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes for Approval for February 8 and February 22, 2018 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 two 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 David Bower Vice Chair Brandon Corey Boardmember Martin Bernstein Boardmember Vacant 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 # 9184) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule and Assignments Title: 2018 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: 2018 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments 4.26.18 (PDF) 2018 Schedule Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned 1/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Retreat/Fieldtrip 2/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/8/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 4/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 4/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/10/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/24/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/14/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/28/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/12/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/26/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/9/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/23/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/27/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/11/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/25/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/9/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/22/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 12/13/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/27/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 2018 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 9032) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 565 Hamilton Mixed Use Project (Study Session) Title: 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00067]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Discuss a Preliminary Architectural Review Application for a Mixed Use Building to Replace Existing Residential Structures on Three Separate Parcels Determined Ineligible for Listing as Historic Resources From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide input during a voluntary ‘study session’ review of a Preliminary Architectural Review application for a mixed-use project to replace three residential buildings and associated garages in Downtown Palo Alto. The HRB may consider the project with respect to: the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines discussion regarding desirable commercial-to-residential transitions in streetscape design, and Architectural Review Findings found in Palo Alto Municipal code Chapter 18.76, particularly Finding 2b, which has a focus on historic resources. Report Summary The project addresses are 565 Hamilton Avenue, 571 Hamilton Avenue and 542-548 Webster Street, located at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. The HRB’s duties, set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.27.040, include informing staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family buildings in the Downtown area and providing recommendations regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures. The structures on the subject property have not been identified as historically significant through the consultant historic evaluation process. Therefore, review by the HRB of the formal application, once submitted, is not required. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 This report forwards to the HRB the concept plans for a mixed-use building to replace three existing residential and associated garage buildings, determined through Historic Resource Evaluations to be ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) as historic resources. The property is adjacent to a garden apartment at 530 Webster, which is listed as eligible for inclusion in both the National Register of Historic Resources (NRHP) and the CRHR; however, this proximity does not necessitate HRB review. The goal of this voluntary study session is to provide input on the proposal to assist staff in assessing the project’s compatibility with the adjacent historic resource at 530 Webster, and focused on the relevance of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and Architectural Review Finding 2b. The ARB is tentatively scheduled to review the Preliminary Architectural Review application on May 3, 2018. The minutes of the HRB meeting will be provided with the staff report to the ARB for consideration during the review. Background Context A location map is provided with this report (Attachment A). The project site is located within the Downtown area outside the retail core, as defined by the Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide). As seen in the image below, the Guide identifies this site as within the “Cowper Center” District, which is considered a “secondary activity center”. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Above is an aerial image showing the project site at the corner of Webster Street and Hamilton Avenue. Below is a summary of existing uses and improvements currently on the project site: 565 Hamilton: a one-story, single-family residence in the ‘square cottage’ building type, circa 1899, and detached garage (construction date unknown), 571 Hamilton: a two-story, four unit multi-family, Colonial-Revival apartment building and associated detached parking, circa 1922-23, and 542-548 Webster: a one-story, four-unit, ‘modestly-styled’ multi-family residential building, circa 1926. The image below also shows the adjacent property; a U-shaped garden apartment at 530 Webster, circa 1928, which is listed as eligible for both the NRHP and CRHR (under criteria A and C). In the below street view of 530 Webster, a portion of building at 542-548 Webster on the subject property can be seen to the left. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The apartment building at 530 Webster was one of 165 properties deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in the Final Survey the City had prepared and submitted to the State office of Historic Preservation. The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) document (DPR523 record) prepared in 2000 by Dames & Moore for 530 Webster Street is attached (Attachment E). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The above images depict (clockwise starting from top lef): 565 Hamilton Avenue, 571 Hamilton Avenue, context shot of streetscape and 542-548 Webster. Local Historic Resource Inventory The City of Palo Alto's Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) 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. Neither of the two structures on this site is listed on the City of Palo Alto’s HRI. Historic Resource Evaluations On April 11, 2016, a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) was prepared by the architectural consulting firm Page & Turnbull. The HRE concluded the property at 565 Hamilton is not individually eligible for the CRHR. Staff submitted comments on the HRE on August 8, 2016 and a final HRE was prepared on May 30, 2017 (Attachment B). Staff reviewed the updated HRE and agrees with the findings that the property at 565 Hamilton is ineligible for listing on the CRHR. On April 11, 2016, Page and Turnbull prepared HREs for 571 Hamilton and 542-548 Webster (Attachments C and D, respectively). These HREs concluded the properties are not individually eligible for the CRHR. Staff agrees with these findings. Proposal The proposal is to construct an approximately 29,900 square foot, three-story mixed use building, and one level of below-grade parking. The project plans propose a total of 19 residential rental units with a mix of studios, one bedroom, and two bedroom units to be located on all three floors. Office space up to 7,450 square feet would be contained in the first and second floor of the building along a portion of the Hamilton Avenue frontage. The above- grade building elements adjacent to 530 Webster Street include a covered terrace, office Redwood garden, utility building, and residential unit. The proposal includes merging of the three existing lots to create one 22,450 sf lot with split zoning. The lot at 565 Hamilton is zoned CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Overlay) and the lots at 571 Hamilton and 542-548 Webster are zoned RM-40 (High Density Multiple-Family Residential). The applicant’s project description is provided as Attachment F to this report. The project plans are included as Attachment H. Hard copy plans are also provided to HRB members. Discussion Significance Criteria The HREs state that the three structures at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street do not meet the criteria for significance for listing the California Register of Historical Resources, for reasons stated in the HREs. Specifically, the HREs’ conclusions are as follows: 565 Hamilton Avenue: This structure is not individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources because it: does not individually embody nor illustrate the pattern of development related to Palo Alto’s early development, is not associated with important events or people, nor is it individually significant as an example of the Square Cottage building type, does not exemplify either the Queen Anne or Bungalow styles from which it borrows various elements, and Has vernacular qualities that do not demonstrate prominent Palo Alto-based contractor, George W. Mosher’s skill as a builder and craftsman compared to his other projects nor significant within Mosher’s career. 571 Hamilton Avenue: This multiple-family residential structure was found to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places during the City’s reconnaissance-level Historic Survey Update in 1998-2000. This structure is also not individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources because it: is not one of the earliest or important example of such buildings and is one of many multi-unit residences constructed during this period and does not individually demonstrate significance for this pattern in development, is not associated with important events or people, is not individually significant for its architectural style, design, or artistic value, and is not attributed to known builders or architects. 542 – 548 Webster: This multiple-family residential structure appears to be intact with few major alterations, but it is not individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources because it: is not one of the earliest of such buildings and is one of many multi-unit residences that were constructed during this period, does not individually demonstrate significance in relation to this pattern in development, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 does not appear to be associated with other important events or people, is, architecturally speaking, a very restrained and unexceptional example of the early multi-unit building type and does not demonstrate individual significance for its architectural style, design, or artistic value, and is not attributed to known architects or builders. CEQA and Adjacent Historic Resource The resource at 530 Webster forms the immediate context on the north side of the subject site. At the ground level, the proposed trash enclosure is located approximately 18 feet and the ground floor residential units facing Webster are approximately 50 feet from the side property line of 530 Webster. At the northwest corner of the site, one residential unit is located approximately 10 feet from the property line adjacent to 530 Webster. On the second and third levels, the proposed residential units are approximately 12 feet from the shared property line of 530 Webster. The concept plans show that the proposed building would have a height of 40 feet. The proposed building façade facing Webster Street is shown at a 20-foot, above-grade setback from the street side property line in order to more closely align with the front setback of 530 Webster. The formal Architectural Review findings require a finding of the project’s compatibility with its context, and the formal application will be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). One of the topics addressed in the CEQA checklist is Cultural Resources. The HRE will be helpful in the CEQA determination for the project when a formal application for the project is submitted. Compliance with Applicable Regulations As noted, a mixed use building is proposed which spans across two zoning districts. The CD-C(P) portion of the lot will contain a mix of office and residential uses, and the portion on the RM-40 side will contain multiple family residential units. The zone district, CD-C(P), allows office space on the first floor but requires that the architectural design accommodate the possibility of retail on the first floor. A below grade parking garage is proposed with the garage entrance off Webster Street. The project plans will be reviewed for compliance with the City’s development standards, Architectural Review findings, other applicable zoning codes, Comprehensive Plan policies, design guidelines set forth in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and Context Based Design Criteria for the Downtown Commercial District, which are contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.18. A section from the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (page 16) discussing desirable commercial-to-residential transitions in streetscape design is included in Attachment I. The HRB City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 may wish to provide input to the applicant as to the project’s design compatibility within the site’s context. The Architectural Review Findings found in Palo Alto Municipal code Chapter 18.76 are provided as Attachment G for the HRB. The HRB may wish to provide comments with respect to Architectural Review Finding 2b, which has a focus on historic resources: “The project has a unified and coherent design…that 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.” Environmental Review The formal application for the subject project would be assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Next Steps Preliminary Architectural Review by the ARB is tentatively scheduled for May 3, 2018. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 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: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: 565 Hamilton HRE (PDF) Attachment C: 571 Hamilton HRE (PDF) Attachment D: 542 Webster HRE (PDF) Attachment E: 530 Webster Street DPR (PDF) Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment G: ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment I: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Excerpt (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 7 17 7 17 First United M ethodist Church Alain Pinel Realtor 1100 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'93.0' 150.0' 75.0' 43.0' 15.0' 150.0' 90.0' 107.0' 5' 43.0' 11.5' 9.0' 41.0' 107.0' 93.0' 100.0' 93.0' 100.0' 93.0' 50.0' 3.0' ' 50.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 100.0' 140.0' 140.0' 200.0' 140.0' 200.0' 140.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 250.0' 100.0' 250.0' 100.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 75.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 75.0' 90.0' 150.0' 90.0' 150.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 85.0'105.0' 85.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 250.0' 50.0'50.0' 150.0' 300.0' 50.0' 43.0' 125.0' 43.0' 125.0' 43.0' 25.0'43.0' 25.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 1 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 100.0' 40 100.0' 40.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 102.5' 50.0' 2.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 200.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 125.0' 8.0' 100.0' 125.0' 92.0' 125.0' 2.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 250.0' 50.0' 147.5' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 51.0' 75.0' 75.0' 107.0' 107.0' 540 499 499 467 512 512 501 501 619 619609 609 605 605 518 518 482 482 486 486 496 496 610 610 630 653-687 653-687 653655 657 659 661 663 665 667 669 681 543 543-545 545 470 470 548 542 542 548 568 568 524 524 550 550 6 524 526 578 578 564 564 550 550 546 546 540 540 530 30B 530 528 535 531 531-535 533 541 541 505 505 525 525 537 537 555 555 565 565 571 571 530 530 619-623 520 579 567 625 625 523 523 518 518 610 610 600 600 616 616 624 624 630 630 581 581 642 642 638636 636-638 567 567 555 555 701 705 555 611 611 601 601 608 608 600 600 620 620 5 687 611 611 484 484 544 544 546 546 515 515 67 526 526 519 519 Y A V E N U E R EET T O N A V E N U E T R EET H A M IL T O N A V E N U E C O W PE R ST R EE T F O R EST A V E W E B STE R STR B Y R O N ST R EET W EBSTE R ST R EET H A MILT O N A V E N L A N E 39 PC-2130CD-C (P) P C-4052 PC- 2545 RM-40 PC-3995 PC-4 Lot W C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages 100-Year Flood Subject Site Zone Districts Tree Parking District 0' 73' 565 Hamilton-Mixed Use Project 18PLN-00067 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto hking2, 2018-03-27 14:34:42 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\hking2.mdb) imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 565 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION [16031] PREPARED FOR: MDI WEST PROPERTIES LLC MAY 30, 2017 UPDATED Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 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 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 4 SITE ................................................................................................................................................ 4 EXTERIOR ...................................................................................................................................... 5 GARAGE ......................................................................................................................................... 9 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD .............................................................................................. 10 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT ....................................................................................... 12 PALO ALTO HISTORY .................................................................................................................... 12 UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ......................................................................................... 15 GEORGE W. MOSHER, BUILDER .................................................................................................. 17 SQUARE COTTAGE ....................................................................................................................... 20 QUEEN ANNE STYLE .................................................................................................................... 21 BUNGALOW ................................................................................................................................ 22 V. PROJECT SITE HISTORY ................................................................................. 24 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY .................................................................................................. 26 OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS ........................................................................................................ 27 VI. EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 31 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 31 INTEGRITY .................................................................................................................................... 33 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 34 VIII. REFERENCES CITED......................................................................................... 35 PUBLISHED WORKS ..................................................................................................................... 35 PUBLIC RECORDS ......................................................................................................................... 35 NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS ................................................................................................. 35 INTERNET SOURCES .................................................................................................................... 36 Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 1 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of Jeff Morris of MDI West Properties for the residence at 565 Hamilton Avenue (APN 120-03-062) in Palo Alto, California (Figure 1). The building was constructed in 1899 and is located one block southeast of University Avenue in the University South neighborhood. Figure 1. Parcel map of 565 Hamilton Avenue (outlined in red). Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports. METHODOLOGY This Historic Resource Evaluation provides a summary of previous historical surveys and ratings, site description, historic context statement, and an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. 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. Following comments received from the Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department in August 2016, the report was updated with additional information about the architect and similar buildings in Palo Alto. 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 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the building at 565 Hamilton Avenue. 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. 565 Hamilton Avenue 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. 565 Hamilton Avenue 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. 565 Hamilton Avenue is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database as of 2012. This means the property has not been formally evaluated using California Historical Resource Status Codes and/or the status code has not been submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation. 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 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 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. 565 Hamilton Avenue is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION SITE The house of 565 Hamilton Avenue stands on a 7,500 square-foot rectangular parcel, 50 feet wide by 150 feet deep. It is on the west side of Hamilton Avenue, one lot south of Webster Street, in the University South neighborhood (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Built in 1899, the one-story over basement residence was a modest Square Cottage building type with Queen Anne and Bungalow features (Figure 4). It is irregular in plan and 1,219 square feet in size with a 176 square-foot L- shaped porch.1 The building features a concrete foundation, wood frame structure, and wood shingle cladding. It has a composite shingle hipped roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails; a wood-framed gutter has been added at the overhang around the building. At the rear of the building is a shed-roof addition. Figure 2: Partial Aerial view of the University South neighborhood in Palo Alto with subject property outlined in red. Source: Bing Maps, 2016. The house is set back from Hamilton Avenue behind a front lawn bisected by a concrete walkway. Bushes and edge plants are at the front of the house, flanking a set of concrete stairs that lead from the walkway to the porch. The remnant of a gravel driveway is along the northeast (left) property line at the front of the property. The remainder of the former driveway along the northeast side of the house has been converted to paved surface parking for the adjacent lot at 571 Hamilton Avenue and is accessed from that driveway. Behind the house is a concrete path in a landscaped lawn that leads to a gravel area in front of the detached garage (Figure 11). The backyard beyond the gravel area and garage is grass lawn with planting areas (Figure 20 and Figure 21). Wood board and chain link fencing separate the backyard from neighboring properties. 1 City of Palo Alto Planning Department, Assessment Record for 565 Hamilton Avenue, Assessment Record No.1224. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 5 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 3. 565 Hamilton (red dot) within the University South neighborhood of Palo Alto. Source: Google Maps, 2016. EXTERIOR Primary (Southeast) Façade The primary façade faces southeast onto Hamilton Avenue (Figure 4). It has two bays. The left bay is a covered porch with turned columns on a low wall with molding (Figure 5). The section that extends along the side of the house is enclosed with fixed glazing on a low wall (Figure 6). Two doors are in the porch (Figure 7). One is a multi-lite wood door that leads to the glassed-in porch area. The other is a partially glazed wood door that leads to the main interior. Both doors have a wood screen door. The porch is accessed from a set of wood stairs with pipe railing. The right bay of the front façade is a bay window (Figure 8). It has with one-over-one double-hung wood windows on the sides and a central fixed wood window that has an upper pane of diamond- shaped lites. The windows are in wood frames with casings that are typical around the house. A flat wood trim piece is below the roofline and is consistent on all façades. A shed dormer with a wood vent is centered in the roof above this façade. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 4. Primary façade, looking northwest from the sidewalk on Hamilton Avenue. Figure 5. Covered porch with wood stairs, looking west. Figure 6. Turned columns and glassed in section of the porch, looking northwest. Figure 7. Two doors in covered porch with glassed-in section to the left, looking southwest. Figure 8. Bay window with diamond lites at the center window, looking northwest. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Southwest Façade The southwest façade faces a narrow side yard (Figure 6). At front (right) is the covered porch with the glassed-in section slightly recessed from the wall plane (Figure 9). There are three one-over-one double-hung wood windows along the façade (Figure 10). The center window is smaller than the other two, and all three have wood screens. The plain wood trim piece continues between the roofline and the top of the windows. At the rear (left) is a fixed window at grade that looks into a crawlspace. Figure 9. Glassed-in section of porch slightly recessed from southwest façade, looking northwest. Figure 10. Southwest façade toward the rear of the property, looking northwest. Rear (Northwest) Façade The rear façade has an addition projecting from the original house toward the north (left) side (Figure 11). At the right side of the façade is the rear of the original house with a small wood deck reached by a set of wood stairs (Figure 12). A single panel wood door with a metal screen is at the deck, as well as a partially glazed side door adjacent to the addition. A small square fixed window with a screen is to the left of the wood door. To the right of the wood door is a pair of one-over-one double-hung wood windows with wood screens. The paired windows have a wood trim surround and a molded sill. Below the paired windows is the wood access door to the cellar/crawlspace. The ca.1924 addition projects between from the center-north of the façade (Figure 13). It has a shed roof and is clad in wood shingles. Its southwest façade has the partially glazed door leading to the wood deck and a one-over-one double hung wood window with wood trim to the left of the partially glazed door. The northwest façade of the addition has no openings, while the northeast façade has a one-over-one double hung wood window with wood trim (Figure 14). Left of the addition, at the northwest corner is part of the original house’s rear façade (Figure 15). Projecting slightly forward from the right side of the rear façade, generally in line with the partially glazed side door, this small section has a six-light wood window above vertical wood siding. Wood shingles continue below the wood siding. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 11. Rear façade with the shed-roof addition projecting from the original house, looking southeast. Figure 12. Rear façade of original house, with addition to the left, looking southeast. Figure 13. Southwest façade of the addition at the rear façade, looking northeast. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Northeast Façade The northeast façade faces a paved area that was once the driveway associated with the house; the paved area is now parking for the adjacent property at 571 Hamilton Avenue. The northeast façade has a brick chimney toward the southeast (front) that extends through and is capped above the eave (Figure 16). Toward the middle is a bay window that does not fully extend to the ground. It has one- over-one double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs. Wood screens are on the two side windows. To the right of the bay window is a trio of one-over-one wood windows with wood screens and one blocked opening with wood trim (Figure 18). Figure 16. Front half of northeast façade toward Hamilton Avenue, looking southeast. Figure 17. Rear half of northeast façade toward rear of property, looking southwest. GARAGE The detached garage is located along the northwest property behind the house (Figure 18). It is a square, wood frame building clad in wood shingles with a front gable roof and exposed rafter tails. The front faces northeast to a paved area in the backyard. It has wood paneled sliding garage doors on the front (northeast) façade, and fixed four-lite wood windows on the southeast and northwest façades (Figure 19). The rear (southwest) façade partially abuts the building on the adjacent lot. The garage is current used as a carpenter studio. Figure 14. Northeast façade of rear addition, looking southwest. Figure 15. Rear façade to the left of the rear addition, looking southeast. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 10 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The University South neighborhood is U-shaped and bounded by University Avenue to the west, Middlefield Road to the north, and Alma Street and the railroad tracks to the south. The east boundary within the U-shape is at Addison Avenue, while the legs of the U extend east along Webster Street at the north and Emerson Street at the south to Embarcadero Road (Figure 22 to Figure 27). The neighborhood is part of the historic core of Palo Alto and characterized by a variety of uses. Toward the southwest are low- to mid-scale retail and commercial buildings from Palo Alto’s early downtown. These buildings are along Alma Street and University Avenue and two or three streets into the neighborhood from these boundaries. They also continue on the west side of University Avenue in the Downtown North neighborhood. The rest of the University South neighborhood is a mix of single- and multi-family residential buildings, with some institutional properties such as an elementary school and several churches. The variety in the neighborhood also directly surrounds the subject property. The buildings range from the earliest residential cottages dating to the 1890s to 1920s apartment buildings to contemporary office buildings. The older housing stock is typically one to two stories, while more recent buildings are larger in scale at two to three stories tall. Figure 18. Front (northeast) façade of the garage, looking southwest. Figure 19. Southeast side façade of the garage that faces the main house, looking northwest. Figure 20. Backyard and paved area in front of the garage (left), looking northwest. Figure 21. Backyard behind the garage, looking southwest. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 11 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 22. Newer office building next to 565 Hamilton Avenue (right), looking northwest. Figure 23. 565 Hamilton Avenue (left) and 571 Hamilton Avenue (right), looking southwest. Figure 24. More recent office buildings along Hamilton Avenue. Figure 25. Office building directly across Hamilton Avenue from the subject property Figure 26. Mid-century modern church near the subject property. Figure 27. Examples of early cottages found throughout the University South neighborhood. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 12 - 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 Alta 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.2 The subject property at 565 Hamilton Avenue was located on what was formerly Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, which, 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.3 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.4 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.5 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.6 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 28). The subject property of 565 Hamilton Avenue was located on Block 38 toward the center of the University Park track, one block east of the main commercial spine on University Avenue. 2 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed 24 March 2016, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. 3 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17. 4 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, website accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. 5 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. 6 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 28. Map of the original town of Palo Alto. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.html. 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.7 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.8 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 7 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php. 8 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore, 1-4. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 14 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.9 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 1948.10 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 San Francisco 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 1953.11 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 29), gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.12 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 discontiguous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry currently 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. 9 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora. 10 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7. 11 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 12 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 15 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 29. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.html. UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD The current University South neighborhood was the southeastern quadrant of the original University Park track platted by Timothy Hopkin. It was the core part of the early city, along with today’s Downtown North neighborhood located on the northwest side of University Avenue. Defined by San Francisquito Creek to the northwest, Middlefield Road to the northeast, and the railroad to the south with Stanford University beyond that, the original core of Palo Alto had University Avenue as the main commercial corridor, running southwest to northeast (Figure 30). Farmland still remained beyond the downtown area. The 1895 Sanborn map shows commercial stores along University Avenue concentrated to the southern end near the railroad, where a large lumberyard existed. Residential houses were scattered along the street just east and west of University Avenue on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. There were also a few church, hotels, and boarding houses among many vacant lots. Contemporary newspapers called the homes in this area “neat cottages” housing artisans and merchants. Some grander homes for more affluent residents were sprinkled throughout.13 Professors from Stanford resided toward the southeastern side in what is today the Professorville neighborhood, just east of University South. As Palo Alto developed and diversified, distinct neighborhoods became apparent within the original University Park tract, including Downtown North, University South, and Professorville. 13 Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? ‘Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986) 5. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 16 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. By 1901, Palo Alto had grown, and the Sanborn map shows more than just the original core. Houses were filling in the lots on the blocks around the railroad while scattered residential development extended up to and beyond Middlefield Road. Additional institutions had been built in the area, including a public school and high school. Figure 30. 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map of Palo Alto showing the core of the new city. The subject property is marked by the red dot for reference, although it was not constructed until later. Source: San Francisco Public Library. The University South neighborhood derives its name from its location, south of University Avenue. The neighborhood, as it is defined today is U-shaped, bounded by University Avenue at the northwest, the railroad tracks at the south, and Middlefield Road to Embarcadero Road along the northwest. Addison Avenue is the southwest edge, though the legs of the U extend along Webster Street at the north and Emerson Street at the south. Professorville, as the residential neighborhood most associated with Stanford faculty, fills in the legs of the U. The neighborhood was part of the original University Park tract and has some of Palo Alto’s earliest residences built in the 1890s, as well as more recent buildings from the mid-twentieth century and on. University Avenue remains a commercial corridor with the neighborhood serving retail and restaurants in a mix of one- to three-story buildings from various eras. University South, which is located southeast of University Avenue, has a high concentration of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, reflecting its history as one of the oldest areas of the city. 565 Hamilton Avenue is located at the northwest corner of University South as one of the many modest cottages remaining from the early development of Palo Alto. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 17 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. GEORGE W. MOSHER, BUILDER George Wilbert Mosher (1863-1939) was a prolific contractor and craftsman in the Palo Alto area who constructed hundreds of buildings in the formative years of the City during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Figure 31).14 Born in Nova Scotia, Canada in 1863, Mosher grew up working on the family farm and a plaster quarry that his father owned and operated near the town of Windsor. To support the family further, Mosher began apprenticing in carpentry and shipbuilding at the age of 12. He moved to Portland, Maine about five years later in 1880, and continued to work in the shipbuilding trade throughout the state. In March of 1884, Mosher and his brother Edgar left the Atlantic coast for California. Upon arrival in San Francisco, California, Mosher began working for the Southern Pacific Railroad Company constructing bridges. In 1887, Mosher returned to Nova Scotia to marry his wife, Helena, whom he brought back to California, to settle in Santa Cruz. Upon returning to California, Mosher resigned from his position at Southern Pacific and moved to the town of Mayfield, California to accept a position constructing Stanford University in 1892. He moved again shortly after to Palo Alto and established himself as the town’s first contractor and builder. His brothers, Charles and James, also immigrated to California and worked alongside their brother. George Mosher was already an accomplished builder and craftsman when he arrived in Palo Alto. Mosher firmly established himself in the construction of residences of varying scale and grandeur and is responsible for up to 300 homes within the city. He built several houses designed by various architects and identified in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, including15: ▪ Squire House, 900 University Avenue (National Register, Category 1, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), architect: T. Paterson Ross, 1904 (Figure 32) ▪ Thoits House, 119 Bryant Street (Category 2, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1897 ▪ 301 Coleridge Avenue (Category 4, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), architect: William Crim, 1925 ▪ 425 Embarcadero Road, Professorville Historic District (Category 2, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), architect: A.W. Smith, 1907 (Figure 33) ▪ Wing House, 345 Lincoln Avenue (Category 2, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), designer: A.B. Clark, 1893 ▪ 353 Melville Avenue (Category 3, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), architect: H.L. Upham, 1897 ▪ 1432 Webster Street, (Category 3, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), architect: Mary D. Thomas 1914 14 The following information was collected from the George W. Mosher Collection, Palo Alto Historical Society. The collection primarily consists of assorted clippings from the Palo Alto Times (1894-1939), although other unidentified materials were present. Additional sources outside this collection will be cited accordingly. 15 Information gathered from entries at Palo Alto Stanford Heritage website, which compiled data from the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Figure 31. Portrait of George W. Mosher, ca.1900. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 18 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 32. National Register-listed Squire House at 900 University Avenue (1904), architect T. Paterson Ross, builder George W. Mosher. Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Figure 33. 425 Embarcadero (1907), A.W. Smith, builder George W. Mosher. Source: Google Maps Mosher was also the architect/builder on many other houses found throughout Palo Alto. Compared to those associated with a trained architect, they were generally more modest in size and design. They typically were one-story square cottages or two-story square boxes (as the Dames & Moore categorized them) various architectural styles that were popular during the period such as Greek Revival, Queen Anne, Folk Victorian, Shingle, and Mission Revival. The architectural detailing was usually simplified, or included a mix of elements from different styles, and may be from pattern books or published designs with some modification by Mosher. A few, like the late 19th-century Queen Anne houses at 533 Bryant Street, 228 Byron Street, 617 High Street, and 225 Emerson Street, appear to have more decorative elements and are good vernacular examples of the style. The Palo Alto Historic Inventory attributes several houses to Mosher as the builder, including: Two-Story Square Boxes ▪ 270 Channing Avenue (Category 4, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1905 ▪ 617 High Street (Category 3, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1897 (Figure 34) ▪ Sloanker House, 334 Kingsley Avenue, Professorville Historic District (Category 2, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1903 ▪ 431 Kipling Street (Category 4, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1901 ▪ 1128 Webster Street (Category 4, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1894 (Figure 35) ▪ 1295 Wilson Street (Category 3, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1895 Square Cottages ▪ Bixby House, 533 (535) Bryant Street (Category 2, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1897 ▪ 228 Byron Street (Category 2, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1896 (Figure 36) ▪ 225 Emerson Street (Category 2, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1893 ▪ 411 Kipling Street (Category 4, Palo Alto Historic Inventory), 1902 (Figure 37) Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 19 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Moser also constructed some commercial and institutional buildings such as the 1905 addition to Fraternal Hall, which was designed by Newsom & Newsom to add on to Samuel Newsom’s original 1898 building.16 Figure 34. 617 High Street (1897), builder George W. Mosher. Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, c.1986 Figure 35. 1128 Webster Street (1894), builder George W. Mosher. Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Figure 36. 228 Bryon Street (1896), builder George W. Mosher. Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Figure 37. 411 Kipling Street (1902), builder George W. Mosher. Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage In addition to his role as a prominent builder in Palo Alto, Mosher was very involved in the early municipal governance of the city. He was first elected in 1898 as town trustee, and in 1909 he was elected councilman, a position he would hold over the following decade. He and his wife moved to Eureka, California for a brief period following 1919, but they returned to Palo Alto a few years later, where Mosher was once again elected as a councilman in 1929. He continued to hold that position and played an important role in the development of Palo Alto until his death in May of 1939. 16 “514 High Street / 140 University Avenue, Fraternal Hall,” Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, accessed May 19, 2017, http://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invH/High514.html. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. SQUARE COTTAGE The Square Cottage is a vernacular building type identified in the 1997-2000 Palo Alto Historic Survey, completed by Dames & Moore. It was one of three properties types identified as potentially eligible for the National Register using the Multiple Property format. According to the survey, Square Cottages were among the predominant forms of detached residences that housed middle- and working-class people during the early development of Palo Alto, ca. 1890-1910. It states, They are variously ornamented with Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Bungalow, and other stylistic details, but all belong to a single house type. These were the most common houses built in Palo Alto up to about 1910. They were common houses for middle class people in that period.17 The historic context included in the Dames & Moore survey noted that the early houses in Palo Alto were predominantly variations of Square Cottages or Two-Story Square Boxes. The designs for these modest buildings were not usually the product of professional architects; rather local builders would construct a traditional residence from a pattern book or published design and modify various architectural features to personalize the building.18 The Dames & Moore survey does not provide a list of character-defining features, eligibility criteria, or integrity thresholds for the Square Cottage property type. Instead, it lists a series of residences throughout the city that the survey identified as Square Cottages eligible for the National Register. While somewhat varied in their plans and architectural features, they typically have hipped roofs and are one- or one-and-one-half stories tall. The main entrance is often centered on the primary façade, and at times is located within a recessed porch with balustrade and columns. This façade also often features an angled bay and/or a projecting volume with its own front-gabled roof (Figure 38 to Figure 41). Hipped dormer windows are sometimes found at the front hip of the main roof. Ornamentation and decorative features added to these buildings were usually inspired by the popular architectural styles of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Bungalow. These features, however, were often modest and contributed to the overall vernacular composition of the cottage. Figure 38. Square cottage with classical and Queen Anne details, located at 518 Byron Street, Palo Alto Source: Google Maps Figure 39. Square cottage with Queen Anne details, located at 817 Kipling Street, Palo Alto Source: Google Maps 17 Dames & Moore, “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000,” prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division (February 2001), 5-3 and 5-4. 18 Dames & Moore, 1-2. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 21 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 40. Square Cottage example at 610 California Avenue, Palo Alto. Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Figure 41. Square Cottage example at 422 Fulton Street, Palo Alto. Source: Google Maps. The proliferation of the Square Cottage as a primary residential building type in early Palo Alto has resulted in a large number of these cottages that remain extant. Examples can be found throughout the Palo Alto neighborhoods of University Park, University South, Downtown North, and Professorville. QUEEN ANNE STYLE The Queen Anne Style was a popular architectural style among the elite during the Victorian era of the late nineteenth century. First used in England, this style referred back to the reign of Queen Anne (1702 – 1714) when craftsmanship and simplicity of construction were emphasized in the architectural vernacular.19 One of the main innovators and architects of this style was Richard Norman Shaw, who popularized the Queen Anne Style in England with his half-timber designs and proliferation of built work. American architects introduced this style into the mainstream during the late 1870s. By the 1880s, the Queen Anne style had become the leading architectural style for the Victorian elite and upper-to-middle classes. The Queen Anne Style is characterized by its variety of features and combination of ornamentation. Typical features of the Queen Anne Style include steeply pitched roofs, irregular rooflines, gable projections, cutaway bay windows, asymmetrical compositions, spindlework, and swag and garland appliqués (Figure 42 and Figure 43).20 The result of this fusion of ornamentation and composition was a highly textured and varied residence, which achieved the elegance and grace desired by the people of this era. Commonly, other architectural styles, such as Eastlake and Stick, were combined with the Queen Anne Style to produce asymmetrical and varied compositions. 19 Lester Walker, American Shelter (New York: The Overlook Press, Inc., 1997), 152. 20 Virginia & Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002), 263. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 22 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 42. Queen Anne-style Downing House located at 706 Cowper Street, Palo Alto Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Figure 43. Queen Anne house located at 1023 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto Source: Palo Alto Stanford Heritage BUNGALOW Bungalows comprise another vernacular house type in Palo Alto that is similar in scale and form to the square cottage, but represent a development in architectural style beyond the Victorian-era features that were more common to the “square cottage.” While bungalows drew influence from precedents in British colonial Bengal (the building type’s namesake), they ultimately proliferated in early-twentieth-century California and became associated with suburban development in the state. As described in the Dames and Moore survey: Bungalows are usually described as low, one-story structures with informal floor plans, imagery and materials associated with simplicity and nature, and porches that made outdoor living possible. Much that has been written about bungalows has been about large houses for wealthy clients. Architects like Greene and Greene designed expensive bungalows whose details conveyed a high degree of craftsmanship and a high value placed on the labor of craftsmen in wood, stone, brick, and tile. In contrast to these very expensive homes, most bungalows in Palo Alto were inexpensive houses built for middle class clients. […] Unlike the high-end houses of Greene & Greene, most bungalows are simpler and cheaper to build than late 19th century houses for comparable clients. A low gabled bungalow roof, even with a dormer, requires a less skilled carpenter than a “Queen Anne cottage” with an irregular roof plan21 In their book American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960, Herbert Gottfried and Jan Jennings describe these more modest bungalows as belonging to the “classical bungalow” type. As Gottfried and Jennings note, classical bungalows were constructed across the United States and were characterized by wood frame construction, hipped roofs, generally low scale, and absence of Victorian ornament (Figure 44 and Figure 45). Bungalows frequently had boxed bays and exposed rafter tails underneath their broad eaves. The hipped roofs could be more steeply pitched in northern areas of the country in order to shed snow, but were lower pitched in warmer climates such as in California. Very often, the front façade featured a porch that was contained within the main roof form of the residence. Full-width porches featured evenly spaced rows of Tuscan columns to support the front eave; a variation included a recessed, or “cutaway,” porch that filled half of the front façade. 21 Dames & Moore, 6-13 and 6-14. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 23 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The main entrance to the house was frequently positioned at the center of the front façade, aligned with a hipped dormer centered on the roof slope.22 Figure 44. Bungalow located at 636 Webster Street, Palo Alto Source: Google Maps Figure 45. Bungalow located at 430 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto Source: Google Maps 22 Herbert Gottfried and Jan Jennings, American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), 193-196. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 24 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. V. PROJECT SITE HISTORY The subject building at 565 Hamilton Avenue was constructed in 1899 as a residence for Amon (also spelled as Anan) Winsor, and his wife Lydia. The raised one-story house was built by George W. Mosher, a noteworthy contractor who constructed many residences throughout Palo Alto. Prior to the construction of the subject property, the block was occupied by Jones’ Water Works, which owned and operated a water system that extracted water from an onsite well (Figure 46). The steam- powered system implemented two 40,000-gallon tanks, a 24-horse-power pump capable of extracting 22,000 gallons per hour, and two water mains extending across the block (Figure 47). Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1895 and 1897 illustrate the approximate location of the Water Works in the same general area as the subject property. Figure 46. Close-up of subject block from 1895 Sanborn Fire Insure Co. map Index sheet. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Figure 47. Close-up of the Jones Water Works on Block 38 from the 1897 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map, near the approximate location of 565 Hamilton Avenue. Source: San Francisco Public Library. The single-story wood-framed cottage was constructed in 1899 and appears in the 1901 Sanborn map (Figure 48). It is illustrated with an irregular rectilinear footprint with bay windows at the primary (southeast) and northeast facades, as well as a small L-shaped porch at the southeast corner of the residence. A residence is constructed on the south neighboring lot, but the amount of surrounding development remained sparse. The 1904 and 1908 Sanborn maps show 565 Hamilton Avenue with an unchanged footprint; however, there is an increased number of buildings in the surrounding area, most notably a two-story residence at the rear-neighboring lot (75 University Avenue) in 1904 and a series of residences across Hamilton Avenue in 1908 (Figure 49 and Figure 50). In 1915, a sleeping porch was created from the southeast side of the L-shaped entrance porch. It appears the area was enclosed with operable glazing and an entry door was added to the front façade (the left door, when facing the building) leading directly into the enclosed porch. The 1924 Sanborn map includes a small addition at the rear of the building that matches the footprint of the shed-roof section (Figure 51). It also shows that the neighboring area had been largely developed, including the construction of the two-story apartment building and auto garage at the neighboring southwest corner lot of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. The 1949 Sanborn map shows 565 Hamilton Avenue unchanged; however, the rear-adjacent neighboring lots fronting Webster Street (530 and 542-548) show multi-family residences with adjacent auto garages (Figure 52). Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 25 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 48. 1901 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map with subject property highlighted in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 49. 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map with subject property highlighted in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 50. 1908 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map with subject property highlighted in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 51. 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map with subject property highlighted in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 26 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Little work is documented at 565 Hamilton Avenue in the following years. The garage at the rear of the property was constructed at an unknown date; however, it is absent from the 1949 Sanborn map implying it was constructed in the years following. In 1972, the roof was partially reroofed with composition shingles, which were then removed and replaced in 1999. In 2004, a new 40-gallon water heater was installed at 565 Hamilton Avenue. CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The following provides a timeline of construction activity at 565 Hamilton Avenue, based on building permit applications found with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and alterations identified through other sources. It should be noted that the City records are incomplete, and no early permits remain. Some earlier permit information was transcribed from the Palo Alto Times by researchers associated with the Palo Alto Historical Society and was available as part of their collection. Date Scope of Work Notes and Source 12/29/1899 Cottage for Mrs. A. A. Winsor “565 Hamilton Avenue - December 12, 1899,” Palo Alto Times Permit Collection, Palo Alto Historical Society. G.W. Mosher listed on card with note “AAW = Bus driver” and “For Miss Brown and Mrs. Windsor PAT 10/17/99” Figure 52. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map with subject property highlighted in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 27 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Date Scope of Work Notes and Source 01/05/1915 Sleeping porch. “565 Hamilton Avenue - January 5, 1915,” Palo Alto Times Permit Collection, Palo Alto Historical Society. Card reads, “Sleeping porch AJ Runjon $75,” and also includes a Aug. 1914 date. Owner at the time was Albert J. Runyon and his wife. It appears the leg of the L-shaped porch was enclosed for a sleeping porch. The left door on the front façade may have also been added at this time to lead to the sleeping porch. By 1924 Rear shed-roof addition The 1924 Sanborn map show the addition had been added by then. 10/26/1972 Partial reroof with composition shingle Permit #5591. Owner listed as E. Frapwell, Builder and the builder as R.L. Reaves Roofing. 12/27/1997 Reroofing. Remove composition and wood shingle, replace with new composition shingle Permit #97-3481. Owner listed as Althea Frapwell and builder as Shelton Roofing Co., Inc. 7/27/2004 Installation of 40 gallon water heater Permit #04-1917. Owner listed as Althea Andersen and builder as Redwood Plumbing. Undated Stand-alone garage Visual observation. No garage is present in any Sanborn maps from 1901 through 1949. OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS The Santa Clara County Assessor was not visited during research for this report, and therefore detailed deed transactions are not known. The ownership and occupant history below is based on available building permits and city directories. For the most part, city directories confirm the owner names found on building permits. Date Owners Occupants Other Than Owners (Tenant) Occupation 1899-1902 Anan and Lydia Winsor; Mary Elizabeth Brown (sister in law) Driver (livery stable), Inn-Keeper, Own Income 1904, 1906, 1907 George H. and Mrs. Bentley Plasterer (business: Bentley the Plasterer) 1910, 1911 Mr. and Mrs. W.B. Stanley 1914, 1916, 1917 Albert J. and Mrs. Runyon Retired and housewife 1923 Larinda B. Kennedy (widow Herbert) 1926, 1927 Larinda B. Kennedy (widow Herbert) William T. Christian; Donald Stewart Both students Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 28 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Date Owners Occupants Other Than Owners (Tenant) Occupation 1929, 1930 Bonnie Cochran; Rev. Richard H. and Dessie F. Silverthorn Maid; Associate Pastor First Methodist Church 1932 Louise F. Strebe 1935 Mr. H.W. Stager Anna Carlton Cashier Ernest Wilson Co. 1940 Mrs. Ella P. Stager 1944 Mrs. Ella P. Stager 1946 Elvis and Ruth (Kerr) Frapwell Edward and Mabel Kerr; Merton Alexander Kerr Hospital attendant Vet. Adm.; post office mail carrier 1955, 1962, 1966, 1969 Elvis and Ruth (Kerr) Frapwell Mabel V. Kerr (widow Edward M.) 1979-1987 Elvis and Ruth (Kerr) Frapwell John Stoneham Present Frapwell-Andersen Trust23 Selected Owner and Occupant Biographies: Anan A. Winsor, Lydia E. Winsor, & Mary E. Brown | Owners, 1899-1902 Anan (sometimes spelled Amon or Amos) A. Winsor was born in New York in August 1835.24 He and his family moved to Ashtabula, Ohio where they began farming. Anan eventually inherited the farm from his father, who was almost 50 years his senior. In Ashtabula, Anan met and married Lydia Ellen Brown by 1868. She was born in Ohio in May 1845 and lived with her family, including her older sister, Marry Elizabeth Brown who was born five years prior. Lydia and Anan would continue to live and work the farm, until moving to California at an unknown date between 1880 and the construction of 565 Hamilton Avenue in 1899. It is unclear if Palo Alto was their first destination in California, but once they had settled in the town Anan found work as a driver at a Livery Stable, while Lydia worked as an Inn Keeper. Lydia’s sister, Mary, also moved to California to live with them, although the exact date and circumstances are unknown. After living at 565 Hamilton Avenue, the Winsor’s and Ms. Brown moved to a larger two-story Craftsman house constructed at 324 Emerson Street in 1902.25 Mrs. Winsor and Ms. Brown had a number of residences constructed in Palo Alto as investment properties. In 1914, Lydia passed away in Santa Clara County. Anan passed away the following year at an unknown location, but both are buried in Ashtabula, Ohio. Ms. Brown lived until 1921 and is also buried in Ashtabula. Reverend Richard H. Silverthorn & Dessie F. Silverthorn | Occupants, 1929-1932 Richard Harvey Silverthorn was born in Pennsylvania in 1891. By 1910, Silverthorn lived with second cousins in Indiana and worked on the family’s farm. It is unclear the exact circumstances and the role, but Silverthorn had become increasingly involved with the local Methodist Church. It was during the next few years that he met Dessie Fay Wiesjahn, born in Indiana in 1893, and were 23 Email correspondence from MDI West Properties, April 11, 2016. 24 Information for the following biographies was derived from multiple public records available through Ancestry.com, accessed March 8, 2016, http://www.ancestry.com. Additional source materials will be cited accordingly. 25 “1999 Holiday House Tour,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, accessed March 10, 2016, http://www.pastheritage.org/HHTByYear/HHT1999.html#em324. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 29 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. married in 1916. That same year, the two travelled to Malaysia to work as missionaries, and would continue to do so until 1920. Once back in the United States, the two resettled in Indiana where Richard began working in the campus ministry at Purdue University. He ultimately became the Director of the Wesley Foundation, a Methodist organization on campuses throughout the country.26 By 1929, the Silverthorns had moved to Palo Alto, California and took up residence at 565 Hamilton Avenue. Richard worked as a pastor at the First United Methodist Church in Palo Alto and became the Director for the Wesley Foundation at Stanford University. Silverthorn also began working on his Ph.D. at Stanford, which was tied to his experiences and cultural observations from his time in Malaysia.27 In 1932, the family moved to 401 Webster Street, and continued to live in Palo Alto until the late 1930s. By 1940, the Silverthorns and their two sons were living in Los Angeles, California, where Richard became the President of the Spanish American Institute, a Methodist school for boys in nearby Gardena. Dr. Henry W. & Ella P. Stager |Owners, 1934-1944 Henry Walter Stager was born in New Jersey in 1979. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in 1902 and Masters in 1905, both in Mathematics from Stanford University. In 1905, he married Ella M. Peterson, born in Illinois in 1880.28 They moved to Berkeley, California soon after their marriage. Henry earned a Ph.D. in mathematics in 1909 from the University of California, Berkeley. Afterwards, Dr. Stager became an instructor at Fresno Jr. College and served as the Mathematics Director until 1920. That same year, Dr. Stager accepted a teaching position at the University of Washington in Seattle; however, the family was again living in California a few years later, first to Santa Cruz, then San Jose in 1926 with Dr. Stager teaching at Los Gatos High School. By 1934, the couple had moved to 565 Hamilton Avenue and Henry was teaching at Palo Alto Evening High School. Dr. Stager died in Palo Alto in 1937 at the age of 58. Ella continued to live at 565 Hamilton Avenue until her death in April 1944. Edward & Mabel Kerr | Occupants, ca.1946-1970s Edward Merton Kerr was born in Harlansburg, Pennsylvania in May 1875. At the age of 23, Kerr enlisted in the U.S. military and fought in the Spanish American War from 1898 to 1899. Following his discharge, he returned to Pennsylvania and worked as a farm laborer. He eventually married Mabel Valera Wright, who was born in Newcastle Pennsylvania in December of 1880. Mabel’s parents moved to Santa Cruz, California in 1907, presumably after Edward and Mabel were married. Mabel gave birth to their daughter Ruth Jane Kerr the following year in Pennsylvania, and moved to Gilroy, California in 1909 where Edward began working as a rancher. In 1909, Mabel gave birth to their son, Merton Alexander Kerr. Over the next several decades, Edward continued to work in agriculture, and eventually owned and operated his own orchard in Santa Clara. He was drafted for World War I in September of 1918; however, he was not deployed as the war ended a few months later. In the mid-1940s, Ruth and her husband, Elvis E. Frapwell, purchased the house at 565 Hamilton Avenue, and both Edward and Mabel moved in. Edward was employed as a hospital attendant with the Veteran’s Administration while residing at 565 Hamilton Avenue, until his death in March 1959. Mabel continued to live at 565 Hamilton Avenue through the 1960s. She passed away in June 1976. Elvis E. Frapwell, Ruth J. Frapwell, & Althea Andersen | Owners, 1946-Present In 1929, Ruth Jane Kerr married Elvis E. Frapwell, a California-born telephone cable rigger. The two lived in San Jose and Santa Cruz, California until 1935, when they moved to Palo Alto. They purchased 565 Hamilton Avenue in the mid-1940s for Ruth’s parents to live in. They eventually 26 “Silverthorn Begins Quarter with S.C.A,” The Stanford Daily, v.79 is.22, March 31, 1931. 27 “Silverthorn Talks on Malays Before Cosmopolitan Club,” The Stanford Daily v.80 is.39, November 24, 1931. 28 Alumni Directory and Ten-Year Book: 1891-1920 (Palo Alto: Stanford University, 1921), 480. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 30 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. purchased the neighboring properties at 542-548 Webster Street, as well as 571 Hamilton Avenue. The two lived at a number of residences throughout Palo Alto, and eventually resided at the 571 Hamilton Avenue property. Their daughter, Althea Andersen became the primary resident of 565 Hamilton Avenue ca. 2001. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. VI. 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. ▪ Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to California 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 California. The following section examines the eligibility of 565 Hamilton Avenue for listing in the California Register. Criterion 1 (Event) 565 Hamilton Avenue does not appear to be individually significant in association with events important to the history of Palo Alto, the state of California, or the nation. Although the building was constructed in the original University Park tract, it was in the northern end where development was more spread out and filled bit by bit over the course of the 1890s and 1900s. It was one of several houses that populated the area around Hamilton and Webster at the turn of the 20th century. Many early residences of University Park that remain extant had been completed in the decade prior. It does not appear to have significantly contributed to University Park’s development or that of Palo Alto. The building is a Square Cottage building type with Queen Anne and Bungalow elements. The Square Cottage was a common housing type for Palo Alto’s middle class residents between the 1890s and 1910. Sharing a square plan and massing, they were typically constructed by builders rather than architects, and based on pattern books or published designs with some ornamental modifications. Square Cottages contributed to the early residential development in Palo Alto and according to the Dames & Moore survey, many remain scattered throughout the city but not in groupings that qualify as historic districts. Although a Multiple Property designation was suggested in the survey, no character-defining features, evaluation criteria, or integrity thresholds were outlined to provide a framework for evaluation. Lacking this framework, evaluating 565 Hamilton Avenue in comparison Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 32 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. with all other Square Cottages to determine if it is significant to the residential development of Palo Alto under Criterion 1 is outside the scope of this report. As an individual resource, 565 Hamilton Avenue does not appear to be significant in the development of University Park or Palo Alto and is not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2 (Persons) 565 Hamilton Avenue 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 California Register under Criterion 2. While many of the owners and occupants were established and involved members of the community, there is no indication that these individuals had a formative role in history that would elevate 565 Hamilton Avenue to a level of significance. As a result, 565 Hamilton Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) 565 Hamilton Avenue does not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a specific building type, period, region, or method of construction. The residence is an example of the Square Cottage building type with Queen Anne and Bungalow elements. The bay windows, diamond-paned window, and shingle cladding are Queen Anne in nature, though the building lacks the steeply pitched, irregular roofline, and delicate ornamental like appliques, spindlework, or finials that characterize the style. The building also has Bungalow features in its low-pitched roof, exposed rafter tails, and boxed eaves but these features are fairly modest and lack distinction; the rafter tails are plain except for a small angled end. The porch supports appear to be Colonial Revival columns. While it is not uncommon for vernacular housing to exhibit a mix of styles, 565 Hamilton Avenue has few distinctive details or ornamentation that elevates it to a significant design or example of craftsmanship. The alterations to it have further diminished an already modest design, most noticeably at the front façade with partial porch enclosure and the addition of a second entrance door. The original half void/half solid façade appearance within the porch, with the front door centered in the solid half, is now 2/3 solid with the second door awkwardly placed and lower in height than the original door. Compared to examples where porches have been enclosed with glazed windows, but are still recognizably voids, the insertion of additional wall space and the second door changes the proportions at the front façade and alters the building’s character. See the Integrity discussion below for more on the alterations. 565 Hamilton was constructed by the prominent Palo Alto builder George W. Mosher, who was responsible for over 300 houses in Palo Alto. It does not appear that 565 Hamilton was significant in the career of Mosher, who had been building in Palo Alto since 1892, and may be one of dozens of Mosher’s work that remains. The building appears to be typical of the more modest homes where Mosher was the builder and no architect was involved. Mosher’s Square Cottages examples identified in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory were from around the same period as 565 Hamilton but mainly Queen Anne in style and exhibiting a higher level of architectural detailing and craftsmanship than 565 Hamilton; they were rated Category 2 in the inventory. The Bungalow example at 411 Kipling Street has some added detailing such as the gabled dormer with decorative windows, wide window surrounds, and a dentil course at the roofline but was only rated a Category 4 in the inventory as a Contributing building. 565 Hamilton appears to have the form of Mosher’s Bungalow design with some simple elements of Queen Anne, but lacks the fine grain details of both. Based on a comparison among the Mosher-built properties identified by the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, 565 Hamilton does not appear to be an individually distinguished example of Mosher’s work or possess high artistic values. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 33 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The building as a Square Cottage is a modest, altered example of a common building type, which is extensively represented throughout Palo Alto by more distinguished and intact examples. Per the discussion under Criterion 1, evaluating 565 Hamilton as part of a potential Multiple Property designation for Square Cottages without an identified list of character-defining features, evaluation criteria, or integrity thresholds is outside the scope of this report. As an individual resource, 565 Hamilton Avenue’s retained use of ornamentation and relatively simple, vernacular design that has been further compromised by front alterations does not rise to the level of individual distinction to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The “potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of California” typically relates to archeological resources, rather than built resources. When Criterion 4 does relate to built resources, it is for cases when the building itself is the principal source of important construction- related information. Based on historic research, Criterion 4 is not applicable to 565 Hamilton Avenue. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in the National Register of the California Register, a property must possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National 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 California Register and the National 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. 565 Hamilton Avenue has never been moved from its original location in Palo Alto. The original cladding and nearly all of the original windows and doors appear to be intact. As a result, the building retains its integrity of location, materials, and workmanship. It also retains its association with the turn-of-the-century residential development in Palo Alto Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 34 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The building has had some alterations that have affected its design. Most visible are the partial enclosure of the front porch with the addition of a second entry door on the front façade, likely associated with the 1915 sleeping porch, and the rear shed-roof addition, which was constructed at some point in time between 1908 and 1924. Though early, these additions changed the shape of the building, particularly at the building’s front façade in terms of footprint and proportions. The building’s feeling as a single-family house has also been affected by the front façade changes, as the two doors give an impression of a duplex. 565 Hamilton Avenue also has compromised integrity of setting. The surrounding neighborhood now exhibits a variation of building uses and forms from several periods of construction, ranging from 1890 to the present. Furthermore, the immediate-adjacent properties are multi-family or commercial properties that dwarf the subject property. As a result, the surrounding neighborhood has a dense quality that bares little semblance to the open and semi-rural spatial relationships of a turn-of-the-century single-family residential neighborhood. Overall, 565 Hamilton Avenue retains several aspects of integrity with the exception of its setting. While changes have affected its design and feeling, they are not considered substantial enough to compromise the building’s overall integrity. However, given the building’s relatively simple design and minimal decorative features, the alterations have a discernible effect on its visual character and compromises the building’s ability to meet Criterion 3 (Architecture). VII. CONCLUSION Constructed in 1899, 565 Hamilton Avenue was built at the northern end of Palo Alto’s original University Park tract. It was among several scattered residential buildings that developed as the town grew outward. It does not individually embody nor illustrate the pattern of development related to Palo Alto’s early development. The property is not associated with important events or people, nor is it individually significant as an example of the Square Cottage building type, due in part to alterations at the front façade that diminished its already modest composition. Palo Alto retains an extant stock of noteworthy and more intact examples of this building type throughout the city. The building does not exemplify either the Queen Anne or Bungalow styles from which it borrows various elements. It was constructed by the prominent Palo Alto-based contractor, George W. Mosher, but its vernacular qualities do not demonstrate his skill as a builder and craftsman when compared to his other projects built with architects or on his own. Although it is a competent composition that retains some original features and materials, the building does not appear to be significant within Mosher’s career. Therefore, the building does not appear individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 35 - 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. American Association of University Women, Palo Alto Chapter. …Gone Tomorrow? ‘Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences.” Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986. San Francisco Planning Department. San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18 – Residential and Commercial Architectural Periods and Styles in San Francisco, January 2003. Stanford University. Alumni Directory and Ten-Year Book: 1891-1920. Palo Alto: Stanford University, 1921. 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. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment. Assessment Records. “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore. Dames & Moore. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. February 2001. Hunt, Fern B. “John Adam Squire House, 900 University Avenue.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination. November 30, 1971. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, Calif., 1895-1949. Palo Alto Historical Society. U.S. City Directories, California Marriage Index 1960-1985, 1944 California Voters Registration, 1880-1940 U.S. Census, Stanford Yearbook, and Family Trees at Ancestry.com. NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS Palo Alto Times (12 February 1926), Reference in property catalog at Palo Alto Historical Society. “Silverthorn Begins Quarter with S.C.A.” The Stanford Daily v.79 n.22. March 31, 1931. Historic Resource Evaluation 565 Hamilton Avenue Updated Palo Alto, California May 30, 2017 - 36 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. “Silverthorn Talks on Malays Before Cosmopolitan Club.” The Stanford Daily v.80 n.39. November 24, 1931. INTERNET SOURCES “1999 Holiday House Tour.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Accessed March 10, 2016. http://www.pastheritage.org/HHTByYear/HHT1999.html#em324. “A Flash History of Palo Alto.” Quora. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.quora.com/How-is- the-historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. “Depression, War, and the Population Boom.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. “History of Stanford.” Stanford University. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. “Palo Alto, California.” Wikipedia. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. “Prominent Architects and Builders,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Accessed January 26, 2016. http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html. Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections. Stanford University. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.h tml. Bowling, Matt. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End.” Palo Alto History.com. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of- mayfields-end.php. 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 MATERIALS CONSERVATION www.page-turnbull.com imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 571 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION [16031] PREPARED FOR: MDI WEST PROPERTIES LLC APRIL 11, 2016 FINAL Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 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 .......................................................................................................... 3 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 4 SITE ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 EXTERIOR .............................................................................................................................................. 5 GARAGE ................................................................................................................................................. 9 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ...................................................................................................... 11 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 13 PALO ALTO HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 13 UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................. 16 PROJECT SITE HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 18 EARLY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN PALO ALTO ............................................................ 24 V. EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 26 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 26 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................ 27 VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 29 VIII. REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................... 30 PUBLISHED WORKS ............................................................................................................................. 30 PUBLIC RECORDS ................................................................................................................................ 30 NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS ......................................................................................................... 30 INTERNET SOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 31 Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 1 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of Jeff Morris of MDI West Properties for the multi-family residence at 571 Hamilton Avenue (APN 120-03-061) in Palo Alto, California (Figure 1). The building was constructed in 1922-1923 and is located at the west corner of the intersection between Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street, one block southeast of University Avenue in the University South neighborhood. Figure 1. Parcel map of 571 Hamilton Avenue (outlined in red). Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports. METHODOLOGY This Historic Resource Evaluation provides a summary of previous historical surveys and ratings, site description, historic context statement, and an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. 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. 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 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the building at 571 Hamilton Avenue. 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. 571 Hamilton Avenue 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. 571 Hamilton Avenue 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. 571 Hamilton Avenue is listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a Status Code of “7R” from the “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update” by Dames & Moore, which was undertaken in 2000. The “7R” code means that the property was “Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated.” While the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database listed the property with a “7R” to indicate that it was not evaluated, the reconnaissance-level Palo Alto Historic Survey Update did provide an architectural description and historic context on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record (DPR 523A) and Building, Structure, and Object Record (DPR 523B) forms. The forms themselves list an NRHP Status Code (previous Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 3 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. iteration of California Historical Resource Status Codes prior to 2003) of “6,” which means “Determined ineligible for National Register listing.” 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: 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. 571 Hamilton Avenue is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION SITE The building of 571 Hamilton Avenue stands on a 10,000 square-foot square corner parcel, 100 feet wide by 100 feet deep. It is at the west corner of the intersection between Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street in the University South neighborhood (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Built between 1922 and 1923, the two-story over basement apartment building was designed as a modest multi-unit residential building with restrained Colonial Revival detailing (Figure 4). It is rectangular in plan with a hipped roof clad in composite shingle and minimal eaves. The building features a concrete foundation, wood frame structure, and stucco cladding.1 The windows are typically wood frame, double-hung with ogee lugs and within wood surrounds. Most windows have aluminum screens. Figure 2: Partial Aerial view of the University South neighborhood in Palo Alto with subject property outlined in red. Source: Bing Maps, 2016. The building fronts onto Hamilton Avenue and is set back from the street behind a front lawn bisected by a wide concrete walkway. Bushes and edge plantings are at the front of the building, flanking a set of brick stairs that lead to the main entrance. The lawn wraps around along Webster Street as a grass strip where plantings are adjacent to the building. An ivy-covered fence with a metal post gate encloses the rear yard behind the building on Webster Avenue. A concrete driveway is on the southwest edge of the parcel leading to a garage building and paved area in the rear yard. Additional paved parking is adjacent to the driveway on the neighboring property at 565 Hamilton Avenue. The garage is at the southwest corner at the property line. The northwest corner of the rear yard has a small landscaped area with grass, flowering bushes, and fruit trees (Figure 23 and Figure 24). Concrete pavers with inset rocks create a path and patio in the landscape area. 1 City of Palo Alto Planning Department, Assessment Record for 571 Hamilton Avenue, Assessment Record No. 1235. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 5 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 3. 571 Hamilton Avenue (red dot) within the University South neighborhood of Palo Alto. Source: Google Maps, 2016. EXTERIOR Primary (Southeast) Façade The primary façade faces southeast onto Hamilton Avenue (Figure 4). It is symmetrical and organized into five bays with the main entrance in the central bay (Figure 5). Four brick steps with a center metal rail lead to a brick landing and a recessed arched entryway (Figure 6). A projecting arched canopy with sculpted mounting brackets is above the entryway. The main door assembly has a center glazed wood door flanked by fixed sidelites (Figure 7). Wrought iron grills are in front of the glass, a metal kick plate is on the door, and a metal mail slot is below the glazing on the left sidelite. An arched wood vent is above the door. Two six-over-one windows are above the main entrance with a metal balconette supported by molded modillions (Figure 8). In the bays immediately flanking the central bay are groups of three windows at the first and second floors. The first floor windows have a tripartite window configuration with a fixed single-lite and narrow four-over-four windows on each side (Figure 9). At the second floor are a trio of six-over-one windows. At the outer bays of the façade are fixed one-lite windows at the first floor and paired six-over-one windows at the second floor (Figure 10). The wall terminates with wood molding at a small overhanging roof eave with wood soffit underneath. A gutter is at the eave end. The same arrangement is found around the remainder of the building perimeter. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 4. Primary façade, looking west from the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. Figure 5. Five bay configuration of main façade with central entrance, looking northwest. Figure 6. Canopy over recessed entryway, looking northwest. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Northeast Façade The northeast façade faces Webster Street. It has two sections (Figure 11). The rear section (right) projects forward from the front section (left) toward Hamilton Avenue. The front section has two six-over-one windows on each floor, while the rear section has paired one-over-one windows and a single one-over-one window on each floor. In the center of the façade on the rear section are stacked vent openings (Figure 12). Figure 7. Main entry assembly, looking northwest. Figure 8. Two windows with balconette above main entrance in the center bay, looking northwest. Figure 9. First floor window at the 2nd and 4th bays, looking northwest. Figure 10. Window configuration at the outer bays, symmetrical on the other side, looking northwest. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 11. Northeast façade, looking southwest. Figure 12. Northeast façade with adjacent rear yard, looking northwest. Rear (Northwest) Façade The rear façade faces a paved rear yard and the detached garage building (Figure 13). It is symmetrical around a central bay. In the first bay from the north (left) is an aluminum-glazed door at the first floor and no openings on the second floor. The second bay has a partially glazed wood door at the landing of concrete steps with metal railing at the first floor; above is a one-over-one window (Figure 14). The third bay has a one-over-one window at each floor. The fourth bay has a tripartite window on each floor with six-over-one windows flanking a twelve-over-one large central window. The fifth, central bay has a concrete stairway with metal railings leading down to the basement’s wood paneled door (Figure 15). A pair of six-over-six windows is centered on the central bay between floors and is next to a round metal chimney flue that extends through the overhanging eave. The south half of the rear façade mirrors the north half (Figure 16). Figure 13. Rear (northwest) façade facing paved rear yard and garage, looking northeast. Figure 14. North half of symmetrical rear façade, looking northeast. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 15. Concrete stairs leading to basement at center bay of rear façade, looking southwest. Figure 16. South half of symmetrical rear façade, looking southeast. Southwest Façade The southwest façade faces the concrete driveway. It is identical to the northeast façade along Webster Street with two sections (Figure 17). The rear section (left) projects forward from the front section (right) toward Hamilton Avenue. The front section has two six-over-one windows on each floor, while the rear section has paired one-over-one windows and a single one-over-one window on each floor (Figure 18). In the center of the façade on the rear section are stacked vent openings. Figure 17. Southwest façade, looking northeast. Figure 18. Southwest façade toward the front of the property, looking northeast. GARAGE The detached garage building is located at the west corner of the property behind the apartment building. It is a rectangular, one-story, wood frame building with board and batten siding (Figure 19). It has a hipped roof with a small cross-hipped section at the west corner and extended eaves at the rear (northwest) façade. Its primary (southeast) façade has four paneled wood sliding garage doors with eight-lite windows (Figure 20). The side façades (southwest and northeast) have no openings (Figure 21). The rear façade projects slightly where the cross gable roof is and has three Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 10 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. large wood vents and one jalousie window (Figure 22). A ca.1940s telephone is mounted on the garage exterior. Figure 19. Front (southeast) and side (southwest) façades of the garage, looking north. Figure 20. Sliding garage doors at front façade, looking northwest. Figure 21. Northeast façade of garage, looking southwest. Figure 22. Rear (northwest) façade of garage at south projecting end, facing southeast. Figure 23. Landscaped area north of garage (left), looking northwest. Figure 24. Backyard adjacent to the garage, looking southwest. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 11 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The University South neighborhood is U-shaped and bounded by University Avenue to the west, Middlefield Road to the north, and Alma Street and the railroad tracks to the south. The east boundary within the U-shape is at Addison Avenue, while the legs of the U extend east along Webster Street at the north and Emerson Street at the south to Embarcadero Road (Figure 25 to Figure 30). The neighborhood is part of the historic core of Palo Alto and characterized by a variety of uses. Toward the southwest are low- to mid-scale retail and commercial buildings from Palo Alto’s early downtown. These buildings are along Alma Street and University Avenue and two or three street into the neighborhood from these boundaries. They also extend continue on the west side of University Avenue in the Downtown North neighborhood. The rest of the University South neighborhood is a mix of single and multi-family residential buildings, with some institutional properties such as an elementary school and several churches. The variety in the neighborhood also directly surrounds the subject property. The buildings range from the earliest residential cottages dating to the 1890s and 1920s apartment buildings to contemporary office buildings. The older housing stock is typically one to two stories, while more recent buildings are larger in scale at two to three stories tall. Figure 25. 571 Hamilton Avenue with the cottage at 565 Hamilton Avenue in the background, looking southwest. Figure 26. Mid-century modern church across Webster Street from the subject property. Figure 27. Office building directly across Hamilton Avenue from the subject property. Figure 28. More recent office buildings along Hamilton Avenue. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 12 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 29. Example of multi-family housing on Webster Street. Figure 30. Examples of early cottages found throughout the University South neighborhood. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 13 - 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 Alta 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.2 The subject property at 571 Hamilton Avenue was located on what was formerly Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, which, 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.3 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 Stanford’s’ teenage son died in 1884, leading the couple to create a university in his honor. Contrary to contemporary institutions, the Stanford’s wanted a co-educational and non-denominational university.4 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 Stanford’s 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.5 With 13 popular saloons then operating in Mayfield, the town eventually rejected the Stanford’s’ 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.6 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 31). The subject property of 571 Hamilton Avenue was located on Block 38 toward the center of the University Park track, one block east of the main commercial spine on University Avenue, but developed well after the initial tract. 2 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed 24 March 2016, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. 3 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993) 16-17. 4 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. 5 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. 6 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 14 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 31. Map of the original town of Palo Alto. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.html. 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.7 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.8 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 7 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php. 8 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore, 1-4. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 15 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.9 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 1948.10 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 San Francisco 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 1953.11 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 32), gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.12 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 discontiguous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry currently 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. 9 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora. 10 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7. 11 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 12 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 16 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 32. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.html. UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD The current University South neighborhood was the southeastern quadrant of the original University Park track platted by Timothy Hopkin. It was the core part of the early city, along with today’s Downtown North neighborhood located one the northwest side of University Avenue. Defined by San Francisquito Creek to the northwest, Middlefield Road to the northeast, and the railroad to the south with Stanford University beyond that, the original core of Palo Alto had University Avenue as the main commercial corridor, running southwest to northeast (Figure 32). Farmland still remained beyond the downtown area. The 1895 Sanborn map shows commercial stores along University Avenue concentrated to the southern end near the railroad, with a large lumberyard existed. Residential houses were scattered along the street just east and west of University Avenue on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. There were also a few church, hotels, and boarding houses among many vacant lots. Contemporary newspapers called the homes in this area “neat cottages” housing artisans and merchants. Some grander homes for more affluent residents were sprinkled throughout.13 Professors from Stanford resided toward the southeastern side in what is today the Professorville neighborhood, just east of University South. 13 Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? ‘Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986) 5. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 17 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. By 1901, Palo Alto had grown, and the Sanborn map show more than just the original core. Houses were filling in the lots on the blocks around the railroad while scattered residential development extended up to and beyond Middlefield Road. Additional institutions had been built in the area, including a public school and high school. Figure 33. 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map of Palo Alto showing the core of the new city. The subject property is marked by the red dot for reference, although it was not constructed until later. Source: San Francisco Public Library. The University South neighborhood derives its name from its location, south of University Avenue. The neighborhood, as it is defined today is U-shaped, bounded by University Avenue at the northwest, the railroad tracks at the south, and Middlefield Road to Embarcadero Road along the northwest (Figure 3). Addison Avenue is the southwest edge, though the legs of the U extend along Webster Street at the north and Emerson Street at the south. Professorville, as the residential neighborhood most associated with Stanford faculty, fills in the legs of the U. The neighborhood was part of the original University Park tract and has some of Palo Alto’s earliest residences built in the 1890s, as well as more recent buildings from the mid-twentieth century and on. University Avenue remains a commercial corridor with the neighborhood serving retail and restaurants in a mix of one- to three-story buildings from various eras. University South, which is located southeast of University Avenue, has a high concentration of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, reflecting its history as one of the oldest areas of the city. 571 Hamilton Avenue is located in at the northwest corner of University South, where the area is a mix of commercial, institutional, and multi- Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 18 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. family buildings from various decades sprinkled with single-family cottages from the early development of Palo Alto. PROJECT SITE HISTORY The subject building at 571 Hamilton Avenue was constructed between 1922 and 1923 for Rose Carter as a multi-family residence. The two-story four-unit apartment building and accompanying detached four-car garage building at the rear of the property was constructed on the west corner lot at the intersection of Webster Street and Hamilton Avenue and cost $15,950 to build.14 The architect and builder for 571 Hamilton Avenue are currently unknown. According to a 1924 Sanborn map, the apartment building was constructed in a neighborhood of predominantly single-family residences and duplexes, except for a few multi-family buildings along the nearby University Avenue (Figure 34). A 1949 Sanborn map reveals no changes to the subject property, although there is a noticeable increase in the number of multi-family residences in the surrounding area, including the west neighboring property of 542-548 Webster Street (Figure 35). Figure 34. 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map with subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 35. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map with subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. A number of a maintenance measures were taken in the 1990s and 2000s. In 1994, a new baseboard heating system was installed throughout the building. In 1998, the electrical fuses and a break panel were replaced. The existing redwood shake and asphalt shingle roof of the garage was replaced with composition shingles in late 2001. In 2004, the kitchens in units one and two were remodeled and re- piped. The following year, the shake and asphalt roof of the main residential building was replaced with a new plywood and composition shingle roof. In 2008, the water heaters for units one and 14 “August building Expenditures in Palo Alto Over $100,000,” Daily Palo Alto Times, September 1, 1922. Palo Alto Historical Society, 2000 Dames & Moore Survey Collection. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 19 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. three, as well the existing boiler, were replaced by Redwood Plumbing. A backflow preventer was installed in the building in 2010. The surrounding neighborhood is now mixed, but the immediate- adjacent properties are predominantly multi-family residential. Construction Chronology The following provides a timeline of construction activity at 571 Hamilton Avenue, based on building permit applications found with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. However, the City records are incomplete and no early permits remain. Some earlier permit information was transcribed from the Palo Alto Times by researchers associated with the Palo Alto Historical Society and was available as part of their collection. Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work 09/01/1922 N/A Rose Carter Building permit for apartment building. Construction is listed at $15,950. 12/14/1994 94-3335 [barely legible] Terry & Sons Inc. Frapwell Install baseboard heating system for 4-unit apartment building 9/4/1998 98-270 R.M. Electric Frapwell- Andersen Trust Replace fuses with breaker panel 10/25/2001 01-2884 Owner Frapwell- Andersen Trust Reroofing for 4-car garage. Remove existing redwood shake and asphalt shingle, replaced with composition shingle 1/15/2004 04-0107 Owner Althea Andersen Kitchen remodel and re-piping in units 1 and 2 10/11/2005 05-2867 Shelton Roofing Co., Inc. Althea Andersen Reroofing main house. Remove 3 existing layers: shake and asphalt shingle, replace with new plywood and composition shingle 4/24/2008 08-988 Redwood Plumbing Althea Andersen Replace water heaters in basement serving units 1 and 3 9/18/2008 08-2386 Redwood Plumbing Althea Andersen Replace existing boiler 10/6/2010 10-2608 Redwood Plumbing Althea Andersen Install backflow preventer on water service Owners and Occupants The Santa Clara County Assessor was not visited during research for this report, and therefore, detailed deed transactions are not known. However, based on available building permits and city directories, the ownership and occupant history is as follows: Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. For the most part, city directories confirm the owner names found on building permits. 15 Quitclaim deed from Edward H. Frapwell to Frapwell Family Trust, Doc. #9431747, Book K294, page 230. 16 Email correspondence from MDI West Properties, April 11, 2016. Date Owners Occupants Other Than Owners (Tenant) Occupation 1922, 1923 Rose M. Carter 1928, 1929 Irving and Lorena Vandervoort; Mrs. J.T. Perry; Arleigh and Cala Lemberger Treasurer for PA Transfer & Storage co; unknown; lawyer 1930 Irving and Lorena Vandervoort; Edward J. and Robert Erickson; Alfred and Vivian Kay; Arleigh and Cala Lemberger Treasurer for PA Transfer & Storage co.; Miner; unknown; Lawyer 1935 Lemberger; Harry B. Torrey Lawyer; professor 1940 Allen Mitchell; Alex G. Rhodes; Sorrell 1950 J.C. Poole 1955 Mrs. Mary Wiednehorn (widow George J.) Ralph and Vivian Hawkins; Mrs. Gertrude Morris; John C. and Macey Poole; Mrs. Mary Wiedenhorn Physician; Telephone operator; physician; owner 1958 Elvis E. & Ruth Frapwell, Althea Frapwell Andersen Ralph and Vivian Hawkins; John H. Brabb; Russel E. Marson; Elvis E. Frapwell Physician; unknown; psychologist; owner 1964, 1965 Elvis E. & Ruth Frapwell, Althea Frapwell Andersen Ralph and Vivian Hawkins; Wilma Hillmer; Mary G. Davis; Elvis E. Frapwell Physician; Typist/Secretary; unknown; owner 1969, 1971 Elvis E. & Ruth Frapwell, Althea Frapwell Andersen Ralph Hawkins; Paul and Lee/Lillian Shearer; Ellen Berger; Elvis Frapwell Physician; retired, retired; student; owner 1980 Elvis E. & Ruth Frapwell, Althea Frapwell Andersen Susan Balint; William Brown Jr.; Ernest E. Watkins; Elvis E. Frapwell 1983 Elvis E. & Ruth Frapwell, Althea Frapwell Andersen Lorne Buckman; Michele Collopy; Neal B. Geyer; N. Locke 9/15/1987 Quitclaim deed from Edward H. Frapwell to Frapwell Family Trust15 Richard C. Dehmel; D. Delsignore; R. Scott Strait 1990 Edward and Althea Frapwell Present Frapwell-Andersen Trust and Althea Andersen Revocable Living Trust16 Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 21 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Selected Owner and Occupant Biographies17 Rosella M. Carter | Owner, ca. 1922-1950 Rosella (Rose) M. Carter was born in Missouri in 1875 to Margaret E. and Henry Carter. The early years of the family are unclear, but between 1880 and 1900 Rose’s father passed away, her Mother reverted to her maiden name of Summerfield, and the family moved to Palo Alto, California. Rose worked as a dressmaker with her sister, Lillian B. Carter, and together they started their own company called “The Carter Sisters” (Figure 36). In 1922, Rose applied for the permit to construct the four-unit apartment building at 571 Hamilton Avenue. The extent of her real estate investments remains unclear at this time, but in the 1940 United States Federal Census, her occupation is listed as “Apartment House Owner.” In the 1954 Palo Alto City Directory, she is listed as the owner for the “Rosealta Apartments,” but it is unclear if this is the subject building or another property. She lived with her mother and sister at 619 Bryant Street from 1909 through the 1940s, and continued to live there until her death in 1957. Figure 36. Picture of Rose Carter (far left) and Lillie B. Carter (center) in La Honda, CA, ca. 1900. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 17 Information for the following biographies was derived from multiple records available through Ancestry.com, accessed March 8, 2016, http://www.ancestry.com. Additional source materials will be cited accordingly. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 22 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Mrs. Grace H. & Dr. Harry B. Torrey | Occupants, ca. 1931-1938 Harrold (Harry) Beale Torrey was born in Boston in May of 1873. He received both his Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Zoology from the University of California in 1895 and 1898, respectively. He earned his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1903, where he focused on zoology.18 He married Grace Harbison Crabbe the year prior, and moved to San Diego soon thereafter and worked with the Marine Biological Association of San Diego, where he was responsible for the documentation of dozens of coastal species of marine organisms, some of which bare his name. He is also credited with publishing the first account of a red tide, an algae bloom that can have devastating effects on coastal ecosystems, in Southern California. In 1912, he moved to Portland Oregon to become an instructor at Reed College, and in 1920 he shifted to the University of Oregon Medical School, where he became a professor in experimental biology and Director of Research until 1926 (Figure 37). Simultaneously, he was awarded his M.D. from Cornell University in 1927 and worked as a consultant with the American Association of Social Hygiene from 1926-1928. In 1928, Dr. Torrey moved to Palo Alto to accept a position with Stanford University. Initially, he was a professor of Hygiene and Physical Education, as well as the director of the Men’s Student Health Services. By 1933, he was a professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the university. His publications varied over a number of topics, including taxonomy, embryology, and the regeneration of marine organisms. In addition, he had a deep fascination with the history and philosophy of science, and often taught courses and published papers relating to these latter topics. Dr. Beale was also an early advocate for grade school sexual education programs, arguing that the Victorian-era perceptions of propriety did not provide children, as well as parents, with the necessary information on the subject to improve social health and hygiene.19 During this time, Dr. Torrey and Grace resided at 571 Hamilton Avenue. In 1938, Dr. Torrey retired from Stanford as a professor emeritus. He moved to Berkeley that year and became the director for the Children’s Hospital in Oakland, working there until 1942. In retirement, he maintained a presence at the University of California, Berkeley, and continued to publish papers. He passed away in 1970 at the age of 97. Grace Torrey was born Grace Harbison Crabbe in New York in May 1876. Her family moved to Los Angeles, California when she was young where her father, Reverend George Crabbe, worked as a Chaplin. She attended the University of California in 1894 and earned a Bachelor’s of Letters in 1897.20 It was during this time that she met Harry Torrey. Mrs. Torrey was a celebrated columnist, critic, and author, whose writing was often featured in the Saturday Evening Post, and other prominent national magazines of the day. She was particularly well known, for her book reviews, which when given live were known to be very well attended throughout the Bay Area.21 She also took up leadership roles in several organizations throughout the communities that she and her husband lived in, including the Berkeley Women’s City Club, the Mother’s Club of Stanford University, and the 18 Information in the following section is derived from Dale R. Calder, “Harry Beal Torrey (1873-1970) of California, USA, and his Research on Hydroids and Other Coelenterates,” Zootaxa 3599 (6): 549-563, accessed March 14, 2016, http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2013/f/zt03599p563.pdf. Additional sources will be cited accordingly. 19 “More Sex Education is Needed Declares Dr. Harry B. Torrey,” The Stanford Daily, V.75a No.5, July 9, 1929. 20 “Death Comes to Mrs. Torrey,” The Palo Alto Times July 24, 1939. 21 Ibid. Figure 37. Portrait of Dr. Harry B. Torrey, ca. 1924. Source: Arizona State University. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 23 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Stanford Faculty Women’s Club. She was also an English professor at Mills College once she and Dr. Torrey had moved to the East Bay. She died unexpectedly in July 1939. Mrs. Lorena D. & Mr. Irving P. Vandervoort | Occupants, ca. 1928-1930 Irving P. Vandervoort was born February 1877 in Alameda County, California. He worked on the family farm, until he moved to Palo Alto in 1898. Upon arriving in the Santa Clara Valley, he worked with Fuller & Company Grocers, but in 1902, he purchased a livery company from Charles Mosher, brother of the renowned Palo Alto-based builder George W. Mosher. Starting with one wagon and two mares, he eventually expanded his transportation company and incorporated in 1912 as the Palo Alto Transfer and Storage Company. It quickly became one of the most influential and early trucking business in the region, specializing as movers of personal baggage and goods. The company began integrating motorized trucks in 1914 onwards and continued to add to their fleet over the coming decades.22 Irving married his wife, Lorena during the 1920s. Little information is available about Lorena, except she was born in Canada in 1883 and moved to California with her family in the 1900s. The two lived at 571 Hamilton Avenue from 1928 until 1930; however, it is possible that they began residing at the property in the years prior. Irving passed away in 1942, having established the Palo Alto Transfer and Storage Company as one of the predominant moving and transportation companies in the region. Lorena passed away in San Bernardino, California in 1963. Mrs. Vivian & Dr. Ralph L. Hawkins | Occupants, ca. 1955-1971 Dr. Ralph Leslie Hawkins was born in Colorado in 1907. Hawkins began his academic career at Cornell University, but transferred to Stanford University where he earned his undergraduate degree from the School of Biology in 1929.23 He then went on to study medicine at Harvard School of Medicine and earned his M.D. in 1933.24 In 1938, he married Vivian K. Shaw, born in 1911, and joined the Neurosurgery program at the Massachusetts General Hospital, where he completed his residency in 1948.25 Dr. Hawkins moved to Palo Alto, where he was a neurosurgeon and physician who worked at the Stanford Hospital Center.26 He also taught anatomy at the School of Medicine at University of California, Berkley in the 1950s and the University of California, San Francisco in the 1960s (Figure 38).27 He and Vivian, who worked as a secretary in Palo Alto, lived at 571 Hamilton Avenue for an extended period of time, between the 1950s through 1971. He passed away in Palo Alto in 1976, whereas Vivian continued to live in Palo Alto through the 1990s. She passed away in Colorado in April 2000. 22 “I.P. Vandervoort Dies at Hospital of Heart Attack,” the Palo Alto Times, December 12, 1942, survey collection/. 23 “Mitchell Releases Provisional List of Graduating Seniors,” The Stanford Daily v.75 is.40, April 23, 1929. 24 “Announcement of the Medical School of Harvard University for 1933-34,” (Boston: Harvard University, 1934) 83, accessed March 14, 2016, https://archive.org/stream/announcementofme3334harv/announcementofme3334harv_djvu.txt. 25 “Residents – Alumni MGH Neurosurgery,” Massachusetts General Hospital – Neurosurgical Society, accessed March 11, 2016, http://alumni.neurosurgery.mgh.harvard.edu/ResidentAlumni.htm. 26Congress of Neurological Surgeons, “Directory of Neurological Surgeons In the United States” (October 1964) 11. 27 “Register, University of California, Volume II,” University of California Berkeley (1955), 119; and “UCSF Graduate Division Bulletin,” University of California, San Francisco (1962) 64. Figure 38. Portrait of Dr. Ralph L. Hawkins, 1958. Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 24 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Elvis E., Ruth J., & Edward Frapwell & Althea Andersen | Owners, ca. 1958-Present Ruth Jane Kerr, was born in Pennsylvania in 1909 and moved to California with her family at the age of one. She married Elvis E. Frapwell, a California-born telephone cable rigger, in 1929. The two lived in San Jose and Santa Cruz, California until 1935, when they moved to Palo Alto. They purchased 565 Hamilton Avenue in the mid-1940s for Ruth’s parents (Edward & Mabel Kerr) to live in and eventually purchased the neighboring properties at 542-548 Webster Street, as well as 571 Hamilton Avenue. The two lived at a number of residences throughout Palo Alto, and eventually resided at the 571 Hamilton Avenue property. Their children, Edward Frapwell and Althea Andersen became the owners of 571 Hamilton Avenue, as well as the neighboring properties, in the 1990s. Althea became the owner and primary resident of the neighboring property at 565 Hamilton Avenue, ca. 2001. EARLY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN PALO ALTO Stanford University has been the economic and socio-cultural driver for Palo Alto since its founding.28 The temporal and fluctuating nature of the student population has long required flexible and affordable rental residences, which took the form of multi-unit residential buildings. In the 1880s and 1890s, this housing need was met by enterprising individuals who rented spare bedrooms or established boarding houses. In many instances, homes were constructed with additional bedrooms with the intention of being rented to Stanford students. Commercial properties would also rent out makeshift bedrooms every fall in anticipation of the influx of students. Demand led to the conversion of many houses to multi-units, and eventually the construction of purpose built multi- unit residences called rooming houses. As the town grew and the local economy diversified, the demand for multi-unit residences extended beyond Stanford students to the general non-student population. In 1903, the first apartment building was constructed for J.B. Daley at 625 Emerson Street. It was comprised of four six-room units, but was architecturally composed to appear as a large single-family residence (Figure 39). Other early apartment buildings were similar, with a relatively small number of units being integrated into a modest building envelope that appeared more like a large house. In 1918, the first large apartment building was constructed at 520 Cowper Street. This 20-unit apartment building was a noticeable architectural shift from the less dense multi-unit residential forms that were built in the years prior, implementing a courtyard apartment configuration over one that resembled a large residence. Bungalow courts were another type, comprised of several small cottages arranged around a central courtyard space, which became prominent through the 1920s. The number of multi-unit residential buildings increased dramatically over the course of the 1920s. While courtyard apartments, bungalow courts, and other apartment buildings became more established residential types, the smaller multi-unit residential buildings continued to be the norm. These buildings featured four to six residential units, were one to two stories in height, and continued to be composed in a way that resembled larger scale single-family residences (Figure 40). This allowed for these early multi-unit residential buildings to be seamlessly incorporated into the early neighborhoods of Palo Alto, which were primarily comprised of single-family housing. These buildings varied in appearance and materiality with a spectrum of architectural stylistic treatments from the popular styles of the day, including Queen Anne, Four Square, Spanish Revival, Colonial Revival, and Shingle. 28 The following section is derived from Sonia Dorfman, “Multiple Unit Housing in Palo Alto: 1893-1945” in Dames & Moore, and “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” (2001): 6.80-6.87. Any additional sources used will be cited accordingly. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 25 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 39. 625 Emerson Street, Palo Alto. Source: Google Street View, 2015. Figure 40. 214 Emerson Street, Palo Alto. Source: Google Street View, 2015. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 26 - 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. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to California 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 California. The following section examines the eligibility of 571 Hamilton Avenue for listing in the California Register. Criterion 1 (Event) 571 Hamilton Avenue does not appear to be individually significant in association with historical events important to the history of Palo Alto, the state of California, or the nation. The building was constructed between 1922 and 1923 in the University South neighborhood, which is part of the original University Park tract. While the lot itself was previously undeveloped, the surrounding area had undergone a number of transitionary developments, shifting from single-family cottages to a denser environment with some multi-unit residences and increased commercial activity along University Avenue. While the subject property falls within this period of increased construction of multi-unit residential buildings during 1920s, it is typical of the building type and one of many that were constructed. As a result, it does not individually embody this shift in residential building types. Therefore, it does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2 (Persons) 571 Hamilton Avenue 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 California Register under Criterion 2. Rose Carter, the original owner of the property, appears to have been an entrepreneurial figure in Palo Alto, although biographical information does not establish her as a significant individual in the broader contexts of history. Alternatively, many of the occupants of 571 Hamilton Avenue, namely Dr. Torrey and Dr. Hawkins, may be considered significant for their contributions to the fields in which they made their Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 27 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. careers. However, a property is eligible under this criterion if it best represents the reason for their significance during the period in which they made their contributions. For these residents, this property does not best represent their achievements; rather, their place of work where these contributions to their fields were made would be more closely associated with their productive lives. Other owners and residents, such as Rose Carter and Irving Vandervoort, were successful in their business endeavors and recognizable members of the community, but did not contribute to history in ways that demonstrate distinctive importance. Therefore, 571 Hamilton Avenue does not rise to a level of significance such that the building would be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) 571 Hamilton Avenue does not appear to embody the work of a master, exemplify an architectural style or building type, or possess high artistic style to a degree that it would be individually eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design). The residence is an intact multi-unit residence typical of the early twentieth century; however, it was built at a time when a number of these buildings were being constructed throughout Palo Alto. Many of the other buildings of this type and period exhibit architectural features that are more noteworthy. The subject building, while appearing as a grand single-family residence, had an overall restrained composition for a multi-unit building type and lacks distinctive elements to elevate it to a level of significant design or artistic value. In addition, no architect or builder has been attributed to the design and construction of the building. Therefore, 571 Hamilton Avenue does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The “potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of California” typically relates to archeological resources, rather than built resources. When Criterion 4 does relate to built resources, it is for cases when the building itself is the principal source of important construction- related information. Based on historic research, Criterion 4 is not applicable to 571 Hamilton Avenue. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in the National Register of the California Register, a property must possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National 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 California Register and the National 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. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 28 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. 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. 571 Hamilton Avenue retains its integrity of location, having never been moved from its original location in Palo Alto. The surrounding neighborhood and spatial relationships, while different from the time of construction, are similar in reflecting a dynamic neighborhood of mixed building types. As such, it retains its integrity of setting. 571 Hamilton Avenue has undergone few alterations, and appears to have nearly all of the original windows, doors, and architectural detailing. As a result, the building retains its integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. Integrity of feeling and association are also retained as the subject property is recognizable as an early-twentieth-century multi-unit residence in a dynamic neighborhood of mixed building types with varying densities. Although 571 Hamilton Avenue retains all aspects of integrity, it does not demonstrate individual historic significance under the aforementioned evaluation criteria for listing on the California Register. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 29 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. VII. CONCLUSION Constructed between 1922 and 1923 for Rose Carter, 571 Hamilton Avenue was built when multi- family residential buildings were increasing in prominence, after becoming an essential component of the housing stock in Palo Alto in the years prior. However, the building is not one of the earliest or an important example of such buildings and is one of many multi-unit residences constructed during this period. It does not individually demonstrate significance for this pattern in development. The property is not associated with important events or people, nor is it individually significant for its architectural style, design, or artistic value. Furthermore, there are no known builders or architects attributed to the building. Therefore, the building does not appear individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The property was previously assessed in the reconnaissance-level Palo Alto Historic Survey Update and found to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. With further research conducted for this report, Page & Turnbull concurs with the previous finding. Therefore, according to CEQA guidelines, 571 Hamilton Avenue should not be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 30 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. VIII. REFERENCES CITED PUBLISHED WORKS American Association of University Women, Palo Alto Chapter. …Gone Tomorrow? ‘Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences.” Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986. 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. Congress of Neurological Surgeons. “Directory of Neurological Surgeons In the United States.” October 1964. San Francisco Planning Department. San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18 – Residential and Commercial Architectural Periods and Styles in San Francisco, January 2003. 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. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment. Assessment Records. “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore. Michael Corbett, Dames & Moore. DPR 523B form for 571 Hamilton Avenue, March 24, 2000. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, Calif., 1925, 1945. Palo Alto Historical Society. “Register, University of California, Volume II.” University of California Berkeley (1955). “UCSF Graduate Division Bulletin.” University of California, San Francisco (1962). U.S. City Directories, California Marriage Index 1960-1985, 1944 California Voters Registration, 1880-1940 U.S. Census, Stanford Yearbook, and Family Trees at Ancestry.com. NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS “Death Comes to Mrs. Torrey.” The Palo Alto Times. July 24, 1939. “I.P. Vandervoort Dies at Hospital of Heart Attack.” Palo Alto Times. December 12, 1942. Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Hamilton Avenue Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. “Mitchell Releases Provisional List of Graduating Seniors.” The Stanford Daily. .April 23, 1929. “More Sex Education is Needed Declares Dr. Harry B. Torrey.” The Stanford Daily. July 9, 1929. Palo Alto Times (12 February 1926), Reference in property catalog at Palo Alto Historical Society. Calder, Dale R. “Harry Beal Torrey (1873-1970) of California, USA, and his Research on Hydroids and Other Coelenterates.” Zootaxa 3599 (6): 549-563. Accessed March 14, 2016. http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2013/f/zt03599p563.pdf. INTERNET SOURCES “A Flash History of Palo Alto.” Quora. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.quora.com/How-is- the-historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. “Depression, War, and the Population Boom.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. “History of Stanford.” Stanford University. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. “Palo Alto, California.” Wikipedia. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections. Stanford University. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.h tml. Bowling, Matt. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End.” Palo Alto History.com. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of- mayfields-end.php. Massachusetts General Hospital – Neurosurgical Society. “Residents – Alumni MGH Neurosurgery.” Accessed March 11, 2016. http://alumni.neurosurgery.mgh.harvard.edu/ResidentAlumni.htm. 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111 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 MATERIALS CONSERVATION www.page-turnbull.com imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 542-548 WEBSTER STREET, PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION [16031] PREPARED FOR: MDI WEST PROPERTIES LLC APRIL 11, 2016 FINAL Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 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 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 4 SITE ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 EXTERIOR .............................................................................................................................................. 5 STORAGE SHED ..................................................................................................................................... 8 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ........................................................................................................ 9 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 11 PALO ALTO HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 11 UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................. 14 PROJECT SITE HISTORY ......................................................................................................................... 16 EARLY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN PALO ALTO ............................................................ 21 V. EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 23 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 23 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................ 24 VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 26 VIII. REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................... 27 PUBLISHED WORKS ............................................................................................................................. 27 PUBLIC RECORDS ................................................................................................................................ 27 NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS ......................................................................................................... 27 INTERNET SOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 27 Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 1 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of Jeff Morris of MDI West Properties for the multi-family residence at 542-548 Webster Street (APN 120-03-060) in Palo Alto, California (Figure 1.). The building was constructed ca. 1926 and is located on the block southeast of University Avenue in the University South neighborhood. Figure 1. Parcel map of 542-548 Webster Street (outlined in red). Source: City of Palo Alto Online Parcel Reports. METHODOLOGY This Historic Resource Evaluation provides a summary of previous historical surveys and ratings, site description, historic context statement, and an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. 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. 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 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the building at 542-548 Webster Street. 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. 542-548 Webster Street 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. 542-548 Webster Street 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. 542-548 Webster Street is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database as of 2012. This means the property has not been formally evaluated using California Historical Resource Status Codes and/or the status code has not been submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation. 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 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 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. 542-548 Webster Street is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION SITE The building of 542-548 Webster Street stands on a 5,000 square-foot rectangular parcel, 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep. It is on the south side of Webster Street near the corner of Hamilton Avenue in the University South neighborhood (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Built ca.1926, the one-story, wood frame multi-unit residential building was designed as a modest multi-family residence (Figure 4). It is H- shaped in plan with a concrete wall foundation, stucco cladding, and a flat roof with a minimal eave around the building.1 All windows are wood, and those that are double-hung have ogee lugs and metal screens. Figure 2: Partial Aerial view of the University South neighborhood in Palo Alto with subject property outlined in red. Source: Bing Maps, 2016. The building is set back from Webster Street behind a small front lawn bisected by a painted concrete walkway. The walkway widens into concrete steps that lead to a portico. Bushes and a small tree are next to the building. A concrete walkway is at the southeast side of the lot, and a concrete driveway for the neighboring property is at the southwest side with no fence between the lots. The rear yard is partially paved with a clothesline, a storage shed at the east corner, and a wood trellis at the south corner. 1 City of Palo Alto Planning Department, Assessment Record for 542-548 Webster Street, Assessment Record No. 1234. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 5 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 3. 542-548 Webster Street (red dot) within the University South neighborhood of Palo Alto. Source: Google Maps, 2016. EXTERIOR Primary (Northeast) Façade The primary façade faces northeast onto Webster Street (Figure 4). It is symmetrical with a center portico atop a concrete landing. Three concrete steps with low walls and a center metal railing lead to the landing. Two simple Doric columns support the rectangular portico, which shelters two entry doors. Each door is a multi-lite wood door with a two-lite wood screen door; the threshold is raised above the concrete landing (Figure 5). To the side of each door is a three-part window in a wood frame. Two-over-one, double-hung windows flank the five-over-one center fixed window (Figure 6). Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 4. Primary façade, looking southwest from Webster Street. Figure 5. Portico at the top of concrete steps, looking southwest. Figure 6. Three-part window on front façade, looking southeast. Northwest Façade The northwest side façade faces the driveway of the adjacent property at 530 Webster Street. The building’s H-shaped plan is visible on this façade, with the center section recessed from the front and back sections (Figure 7 and Figure 8). The front and back sections each have a one-over-one double-hung window and a single pane fixed window; two round vents are in the middle of each section (Figure 9). In the center section are doors at each end with two one-over-one double-hung windows, one smaller than the other, between the doors. A third door is in the return of the rear section (Figure 10). The doors are multi-lite wood frame doors with two-lite wood screen doors. They are accessed by small concrete stairs with metal railing to a landing. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 7. Northwest façade with center section recessed, looking southwest. Figure 8. Northwest façade with center section recessed, looking northeast. Figure 9. Front and center section of northwest façade with concrete steps to a side door, looking northeast. Figure 10. Rear section of northwest façade with doors in the return and in the center section sharing the concrete landing, looking southwest. Rear (Southwest) Façade The rear façade is symmetrical with four one-over-one, double-hung windows (Figure 11 and Figure 12). Two round metal ventilation chimneys are attached to the façade toward the east end. Figure 11. Rear façade of building with trellis in rear yard at right, looking northeast from adjacent property at 565 Hamilton Avenue. Figure 12. East half of rear façade, looking northeast. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Southeast Façade The southeast side façade faces a concrete walkway and landscaped side yard (Figure 13). It mirrors the northwest façade with a recessed center section. The rear section has a one-over-one double- hung window and a fixed single pane window, whereas the front section has a typical double-hung window with a sliding aluminum window; two round vents are in the middle of each section. In the center section are doors at each end with a one-over-one double-hung window and a smaller aluminum jalousie window, ,setbetween the doors (Figure 14). A third door is in the return of the rear section (Figure 15). The doors are multi-lite wood frame doors with two-lite wood screen doors. They are accessed by small concrete stairs with metal railing to a landing (Figure 16). Figure 13. Concrete walkway and side yard next to the southeast façade (right), looking southwest. Figure 14. Windows at the center recessed section of southeast façade with jalousie on the right, looking northwest. Figure 15. Rear (left) and recessed center (right) sections of southwest façade with two side doors, looking southwest. Figure 16. Front (right) and recessed center (left) sections of southwest façade, looking northwest. Note the aluminum sliding window (right). STORAGE SHED The rear façade of the multi-unit residence faces a partially paved rear yard with a storage shed at the west end (Figure 17Error! Reference source not found.). The shed has wood lap siding and a shed roof (Figure 18). Four wood doors are on the northwest façade to access storage space for each unit (Figure 19). Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 17. Shed in rear yard (left), behind the multi-unit residence (right), looking north. Figure 18. Rear and side façades of the shed in the rear yard, looking southwest. Figure 19. Front (northwest) façade of the shed with four doors, looking southeast. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD The University South neighborhood is U-shaped and bounded by University Avenue to the west, Middlefield Road to the north, and Alma Street and the railroad tracks to the south. The east boundary within the U-shape is at Addison Avenue, while the legs of the U extend east along Webster Street at the north and Emerson Street at the south to Embarcadero Road (Figure 20 to Figure 25). The neighborhood is part of the historic core of Palo Alto and characterized by a variety of uses. Toward the southwest are low- to mid-scale retail and commercial buildings from Palo Alto’s early downtown. These buildings are along Alma Street and University Avenue and two or three streets into the neighborhood from these boundaries. They also continue on the west side of University Avenue in the Downtown North neighborhood. The rest of the University South neighborhood is a mix of single- and multi-family residential buildings, with some institutional properties such as an elementary school and several churches. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 10 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The variety in the neighborhood also directly surrounds the subject property. The buildings range from the earliest residential cottages dating to the 1890s to 1920s apartment buildings to midcentury churches and contemporary office buildings. The older housing stock is typically one to two stories, while more recent buildings are larger in scale at two to three stories tall. Figure 20. Apartment building at 530 Webster Street to the northwest of the subject property, looking south. Figure 21. Front view of 530 Webster Street, looking southwest. Figure 22. Streetscape on Webster Street with early cottages and mid-century modern church, looking northwest. Figure 23. Mid-century modern First United Methodist Church at the corner of Webster Street and Hamilton Avenue, looking north. Figure 24. More recent commercial building in University South neighborhood. Figure 25. Examples of early cottages found throughout the University South neighborhood. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 11 - 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 Alta 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.2 The subject property at 542- 548 Webster Street was located on what was formerly Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, which, 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.3 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.4 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.5 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.6 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 26). The subject property of 542-548 Webster Street was located on Block 38 toward the center of the University Park track, one block east of the main commercial spine on University Avenue, but developed well after the initial tract. 2 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed 24 March 2016, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. 3 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17. 4 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. 5 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. 6 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 12 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 26. Map of the original town of Palo Alto. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.html. 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.7 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.8 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 7 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php. 8 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore, 1-4. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.9 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 1948.10 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 San Francisco 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 1953.11 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 27), gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.12 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 discontiguous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry currently 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. 9 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora. 10 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7. 11 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, accessed 24 March 2016, http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 12 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 14 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 27. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.html. UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD The current University South neighborhood was the southeastern quadrant of the original University Park track platted by Timothy Hopkin. It was the core part of the early city, along with today’s Downtown North neighborhood located one the northwest side of University Avenue. Defined by San Francisquito Creek to the northwest, Middlefield Road to the northeast, and the railroad to the south with Stanford University beyond that, the original core of Palo Alto had University Avenue as the main commercial corridor, running southwest to northeast (Figure 28). Farmland still remained beyond the downtown area. The 1895 Sanborn map shows commercial stores along University Avenue concentrated to the southern end near the railroad, with a large lumberyard existed. Residential houses were scattered along the street just east and west of University Avenue on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. There were also a few church, hotels, and boarding houses among many vacant lots. Contemporary newspapers called the homes in this area “neat cottages” housing artisans and merchants. Some grander homes for more affluent residents were sprinkled throughout.13 Professors from Stanford resided toward the southeastern side in what is today the Professorville neighborhood, just east of University South. As Palo Alto developed and diversified, distinct neighborhoods became apparent within the original University Park tract, including Downtown North, University South, and Professorville. 13 Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? ‘Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986) 5. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 15 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. By 1901, Palo Alto had grown, and the Sanborn map shows more than just the original core. Houses were filling in the lots on the blocks around the railroad, while scattered residential development extended up to and beyond Middlefield Road. Additional institutions had been built in the area, including a public school and high school. Figure 28. 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map of Palo Alto showing the core of the new city. The subject property is marked by the red dot for reference, although it was not constructed until later. Source: San Francisco Public Library. The University South neighborhood derives its name from its location, south of University Avenue. The neighborhood, as it is defined today is U-shaped, bounded by University Avenue at the northwest, the railroad tracks at the south, and Middlefield Road to Embarcadero Road along the northwest (Figure 3). Addison Avenue is the southwest edge, though the legs of the U extend along Webster Street at the north and Emerson Street at the south. Professorville, as the residential neighborhood most associated with Stanford faculty, fills in the legs of the U. The neighborhood was part of the original University Park tract and has some of Palo Alto’s earliest residences built in the 1890s, as well as more recent buildings from the mid-twentieth century and on. University Avenue remains a commercial corridor with the neighborhood serving retail and restaurants in a mix of one- to three-story buildings from various eras. University South, which is located southeast of University Avenue, has a high concentration of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, reflecting its history as one of the oldest areas of the city. 542-548 Webster Street is located in at the northwest corner of University South. Although it was constructed on previously undeveloped land on this original tract, it was constructed at a later date, outside the initial period of development of Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 16 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. the residential neighborhood. It reflects a secondary period of development during the 1910s through the 1930s, where there was an increase in the number of multi-unit residential buildings in Palo Alto. This increase in multi-unit residential buildings, especially in the University South neighborhood, is directly associated with the growing housing needs of the student population and the area’s close proximity to the Stanford campus. By the 1940s, the University South area was a dynamic neighborhood of mixed building types, including early cottages, mutli-unit residential, light commercial, and institutional., a very similar precursor to its current state.- PROJECT SITE HISTORY Prior to construction of 542-548 Webster Street, the property was undeveloped and situated at the northern end of Block 38 of the original University Park tract of Palo Alto. The block was included in the key maps for the 1895 and 1897 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. but was not included in detail until 1901. At that time, the lot was not defined and appeared as part of the undeveloped overall block. The defined lot boundaries of 542-548 Webster Street first appear in the 1924 Sanborn map, but the lot continues to appear as undeveloped. By the 1949 Sanborn map, the subject building is illustrated. The address is first listed in Palo Alto City Directories in 1927, which coincides with the time frame established by the Sanborn maps. While limited records and documentation has left the exact date of construction unclear, research has established that the building at 542-548 Webster Street was likely constructed ca. 1926. The rear shed is identified on the property in the 1949 Sanborn map as well, but is unclear if it was constructed at the same time as the primary building (ca. 1926), or in the years following. Figure 29. 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map with subject property highlighted in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 30. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map with subject property highlighted in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, edited by Page & Turnbull. Since its construction ca. 1926, 542-548 Webster Street has undergone a number of alterations, which were primarily maintenance based. In 1971, and again in 1980, the flat roof of the building was Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 17 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. reroofed with tar and gravel. A building permit was issued in 1995 for miscellaneous repairs, which included some interior mechanical work, but also resulted in the replacement of the window sashes, likely the aluminum windows at the southeast façade, and a door, although the exact location is unclear. In 1997, the roof was again replaced with built up tar and gravel. In the 2000s, alterations conducted at 542-548 Webster Street were primarily mechanical in nature, including the replacement of gas heaters and the installation of new water heaters for all of the apartment units. Construction Chronology The following provides a timeline of construction activity at 542-548 Webster Street, based on building permit applications found with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. However, the City records are incomplete and no early permits remain. Date Permit # Architect/Builder Applicant Work 9/8/1971 4740 R.L. Reaves Roofing E. Frapwell Reroof 6/24/1976 19108 None listed Elvis Frapwell Installation of dryer 7/17/1979 P-9661 None listed E. Frapwell 1 gas outlet, noted as “done long ago” 9/22/1980 80-153 Gary Jones Frapwell Reroof in tar and gravel 4/18/1995 95-830 Harrell Remodeling Elvis Frapwell Miscellaneous repairs including replacing window sashes, replace door in existing jamb, add bathroom venting fans, install smoke detectors 3/4/1997 97-494 Shelton Roofing Co., Inc. Althea Andersen Reroof. Removing existing tar and gravel and replace with new tar and gravel 12-19/2001 01-3430 The Stove Works Frapwell- Andersen Trust Replace four gas heaters with direct vent parlor stoves 2/1/2006 06-408 Redwood Plumbing Althea Andersen Installation of 40 gallon water heater for unit 542-548 5/11/2006 06-1141 Redwood Plumbing Althea Andersen Installation of 40 gallon water heater for unit 544 12/1/2006 06-3141 Redwood Plumbing Althea Andersen Installation of 40 gallon water heater for unit 546 12/1/2006 06-3139 Redwood Plumbing Althea Andersen Installation of 40 gallon water heater for unit 548 Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 18 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Owners and Occupants The Santa Clara County Assessor was not visited during research for this report, and therefore, detailed deed transactions are not known. However, based on available building permits and city directories, the ownership and occupant history is as follows: Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 19 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Date Owners Occupants Other Than Owners (Tenants) Occupation 1927 Unknown Helen L. Vogel Public school teacher 1928 Ada J. Roberts, Helen L. Vogel Public school teacher, Assistant secretary 1929 Ada J. Roberts, Helen L. Vogel, N.J. Goshorn Public school teacher, Assistant secretary 1930 Maybelle Nunnally, Mrs. Irene Kite, Virginia & Walter Kite, J. & Irene Lien, O.L. & Lucille Cameron Student, Student, Student, Clerk and Beauty Opr., Dental Mechanic 1933 Hyla G. Loomis 1935 Albert E and Bertha Stenbit 1940 Rooney, BM Eaton, Matthew Evans, Mrs. Edith Betelheim 1946 Jay & Lillian Baker, Virginia F. Iwerks Franklyn and Virgina Iwerks 1954 Jay & Lillian Baker, Virginia F. Iwerks Mrs. Ardith Hamlett, Mary L. Melka Unknown, School nurse 1962 Jay & Lillian Baker, Virginia F. Iwerks Hilda Zauner 1965 Jay & Lillian Baker, Virginia F. Iwerks Hilda Zawner, Gen. Logan, Mrs. Ardith F. Hamlett, Elizabeth Schikaneder Widow, unknown, Medical secretary, unknown 1970 Elvis and Ruth Frapwell Dinesh A. Desai, Genevieve M. Logan, Masahisa Miyagawa, Mrs. Della Collins, Unknown, Saleswoman, unknown, retired (widow) 1983 Elvis and Ruth Frapwell Mark McGeogh, A. Cordoba, Adam C. Begley, D. Bullock 1985 Elvis and Ruth Frapwell Ramin Firoozye, Nancy Thiel 9/15/1987 Quitclaim deed from Edward H. Frapwell to Frapwell Family Trust14 Present Frapwell-Andersen Trust and Althea Andersen Revocable Living Trust15 For the most part, city directories confirm the owner names found on building permits. 14 Quitclaim deed from Edward H. Frapwell to Frapwell Family Trust, Doc. #9431747, Book K294, Page 230. 15 Email correspondence from MDI West Properties, April 11, 2016. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Selected Owner and Occupant Biographies16 Helen L. Vogel | Occupant, ca. 1927-1929 Helen Louise Vogel is one of the earliest identified residents of 542-548 Webster Street. She was born in 1906. She enrolled as a student at Stanford University’s School of Education in 1924, was a member of the Stanford Cosmopolitan Club, and was a founder of the Stanford chapter of the Pi Lambada Theta women’s educational fraternity.17 She graduated from Stanford University in 1927 and was employed as a public school teacher, living at 542 Webster Street. She continued to live and work in Palo Alto until 1929. Unfortunately, little biographical evidence is available in the following years and the remainder of her life is unclear. Ada J. Roberts | Occupant, ca. 1928-1929 Ada Jane Roberts was born in 1895 in Indiana. She was a student at Stanford University starting in 1926, where she enrolled in the School of Education. She was a member of the Stanford Cosmopolitan Club as well as Pi Lambada Theta, alongside Helen L. Vogel.18 In 1928 and 1929, Roberts was also living at 542 Webster Street and was employed as an assistant secretary at Stanford University’s School of Education. Upon graduating in 1930, she moved to Alameda and was working as a high school teacher. She continued teaching in a number of cities throughout California. J. Jay & Lillian Baker | Owners, ca. 1946~1969 John Jay Baker was born in Kansas in 1884. He and his wife Lillian, born in Kansas in 1886, moved to California with their daughter, Virginia. Upon arrival ca.1918, it appears they were living in Oakland, but by the early 1920s, they had relocated and settled in Palo Alto. Jay, a watchmaker and jeweler by trade, started his own business, the Stanford Watch Shop, which opened by 1924.19 It is unclear the exact fate of this endeavor, but a few years later Jay was operating a new store at 374 University Avenue, called J Jay Baker Jewelry. His wife and daughter both worked at the store as sales associates. They lived at 315 Bryant Street starting in the 1930s and continued to live there through the 1960s. Around 1946, they purchased the property at 542-548 Webster Street, where their daughter was a resident with her husband Franklyn Iwerks. Jay and Lillian continued to own this property until they both passed away in June and February of 1969, respectively. Virginia F. & Franklyn Iwerks | Owners/Occupants, ca. 1946~1969 The daughter of Jay and Lillian Baker, Virginia was born in Kansas in 1911. She moved with her family to California at a young age, where she eventually worked at her father’s jewelry store as a sales associate and lived with them at 315 Bryant Street. In the early 1940s, she married Franklyn Iwerks. Franklyn was born in South Dakota in 1911, and came to Palo Alto in 1933 to study at Stanford’s School of Engineering. After graduating in 1937, he moved to New York City, but returned to Palo Alto after 1940. In 1946, they were both living at 542 Webster, following its purchase by Virginia’s parents. However, they moved a few years later to 357 Everett Avenue. Franklyn passed away in 1960, and Virginia passed away in March 1978. It appears that Lillian inherited the property in 1969, following her parent’s death; however, it is unclear at this time if she continued to own the property in the following years. 16 Unless otherwise footnoted, the following information was derived from the public records available on Ancestry.com, accessed 22 March 2016, http://www.ancestry.com. 17 “Helen Vogel Chosen as Next Year’s Head of Pi Lambada Theta,” The Stanford Daily v.31 n.65, May 27, 1927. 18 “Upsilon Chapter to Hold Banquet,” The Stanford Daily v.105 n.42, April 25, 1946. 19 “Stanford Watch Shop – J. Jay Baker,” Advertisement in The Stanford Daily v.65 n.32, April 10, 1924. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 21 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Elvis E., Ruth J., & Edward Frapwell & Althea Andersen | Owners, ca. 1987-Present Ruth Jane Kerr, was born in Pennsylvania in 1909 and moved to California with her family at the age of one. She married Elvis E. Frapwell, a California-born telephone cable rigger, in 1929. The two lived in San Jose and Santa Cruz, California until 1935, when they moved to Palo Alto. They purchased 565 Hamilton Avenue in the mid-1940s for Ruth’s parents (Edward & Mabel Kerr) to live in and eventually purchased the neighboring properties at 542-548 Webster Street, as well as 571 Hamilton Avenue. The two lived at a number of residences throughout Palo Alto, and eventually resided at the 571 Hamilton Avenue property. Their children, Edward Frapwell and Althea Andersen became the owners of 571 Hamilton Avenue, as well as the neighboring properties, in the 1990s. Althea became the owner and primary resident of the adjacent property at 565 Hamilton Avenue ca. 2001. EARLY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN PALO ALTO Stanford University has been the economic and socio-cultural driver for Palo Alto since its founding.20 The temporal and fluctuating nature of the student population has long required flexible and affordable rental residences, which took the form of multi-unit residential buildings. In the 1880s and 1890s, this housing need was met by enterprising individuals who rented spare bedrooms or established boarding houses. In many instances, homes were constructed with additional bedrooms with the intention of being rented to Stanford students. Commercial properties would also rent out makeshift bedrooms every fall in anticipation of the influx of students. Demand led to the conversion of many houses to multi-units, and eventually the construction of purpose built multi- unit residences called rooming houses. As the town grew and the local economy diversified, the demand for multi-unit residences extended beyond Stanford students to the general non-student population. In 1903, the first apartment building was constructed for J.B. Daley at 625 Emerson Street. It was comprised of four six-room units, but was architecturally composed to appear as a large single-family residence (Figure 31). Other early apartment buildings were similar, with a relatively small number of units being integrated into a modest building envelope that appeared more like a large house. In 1918, the first large apartment building was constructed at 520 Cowper Street. This 20-unit apartment building was a noticeable architectural shift from the less dense multi-unit residential forms that were built in the years prior, implementing a courtyard apartment configuration over one that resembled a large residence. Bungalow courts were another type, comprised of several small cottages arranged around a central courtyard space, which became prominent through the 1920s. The number of multi-unit residential buildings increased dramatically over the course of the 1920s. While courtyard apartments, bungalow courts, and other apartment buildings became more established residential types, the smaller multi-unit residential buildings continued to be the norm. These buildings featured four to six residential units, were one to two stories in height, and continued to be composed in a way that resembled larger scale single-family residences (Figure 32). This allowed for these early multi-unit residential buildings to be seamlessly incorporated into the early neighborhoods of Palo Alto, which were primarily comprised of single-family housing. These buildings varied in appearance and materiality with a spectrum of architectural stylistic treatments from the popular styles of the day, including Queen Anne, Four Square, Spanish Revival, Colonial Revival, and Shingle. 20 The following section is derived from Sonia Dorfman, “Multiple Unit Housing in Palo Alto: 1893-1945” in Dames & Moore, and “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” (2001): 6.80-6.87. Any additional sources used will be cited accordingly. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 22 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 31. 625 Emerson Street, Palo Alto. Source: Google Street View, 2016. Figure 32. 214 Emerson Street, Palo Alto. Source: Google Street View, 2016. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 23 - 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. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to California 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 California. The following section examines the eligibility of 542-548 Webster Street for listing in the California Register. Criterion 1 (Event) 542-548 Webster Street does not appear to be individually significant in association with historical events important to the history of Palo Alto, the state of California, or the nation. The building was constructed ca. 1926 in the University South neighborhood, which is part of the original University Park tract. While the lot itself was previously undeveloped, the surrounding area had undergone a number of transitionary developments, shifting from single-family cottages to a denser environment with some multi-unit residences and increased commercial activity along University Avenue. While the subject property falls within this period of increased construction of multi-unit residential buildings during 1920s, it is typical of the building type and one of many that were constructed. As a result, it does not individually embody this shift in residential building types. Therefore, it does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2 (Persons) 542-548 Webster Street 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 California Register under Criterion 2. Little concrete biographical information was found for several past homeowners and occupants. This may indicate that these individuals did not leave a record of contributions to their professions or community. In addition, for all of the residents researched, this house does not best represent their achievements; rather, their place of work would be more closely associated. Therefore, 542-548 Webster Avenue does not rise to Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 24 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. a level of significance such that the building would be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) 542-548 Webster Street does not appear to embody the work of a master, exemplify an architectural style or building type, or possess high artistic style to a degree that it would be individually eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design). The residence is an intact early multi-unit building typical of the early twentieth century; however, it was built at a time when a number of these buildings were being constructed throughout Palo Alto. As a result, many superior examples of this same building type are still found throughout Palo Alto and exhibit noteworthy architectural features and stylistic treatments. The subject building has a restrained composition and lacks distinctive elements to elevate it to a level of significant design or artistic value. In addition, no architect or builder has been attributed to the design and construction of the building. Therefore, 542-548 Webster Street does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The “potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of California” typically relates to archeological resources, rather than built resources. When Criterion 4 does relate to built resources, it is for cases when the building itself is the principal source of important construction- related information. Based on historic research, Criterion 4 is not applicable to 542-548 Webster Street. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in the National Register of the California Register, a property must possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National 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 California Register and the National 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. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 25 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 542-548 Webster Street retains its integrity of location, having never been moved from its original location in Palo Alto. The surrounding neighborhood and spatial relationships, while different from the time of construction, are similar in reflecting a dynamic neighborhood of mixed building types. As such, it retains its integrity of setting. 542-548 Webster Street has undergone few alterations, and appears to have nearly all of the original windows and doors, except for the two aluminum sash windows at the southeast facade. As a result, the building retains its integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. Integrity of feeling and association are also retained as the subject property is recognizable as an early-twentieth-century multi-unit residence in a dynamic neighborhood of mixed building types with varying densities. Although 542-548 Webster Street retains all aspects of integrity, it does not demonstrate individual historic significance under the aforementioned evaluation criteria for listing on the California Register. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 26 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. VII. CONCLUSION Constructed ca. 1926, 542-548 Webster Street was built when multi-family residential buildings were increasing in prominence, after becoming an essential component of the housing stock in Palo Alto in the years prior. It appears to be intact with few major alterations; however, the building is not one of the earliest of such buildings and is one of many multi-unit residences that were constructed during this period. It does not individually demonstrate significance in relation to this pattern in development. The property does not appear to be associated with other important events or people. Architecturally, the building is a very restrained and unexceptional example of the early multi-unit building type and does not demonstrate individual significance for its architectural style, design, or artistic value. Furthermore, there are no known architects or builders attributed to the building. As a result, the building does not appear individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 27 - 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. San Francisco Planning Department. San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18 – Residential and Commercial Architectural Periods and Styles in San Francisco, January 2003. Winslow Ward and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993. Palo Alto Chapter of American Association of University Women,. …Gone Tomorrow? ‘Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences.” Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986. PUBLIC RECORDS City of Palo Alto Development Center. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment. Assessment Records. “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. Corbett, Michael and Denise Bradley. “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore. March 2001. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. maps, Palo Alto, Calif., 1895-1949. Palo Alto Historical Society. U.S. City Directories, California Marriage Index, California Voters Registration, 1890-1940 U.S. Census, Stanford Yearbook, and Family Trees at Ancestry.com. NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS “Helen Vogel Chosen as Next Year’s Head of Pi Lambada Theta.” The Stanford Daily. May 27, 1927. “Stanford Watch Shop – J. Jay Baker.” Advertisement in The Stanford Daily. April 10, 1924. “Upsilon Chapter to Hold Banquet.” The Stanford Daily. April 25, 1946. INTERNET SOURCES “A Flash History of Palo Alto.” Quora. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.quora.com/How-is- the-historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. Historic Resource Evaluation 542-548 Webster Street Final Palo Alto, California April 11, 2016 - 28 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. “Depression, War, and the Population Boom.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. “History of Stanford.” Stanford University. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. “Palo Alto, California.” Wikipedia. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections. Stanford University. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUL/library/prod/depts/branner/research_help/ol_maps.h tml. Bowling, Matt. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End.” Palo Alto History.com. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of- mayfields-end.php. 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111 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 MATERIALS CONSERVATION www.page-turnbull.com Attachment G Architectural Review Findings 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), 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, 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 to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat 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. Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the Planning and Community Environment Director. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “565 Hamilton” and open the record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “HRB Plan Set 4-26-18” The Commercial and Residential Edges Running parallel to University Avenue are Hamilton Avenue and Lytton Avenue. These parallel· streets, lying north and south of the University Avenue Retail core, each have a distinctive character. . Together with University Avenue, they comprise the Central Business District. From Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, the downtown transitions into residential areas. The definition of this commercial/residential. edge is very .critical north of Lytton Avenue since little room exists to buffer the downtown north neighborhood from the commercial downtown. South of Hamilton Avenue, the edge is softer due to the mix of residential uses with the transitional South of Forest Commercial area and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Appropriate sidewalk, landscaping, street sign and lighting treatments can help to more clearly distinguish the transition from downtown to the residential areas. The gradual change from downtown to the residential neighborhoods is partly recognizable by the increased landscaping and tree cover of the residential areas. These transitions can. be further distinguished through the use of appropriate sidewalk and landscaping treatments, as shown in figure 2 on the next page, and the use of special street signs and lighting (see the Conceptual Lighting Plan on page 65). The Pedestrian Ways In general, the pedestrian travel route in the Downtown synchronizes with that of the motorist, but it is a pleasant relief when a retreat can be discovered allowing those on foot to withdraw and· separate from · the vehicles. Many of those familiar with the Downtown know the short-cuts behind buildings, through public parking lots and along the system of alleys. Figure 7 on page 25 outlines the overall pedestrian way plan envisioned for downtown. As detailed in the figures 3, 4 and 5 The Basic Plan envisions improvements to existing downtown alleys to provide a continuous and apparent pedestrian corridor. beginning on page 18, service alleys are intended to primarily service the buildings which front onto them, but sufficiently cleaned up and reorganized, to be made more hospitable to pedestrians and to encourage occasional pedestrian passage. Shortcut alleys should be comfortable for use by pedestrians on a regular basis, while maintain4Jg their service functions. They are primarily to allow "shortcutting" from one location to ;mother. . Place alleys. are intended as true gathering places for pedestrians. They should be designed in such a way to allow and encourage pedestrian use, with service functions mostly not apparent. Here again, the involvement of artists and public art could prove most beneficial. The Plan envisions improvements to the existing alleys in order to provide a continuous and apparent pedestrian corridor, running parallel to and the entire length of University Avenue. Such improvements would include the conversion of some service alleys to place alleys, the most significant being the linkage between the Civic Center Plaza and Cogswell Plaza, completing the Civic Center Cross Axis. Urban Des1gn Plan -16-The Basic Pian Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 9125) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Study Session for Preliminary Parcel Map with Exception: 874 Boyce Title: 864 Boyce Avenue [19PLN-00030]: Historic Resources Board Study Session Review to Discuss a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exception for Subdivision of the Property at 874 Boyce Avenue into Two Parcels and Addition of a One-Story Dwelling on the Proposed Rear Parcel. The single-family residence at 874 is listed on the Local Historic Resources Inventory as a Category 4 Building From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action: 1. Conduct a study session review of the proposal to: (a) subdivide a parcel containing a Local Inventory Category 4 resource (Preliminary Parcel Map with Exception application 19PLN-00030), (b) record a preservation covenant for the existing home at 874 Boyce Avenue, and (c) construct a single-story home on the proposed lot behind 874 Boyce Avenue. Report Summary The applicant proposes to sub-divide a 12,402 square foot (sf) lot containing a historic property into two parcels. The larger, street-fronting parcel (approximately 7,000 square feet) would contain the Category 4 historic resource at 874 Boyce Avenue, built in 1927. The smaller parcel (approximately 5,400 square feet) to the rear would be a vacant parcel. The vacant, rear parcel would be addressed 880 Boyce, which is the address of the former home behind 874 Boyce, built in 1926 and demolished in 1931. The applicant intends to develop the vacant lot, following recordation of the parcel map and historic preservation covenant for 874 Boyce. The applicant has prepared plans showing the resource at 874 Boyce City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 and concept plans for a proposed single-story home on the proposed rear lot (880 Boyce). A location map is provided (Attachment A). The Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council review and act on Parcel Maps with Exceptions, which are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff is required to analyze whether or not the proposed subdivision will have an adverse impact upon the existing listed historic resource. This report provides background related to the listed resource – two “sister” homes (872 and 874 Boyce) built in 1927 – to support the HRB study session discussion. Background Historic Inventory Properties The Palo Alto Historic Inventory form for 872 and 874 Boyce attached to this report (as Attachment B) notes, “this pair of individually elegant and matched houses carefully placed to enhance the simple formality of their design”. The image on the following page shows the façade of 874 Boyce that faces its “sister house” at 872 Boyce Avenue, across the existing driveway that serves the three existing homes at 872, 874, and 876 Boyce. 874 Boyce façade that faces 872 Boyce 872 Boyce façade that faces 874 Boyce The below images show the footprints of the homes at 874, 872 and 876 Boyce Avenue today (left image) and as shown on the 1930’s Sanborn Map (right image). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The Sanborn map (at right) shows a paste-over of the former 880 Boyce home footprint behind 874 Boyce, demolished sometime after 1931. The 1926 Assessor’s map below shows the footprint of 880 Boyce before demolition. 880 Boyce appears to have existed prior to construction of the ‘sister’ homes. The home at 826 Boyce was constructed in 1928. 1926 Assessor’s Map 872 and 876 Boyce Subdivision In 2012, the City approved the subdivision of the property containing 872 Boyce and 876 Boyce. The sister home (872 Boyce) has a recorded preservation covenant associated with the 2012 lot split. The rear home (876 Boyce) is on a flag lot, but the flag lot area is over 20% greater than the 6,000 minimum lot size for the R-1 Zone. No exception was required for the lot split; the map was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment (PCE). The City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 driveway from Boyce Avenue has served only three developed parcels and is not considered a ‘private street’. Below is an image of the adjacent property’s 2012 parcel map. Parcel Map for 872 and 876 Boyce Applicable Municipal Codes Historic Review: PAMC Title 16, Section 16.49.050 allows for staff level approval of minor exterior alterations which will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings. Additionally, if CEQA analysis indicates there may be a potential impact to a historic resource, the Planner refers the application to the Historic Resources Board. However, a project that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would not have a significant adverse impact on a resource. There is no proposal to modify the resource at 874 Boyce, other than to subdivide the lot that contains the home. Staff would review building permit plans for the rear home to ensure the resulting development would not impact the resource at 874 Boyce. The HRB may wish to comment on the compatibility of the design for the proposed single-story home with the resource at 874 Boyce. Subdivision Incentive for Historic Preservation: These codes, adopted by City Council in 2009, allow creation of smaller flag lots in the R-1 zone district, and are found in two different titles of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC): Title 18 (Zoning) and Title 21 (Subdivision). PAMC Section 18.12.140 allows subdivision of R-1 property resulting in a small sized flag lot (a flag lot area having less than the standard R-1 lot area) to preserve an existing resource. Flag lots are not otherwise allowed to be created in the R-1 zone district. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 PAMC Section 21.20.301 allows the PCE Director to approve a flag lot in the R-1 zone district without the need for an exception, for historic preservation purposes. The process requires recordation of a preservation covenant for the historic resource on the property to be subdivided. Attachment D is a sample covenant (the covenant that was recorded for the property at 872 Boyce). The HRB is not required to make findings for the requested subdivision; this is the purview of the Planning and Transportation Commission. Discussion HRB Purview The focus of the HRB in this study session is principally associated with the project’s impact to the Category 4 historic resource at 874 Boyce. The HRB may wish to provide feedback on the proposed lot size for 874 Boyce and on the proposed flag lot and new single-story home’s compatibility with the home at 874 Boyce. The HRB may provide direction regarding any project revisions deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The arrangement of homes appears to be similar to ‘cottage cluster’ homes elsewhere in Palo Alto such as in College Terrace, and viewable in a nearby cottage cluster. Below is an image of the proposed lot split (and parcel sizes will be adjusted on hard copy plans for the HRB) to create a 7,000 square foot lot for the existing home at 874 Boyce and approximately 5,400 square foot lot for the proposed one-story home on the new lot (880 Boyce) to the rear. Discussion regarding compliance with the subdivision code and zoning code will be provided in the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report. The HRB is not required or requested to comment on subdivision and zoning code compliance resulting from the proposed lot-split. Environmental Review The subject project (subdivision) will be assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning and Transportation Commission staff report will provide an analysis of the project with respect to CEQA. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 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: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Historic Inventory Form for 872-874 Boyce Avenue (PDF) Attachment C: Zoning Code Subdivision Incentive for Historic Preservation (DOCX) Attachment D: Sample Covenant (872 Boyce Avenue) (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 18.12.140 Historical Review and Incentives (a) Historic residence review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is required in the R-1 district and R-1 sub-districts for alterations or modifications to any residence designated on the city’s Historic Inventory as Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of this code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becoming a historic structure is contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. (b) Exemptions to gross floor area requirements are available for historic residences pursuant to the definition of gross floor area in Section 18.04.030(65)(C)(ii). Home improvement exceptions provide for additional square footage and certain other exceptions for historic homes pursuant to Section 18.12.120. (c) Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, existing parcels containing two residences may be subdivided into more than one ownership, where all of the following circumstances exist: (1) At least one residence is designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, or Category 4 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of this code or are contributing structures located within a locally designated historic district or are eligible for the National or California Registers; and (2) No increase in the total number of residences on the site is proposed; and (3) Separate lots are proposed to be created, each with a minimum lot size not less than 4,000 square feet in the R-1 district if only one residence is historic or 80% of the minimum lot size for the R-1 subdistricts; if both residences are historic and subject to a covenant, the allowable minimum lot size is 2,000 square feet; and (4) The resultant parcel lines may create less than minimum lot size (no less than the area stated in item (3) of this section), site width and depth, setback and daylight plane encroachments, floor area and site coverage exceeding the maximum allowable for existing development with respect to each new parcel, without the need for approval of a Variance or Home Improvement Exception, but would not generally increase any existing noncomplying building features; however, minor additions for functional improvements may be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment; and (5) The Historic Resources Board has determined that at least one existing residence on the property has historic integrity and qualifies for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory. (6) A covenant is recorded to run with the land in perpetuity, assuring that the historic residences will be preserved and maintained consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation through compliance with Historic Resources Board review and recommendations. The covenant will stipulate that HRB review is required for all major projects on the site including significant changes to any non-historic residence. Any modifications to a non-historic residence must be compatible with the historic residence and satisfy the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Compatibility. (7) The two residences on the property were in existence as of January 28, 2009. (8) Application of the state Historic Building Code is available for use on any eligible building. (9) Residences subject to a covenant must meet all government health, life and safety codes. (Ord. 5051 § 4, 2009: Ord. 4869 § 14 (Exh. A [part]), 2005) Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 9124) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Study Session for 1107 Cowper Title: 1107 Cowper Street [Application Not Yet Filed]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Discuss Preliminary Plans for Replacement of a Professorville Historic District Two-Story Home Built in 1997 with a New Two-Story Home From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide input during a voluntary ‘study session’ review. This proposal, shared in a preliminary Individual Review meeting with staff, is to demolish a relatively new (circa 1997) neo-traditional style, two-story home located at 1107 Cowper Street within the locally listed Professorville Historic District, and build a new two-story home, subject to Individual Review and Professorville Guidelines compliance, and a pool house. Report Summary This report forwards a location map (Attachment A), a relevant excerpt of the Professorville Guidelines (Attachment B), and concept plans (Attachment D) for a new two-story home to replace a two-story home located within the Professorville Historic District. The applicant has provided and analysis (Attachment C) the new home for compliance with the Professorville Guidelines. The existing home is not individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The below image shows the front of the current home located at 1107 Cowper Street. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) The first purpose of PAMC Chapter 16.49, Historic Preservation, is to “Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those historic structures, districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo Alto.” The chapter states, “All structures/sites within a historic district are categorized as significant on the historic inventory” and notes that all structures within a historic district are ‘historic structures/sites’. However, only Inventory categories 1 and 2 are called “significant buildings”. The existing building is not a significant building on the Inventory, and is not historic, having been built in 1997. Its significance is derived from its location within the Professorvile Historic District. Professorville Guidelines City Council adopted the Professorville Guidelines in the fall of 2016. The Guidelines envisions the replacement of non-historic homes. Chapter 6, Guidelines for Designing and Building New Residence states: “As opportunities for new residential construction arise, it is critical to design new buildings to be compatible with the neighborhood’s early residences, yet also differentiated in some way in order to continue the physical record of historical development in the district. The most important considerations for compatibility include site placement, general form and massing, size and height, and fenestration patterns. Designing a home that takes into consideration these aspects of the historic City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 character of surrounding homes would ensure that the overall appearance and feeling of Professorville remain distinguishable.” Chapter 6 contains guidelines for new construction, and notes, “Most existing residences are complementary to the character of the district, even though not all residences in the district are historic contributors…demolishing and replacing an existing residence can be disruptive to a historic, established streetscape.” Guideline 6.1.2 states, “Avoid demolishing later residences that are complementary to the district” and “Be cognizant of how existing later residences fit into and reinforce historic development patterns and retain wherever feasible.” If these “later residences” are not compatible, they may be candidates for demolition and replacement, when the new construction is compatible with the district. The compatibility guidelines for new construction in Professorville Historic District are excerpted in Attachment B. National Register Bulletin The overall historic character of National Register Districts is defined in Section 5 ("District") of Chapter IV ("How to Define Categories of Historic Properties") of National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation: "A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. ... A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources." Compatibility review is a complex task that takes many design factors into account; for example, the review of materials involves the scope of usage of the material, its color, pattern, texture, reflectivity, and a consideration of how its appearance may change over. Compliance with Applicable Regulations Once an Individual Review application is submitted, the project plans will be reviewed for compliance with the City’s development standards, Individual Review findings, Comprehensive Plan policies, and the Professorville Guidelines. Discussion The intent of the study session is to have a preliminary discussion about the replacement home with respect to the Professorville Guidelines at the earliest opportunity. The proposed home has not yet been analyzed for compliance with the R-1 Zoning regulations or Individual Review Guidelines. The existing site is represented in the below left image. The proposed site plan is below right. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The applicant has submitted preliminary drawings and an analysis (Attachment C) of the proposed home design as relates to the Professorville Guidelines. The analysis includes the below streetscape image to illustrate how the proposed new home would relate to the neighboring homes. At the time this report was written, the applicant had not yet submitted an application for Single Family Individual Review. Once the application has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the Individual Review Guidelines and Professorville Guidelines, the formal plans will be presented to the HRB for discussion and recommendation to staff. The comments of the HRB in a study session are non-binding to the project. The image on the following page is a rendering of the proposed front façade in the preliminary plans. Additional drawings are provided in the plan set distributed to the HRB members. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Environmental Review The formal application for the subject project would be assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Next Steps The formal application for Single Family Individual Review, once submitted, would be reviewed by staff for compliance with the Individual Review Guidelines and Professorville Guidelines. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 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: 1107 Cowper Parcel Report Map (PDF) Attachment B: Professorville Guidelines Excerpts Pertaining to New Construction (DOCX) Attachment C: FGY 1107 Cowper - HRB response document (PDF) Attachment D: FGY 1107 Cowper - HRB drawing set (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 40 0 . 0 ' 250 . 0 ' 40 0 . 0 ' 250. 0 ' 13 9 . 0 ' 128. 0 ' 139 . 0 ' 128 . 0 ' 100 . 0 ' 150. 0 ' 100 . 0 ' 150. 0 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 75.0'200.0' 75.0 ' 200 . 0 ' 75.0'200.0' 50.0 ' 200.0'50.0' 20 0 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 200 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 80. 0 ' 150. 0 ' 80. 0 ' 150 . 0 ' 100 . 0 ' 150. 0 ' 100 . 0 ' 150 . 0 ' 150 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 150 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 150 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 50. 0 ' 150 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 150. 0 ' 50. 0 ' 200. 0 ' 50. 0 ' 200. 0 ' 200 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 70.0' 95.0 ' 70. 0 ' 95.0'80.0'95.0'80. 0 ' 95.0' 150 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 15 0 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 150 . 0 ' 55.0 ' 15 0 . 0 ' 55.0 ' 10 5 . 5 ' 50.0 ' 105 . 5 ' 50.0 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 200 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 150 . 0 ' 100. 0 ' 15 0 . 0 ' 100. 0 ' 25 0 . 0 ' 100. 1 ' 50. 0 ' 150. 0 ' 161 . 0 ' 128. 0 ' 23. 0 ' 62.1 ' 10. 5 ' 50.0 ' 105 . 5 ' 10.0 ' 11 6 . 0 ' 62.1 ' 11 6 . 0 ' 62.1 ' 45 9 45 7 114 0 105 5 121 1 56 7 55 9 113 6 55 5 54 5 53 5 50 5 50 1 53 6 56 6 111 8 58 0 1110 51 0 110 7 52 8 50 3 112 8 113 2 55 8 54 0 52 5 567 53 9 1100 50 0 C O W P E R S T R E E T LIN C O L N A V E N U E KIN G S L E Y A V E N U E WEBSTE R S T R E E T Parcel Report for APN: Net Lot Size: Max Floor Area : Max Lot Coverage : Zone Dist: Minimum Setbacks: Front: Rear: Interior Side(s): Street Side: Special Setbacks: Substandard: Flag Lot: Easements: Comp Plan Des: Parking District: Flood Zone:LOMA: Historic Status: ADU/JADU: Max Height to Ridge: Near Creek: Traffic Imp. Dist: FEMA Map Panel: Comments: HMP Request: SCCA* YR Built:SCCA* Eff. YR Built: Source of year built data is the Santa Clara County Assessor* Click for data details or navigate tohttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/parcel.asp#Parcel Report Detailshere Easements: Underlying Lot Lines: Trees: Sidewalks: Creek or Waterway: This map is a product of theCity of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'70' 11 0 7 C o w p e r S t CITY OF PALO A L TO IN C O R P ORATE D C ALIFOR NIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f AP RIL 16 1894 See Ord # 5412 120-06-078 39,759 sf 12,678 sf (note: maximum formain residence is 6,000 sf) If single story, 12,678 sfIf two story, 13,916 sf R-1 none SF none X no If no special setback, 20', or,if avg. contextual setback > 30', the avg. contextual setback. 20' 6' If no special setback, 16' 11 0 7 C o w p e r S t If roof slope < 12:12, 30'If roof slope >= 12:12, 33' Professorville Yes, see PW: PUE no no no The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto none 0010H n/a no 1997 1997 gis.service, 2017-12-01 21:25:37Parcel Report Online () Attachment B: Professorville Guidelines Excerpts Pertaining to New Construction Guideline 6.3.2 is focused on massing and form: Guideline 6.3.3 pertains to roof form: Guideline 6.4 (and sub-guidelines 6.4.1 through 6.4.3) pertain to compatibility: Fergus Garber Young Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 phone 650/473-0400 fax 650/473-0410 DATE: March 28, 2018 PROJECT: Proposed New Construction at 1107 Cowper Street Response to Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines in regards to deconstruction of existing home at 1107 Cowper St. This document outlines Fergus Garber Young’s response to the guidelines regarding demolition of a non- historic home within the Professorville district, at 1107 Cowper St. Using the design guidelines indicated below, we believe that the new proposal be more compatible with the character of the neighborhood than the existing structure, warranting demolition. Included in this document are an existing photo (Fig 1, page 5), a rendering of the proposed residence, (Fig 2, page 6) and a streetscape drawing. (Fig 3, page 6) 6.1) New construction should avoid demolition of existing buildings 6.1.1- Do not demolish an early residence. - Not applicable, as the existing house was constructed in 1997. 6.1.2- Avoid demolishing later residences that are complementary to the district. - We feel that the current house, completed in 1997 is not an exemplary example of compatibility within the neighborhood, and thus a candidate for deconstruction and replacement. Additionally, as per section 5.4, the existing structure does not have any individual historic significance. (see Fig. 1) 6.1.3- Attempt to construct new residences without removing existing residences. - Not Applicable for this instance. (continued on next page) 2 Fergus Garber Young Architects 6.2) New Residences and Accessory Buildings Should Be Sited Within Their Lots to Reflect Professorville’s Historic Development and Streetscape Patterns 6.2.1 – A new residence should be placed on its lot with a similar location, setback, and orientation as nearby residences in Professorville, which typically follow historic patterns. - The proposed residence sits in approximately the same spot on the property as the existing house. Because the lot is so wide, there are no other houses on the block with a Cowper address establishing a contextual setback. The house is roughly in line with the houses to each side, on the corners of Kingsley and Lincoln, and therefore maintains the current pattern. 6.3) Proposed Residences Should Be Designed to Match the Scale, Massing and General Form of Older Residences. 6.3.1 – The size and height of a new residence should reflect Professorville’s early homes in order not to look out of place within the neighborhood. - The immediate neighborhood is made up of primarily 2 and 3 story structures. The proposed house is two stories, replacing the existing two story house. The overall height of the proposed structure is shorter than existing, and visually splits the difference between the two story house on the corner of Lincoln, and the large, 3 story house on the corner of Kingsley and Cowper. (see Fig. 3) 6.3.2 – The massing and form of a new residence should be carefully planned to avoid perceived bulk that is incompatible with the neighborhood streetscape. - The proposed residence has a simple massing with a strong front façade plane, and an entry porch, as is typical of homes in the vicinity. Additionally, a rear wing that is hidden from the street reduces the visual impact of the overall mass of the structure. (continued on next page) 3 Fergus Garber Young Architects 6.3.3 – A new residence should have a relatively simple roof form that references the forms found elsewhere in the neighborhood. The roof should be sized to compliment the building’s proportions, not complicate them. - The proposed house has simple, gabled roofs consistent with the surrounding homes. The main roof has gabled ends with cross gables facing the street. Between the two gables, the horizontal roof is broken with a center dormer over the porch. 6.4) The Architectural Style of a New Residence Should Be Compatible with the Character of Early Houses in Professorville. 6.4.1 – New residences should be compatible with historic architectural influences that are already found in the neighborhood. - The proposed house takes design ques from the historic Victorian, Queen Anne and Shingle styles, helping to blend into the existing aesthetics of the neighborhood. By using shingles and clapboard siding, in combination with a wood belt line and flair between the first and second floors, the home strives to blend with the existing aesthetic patterns and forms found in Professorville. (see Fig. 2) 6.4.2 – Choose strategies that differentiate new construction from the neighborhood’s early residences. - We understand that this is a new home, and will not be confused with a historic home in the area; instead it will be a contributor to the historic feel and character of the neighborhood, in a way that blends the historic detailing and style, with contemporary materials and construction techniques. 6.4.3 – Paint and stain colors for the exterior of new homes should generally be compatible with historic homes in Professorville. - The proposed home will be primarily a shade of white with dark, contrasting window color, and a neutral roof, to fit both the style of the house, as well as the character of the Professorville. (continued on next page) 4 Fergus Garber Young Architects 6.5) The Entrances and Fenestration Patterns of New Residences Should Be Designed to Connect a New Residence to the Established Visual Character of the Neighborhood. 6.5.1 Doors and Porches should relate directly to the public realm and support the historic character of the streetscape. - The proposed residence’s entry is at the center of the front façade, and includes a porch with wood detailing that creates a welcoming progression from public to private that is typical of the neighborhood. 6.5.2 – Window types and arrangements on new construction should reflect traditional patterns within Professorville. - The window patterning and placement creates an understandable hierarchy of window types/sizes from the first floor to the upper floor. The window sizes and proportions are respectful to the character of the neighborhood. (continued on next page) 5 Fergus Garber Young Architects Fig 1. (Existing residence at 1107 Cowper) (continued on next page) 6 Fergus Garber Young Architects Fig 2. (Proposed residence at 1107 Cowper) Fig 3. (Proposed streetscape with neighbors) A0.00 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com COVER SHEET DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING IDXXX-X WXXX-X 1 BUILDING ELEVATION KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # WINDOW KEY: WINDOW # DOOR KEY: DOOR # XAX.X BUILDING SECTION KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # INTERIOR ELEVATION KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # DETAIL KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # (N) EXTERIOR WALL (N) INTERIOR WALL DEMO X AX.X 1 AX.X 3 24 XAX.X (E) WALL 1107 COWPER ST. NEW RESIDENCE , PALO ALTO, CA PROJECT DATA PROJECT DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS PROJECT DIRECTORY VICINITY MAP DRAWING INDEX SITE & AND @ AT Ç CENTERLINE ø DIAMETER OR ROUND ¶ PROPERTY LINE Ø SQUARE FOOT ADJ ADJUSTABLE AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR AFS AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER ALUM ALUMINUM APPR APPROXIMATELY ATTN ATTENTION BD BOARD BLDG BUILDING BO BOTTOM OF CLG CEILING CLR CLEAR CONC CONCRETE CONT CONTINUOUS DET DETAIL DIM DIMENSION EA EACH ELEV ELEVATION EQ EQUAL EXST EXISTING EXT EXTERIOR FD FLOOR DRAIN FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FIN FINISH FLR FLOOR FNTN FOUNTAIN FOC FACE OF CONCRETE FOF FACE OF FINISH FOS FACE OF STUD FRP FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PANEL FS FIRE SPRINKLER GA GAGE OR GAUGE GALV GALVANIZED GL GLASS GSM GALVANIZED SHEET METAL GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD ☺ HAPPY FACE HC HANDICAPPED INCL INCLUDES OR INCLUDING INSUL INSULATION INT INTERIOR JAN JANITOR LAM LAMINATE LAV LAVATORY M MIRROR MAT MATERIAL MFR MANUFACTURER MAX MAXIMUM MIN MINIMUM NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NOM NOMINAL NTS NOT TO SCALE O/ OVER OC ON CENTER OCC OCCUPANT(S) OH OPPOSITE HAND OSB ORIENTED STRAND BOARD P PAINT PLWD PLYWOOD PT PAINT TYPE RWL RAIN WATER LEADER RCP REFLECTED CEILING PLAN REQD REQUIRED RD ROOF DRAIN SC SEALED CONCRETE Ø SQUARE FOOT SF SQUARE FOOTAGE SH SHINGLE TYPE SIM SIMILAR SS STAINLESS STEEL STL STEEL STOR STORAGE T TREAD OR TILE T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE TBD TO BE DETERMINED TJI TRUSS JOIST I-SECTION TO TOP OF TOS TOB OF SLAB TYP TYPICAL UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED UR URINAL VIF VERIFY IN FIELD W/ WITH WC WATER CLOSET WH WATER HEATER WO WHERE OCCURS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF WORK ARE DESIGNATED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING: - EPOXY EMBEDMENTS - WELDING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF WORK ARE DESIGNATED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR INSPECTION AND TESTING: -GRADING AND COMPACTION -FOOTING EXCAVATION -PIER EXCAVATION THE FOLLWING ITEMS ARE DESIGNATED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING: - SHEAR WALL NAILING INSPECTION -CONCRETE REINFORCING GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PREPARED BY XXXXXXX DATED XXXXXXX. 1) INSTALL A NFPA 13-D FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE MAIN HOUSE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. 2) INSTALL SMOKE DETECTORS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE EVERY SLEEPING AREA, AT THE TOP, INTERMEDIATE AND LOWER STAIRWAY LANDINGS. INSTALL CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS OUTSIDE EVERY SLEEPING AREA. SMOKE DETECTORS AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS TO BE INNER CONNECTED FOR ALARM. 3) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE SPRINKLED AS PER 2013 CHBC SECTION 8-402.2. ARCHITECTURE DRAWINGS A0.00 COVER SHEET A0.01 GENERAL NOTES A0.10 ARBORIST REPORT/TREE PROTECTION A0.11 ARBORIST REPORT/TREE PROTECTION A0.20 CALGREEN A0.21 CALGREEN A1.00 EXISTING SURVEY A1.10 SITE PLAN - EXISTING A1.11 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED A1.20 PROPOSED BASEMENT AREA CALCS A1.21 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCS A1.22 PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA CALCS A1.23 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCS A1.24 PROPOSED EQUIV. CALCULATIONS A1.25 AREA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY A1.26 PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE A1.30 SITE CONTEXT A1.31 STREETSCAPE ELEVATION A2.00 PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN A2.10 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.11 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLAN A2.12 PROPOSED POOL HOUSE FLOOR PLAN A2.13 PROPOSED RECCESORY FLOOR PLAN A2.20 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.30 HOUSE ROOF PLAN A2.31 GARAGE ROOF PLAN A2.32 ACCESSORY ROOF PLANS A3.00 HOUSE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.01 HOUSE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.02 HOUSE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.03 GARAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.04 POOL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.05 RECCESORY EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.00 SECTION A4.01 SECTION SYMBOL LEGEND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 2 STORY HOUSE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2-STORY DWELLING, INCLUDING BASEMENT LEVEL, AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE, POOL HOUSE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ADDRESS: 1107 COWPER STREET OWNER: ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1 OCCUPANCY: R-3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B NUMBER OF STORIES: FLOOD ZONE: HISTORICAL CATEGORY: CONTEXTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK: NO CONTEXTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK APPLIES CONTEXTUAL GARAGE PLACEMENT: NO CONTEXTUAL GARAGE PLACEMENT APPLIES LOT AREA: 39,759.00 SF ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 39,759.00 X 35% 13,915.65 SF (STRUCTURES) 39,759.00 X 5% 1987.95 SF (COVERED PATIOS & OVERHANGS) TOTAL = 15,903.60 SF LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING MAIN HOUSE 3,588.75 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 00.00 SF TOTAL = 3,588.75 SF < 15,903.60 SF LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE 3,479.5 SF GARAGE 1,438.3 SF POOL HOUSE 899.5 SF RECCESSORY 362.4 SF ENTRY PORCH 350.0 SF COVERED LIVING 341.25 SF BELOW GRADE PATIOS 354.2 SF TOTAL = 7,285.0 SF < 15,903.6 SF OK ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO: 5,000 SF X 45% 2,250 SF 34,759 SF X 30% 10,427 SF TOTAL = 12,677 SF FLOOR AREA: EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 3,588.75 SF SECOND FLOOR 2,406.25 SF TOTAL = 5,995.0 SF > X,XXX SF FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 3,482.60 SF SECOND FLOOR 2,128.40 SF GARAGE XXX.XX SF TOTAL = X,XXX.XX SF > X,XXX SF OK BASEMENT AREA (NON-FAR) 3,186.30 SF APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS: BUILDING CODE 2016 CBC MECHANICAL CODE 2016 CMC PLUMBING CODE 2016 CPC ELECTRICAL CODE 2016 CEC ENERGY CODE 2016 CE C FIRE CODE 2016 CFC GREEN BUILDING 2016 CGBC OWNERBTBT, LLC885 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 13APALO ALTO, CA 94301 ARCHITECT & OWNERS REPRESENTATIVEFERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301TEL: 650 473-0400CONTACT: KRISTEN LOMAXEMAIL: KRISTEN@FGY-ARCH.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERBKG STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS1155 BROADWAY #205REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063650-489-9224 CONTACT: JOE GIVENSEMAIL: JOE@BKGSE.COM CIVIL ENGINEERBKF ENGINEERS255 SHORELINE DRIVE, SUITE 200REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065TEL: 650 482-6300CONTACT: EMAIL: CONTRACTORNORTHWALL BUILDERS664 GILMAN STREETPALO ALTO, CA 94301TEL: 650 444-5963 CONTACT: BRAD BENNINGSONEMAIL:BBENNINGSON@NORTHWALLBUILDERS.COM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNAMEADDRESSCITY STATE ZIPTEL: CONTACT: EMAIL: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBOXLEAF DESIGN2732 BROADWAYREDWOOD CITY, CA 94062TEL: 650 362 3755 CONTACT: SARAH HARTOEMAIL: SARAH@BOXLEAFDESIGN.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS A0.10 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com ARBORIST REPORT DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING A1.00 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com SURVEY DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING A1.10 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com EXISTING SITE AND DEMO PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 44 ' - 9 3 / 8 " 7'- 6 1 / 8 " 36'-11 1/2"16'-3 5/8"37'-3/8" 22'-2 5/8"18'-3 1/4"9'-1 1/4"18'-4 1/8"22'-3 1/4" 62 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " 25'-9 1/4"45'-1/8" 124 sq ft 124 sq ft 87.5 sq ft (E) WALLS ANDHARDSCAPE TO BE REMOVED (E) POOL TO BEREMOVED (E) STAGE TO BE REMOVED COWPER STREET (E) STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED ASSHOWN (E) GARDEN SHED TO BE REMOVED (E) POOL HOUSE TO BE REMOVED OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE N 38 ' 17 '23 "E 15 0 .0' N 51' 44'04"W 50.0' N 38 ' 17 '23 "E 10 0 .12 ' N 51' 44'04"W 250.0' S 38 ' 17 '23 "W 50 .0' S 38 ' 17 '23 "W 62 .11 ' N 38 ' 17 '23 "E 12 8 .01 ' S 51' 44'04"E 161.0' N 51' 44'04"W 23.0' S 51' 44'04"E 10.58' LEMON ORANGE LEMON LEMON HEDGE OAK TREE (E) 2 STORYRESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED +/- 5,995 SF 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK 20' REAR YARD SETBACK 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 501 KINGSLEY AVE. 503 KINGSLEY AVE. 505 KINGSLEY AVE. 510 LINCOLN AVE. PROPERTY LINE HARDSCAPING TO DEMOLISH STRUCTURES TO DEMOLISH (E) FENCE TO REMAIN TREE PROTECTION FENCING TYPE I U.O.N. 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1EXISTING SITE AND DEMO PLAN TRUE NORTH (E) SITE PLAN NOTES: - ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, HARDSCAPING, LANDSCAPING AND POOL TO BE REMOVED, U.O.N. - SEE SHEET A1.11, PROPOSED SITE PLAN, FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES (E) SITE PLAN LEGEND: A1.11 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com PROPOSED SITE KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING F 50 ' - 6 7 / 8 " 48'-8" 23'-6 3/4" 6' SID E Y A R D S E T B A C K 6' SID E Y A R D S E T B A C K 510 LINCOLNAVE. 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1SITE KEY PLAN SEE SHEET A1.12 FOR FRONT OF SITE SEE SHEET A1.13 FOR BACK OF SITE TRUE NORTH A1.12 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com SITE PLAN - PROPOSED FRONT DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SETBACK FENCE TREE PROTECTION FENCING CONTOUR STRUCTURES TO DEMOLISH 50 ' - 6 7 / 8 " 48'-8" 23'-6 3/4" PROPOSED MECH. EQUIPMENT LOCATION A/C N 38 ' 17 '23 "E 15 0 .0' N 51' 44'04"W 50.0' S 38 ' 17 '23 "W 62 .11 ' N 38 ' 17 '23 "E 12 8 .01 ' S 51' 44'04"E 161.0' N 51' 44'04"W 23.0' OAK TREE OAK TREES A/CA/C OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE SIDEWALK TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT THREE CAR GARAGE SHED 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 501 KINGSLEY AVE. 503 KINGSLEY AVE. 505 KINGSLEY AVE. COWPER STREET PROPOSED EXTERI0R PATIO COVERED ENTRY PATIO BELOWGRADE PATIO BELOWGRADE PATIO BELOW GRADEPATIO PROPOSED EXTERI0R PATIO 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLAN - FRONT TRUE NORTH SEE SHEET A1.13 FOR BACK HALF OF SITE PLAN A1.13 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com SITE PLAN - PROPOSED BACK DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING F PROPOSED POOLAND MECH EQUIPMENT LOCATION POOL A/C N 51' 44'04"W 50.0' N 38 ' 17 '23 "E 10 0 .12 ' N 51' 44'04"W 250.0' S 38 ' 17 '23 "W 50 .0' S 38 ' 17 '23 "W 62 .11 ' N 51' 44'04"W 23.0' S 51' 44'04"E 10.58' POOL POOL OAK TREE OAK TREE OAK TREE POOL POOL HOUSE SHED 20' REAR YARD SETBACK 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 6' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PROPOSED EXTERI0R PATIO PROPOSED DGPATHWAYS PROPOSED EXTERI0R PATIO PROPOSED DECKING BELOW GRADE PATIO OAK TREE RECCESSORY PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SETBACK FENCE TREE PROTECTION FENCING CONTOUR STRUCTURES TO DEMOLISH 0 4'8'16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLAN - BACK TRUE NORTH SEE SHEET A1.12 FOR FRONT HALF OF SITE PLAN A1.20 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com PROPOSED BASEMENT AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 9'-10"6'-8"9'-1 1/2"24'-10"7'-6 5/8"16'-2 5/8"6'-3 3/4"3'-5 5/8" 7' - 7 7 / 8 " 4' - 7 " 6' - 3 3 / 8 " 6' - 4 " 4'- 1 1 1 / 4 " 4' - 3 5 / 8 " 10 ' - 3 / 4 " 4'- 3 5 / 8 " 5' - 8 7 / 8 " 2' - 1 1 / 8 " 6' - 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 4'- 1 1 / 8 " 2'-7"10'-10 7/8"1'-6 1/8"7'-7"9'-5 3/4"6'-7 7/8" 4'- 1 1 1 / 2 " 18 ' - 5 / 8 " 19 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " OFFICE 002 A: 294.25 sq ft HALL 003A: 44.75 sq ft CLOSET 004 A: 74.75 sq ft BATH 1 005A: 81.5 sq ft HALL 006 A: 273.75 sq ft STORAGE 007A: 94 sq ft ELEVATOR 008 A: 33.75 sq ft STAIRS 009A: 127 sq ft MECHANICAL010 A: 309.75 sq ft STORAGE011 A: 94.25 sq ft POWDER 013 A: 44 sq ft LAUNDRY 012 A: 299.5 sq ft HALL014 A: 217.25 sq ft BATH 2 017A: 117.75 sq ft PILATES 016 A: 215.25 sq ft REC ROOM021 A: 589.5 sq ft CARDIO 019 A: 291.25 sq ft STAIRS018 A: 45.25 sq ft CLOSET 020 A: 33 sq ft BELOW GRADE PATIO 001A: 96.75 sq ft BELOW GRADE PATIO015 A: 118.5 sq ft BELOW GRADE PATIO 022 A: 184.5 sq ft PROPOSED NON-FAR CALCULATIONS Home Story BASEMENT Room Number 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 016 017 018 019 020 021 Room Name OFFICE HALL CLOSET BATH 1 HALL STORAGE ELEVATOR STAIRS MECHANICAL STORAGE LAUNDRY POWDER HALL PILATES BATH 2 STAIRS CARDIO CLOSET REC ROOM Calculated Area 294.3 44.8 74.9 81.5 273.8 94.0 33.8 127.0 309.8 94.3 299.4 44.0 217.2 215.3 117.8 45.2 291.1 33.0 589.6 3,280.8 sq ft NON FAR CALCS - BELOW GRADE PATIOS Floor (Story) BASEMENT Room Number 001 015 022 Room Name BELOW GRADE PATIO BELOW GRADE PATIO BELOW GRADE PATIO Calculated Area 96.7 118.6 184.5 399.8 sq ft 0 2'4'8'TRUE NORTH NON-FAR CALC NOTES: - COMBINED AREA OF ALL BELOW-GRADE PATIOS NOT TO EXCEED 2% OF THEAREA OF LOT OR 200 SF, WHICEVER IS GREATER AND NO SINGLE AREA MAY EXCEED 200SF. -AREA DEVOTED TO REQUIRED SAIRWAY EGRESS SHALL NOT BE INLUDED IN THE 200 SFLIMITATION 2% X 39,759 SF = 795 SF A1.21 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 15'-1 3/8"10'-9 5/8"8'-11 1/2"21'-3/8"12'-8 1/2"15'-4 5/8" 11 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 7' - 5 " 6' - 3 5 / 8 " 4'- 1 1 3 / 8 " 16'-5 1/4" 18 ' - 8 " 12'-3"8'-9 3/8" 4'- 6 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 4' - 3 5 / 8 " 10 ' - 3 / 4 " 4' - 3 5 / 8 " 4'-4 1/2" 16'-5 1/4" 11 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 2'-7"20'-1/2"16'-1" 4'-2 1/2"4'-5 7/8"7'-5 1/8" 10 ' - 1 " 7' - 3 7 / 8 " 5'- 5 " CLOSET 103 A: 80.25 sq ft HALL 118 A: 30.75 sq ft 17 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 13 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 5 1 / 2 " 9' - 5 " 2' - 1 1 / 4 " 25 ' - 1 1 7 / 8 " 3'-4 1/8"24'-5 5/8" SECOND FLOOR EQUIV.SEE SHEET A1.24 KITCHEN114 A: 395.5 sq ft LIBRARY 113 A: 336.75 sq ft GUEST BEDROOM101 A: 287.75 sq ft GUEST BATHROOM 102 A: 182.75 sq ft POWDER 1105 A: 36.5 sq ft HALL 104A: 53.5 sq ft ELEVATOR106 A: 31.5 sq ft STAIRS107 A: 167.25 sq ft ENTRY108 A: 296.5 sq ft PACKAGE CLOS.110 A: 40 sq ft OFFICE 112 A: 182.75 sq ft EATING 115 A: 274 sq ft DINING111 A: 237.25 sq ft LIVING ROOM 116 A: 453.25 sq ft SIDE ENTRY117 A: 162.5 sq ft PANTRY 119 A: 47.25 sq ft POWDER 2 120 A: 32.75 sq ft MUD ROOM 121 A: 94.75 sq ft COVERED PORCH109 A: 56 sq ft 2ND FLOOR EQUIV. A: 176.75 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS FLOOR (STORY) 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Zone Name GUEST BEDROOM GUEST BATHROOM CLOSET HALL POWDER 1 ELEVATOR STAIRS ENTRY COVERED PORCH PACKAGE CLOS. DINING OFFICE LIBRARY KITCHEN EATING LIVING ROOM SIDE ENTRY HALL PANTRY POWDER 2 MUD ROOM Calculated Area 287.7 182.9 80.1 53.4 36.6 31.5 167.3 296.6 55.9 40.1 237.3 182.9 336.8 395.6 274.0 453.1 162.5 30.8 47.1 32.8 94.7 3,479.7 sq ft 0 2'4'8'TRUE NORTH A1.22 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 4'-11"3'-5 7/8"5'-9 1/8"1'-11 3/4"7'-1/8" 3' - 8 7 / 8 " 3'- 8 1 / 8 " 4' - 1 " 17 ' - 8 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 20'-1 3/4" 5' - 6 3 / 4 " KITCHEN 123 A: 224.25 sq ft LIVING 124 A: 409 sq ft STORAGE125 A: 77.25 sq ft BATH 126A: 58.75 sq ft CLOSET128 A: 7.25 sq ft POWDER127 A: 42.25 sq ft HALL 129 A: 80.75 sq ft 6'-2 1/4"6'-8 5/8" 23 ' - 9 1 / 8 " 3'- 7 3 / 4 " REC ROOM 130 A: 331.25 sq ft POWDER131 A: 22.5 sq ft 14'-1 1/2"22'-2 1/4" 1' - 1 7 / 8 " 39 ' - 3 3 / 8 " GARAGE 122 A: 1,439 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCS - GARAGE Home Story 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 122 Zone Name GARAGE Calculated Area 1,438.9 1,438.9 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCS - POOL HOUSE Home Story 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Zone Name KITCHEN LIVING STORAGE BATH POWDER CLOSET HALL Calculated Area 224.2 409.0 77.2 58.8 42.3 7.3 80.7 899.5 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCS - RECCESSORY Floor (Story) 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 130 131 Zone Name REC ROOM POWDER Calculated Area 331.4 22.6 354.0 sq ft 2POOL HOUSE - AREA CALC 3RECCESSORY AREA CALC1GARAGE AREA CALCS TRUE NORTH A1.23 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING THIRD FLOOR EQUIV.SEE SHEET A1.24 AREA UNDER 5' HEIGHT. MASTER BED 201 A: 304 sq ft MASTER BATH 202 A: 173 sq ft CLOSET 205 A: 49.5 sq ft HALL203 A: 29 sq ft CLOSET 204A: 51 sq ft HALL 206 A: 55.25 sq ft ELEVATOR 207 A: 33.5 sq ft STAIRS 208 A: 154 sq ft FAMILY GATHERING 209 A: 280.5 sq ft BATH 1213 A: 78 sq ft HALL210 A: 123.5 sq ft CLOSET 211 A: 12 sq ft BATH 2 215 A: 67.75 sq ft BEDROOM 1 212 A: 283 sq ft BEDROOM 2 214A: 261.5 sq ft KIDS ROOM 216A: 56.75 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCS- SECOND FLOOR Floor (Story) 2ND FLOOR Room Number 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Room Name MASTER BED MASTER BATH HALL CLOSET CLOSET HALL ELEVATOR STAIRS FAMILY GATHERING HALL CLOSET BEDROOM 1 BATH 1 BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 KIDS ROOM Calculated Area 304.0 172.9 28.9 51.1 49.6 55.4 33.5 154.0 280.5 123.4 12.1 283.0 78.1 261.6 67.8 56.7 2,012.6 sq ft 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCS TRUE NORTH A1.24 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com EQUIV. CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 9' - 5 " 2' - 1 1 / 4 " 25 ' - 1 1 7 / 8 " 3'-4 1/8"24'-5 5/8" SECOND FLOOR EQUIV. SEE SHEET A1.24 2ND FLOOR EQUIV. A: 176.75 sq ft 17'-11 1/2"2 1/8"47'-8 5/8"2 1/8"17'-11 1/2" 19 ' - 3 " 2' - 5 1 / 8 " THIRD FLOOR EQUIV. 301 A: 211 sq ft PROPOSED EQUIV. CALCS Floor (Story) 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR Zone Number 150 301 Zone name 2ND FLOOR EQUIV. THIRD FLOOR EQUIV. Calculated Area 176.7 211.0 387.7 sq ft SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"12ND FLOOR EQUIV. 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"23RD FLOOR EQUIV. TRUE NORTH A1.25 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com AREA CALC SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS FLOOR (STORY) 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Zone Name GUEST BEDROOM GUEST BATHROOM CLOSET HALL POWDER 1 ELEVATOR STAIRS ENTRY COVERED PORCH PACKAGE CLOS. DINING OFFICE LIBRARY KITCHEN EATING LIVING ROOM SIDE ENTRY HALL PANTRY POWDER 2 MUD ROOM Calculated Area 287.7 182.9 80.1 53.4 36.6 31.5 167.3 296.6 55.9 40.1 237.3 182.9 336.8 395.6 274.0 453.1 162.5 30.8 47.1 32.8 94.7 3,479.7 sq ft 2ND FLOOR 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 MASTER BED MASTER BATH HALL CLOSET CLOSET HALL ELEVATOR STAIRS FAMILY GATHERING HALL CLOSET BEDROOM 1 BATH 1 BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 KIDS ROOM 304.0 172.9 28.9 51.1 49.6 55.4 33.5 154.0 280.5 123.4 12.1 283.0 78.1 261.6 67.8 56.7 2,012.6 sq ft PROPOSED NON-FAR CALCULATIONS Home Story BASEMENT Room Number 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 016 017 018 019 020 021 Room Name OFFICE HALL CLOSET BATH 1 HALL STORAGE ELEVATOR STAIRS MECHANICAL STORAGE LAUNDRY POWDER HALL PILATES BATH 2 STAIRS CARDIO CLOSET REC ROOM Calculated Area 294.3 44.8 74.9 81.5 273.8 94.0 33.8 127.0 309.8 94.3 299.4 44.0 217.2 215.3 117.8 45.2 291.1 33.0 589.6 3,280.8 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCS - POOL HOUSE Home Story 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Zone Name KITCHEN LIVING STORAGE BATH POWDER CLOSET HALL Calculated Area 224.2 409.0 77.2 58.8 42.3 7.3 80.7 899.5 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCS - RECCESSORY Floor (Story) 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 130 131 Zone Name REC ROOM POWDER Calculated Area 331.4 22.6 354.0 sq ft PROPOSED EQUIV. CALCS Floor (Story) 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR Zone Number 150 301 Zone name 2ND FLOOR EQUIV. THIRD FLOOR EQUIV. Calculated Area 176.7 211.0 387.7 sq ft NON FAR CALCS - BELOW GRADE PATIOS Floor (Story) BASEMENT Room Number 001 015 022 Room Name BELOW GRADE PATIO BELOW GRADE PATIO BELOW GRADE PATIO Calculated Area 96.7 118.6 184.5 399.8 sq ft PROPOSED FAR CALCS - GARAGE Home Story 1ST FLOOR Zone Number 122 Zone Name GARAGE Calculated Area 1,438.9 1,438.9 sq ft 1ST FLOOR 132 GARDEN SHED 68.4 68.4 sq ft 1FAR CALCULATIONS SUMMARY (HOUSE) 3NON-FAR CALCULATIONS SUMMARY 2FAR CALCS SUMMARY (ACC. STRUCTURES) TOTAL FIRST FLOOR AREA TOTAL 2ND FLOOR AREA FLOOR AREA NOTES 1. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO: 5,000 SF X 45% = 2,250 SF 34,759 SF X 30% = 10,427 SF TOTAL ALLOWABLE FAR = 12,677 SF MAX. ALLOWABLE - MAIN HOUSE = 6000 SF 2. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO: FIRST FLOOR AREA = 3,479.7 SF SECOND FLOOR AREA = 2,012.6 SF SECOND FLOOR EQUIV. = 176.7 SF THIRD FLOOR EQUIV. = 211.0 SF(-200 SF EXEMPTION) = 11.0 SF ENTRY PORCH = 350.0 SF GARAGE = 1,438.3 SF POOL HOUSE = 899.5 SF RECCESSORY = 354.0 SF TOTAL = 9,034.8 SF TOTAL PROPOSED FAR = 9,034.8 SF < 12,677 SF = OK 3. BASIS FOR FAR AREA CALCULATIONS: - THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS IN A MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURED TO EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD WALLS - COVERED PARKING AND ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 120 SF - ALL SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR EQUIVALENTS - BASEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH PATIO AND LIGHTWELL REQUIREMENTS OF 18.12.070 ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - GARDEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS ARBORS AND TRELLISES WITH A SEMI SOLID ROOF ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - STAIR WELLS AT ALL FLOOR AND ALL AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% ENCLOSED AND COVERED - BAY WINDOW PROTRUSIONS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FOUNDATION AND WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN 7 FEET IN LENGTH ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - CHIMNEYS AND FIREBOXES OR FIREPLACES ARE INCLUDED ONCE IN FAR AREA - EAVE OVERHANGS LESS THAN 4' ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - INTERIOR SPACES WITH PERIMETER WALLS ARE MEASURED TO EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD - EXTERIOR COVERED SPACES ARE MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD IN EXTERIOR WALL TO EXTERIOR FACE OF STUD FLOORS TOTAL 5492.3 sq ft -200 SF EXEMPTION (ROOF PITCH 9.5/12) GRAND TOTAL 5680.0 sq ft TOTAL TOTAL COMBINED AREAS OF ALL BELOW GRADE PATIO AREAS MAY NOT EXCEED 2% OF THE LOT AREA. LOT AREA = 39,761 SQ FT 39,761 X .02 = 795.22 SQ FT, THEREFORE OK A1.30 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com SITE CONTEXT DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 1140 457 114 0 1055 1211 567559 1136 555 545 535 505 501 536 566 11185801110 510 1107 528 503 1128 1132 558540 525 567 539 500 COWPER STREET LI N C O L N A V E N U E KI N G S L E Y A V E N U E WEBSTER STREET Easements: Underlying Lot Lines: Trees: Sidewalks: Creek or Waterway: 0'70' 1REFERENCE MAP 510 LINCOLN AVE. (FROM COWPER ST.)1107 COWPER ST. (EXISTING) 501,503,505 KINGSLEY AVE. (FROM COWPER ST.) FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 1140 COWPER ST. A1.31 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com STREETSCAPE ELEVATION DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 1107 COWPER ST.501, 503, 505 KINGSLEY AVE.510 LINCOLN AVE. SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"1STREETSCAPE ELEVATION TRUE NORTH A1.32 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com PRIVACY DIAGRAM DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 86'-7 1/8" EXTIMATED WINDOW TO WINDOW DISTANCE 74'-10 1/2" EXTIMATED WINDOW TO WINDOW DISTANCE THIRD FLOOR WINDOWS NEIGHBORING SINGLE STORY STRTUCTURE NEIGHBORING SINGLE STORY STRTUCTURE NEIGHBORING SINGLE STORY STRTUCTURE NEIGHBORING SINGLE STORY STRTUCTURE NEIGHBORING SINGLE STORY STRTUCTURE (N) POOL (N) SPA 501, 503, 505 KINGSLEY AVE. 3-STORY VOLUME 510 LINCOLN AVE. 2-STORY VOLUME PH O T O O F N E I G H B O R I N G L A N D S C A P E VIEW TOWARDS 510LINCOLN AVE. FROMPROJECT SITE. EXTENSIVESCREENING ON LOT LINE PH O T O O F N E I G H B O R I N G L A N D S C A P E VIEW TOWARDS 501-507KINSLEY AVE. FROMPROJECT SITE. EXTENSIVESCREENING ON LOT LINE 1- STORY VOLUME 2- STORY VOLUME POOL HOUSE1-STORY VOLUME RECCESSORY1-STORY VOLUME TRELLIS OVERLOUNGE SPACE TRELLIS OVERPATIO (N) DRIVEWAY 1107 COWPER ST.SECOND FLOOR EXTERIOR WINDOWS 1 1 1 2 2 2 FRONT PORCH SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1PRIVACY DIAGRAM A2.00 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING W D W D UP UP UP UP BELOW-GRADE PATIO 022 BELOW-GRADE PATIO 015 BELOW- GRADE PATIO 001 BATH017 REC ROOM021 CARDIO 019 CLOSET 020 PILATES016 BATH005 WALK-IN CLOSET004 STORAGE 007 OFFICE/GUEST BEDROOM 002 LAUNDRY ROOM 012 1ST FLOOR ABOVE STORAGE011 HALL 006 HALL 016 HALL 014 HALL 003LI N E N ELEVATOR 008 BATH 013 MECHANICAL010 ST O R A G E . 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1BASEMENT PLAN TRUE NORTH A2.10 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com 1ST FLOOR PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 23'-6 3/4" DN DN UP DN DN FAMILYROOM 116 EATING115 KITCHEN114 DINING 111 LIBRARY 113 OFFICE 112 PACKAGE/ COAT CLOSET110 ENTRY 108 PANTRY 119 POWDER120 MUDROOM121 FAMILY ENTRY 117 ELEVATOR 106POWDER105GUESTBEDROOM 101 GUEST WALK-IN CLOSET103 GUEST BATH 102 FRONTPORCH 109 BELOWGRADE PATIO BELOW GRADE PATIO BELOWGRADE PATIO REF.PAN. BU I L T -IN BUILT-IN BOOKS FREZ. BUILT-IN HALL 104 HALL118 A/CA/CA/C BU I L T -IN MIC/ OVEN PAN. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR PLAN TRUE NORTH A2.11 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com ACCESSORYY FLOOR PLANS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING DW F R POWDER127 BATH 126 POOLTOYSTORAGE125 LIVING 124 KITCHEN123 A/C POOL EQUIP POOL EQUIP POOL EQUIP CLOSET128 HALL129 RECCESSORY130 POWDER 131 GARAGE 122 STORAGE TRASH/ RECYCLING STORAGE 2POOL HOUSE FLOOR PLAN 3RECCESSORY FLOOR PLAN1GARAGE FLOOR PLAN TRUE NORTH A2.20 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com SECOND FLOOR PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING DN 19 ' - 3 " 2' - 5 1 / 8 " BEDROOM 214 BEDROOM 212 HALL 210 FAMILY GATHERING209 BATH 213 BATH 215 CL O S E T MASTER BEDROOM 201 MASTER BATH 202 MASTER WALK-IN 204 MASTER WALK-IN205 SHOWER W/C BOOKS HIDDEN DOOR CL O S E T BOOKS PLAY ROOM 216 LINEN BUILT-IN ELEVATOR 207 HALL 206 5 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 8 12 8 12 3.5 12 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"12ND FLOOR TRUE NORTH A2.30 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com ROOF PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 9.5 12 8 12 9.5 12 8 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 3 12 512 9.5 12 9.5 12 2.5 12 3 12 9.512812 9.512 812 5 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 8 12 8 12 .25 12 3.512 9.5 12 9.5 12 8 12 8 12 8 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 8 12 8 12 CURVED ROOF 0 2'4'8'1ROOF PLAN TRUE NORTH A2.31 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com ACCESSORY ROOF PLANS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING 443.25 sq ft 7 12 7 12 3.512 7 12 7 12 ROOFTOP SOLAR 4.512 4.512 4.5 12 4.5 12 5.5 12 5.5 12 373.75 sq ft 9.5 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 9.5 12 8 12 8 12 3.1912 9.5 12 9.5 12 812 9.5 12 9.5 12 ROOFTOP SOLAR 2POOL HOUSE ROOF PLAN 3RECCESSORY ROOF PLAN1GARAGE ROOF PLAN TRUE NORTH ROOF PLAN NOTES 1) REFER TO ROOF NOTES ON SHEET A0.2 GENERAL NOTES 2) 1'-0" TYP. OVERHANG AT ROOF EAVES U.O.N. & 1'-0" TYP. OVERHANG AT RAKE ENDS U.O.N. 3) CALGREEN A4.106.5: ROOFING SHALL BE A 'COOL ROOF' WITH A MINIMUM REFLECTANCE OF 0.23 AND EMITTANCE OF 0.85, OR AN SRI OF AT LEAST 20 AS RATED BY THE COOL ROOF RATING COUNCIL. 4) SOLAR CONDUIT: PROVIDE CONDUIT TO SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION OF FUTURE SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC EQUIPMENT. CONDUIT SHALL BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SOLAR-READY ROOF AREA AND SHALL EXTEND FROM THE ROOFLINE AND TERMINATE ADJACENT TO MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL. (PAMC 16.17.060). MARK "WARNING: PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SOURCE" ON CONDUIT, RACEWAYS, AND ENCLOSURES, EVERY 10' WITHIN 10" OF TURNS, AND PENETRATIONS AT ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLIES, WALLS, OR BARRIERS. A3.00 FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS81 ENCINA AVENUEPALO ALTO, CA 94301t: 650.473.0400www.fgy-arch.com FRONT ELEVATION DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2018 REV 1107 COWPER STPALO ALTO 3/28/18 HRB MEETING AVERAGE (E) GRADE(+50.7') 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +50.7') SI D E S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 26'-0" A.F.F. (THIRD FLOOR EQUIV.) 12 9.5 12 8 12 1/4 12 9.5 12 8 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION NOTE : GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING AND GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON ADJACENT LOT. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 9185) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 4/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes for Approval Title: Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes for Approval for February 8 and February 22, 2018 From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s): February 8 and February 22, 2018 Attachments: Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes of February 8 2018 (PDF) Attachment B: HRB Draft Minutes of February 22 2018 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Bower; Vice Chair Brandon Corey; Board Member Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen, Martin Bernstein, Margaret Wimmer Absent: Chair Bower: Ok, as soon as the lights go on, we can begin. Alright so I’ll call the meeting to order, would staff please call role? Great, thank you. Oral Communications Chair Bower: First off on our agenda is oral communications. I don’t see anyone here to speak to anything other than our agendize items. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Beth Bunnenberg who was on this Committee for I think 17-years or more. She provided an invaluable service at every single meeting by providing us – excuse me – with either newspaper articles, historic photos, Sandborn maps or other visual aids that we would use as a Board to help – it would help us make a decision about projects. I’m going to miss her, I sat next to her for the first 8-years I was on this Board and she always had a perspective that made me think differently about projects. I think we’ll all miss her contribution and I’d just like to thank her as I’m sure all Board Members do for their service here. Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, I’d also like to continue with those thoughts of appreciations for Beth. The two things that stuck in my mind was one when she would bring like you say a historic photograph of the cupola on top of the Hoover Hospital and then that got rebuilt and installed which was a fun landmark remembering her. Also, the fact that she would bring up the idea of women in the kitchen, the freedom they had once we had the technology of dishwashers and it always brought a great kind of grandmotherly view of historic family life so I always appreciated that from her. Chair Bower: So, you want to say something Roger? Board Member Kohler: Get this to work. I’ve sat next to her for a number of years and she always had articles and something she brought to us to pass around. It was a really – she was a huge bonus, I mean she had – knew a lot about everything in the historic world. It was just really a loss for us I think so good luck. I hope she’s doing ok. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: We—I might just weigh in to say we did a note from Beth Bunnenberg to let us know she is – she’s doing fine so I just wanted to pass that along. She’s having a bunch of stuff to deal with but she’s fine so she’s still with us very much so and I wanted to make that statement. Chair Bower: Good. Michael. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: February 8, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Makinen: I’ll echo the comments from my fellow Board Members. She obviously was a great asset to the Historic Resources Board. She’ll be greatly missed and her historic perspectives are unequaled. Chair Bower: Thank you, Board Members. I think we’ll follow up with some kind of proclamation maybe after the meeting to think about that. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bower: Let’s move on to agenda changes, additions, deletions, and are there any? Ms. French: None. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments Chair Bower: So, official City reports, Historic Resources Board schedule and assignments. I think those are the same as they were the last time we were here. Ms. French: Just a note that we are having a second meeting in February, it’s rare for this Board to have two meetings in a month but we are doing it and because we did continue the Eichler Guidelines to the meeting of February 22nd. So, we’re hoping all-hands-on-deck for that meeting. Chair Bower: Ok, I’d like to remind Board Members, of course the ones that are here don’t need this reminder but if you’re not going to be at the meeting, please contact Emily or Amy or any – or Robin I suppose is the appropriate – another appropriate person to let them know so we will know if we have a quorum. Study Session 2. Historic Resources Board Retreat Discussion Items Chair Bower: Let’s move onto Historic Resources -- I’m sorry, the Historic Board retreat discussion items which you will find on Page 2 of our Board packet. So, we have a staff presentation? Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Alright, good morning Board Members so these – we are going to do kind of a quick overview of some of the topics and we can get into more detail as the Board wishes. These are the topics that were chosen at previous HRB meetings for the retreat which is happening right now. I found this – I wanted to share this picture with every one of the yo-yo demonstrations from 1953. When I’m doing research for a building or for a project, I often use the PAHA Archives and sometimes I stumble across really delightful images and I wanted to share this one with everyone today. It’s pretty fun since today is a fun day, this is our retreat. Oops, Board Member Bernstein: Is that Roger (inaudible) Ms. Vance: Is that Roger in there. Board Member Bernstein: I had not moved here yet. We moved from New Jersey in 1954 to Palo Alto. Chair Bower: I was a little too young to participate but I remember them and did… Ms. Vance: So, none of you are in this picture. So, we’ll start with the CLG Annual Report overview so this was submitted to the state on January or January 13th, January 22nd was the due date and just to – I sent out a draft to everyone and I didn’t receive any comments but if you have anything to say about it City of Palo Alto Page 3 now, we can. The CLG Report covers our ordinance updates and Comp. Plan updates, any new local designations or listings, the review responsibilities of the HRB and staff, HRB membership which include the statement of qualification forms that you all submitted as well as the training you attended. I wanted to remind everyone that you have to attend one training workshop seminar lecture, something to an effect, a year in order to maintain the status – the CLG status and HR – the HRB status. It also – the report also included an updates survey and inventory that we did so that included, for example, the JMZ, Rinconada Park survey they did where we talked about the Girl Scout House and that report. We talked about public education and outreach with covered our Eichler walking tour and the Eichler community outreach events that we’ve been doing. We also talked about our one remaining Mills Act property and just a summary of the local preservation program. These were the particular questions that I would love to have Board response on. These where the pertinent questions at the end of the report, how can we do better? What’s working and what isn’t? So, if anyone had any comments on these now, I would greatly appreciate it. You can always send them to me in email as well because we have to do this every year but these are really good things to just kind of think about how we can approach our preservation program here in the City. Would anybody like to speak to any of these? Chair Bower: Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah, thank you, Chair Bower and thank you, Emily. It’s still – I still get questions – it’s mostly getting questions from real estate agents and real estate professionals of can I tear this house down? It still seems to be a question for several people in the community so if there’s – if I get that question, I guess having some guidance on how to answer it. Ms. Vance: I think we’re going to discussing demolition and the updated Comp. Plan momentarily so that’s a great thing to bring up. Chair Bower: I’d like to for the record points out that Brandon and Margaret are here so we are a full Board. We’ve just started, we got started late so we are on study session topics, Page 2. Anybody have any comments for Emily? Martin. Board Member Bernstein: One other question would be to -- in response to when people ask me questions about a building are what regulations are binding and which ones are arbitrary or voluntary I should say. Yeah, voluntary or binding, that seems to be a question I get a lot. Chair Bower: We don’t have any arbitrary regulations. I would like to – I think we’ve talked about this as a Board but I’d like to see further discussion and maybe Board action on Individual Review for all historic properties. We don’t have that now if the property is outside of either Professorville or Downtown District, is that correct? Ms. French: Individual Review Program for two-story homes applies Citywide. What I think you might be eluding to is we have not single-story review… Chair Bower: Right. Ms. French: … in – for historic homes. Not Discretionary Review, just building permits. Chair Bower: Right so I think … Ms. French: Except for I’s and II’s – Categories I’s and II’s… Ms. Vance: Then Professorville… Ms. French: All Citywide and then Professorville is all four Categories and downtown is all four categories. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bower: I would like to expand that to all categories first of all so I to IV and make sure that single or two-story development would still be reviewed in the same manner if the building isn’t historic – has historic value. That’s an expansion and that’s a code or I mean an ordinance change. Ms. French: It would absolutely be a code ordinance and it would have to go to the Planning Commission because Individual Review has only been for two-stories. So, it would have to be a new set of guidelines and ordinance. Chair Bower: Yeah and I think that ties in with your – with a topic we’re going to discuss after this about demolition and deconstruction. Anyone else have comments? Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Continuing on the note that Chair Bower just mentioned about a review of historic structures. The – it has to be a listed historic structure before that gets reviewed. So, for example, in the Eichler neighborhoods, say even in the historic districts, the individual houses are not listed, is that correct? Ms. French: That is correct. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. Ms. French: We have National Register listing which is not referenced in our historic ordinance, only local historic districts are subject to our historic ordinance. Board Member Bernstein: Right so an individual home in a historic district such as an Eichler historic district, unless that house is specifically listed it doesn’t fall under the historic preservation, is that correct? Ms. French: It does not fall under the ordinance that applies to our review process and yeah, I’ll just say that. When – if someone, where to apply for a variance, says, that’s a discretionary review that allows us to look at the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to that discretionary action. Board Member Bernstein: Right and then would the Secretary of Interior’s Standards apply to that building? Ms. French: For a listed historic building we would use the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for our review. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah and right now in the historic districts of Eichler, none of those are listed as a historic structure. Is that correct? Ms. French: The list that their – the Eichler districts are on is the National Register list and there are contributors within those districts and non-contributors but yes, we have not a local inventory of any of those homes. Board Member Bernstein: Great, thank you. Ms. Vance: I’ll say one thing to that to kind of piggyback off that. If you were to put an ADU in Green Meadow or Green Gables, for example, those – that new construction does have to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. So, we do have control over new ADUs in those two National Register districts, as well as elsewhere. Ms. French: So, to the extent -- just to pile on that, to the extent that accessory dwelling units are not discretionary in terms of a review process like the Individual Review Process for two-story homes. We do have the ability to look at what’s proposed in association with the building permit process. It’s kind of -- City of Palo Alto Page 5 it's awkward, it’s not technically discretionary entitlement, it’s building permit review but we do have – give it a look. Chair Bower: It seems to me that a clearer statement by – in the City ordinance as to exactly what applies and doesn’t might help residents understand that complex discussion that we just had about what applies when it applies when it doesn’t. Anyone else have comments about this? Vice Chair Corey: Can you re-clarify – I’m sorry, the ADU? I thought I got it because we had talked about it for a couple hours but I’m still not – I don’t think I am clear. Ms. French: Any time you have a workaround of – so, our Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance allows for the Director of Planning and Community Environment to look at the proposed accessory dwelling unit for compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and that’s it. Look at it and then there’s a building permit and coax them to – towards compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Vice Chair Corey: It if does not comply with it, it’s – what happens then? Ms. French: We haven’t received one yet so – but it’s not clear as to the process of that. It’s a building permit. Vice Chair Corey: But would it be binding or any decisions or is it—I don’t want to reuse the term arbitrary but is it – is there any enforcement or is it just… Ms. French: Voluntary… Vice Chair Corey: …recommendation… Ms. French: Voluntary is the word you’re looking for. Vice Chair Corey: It’s voluntary? Voluntary is the word I’m looking for so it’s voluntary that they comply, is that what… Ms. French: Yeah, I mean I would like it to the projects that come before this Board, where we give them really good advice but it’s just a building permit. If it is not in the National Register or local designated Professorville district, there’s some – it’s just a building permit so we do our best. Vice Chair Corey: If it is locally registered in a district, let’s just say it’s a Category II in Professorville, then does that change that? Ms. French: Yes, being that it’s – yeah, under our ordinance it’s referred to in our historic ordinance, Chapter 1649. Vice Chair Corey: Right, ok, thanks. Chair Bower: Alright so looking at this list that’s in front of us, I wonder if the Office of Historic Preservation could help with either funding or grant funding probably of mid-century review of houses. We haven’t done a – I can’t – now I’m blocking on the term but it’s an assessment of buildings for… Female: (inaudible) Chair Bower: Yeah, we haven’t – we talked last year about upgrading – updating our survey – local survey and I don’t think we – I think we’re overdue, way overdue. Is that something they can help us with or is that something we have proactively go after? City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. Vance: That is something that I think we would have to get some kind of direction on and I think – right, from maybe staff or Council, Director but that exists. There is a grant application that my predecessor Mathew had started and we’ve kind of tweaked it and it’s more or less ready to go. So, there is an application ready for a mid-century kind of survey and inventory of from I think the 40s up to late 60s. Yeah, like a context statement but we have not submitted it nor is there – necessarily are going to this year. The deadline for grants submittals to OHP is in May. Chair Bower: Is there a reason why we wouldn’t do that? I mean… Ms. French: Yes. Chair Bower: … is it a funding issue? Ms. French: In the past when we had previously prepared this draft application, there was a look at our workload so we had Professorville going at the time. We’ve just been through and are nearly at the end of hopefully the Eichler Guidelines which does address mid-century. I think when we start talking about commercial properties, you know non-single family, you know that’s definitely of interest and we’ve heard that from the Board. I think the effort wouldn’t be to go out and see what the individual designations of individual Eichlers, let’s say. Their significant is more related to the group, the tract, the neighborhood rather than looking specifically for which Eicher, for instance, is notable. I hope that clarifies… Chair Bower: I’m also reminded of all of the properties that are eligible for listing that have not been listed and if I understand the sequencing, we could apply for a local survey grant to fund a local survey in May. It seems to me then you would have a year to complete that? So, I’m hoping by May you’ll be pretty much finished with the Eichler Guidelines; maybe but I mean it will clearer be a downside. It will take – and if – it will take the state some time to process the grant so we’re really talking about maybe a September to September workload for this and that’s still not doable? Ms. French: I didn’t say it wasn’t doable, I was just giving the reason why in the past we didn’t do it because we had some other projects on the burner and we had some staff change over. You know, going forward if we’re – if it’s a successful submittal and we have support for that, I think if the focus is particularly on non-residential, I think that might help as far as the 1950s, 60s because then we’re getting into the 70s now I think with 50-years. Chair Bower: Even applying in May, we’re not going to do this work probably until 2019 and that’s assuming that we’re successful in getting the grant. So I -- if we don’t start this cycle this year and especially – which is possible because the grant application is more or less complete, it probably needs to be updated slightly. Then we’re waiting until next year and we’re doing this in 2020. I know that you don’t sit around in your office looking for things to do but I do think that it might be useful since this work was done 2-years ago. I mean the bulk of the work was done by preparing the grant and that we ought to move it forward. If that’s a topic for Board discussion then let’s agendize it. Ms. French: I think we can agendize that and then just keeping in mind any time we submit a grant there’s a quid pro quo that we have to give our resources in kind at least and any capital investment would have to be carefully looked at. We have a lot of capital projects that need funding so just be aware of that. Chair Bower: Ok well maybe we could have an off – a discussion about this just so I’m clear about what the parameters are to move forward. Alright, yes, Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Along with this discussion and pertinent to that, there are also some National Register eligible properties that have not been added to the inventory. It seems like that would be a really simple thing to do that requires I would think not much staff resource. Chair Bower: It’s on my list. Alright, any other comments? Martin – Michael. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Makinen: Yes, we talked about it in the past about doing a survey of industrial sites that may not have been captured as being historic – having historic merit. That might be something we could approach the OHP for some grant money to do a survey on the remaining industrial sites to see what has historic integrity and what might be eligible to list. I think that’s a big gap in our historic properties considerations right here. We haven’t really addressed that and I mean this is Silicon Valley, there have got to be a few sites that are still around. Board Member Wimmer: David? Chair Bower: Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: When we say survey, what does that specifically – what would that entail? We’re talking about a survey of certain things and is that just a professional that we hire driving around and looking at things and identifying what properties we would – could be potentially eligible? Then I also – I don’t know if this is the right time to touch base on but back in 78’, I think it was, when the – on a lot of our parcel reports we have under the listings of the residential properties, sometimes it will ask if it’s historic. Then it will say it was deemed eligible in 79’ – 80 or something like that so someone did some work back then but I don’t think it was – I don’t know. Maybe that – I think it would be interesting to have a discussion about that and how – who did that work and what was the criteria for that and is that what we’re talking about in terms of the survey? Ms. French: I think – if I can just respond to that? You’re referring to actually the Dames and Moore survey that was done. That was the company that the City hired back in 1998 actually and then in the end in 2000, we had the list of eligible – deemed eligible that went to the state OHP and they have it on file. The potentially eligible properties, that was a windshield survey and then from there, more work was done on some but not all of those. So, we still have a number of potentially eligible properties that there wasn’t a lot of effort put into at that time and seeing if there was somebody notable that had lived there or what have you for those properties. So, more work could be done on the potentially eligible properties. Board Member Wimmer: I mean I would think that looking back since that work was started but maybe not fully completed and then it was just sort of let go for the reason I’m not sure. Wouldn’t it be wise of us to look back at that and continue that effort? Ms. Vance: That’s a great question, Margaret. We’re going to talk about potentially eligible resources I think in the next slide or so. So, we’re going to cover that but that – yes, that’s something that we need to address and then to get back to your question about surveys in general. There are a couple different kinds, you could do a windshield survey which is what they did for Dames and Moore when they picked the potentially eligible. That’s exactly what it sounds like, you drive down a street, you look around you notice buildings that could have significance, that have integrity, something that stands out or you could do something a little more intensive. There’s an intensive level of surveying, there were constant surveys like your windshield which is kind of a brief overview. You essentially pick your boundaries, you pick your area and then you do a grid-like kind of sweep over it. It could be on foot, it could be in a car, it could be thematic like with the industrial sites which I really like that idea a lot or it could be modern in like we’re looking at a specific time period. The whole reason you do a survey is how can you protect the resources if you don’t know what you have? If you don’t know what’s actually out there so the point of the survey is to essentially gather information and then to help in the whys, use, and planning in the future. You could do a survey plus inventories so that would be actually listing some of them but a survey doesn’t in and of itself list resources necessarily. It usually just identifies resources that merit further evaluation or that you can easily look at and say oh my gosh, how did we miss this? That merits protection but it doesn’t actually go as far as to list them. That’s kind of the next step. If that kind of clears up what a survey is and does. Chair Bower: Council Member Holman. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Council Member Holman: To refer perhaps to what you were mentioning like the sheet that talks about the single-story or excuse me, the single-family homes in that. Those are called DPR forms and I think Emily – we’re so lucky to have Emily I think – she gave a great description of what the surveys are like. Just to be absolutely clear, when there’s a windshield survey, just to support what she said, that’s not the last say. Nothing gets listed because it’s been identified in a windshield survey; just to be perfectly clear. I have a question actually and I don’t mean to get into great detail and maybe this is a question for later but I’ll throw it out. So, I also like what Michael suggested and what Emily support in terms of the industrial projects. I go by the former Addison Antique building quite a bit and the SOFA area had identified that there was like a lot of automotive work that had gone on there. I thought – I had supposed that building would be preserved in some nature but they removed all the automotive roll-up doors and I would have thought those would have been a character-defining aspect of that building but they’ve all been removed. So, it’s more of a question than anything else right now but as we’re talking about industrial building, I was rather surprised to see those removed and maybe you can update us on that at some point. Chair Bower: Is that even – does removing those doors even require a building permit? I don’t even think there’s any – that there’s any local action unless they are changing the structure. You know that was done on Morris Auto Parts which was in the anthropology building which – and that building has been totally undone. There’s almost nothing left of the original character of that building and then I think the – Roger, you can help me with this. The Addison Antiques building was that – was an auto repair shop. Male: Yeah, Union Auto. Chair Bower: Yeah, Union, right. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, it was an auto – my – just to let you know my wife was there as an antique store for 10 or 12-years and then just sort of got bumped out because the owner wanted to – he had people requesting who was going to do some sort of computer work of some sort. That didn’t meet the requirement for the zoning ordinance and that it’s a retail building and I see now they are working on it. Chair Bower: Yeah, I saw it too but I think that’s probably a lost opportunity sadly. Alright, anybody else has any comments about the information up here on the screen? We can move onto the next slide. Oh, wait, Brandon has … Vice Chair Corey: I’m sorry…. Chair Bower: … a comment. Vice Chair Corey: Going back to the survey so do – how big is the list of the drive-by from last time that we would have to follow up on because it seems to me that the only benefit of doing a new survey would be covering properties from the 50s to 70s that where not in from last time. I’m just trying to make sure that I understand that was it a cursory survey so that there could actually be a lot of stuff they missed or do we actually have a large list to start from as it is? Ms. Vance: I mean I think they did a really thorough job and they did go up to the 40s. So, the mid- century context that we’re looking at would pick up where Dames and Moore left off and carry us up through the late 60s-70s. The number of potentially eligible resources that were identified in the Dames and Moore research was around 2000. Since that time many, many, many have been demolished and I would say that number is closer to 1,500-1,700 now. I know in the past decade we’ve lost over a hundred and that was 20-years ago so maybe another 200 but those are the ones that I just can easily find. We’ve definitely lost quite a few of those (inaudible). Vice Chair Corey: So, is it – those numbers, those are the potentially eligible and not the ones – right, ok. So, then – go ahead. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. Vance: The eligible ones – so what they did is they went through and they identified thousands of homes that could be potentially eligible and then picked I think 400 that they thought had the most chance – most likely to be or the ones that were more interesting. They found 165 to be eligible for the California and maybe some for the National Register and the rest were deemed ineligible. So, when you’re looking at those parcel reports, you’ll see deemed not eligible for the California Register in 1998. That was one of the few that where they actually did a DPR Form for and then you’ll see the ones that say deemed eligible and those are the ones that – they maybe have been a part of the Dames and Moore survey. Things can get deemed eligible and ineligible all the time but that’s probably – if it says 1998, that means it was apart of the Dames and Moore survey. Vice Chair Corey: So, one thought is depending on who’s actually doing the survey and taking them from deemed eligible and eligible. Is if we’re now talking about doing a full survey where we would effectively add more potentially deemed eligible from the 50s and 60s and just have – and make that list bigger but not actually make any properties… Ms. Vance: I would recommend in the future to never use the term potentially eligible again. A lot of [shipos] in many states are – Arizona, somewhere on the east coast because I was – it’s not a term that we like to use. It’s confusing and it essentially means its unevaluated and just needs more research so I would not recommend that we add to the potentially eligible list. I say either make a determination or you say needs further research because it’s pretty confusing. Vice Chair Corey: If we had to choose between the two, would we actually go and take the existing – I’m going to call them PI to avoid the term but go look through that list of 2000 or actually do a new survey and make new determinations? It seems we already have a lot of the information and then has a survey company go out and get stuff. Well, there’s value there for the 50s and 70s…. Ms. Vance: Right because none of those between the 40s and ‘68, none of those resources have been more or less -- I can’t say none but for the most part there has not been a mid-century survey. So, those are all… Vice Chair Corey: ‘48-‘68, is that right? Ms. Vance: I think it ended in 1940 –40? 1940? Vice Chair Corey: That was ‘48, yeah. (crosstalk) Ms. Vance: Oh, it went to ‘48? Vice Chair Corey: ‘48 right because it was ‘98. Ms. Vance: So, this one would be from ‘48 to ‘68, capturing that mid-century stuff. We’re going to talk about the potentially eligible in more detail. Let’s get to the next slide and we’re going to circle back to this because it is, this is a great topic. Chair Bower: Roger and then Martin. Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to – when I first got on this Board I remember 1998 I think was the year that we went through all the potentially eligible and we had public hearings in the little room over here is where we met. We didn’t meet in here and that room was packed, we had people lined up in the hallway and we went through every single home that was on one list. I’m not sure which list, I’m not sure which list it was but I may have it in my – somewhere in the office but it was a huge, huge undertaking and a lot of unhappy people. I mean they were really unhappy, they would -- they – a couple folks were – they just stood up and yelled at us, what in the world are you doing? This is my house and that kind of thing so it was kind of scary actually. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Bower: Alright. Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Just as – this is a public meeting, what’s DPR? Just for everyone to know what that is. Ms. Vance: Oh, DPR stands for the Department of Parks and Recreation and there are certain forms, I think its 523A if anyone is interested, that are the inventory forms for when you are documenting a historic resource. So, there are a few different forms and that’s what gets sent to the state for eligibility to the California Register. I think David would be very familiar with them as he scanned a lot of them for us in the past. Board Member Bernstein: The Department of Parks and… Ms. Vance: Hate to bring up a sore memory. Board Member Bernstein: The Department of Parks and Recreation? Ms. Vance: Yeah. Board Member Bernstein: Great, thank you. Ms. Vance: So, they are the primary records for the historic resources and they can be – again, they are not just for buildings. They can be for sites or areological sites or linear feature, all sorts of things. Board Member Bernstein: Right. Ms. Vance: They are kind of the catch-all. Board Member Bernstein: That’s a state or federal form? Ms. Vance: That’s a state thing. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Wimmer: I just have one quick question; would it be better – a better use of our resources to return to 1998 and continue that survey or would it be wise to start a whole new mid- century? I mean where should we invest our resources? It feels to me like we started a great thing, for some reason it got halted and now 20-years later do we start a whole new thing or do we go back and finish that original project? I would vote for going back, revisiting that and then after we feel like we’ve made some progress with that or got that to a phase that we feel comfortable we can use that as a tool. Then we start this new survey of the new mid-century, that is just a comment but that’s my thought. Vice Chair Corey: I agree. Ms. Vance: Yeah, that’s a great point and I think that merits further discussion about where we should put our time and resources. There is essentially a hierarchy of needs and so which one would be more pressing so I would agree with that as well. Chair Bower: So, to move the meeting on, you know obviously there’s great interest by the Board in this and I think that might warrant a discussion at another meeting about how to move it forward and so we can define perimeters. Alright, next slide. Ms. Vance: Moving on, one of the issues that are brought up over and over is the demolition and deconstruction of our historic resources. So, here’s a little bit of information for you regarding what I have found, just some numbers, about – like I said about a hundred potentially historic buildings since City of Palo Alto Page 11 2010 and I only went back that far as that was our [Gist] which is our internal GIS data. At that point, they had switched over to a new system so that’s as far back as the information that I trust. So, it's about at least once a month, 13 in last year and one eligible got deconstructed and we’ll talk about that. Not demolished, deconstructed and the last listed property I could find was in 2012 and I’m sure some of you are familiar with that one because that was in Professorville. Oops, sorry. So, maybe – let’s see (inaudible) – we have – there are two kinds of – we have an updated Comp. Plan and then we have that new ordinance change. What is that for the… Ms. French: ADUs? Ms. Vance: For the deconstruction and demolition… Ms. French: Oh, yes. Ms. Vance: Do you want to talk to that one? Ms. French: Yeah. Ms. Vance: Ok, I’m going to pass it over to Amy to speak a little bit more on our deconstruction/demolish issue and the difference between the two and how people can kind of get around demos. Ms. French: Not that I want to give a prescription out for that but we do – we had for years a loophole that we’re hoping – we call it the lope hole – that we’re hoping to close. I don’t think there’s been a high level of abuse of this loophole. It just – it exists and so we’re trying to address it. I believe Council Member Holman had brought it up previously and we hustled to get it into the current ordinance that’s going through the process of the Planning Commission review and Council. I believe it’s going to Council in March, if not before. Council Member Holman: Maybe March, (inaudible) sounds right. Ms. French: Maybe March and so basically on the screen here and I believe I showed this at an earlier – previous meeting as well. What we’re thinking would be helpful is to – should there be an intent to avoid having scrutiny of the quality of the resource and somebody says their going to build a one-story house, comes in and demolishes the home for a one-story resource. Then never builds the resource – sorry, the one-story home and instead come back the next day with a two-story home. We want to avoid that unfortunate circumstance so that they wouldn’t be able to come in for a number of years with a two-story home. So, this would kind of avoid the speculative use of property out there to avoid the attention on whether it’s historic or not. Chair Bower: Is this – this language in red, it is… Ms. French: Correct. Chair Bower: …has been presented and reviewed by Planning and Transportation Committee? Ms. French: I believe so and the next step is the Council. I don’t believe that the Planning Commission has modified the language. I will find out in the – once the reports written, I can make sure what the language – if there were any tweaking of that language. Chair Bower: I’m – the only reason I’m asking is 5-years seems to short. Why not 10-years? I mean let’s make this a very serious issue. If you’re trying to game the system, it seems to me that ought to have a fairly serious penalty. I don’t want people – I don’t want the neighbors to have to look at a vacant lot for 5-years or every 10-years. The other – my other question as I’m reading this is so I get a permit to build a one-story house and then come back and want to add a second-story, that’s still a – that’s a 5-year delay? City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Kohler: It’s very rare for someone to do a one-story home and not go up to the maximum allowed floor area. Chair Bower: Well, if they have this penalty there, I mean that’s why I’m asking the question. Could they then finish the home and then immediately apply for a second-story? Ms. French: That’s a good question that you raise that would be worth talking about. I mean I think when people come through with a one-story home and there is this prohibition, they might very well propose a basement to maximize the livable area under that scenario. If they are interested to build a one-story home that maximizes living area but yeah, there is no provisions, there’s – it was a quick let’s write this up, let's get it into the system for the Planning Commission. That wasn’t part of the discussion. Chair Bower: I just – the reason I’m bringing this up – one second. Vice Chair Corey: Sure. Chair Bower: … is that sequencing in construction in a flood zones is very important because if you don’t do that then you have to basically tear the entire house down and meet the current flood zoning issues. So, I’m thinking why not use the same strategy to maximize a building by sequencing first the first floor which then get’s you underneath the radar on this or makes it compliant. Then coming back immediately offering the same. Now, as I’m reading this, it could be interrupted to say no Individual Review… Ms. French: Right, I think that’s the intent. Chair Bower: …for 5-years and if you wanted to add a second-story, you would have to wait 5-years. Ms. French: Yeah, no, I believe that’s (inaudible) in sayings it's Individual Review because that applies to two-stories. I guess the only difference is our Individual Review applies to – I was – when you were saying that I was thinking something less than 150-square feet because our Individual Review applies to 150-square feet of second-floor addition or more. So, somebody could come in with 149-square feet, you know I’m giving them the prescription. Chair Bower: By the way – well, that’s a 10 by 15-foot room so you might have people who would be interested in doing that. In San Mateo, I’m familiar with their ordinance, it’s 50-square feet and anything over 50-square feet on a second-floor gets Individual Review or their equivalent. So, I don’t know why we have 150? Anyway, Brandon, you had a comment. Vice Chair Corey: I have two comments so my first was just -- was to add on to what you said about the 5-years. I know people in San Francisco who take – who buy buildings and they – I forget the Act but you can effectively evict all your tenants and you cannot re-rent the building for 5-year to get around rent control and it’s done all the time. So, if people really want, 5-years really is a short period, I mean they literally do that today. Now maybe there’s different economics on the rent side but it happens on a regular basis. The second comment is and I know – I feel like I’m beating up this intent to try to do better but this discussion about the building official deeming it eligible that it’s dangerous and cannot be repaired or rehabilitated. I don’t see any situation where you couldn’t repair or rehabilitate a house. I mean maybe there’s a – maybe there’s a cost involved and what have you but there’s the question of this is this effectively – how is that determination made because it’s easy to get somebody to say this is… Ms. Vance: I think that’s a pretty extreme situation and in my experience with that clause regarding historic resources, it usually involved fire. Vice Chair Corey: Usually what? Ms. Vance: Involved fire, like if there’s extreme fire damage to the home, that’s typically when I’ve seen it applied. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Bower: Also, (inaudible) 89 after the Loma (inaudible) earthquake, unreinforced masonry building that actually I tore down and replaced with a new house because there was no rehabilitation of that hollow tile wall – those hollow tile walls. In fact, the building collapsed when we were – during the process of demolition on its own. Vice Chair Corey: My question was more around are there ways to – for people to game that system by… Ms. Vance: No, we – or at least no that I can think of right now. You can’t just come in and say oh, this wood is a little rotten. I don’t like my home anymore. It has to be… Vice Chair Corey: That’s a justification people commonly use right so. Ms. Vance: This is a dangerous building has something – I think it has to be something pretty spectacular like a fire or earthquake damage or something beyond repair and it’s not just – I don’t think that can be easily convincing. Vice Chair Corey: The building official has to be someone from the City I take it? Ok. Chair Bower: Alright, other comments? Ms. Vance: I had one more comment so the one eligible resource that was demolished – deconstructed last year in June, utilized this loophole. They came in with a one-story, this was the Plank House out on Cowper that was deconstructed and then they never built the one-story and now they are coming through with a two-story. So, this was – there’s one from last year that we’re trying to stop so examples like that. Chair Bower: One second. Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Are we talking – the one I’m thinking of that happened was a handful of years ago was at Waverley and – yeah, it was at Waverley and that was demolished and that property – that piece of property is still empty. There was one deconstructed at Lincoln and Emerson that – then there was a single-story house built and that’s in Professorville. Lincoln and Emerson, the northeast corner, perhaps Brandon remembers that because it’s near to you. Chair Bower: (crosstalk) I’m trying to think of it. Council Member Holman: I don’t remember the address. I don’t think it could have been – no it would be 405. Ms. French: Ok, that was the big one then (inaudible). Chair Bower: No. Council Member Holman: Yeah, it wouldn’t be 405. No, no, (crosstalk) it was not 405. So, two things, one is I would love to have the slides – you know the presentation that you’re giving. Going back to the previous one, there’s something that I’ve raised a lot and this Boards talked about it a little bit but a definition of demolition because we have buildings that are basically demolished and it’s not considered a demolition. From a preservation standpoint, I see houses in Professorville even that are – there’s nothing left that was original and yet it was not considered a demolition. It’s something that we continue to not address so I think that’s pretty critical. From a CLG standpoint, I don’t know how they would feel about what we’re allowing to happen but – and I’m not quite sure why and I’m still not sure that our Building Department makes accessible the (inaudible) Work Building Code either. Chair Bower: Michael. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Makinen: I have – it’s part of a question of maybe a recommendation but I’m not sure if you apply for a demolition permit, is it required to have a photograph of what you’re demolishing on record? I think it… Ms. French: No, there’s no requirement and I don’t know if you are referring to the [HABS]. It’s a – we had one of these done for the Mortuary… Ms. Vance: No, just – yeah but just for the demo permit. Ms. French: Oh, just – the requirements for what you’re submitting? They don’t require a photograph to be submitted. Board Member Makinen: I think that’s a complete miscarriage of planning if we don’t require a photograph of what you’re demolishing just for the record so we can have that on file what existed. Ms. French: We do require a – the image photograph of when somebodies coming through the planning entitlement process for a two-story home. They do have to show the existing streetscape and the existing home but when it’s a one-story, we do not have… Board Member Makinen: I mean for any demolition permit I think you should require a photograph of what you’re proposing to demolish. It might not be part of the planning -- the Historic Resources Board’s purview but I think somewhere in the system that should be a mandate that is required to see what was removed. Chair Bower: Ok, other comments? Roger. Board Member Kohler: I don’t know if it’s relevant but many years ago I was hired to look at a house that was on Waverley across the street from Steve Job’s home. So, I went in and took pictures of this home and everything and I guess I was supposed to design a house but then the people sold the property. I actually haven’t been by there but I think there’s a new home on there but that was just what we were talking about. We took photos and the owner was going to build a new home and that’s what we – I don’t know if I ever gave the photos to the City or anything. I don’t quite know what happens to all that. I mean I have them somewhere in my files but I’ll take a look and see. Chair Bower: If we’re done with – any other comments about demolition? Deconstruction? Ms. Vance: Ok, we’ll move on. Here’s the updated Comp. Plan that was adopted by Council on November 13th and the – here you’ll see the relevant new language regarding historic resources. The one that is probably of most interest to this Board will be Policy L-7.2. This says that before we issue alteration or demo. permits that would substantially affect the exterior, we much consider whether properties are eligible for State or National Register and whether minor changes will affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings; emphasis is ours. Chair Bower: That’s actually a significant change. Ms. Vance: It’s… Chair Bower: That’s actually… Ms. Vance: …big. Chair Bower: … has some planning power. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. French: With having said that, that’s a policy and there’s no ordinance yet written but it is giving us some new protocols that we’re dealing with now since the effective date of the Comp. Plan which was December 15th. Chair Bower: It’s a start. Ok, next slide. Ms. Vance: Ok, we’ll move on. Oh, here’s just more Comp. Plan images. Now let’s move onto the CPF Conference and training opportunities. Like I mentioned earlier, all HRB members are supposed to attend at least one training seminar/lecture over the course of a year. Alright, way to go. I think it would be – you know if you attend the conference in any fashion, that would absolutely be your training for the year. So, again, those dates for the conference are May 17th through the 20th. I know we wanted to talk about HRB’s participation in the conference. We don’t have a meeting on that Thursday, May 17th, just to let you know. We were planning on doing an architectural scavenger hunt, as well as participating in other ways but mostly behind the scenes. There’s also – upcoming there’s a webinar on the Standards in March if anyone is interested, let me know and we can get you signed up for that. The other thing that we were talking about regarding HRB’s participation was this idea of training for Council and other City Boards. If anyone has any comments about our upcoming CPF Conference. Chair Bower: Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Let’s see, let me know if this is appropriate to bring this up about for training for Council and it may be a question for the public too. For a project – for a building or resource to be listed as a historic resource on the inventory, that takes City Council approval correct? Ms. French: It requires a Historic Resources Board… Board Member Bernstein: Recommendation. Ms. French: … let’s go nomination and/or affirmation because we have an application process that somebody can do. We do talk to people about their interest in this to come forward so they might get the benefits of being a historic resource but it’s a process. Board Member Bernstein: So, for a house that’s in a district but if it's not individually listed and then – and not approved by City Council to be on that list, then the Historic Preservation Ordinance has no effect on that project. Ms. French: Even if it’s listed as a Category III or IV, it wouldn’t be affected by the Historic Preservation Ordinance if it’s outside of the downtown. Board Member Bernstein: Ok, thank you. I have more questions on Council training when you’re ready. That was – it was discussed during our joint HRB/City Council meeting about having a discussion of the – and training session for members of the public, Council Members, other Board Members of other Commissions and Boards education about differentiation and compatibilities; specifically, Standard Number Nine. That’s a big topic and I know for a lot of projects that I’ve heard from the City Council level, this discussion was – is something done in a compatible way with the district or the neighborhood or neighboring buildings or adjacent buildings or not compatible. So, some of that training could happen during this week. Chair Bower: Alright, any other comments? Board Member Bernstein: As far as just expanding on that then I guess maybe we or staff can discuss well, is that just a one-hour class session somehow that’s advertised somehow. How do we make that happen? I heard some Council Members wanting to have something like that and then it would include other Boards and Commissions too. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Bower: Has California Preservation Foundation established what seminars they’re going to present at the meeting? Ms. Vance: So, there is a schedule more or less made for the entirety, you know the Thursday through Sunday so it might be a good idea to do this on the Wednesday before just so it doesn’t conflict with – they have a lot of evening programs and the days are booked solid. Then people are on study tours and off visiting sites so I think would recommend the Wednesday before as it would really be beneficial mostly just to people in Palo Alto, the people who are on Boards here, the people – the public here. I mean I love this idea, I would love for HRB to be involved with an educational learning opportunity. I guess I would recommend either we figure out a time that would be best for everyone. I think the Standards is a good route to go as Martin was talking about and the idea of compatibility. I think that’s a very relevant topic and it could just be a general – even a general overview of what preservation is and does as there’s a lot of misinformation kind of galloping around out there. I guess my question then would be what would that look like? Would that be a panel of several HRB Members and staff? Would we do it here? Does evening work better than a day? Those sorts of logistical questions and I also don’t know if we need to get direction or approval of this first before we kind of push for it but I know I would be in strong favor of HRB participating. I mean the CPF is holding the conference here in your backyard, I think we’d like to have you guys in the spotlight a little bit. Board Member Bernstein: I know I’d like to be involved in that training session. Chair Bower: If you’d like to take the lead, that’s fine. Board Member Bernstein: I would. Chair Bower: Ok. Ms. Vance: So, then maybe Martin, you and I can work out a good time and maybe we can come back to the Board and see what we think would be ideal. Board Member Bernstein: Great. Chair Bower: Thank you, Martin. Alright, Emily, any additional… Ms. Vance: Here was another topic that we wanted to discuss and just to let everyone know, we have about 45-minutes left until 10:30 at which point we were going to adjoin to give us enough time to go to our field trip which is the Girl Scout House at 11. We wanted to talk about listing properties and how that process works. We haven’t listed anything since I’ve been here so if anyone wanted to talk about any potential projects, things that they would like to see moved forward or how we could formalize this process or if there’s anything that you’d like to talk about listing properties. Chair Bower: I don’t think we’ve listed anything since I’ve been on this Board and I’ve been on the Board 11-years. So, I’m – I’d have to look to… Board Member Kohler: I don’t remember (inaudible). Chair Bower: Roger, you don’t remember listing a property? You’ve been on here 20-years. So, maybe you could -- show how would we start – so since there’s no institutional memory on this side of the table… Ms. French: I have a small memory from my 20-years here of upgrades from one category to another. Again, because our ordinance favors the I’s and II’s or gives incentives to the I’s and II’s… Chair Bower: We just did that in our last meeting. We started that process with the building… City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. French: For 526 Waverley. Chair Bower: Exactly so maybe that’s the way we should start a discussion of how to do this. That particular project is driven – was driven or is being driven by the owners for financial benefit. I mean they need to have a different category on that building in order to be able to do renovations and expansion. I think that is really what drives it so I’m not sure how we would, as a Board, start the process if an owner didn’t want it or wasn’t interested in having it. In fact, I think state law prevents us from listing a building if the owner doesn’t want it. No? Is that right? Council Member Holman: Listing on a local inventory does not require owner consent. Chair Bower: Inventory, right but it’s… Council Member Holman: On a local inventory it doesn’t require local consent. Ms. Vance: It should though, it should require owner consent for the local inventory. That’s where we have the most incentives, as well as the most control over rehabilitation and demolitions. So, I would encourage that we do require owner consent and California and National Register, you don’t – it does not require owner consent but it cannot be listed over the objection of the owner. Council Member Holman: I’m not saying what’s best practice, I’m just saying what our rules are now. Chair Bower: Yeah, there is a difference isn’t there. How would you suggest we move this forward or show we agendize this on – for a future meeting and have time to think about it? Ms. Vance: Sure, it’s a big topic and I know it was just brought up for a couple of reasons here and there. I know people had been asking about how you actually list something or why would you even do that. I guess one of the reasons it was brought up was because we have been talking about the Girl Scout House and the ITT building. Both of those are not – they are not listed resources, they absolutely should be, they are actually kind of two prized buildings here in Palo Alto that are – well, the Girl Scout House is certainly not under threat. I would say the ITT building is and we’re kind of tip-toeing around it. I know I would like to see those both get listed, get some protection, get some research done on them, as well as a little bit of celebration on their significance to the City. I think that was one of the reasons why we brought up this topic in the first place is because what do we do with these two buildings? I think we wanted to really explore the listing of the Girl Scout House because that’s – I think we own the land – there’s some issue. We own the land, they own the building but it’s kind of a no-brainer there. It’s a point of pride and that would be a really kind of exciting project to see that listed soon at some point. Especially considering all of the attention that that area is getting right now due to the JMZ – the zoo and Rinconada Park getting its overhaul. That’s one of the reasons why we are talking about this in the first place. Board Member Bernstein: Can you remind us who the architect was of the Girl Scout House? Chair Bower: It was [Julian Morrian], wasn’t it? Board Member Bernstein: Who was the architect for the Girl Scout… Ms. French: Birge Clark. Chair Bower: Was that? Oh. Ms. Vance: Birge Clark. Board Member Bernstein: Birge Clark, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Bower: Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to – I was just brainstorming about how we’re talking about how difficult it is to identify properties that we want to list. Then obviously in a commercial atmosphere, people are (inaudible) to list their properties because they get TDR benefits or whatever their benefits are. That just prompted me to think about that we always talk about incentives and instead of us doing these windshield surveys searching for potentially eligible houses, wouldn’t it be great if we had all these people applying to make their house eligible? So, how can we make that happen? Let’s make that happen. I think it’s easy, give them benefits, give them a bonus – a 500-square foot bonus for their floor area. Ms. Vance: That’s – that is… Board Member Wimmer: What’s wrong with that? Ms. Vance: That is exactly how it should be. Board Member Wimmer: People… Ms. Vance: They should be coming to us… Board Member Wimmer: … should come to us and say I want me to house on the Local Register, please. I beg you, please put my house on it. Ms. Vance: Absolutely. Board Member Wimmer: I’m sure we could make that happen if we just figure out a way. Benefits, incentives, square footage, I think we should just rethink the way we’re approaching this problem. I really do. Chair Bower: It occurs to me that we would – it might be useful to hear from our building inspector on how the historic code is applied or how he or she makes the decision to apply it because at this point, even though I’ve worked for 40-years as a contractor, I have no idea what the current – how the current process works. There wasn’t a California Historic Building Code when I was working. There might have been but I never worked under it. At any rate, it would be useful to hear from him or her. I don’t even know who the building – chief building inspector is now. Ms. French: George Hoyt is the Chief Building Official is his title. Chair Bower: Building official, right. Board Member Wimmer: I don’t think there are any outstanding – I have a copy of the Historic Building Code and I’ve been meaning to make a copy for everyone because everyone – we should all – it’s a very small document but I don’t think there are any incentives in the Historic Building Code. I mean maybe you don’t have to change your windows to double glazed glass or there are some minor things but it’s not enough for someone to want… Chair Bower: I think stairs are… Board Member Wimmer: … to pay the extra money to preserve their windows. I mean… Chair Bower: No but I think the one critical thing that I encountered was the handrails and guardrails on buildings because both my daughters have historic buildings that have non-compliant handrails and to change them would destroy an important part of the character of those buildings. Martin. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Bernstein: A huge benefit of the Historic Building Code is that you can use archaic methods for seismic issues. So, let the existing stucco has – that has some seismic resistance and if you can show that’s – you can use archaic – it’s called archaic methods of analysis. So, there is a way of preserving a building using the HR – Historic Building Code. I also understand that if an applicant says I want – if it’s a listed historic structure, that the applicant can say this is – I want to use that code and that’s not discretionary, I’ve heard that. Well, I think from one of our conferences they said that. Chair Bower: Alright. Ok, other… Ms. Vance: I’ll also mention, I believe that there’s going to be a presentation on the Historic Building Code at the conference. I believe that’s in the works so that would be a great one for our Board to attend. I’ll double check on that, I’m not positive but I feel like I remember that happening. Also, another way – just to go back to your point Margaret – about sweetening the pot and having people come to us for listing. The Mills Act Program would be absolutely the way to do that, that would be another… Chair Bower: I’m sorry, say that… Ms. Vance: The Mills Act. Chair Bower: Mills Act. Ms. Vance: Having a Mills Act implemented, that would certainly – I feel people would clammier because now everyone wants a historic house. I think there certainly are ways or methods to explore, certainly. Chair Bower: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I think – I mean there are quite a number of incentives that already exist, even for single-family homes and I think we don’t lead with those enough. One of them does include some extra floor area ratio as a part of an HIE process. I think it’s 150-feet. Ms. Vance: That sounds right. Council Member Holman: Is that right, 150-feet? Board Member Bernstein: (inaudible) Ms. French: 250, yeah. Council Member Holman: Is it 250-feet? Ms. French: (Inaudible -off mic) Category I and II. Board Member Bernstein: (off mic) For a Category I and II. Council Member Holman: Thank you very much. Board Member Bernstein: (inaudible – off mic) Council Member Holman: Thank you and then there’s a third building and I apologize to former Vice Mayor Greg Schmidt profusely. I can never remember the name of it or the address, I bet you Michael does. Its down just off Charleston and San Antonio Road (crosstalk), on Fabian I do believe, yeah. Ms. French: Fairchild building. Chair Bower: That’s the Fairchild… City of Palo Alto Page 20 Council Member Holman: The Fairchild – yes, the Fairchild building and that’s a third one that ought to be added to this list. (crosstalk) Yeah, Greg speaks to it much more articulately… Board Member Wimmer: There’s a plaque in front of it, right? Someone put a plaque. Council Member Holman: … but it’s not listed on our inventory even. Ms. Vance: No, I -- it’s a state landmark or it’s a state point of interest. It’s something like that but it’s not locally listed. Council Member Holman: So, I suggest that third (crosstalk)… Board Member Wimmer: (inaudible)… Council Member Holman: … place should be added… Board Member Wimmer: …automatically be local and on our list. We should just make that… Ms. French: Our ordinance, as you know, doesn’t recognize other ways of listing such as state or national. Council Member Holman: Oh, and by the way just – I believe Emily is correct that there is a State Historic Building Code session that’s going to be during the CPF Conference and particularly invited to that session will be the Building Department. Chair Bower: Alright, any other comments? Additions to the list? Emily, you are very thorough after our meetings and summarizing them, could you figure out what that Fabian Way building address is? Put it on the list because I’d like to go see it. I didn’t realize that the building – there was a building down on Fabian Way. There’s also the building on Charleston that’s got the plaque or the original (inaudible)… Ms. Vance: The integrated… Chair Bower: But that’s on Charleston, (crosstalk)… Ms. Vance: The first integrated silicon chip. Chair Bower: That’s not on Fabian. Ms. Vance: Is that not the building that we’re talking about? Chair Bower: Is that what we’re talking about? Board Member Wimmer: I think it is. Chair Bower: The (inaudible)? Board Member Wimmer: Fairchild (inaudible – off mic). Board Member Kohler: I see it every weekend because I go down… Chair Bower: Yeah, I drive by it. I mean they’ve totally renovated the building. They tried to tear it down and did not do that which is fortunate. Ms. Vance: It’s still very much intact on the front. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Bower: Right but they’ve changed all the windows out. Any rate, if that’s the building then I know exactly what you’re talking about. We should definitely get that on the register. Board Member Makinen: Well, if there’s a… Council Member Holman: This says it’s 844 E. Charleston. Chair Bower: Sorry? Council Member Holman: Just a quick Google search says its 844 E. Charleston. Chair Bower: Yeah, east Charleston, right. So, ok, that is the one I was thinking of but when we said Fabian Way, I was trying to remember what would be down there. Board Member Bernstein: (inaudible – off mic) Chair Bower: It’s at the -- near the intersection. Board Member Makinen: Well, I think there’s a – it uses to be called Fort Aero Space at Boko Ford. They did a lot of satellite work right there and I don’t know if that’s the same building as the Fairchild building but I think they have a whole complex there. I’ve actually… Chair Bower: Most – some of those – the buildings down on Fabian Way near 101 where Fabian turns I think, those are all original 60s buildings and they haven’t been torn down. Board Member Makinen: They did a lot of the (inaudible) satellite development that was very significant. Chair Bower: Exactly. Board Member Makinen: Communication satellites. It’s not even recognized here. Board Member Kohler: It’s not on the map. Chair Bower: Yeah, interesting, ok so maybe we should look into that too. Any other comments? No other comments. Slides? Oh, here we are. Ms. Vance: That’s you. I think this was – I think this is the final – yeah, the final slide we wanted to – just a general conversation with our – with the HRB and staff about what’s working and what isn’t? If anyone has anything to say. Board Member Makinen: Well, what isn’t working is the Mills Act. Chair Bower: That’s coming before the Board -- the Mills Act presentation is… Ms. Vance: So, the subcommittee has – we’ve done a lot of work regarding the tailored Mills Act Program. I think we’re probably ready to present it to the rest of the Board Members and kind of get an idea where we are. It’s not perfectly flushed out and ready to go but it’s – I think we’re ready to present so I think we just have to pick a date that would work best with our schedule and maybe not overlap with any Eichler stuff and we could certainly present it. Chair Bower: Speaking of the Mills Act, it occurs to me that we ought to try to reach out to the real estate community and get them here or go to them and talk about historic preservation issues. I think that as we have all experienced, there’s a great deal of misinformation or no information and those are – the real City of Palo Alto Page 22 estate agents are the first line in really preservation. If they can talk to their clients about what is important to preserve, then that helps everybody in the community avoid unpleasant experiences. Board Member Wimmer: Is there – excuse me for interrupting, is there some kind of document or just maybe a one-page statement that we could prepare that says maybe something like if you are considering purchasing a historic property, bullet points, this is what – so it comes from the City as opposed to coming through the mouth of a real estate agent. Real estate agents always want to make like oh yeah you can do this or you can do that, it’s no big deal because they want to make the transaction. Then I – then you get – that’s when we get called and they say I thought I could do all this stuff. I just got a call like that a week ago. Ms. Vance: We do have… Board Member Wimmer: Then all of sudden they are getting totally different – but because of the City changes, the ordinance changes, our policies change and I mean it’s really the burden I think of the real estate agents to seek out that proper information. They should be telling a potential buy incorrect information so I guess that’s not really our job to put that information out there. It’s their job to seek the information, due diligence right? Ms. Vance: I – yes, I would agree with that but we do have some flyers and informational handouts. The main one being our bulletin which kind of explains what you can – well, not what you can and can’t do but the level of review depending on your historic house. We also have a little hand out of the incentives offered and with the updated website, a lot of that is really clearly available and accessible now. I’m hoping that information is getting out but we have – we also have talked about reaching out to the realtors in particular and just having a general update on where we are and trying to combat this misinformation that is, unfortunately, making the rounds. Board Member Wimmer: Is that something that Martin might be putting together for the day before the conference? Is that something that you could invite the realtors too? You’d have an audience I’m sure. I’ll come. Board Member Bernstein: That’s a great idea. Board Member Wimmer: Why not and then hey, it’s preservation week and I bet you get a ton of realtors if it’s after hours. Ms. French: I would pile on to the reach out to realtor’s concept. We are – with the Eichler updates we had a member of the public – I think you have At Places, comment on has there been enough outreach on Eichler Guidelines. So, I do recall in the past going out with the Chief Building Official to a realtor group and they had these monthly meetings or something. We’ve done that from time to time when there are some critical ordinances coming through to give a heads up to the realtor community. I think it’s worthy of, again to make sure there no misinformation about what this document is or isn’t. I think it might be important to reach out to them... Board Member Wimmer: Maybe at that time having some handouts, just some basic one-page handouts or something that doesn’t cost a lot of money to the product but is something that’s available and even has a reference of for more information, go to the website – go to the Palo Alto website. Ms. French: So, I’m looking to do this in March or even sooner if I can to – because there’s – we’re leading up to Council review of the Eichler Guidelines. So, if there’s somebody that wants to partner with us here from the HRB, we’d be happy to pull you in. Chair Bower: We certainly should invite them to our Mills Act review. That’s something that would be, I think, of great use to them. Martin, you had a question? Comments? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Bernstein: Going to the slide that Emily is showing about what’s working and what isn’t, I have a comment on that. That question came up during the recent City Council HRB applicant questions and that was one of the questions. My response to that question when I was asked that was I gave the example of – in San Francisco. I’ve done about six or seven projects in San Francisco now and the first step is a historic review. We’ve had a project where it’s almost like the last step and we’ve had buildings, especially commercial buildings, come before us with completely designed floor plans, where the kitchen sinks are, where the refrigerators are and then it comes to HRB, hey guys, what do you think? My comment during that interview was that no way will a developer say oh sure, I’ll put that third-story on this side over here where all the engineering and everything has been done. San Francisco is you can’t even go to the next step until you have a historic review so that would be my question from historic preservation. It’s really effective, that’s the first step, not last. I don’t know, for that to happen does that require an ordinance change for that process or is it just a change in procedure? I don’t know. Ms. French: I would ask Martin, in San Francisco are these listed resources? Chair Bower: No. Board Member Bernstein: No but the – they are potential. They… Ms. French: Ok so there’s been some kind of windshield survey where they’ve been identified as cute or something… Board Member Bernstein: Correct, yes, that’s it. Ms. French: … and needing further study? Board Member Bernstein: Correct. Chair Bower: Martin and I have both have had this experience. The San Francisco has a ministerial process, it is assumed every building is historic and you have to demonstrate it’s not. Board Member Bernstein: I agree. Chair Bower: I actually last year brought to a meeting the application and shared it with the Board. It’s a very simple process in San Francesco because you can go to the San Francisco Historic Library which is in the main library building in the Civic Center and you just look up – they have all these resources. You look up your property and create some kind of narrative. In most cases, the buildings aren’t historic and that takes you out of the loop but you have to do a little bit of legwork and what it does is it preserves their historic buildings. In case – in my experience, my daughter's building is in the Liberty Hill Historic District and that automatically puts it into a different category. It’s an original building, it’s a Victorian and in that district, all the facades are protected. So, you understand that before you even begin the design process, what you have to do in order to have a successful application. Board Member Bernstein: Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Go ahead. Board Member Bernstein: Chair Bower is pointing out something really significant. So, in San Francisco the cultural view is presumed to be historic, prove that it’s not and here it’s well, do we really need (inaudible). So, it almost addresses Board Member Wimmer’s comment about maybe having such an incentive where people just want to apply, it’s presumed to be and then – so that’s another approach. It’s presumed to be historic, prove that it’s not is another approach. Chair Bower: Michael, did you have a comment? City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Makinen: No. Excuse me. Board Member Wimmer: Are we going to discuss the – so I think since January there’s a new rule or a new ordinance where if your parcel report says you’re deemed eligible, then you have to go through – is that true? That – So, I got – I just got a call from someone who said I have this house, I wasn’t even sure where the house was but – and I wanted to do all these remodelings. I went through an IR with Arnold, it was pretty much approved but then Emily came in and said I had to have this historic evaluation report done. It’s going to cost me $7,000 blah blah blah. I was like – I mean I don’t mean to – but this was where – why I – I just want to become more informed about is there a new policy since January and so maybe if – is that something we can discuss or is that on our agenda today? Ms. Vance: That was the Comp. Plan update (crosstalk)… Board Member Wimmer: (inaudible) Ms. Vance: … L-7.2 where we must consider whether properties are eligible for state or national register and whether minor changes will affect the architecture of potentially historic buildings. So, this is where we – excuse me – this is where we are in that – in implementing this new policy. We get several a week, particularly if one goes on the market and now suddenly everyone is calling about this potentially eligible designation. Our – the way that we’ve been approaching this so far – we actually have a meeting later today about this very topic and I think one next week with the attorneys about how to best approach the issues coming – arising from this. In the past, a potentially eligible designation did not really stop you from much. It didn’t stop you from demoing, it didn’t stop you from altering and you didn’t even need historic approval, that’s changing now. So, for some of them I can – for some of the ones that have come through already, this is not how we’re going to do it in the future but I’m undertaking the assessment of the building which I’ve spent a few days over at the archives and I’m pulling together information to make an educated determination of eligibility. That takes time, it takes a lot of time and it takes – its kind of a strain on our limited resources already so in the future we want to have a clear path for applicants whether it’s a DPR Form, HRE, whatever it is, that’s where that $7,000 number came from. In the past HREs for a residential one-story, that’s what it cost… Ms. French: That includes our overhead. Ms. Vance: …and that includes our overhead which is a lot and… Ms. French: (inaudible – off mic) 25%. Ms. Vance: Yeah, the overhead is 25% which is what we tack onto it which we don’t want – we don’t really want to pursue this avenue of making everyone at the last minute pay an extra – huge amount of money and when it comes back not eligible, fine. They can continue with their project with no further historic review. If it comes back as eligible, now we have another conversation. We don’t have – we have not perfectly hammered how we’re implementing this new policy. Chair Bower: Any other comments? We – I think we are near the end of this portion of the agenda since you are on the last – you were on your last slide before we jump back? Ms. Vance: This is the last slide, there’s nothing – that’s just a picture of… Ms. French: (inaudible – off mic) going next. Ms. Vance: This is where we are going next so we have until 10:30. Ms. French: If anyone has a car like that, we could… Ms. Vance: There are the girl scouts… City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Bower: You’ve hired an antique car? Classic car to take us over there. Brandon, you could walk home and get yours. Alright so if we’re done with this portion, there’s not much left on our… Action Items Approval of Minutes Ms. French: There are no minutes to… Chair Bower: There are no minutes. Subcommittee Items Chair Bower: There are no subcommittee items or are there? No. Ms. Vance: No, the Mills Act subcommittee, we can probably confirm at a time to present and maybe if we wanted to meet one more time prior, that would be ideal. Chair Bower: Sure, just to look at the revisions… Ms. Vance: Yeah, to kind of look over… Chair Bower: …that we talked – last talked about. Ms. Vance: What I’ve done is I’ve incorporated all of the comments from our last conversation and we kind of have this nice tailored program outlined. I imagine the further comments we get from the Board would be much appreciated. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bower: So, Board Member question? I – (inaudible)? Board Member Bernstein: I was wondering if staff wants to make any comment or do any Board Members have any comment on the letter received from the public? Ms. French: Yes, the letter At Places from Mr. or [Dr. Nierenberg], I did respond to [Dr. Nierenberg] and that was I believe transmitted to the Council Members but they also – he did also send it to the Historic Resources Board. Mr. Nierenberg, I believe he was in attendance at the Mitchell Park community meeting on the 18th and raised this concern about only 150 have made comments on the Eichler Guidelines. So, I have responded to him and we are expanding our outreach and we’ve had, let’s see, how many meetings? November 9th, we had – October 12th we had a report about it, the whole process and then -- for the HRB. Then we had on November 9th, it was on the agenda and that’s when we distributed the public review draft. We had a meeting on December 14th and then January 25th and we have not had a high attendance but that is not unusual for the HRB meetings. We’re going to ramp up our outreach with plastering all 2,700 homes Eichler tracts with a bright green flyer saying hey, guess what we’ve got here and you’re welcome to come to the HRB meeting on the 22nd. Then, of course, when it goes to Council, we will do something similar with maybe an even brighter color just to make sure that we aren’t – we are heard. In addition, I mentioned the realtor outreach so we’re working on those next steps. We do have this website that we keep updated – Emily keeps updated weekly with where we are so – and I think you’ll be pleased with the changes to the guidelines that are coming to you on the 22nd. That is about that. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Bernstein: I spoke to a real estate agent about five days ago and I asked her about it. She said she had no knowledge about any Eichler Guideline discussion so yeah, outreach somehow to the real estate. Board Member Wimmer: Has there been any effort for the Palo Alto Weekly or the Daily to write an article about it? I mean… Ms. French: That’s the other outreach to proactively ask (inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Wimmer: I think they would be interested in writing an article about it. Ms. French: Yeah, it would be – I mean we did have and as noted in on our website, we’ve had KQED, Rachel Miro actually did an interview, put it on a podcast and I spoke with her for that. We’ve had Michael – gosh, David Weinstein? Has done two blogs on it and he was in attendance at the community meeting on the 18th and has uploaded blogs. So, the Eichler Design network is it – so people that are focused on Eichlers through that method are – may be seeing those. You know people are busy. Board Member Wimmer: I think it would make a really great front-page article for the Weekly. Someone makes it sound really controversial and maybe if someone calls them and says hey, this is a great idea for an article (inaudible). Ms. French: Yeah, I don’t know if it should be you know definitely controversial… Board Member Wimmer: Well, I say that (inaudible)(crosstalk) Ms. French: … because these are voluntary guidelines but… Board Member Wimmer: … because it makes the paper more interested in making a… Ms. French: I mean if the post wants to sell newspapers, you know if they are listening, they could – they do a good job of that. Vice Chair Corey: I mean… Chair Bower: Karen, you had a comment? Council Member Holman: I was just going to say I think staff deserves an awful lot of credit for how much outreach they have done and how many community meetings they’ve had and quite frankly, for 150 residents to be interviewed and contacted regarding this is a lot. I mean if you look at – you can have a meeting about – pick a topic and if you get 50 people to get engaged, it’s a lot. So, I’m somebody who’s always like make things public, transparent, you know get the community engaged but I think you’ve done a tremendous job. I really do. Ms. French: I would add to that, that I’m not a resident of Palo Alto, Emily is not a resident of Palo Alto but many of you are. I’ve had to go to extreme measures such as go visit my parents and look at their computer Next Door to see what’s being said about all of the Eichler Guidelines. Mr. Nierenberg was posting there and there are other people, Penny Ellison, posted. I provided some information to another person in Green Meadow that posted correct factual information so that’s always an avenue for folks to post factual information on places like Next Door or what have you. I agree that the Weekly, Palo Alto Online would be an appropriate place to drum up interest and participation conversation and controversy if that’s what we’re looking for. I’m not looking for that. Chair Bower: So, it’s 10:15 and we're supposed to be over at the Girl Scout House at 10:30? Ms. Vance: We’re meeting Karen at 11. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Bower: At 11, ok. Ms. Vance: So, I figured if we wrapped up by 10:30 we’d have plenty of time. Chair Bower: One question I have that’s going to come up is Brown Act training. I think that it’s been 2- years since I’ve had it and the City has had the Brown Act training and we all have to do that every 2- years. So, could you check just… Ms. Vance: Yeah, we’ll look into that and I can – when I send the summary of the meeting out, I can mention something about if there’s a training coming up? Chair Bower: It’s much better to do that training in this room than it is online and I can tell you from experience. Alright, any other comments? Questions? Contributions? Ms. French: Does everyone have a ride over to the facility there because we are going to be borrowing a City carpool car if anyone would like a ride? Chair Bower: I need a ride. Ms. French: Ok. We have two? Chair Bower: Alright, if there are no other comments we’re adjourned. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Bower; Vice Chair Brandon Corey, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen, Martin Bernstein Absent: Chair Bower: We have a quorum so we’ll open the meeting. Would the staff please call roll? Oral Communications Chair Bower: Good, first up on our agenda is oral communications. Anyone that wants to speak to any item not on the agenda is welcome to do that right now. I don’t have any cards for that. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bower: Let’s move on to the next item which is agenda changes, announcements, additions, deletions. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Just that I have one announcement as that we have a subcommittee item, 526 Waverley, that’s going after today's meeting after we adjourn. So, we’ve already contacted the Board Members who are involved in that and they’ve said they are available. Thank you. Chair Bower: Great, thank you. We actually have people here today which is a remarkable occurrence for us and I’m assuming that the bulk of the people here are here to talk about the Eichler Guidelines. So, we have one agenda item before that and I’d like Board Members, if they can, to be very concise in their comments about the Junior Museum which is first up on our agenda. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Action Items New Business 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [18PLN-00042]: Modification to Roof Material for the New Junior Museum and Zoo Building Approved by City Council in December 2017. Zone District: Public Facilities. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: February 22, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Bower: Staff report? Ms. French: Yes, I’m going to keep it brief as well. We have our applicants here who will go through their PowerPoint. This will be going to the Architectural Review Board on March 1st. The Council approved this project and – back in December and this is just a minor change to address what the applicant is going to tell you about. Ms. Sarah Vaccaro: Great and the material boards here. Good morning Board Members, thank you for having us today. Let me make this full size. I cannot read that. I think it’s just off this – full screen, there we go. Great. Just a quick recap of the existing site conditions. The existing Junior Museum and Zoo sits here. Also, on the large City-owned parcel is the historic Category I Lucie Stern Community Center, as well as the eligible historic resource of the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House. The Rinconada Park sits here, adjacent is the Walter Hayes Elementary School and then across the way is a residential neighborhood. In our proposed site plan, we’re making big improvements to clarify site circulation for pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles. We’re also reorganizing the JMZ to create a more civic presence for that institution and referring the Lucie Stern in a lot of the form and layout of the building. We were presented to the full HRB back in June of last year. This was the rendering that we brought forward at that point in time. In general, the Board was very favorable with the design. There were concerns about the color of the material – the metal roofing material that also turned onto the exterior walls in some locations so we worked with a subcommittee on a number of color variations. This was one of the interim variations that we studied upon comments from the HRB subcommittee, ARB, and the community. This was the ultimate design that we presented and was approved last year by City Council in December. It has a taupe colored standing metal seam roof with cement plaster siding on the walls and some areas of wood siding for accents. We are here today to present a roofing change to you so going from a standing metal seam roof to a composite shingle roof. While I understand that it’s not part of the HRB’s purview to review cost implications, this roofing change will save the project about almost half a million dollars which will allow us to stay in budget and keep very important, exciting visitor experience in the project. We are proposing, again going from a taupe colored standing metal seam roof to a composite asphalt single roof in a light sage green color. The durability of this roof is not quite as durable as the standing metal seam. However, we can get a warranty for – a full warranty for up to 20-years and then an extended warranty for 21-50-years beyond that. This is just a quick aesthetic image of the standing metal seam roof versus the composite shingles that we’re presenting today. This is a rendering from Middlefield, you can see we’ve replaced the roofing with the composite shingle so it will be visible along Middlefield. From the main entrance in the parking lot, you can see the roofing in the distance but it’s a pretty – there’s not a lot of view to the roof from this perspective. Just to circle back to the surrounding context, the Lucie Stern complex has a clay tile roof with cement plaster walls. The Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House has composite single roof and vertical wood siding. The existing JMZ which will be demolished when our new building is built, it does have a wood shingle roof just as a point of reference. Then across Middlefield most – almost all of the residential houses have composite shingle roofing that’s in direct context. One point of consideration, it's not part of the current project but we are planning in the next 5 to 10-years to add photovoltaic panels to the roof. It will cover almost half of the roof surface and that will allow us to generate energy onsite. So, the panels will be attached directly on top of the composite shingle roof like these images show. Then a longer-term consideration, again not part of the project we’re proposing today, but in 10-20-years when the composite shingle roof starts to age, there’s an opportunity with the extreme advances in photovoltaic roofing that the Friends and the City could opt to replace the roofing with a photovoltaic roofing. This is an example of the Tesla roofing tiles that will allow for site generation of energy, as well as a more comprehensive look for the roofing system. That’s it for our presentation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chair Bower: Thank you. Can you just hold on for a second? Any question by the Board Members? I have a couple short ones. No questions. So, I’m pleased that we’re saving money as a Palo Alto resident. Everyone here who is a resident is happy about that. I think that this a more appropriate material choice, I didn’t like the standing seam roof. When you said that you could get an extended 21 to 50-year warranty, I’m assuming that’s on the materials, correct? City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. I believe so but I can verify that though. Chair Bower: Just so the public who is watching this at home knows the material cost on any project – roofing project is a minor portion of the actual roof contract. So, while that helps, my understanding of the warranties, which is now 5-years back because I’ve been retired for 5-years, is that it could be prorated. Even if it was 100% of the cost, it would be minimal but do you know whether – do you know anything about the warranty at all? Is just for materials – it is just for materials? Ms. Vaccaro: I have the documentation. I haven’t memorized it so I could forward it for further reference. Chair Bower: In the best case – ok, in the best case then it is as I suspect which is just the materials. It’s a small amount but savings is savings so I think that was my only question. Alright, anybody else with a question? Roger. Board Member Kohler: (inaudible) Chair Bower: Well, if there is no other input on this, let’s pull is back to the Board and then have a Board discussion. Thank you for that presentation. Alright, Board comments? Board Member Kohler: I was just going to say I’ve had asphalt roofing on my house now for, I don’t know, 12-year, 13-years and it still look brand new in a way. It’s a higher quality and it looks great so I think it’s a good choice practical and will probably last a lot longer than what you think. No problem for me. Chair Bower: Any other – Martin – Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: I was going to ask a quick question. So, the specification that you gave us, it’s a cool roof – it’s a cool roofing and I was wondering if you might just state for our education as to why would you go with a cool roofing solution as opposed to a traditional roof solution? I’m sure – it said that its less solar absorption on – in the material and it reflects heat – the heat. Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. Should I respond now? Chair Bower: Please. Ms. Vaccaro: Yes, you’re exactly right. Basically, it reduces the amount of heat that the roof will absorb which impacts how much energy we need to cool the building inside. The cool roof requirement is actually a California Green Building Code requirement so there are limited roofing types that meet that requirements. That’s what the cool roof product information is in regards too. Then quickly how did you arrive at the color of the sage green color? Ms. Vaccaro: In the product data you have there are only four-color options that fall into the cool roof category that meets the Green Building Code. We thought the sage green was a nice compliment to the white cement plaster and the wood accents that we’re proposing. Chair Bower: If I can jump in here before you leave? Do you know what the color of the Girl Scout building roof is? Ms. Vaccaro: It’s a brown – it’s hard to tell in this image but it’s brown. It’s very similar to the vertical wood siding color. Chair Bower: It is a composition -- it’s a composition roof? Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bower: Ok, thank you. Other comments? Michael. Board Member Makinen: I think I actually favor this over the metal roof that we saw originally. I think it provides significant cost savings. I don’t know what the cost of this roof is – the actual cost of it but if we saved… Chair Bower: Half a million. Board Member Makinen: … half a million bucks, you know go for it. Chair Bower: Brandon. Vice Chair Corey: I’m going – I’m a little – I think contrary in here but I actually dislike the composite roof. I think the metal actually does look better. I think composite in general trends to be done because its cheap but I do understand cost savings. I must be in the wrong business if it’s a half a million dollars delta to do a roof but I appreciate your thoughts on saving money anyway. Chair Bower: Alright, Martin you’re the only on that hasn’t made a comment. Board Member Bernstein: I agree with Board Member Kohler about the durability of it. I have a composition shingle room on my residence and it was installed in 1992 and it still looks new. MOTION Chair Bower: Alright, no other comments? I also forgot to acknowledge that Councilwomen Holman is here with this morning. Thank you for coming, as you always do. Would you—any comments you’d like to make? Alright, so I’m looking for a motion to move this forward. Well, I can craft a motion so I would – let's see. So, I think we need to say that this complies with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for a differentiated but complementary material for the roof because we have two historic buildings within sight of this building. I would – let see—and that this is an approved by the Historic Resources Board as being appropriate for this building. I’m open to any other suggestions. Alright, no – do we have a second? Board Member Kohler: I’ll second it if you… Chair Bower: Alright. I don’t see any other comments so I think we can probably move this forward to a vote so all in favor of approving this as appropriate meeting of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and being appropriate roof material and cover for the museum please say aye. None opposed. Vice Chair Corey: No, I opposed. Chair Bower: Oh, sorry. Brandon opposed, alright so we’re 5-1. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-1 Chair Bower: I just didn’t hear you. Vice Chair Corey: It’s ok. Well, I didn’t say (inaudible). Chair Bower: Thank you very much. I’m hoping this makes it through the ARB without modification and they’ll hear that on March 2nd. Continued Business City of Palo Alto Page 5 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Recommendation of the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines to the City Council Chair Bower: Alright, we’ll move to new business – I’m sorry, to our continued business which is a public hearing of the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. I’d like to remind anyone in the audience that if you’d like to speak to this item, please fill out one of these cards and give it to one of our staff members. Staff report? Ms. French: Yes, hello. Coordinating so thank you for announcing that speaker cards are what we need to track who’s speaking today. This application – this project has come before you initially in November, then December, then January and now today. We’ve been at this for about a year with many workshops and attended by not everybody but a core group and some others more recently that heard that there might be a potential for regulatory. Right now, that is not the case. We are looking at guidelines voluntary in nature and going to Council in April at this point. So, here we are today and here’s the track. We have a website devoted to this project, we have ways that folks can get an email – e-blasts when they sign up, we recently blanketed all Eichler neighborhoods with notice cards and it was an undertaking. We don’t have ready lists of Eichler folks but we did undertake that and we will do it again prior to the Council meeting. These are the Eichler neighborhoods in town. I’ve spoken with one Eichler tract that is interested in removing the single-story overlay but that’s only one… Board Member Kohler: What did you say? Ms. French: I’ve spoken with one… Board Member Kohler: Remove what? Ms. French: Remove the single-story overlay zoning. Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok. Ms. French: It’s an application process, only one tract. Just a quick recap, the staff report presented all of this. What’s changed is you have a copy of both the annotated draft that shows the changes since you last saw these guidelines and the draft that is – has those changes incorporated. So, the one draft that shows in orange the changes and the draft that will go to City Council. So, overview quickly, FAQs have been incorporated in an early section hopefully to communicate to folks that this is voluntary. We’ve tried to hit that point several times; you know how will we use it? We would like to utilize these guidelines when we do individual review of two-story homes and second-floor additions. The Council would have to, of course, adopt an ordinance regarding that so that’s not even happening in April. That would be after April if the Council so chooses to direct staff to come back. There are some key points of this, community values, that’s been verified. The chapter on maintenance is now a later chapter, the new construction is now an earlier chapter, and Chapter 8 was modified to remove some of that language that was causing people to mistakenly believe that this was somehow regulatory. It is not regulatory, this is voluntary. I’ll just say one more time, this is a voluntary set of guidelines that are being proposed. With that, I think we need to get to the public but if you have any questions or comments, staff would like to hear from you and as to the current set of guidelines. Chair Bower: Just as a recap, Board Members have received two of these which is the proposed guidelines. The original that we have reviewed earlier at one of our meetings and also all of us have read and then a new annotated version which has orange changes. I will tell – because they are not available for the member of the public that are here, there are substantial changes that address a number of the comments that were made on the website or directly emailed to City staff. There are 236 comments that are in our package today. I’ve looked at all of them, they are pretty extensive and we’ll get to a discussion of the whole – the guidelines and these comments later. Let’s move to the public – hearing from the public because we have – I currently have eight cards, I’d like to limit this to three minutes. I request that if someone else has already spoken to an issue that you feel is important, simply note that City of Palo Alto Page 6 you concur with that rather than spending the time basically saying the same thing that’s already been said. We want to – we have lots of work to do here so the first person on the list is Ken Vently followed by Cynthia [phonetics][Ishimoto]. Please state your name so that the… Mr. Ken Vently: My name is Ken Vently, I live in an Eichler house near Gun High School in Maybell Gardens. A day and a half ago I got this and they gave me a day and a half to come up with a response. However, living in an Eichler, I’ve been there for a long time and I’d like to ask anyone of you if anyone of you ever owned or lived in an Eichler house? Good. Anyway, that questions been answered. The problem I see in this report – there are a number of them – one of them is they spent a lot of time on remodeling, doing things to existing Eichlers and we have a neighbor who had three additions on the roof of an Eichler and they are atrocious. Is was done years ago before this was even a discussed issue. We now have three houses in our tract and there are six that have been torn down and that other types of architectural styles. My question to you and into this report is that if you’ll note in one of the pages here, Page – get my glasses on – 78, adding a basement to an Eichler. Give me a break. I mean you tare the house down essentially so we build a new Eichler I peruse for a basement but it does say something in here very close. If a basement is added, residents should be aware that it may result in a house that is visibly higher than its neighbors. All the houses that are being built in Palo Alto now are in perimeter foundations. Nobody is building a slab house anymore like an Eichler so I might show to you that when this takes place -- this was on the cover of the 2000 – June 26, 2015, article on Eichler rising. I think some of you have seen it. Whoever the artist was that did it did the greatest extortion and it fits exactly what I’m trying to say. We’ll show you later. Eichler house, two-story house. Eichler house – I mean two- story house sitting on a slab foundation, that is a joke. In here it says that – there’s one article here – I have three-minutes so that’s why I’m moving fast. In neighborhoods that are not in flood zones, in my case it isn’t, residents – flood zone designs new residents so that the floor level heights conform to those of a surrounding Eichler residence. You can’t do that. An Eichler is that high off the ground at best. You start out with the perimeter foundation, you’re going like this; maybe higher. As you said in here, if you build a basement then you may have a higher one. Now with today's standards, no one wants an 8-foot high ceiling. They want a 9-foot plate one, they want something higher. I have one being built or there is one being built in our neighborhood so we’re already starting with a foot and a half, maybe, at the basement or the floor level – foundation level, then you’ve got floor space, 9-foot ceiling, then you’ve got another floor and it’s a goner for an Eichler. So, this privacy issue and people looking down on you, we have it. We have one a diagonal (inaudible) out of the backyard of our house, one was built there. We don’t have a strong neighborhood organization like the so-called National Registration thing. My Eichler is a Jones and Emmons Eichler. It came even before the (inaudible) and as you know -- my problem with Eichlers is they build too many of them in Palo Alto but when they built them, there was a great and interesting intention why built them. Chair Bower: You’re three minutes…. Mr. Vently: It was an aesthetic… Chair Bower: Could you summarize? Mr. Vently: I’m going to summarize. Chair Bower: Thanks. Mr. Vently: Thank you. I’m very upset about the problem. I resent the fact that my house is not in a zone which has some privilege which the others evidently have in this so-called National Registration. I have a number of other things but thank you for your three minutes. Chair Bower: Thank you, Mr. Vently. Cynthia [Ishimoto], please. I’m sorry, I’m not very good at pronouncing names. Ms. Cynthia [Ishimoto]: [Ishimoto] City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Bower: [Ishimoto] and Steve Lewis is next up. Ms. Ishimoto: Let’s see, I’m going to admit that I’m kind of clueless as far as what the guidelines are. Chair Bower: Could you just say your name one more time. Ms. Ishimoto: My name is Cynthia Ishimoto. Chair Bower: Thank you. Ms. Ishimoto: I’m going to admit that I am clueless to what the guidelines are. I’m not able to get involved in this because – well, this is what I have. Let’s see, I’m going to backtrack. Eichlers, for those of you who don’t know it, is a mid-century modern house that has a lot of glass. I think one of the reasons why we have so many people going to the second level is because it has really poor storage. In my house, we have 5-foot closets for everybody and that’s really not enough. The slanting roof means you have even less storage and glass walls, even less storage. The reason I am here is because I’ve tried – I inquired about putting in an extension that would fit within the look – the aesthetics of an Eichler and I was told that I could not do it because of privacy rules. Basically, there’s a setback in my house, there are a garage, carport and a setback and I wanted to bring it forward. I was told I could not do it because of privacy reasons; even though I met the setback from the sidewalk, that was acceptable. So, I would like to find out what I can do and does the guidelines have anything that addresses what I want to do which is pull the one section of my house forward and have it aesthetically match my two neighbors? Is there anything that I can do to affect the guidelines or do I have an appeal process to figure out what I can do so that I can do more storage for my house? That’s it. Chair Bower: Great, thank you. Steve Lewis and John Melnychuk? Mr. John Melnychuk: (inaudible – spoke from the audience) Chair Bower: Thank you. Mr. Steve Lewis: Hi, my name is Steve Lewis and I’m here for my neighbor Pat Wayne. He and I have been talking about Eichlers for years and years. We moved in in ’56 and ’57. He basically found out and we looked at the research guideline. We like the guidelines as it was presented. We don’t like to see it as a rule. There are so many Eichlers as you go down our streets that wouldn’t match the rules as they are now with the guidelines. Now you have (inaudible) two-stories, I think three or four in our neighbor. You’ve got ones that have been modified with different garage doors, different siding, different plumbing, heating and air conditioning on the roof that looks obnoxious but that’s the way they are. That’s the beauty of an Eichler and the guidelines do address a lot of the shortcomings of the Eichler homes. We’ve all learned to put up with them and that’s what makes them unique. It’s probably what, as we in Eichler’s like to believe, it is some of the best houses in the neighborhood. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you very much. John and then Diane Reckless. Mr. Melnychuk: I’m John Melnychuk, I live in Fair Meadow, I have a home there since 2002. It’s an original home built in 1952. I’m surrounded on either side by original owners from 1952, quite elderly people. I was involved in an ad hoc group in 2011 to get a single-story overlay for Fair Meadow and our effort failed. This was something that happened with David Toy and five other members or five other neighborhood members. We collected our petitions, we got the City to send a survey out and at the last moment Vice Chairmen Tuma who was Chair or Vice Chair of the Architectural Board at the time said single-handedly that he would prefer to have things go forward only if 80% of respondents support the idea of a single-story overlay. We couldn’t understand this at the time, you can check the tapes. I was speaking a little more loudly than I am right now when I responded to that. We have a concern in our home in our neighborhood about slow emergent and creeping in of different architectural styles. Two- story houses, that destroys our privacy and that destroys our daylight planes. Any of you would be City of Palo Alto Page 8 welcome to come and visit our home to have a look for yourself to see what it feels likes inside and you could very easily be able to see what would happen with a two-story home next door or on either side of us. We’re glad that some guidelines are being developed here. For myself, I’m disappointed that we didn’t achieve a single-story overlay. I’d still like to see that happen. I don’t know – that’s beyond the scope of what your discussion is today but I’m putting my two-sense in. Thank you so much for looking at this issue and I think that the Eichler’s themselves are actually, as a group, valuable as historic elements in our City. We recognize that in our one neighborhood already and by attrition we’re getting Spanish style homes, two-stories with stucco, with tile roofs and so on. That’s diminishing the quality of the aesthetic in the neighborhood as far as I’m concerned. Thank you so much. Chair Bower: Thank you for those comments. Michael Nuremburg will follow Diane Reckless. Ms. Diane Reckless: Hi, I’m Diane Reckless and I’ve lived in an Eichler for almost 40-years now. This document was really well done. There was an awful lot of good stuff in it but there’s a leaning towards a stand-alone ADU. I’ll address just ADUs and the stand along versus attached. In particular, the one in the rear and for some reason the ones in the rear or the detached could be 900-square feet. It was part of the house it would have to be 600. If you take 900, most of our houses are about twice that so you’re taking half the size of a current Eichler and sticking it in the backyard. Even beyond that, if its – the pictures make it look like a little playhouse, it’s not, it’s big. Let me take you on a walk in my neighborhood which is in a flood zone so if you put a standalone it has to start 3 or 4-feet up. If you tried to get there in the backyard, you either have to walk past every single bedroom where kids are likely to be sleeping to get there or you have to walk past three walls of glass or two walls of glass. Then you get to the backyard and you’re sitting behind the master bedroom which is another wall of glass. This doesn’t seem likes it’s going to be very nice. Those of you who haven’t lived in an Eichler, please come spend some real quality time in an Eichler. Don’t just walk through fast but imagine what it would be like. I think – I really favor ADUs but I hadn’t conceived till the middle of the night how big 900-square feet is and think through moving them into the front, not separate units. I don’t think – they wouldn’t fit in our house – excuse me – our neighborhood at least but attached ones could go very nicely. Do – you’d have to move the setbacks in some cases but within reason that makes sense. Today’s kids aren’t there to play in the playground or play in the front yard. We’re not allowed to water the grass so – or not allowed, we shouldn’t so setbacks don’t make as much sense as they did 60-years ago. Make them smaller, make the houses make sense and please, really make the back-yard ones not very logical in most neighborhoods. Thank you. Chair Bower: Great, thank you for those comments. Alright, Marco – Mark – Michael [Nuremburg]. Ming Zhao will be following. Mr. Michael Nuremburg: I’m Michael [Nuremburg] and I’ve lived in an Eichler for over 40-years. We’ve remodeled three times and put on a second story all (inaudible) with the neighborhoods ok, the design and basically kept it as an Eichler with those changes. So, I’m actually here altruistically and this doesn’t apply to me anymore but I’m concerned because I really think the study and the process is tremendously flawed. There are 2,700 Eichlers in Palo Alto. The people who constructed the paperwork had basically interviewed a 150. Of the three meetings only 90 people have attended those and of – now I didn’t see the latest emails but I reviewed every 233 emails prior to this, only 27 people sent those in so I don’t think this adequate representation. By the way, I’ve spoken to major real estate people in Palo Alto who have never even heard what was going on so despite the fact that this has supposable been publicized I totally disagree. More importantly, I think freezing the Eichlers in time really can have a potential problem. As new materials come along, new looks and things, we might be missing out on siding, roofing, things that actually can make our homes better and not worse as we’ve done in our case. There’s also a statement this is not about a single-story overlay and yet on page 90 – let’s see 74, there’s a picture of two Eichlers with a line going across and something above it on the structure which obviously is saying we are talking about a single-structure overlay so make no (inaudible) about it. We’ve also heard that this is voluntary at nauseam, it is not. There is a three-tiered process, in your notes, how this can actually become something that the City can mandate and dictate and I really think that’s a problem. I’m not here to address second-story or single-story overlay but I will say there are many multi- City of Palo Alto Page 9 generational families that are now being prejudicially left out of these communities. They can’t live in Eichlers and I do want to remind you there’s something called the Anti-NIMBY law which I think was passed in California in 1982 where you can’t discriminate against neighborhoods in terms of moving forward with development. It seems to me that this skirts that pretty closely and there have already been two suits, Lafayette and Berkley, that have been lost. So, I would like to see us put our money into other things rather than this and not be in court over these things if they do become regulations. My concern truly is I’m not sure there’s been enough publicity and enough transparency. If the community truly wants to freeze Eichlers in time, I’m totally with that but I don’t think that’s the case. I also think that’s wrong to do so thank you for listening. Chair Bower: Thank you for those comments. Ming Zhao followed by [Dr. Mandel]. Pardon me for mispronouncing that. Mr. Ming Zhao: Hi, my name is Ming Zhao and I live in an Eichler house. I like to concur with the previous – what the previous gentleman said. I don’t think it’s the right thing to freeze the Eichler in time. Especially – I mean I like certain design aspect of the Eichler house but I really don’t like the certain choices made by Eichler. For example, the flat roof, it might be good in look but it doesn’t really – it really costs a lot for long-term – long time maintenance because of lack of adequate space. For example, last year I had to do some remodeling for my house. I had to open the roof because there was no other way to run the electrical lines to add some lights and because the roof was open I had to reroof and because we have the pipe running on the roof because there was no other place to run the pipes other than digging in the ground. So, -- but the roofer told me that we had to remove the pipes before they applied the – before they can reroof and then after the roof is done they had to add the pipes back which cost me about $5,000, while adding nothing to the house, just to reroof. It’s an Eichler house and that’s this kind of hidden cost that’s kind of been inherited from this short card that was taken when the original house was made. I think this – I don’t think we should try to mandate certain design choice just because some people like that or some people don’t like that. Other than that, I don’t have other additional opinions other than what the previous gentleman – Michael said. I really appreciate his comments. Thanks. Thanks for the effort. Chair Bower: Thank you. Dr. Mandel followed by Sunita Verma. Mr. Manis Mandel: Good morning everyone. My name is name is Manis Mandel, I’m a homeowner in Fair Meadow tract. I’ve been reading these guidelines since I think October (inaudible) and they seemed to have changed. On page 26 there’s a big section called CC&Rs and this says this Eichler Neighborhood Guideline supports and expands upon Eichler tracts CC&Rs where appropriate. Chair Bower: Excuse me – yeah, can you… Mr. Mandel: Sorry. Chair Bower: Thank you. Mr. Mandel: On page 26 of the document of the final draft it says the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guideline document supports and expands upon the Eichler tract CC&Rs where appropriate and in adherence to the current City planning code. In Appendix A, Turnbull and Page described in detail how they went through and found these Eichler tracts and they discussed the CC&Rs but these no evidence the CC&Rs even exist so I began digging into it and I asked Director French like do we have any CC&Rs on file. Director French told me that they are aware of at least three CC&Rs or of more than three CC&Rs and of course I believe her. I – when I bought my family house in 19 – in 2005, my title did not have a CC&Rs so I began digging into the CC&R. One of the previous gentlemen described the failed SSO from Fair Meadow and that documented (inaudible) referred to a 1951 CC&R but after a property search, I found a 1952 CC&R signed not by Director Holms but by the San Jose Abstract Entitle Company data 7, June 1952 stating the following. “It is expressly agreed that the said declaration of CC&Rs are terminated as to and do not apply to are in any way affect, Fair Meadow.” There is no CC&R in Fair Meadow so for City of Palo Alto Page 10 66-years Fair Meadow has lived free and clear of any restrictions of any CC&Rs. After 66-years of freedom, suddenly there’s a document which claims to put new guidelines, it doesn’t make sense. The law has already given individual rights to the homeowners of Fair Meadow that they are free. These rules, even though voluntary, they need to stay voluntary. There should be no discussion, there should be not slide presented saying that there could be a three-step process. There should be no (inaudible) attempt at all and if only three CC&Rs or four CC&Rs exist, we should change this document and say that out of the 32 tracts only four of them should be using the guidelines. The rest of them, because they are free, should not be subject to any guidelines. Let the individuals have their rights. There is no point of having overlays. A new (inaudible) was added which states the following, this is on page – sorry I’m looking at it – page 14. It says that… Chair Bower: Excuse me, we’re at 3-minutes so please (inaudible)(crosstalk) Mr. Mandel: It says the prior guidelines would be used by the planning staff. I think it’s unnecessary. The (inaudible) staff does not need any extra information because these are voluntary. Why on earth should the (inaudible) staff – so please remove all the overreaching document statements from this document. There’s just too much overage, it is unnecessary. Give us the freedom to live out lives. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you for sharing that. [Sunita Verma] followed by Margaret Murphy. Ms. Sunita Verma: Hi, my name is Sunita Verma, I live on Ross Road in a two-story Eichler house since 2004 and like the gentleman said, we haven’t had enough – I got this on Tuesday night and the meeting is this morning. I don’t know – you can see how many people are not here who would like to speak, that’s not very much notice. We need – if you want impute from the citizens, you need to give us more notice. We can’t just show up and – from work and come show up here 8:30 in the morning. There should be different meetings at different times and the notice should be at least 2-week if not longer and like as mentioned I live on Ross Road. There’s a lot of stuff going on there that we were never notified but that’s different. What I want to say is if there are already guidelines that exist – I live right next door to a one-story single house and I’ve talked to my neighbors and we have no privacy issues. Our house is two-story, the one next to us is two-story and on the other side, they are not. So, if there are guidelines that are existing to protect those for privacy and another thing, why do we need to spend more money from the City to make more guidelines if they already exist? Let’s take that money and use it for something else that we need for our City. For our teenagers or the youth who need some place to go hang out. There’s nothing for the youth to hang out. There are no places for them to go hang out except the mall or the down (inaudible). Let’s save our money for the other issues that are more important than spending money on something that already exists. That’s all I have to say, thank you. Chair Bower: Than you for that comment. Margaret Murphy and I think there’s one other – is there – are there any more cards there? Ms. Margaret Murphy: My name is Margaret Murphy, I received this notice yesterday and I would like to say that I live in an Eichler on Lewis Road. I would like to say that I concur with the comment regarding notice. This is an issue that is very important to me, it is very important to my neighbors and we were not given due notice. Please provide more notice and of course we will provide comments in email and in other forms. I do not believe this was correct. I would like to concur with Michaela and the others who have said that the study perhaps was not broad enough. Did not include enough examples. There are so many Eichlers, so many different experiences in this City. I think that you have a unique opportunity to do more in this area. I concur with my colleague who just spoke about the use of time and use of money. However, I disagree, I do think that this affects many, many people in this City in many different ways and I encourage you to look for solutions that include homeowners who have been here for a very long time and like their neighborhoods the way that they are. As well as newer homeowners and their concerns. I ask you to look at this seriously and not abandon this and I think that you’ve made some steps in the right direction but I encourage you to continue and to get broader input. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you for those comments. The last card that I have is from Sheila Chang. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Ms. Sheila Chang: My name is Sheila Chang, I’ve lived in my Eichler home for 30-years. Faced Asian Blue Shopping Center more and I would say -- I came here to just listen and now I have some comments. The first one that I’d like to say is the mention about CC&R. My house as two-stories and they built the second story in 1964. My house was built in 1954, the tract says that area is 1956, actually mine is ’54. So, 1964 they built the second story by the previous owner and we bought that and it has been already 30-years. So, that means what’s a CC&R? A couple years ago, many – I can’t remember – (inaudible) would team up again Asian Blue Shopping Center’s new owner because of a couple of reasons. The first because they built a low-income housing and a big market and (inaudible) school doesn’t want more low- income kids. So, they said well we’re overfull and then my neighbor, they have a or (inaudible) say oh, this Eichler. Oh, (inaudible) going to flood into our area so see we better sign so I signed. I had them over to my place given this drink and I signed the paper. We do a lot of (inaudible) and try against to damage an Eichler but actually, I’m glad we don’t have this (inaudible) like overlay and you can build a second-story in that area. Eichler is very old, the structure is not very stable for two-story and also not very good for (inaudible) like termites or something like that. You ask me do I like Eichler? Yes. Do I appreciate this? I would say yes because I follow Sunny Vale when I say oh, awesome they have guidelines. Palo Alto has no guidelines. We have guidelines, that’s wonderful but I’m not saying I stab it and say don’t do anything. You have to keep this one with the worst foundation and a lot of things are not insulated properly. I wanted to say thank you very much to make this a guideline option and also don’t believe a CC&R. Everybody followed that because they really want to keep that style, keep everything as is. We abuse old CC&R back to the day Eichler or the builder made that. That’s just my experience, 30-years. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you for those comments and thank all of you who have come today. We hardly ever have an audience and I think all of the input that you have provided is useful. Let’s take this back to the Board for discussion and I guess we’ll close the public hearing portion of this. We can reopen it again if we need too. Board Members, comments, questions? Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Bower. I would like first of all to thank Amy and her staff for the email blast that have been going out to the neighborhoods so thanks for that. I know there have been requests from the neighbors to say what’s going on and so thanks for your good response on that. I appreciate it. There have been a couple members of the public who spoke about getting a notice only one or two days earlier but I think you – things were sent out more than one or two days ago, is that correct? Ms. French: Correct. We – this is the first time that we’ve sent notice to all of the Eichler addresses in the City. So, to that extent, yes, we have not been sending them out for the last year to every single Eichler address so this is the first time. We were able to get the work behind that to get all the addresses and sent that out but it wasn’t two days ago. Perhaps the holidays… Female: (inaudible – off mic) Ms. French: It's not a requirement, it’s a courtesy flyer that we’ve sent out. Again, these are not voluntary – these are voluntary, not mandatory so there’s no obligation to send out. We’ve done what we could. Board Member Bernstein: Ok well thank you for that response. Board and Chair Bower, I have – I went through all the – in the orange mark up one, I went page by page and I had comments on the different pages and each comment will result in also a question for staff. Chair Bower: Ok, go through, that’s what we’re here for. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you so much. I’m just going to go each – I went through the orange mark up page and then – because those – that’s new wording. I’ll just start with the question here and I’m just going to go right through the sequence here. I’ll say the page numbers for reference so on page City of Palo Alto Page 12 number 13 on the right-hand side it says the guidelines are designed to help the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment staff and review bodies in determining the appropriateness of the proposed work. My question where about determining appropriateness. Does that mean if the Planning Department decided that it’s not appropriate, does that mean an applicant then could not proceed with a building permit? Ms. French: This is a general statement and – where a National Register District or single-story overlay district, it is imposed or it is already placed on one of these tracts. It could be a conversation but no, there’s no – nothing mandatory about this. It’s a broad statement and it’s not intended to be punitive or mandatory. Board Member Bernstein: Great, ok thank you for that. Then -- let’s see – then on the next page, 14, on the right – on the left-hand side it says the guidelines are currently voluntary, just ask you mentioned also. Then it also says on that left-hand side, so the purpose of this is to offer advice and that’s a great thing. Education is fantastic. The middle it does say – the question says my home is not an Eichler but I live across the street with an Eichler. Will I be subject to design guidelines and the author of this document says possibly. So, that still leaves some question and some doubt for an applicant who’s trying to make concrete decisions. It goes on to say, however, while your home may not be an Eichler, it may be within – so, there – so the fact that things are voluntary I think is – when things say possibly and may, again it's from someone who’s trying to say well, am I affect it or not? The language of this may be not so clear. Ms. French: Yes, actually I – Martin, thank you for that. I am looking this as well and seeing that on the first part about the – about are they mandatory? It does say the guidelines will be used concurrently with the Individual Review Guidelines. That could not take place unless – until the Council adopts an ordinance that connects these guidelines to the Individual Review process for two-story homes. So, we will need to change these before these go to Council to clarify that they only – in every case, only by Council adoption of an ordinance will these be in anyway utilized by staff for review. Board Member Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Page 18, the right-hand side it talks about – it says, for example, residents and homeowners and properties in Greenmeadow, Gables National Register Historic Districts may consider a stricter interpretation of the guidance. That would take a property owner initiative for that to become a stricter interpretation. For it to become – because right now it’s not mandatory so a property owner initiative is required before any of these things become more strict. Just a comment. Ms. French: Right so in the event that there are CC&Rs and the neighborhood is – does have an Architectural Control Committee, I’m only aware of two of those in the City, they could choose, it’s voluntary again, to utilize these guidelines for those neighborhoods. Board Member Bernstein: Great, thank you for that. On page 21 it talks about Individual Review process and the ordinance says that’s only involved in second story additions of a certain scope. The IR also focuses on privacy, scale, massing, and streetscape and that’s fine. That’s a good process for that. When I read the 132 or 232 comments, it seemed like the dominant theme was the idea of privacy so Individual Review I think already addresses that issue so that’s already taken care of I believe, the idea of privacy. One of the members of the public mentioned about a one-story and the idea – the question of privacy. I’m imaging say if the floor level has to be raised to 3-feet because of flood zone requirements. So, that puts someone eyes at 8-feet above the ground and for privacy, you can have a 6-foot fence and then you can still do a 24-inch decorative thing above that. So, actually you can have a fence that’s also at 8-feet high so for one story, I hear issues of privacy but one-story, the privacy is already solved by a fence I believe because you can only – if the eye level is at 8-feet. I think privacy is already addressed so I just heard a lot of those comments from the public so just my comment that I think privacy is already addressed in the ordinance. Male: Not for the second-levels. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Bernstein: So, IR actually involves – speaking through the Chair, the IR does address privacy issues already and window locations and all that so I think privacy is already through the ordinances. Next is page 27 on the left-hand side, it talks about properties eligible for listing in the National Register. My three questions are – let’s see – the question I wrote down was are any Eichler homes shown on page 25, those are all the Eichler tracts, are any of those a listed historic resource? Are any – ok. I think the answer is no. There’s no… Ms. French: No. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah so there’s no historic resource so there for any protection of or regulation that may involve the Historic Resources Board or the Historic Preservation Ordinance. That ordinance will not apply to any of these buildings because none of them are listed as individuals (inaudible)… Ms. French: Correct. The HRB and historic review process does not apply to National Register Eichler Districts in the City because they are not listed on our local inventory. Board Member Bernstein: So, the HRB would never ever see any proposal that comes – any change to a historic building – any change to an Eichler building would never come to the Historic Resources Board. Ms. French: It just so happens – I’ll just say this – that the two National Register Districts are both single- story overlays so there’s never going to be a Discretionary Review for a two-story home proposed in one of those districts. Board Member Bernstein: Fine, good, ok. Alright, thank you. Going back to one of the other comment that I think two members of the public made about the idea of historic preservation and I think the phrase was frozen in time. We do have at least one project or one building in Palo Alto that is frozen in time that the community has certainly embraced it to be frozen in time. That’s the Hewlett Packard garage and it’s down to -- the original nails are still there. So, there’s an example of a historic preservation where it’s frozen in time so that’s certainly appropriate. The – a couple members of the public mentioned about not having their Eichler homes be considered frozen in time. I just want to make one quick comment about what is historic about some of these neighborhoods and I think one of the historic issues is from a social point of view. From say the 1950s, it was common to have extended families living in these homes. Meaning you needed square footage so any restrictions to say a house can – has to be frozen in time is – can become pretty restrictive. Again, we’ve heard many applicants come before our Board that the reason we want to expand any house is that for multi-generational. So, not having it frozen in time, I support that idea of not having that – not having an Eichler house be frozen in time. Thank you for that. A few more – I apologize but again we just got this information also. Chair Bower: Should I set the three-minute timer? Board Member Bernstein: Page 28 talks about preservation incentives. As you’ve you heard me speak publicly, I’m in huge favor of preservation incentives. There’s also talk about the Historic Building Code so can a house not listed in the local register use the California Historic – so all these homes that are in National Register Districts. Can they use the California Historic Building Code? I don’t know the answer to that. Alright, the – page 29, it says – my question that I wrote here was – oh, before – I guess that’s continuing that same question. Before – awe, it says on page 29 on the left-hand side that a building may qualify as a historic resource if it falls within one of these categories. Again, I guess that’s the requirement of the property owner to actually apply for historic statues before any historic benefits can accrue. We’ve already today that there’s no Eichler building is on the Historical Register. Almost done here. I already made the comment about the Individual Review process in response to privacy. One of the guidelines on page 67 does show horizontal or vertical siding so that’s good that there’s flexibility on that. Getting toward the end. Page 73, is there any prohibition on an Eichler house being demolished? So, once a say building permits for replacement building is – is there any prohibition on an Eichler house being demolished? I don’t think there is. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. French: No, again because one none of our Eichlers, even those in the National Register District, are on our inventory locally so there for demolition is allowed. We do have a rule in Palo Alto that you have to have a replacement home because we don’t want to have the disappearing of our housing stock and for other reasons, so maximum lot size etc. Board Member Bernstein: Sure, great, thank you for that. Page 74, I see the word -- on the left-hand side, there’s a word perceived height. I’m a huge proponent of that idea that it’s not so much how high something is but what’s the perception and that’s where the IR process can get involved in. Three more comments here. Page 107, special considerations for National Historic District, we’ve heard (inaudible) representative of the Architectural Control Committees for the different neighborhoods. I – my hats off to them. I think they do a pretty fantastic job in helping speak to and educate and hear different points of view about what is deemed by that Committee and perhaps in other neighbor representatives on what’s appropriate for that neighborhood? So, it sounds like there is some architectural control already in effect. I know the City of Palo Alto does not get involved in those private conversations but it looks like there is some good care put into those Architectural Control Committees. So, that’s a good way for them plus any of these voluntary design guidelines, I think that’s a good educational aspect here. Page 109, I’m glad to see the comment about the doorknobs being put in. If accessibility is a concern, consider a level – a lever handle with a simple unornamental contemporary look. I’m glad for that clarification. I do see on page 110 and this will be my last comment about on the right-hand side is say the two existing National Register Districts, Greenmeadow and Greenmeadows (Green Gables?), also have a single-story overlay statue. It says; however, second-story additions are not encouraged in any historic district that may be designated in the future as a measure to retain the integrity of the district. I will suggest that two-story – a second story, there probably are designs that could be added and still maintain the integrity of the district. I would need to be obviously very sensitive addition. Again, we have the IR process and other reviews that can be done for that. Those are my comments based on the comments we received in orange. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you, Martin, for doing a detailed review of this document. Roger, you have any comments? Board Member Kohler: Not yet, no. Chair Bower: Oh, Emily, please. Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Yes, thank you. Good morning everyone. Just to speak to your earlier comment Chair member Bernstein about the California Historic Building Code. Just to clarify in that the California Historic Building Code is – provides alternative building regulations when dealing with qualified historic resources. A qualified historic resource is any existing or future resource listed on a Local, State or National Register. So, the contributing resources within those two National Registered Districts would certainly be considered qualified historic resources so they could take advantage of the Historic Building Code. The only thing to note is that since they are not on the Local Register which we discussed – the Local Inventory, that they could not take advantage of other incentives offered. Chair Bower: So, following up on that, we have discussed whether or not – we have discussed the floodplain issue as it relates to historic properties and could you just for – put into the record here how that applies? I think if I remember correctly the flood zone – if the building is a recognized historic building, then the flood zone regulations are suspended or don’t apply? Ms. Vance: Yes, it’s something along those lines dealing with FEMA and federal flood insurance program where historic resources could be exempted from certain restrictions on basements in flood zones. Chair Bower: Just a – it’s clear as I understand this if you have a historic resource – if your building is designated or recognized as a historic resource, the need to comply with a raised first-floor elevation above floor plane would not apply. Is that correct? City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. Vance: I believe that’s the interpretation but again, like we said, just for qualified historic resources so that wouldn’t be true for all Eichlers. It would just be for the ones in the two National Register Districts. Chair Bower: The reason I bring this up is if for the two Nationally Recognized Districts where they to be added to the City’s inventory which I have said publicly many times I think that they should be added. Then the floor plane issues which relate directly to the privacy issues that many people have spoken to both today and in public comments are somewhat mitigated because you’re not going to have those differentiated elevations. Ok. Ms. Vance: Yeah, that’s true. Chair Bower: Thank you. Alright, I’m just going to go across the Board here. Margaret, any comments? Board Member Wimmer: I was just listening very carefully to all the public comments and trying to really understand some of your sentiments and thoughts. It sounded like there was a mix of people who were in support and some people who were maybe not. Maybe feeling a little threated by the guidelines and that maybe would preempt them from doing something that they would ultimately want to do. I think – especially responding to the ADU comments, I think there are some cases where the City puts out these guidelines for instance for the ADU new ordinance that we have. Sometimes those regulations or those parameters might not be applicable to for instance an Eichler house that you feel like the 900-square feet is too big for the backyard. I think those people who own Eichler properties, they would have to find a balance themselves in what’s appropriate for their unique site, their unique property, their unique situation and adapt those available ADU ordinances for them. I think putting an ADU in the front yard would probably be disruptive of the overall neighborhood character so I think – I guess what I am trying to say is that there are these ordinances that are out there that may not specifically apply to your unique individual property. I think it's up to the property owners to interrupt what is appropriate for their own well being for they own property. I think also in terms of the CC&Rs, I hadn’t really – I wasn’t really aware of a lot of the CC&Rs that might have existed when these Eichler neighborhoods originated but I think that these guidelines – they’re not necessarily a replacement or they’re not necessarily meant to be a new CC&R. These guidelines are in response to the fact that these Eichler neighborhoods are becoming historic because of their age and because they’ve been around for a significant amount of time. That the City wants to preserve that mid-century modern architectural style that is prevalent in Palo Alto so these guidelines are an effort to preserve and to guide preservation of these neighborhoods. Not necessarily meant as a replacement or a new CC&R that is suddenly imposed upon you. So, those are my two comments. Chair Bower: Thank you. Michael, any additions? Board Member Makinen: Well, there was – I can’t recall which page it's on but there was some discussion about if this goes to Council a three-tier approach. I think that… Chair Bower: It’s coming up. Board Member Makinen: Yeah. Chair Bower: I want to discuss that after we made comments. Board Member Makinen: I think that has a lot of people concerned that this is becoming a requirement and it’s not. It’s just a voluntary type activity that we’re promoting so I think there are some real concerns for the public when they see that. Is that yeah, we’re calling it voluntary but is it really voluntary? I think there’s a feeling of – I won’t call it a threat but some feeling that they may be more than what we advertised as voluntary. Chair Bower: You – any comments? Roger. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Kohler: Well, I’d just like to comment that the group of folks here today and there were a lot of different comments expressed by all the different people. That’s what towns are made of, a whole bunch of different people so where some that spoke today that are very adamant about they want it a certain way, others didn’t care, others were annoyed that they would have to worry about this and so it’s very interesting group. We on the Board just try to do the best we can within what we hear from homeowners and staff and ourselves. It’s – in fact, I’m just curious if you could just maybe state the purpose of today's meeting, just out of my – so I can readjust my – what I’ve heard and what we’re… Ms. French: Sure. The purpose of today's meeting is to receive a recommendation from the HRB on these guidelines. This is – we’ve been at this for a little while, you have – you continued this from January 25th to this date so that you could see the modifications done by our consultant following the comments you made on January 25th, following the comments made at the public workshop on January 18th, the emails we received through our Eichler inbox that you have all received At Places on January 25th and in this staff report. The goal is to finish with the HRB, then we start the existing process of re-notifying the neighborhood and seeing which agenda this will land on with the Council. Currently, we’ve targeted April 2nd and we’ll see what happens with emails to Council on all of this. Once it gets closer to Council, then people really come out of the woodwork. Even if we’ve been at it for a year. Board Member Kohler: This is kind of the – what we’re talking about, this booklet which becomes the guiding light for everybody when talking about Eichler neighborhoods. I say there are neighborhoods because there’s several – all kinds of groups of Eichlers around town, right? Ms. French: There’s a map inside the guidelines that shows all of the Eichler tracts. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, ok. It’s not just the big one on Alma, it’s… Chair Bower: No. Board Member Kohler: … (inaudible). Chair Bower: I’d like to make a few comments and then we’ll move towards crafting a motion. As I – first of all, I went to the first public meeting. I couldn’t attend the other two but it was pretty clear that the community members that did go to those meetings had two primary concerns and reviewing the 236 comments that are part of our package today. Those concerns popped up to the top and the number one concern is the issue of privacy with additions that would provide a direct line of sight into other – from a new project into an existing house. That ties in with the second most commented on an issue which is second-story additions. They are really one in the same issue. I think that these guidelines, as in this final form that we have here today -- and I don’t, by the way, mean to suggest that this is the last time these guidelines are going to be addressed because guidelines are, I think, of guidelines as dynamic and they do change. So, while I don’t think these are the perfect approach, I think these are a good start and as we saw from Professorville Guidelines, those guidelines helped inform these guidelines in ways that I think make both of them better. The next item that was of concern to people who wrote is how these guidelines will be enforced and those concerns are focused on property values, on the flexibility of design changes, how new property – new development will impact their existing houses. My experience in the seminars that I have attended that actually apply directly to this have informed me that formation of historic districts actually increases the value of the property. Los Angeles did a 10-year study of this and developed a very comprehensive ordinance much more thorough and restrictive I think in a sense than our guidelines. They found that in every case the property values in those areas increased. The thing that they discovered was that if you are in a district like an Eichler district -- Los Angeles has different districts -- and some developer came in and bought a property next to you, tore down a house that conforms to the district style and then built something totally different. The property values next door to those on either side and across the street all went down because of the new development. They were frankly surprised at that and surprised that when these overlays went into effect in Los Angeles, they raised the values of the properties. I’m not – obviously everything in California is now more expensive but what City of Palo Alto Page 17 really was significant was they demonstrated that was a real value. So, I think these have – these guidelines – and again, these are guidelines which are intended to set expectations about development. They don’t demand a certain style but they inform the designers who are going to be working in this neighborhood -- they are different neighborhoods -- about what is expected to – in the new designs to conform or to compliment – there are lots of other historic preservation words that we use but basically to compliment what’s already there. I’m – my colleagues on the Board who are architects and designers I’m sure would never want to design a project that wasn’t conforming to and complementary to a historic district. This is an attempt to really help both the new development ideas and the existing architecture to live in some harmony. I think its important for the community to understand that historic district designation again provides a lot of benefits. People I think are afraid of that, that sort of designation because they think it limits their options. I think from a 40-year career as a building contractor in this community, that had I known about the historic – if we had the Historic Building Code, that is would have been much easier to do a number of projects that I built but they were – it wasn’t available so there are incentives in this document that help us move I think the conversation away from limiting property values but instead enhancing them and enhancing community. By the way, Eichlers, as all buildings are, they are a living document of our history and people who live in them don’t necessarily – I think they live in them because they like the design, maybe it’s affordable but most important they are preserving what Palo Alto was 50-60-years ago. Just like we’re preserving the Hewlett Packard garage because that’s something that was very important to our development here. Almost done. I think this – I’m hoping this – these guidelines are our step in helping to inform the community and I fully expect that there will be a vigorous discussion at Council because there always is when these kinds of things are adopted. I want the Board to turn to page 56 in our packet which has the four – I’m sorry we don’t have this up on the screen so members in the audience can participate. This is Attachment B in our packet, it is the regulatory – it is a path forward – yeah, it’s 56, down on the right-hand corner of our packet. It’s attachment B. I don’t know if you can get to that. Well, Amy can get it up on the screen so that everyone – there is it, I see it. I’d like the Board to focus on how we – when we create a motion, how we can direct Council or not direct them but simply inform them about how we feel they should move forward. There are four options in Tier 0, 1, 2, and 3 and just to review them. Zero is nothing, do nothing. Tier One is an Individual Review integration and privacy guidelines and you can see that that’s adopting ordinances and using this in tandem with IR Review. Tier Two is a voluntary Eichler overlay district as this is described here as EO which is Eichler overlay. So, you create a district similar to single-story overlay districts and then you’d use it entire document – this entire document or a portion of it and applying it to new homes or secondary additions. Also, address erosion of support for single-story overlay in the Eichler thing. Then the Tier Three option is regulatory options which is develop standards enhance for privacy, height, size, setbacks, second stories, give legal certainty with maximums for discretionary applications and then for use for other regulatory discretion process. I’d like the Board to move – to actually include one or more of these tiers in our recommendation to the Council. Is there discussion? Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Bower. I’d like to tag onto your comment about the historic districts and the value that has been to property owners. Do any members of the public who have said they are concerned about a replacement house being non-Eichler compatible building. So, there is now – in the IR Guidelines, there’s no requirement of style. It’s only for massing and scale and privacy issues. Tagging onto Chair Bower’s comment about districts, just as neighborhoods – two neighborhoods have gotten together enough support to apply for and get granted a National Historic District. That’s, I think, a great step toward any regulations tied with incentives of what to do for modifying or building a new house. We’ve seen great success in Professorville District for example where property values are pretty incredible there. There are – for many of the homes there, there’s like I think about eleven different incentives that property owners can employ to actually do things that bottom line actually increase the value of the property and still maintain a district. I would encourage any Eichler neighborhoods, if they are concerned about well what’s the design sense of the neighborhood, to consider applying for National Districts too. Then the incentives then can – it’s a lot easier for incentives to be applied so that’s a good way for neighborhood preservation. That is my comment to support that idea. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Bower: Sorry, let me ask staff, there is a resolution – a draft resolution, should we be commenting on that? Page 53 in our packet. Ms. French: Yes, it’s prepared so that you can weigh in on the wording there. This is coming to the Council to describe – I mean basically it gives a little history and the fact that were directed to do this by Council. They decided to spend their money on it over a year ago, almost two years ago now. Well, December of 2016 they authorized us to proceed with a contract to do exactly what we’ve done. It then gives a bit of a history, it talks about the Comprehensive Plan policies there in that Section H which are findings basically to talk about policy L-1.1 for instance. Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. That’s an existing Comprehensive Plan policy and there are at least seven more policy referenced. This is the new Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by Council in November and became effective in December. Then there’s a finding there about being consistent and compatible with applicable purposes of the R-1 zone so there are three bullets there. So, if you want to take a moment to read those and let us know if there’s any issue with those statements related to what we’re doing here that would be great. Board Member Bernstein: Chair, I forgot one question. Does this – not a proclamation – resolution – proposed resolution, does it tie into any of the Tier 0, 1, 2, or 3? Do you know? Ms. French: It does not. It is designed to be specifically about the guidelines alone as a document – as a voluntary document. What would go to Council, we’re targeting April 2nd at this point, would be again this same chart that you’re seeing here to give a flavor of options, Tier 0-3. There would be no ordinance going to Council in April. They would have to direct staff to go and write an ordinance to come back to make it effectively useful with the Individual Review for two-story homes or any other potential options. If they want us to come back with an Eichler overlay option for people in neighborhoods – those neighborhoods to volunteer to be – to get together and elect themselves – select themselves, then that would happen at that point. So, that another year in the making I think. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. Chair Bower: I’d like to do two – I’m going to split these up. I want to consider… Council Member Holman: David? Chair Bower: Oh, I’m sorry. Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Hi, I just want to say a couple of things for the public. Going back to the genesis of these guidelines, how it came about wasn’t because staff or the Council were looking for more work. These came about because a good number of people got together who live in Eichler neighborhoods and wanted some guidance and some assist by the City to help preserve their neighborhoods. It wasn’t about – to borrow somebodies term – it wasn’t about freezing anything in time but it was concerned about the kinds of development additions and new construction that was happening in their Eichler neighborhoods. So, this came out – this was a grassroots effort that brought this to the Council’s attention that caused this effort to happen. So, that’s the springboard from which this came. The other thing, as I’ve been on the Council now for this is my 9th year and on Planning Commission for 8 ½-years before that, I hope people will look at this with two minds. There are people who are very supportive of these and they’re not perfect. I don’t agree with everything in them. Nobody is going to be 100% satisfied but look at these with two minds. These could be very helpful in precluding – the reason I mentioned the 17-years I’ve been doing this is because there are appeals that come out of people not having guidance like this in front of them and provided. So, we have neighbors fighting neighbors and neighbors and neighbors fighting neighbors and neighbors because of new construction additions and such in these Eichler neighborhoods. I see these as a resource to help abate those appeals and those battles within neighborhoods. They are – I don’t know what the Council – full Council is going to do about some aspect of this being an ordinance or all voluntary. At this point in time, they’re all voluntary, Council will weigh in on that, the community will weigh in on that but I hope people will look at these like City of Palo Alto Page 19 I say with two minds. Of like trying to help neighborhoods stay neighborhoods and I don’t mean that just architecturally, I mean it also in terms of relationships. Again, I’m hoping people can hold two minds with this and understand the genesis of this was from people who live in Eichler neighborhoods. I think it also would be helpful if staff could provide in conjunction with this to the public is what the information is that – because I think it is documented, the information that Chair Bower was providing about the value of historic neighborhoods. What it means to be in a historic neighborhood and it isn’t a no change situations. It’s being the respectful situation and providing guidance and also to provide what the incentives are that the City has for historic properties should any of these districts want to become – be added to the inventory or if other neighborhoods want to be considered for addition. I think the options and alternatives need to be provided from the various perspectives and I appreciate very much the Chair’s comments. I hope that’s helpful to the public hopefully. Chair Bower: Well, I think we all hope it’s helpful for the public. Thank you for that comment. I’d like to make one other comment just so that the homeowners who are here get a sense of perspective. I own a building in the Liberty Hills Historic District in San Francisco. That’s a Victorian district and our – the value of that property in the 10-years we’ve owned it has skyrocketed not just because it's in San Francisco in the Mission but because the entire district is protected. So, when builders – actually developers buy the buildings and several of them very close to us have been purchased, they can’t tear down the Victorians. They maintain the facades which is really what – we’re talking here about a façade issue. None of these guidelines do – address anything that goes on inside the building. They don’t, frankly, really regulate anything that goes – any alterations that would occur on the outside of the side yard and the rear yards with the exception of ADUs and that’s a whole different issue. So, what we’re talking about here is trying to maintain the front façade of these neighborhoods. I mean obviously with additions and so my Victorian building is not frozen in time. It is – has been modernized to the maximum extent possible but we’ve retailed all of the features that made it attractive to us when we bought it and made the historic district a recognized space. I’m not just sitting up here as the Chair of the Committee saying we ought to do this stuff to my neighbors because I don’t understand what goes on. I have a really good understanding of what a historic district does and the benefits and they are substantial. So, that said, I’d like to talk – I’d like the Board to consider – by the way, I’m not the only person on this Board that has – owns historic building. Michael does, Martin does and Beth Bunnenberg who was on the Board also in a building that could be considered historic and Corey does so we all have different personal relationships with properties that have designations. I want to talk about this Attachment B because I’d like the Board to consider this as one motion and I’d to recommend a pathway for the Council. I think that’s what we – we can help the Council evaluate their – and do their job if we can give them direction based on our experience here. I don’t want to -- we’re at 10:10. I would like to try to move this along quickly so we can go back to work. Any comments? Let’s – I’m going to just start at this end and come back. Michael? No comments? Board Member Makinen: Not right now. Chair Bower: Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: Well, I definitely think that we wouldn’t have gone through all of this effort and just had a Tier 0. I would think that we would want for this to be – I mean not just go through all this work and this very educational and helpful document and just put it on the shelf. I think that it should be an interactive tool so I think that we should at least have some step along the way where people have to respond or have to read or have to engage with this document while their considering making any alterations or doing any modifications to their house. Maybe – I mean I think – I always feel like you fall somewhere in the middle. You don’t want to make it into an ordinance where it has to be followed to a tee which might be the Tier Three. I think somewhere in the middle where at least we’re using it as a tool and a very valid useful tool. So, I think somewhere in the middle is where we need to guide them. Chair Bower: Roger. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Kohler: Well, I think the – I’m not sure how to start this but over the years having been architecting here in Palo Alto over 40-years and worked on 400-500 houses in Palo Alto. This is pretty – I think a very important area. When I was in fourth grade we moved here from New Jersey and then we moved but a lot of my friends lived in Eichlers because we were down on East Meadow – West Meadow Road. I got close – spending many nights that varying homes that are Eichlers and I kinda got used to how they were and they’re a special breed. They have a lot of neat features and some annoying ones as well and so I think it’s a well worthwhile goal to try to keep what we’ve got going and maintaining it and improving it but not necessarily limiting everything to be the exact Eichler program. That you’re not interrupting what’s there now and that we’re increasing or improving the neighboring homes. This is basically goals for the exterior of the home as seen from the street as far as what you’ve been telling us. Most folks who end up living in Eichlers like the inside of Eichlers, that’s one reason they bought the house because they really have a neat feature. I’m hoping we could get this – I agree that we don’t want to go with Tier 0 and then we have 1, 2, 3 options, is that what we’re… Board Member Bernstein: Yes, that’s correct. Board Member Kohler: What David? What… Chair Bower: Sorry, we could also suggest a modification of these tiers. Board Member Kohler: Ok. Chair Bower: I don’t think we have to adopt 1, 2, or 3. Ms. French: I want to jump in to clarify. Again, you are not to – we have not flushed these out in a way that’s recommendable at this time. Board Member Kohler: Oh, I see. Ms. French: I would like the Board to focus on the guidelines themselves which are voluntary and any changes there too so we can take that specifically to the Council. This possibility can be discussed but let’s not lose focus of what we’re doing today which is the guidelines adoption. Board Member Kohler: I think Martin did quite a good job on his little checklist and other comments so I’m comfortable with whatever we’re approving. I’m still not sure. Ms. French: We’re recommending… Board Member Kohler: Recommending, ok. Ms. French: … the guidelines to the City Council and there’s a resolution that can be tweaked if you would care to look at that. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, ok. Thank you. Chair Bower: Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, I looked at the resolution and on page – packet page 54, Policy L-6.2, I’ll just read it for the public record. If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the Cities Historic Resources Inventory. City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in state or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alteration permit. Again, this is a good resolution statement that is in support of historic neighborhood character which would encourage then neighborhoods who are concerned about that to apply for a historic district designation. I totally agree with Chair Bower about the boy, the cultural value and by the way, the financial value of historic districts and the preservations. City of Palo Alto Page 21 I’ve done about twelve homes in Professorville where we use these incentives and really expanded the market value for one way and also maintain the character of the district. So, any neighborhoods that are caring about their neighborhood character, well I think a historic designation is a good way to go so I would encourage owners to think about that. Thank you. Chair Bower: Alright so I don’t want to make this Attachment B the primary focus but I’m not hearing any Board Member suggest that these guidelines as they’ve been presented today shouldn’t be forward to the Council for adoption, in some way, into our City ordinance. The reason I wanted to focus on this attachment is that I think as Margaret has said, Tier One no action is certainly not what this… Board Member Bernstein: It’s Tier 0. Chair Bower: Tier 0, pardon me. We are not – we haven’t been working on this for a year and a half because as Councilwomen Holman said the staff had nothing else to do. This came – this is before us because there was a strong desire by people who own Eichlers to protect them I think is a good way of saying it. I’d like to suggest to the Board that we recommend to the Council a combination of Tier 1 and Tier 2. I don’t – there’s very little difference, the only thing that I’m not sure about in Tier 2 and that would be my preference is the – addressing the erosion of support of single-story overlay. I think it would be a very positive thing for the Council to create a way in which we can have an Eichler overlay in every one of these individually identified neighborhoods in our design guidelines. We haven’t really talked about that but I think that this document moves us in that direction. I would like to suggest that we adopt the Tier 2 approach. Encourage the Council to move forward with a Tier 2 approach and if maybe clarify what this – what an erosion of support of a single-story overlay might suggest. Ms. French: If I can jump in? Tier – you had first said recommend Tier 1 and Tier 2 so I think Tier 1 is, if anything, is requested. I mean that’s what we’ve heard at the workshop etc. and that’s what I think staff would like to have is Tier 1. So, that we can proceed with our Individual Review of two-story homes with a tool such as this that connects them. That would be I think – now if you jumped to Tier 2 and not do Tier 1 then we’re not using the guidelines with the IR program. Now what you’re doing is suggesting that we allow a method through an ordinance for Eichler tracts to self-select – come forward with 70% of the neighbors – of the owners saying they want this to be imposed upon their neighborhood. Just the single- story overlay is now, that’s a process where if you have the CC&Rs 60% is required and if you don’t 70% is required to come forward with an application to impose a zone on overlay. Just creating the enabling ordinance to allow tracts to come forward is not imposing the Eichler district on any neighborhoods. It’s allowing a method whereby they could come forward. When we talk about erosion of support, that was with the single-story overlay processee. We had several that came through that initially they had the minimum level of support to submit the application for rezoning but during the process, people decided to change their minds and they didn’t want to be – have that overlay and so those didn’t get passed through that process. So, with an Eichler overlay, we would want to, of course, take some direction that would allow consideration of what happens when that happens during that process. Chair Bower: Thank you for that clarification. I think in that in hearing that, I think what I would like – I’m hoping the Board will do is adopt Tier 1 and support the – sorry, I’ve got to get the right page here. Board Member Bernstein: Page 53. Chair Bower: I’m sorry… Ms. French: I have to jump in again. Can we please not use the word adopt, could we please – just cautionary – to say explore whether it’s worthwhile or not to explore Tire 1 further and recommend that the Council consider directing staff basically. Chair Bower: I was thinking but did not say adopting an approach so an approach is what – obviously what we do is evaluate ideas and then make a suggestion to the Council. The Council makes a final decision but it’s their decision, not ours. I think we can do this in one motion now. I’m not hearing any City of Palo Alto Page 22 problems with the proposed, yet not adopted, resolution on our pages. I think it provides an inclusion of the design guidelines as a tool in helping inform the alterations and additions to Eichler properties and neighborhoods. I guess I’d like to hear a motion to inform the Council of our – what we think their approach should be to move forward. Martin. MOTION #1 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Bower. I’d like to make a motion that the City at the City Historic Resources Board move to recommend to the Council that they adopt the resolution shown on our packet page 53. In referring to the – your comment Chair Bower about the different tiers, would that be a separate motion? Chair Bower: No, I think we should do it in one because the tiers are ideas about how to move forward. Board Member Bernstein: Ok, yeah. Also, including in my motion then to include the idea included in – written in Tier 1 which is using in tandem the IR Guidelines for two-story, second floor home review and enhance IR privacy for Eichlers. By enhance, again that’s not an ordinance that we’re suggesting but that would be just exploring that comment. Part of Tier 1 also includes in this diagram the idea of an ordinance adopting the guidelines. My motion is that – my wording right now is not to recommend any ordinance adopting the guidelines. I’ll hear what the Board Members have about that but – because it’s just going to be I think just – oh, yeah, please go ahead. Ms. French: I’m sorry. I know this is really hard to manage. We – what you are – I think your motion is to recommend to adopt the resolution to – for the Council to adopt the guidelines as voluntary. You have a second and it would be nice to have a vote on that just alone. Then proceed with the second one is my request. The second piece would be to discuss an ordinance that would connect it to the individual review guidelines as a part of Tier 1. So, if we could just get to the finish line on the guidelines and then the next discussion. Chair Bower: So, let’s just – you want to do the motion in both or one? Board Member Bernstein: Well, let’s just start with the motion with the – the first motion is to adopt the proposed resolution that’s on our packet page 53. Chair Bower: Which incorporates the proposed guidelines – voluntary guidelines as part of our review process. Board Member Bernstein: Correct. Chair Bower: Alright, do we have a second? Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second that. Chair Bower: Alright, any discussion? I think we’ve probably talked about this… Board Member Kohler: I vote yes. Chair Bower: We haven’t voted yet. Alright, if there is no discussion would you like to rephrase the motion just so that we have it clear for the record. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, move that the Historic Resources Board recommend to the City Council that they adopt the resolution shown on our packet page 53. Chair Bower: Alright and that’s been seconded by Margaret so all in favor say aye. Opposed? No. City of Palo Alto Page 23 MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH VICE CHAIR COREY ABSENT. Chair Bower: Now let’s Ms. French: (inaudible) Chair Bower: Brandon, yeah, he had to leave. Let’s talk about our recommendations as regards to Tier 1, 2, or 3 on page 56. Board Member Wimmer: Can I ask a question? I’m sorry, I – as I’m looking through this, this is now referencing an Eichler overlay so is there – maybe I just didn’t notice it in the guidelines. Does it discuss an Eichler overlay in the guidelines? I know it mentions all the – and identifies all the tracts so is that basically saying that each tract would be an Eichler overlay. Ms. French: No. Board Member Wimmer: I mean how are those – I missed that. I’m sorry. Ms. French: Sorry, I need to jump in again. What you have in front of you and on the screen are ideas without any exploration. The exploration that would occur related to Tier 2 would be if Council where to direct us, staff, to embark upon a process that would many months and probably a year to explore an ordinance that would enable – just like the SSO Ordinance process that would enable tracts to volunteer – voluntarily come forward and (crosstalk) self-select themselves with a minimum percentage of support from the owners to become an Eichler overlay. What the Eichler overlay would be is variable as well. It could be… Board Member Wimmer: Is to be defined because we haven’t defined what that is yet. Ms. French: We haven’t defined whether the entirety of the guidelines would apply or one chapter or… Board Member Wimmer: I think that’s what I was missing, that reference (crosstalk) to Eichler overlay but there was no definition of it so ok. I was trying to figure that, I wasn’t sure. Chair Bower: Michael. Board Member Makinen: I think that’s very appropriate that we endorse the concept of an Eichler overlay district. At least the Council can consider that as an action that we can take. I think definitely should state something along those lines. Chair Bower: Alright, Roger any comments? Board Member Kohler: I’m looking here at this and there’s 0 – Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 so are we voting on one of those tiers? No, we trying… Ms. French: No, there’s no… Board Member Kohler: Ok, yeah, that’s what I’m trying to say. Ms. French: What I think might best, I’m trying to help and I realize this is difficult… Board Member Kohler: I think we just… Ms. French: If you’re not inclined – if anyone – you could say straw poll if Tier 0 voluntary is your opinion of the best way to move forward. You could take a tier straw poll to say if Tire 1 makes sense for staff to City of Palo Alto Page 24 put in the report or it’s in the minutes from the HRB meeting that the Council will see. I think taking each one individually, not either or, would be a better approach. Board Member Kohler: Well, I mean it seems to me we’re the Historic Resources Board, I don’t think we want to 0. That’s – we’re trying to help to guide everybody. I’m not sure why we have to – there’s an overlay between all of these. Why don’t we just come up with some sort of suggestion of a combination for Tier 1 and 2? I don’t know about 3. Board Member Wimmer: Is there a way that we can just make a motion that we reviewed this potential Attachment B and our motion is to take the time to further develop it so -- because we’re kind of stumbling over it obviously. Chair Bower: So, I’d like to… Board Member Wimmer: So, instead of continuing stumbling, can we just have a motion to accept it as an idea and the motion would be to further investigate it? MOTION #2 Chair Bower: I’d like to try to short-circuit this what seems to be a circular discussion. I’d like to move that the Historic Resources Board encourage the City Council to recreate an ordinance that adopts the guidelines and that is used in tandem with the Individual Review Guidelines for second story and second floor home review and that enhances the Individual Review privacy for Eichlers. I’d like that to have an emphasis on neighborhood control and neighborhood guidance because I think local is – as local as you can get is best. Board Member Bernstein: I thought… Chair Bower: My motion. Board Member Bernstein: I second that motion. Chair Bower: Now a discussion of it? This is a motion to encourage the Council to move forward with these ideas. Essentially, they are the ones that are summarized in Tier 1. I would imagine that in this review an Eichler overlay might also come out of it so I don’t want to put that as part of the motion but I think that could be a logical – something that would logically be included. Board Member Bernstein: The reason why I seconded Chair Bower’s motion is the idea of a local control. We’ve seen great success in Professorville Historic District for example. We have two National Listed Historic Districts for Eichlers and that’s all neighborhood local control. Boy, I think that’s the best administrative way there is. The majority of homeowners in different districts saying here’s what we want and then do their now application process so that’s why I supported Chair Bower’s motion. Chair Bower: Staff opinion? Ms. French: I don’t want to offer my opinion but what I do want to say is just for the public, I sense restlessness and I hope we don’t get to hissing again. What I’d like to say is any ordinance that would connect these guidelines to the Individual Review program and the process would first have to go to the Planning and Transportation Commission in a public hearing with notice cards sent to everybody all over again in much ahead of the meeting. Because it’s an ordinance it has some teeth to it and that would have to go after the Council directs us to pursue that option because again that is staff resources to be spent on a process. Hopefully, that’s clear to the public. Chair Bower: Right, this is a recommendation for a path forward and that’s all it is and it’s – that means we would just start a second ordinance crafting process. Correct? City of Palo Alto Page 25 Ms. French: It would be the first ordinance because what this is, is a resolution. Resolutions do not have any power to change ordinances. Only to acknowledge the existence of these as a useful tool – voluntary tool. Chair Bower: Any other comments on the motion? Board Member Wimmer: I just – I’m sorry, sometimes I backtrack. So, there is a potential that each individual tract could follow a different tier. I mean we’re not saying that – I know I just want… Chair Bower: Let me interrupt. I don’t want to have to actually get into weeds in this. This is a direction… Board Member Wimmer: (inaudible) Chair Bower: This is a direction and the Council… Board Member Wimmer: (inaudible) Chair Bower: …has to move – they have to make the decision about how they want us to move. I’d like to focus this on just the direction that we want Council to take, not on the individual specifics which, of course, will be discussed in great detail. Is that ok? Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Chair Bower: I don’t mean to cut off your thoughts, they are legitimate and valuable but that’s – we’re at the 30,000-foot level here I think. Board Member Wimmer: Right. Chair Bower: Other comments? Alright, if there are no further comments let’s vote on the measure. All in favor say aye. Opposed? None. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH VICE CHAIR COREY ABSENT Chair Bower: I think that concludes the public hearing on the Eichler Design Guidelines. Approval of Minutes 4. Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of January 25, 2018 Chair Bower: We move to the last item in our agenda – on our agenda which is approval of minutes from the January 25th meeting. Martin. Board Member Bernstein: I’d just like to thank members of the public who have… Chair Bower: Absolutely. Board Member Bernstein: … joined us this morning. It’s – I know it’s taking valuable time out of your day today and again, this is a very important subject that we’re discussing today. So, thank you for members of the public for coming in. Chair Bower: I’d also like to follow that with an appreciative – with my appreciation that people will or did take the time to come out, expressed a lot of differing views and it helps to inform our decisions. It will certainly help to inform the Council’s decisions. So, even if we didn’t reach a conclusion you wanted us to, it – all of the comments are valuable so thank you for coming. Alright, minutes. Any issues? City of Palo Alto Page 26 Ms. French: (inaudible – off mic) Chair Bower: I don’t hear any Board comments on minutes. MOTION Board Member Wimmer: I move to approve the minutes. Chair Bower: Alright we have a motion to approve minutes. A second? Board Member Kohler: I second. Chair Bower: Roger seconds. Any changes and deletions? Alright, all in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Opposed? (crosstalk) We’re just approving the minutes. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 WITH VICE CHAIR COREY ABSENT Ms. French: Did they get approved? Chair Bower: Yes. Margaret moved to approve the minutes and Roger seconded. Subcommittee Items Chair Bower: Alright, Board Member comment – oh, subcommittee will meet after this meeting. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bower: Any other Board Member comments or announcements? I see none so with that – oh, Emily. Ms. Vance: Yeah, the subcommittee for 526 Waverley will be meeting just to make sure that’s clear. Chair Bower: I’m sorry where? Ms. Vance: The 526 Waverley façade restoration will be meeting, not any other subcommittee. Chair Bower: Right, it’s 526 and where will we meet? Ms. Vance: We’ll meet right here. Chair Bower: Right here, fine. With no other information and no other comments, the meeting is adjourned. Adjournment