HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-12 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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Historic Resources Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: September 12, 2019
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
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
2. PUBLIC HEARING. 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street: Historic
Resources Board Review of and Receipt of Public Comments on a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared for the Castilleja School Project. The
Draft EIR was Published on July 17, 2019 for a 60-day Initial Public Comment Period
Ending September 16, 2019. File #s: 16PLN-00234, 17PLN-00238, and 19PLN-00116.
For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of July 25, 2019
_______________________
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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
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 or less 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 Roger Kohler
Boardmember Michael Makinen
Boardmember Deborah Shepherd
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 # 10300)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 9/12/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: HRB Schedule of Meeting & Assignments
Title: Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and
Assignments
From: Jonathan Lait
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: 2019 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments 09.12.19 (PDF)
2019 Schedule
Historic Resources Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences
1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Held with ARB
1/24/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
2/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/28/2019
8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
3/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Retreat
3/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
4/11/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
4/25/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/09/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
5/23/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
6/13/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Makinen
6/27/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower
7/11/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
7/25/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cory, Shepherd, Makinen
8/08/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
8/22/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
9/12/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/26/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd
10/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/24/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower
11/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd
11/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
12/12/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/26/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
2019 Subcommittee Assignments
January February March April May June
Bower, Bernstein, Makinen:
Inventory list of historic materials
to be saved (redirected) in
demolitions
July August September October November December
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 8160)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/12/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 1310 Bryant, 1235 and 1263 Emerson: Castilleja School Project
Draft EIR
Title: PUBLIC HEARING. 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson
Street: Historic Resources Board Review of and Receipt of
Public Comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) Prepared for the Castilleja School Project. The Draft EIR
was Published on July 17, 2019 for a 60-day Initial Public
Comment Period Ending September 16, 2019. File #s: 16PLN-
00234, 17PLN-00238, and 19PLN-00116. For More Information
Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) conduct a public hearing to:
1. Receive and provide comments on the Castilleja School Project draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), with a particular focus on the Cultural Resources chapter and
related appendix, the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE).
Report Summary
The City of Palo Alto, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
has released a draft EIR for the Castilleja School Project, further described below. In accordance
with CEQA, the EIR:
• describes the project and its potential environmental impacts;
• identifies mitigation measures to address impacts and evaluates alternatives to the
proposed project;
• identifies three ‘significant and unavoidable environmental impacts’ that cannot be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The Castilleja School Foundation has requested approval of five planning applications (the
“Castilleja School Project”):
1) An amendment to the school’s existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to expand student
enrollment
2) Architectural Review of a phased campus modification plan (referred to by the applicant as
the Master Plan)
3) A Tentative Map with Exception to merge two small parcels containing dwelling units with a
third, larger parcel, where the resulting lot would exceed the allowable lot area within the
R-1 Zone District
4) A Variance to allow for the underground parking garage to encroach into a special setback
along Embarcadero Road
5) A Variance to maintain and reconfigure (rebuild) 84,124 square feet of gross floor area on
the existing campus parcel, where only 81,385 square feet of such area is allowed under
current code
EIR Hearings
The City published the draft EIR on July 17, 2019, for a 60-day comment period ending
September 16, 2019. The September 12, 2019 Historic Resources Board meeting is the second
meeting for public comments on the draft EIR. The August 14, 2019 Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) report provides background information and is viewable at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72895. The draft EIR in its entirety
is viewable at the Downtown Library, City Hall 5th floor, the Development Center, and on the
City’s website for the project, www.cityofpaloalto/Castilleja. This report does not include a
recommendation on the project, which is under review for compliance with applicable plans
and regulations. The purposes of this agenda item are to: (1) provide members of the public
another opportunity to comment on the draft EIR, and (2) allow for HRB discussion and
comments focused primarily on the historic resources evaluation (Attachment C) and EIR
cultural resources chapter (Attachment B). The City’s consultant prepared a table (Attachment
A) reflecting analysis of the project with respect to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
Rehabilitation (SISR). The final EIR will address comments received during the public comment
period.
Cultural Resources
This report focuses on cultural resources, an area of particular interest to the HRB. The HRB
may consider and discuss the attached draft EIR Chapter 6, Cultural Resources, and review and
comment on the associated HRE. Secondarily, this report contains the Aesthetics chapter
(Attachment D), and touches upon the City’s Architectural Review process. The HRB can discuss
other chapters of the EIR. The HRB members, individually, and members of the public can
provide written comments before September 16, 2019, the end of the initial public comment
period. The City Council will act on all the Castilleja School Project applications, following
consideration of a Final EIR for the project.
Background
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Project Information
Owner: Castilleja School
Architect: Multiple (Steinberg and WRNS)
Representative: Kathy Layendecker
Legal Counsel: Mindie Romanowsky
Property Information
Address: 1310 Bryant Street, and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street (all owned by
Castilleja and located within R-1 (10,000) Zone District) See
Attachment 1 map
Neighborhood: Seale Addition (located south of Embarcadero Rd west of Alma St)
Lot Dimensions & Area: Project site is 286,783 sf comprised of three parcels.
• APN 124-12-034 (1310 Bryant, school site) frontages: 500’ on
Kellogg Av; 406.6’ on Bryant St; 429.4’ on Embarcadero Rd.;
430’ on Emerson St.
• Two Emerson Street parcels, each 100 feet deep adding 180’
of frontage to Emerson St. for Castilleja School (site’s total
frontage on Emerson would be 610’):
o APN 124-12-031 (1235 Emerson, “Emerson House” - a
home Castilleja rents to its teachers- with 75’ on
Emerson St on a nonconforming 7,500 sf lot)
o APN 124-12-033 (1263 Emerson, “Lockey House”, 105’
on Emerson St, unused as a housing unit for 8 years).
Housing Inventory Site: No
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes
Historic Resource(s): Yes. The administration building and former chapel are listed
historic resources (Category 3) on the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory. Other buildings on Castilleja property are more than 45
years but are unlisted.
Existing Improvement(s): Approximately 105,700 square feet of floor area above grade, plus
basement area below grade; buildings are one, two and three
stories; established at current address in 1910
Existing Land Use(s): Private all-girls school and housing
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: single family residential; R-1(10,000) i.e. 10,000 sf min lot size
West: Single family residential; R-1 i.e. 6,000 sf minimum lot size
East: single family residential (R-1 10,000)
South: single family residential (R-1 10,000)
Special Setbacks: Embarcadero Road 24 feet
Aerial View of Property:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Source: Google
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines
Zoning Designation: R-1 (10,000), Single Family Residential with 10,000 sf min. lot size
Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Residential
Context-Based Design: Not Applicable in R-1 Zoning Code Regulations
Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable
SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable
Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable
ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'):
Project site is adjacent to a single-family residence within the same
block as Castilleja; two residences are located on the project site;
residences are located across all bounding streets
Located w/in AIA
(Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: Council received an Informational report and summary of comments
from June 2017 (aka scoping report)
PTC: The PTC conducted a hearing on the draft EIR August 14, 2019.
The video is viewable here: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-
transportation-commission-63-8142019/
The staff report is viewable here:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72895
The PTC Scoping Session March 8, 2017 staff report is here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56245
HRB: None
ARB: None
2017 Initial Study/NOP
The 2017 Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Castilleja School Project cited the
potential loss of cultural resources as a potential impact. The Scoping Report identified this
topic early in the process as an area of “known controversy”, following comments received
during the EIR scoping period. In 2017 and 2019, members of the public expressed concerns
regarding removal of the Lockey Alumnae House.
Campus History
Castilleja School has been located at 1310 Bryant Street since 1910. The PTC report from August
14, 2019 provided a brief history of the school’s conditional use permits (on PTC report pages 2
and 3). Attachment E to this report is a staff-generated summary that had appeared in the 2017
PTC report. The HRE and Chapter 6 provide additional detail about the campus history. The
campus as a whole is not a listed historic resource. The HRE, a source for EIR Chapter 6, looked
at buildings constructed at least 45 years ago, and the site layout. The HRE provides
photographs and evaluations of these with respect to the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR) and City designation criteria and integrity requirements. The City’s consultant
determined:
• The Castilleja School campus, established 1910, is not eligible for designation as a
historic district due to the fact that most of the campus has been significantly altered
from its original appearance.
• All of the 1960s buildings and the two residential buildings are not eligible at the
individual level due to a lack of important historical associations and compromised
integrity.
• The Lockey Alumnae house (1263 Emerson) was ineligible for listing on the California
Register due to a lack of integrity. Castilleja acquired and remodeled the home in the
1990s. The City’s 1998-2000 historic survey noted the home as potentially eligible for
the California Register, but ineligible for the National Register.
• The rental home, built in 1979, does not meet the 45 years and older threshold.
• The Administration/Chapel building, circa 1926, appears to remain eligible for listing on
City’s local register as a Category 3 (Contributing Building). Birge Clark designed the
building and Gustav Laumeister constructed it.
The HRE notes the original school building (Castilleja Hall) constructed circa 1907, at 1121
Bryant Street, is eligible as a contributor to the National Register of Historic Places-listed
(NRHP) Professorville Historic District. The City’s 1998-2000 historic survey analyzed the
eligibility of the home at 1215 Emerson. Not within the project site, the home is under separate
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
ownership. The home at 1215 Emerson remains eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) and on the California Register of Historical Resources.
One Historic Resource on the Project Site
Only one building on Castilleja’s campus is on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. The Gunn
Building (Administration Center Building and Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater) is a Category 3
historic resource. The most recent plans, submitted August 22, 2019, show minor changes
following removal of the non-historic building currently attached to the building. The images
below show the addition of a new exit stair and re-cladding of the exposed façade. The
applicant’s architect has not yet finalized details. The City’s consultant analyzed the project for
compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Attachment A).
EIR Chapter 6 Overview
The City’s consultant studied the structures and features on the project site, including both
Castilleja-owned Emerson Street houses. The Cultural Resources chapter (draft EIR Chapter 6)
describes and evaluates the project’s potential impacts to prehistoric and historical resources
and identifies mitigation measures. The chapter contents include, in order:
• Existing conditions, including Castilleja school history, and surveyed structures
• Regulatory framework
• Project impacts
• Mitigation measures
• References cited
Chapter 6 Analysis: Three Potential Impacts
• Impact 6-1 is: “Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or
archeological resource.” The potential impact is inadvertent damage to resources during
construction: “the historic buildings could be adversely affected by dust, debris, and
damage from accidental contact with construction equipment.” The impact analysis
notes ‘the project would have no adverse effects on the historic significance and
integrity of the Administrative Center and Chapel Theater.’
The analysis also includes a discussion of 1215 Emerson Street. The discussion refers to
Chapter 8 regarding noise and vibration: “the anticipated levels of vibration resulting
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
from project construction are not anticipated to adversely affect any adjacent historic
resources”.
• Chapter 6 notes that potential impacts 6-2 and 6-3 are ‘less than significant’, and ‘no
impact’, respectively. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
• With respect to 1215 Emerson Street, Chapter 6 notes the removal of the rental home
at 1235 Emerson is not an impact because:
• Determination of historic significance and integrity of the 1215 Emerson Street
building “is not dependent on the presence of adjacent or nearby structures”.
• The 1979 rental home on Castilleja property - the home adjacent to 1215 Emerson -
is outside the ‘period of significance’ of the house at 1215 Emerson.
Chapter 6 Mitigation Measures
There are two mitigation measures listed in EIR Chapter 6. The mitigation measures address
potential impacts from construction with respect to the Gunn Building and 1215 Emerson. With
implementation of the two mitigation measures (6a and 6b), Impact 6-1 is mitigated to ‘less
than significant’.
• Mitigation measure 6a requires the development and approval of a preservation
protection plan for each phase of construction.
• Mitigation measure 6b requires Cultural Resource Awareness training prior to initiation
of each construction phase for construction crew members, consultants and other
personnel.
Merger of Parcels within Project Site
The Castilleja School Project site includes the existing campus at 1310 Bryant Street and two
Castilleja-owned, adjacent R-1(10,000) zone properties at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. These
residential structures on these parcels do not appear on any historic register. The applicant
proposes to demolish the houses and merge the two properties with the existing campus
parcel. The proposed subterranean garage would be beneath these home parcels and
underneath Spieker Field.
The applicant, Castilleja School Foundation, proposes to increase the size of the Castilleja
School campus via Tentative Map with Exception. The Exception is for increasing the campus
area beyond the maximum lot size (19,999 sf) in the R-1(10,000) zone. The applicant requests
an increase in the student enrollment cap beyond the 415 students cap imposed under the
existing Conditional Use Permit. The applicant proposes a cap of 540 students, incrementally
phased in association with a phased construction proposal.
Aesthetics Chapter 5
The HRB may wish to discuss and provide comments on the draft EIR’s Aesthetics chapter
(Attachment D).
The Aesthetics chapter notes the relationship between the existing classroom building and the
historic administration building. The proposal includes:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
• Removal of the classroom building which currently connects to the historic
chapel/administration building
• Construction of a new building providing separation between the northerly building
façade and the Administration building
Chapter page 5-12 notes the proposed separation would improve the visibility of the
Administration building, the campus’ one historic resource.
The chapter also:
• “identifies changes in the visual environment experienced by existing offsite viewers
with exposure to the Castilleja School project”;
• “discusses the potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed
project relative to visual compatibility with existing development and consistency with
the City of Palo Alto (City) Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics
and design”.
The development proposal is associated with the applicant’s request to increase the student
enrollment cap via Conditional Use Permit application. The formal Architectural Review process
will begin after the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) considers the applicant’s
requests for Conditional Use Permit, Variances, and Tentative Map with Exceptions for campus
expansion. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting is not yet scheduled.
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
The PTC has conducted two meetings allowing for public involvement in the environmental
review of the proposed project; a scoping meeting in early 2017 and the draft EIR hearing on
August 14, 2019. The draft EIR references the potential impacts and mitigation measures
identified in the 2017 Initial Study. The August 14 PTC report provides links to the 2017 Scoping
Meeting report, Notice of Preparation, and Council Scoping Report. The report also provides
brief summaries of the draft EIR chapters. Please refer to that report to review the summaries.
Council Action
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) enables the Director to forward this project to City
Council for action. The relevant code sections are in PAMC Chapter 18.31 and 18.40. The PTC
report cited PAMC Section 18.31.010, which sends to Council projects having EIRs and
statements of overriding consideration. Below PAMC Section 18.40.170, Deferral of Director's
Action, item (a) and (c) also apply. This section states:
“The director shall have the authority to forward projects to City Council for final action
in the circumstances listed below. No action by the Director shall be required, and the
appeal process and or request for hearing process shall not apply to such referred
actions.
(a) In the case of projects having multiple entitlements, where one requires City Council
approval, all entitlements may be referred to City Council for final action;
(b) Projects involving leases or agreements for the use of City-owned property; and
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
(c) Projects, as deemed appropriate by the director.”
City’s Website for Project
The City maintains a website with information about the filed project applications and
documents associated with the project. The City’s website for this project link is here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp. Members of the public can
subscribe on the webpage to receive notifications about web postings. The City’s project
webpage displays comments received during the comment period. The City Council will make
the decision on the formal applications after considering certification of the Final EIR.
Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Daily Post published the notice of the HRB meeting on August 30, 2019. The City’s webpage
provides an announcement as well. The applicant provided information about the outreach
meetings Castilleja School conducted over the past several years. A summary of outreach
efforts prior to submittal of the application is on the City’s website for this project:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp. Castilleja conducted additional
outreach meetings during the three years after submitting the application. Staff met with
neighbors separately and shared initial neighbor comments with the applicant. The neighbors
also presented concerns to Council in early 2016. Neighbor comments are on the City’s project
webpage. The City’s EIR consultant considered public comments on the IS and draft EIR scope
during the preparation of the Draft EIR.
Environmental Review
The City assessed the subject project 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 Scoping Session on March 8, 2017, was the first
stage in the environmental review process since the Lead Agency determined an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is required for the project. Staff circulated the Draft Initial Study (IS) and
Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the State Clearinghouse and provided notice as per CEQA
guidelines. The Draft IS, published January 23, 2017, identified topic areas needing further
study, and several potential adverse environmental impacts in nine areas: Aesthetics, Air
Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and
Planning, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The draft EIR studied
these topic areas. The City’s consultant retained sub-consultants to prepare technical studies.
These studies include the historic resources evaluation.
As noted earlier, the City Council will be the decision-making body for the project and will make
the final determination with respect to the EIR and project. The Council may approve or deny
the project. The Council may adopt or modify the draft EIR mitigation measures to lessen the
identified environmental effects. Council may also consider making a statement of overriding
considerations related to impacts not mitigated to “less than significant” status.
Next Steps
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
There is no further action required by the HRB regarding the draft EIR. HRB members may wish
to provide individual comments in writing prior to the deadline for public comments.
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 1: Location Map (DOCX)
• Attachment A: Secretary of the Interior's Standards Table (PDF)
• Attachment B: Cultural Resources Chapter 6 (PDF)
• Attachment C: Historic Resources Evaluation (Cultural Report DEIR appendix) (PDF)
• Attachment D: Aesthetics Chapter 5 (PDF)
• Attachment E: Staff's Summary of Campus History from City Records (DOCX)
• Attachment F: 1310 Bryant Cat 3 Historic Resource on 1979 Inventory (PDF)
• Attachment G: 1121 Bryant Street "Castilleja Hall" Inventory Form (PDF)
• Attachment H: Project Plans on Building Eye (DOCX)
• Attachment I: DEIR Public Comments (DOC)
• Attachment J: 1215 Emerson Street DPR (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
Location Map – Castilleja School
R-1 (10,000) Zone District
Attachment A: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis
Castilleja School Project, City of Palo Alto
Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis
1. A property shall be used for its historic
purpose or be placed in a new use that
requires minimal change to the defining
characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
☒ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☐ Not applicable
Explanation: The project site will continue to be
used as a school during and after proposed
project construction. Completion of Phase 4 of
the proposed project will allow the school to
increase its maximum enrollment to 540
students. Therefore, the proposed project will
not alter the usage patterns of the locally
designated Administration/Chapel building.
2. The historic character of a property shall be
retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features
and spaces that characterize a property shall
be avoided.
☒ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☐ Not applicable
Explanation: The Administration/Chapel building
is a locally listed property. Therefore, proposed
changes to this resource has the potential to
impact its character defining features. The
proposed construction of an exterior staircase on
the east elevation of the Administration building
will not impair the building’s ability to convey its
significance as a Category 3 building. The
Administration building has been significantly
altered since its original construction. Adding an
exterior staircase to a secondary elevation will
not significantly impact the remaining character
defining features on the Administration building,
as it will not significantly detract from the
principal elevation.
All other proposed demolitions, new
construction, and alterations are proposed to
Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis
ineligible buildings, features, or sites on the
campus that are not considered historical
resources under CEQA.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a
physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural
features or architectural elements from other
buildings, shall not be undertaken.
☒ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☐ Not applicable
Explanation: The proposed project includes the
construction an exterior staircase on the east
elevation of the Administration building. Given
the fact that the Administration building
underwent significant renovations in recent years
that replaced many of the original materials, the
proposed changes to the building’s east elevation
would serve as a continuation of the renovation
practices already seen on other building
elevations and would not create conjecture to
the original design and materials. The proposed
project does not include the removal of
architectural elements from other buildings.
All other proposed demolitions, constructions,
and alterations are proposed to ineligible
buildings, features, or sites on the campus that
are not considered historical resources under
CEQA.
The proposed new construction projects will be
referential to the original campus aesthetic with
the use of exterior shingles, but will also employ
the use of flat roof designs to distinguish
between the gabled roof design seen on the
locally eligible Administration/Chapel building.
4. Most properties change over time; those
changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be
retained and preserved.
☐ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☒ Not applicable
Explanation: There are no resources on the
Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis
campus that have changes that have acquired
historic significance in their own right that need
to be preserved or retained.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and
construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a historic
property shall be preserved.
☒ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☐ Not applicable
Explanation: Despite the fact that the
Administration building is an eligible resource,
the placement of the exterior staircase on the
east elevation would not impact the building’s
principal elevation or its distinctive features,
finishes, construction techniques, or
craftsmanship. Furthermore, extensive
renovations to the Administration building in
recent years have compromised original
materials and features, which further reduces the
potential for impacts to these elements by the
addition of an exterior staircase.
All other proposed demolitions, constructions,
and alterations are proposed to ineligible
buildings, features, or sites on the campus that
are not considered historical resources under
CEQA.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be
repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires
replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature shall match the old in design, color,
texture, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
☐ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☒ Not applicable
Explanation: There are no deteriorated historic
building features proposed to be repaired or
replaced. In the unlikely event that a deteriorated
historic material requires replacement, all
deteriorated materials will be replaced in-kind.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as
sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials shall not be used. The surface
cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be
☐ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis
undertaken using the gentlest means
possible.
☒ Not applicable
Explanation: No chemical or abrasive physical
surface treatments are proposed.
8. Significant archeological resources affected
by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
☒ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☐ Not applicable
Explanation: The proposed project includes the
construction of a below-grade parking structure,
pedestrian tunnel, and an at grade pool, which all
have the potential for uncovering archaeological
resources. In the event that archaeological
resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are
exposed during construction activities for the
proposed project, all construction work occurring
within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop
until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards, can evaluate the
significance of the find and determine whether or
not additional study is warranted. Depending
upon the significance of the find, the
archaeologist may simply record the find and
allow work to continue. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA, additional work such as
preparation of an archaeological treatment plan,
testing, or data recovery may be warranted.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or
related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
☒ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☐ Not applicable
Explanation: The proposed project includes the
construction an exterior staircase on the east
elevation of the Administration building. Given
that the Administration building underwent
significant renovations in recent years that
replaced many of the original materials, the
Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis
proposed changes to the building’s east elevation
would serve as a continuation of the renovation
practices already seen on other building
elevations and would not create conjecture to
the original design and materials.
All related new construction will be compatible in
scale and massing with the original
Administration/Chapel building and will not
detract from the resource. Further, potential
impacts to the Administration/Chapel building’s
setting resulting from adjacent new construction
is negated by the fact that this resource no longer
retains integrity of setting.
All other proposed demolitions, constructions,
and alterations are proposed to ineligible
buildings, features, or sites on the campus that
are not considered historical resources under
CEQA.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new
construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
☒ Consistent
☐ Not consistent
☐ Not applicable
Explanation: The only element of the proposed
project that has the potential to impact historical
resources is the addition of an exterior staircase
to the Administration building. Given that this
proposed alteration is proposed to a secondary
elevation and is minimal in design and materials,
it could be reversed in the future if so desired.
Further, potential impacts to the
Administration/Chapel building’s setting resulting
from adjacent new construction is negated by the
fact that this resource no longer retains integrity
of setting.
All other proposed demolitions, constructions,
and alterations are proposed to ineligible
buildings, features, or sites on the campus that
Standard for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis
are not considered historical resources under
CEQA.
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-1
CHAPTER 6
CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes the potential for prehistoric and historical resources to be impacted as a
result of development of the project, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates
potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed
project. Prehistoric resources include sites and artifacts associated with the indigenous, non-Euro-
American population, generally prior to contact with people of the European descent. Historical
resources consist of structures, features, artifacts, and sites that date from Euro-American
settlement of the region. Information in this chapter is taken from the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan (Palo Alto 2017), the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR (Palo Alto 2016), and the Cultural
Resources Study prepared for the project (Appendix D).
The comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation for this Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) included requests for consideration of whether the Lockey House is a historic
resource and the degree to which the project could adversely affect historic resources. The Notice
of Preparation, Initial Study and comments received are provided in Appendix A.
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Pre-History and History Background
Early Human Settlement (Pre-A.D. 1750)
It is believed that the Ohlone peoples settled in the Palo Alto area around 1500 B.C., after migrating
from the area that is now eastern Contra Costa County and displacing the groups that had
previously settled in the area. The Ohlone people continued settlement of the area until the arrival
of Spanish settlers. The Ohlone people, also referred to as the Costanoan people, were a
conglomerate of several different tribes defined by a common language, which was a part of the
Utian language family. The Ohlone were hunter-gathers, relying on plants, seeds, berries, roots,
birds and seafood. They developed bows, tobacco pipes, intensive acorn use, and complicated
exchange systems. They settled from the San Francisco Bay to Carmel. The individual tribes were
defined by territory and consisted of villages and camps influenced by the surrounding
environment. The Ohlone were politically patrilineal and the chief was in charge of directing
hunting, fishing, and gathering expeditions along with hosting visitors and ceremonial activities
(Palo Alto 2016). The population declined sharply after the arrival of the Spanish, the causes of
which included slavery, violence, starvation, disease and reduced birth rates. After the
secularization of the missions, many went to work as rancho laborers (Appendix D). A number of
archaeological surveys have been conducted within the City in association with specific projects,
but there may still be undiscovered archaeological resources in many parts of the City. Such
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-2
resources are most likely to occur near the original locations of streams and springs and northeast
of El Camino Real near old tidelands (Palo Alto 2016).
Historic Period
European settlement in the region began as early as 1769 with the arrival of Don Gaspar de Portola
and his men establishing camp near the San Francisquito Creek under “El Palo Alto,” the tall tree.
Colonization of the San Francisco Peninsula by the Spanish occurred through a pattern of
establishing missions and converting Native Americans to Catholicism; establishing fortified
structures called presidios; and establishing towns known as pueblos and stock-grazing operations
called rancheros that supplied necessary goods to the settlements and also provided goods for export.
Spanish Period (1769-1822)
The Spanish missionization of Alta California was initiated in San Diego in 1796 and lasted until
1823. During this period, a total of 21 missions were constructed including five in the region: San
Francisco de Asis (1776), Santa Clara de Asis (1776), San Jose de Guadalupe (1797 in Alameda
County), San Rafael Arcangle (1817 in Marin County), and San Francisco Solano (1823 in
Sonoma County). The missions were connected by a trail that became known as El Camino Real,
which continues to serve as a major transportation corridor located approximately 0.5-mile west of
Castilleja School. In the San Francisco peninsula, Spanish missionization began with the arrival of
Franciscan monks led by Padre Palou and establishment of Mission Dolores and the Presidio of San
Francisco in 1776. The Franciscans considered locating another mission in the area that is now Palo
Alto, though they ultimately selected the Mission Santa Clara location. Once the mission
establishment fell through, Don Rafael Soto from San Jose requested permission to establish a
rancho in the area. His rancho was named Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito and
spanned 2,229 acres from “El Palo Alto to the bay and from south of the present Stanford Stadium
to the current Bayshore Freeway” (Appendix D).
American Period (Post 1848)
European settlement in the region continued to expand, influenced by the gold rush and railroad
development. The community of Mayfield began with construction of a roadhouse along the route
between San Francisco and San Jose in 1853. The township of Mayfield was established in 1855,
centered around the California Avenue/El Camino Real intersection in southern Palo Alto.
Mayfield was typical of most small farm towns, with the exception of having many saloons that
served the hundreds of men who operated small sawmills in the hills west of the town. The
sawmills were run to harvest Douglas Fir and Redwood trees for lumber for the growing city of
San Francisco to the north (Palo Alto 2019). The town also saw significant growth after French
financier Jean Baptiste Paulin Caperon, better known as Peter Coutts, purchased land in Mayfield
and four other parcels around three sides of today’s College Terrace in 1875. This addition
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-3
comprised more than a thousand acres extending from present-day Page Mill Road to Serra Street
and from El Camino Real to the foothills (Appendix D). College Terrace, which also became part
of Mayfield, was developed starting in 1887 when Alexander Gordon began subdividing his land
and developing streets that were named after eastern universities, with the goal of selling his lots
to Stanford faculty members (Appendix D).
A key contributor to the establishment of the community of Palo Alto was the influx of wealthy
residents from San Francisco following construction of the Menlo Gate in 1854, which was a huge
wooden gate with arches on either side. It was erected by two Irishmen who had purchased 1,700
acres of the Rancho de las Pulgas to mark the driveway to their two homes from the El Camino
Real, naming it after their old home in Ireland. When the railroad was extended from San
Francisco to Mayfield in 1863, the station was named for the gates. The railroad offered faster
travel for wealthy San Francisco barons to reach their country homes; “a round-trip ticket from
Menlo Park to San Francisco cost $2.50 and a one-way ride took 80 minutes, compared to the
stagecoach, which took four hours from Redwood City to San Francisco” (Menlo Park 2017). This
contributed to the larger-scale development that began in the area in the 1860s and 1870s. While
the San Franciscans established large estates around Menlo Park, the ranchos continued to thrive
(Appendix D).
Both Palo Alto and Mayfield continued to grow; but the establishment of Stanford University and
its association with Palo Alto led to the decline of Mayfield. Leland Stanford, President of the
Southern Pacific Railroad and one of the “Big Four” of the Central Pacific Railroad, started buying
land in 1876 around the area that would become Palo Alto. Leland Stanford Sr. and his wife
founded Stanford University in 1891, naming the university in honor of their son Leland Jr., who
died of typhoid fever at age 15 in 1884. By the early 1890s, the first settlers arrived, buying homes
on University, Emerson, and Webster Streets, and Lytton Avenue. Commercial development
quickly followed along University Street, Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, and near the town’s train
depot (Appendix D). In 1894, Palo Alto was officially incorporated and began the process of
developing and operating its own utilities, including water, gas, an electric power plant, and a
sewage system and treatment plant (Palo Alto 2017). Although Mayfield incorporated as a city in
1903, in 1925, it was unincorporated and the area then annexed to the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto
2016).
The Professorville Historic District is adjacent to the northwestern side of the project site. The
district is significant for its important historical associations and high architectural value and
represents one of the earliest residential areas in Palo Alto, housing the first generation of
professors at the fledgling Stanford University. By the early twentieth century, the interurban
railroad played an important role in connecting Palo Alto and Mayfield with San Jose. Streetcars
began operating in 1910, making the daily commute for students and faculty of Stanford University
much more convenient. Apartments and boarding houses began springing up along the streetcar
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-4
routes to support students and shop workers. As the City’s population continued to grow, more
high-end housing began to spring up throughout the City; while low-end rental housing was also
introduced through the construction of more affordable bungalow courts (Appendix D). During
World War II, many single-family homes were subdivided into apartments to meet the demand for
housing during this period of limited construction. After the war, new subdivisions boomed and
entire neighborhoods sprang up throughout the City. By the 1950s, the City had transformed from
a college town to a leader in technology, and there was a drastic increase in research, light
industrial, and office space (Palo Alto 2017).
Castilleja School History
While the Castilleja School is currently located in a residential neighborhood, the school predated
most of the residential neighborhood and has expanded over the years to accommodate increased
enrollment at the school. As reported in the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed
project (Appendix D), in the late 1800s, the education of women was often considered inferior to
college preparatory education for men; however, progressive women’s education pioneers sought
to change this perspective and began to establish schools focused on preparing women for higher
education. The desire to provide college preparatory classes to women spurred Stanford alumna
Mary Ishbel Lockey (1872–1939) to found the Castilleja School in 1907 as an all-girls school.
Familiar with the Palo Alto area from her time at Stanford, Lockey capitalized on the increased
population growth and moderate weather and chose Palo Alto as the location for her school.
“Castilleja,” the chosen name for the school, comes from the botanical name for a native flower to
Santa Clara County, the Indian paintbrush.
The original school (Castilleja Hall) was founded in 1907 at 1121 Bryant Street. This building has
been determined eligible as a contributor to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed
Professorville Historic District (Appendix D). Lockey then purchased 4.5 acres of land located a
short distance south, and outside of the Professorville neighborhood. Much of the surrounding area
consisted of open space and orchards, with sparse residential development. The new site offered
the opportunity to design a complete campus and increase enrollment; it also provided an
unobstructed view of the surrounding meadows, all the way to the foothills (Appendix D). In
August 1910, the school relocated to 1310 Bryant Street, into four new structures; a three-story
dormitory, a recitation building, a domestic science building and a gymnasium. In the 1920’s,
Castilleja added the pool and chapel, a science lab, the Orchard House, and an auditorium. The
Western Journal of Education reported that 230 students were enrolled at Castilleja School in 1921.
Enrollment declined during the Great Depression and World War II. Following World War II, the
City reported that enrollment for the school was only 235, which was only a 5-student increase
from 1921. In 1942–1943, the enrollment numbers for the school were at 91, and by 1947,
enrollment was at 235. In 1958, the school made a decision to drop the lower grades from the
educational platform and only taught grades seven through twelve, until the early 1990s when the
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-5
school added grade six to their curriculum. In 1999, the City reported that enrollment for the school
was at 385 students, with 90 staff members (Appendix D).
Project Site Cultural Resources Investigation
Dudek’s architectural historians and archeologists conducted a Cultural Resources Study for the
project site. As described in this section, the research and analysis effort included database
searches, review of past cultural resources studies and other data sources, review of building plans
and permits, and a site survey. During the survey, all buildings and structures on campus that were
constructed over 45 years ago were photographed, researched, and evaluated in consideration of
criteria and integrity requirements established by the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR) and the City, and in consideration of potential impacts to historical resources under
CEQA. The survey entailed walking all portions of the campus and documenting each building
with notes and photographs, specifically noting character-defining features, spatial relationships,
and any observed alterations.
Archaeological Resources Record Search
As part of the cultural resources investigation, Dudek archaeologists requested a California
Historical Resources Information System records search from the Northwest Information Center,
which houses cultural resources records for Santa Clara County to identify any known
archaeological resources within the project site and vicinity. The records search also included a
review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, the Office of
Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, the Archaeological Determinations of
Eligibility list, and other ethnographic resources. Records indicate that 43 cultural resource
investigations have been conducted within 1 mile of the project site. Of these, three studies have
overlapped a portion of the project site (S 033061, S-041536, and S-029573). There are no known
archaeological resources within or adjacent to the project site.
Description of Survey Resources
The proposed project site includes 6.58 acres on three parcels - Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN)
124-12-34, 124-12-33, and 124-12-31. The site is located in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, and
approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the University Ave/Downtown Palo Alto area. The site is
bounded by Embarcadero Road, Bryant Street, Kellogg Avenue, and Emerson Street. The site is
located south of the Professorville Historic District which lies on the north side of Embarcadero
Road.
Table 6-1 provides a description of all buildings and structures surveyed as part of the Cultural
Resources Study, which was prepared by architectural historians who meet the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history, including a photograph of the
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-6
building, current building name, historic building name (if applicable), year built (if known), a
general physical description of the building, and any alterations identified through either building
development research or during the cultural resources survey.
Table 6-1
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Gunn Family Administration Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1910 Roy Heald
(architect)
and Gustav
Laumeister
(builder)
This building is currently listed
as a Category 3 building on the
City’s Historic Buildings
Inventory.
The 2-story building is irregular
in plan and now oriented to
face Embarcadero Road. The
building sits on a poured
concrete foundation. The
ground floor is clad in pebble-
dash stucco, and the second
story is clad in wood shingles.
The roof is sheathed in wood
shingles. The building was
originally designed in the
Craftsman style and features
overhanging eaves, wood
shingle detailing, paired
Craftsman style windows,
wooden column supports, and
dormers. The building is the
only remaining original building
to the 1910 founding of the
school and was designed by
prominent local architect Roy
Heald and constructed by
Gustav Laumeister.
2000: complete
reconfiguration of
the interior,
reconfiguration of
the entrance,
replacement of all
windows,
replacement of
shingles,
replacement of
stucco, removal
of building from
the foundation for
basement
addition, original
porch was
enclosed, roof
replaced,
trellis/arbor
addition, and
connection of
building to Chapel
and Rhoades
Hall.
Circle Feature
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1910 Unknown The use of greenspace in the
original and later designs was
important to Lockey and the
early students. The circle
feature appears on early maps
of the campus and has
remained a significant element
in the overall design of the
campus. While much of the
campus developed and built up
from the original plans, the use
of greenspace remains a key
component with the circle
feature.
The circle feature
is largely
unchanged with
the exception of
the grass being
replaced by
synthetic turf.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-7
Table 6-1
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Lockey House,
1263 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-033)
1912 Unknown This 2-story, wood frame house
that is roughly L in-plan has
been significantly altered from
its original appearance. The
building sits on a poured
concrete foundation and is clad
in stucco. It features a complex
hipped roof sheathed in
composition shingles, and
exposed rafter tails. The façade
of the building is oriented to
face the Castilleja School
campus to the southeast, which
is now the main elevation of the
house. The main elevation
features a poured concrete
stoop that is offset to the west
and accessed by brick steps
under a triangular pediment.
The six-panel wooden entry
door is flanked by fixed wood
windows, each of which
features four panes. The
remainder of the façade
features a large four-over-one
window flanked by two, two-
over-one windows. The second
floor windows are all three-
over-one. There was an
addition made to the north
elevation of the building for a
kitchen expansion.
1990s: Enclosure
of the original
entry way and
addition of porch
that is oriented
toward campus,
interior
reconfiguration
for use as Alumni
house.
Dates unknown:
garage
construction and
kitchen addition.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-8
Table 6-1
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1926 Birge Clark This building is currently listed
as a Category 3 building on the
City’s Historic Buildings
Inventory.
The 2-story Chapel was
designed by Birge Clark in
1926. The building was
originally designed as a
standalone building, but was
connected to the Administration
building in 2000. Constructed in
the Craftsman style, the
building retains many visual
elements of the style including
overhanging eaves, side gabled
roof sheathed in wood shingles,
wood shingle cladding, and
paired Craftsman style
windows. However, the building
was extensively renovated in
1980 and again in 2000 and
has lost much of its exterior and
interior integrity and
configuration.
1980:
Replacement and
expansion of the
stage area,
replacement of the
ceiling, and
expansion of the
building to the
west with the
addition of the step
down style
windows.
2000: Removal of
the building from
its foundation for
basement
construction,
connection to the
Administration
building,
replacement of
the balcony and
reconfiguration of
the entrance from
Bryant Street.
Arrillaga Family Campus Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1960–
1962
Paul
Huston
The 3-story building was
poured in place concrete
construction with a complex
roofline that is roughly
rectangular in plan. The
building is oriented with entry
from Kellogg Street to the
southeast and the campus
circle to the northwest.
1997: interior
reconfiguration of
second and third
floors to replace
the original
dormitory space,
reconfiguration of
the first floor for the
library,
reconfiguration of
north elevation for
library entrance,
additional safety
bars installed on
outdoor staircase
railings, and the
addition of elevator.
2010: Building
was reroofed with
spray foam.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-9
Table 6-1
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Rhoades Hall/Middle School Classrooms
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1965–
1967
William
Daseking
The 1967 2-story poured-in-
place concrete school building
was a phased construction
project that is irregular in plan.
The building is clad in brick
veneer under the first-story
windows, then clad in stucco
that is accented by vertical
concrete slat elements all set
under a spray foam roof. The
building is oriented with its main
entry point facing Bryant Street.
The main point of entry is
recessed and accessed by a
columned flat roof porch
leading to an elaborately
carved set of double doors
slightly offset in a 2-story glass
and metal wall panel.
Fenestration is regular and all
original metal windows are
intact. The building also
features one of the two sunken
gardens on campus, which is
located to the west of the
building.
1998: second
floor reconfigured
from dormitory
space to
classrooms and
offices,
connection to
Administration
building and
campus center
building.
2010: building
reroofed with a
spray foam roof
that is in keeping
with the color and
look of the
original roof
material.
Maintenance
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1960 Paul
Huston
The 2-story maintenance
building was constructed in
1960. It is irregular in plan with
a rear carport under a spray
foam gabled roof with
overhanging eaves and
exposed rafter tails.
Fenestration is irregular and a
variety of metal windows is
featured on all elevations. The
building is clad in concrete
block on the first story and
vertical wood siding on the
second story.
1980: The
building was
reroofed.
Circa 1990:
Sliding cage
doors were added
to the carport
section of the
building.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-10
Table 6-1
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
1235 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-031) 1979 Unknown The 2-story house is L-shaped
in plan, clad in wood shingles
with a gabled roof sheathed in
composition shingles
constructed circa 1980. The
house is accessed by Emerson
Street by a poured-concrete
walkway. The house is
surrounded by a wooden fence
with a small entry door near the
garage that provides access to
a sizable yard with mature
trees. The house has an
irregular fenestration and all
windows appear to be either
fixed or double-hung vinyl
windows. The main façade
features a recessed entry point
with multiple-pane French style
doors.
No significant
changes were
observed.
Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1980 William
Daseking
The circa 1980 2-story building
is rectangular in plan and is
oriented to the northeast. The
building is clad with concrete
block and features a flat roof.
The main (east) elevation of the
building features a recessed
entry point that is offset to the
north of the façade. The main
elevation also features a
wooden pergola that is
supported with concrete
columns with a poured concrete
walkway. The building also
features one of the two sunken
gardens on campus, which is
located to the east of building.
2010: Reroof of
building with
spray foam
Date unknown:
Addition of the
lockers, reroof of
the building,
addition of door
to building facing
Emerson and
replacement of
rotted wood on
the exterior trellis
system.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-11
Table 6-1
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Swimming Pool
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
2001 Unknown The current swimming pool, the
third pool built at the same
location, was installed in 2001.
There have been
no significant
changes to the
pool since its
installation in
2001.
Pool Storage Building
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
2001 Unknown The small, 1-story, flat-roofed,
brick-veneer pool storage
building is used for chemical
and pool equipment storage.
There are no
known
alterations.
Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and Athletic Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
2008 Kornberg
and
Associates
The 2-story gymnasium is
roughly rectangular in plan with
a flat roof and is clad in stucco
and wood shingles. The
building is accessed by a glass
entryway offset to the east
There are no
known
alterations.
Source: Appendix D
Previously Recorded Resources
The Northwest Information Center records identified 29 resources within the 1-mile search radius.
The closest resources are 1215 Emerson Street (a single family residence adjacent to the northwest
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-12
corner of the project area found eligible for the NRHP as an individual property through survey
evaluation); a historic utility pole approximately 100 feet to the south of the project area (P-43-
0002809, not eligible for the NRHP) and the Professorville Historic District (P-43-000551, NRHP
Listed District), located adjacent to the project area, on the north side of Embarcadero Road. Refer
to the Cultural Resources Study in Appendix D for information regarding additional resources
known to occur within one mile of the Castilleja School project site.
6.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. Several laws and
regulations at the federal and state level govern archaeological and historic resources deemed to
have scientific, historic, or cultural value. The pertinent regulatory framework, as it applies to the
proposed project, is summarized in the following text.
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by state offices
for their historical significance at the local, state, or national level. Properties listed in the NRHP,
or determined eligible for listing, must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess
integrity of form, location, and setting. Under Section 106 of the act and its implementing
regulations, federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their actions, or those they fund
or permit, on properties that may be eligible for listing or that are listed in the NRHP. The
regulations in 36 CFR 60.4 describe the criteria to evaluate cultural resources for inclusion in the
NRHP. Properties may be listed in the NRHP if they possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and they:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history;
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
These factors are known as Criteria A, B, C, and D.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-13
In addition, the resource must be at least 50 years old, except in exceptional circumstances. Eligible
properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrity, which is measured by the
degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character,
the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of the changes to the
property. Archaeological sites are evaluated under Criterion D, which concerns the potential to
yield information important in prehistory or history.
The residential building at 1263 Emerson Street (Lockey house) was determined potentially eligible in
1998 for listing on the CRHR, but was not found to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further analysis,
conducted by Dudek’s architectural historian in 2017 on behalf of the City of Palo Alto (Appendix D),
determined the Lockey house was ineligible for CRHR because the home no longer retains integrity
of its original design. The residence at 1215 Emerson Street, which is immediately adjacent to the
project site, was found in 1998 to be eligible for the NRHP (and therefore also eligible for the CRHR).
State Regulations
California Register of Historical Resources
California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1, authorizes the establishment of the CRHR. Any
identified cultural resources must therefore be evaluated against the CRHR criteria. In order to be
determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, a property must be significant at the local, state, or
national level under one or more of the four significance criteria, modeled on the NRHP. In order
to be determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, a property must be significant at the national,
state, or local level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of the history and cultural heritage of California and the United States.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history
of the state and the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a significant property must also retain
integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character
to convey the reason(s) for their significance. Integrity is judged in relation to location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-14
California Public Resources Code
Sections 5097–5097.6 of the California Public Resources Code indicate that the unauthorized
disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public
lands is a misdemeanor. It prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a
permit on public lands, and it provides for criminal sanctions. This section was amended in 1987
to require consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) whenever Native
American graves are found. Violations for taking or possessing remains or artifacts are felonies.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 states that “a person shall not knowingly and
willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins,
burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,
inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or
historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency
having jurisdiction over the lands.”
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods,
regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those
remains. The California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are
discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the
site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the county
coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5b). If the coroner determines or has reason to
believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24
hours (Section 7050.5c). The NAHC will notify the most likely descendant. With the permission of
the landowner, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be
completed within 24 hours of notification of the most likely descendant by the NAHC. The most
likely descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and items associated with Native Americans.
California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), public agencies must
consider the effects of their actions on both historical resources and unique archaeological
resources. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects
would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.”
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-15
“Historical resource” has a precise, specialized meaning as defined in the CEQA statute (see
California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1, and 14 CCR 15064.5(a) and 15064.5(b)). The
term embraces any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. The
CRHR includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well
as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest.
Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance
(local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources
inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be “historical resources”
for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (California Public
Resources Code, Section 5024.1, and 14 CCR 4850). Unless a resource listed in a survey has been
demolished or has lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that
it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource potentially eligible
for the CRHR.
In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially impacted by a proposed project
are listed or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate
them against the CRHR criteria as discussed previously, prior to making a finding as to a proposed
project’s impacts to historical resources (California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1, and
14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3)). The fact that a resource is not listed or determined to be eligible for listing
does not preclude a lead agency from determining that it may be a historical resource (California
Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1, and 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(4)).
CEQA also distinguishes between two classes of archaeological resources: archaeological sites
that meet the definition of a historical resource, as described previously, and unique archaeological
resources. Under CEQA, an archaeological resource is considered “unique” if it:
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and
there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person (California Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2(g)).
CEQA states that if a proposed project would result in an impact that might cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, then an EIR must be prepared and
mitigation measures and alternatives must be considered. A “substantial adverse change” in the
significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical
resource would be materially impaired (14 CCR 15064.5(b)(1)).
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-16
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5(c)) also provide specific guidance on the treatment of
archaeological resources, depending on whether they meet the definition of a historical resource
or a unique archaeological resource. If the site meets the definition of a unique archaeological
resource, it must be treated in accordance with the provisions of California Public Resources Code,
Section 21083.2.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(e), requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever
human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the
county coroner determines that the remains are those of Native Americans, the NAHC must be
contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native
Americans, if any, as identified in a timely manner by the NAHC. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines directs the lead agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop an
agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Senate Bill 297
SB 297 addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects
such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be
implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction; and
establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. The
provisions of SB 297 have been incorporated into Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires consultation with Native American tribes traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the geographic area in which a project requiring CEQA review is
proposed if those tribes have requested to be informed of such proposed projects. The intention of
such consultation is to avoid adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. This law is in addition to
existing legislature protecting archaeological resources associated with California Native
American tribes. AB 52 applies to all projects initiating environmental review in or after July 2015.
However, no tribes have requested consultation in accordance with AB 52 for projects within the
City of Palo Alto, thus the City is not obligated to notify or consult with any tribes in regards to
the proposed project...
Local Regulations
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code – Historic Preservation (Chapter 16.49)
In adopting Section 16.49.010 (“Purpose”) of the City Municipal Code, the City found that the
protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures, districts, and neighborhoods of
historical and architectural significance located within the City are of cultural and aesthetic benefit
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-17
to the community. The City further found that respecting the City’s heritage would support the
City’s economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing. According to Section 16.49.010, the purposes of
the City’s Historic Preservation chapter are to:
(a) Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those historic structures,
districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage
of Palo Alto;
(b) Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;
(c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures,
districts and neighborhoods;
(d) Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such structures;
(e) Enrich the educational and cultural dimensions of human life by serving aesthetic as
well as material needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past;
(f) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city;
(g) Establish special requirements so as to assure the preservation and the satisfactory
maintenance of significant historic structures within the downtown area.
Historic Resource Designation Criteria
In accordance with Section 16.49.404(b) of the City Municipal Code, the following criteria, along
with the definitions of historic categories and districts in Section 16.49.020, shall be used as criteria
for designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory:
(1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important
events in the city, state or nation;
(2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way
of life important to the city, state or nation;
(3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common,
but is now rare;
(4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common,
but is now rare;
(5) The architect or building was important;
(6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-18
City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory
The City’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.
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The City’s Comprehensive Plan provides specific policies for preserving historic and
archaeological resources. The Land Use and Community Design Element emphasizes the value
and importance of the sustainable management of archaeological resources as well as historic
buildings and places (City of Palo Alto 2007).
The Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides general
guidelines for the treatment of archaeological resources. In general, these guidelines correspond
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic
Preservation (48 FR 44720–44726)) and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (1995). In addition to these standards and
guidelines, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element specifies,
“using the archaeological sensitivity map [Figure L-8] in the Comprehensive Plan as a guide,
continue to assess the need for archaeological surveys and mitigation plans on a project basis,
consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Historic Preservation
Act” (City of Palo Alto 2007).
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-19
6.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Methods of Analysis
A records search along with a pedestrian survey of the site was conducted in February 2017 by
Dudek’s architectural historians Samantha Murray, MA, Sarah Corder, MFA, and Kara Dotter,
MSHP, who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural
history, and Dudek archaeologists Adam Giacinto, MA, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA),
and William Burns, MSc, RPA. The results of these searches and surveys are included in the
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,
California (Appendix D). The survey also included consultation with the NAHC and a sacred lands
file search. No Native American cultural resources were identified within the survey area. This
research established the historic context and derived locations of other resources that may exist or
have existed within the project area.
Although the project-specific impact analysis for cultural resources necessarily includes separate
analyses for prehistoric resources, historic-period resources, and human remains, the cumulative
analysis combines these resources into a single resource base and considers the additive effect of
project-specific impacts to significant regional impacts on cultural resources.
Significance Criteria
Potential impacts associated with cultural resources have been evaluated using the following
criteria, based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The proposed
project would have a potentially significant impact related to cultural resources if it would:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
An adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource is one that would
disturb, damage, or destroy the resource, while the disturbance of damage would reduce or eliminate
the potential for the resource to yield important information and context regarding history.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-20
Impact Analysis
IMPACT 6-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical or archeological resource.
SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant
MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation Measures 6a and 6b
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION: Less than Significant
In preparation of the Cultural Resources Study, Dudek completed an extensive archival research
and intensive pedestrian survey of the Castilleja School. It found that the campus contains one
historical resource: the Administration/Chapel building, which is currently listed as a Category 3
building on the City’s inventory of historic resources; listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s
Historical Resources Inventory with a status code 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local
listing or designation). The report states that while the campus conveys its original plan on the
most basic level, all other buildings/features on campus were found to be ineligible for either
individual listing or as a contributing element of a historic district. Only buildings and structures
over 45 years old were evaluated for historical significance. Table 6-2 provides a summary of
findings for all buildings/features on campus.
Table 6-2
Castilleja School Buildings
Component Year Built Findings
Gunn Family Administration Center
Building/ Elizabeth Hughes Chapel
Theater
1910/1926 Locally listed (Category 3)
Circle greenspace feature 1910 Not eligible
Arrillaga Family Campus Center 1960–1962 Not eligible
Rhoades Hall 1965–1967 Not eligible
Maintenance Building 1960 Not eligible
Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center 1980 Not eligible
Swimming Pool 2001 Not eligible
Pool Storage Building 2001 Not eligible
Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and Athletic
Center
2008 Not eligible
1263 Emerson Street (Lockey House) 1912 Not eligible
1235 Emerson Street 1979 Not eligible
Source: Appendix D
The proposed project does not include any alterations to the Gunn Family Administration Center
Building/ Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater. The project proposes to demolish the existing
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-21
classroom building, which is adjacent to the Administration Center. A new academic building
would be constructed in generally the same location as the existing classroom building, but it
would be located approximately 50 feet to the south of the Administration Center as shown on
Figure 3-6, Site Plan, in Chapter 3, Project Description and Figure 4-2, Building Elevations, in
Chapter 4, Land Use and Planning. This would improve the visibility of the Administration Center
from Bryant Street. Thus the project would have no adverse effects on the historic significance
and integrity of the Administration Center and Chapel Theater.
The residence located at 1215 Emerson Street, which is adjacent to the project site, is a historic
resource that is eligible for listing on the NRHP due to its association with an important political
figure in Palo Alto from 1918 to 1936. The proposed project would not alter any portion of the
property that supports this resource. It would demolish the nearest adjacent residence, but the
determination of historic significance and integrity of the building at 1215 Emerson Street is not
dependent on the presence of adjacent or nearby structures; and the adjacent residence that is
proposed to be demolished was constructed in 1979, which is outside the period of significance
for 1215 Emerson Street (Appendix D).
Demolition and construction activities would occur in close proximity to the Administrative
Center/Chapel Theater building and could result in inadvertent damage to the structure. Similarly
the residence located at 1215 Emerson Street could be inadvertently damaged during project
construction. The discussion under Impact 8-3 in Chapter 8, Noise, demonstrates that the project
does not include activities that generate the highest levels of vibration, such as blasting and pile
driving, and the anticipated levels of vibration resulting from project construction are not
anticipated to adversely affect any adjacent historic resources. However, the historic buildings
could be adversely affected by dust, debris, and damage from accidental contact with construction
equipment. Thus the project would result in a potentially significant impact to these historic
buildings. Mitigation Measure 6a requires the development and approval of a preservation
protection plan for each phase of construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6a,
the proposed project will have a less-than-significant impact on historical resources.
Because of the prevalence of archeological resources in the area, there is a potential for earth-
moving activities to disturb previously unknown archeological resources. No archeological
resources were identified during the record searches or surveys. However, it is possible that earth-
moving construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could disturb archeological
resources, if any occurred on site, thus the project would result in a potentially significant impact
to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure 6b would require the education of construction
workers on archeological resources and the steps to take in the event of the discovery of any
previously unrecorded resource. With implementation of the Mitigation Measure 6b, the proposed
project will have a less than significant impact to archeological resources.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-22
IMPACT 6-2 Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
SIGNIFICANCE: Less than Significant
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION: Less than Significant
Because of the prevalence of dedicated burials in prehistoric and historic periods in the area, there
is a potential for earth-moving activities to disturb human remains. No burial sites or cemeteries
were identified during the record searches or surveys. However, it is possible that earth-moving
construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could disturb human remains, if any
dedicated burials occurred on site. In the event any human remains are discovered, the project
contractor is required to comply with Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code,
which specifies the following protocol when human remains are discovered:
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other
than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until
the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has
determined … the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the
recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have
been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized
representative, in the manner provided in section 5097.98 of the Public Resources
Code.
All construction contractors would be required as a matter of law to follow the protocols set forth
by the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code in the event human remains
are discovered. This would ensure that any human remains are not adversely affected by project
construction and the impact would remain less than significant.
IMPACT 6-3 Contribute to a cumulative loss of cultural resources.
SIGNIFICANCE: No Impact
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION: No Impact
Archaeological Resources
Because all significant archaeological resources and human remains are unique and non-renewable
members of finite classes, all adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base.
The loss of any one archaeological site affects all others in a region, because the cultural setting
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-23
context for a given region is a reflection of all the cultural resources in that region and these
resources are best understood in the context of the entirety of the cultural system of which they are
a part. Cultural resources could therefore be a cumulatively considerable impact to archaeological
resources if any cultural resources (including subsurface and surface archaeological resources) are
disturbed and/or destroyed.
For the analysis of cumulative impacts to archaeological resources, the geographic area is the City
of Palo Alto. Development under the cumulative scenario in this area is expected to include
buildout of the City of Palo Alto General Plan and the individual projects described in Chapter 4,
Land Use, of this EIR.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, state law, and federal law require that archaeological resources
be preserved in place whenever feasible, and require resources that cannot be preserved be properly
recorded, evaluated, and curated. Therefore, although development is anticipated in the region and
could occur in proximity to known archaeological resource sites, compliance with the applicable
state and federal regulations and general plan policies would ensure that no loss of archaeological
resources and research potential would occur in the cumulative scenario. The project-specific
potential impacts would remain less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures
6a and 6b. This would ensure that the project would comply with the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and applicable state and federal regulations. As the cumulative impact would
remain less than significant, there is no cumulative impact to which the project could contribute.
Historic Resources
For the analysis of cumulative impacts to historic resources, the geographic area is the City of Palo
Alto. The Comprehensive Plan EIR concluded that “Development allowed by the proposed Plan,
in combination with other future development in the city and the region, has the potential to cause
adverse cumulative cultural resource impacts, which would be a significant impact.” However,
the Comprehensive Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR, the cumulative impacts to historic resources would be
reduced to a less than significant level. Thus there is no significant cumulative impact to which
the project could contribute.
As discussed in Chapter 4, there are several projects in the City that include modifications to
historic buildings. The City’s Historic Review Board has the authority to review and make
recommendations on any project that has a potential to affect a historic resource, and the
Comprehensive Plan encourages protection of all historic resources, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan EIR mitigation measures. Similarly, the Castilleja School Project would
prevent disturbance of historical resources consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 6a. This would ensure that the project would comply with
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-24
the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and applicable state and federal regulations. Therefore,
the recently approved and pending projects in the cumulative scenario, including the proposed
Castilleja School Project, would be consistent with the analysis in the Comprehensive Plan EIR,
and impacts to historic resources in the cumulative scenario would remain less than significant.
6.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 6a A protection plan shall be implemented for the
Administration/Chapel Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson Street
during proposed new construction and renovation activities to prevent damage to
these structures. A clear and concise preservation protection plan shall be developed
to provide these details. The protection plan shall be prepared by a qualified historic
preservation specialist and shall be appended to the final set of construction plans for
each construction phase. At a minimum, the protection plan shall include the
following:
Protective fencing shall be installed approximately 15 feet from the perimeter of
the Administration/Chapel Theater building and from the southern and eastern
property lines of the residence at 1215 Emerson Street, or a lesser distance if
recommended by a qualified historic preservation specialist. All construction
workers shall be instructed to keep all people, materials, and equipment outside
of the areas surrounded by protective fencing. The protective fencing shall consist
of brightly-colored mesh fencing at least four feet in height. The mesh shall be
mounted on six-foot tall poles, with at least two feet below ground, and spaced a
maximum of six feet apart.
Material and equipment delivery and stockpile areas shall be identified on the
protection plan, and shall be located as far as practicable from the
Administration/Chapel Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson
Street.
If cranes are used to install buildings or building components, no materials or
structures shall be suspended above or within 30 feet measured horizontally from
the exterior walls of the Administration/Chapel Theater building and the
residence at 1215 Emerson Street.
For demolition of the existing Classroom building, the protection plan shall
document the specific nature of demolition activities that would occur on any
portion of the building that touches or is within 25 feet of the
Administration/Chapel Theater building and provide recommendations for
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-25
equipment usage and demolition techniques that will avoid adverse effects to the
Administration/Chapel Theater building.
The protection plan shall prescribe measures for containment of dust during
demolition, excavation, and construction. This may include wetting soils and
materials to prevent wind-blown dust; covering exposed materials, soil, and
unfinished buildings; and use of temporary barriers to prevent any wind-blown
dust from reaching historic structures.
Mitigation Measure 6b Prior to initiation of construction for each construction phase, all
construction crew members, consultants, and other personnel shall receive project-
specific Cultural Resource Awareness training. The training shall be conducted in
coordination with qualified cultural resource specialists and shall inform project
personnel of the potential to encounter sensitive archaeological material. In the
event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring
within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist,
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can
evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether additional study is
warranted. Prehistoric archaeological deposits may be indicated by the presence of
discolored or dark soil, fire-affected material, concentrations of fragmented or
whole marine shell, burned or complete bone, non-local lithic materials, or the
characteristic observed to be atypical of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric
artifacts may include modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that
appeared to have been used for chopping, drilling, or grinding; projectile points;
fired clay ceramics or non-functional items; and other items. Historic-age deposits
are often indicated by the presence of glass bottles and shards, ceramic material,
building or domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as concrete
foundations or privies. Depending upon the significance of the find under CEQA
(14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the
find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA,
additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or
data recovery may be warranted and would be implemented if recommended by the
qualified archeologist.
6.5 REFERENCES CITED
Menlo Park, City of. 2018. Menlo Park History. https://www.menlopark.org/888/Menlo-Park-
history. Accessed October 8, 2018.
6 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 6-26
Palo Alto, City of. 2016. Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915.
Palo Alto, City of. 2017. Our Palo Alto 2030: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915.
Palo Alto, City of. 2019. History of Palo Alto. March 25, 2019.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/historic_preservation/history_of_palo_alto.asp
Cultural Resources Study for the
Castilleja School Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Contact: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Prepared by:
Samantha Murray, MA, Sarah Corder, MFA, Kara Dotter, MSHP,
William Burns, MSc, RPA, and Adam Giacinto, MA, RPA
853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208
Auburn, CA 95603
MARCH 2019
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
i March 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... V
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................2
1.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Project Description.................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................ 10
1.3.1 State........................................................................................................... 10
1.3.2 Local ......................................................................................................... 13
2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH .......................................................................................16
2.1 CHRIS Records Search ......................................................................................... 16
2.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies ................................... 16
2.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources .................................................. 21
2.2 Native American Coordination ............................................................................. 24
2.3 Geomorphology .................................................................................................... 25
2.4 Building Development and Archival Research ..................................................... 27
2.4.1 Castilleja School ....................................................................................... 27
2.4.2 Palo Alto Historical Association ............................................................... 27
2.4.3 City of Palo Alto Property Research ......................................................... 27
2.4.4 Historic Aerial and Topographical Map Review ...................................... 27
3 HISTORIC CONTEXT ...................................................................................................28
3.1 City of Palo Alto Historical Overview.................................................................. 28
3.1.1 School Development in Palo Alto............................................................. 30
3.1.2 Castilleja School History .......................................................................... 31
4 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY ..........................................................................48
4.1 Methods................................................................................................................. 48
4.2 Description of Surveyed Resources ...................................................................... 48
5 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ..................................................................................56
5.1 California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation Criteria .......................... 60
5.2 City of Palo Alto Evaluation Criteria.................................................................... 63
5.3 Integrity Considerations ........................................................................................ 64
5.4 Summary of Conclusions ...................................................................................... 66
6 IMPACTS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................68
6.1 Identified Impacts ................................................................................................. 68
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page No.
10056
ii March 2019
6.1.1 Direct Impacts ........................................................................................... 68
6.1.2 Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................ 68
6.2 Recommended Mitigation ..................................................................................... 69
7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................72
7.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 72
7.1.1 Built Environment ..................................................................................... 72
7.1.2 Archaeology .............................................................................................. 72
7.2 Management Recommendations ........................................................................... 72
7.2.1 Protection of Historical Resources During Demolition and Construction
Activities ................................................................................................... 72
7.2.2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources ........................... 73
7.2.3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains........................................... 73
8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................74
APPENDICES
A. CONFIDENTIAL Records Search Results
B. NAHC and Native American Coordination
C. DPR Form
FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Map ...........................................................................................................4
Figure 2 Local Vicinity ..........................................................................................................6
Figure 3 Aerial Map ...............................................................................................................8
Figure 4 Castilleja School 1910 (Croll and Pang 2007) .......................................................34
Figure 5 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map Showing Castilleja
School (Sanborn 1924) .........................................................................................37
Figure 6 1934 Map of Castilleja School ...............................................................................38
Figure 7 Drawing of the 1960s Construction Projects .........................................................39
Figure 8 Ely Fine Arts Center ..............................................................................................40
Figure 9 Castilleja School Eligibility Findings ....................................................................58
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
10056
i March 2019
TABLES
Table 1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the
Project Site .........................................................................................................................16
Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the Project Area ...................22
Table 3 Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed.......................................................49
Table 4 Castilleja School Buildings ...............................................................................................56
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
ii March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
iii March 2019
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
City City of Palo Alto
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
MA Master of Arts
MFA Master of Fine Arts
MSHP Master of Science in Historic Preservation
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
PRC California Public Resources Code
RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
iv March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
v March 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a cultural resources study for the
Castilleja Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit (proposed project). The proposed project
would allow for an increase in student enrollment and expand the existing campus by demolishing
existing buildings, constructing a new building and a new below-grade parking structure, and
increasing the amount of open space.
This initial submittal for the cultural resources study includes a records search of the proposed project
site plus a 1-mile radius, Native American coordination, a pedestrian survey of the project site for
cultural resources, archival and building development research for buildings located within the
project site, and evaluation of buildings for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and
City register eligibility. When complete, the cultural resources study report will also include an
assessment of impacts to historical resources in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and management and mitigation recommendations.
For this initial submittal, all buildings and structures within the proposed project site that were
constructed at least 45 years ago were photographed, researched, and evaluated in consideration
of CRHR and City designation criteria and integrity requirements. Consideration of potential
impacts to historical resources under CEQA will be presented in the complete cultural resources
study report.
As a result of the significance evaluation, including consideration of CRHR and City evaluation
criteria and integrity requirements, the Castilleja School campus was found not eligible for
designation as a historic district due to the fact that most of the campus has been significantly
altered from its original appearance. Further, all of the 1960s buildings and the two residential
properties were found not eligible at the individual level due to a lack of important historical
associations and compromised integrity. However, the Administration/Chapel building appears to
remain eligible for listing on City’s local register as a Category 3 (Contributing Building).
As a result of these findings, the Administration/Chapel building is considered an historical
resource under CEQA. As such, the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact
historical resources. However, these impacts can be mitigated below a level of significance (see
Section 7.2.1).
No archaeological resources were identified within the project site or immediate vicinity as a
result of the CHRIS records search or Native American coordination. However, it is always
possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels. Therefore, standard
protection measures for archaeological resources and human remains are provided.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
1 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
2 March 2019
INTRODUCTION
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a cultural resources study for the
Castilleja Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit (proposed project). The cultural resources
study will include the following components: (1) a California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS) records search covering the proposed project site plus a 1-mile radius at the
Northwest Information Center (NWIC), (2) a review of the California Native American Heritage
Commission’s (NAHC’s) Sacred Lands File, (3) outreach with local Native American
tribes/groups identified by the NAHC to collect any information they may have concerning
cultural resources, (4) a pedestrian survey of the project site for cultural resources, (5) archival
and building development research for buildings located within the project site, (6) the
evaluation of buildings for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and City of Palo
Alto register eligibility, and (7) consideration of impacts on historical resources in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This initial submittal of the cultural resources study report was prepared by Dudek architectural
historians Samantha Murray, MA, Sarah Corder, MFA, and Kara Dotter, MSHP, who meet the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history, and Dudek
archaeologists Adam Giacinto, MA, Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), and William
Burns, MSc, RPA.
1.1 Project Location
The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja School, located at 1310 Bryant Street in the
City of Palo Alto, San Clara County, California. The project site is bounded by Bryant Street to the
northeast, Kingsley Avenue to the northwest, Kellogg Avenue to the southeast, and Emerson Street
to the southwest (Figures 1-3).
1.2 Project Description
Castilleja School is an all-girls private school in Palo Alto that has been educating 6th- to 12th-grade
girls since 1907 and has been located at the current site since 1910. The school’s facilities include
administrative buildings, a chapel theater, classrooms, a gymnasium, a pool, an aboveground parking
area, a playing area, and a track. Castilleja has submitted applications to the City for preliminary
review of a tentative map and amendment of the school’s Conditional Use Permit to allow for
increased enrollment. To accommodate the increased enrollment, Castilleja proposes to demolish
several of the existing buildings within the campus and construct a new underground parking
structure, a new swimming pool, and a new classroom building.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
3 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Milpitas
SanJose
MountainView
PaloAlto
Gilroy
Campbell
LosBanos
Atwater
Turlock
Modesto
Salida
Oakdale
Ceres
SanRamon
BlackhawkDanville
Moraga
Town
Alamo
DiscoveryBay
Orinda
Lafayette WalnutCreek
Clayton Brentwood
PleasantHill
OakleyConcord
Carmel ValleyVillage
DelMonteForestMontereySeaside
Marina
PrunedaleElkhorn
Salinas
Hollister
AptosHills-Larkin
Valley Interlaken
SantaCruz
SoquelAptos Corralitos
Felton Day
Valley
ScottsValley
BenLomond
BoulderCreek MorganHill
Lexington
Hills
SanJose
LosGatos
Saratoga
Cupertino
LosAltosHills
LosAltos SantaClaraSunnyvale
PortolaValley
Woodside
Atherton
SanCarlosHalfMoonBay
MenloPark
BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity
Montara Hillsborough SanMateo
FosterCity
Burlingame
San Bruno
Pacifica
South SanFrancisco
SanFrancisco
NewarkFremont
Union City
Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore
DublinSanLeandroCastroValley
Alameda
Oakland
Berkeley
Antioch
VineHill
Richmond
BethelIslandMartinezPittsburg
WestPittsburg
Pinole
Rodeo
Hercules
Manteca
Linden
Stockton
Lodi
Lockeford
Tracy
Lathrop
Mill Valley
SanRafael
Lagunitas-ForestKnolls
Lucas Valley-Marinwood
Inverness
Novato
Benicia
Vallejo
Santa C
r
u
z
County
Santa Clara County
Merce
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
San MateoCounty
San Francisco County
MarinCounty
Co
n
t
r
a
C
o
s
t
a
Co
u
n
t
y
St
a
n
i
s
l
a
u
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
Contra Costa
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sacramento County
Fresn
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Mo
Sa
n
Be
San B
e
n
i
t
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Merc
e
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
as
C
o
u
n
t
y
Cal
a
v
e
r
a
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
Merced C
o
u
n
t
y
Me
r
c
e
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
Montere
y
County
San Benito County
Santa
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Santa
C
r
u
z
C
o
u
n
t
y
Santa Clara County
Stanislau
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sta
St
a
n
i
s
l
a
u
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
aq
u
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
San J
o
a
q
u
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sa
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
Stanis
l
a
u
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
Santa CruzCounty
San Mateo County Alameda Coun
t
y
Alameda County
Ala
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sa
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
Pacific
Ocean
35
165
219
49
183
185
237
160
129
88
108
9
99
68
130
156
12
84
92
26
120
140
33
25
152
4
132
1
101
880
280
205
238
5
680
580
Regional Map
FIGURE 1
Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study
Da
t
e
:
1
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
t
f
r
i
e
s
e
n
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
.
m
x
d
Project Site
02010Miles
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
5 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
82
101
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study
SOURCE: ESRI 2015
Da
t
e
:
1
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
t
f
r
i
e
s
e
n
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
2
_
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
m
x
d
0 2,0001,000 Feet
Project Site
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
7 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Aerial Map
Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Initial Study
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2015
Da
t
e
:
1
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
t
f
r
i
e
s
e
n
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
I
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
3
_
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
0 200100Feet Project Site Boundary
Figure 3
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
9 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
10 March 2019
1.3 Regulatory Setting
This section includes a discussion of the applicable state laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during construction
of the proposed project.
1.3.1 State
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Public Resources Code,
Section 5020 et seq.)
In California, the term “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, “any object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically
significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural,
educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public
Resources Code (PRC), Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the
CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s
historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and
feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing
resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously
established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
enumerated below. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered
historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the
following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed
to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A
resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be
demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14
CCR 4852(d)(2)).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
11 March 2019
The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and
historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and
properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in
the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties
designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
California Environmental Quality Act
As described further, the following CEQA statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA
Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic,
and tribal cultural resources:
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.”
PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines “historical
resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource”; it also defines the circumstances
when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource.
PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.”
PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and
steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any
location other than a dedicated ceremony.
PRC Sections 21083.2(b) and 21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide
information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources,
including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures. Preservation in place is
the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it
maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also
help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the
archaeological site(s).
More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it
may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC
Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5(b)). If a site is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or
included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical
resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(q)), it is an “historical
resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (PRC
Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a
resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section
21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5(a)).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
12 March 2019
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a
significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an
historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR 15064.5(b)(1); PRC Section
5020.1(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a
project does any of the following:
(1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its
inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
(2) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of
the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically
or culturally significant; or
(3) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance
and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as
determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(b)(2)).
Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site
contains any “historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical
significance is materially impaired.
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource,
the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to
be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left
undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2(a)–(c)).
Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object,
or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body
of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions
and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the
best available example of its type.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
13 March 2019
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or
historic event or person (PRC Section 21083.2(g)).
Impacts on nonunique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant
environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2(a); 14 CCR 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a
nonunique archaeological resource qualifies as a tribal cultural resource (PRC Sections 21074(c)
and 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies
procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these
procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods,
regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those
remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are
discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of
the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the county
coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5(b)). PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the
process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the coroner determines or has
reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC
within 24 hours (Section 7050.5(c)). NAHC will notify the “most likely descendant.” With the
permission of the landowner, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The
inspection must be completed within 48 hours of notification of the most likely descendant by
NAHC. The most likely descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.
1.3.2 Local
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code – Historic Preservation (Chapter 16.49)
In adopting Section 16.49.010 (“Purpose”) of the City Municipal Code, the City found that the
protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of structures, districts, and neighborhoods of
historical and architectural significance located within the City are of cultural and aesthetic
benefit to the community. The City further found that respecting the City’s heritage would
support the City’s economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing. According to Section 16.49.010,
the purposes of the City’s Historic Preservation chapter are to:
(a) Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those historic structures,
districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the cultural and aesthetic heritage
of Palo Alto;
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
14 March 2019
(b) Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;
(c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures,
districts and neighborhoods;
(d) Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such structures;
(e) Enrich the educational and cultural dimensions of human life by serving aesthetic as
well as material needs and fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past;
(f) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city;
(g) Establish special requirements so as to assure the preservation and the satisfactory
maintenance of significant historic structures within the downtown area.
Historic Resource Designation Criteria
In accordance with Section 16.49.404(b) of the City Municipal Code, the following criteria,
along with the definitions of historic categories and districts in Section 16.49.020, shall be used
as criteria for designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory:
(1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with
important events in the city, state or nation;
(2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way
of life important to the city, state or nation;
(3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common,
but is now rare;
(4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common,
but is now rare;
(5) The architect or building was important;
(6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.
City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory
The City’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
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
15 March 2019
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.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
16 March 2019
2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
2.1 CHRIS Records Search
Dudek requested a CHRIS records search from the NWIC, which houses cultural resources
records for Santa Clara County. Dudek received the results on February 20, 2017. The search
included any previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a 1-mile radius of
the project site. The CHRIS search also included a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the
California Inventory of Historic Resources, the Office of Historic Preservation Historic
Properties Directory, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and other
ethnographic resources. A letter from the NWIC summarizing the results of the records search,
maps of previously recorded resources and previously conducted studies, and a bibliography of
prior cultural resources studies is provided in Confidential Appendix A of this report.
2.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies
The NWIC records indicate that 43 cultural resources investigations have been conducted within
1 mile of the project site. Of these, three studies have overlapped a portion of the project site
(S-033061, S-041536, and S-029573). A summary of these studies is provided in the following
paragraphs. Table 1 presents a record of all previously conducted studies identified as a result of
the records search.
Table 1
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project Site
NWIC
Report No. Title of Study Author(s) Date
Proximity to
Project Site
S-003163 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed
Dumbarton Bridge Replacement Project (letter report)
Stephen A.
Dietz
1973 Outside
S-004511 Cultural Resources Survey, 04-SCL-82, Proposed Lane
Widening at Quarry Road and Route 82, P.M. 26.2
04220-402291
Cindy
Desgrandchamp
1978 Outside
S-008647 Reconnaissance of the grounds surrounding the Palo Alto
Southern Pacific Depot, Red Cross, and Veterans
buildings (letter report).
William Roop 1979 Outside
S-009487 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Proposed Site of the
Stanford University Psychiatric Center for the
Archaeological Element for the Quarry Road General
Plan Amendment
Robert Cartier 1987 Outside
S-011396 Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the
Proposed WTG-WEST Inc., Los Angeles to San
Francisco and Sacramento, California: Fiber Optic Cable
Project
Biosystems
Analysis Inc.
1989 Outside
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
17 March 2019
Table 1
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project Site
NWIC
Report No. Title of Study Author(s) Date
Proximity to
Project Site
S-020523 Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Mobile
Services Facility SF-533-07, Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California (letter report)
Barry A. Price 1998 Outside
S-020550 Cultural Resources Assessment, Pacific Bell Mobile
Services Facility SF-614-03, Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California (letter report)
Barry A. Price 1998 Outside
S-021146 Findings of Effect (No Effect), Palo Alto Transit Center
Improvements, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County
Basin Research
Associates Inc.
1997 Outside
S-022157 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Property at 955 Alma
Street in the City of Palo Alto, California (letter report)
Robert Cartier 1999 Outside
S-022183 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Property at 200
Hamilton Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, California
Robert Cartier 1999 Outside
S-022359 Archaeological Monitoring at 168 University Avenue, Palo
Alto, California (letter report)
Hannah Ballard 2000 Outside
S-022649 Archaeological Testing Program for the Property at 200
Hamilton Avenue in the City of Palo Alto, California
Robert Cartier 2000 Outside
S-023900 Cultural Resources Investigation for Stanford University
Athletics Department Lighting Plan, Santa Clara County
Barbra Siskin 2001 Outside
S-025174 Cultural Resources Report for San Bruno to Mountain
View Internodal Level 3 Fiber Optics Project in San
Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California
John Holson,
Cordelia Sutch,
and Stephanie
Pau
2002 Outside
S-026045 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey and
Inventory Report for the Metromedia Fiberoptic Cable
Project, San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin
Networks
Richard Carrico,
Theodore
Cooley, and
William
Eckhardt
2000 Outside
S-026088 Architectural/Historical Analysis for Cingular Site No. BA-
350-01: "First Baptist Church" (Palo Alto): Negative
Results (letter report)
Carolyn Losee 2002 Outside
S-029036 Archaeological Survey of Homer Avenue Pedestrian
Underpass for the City of Palo Alto. (letter report)
William Self 2004 Outside
S-029233 Nextel Communications Wireless Telecommunications
Service Facility-Santa Clara County, Nextel Site No. (CA-
0871A)/Oregon Expressway (letter report)
Lorna Billat 2000 Outside
S-029573 Final Report, Archaeological Survey and Record Search
for the Six Fluor Global Fiber Optic Segments, Mountain
View, Palo Alto, and San Mateo County, California
Jonathan
Goodrich
2000 Within
S-029657 Archaeological Inventory for the Caltrain Electrification
Program Alternative in San Francisco, San Mateo, and
Santa Clara Counties, California
Wendy J.
Nelson,
Tammara
Norton, Larry
Chiea, and
Reinhard Pribish
2002 Outside
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
18 March 2019
Table 1
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project Site
NWIC
Report No. Title of Study Author(s) Date
Proximity to
Project Site
S-029657 Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain Electrification
Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Rand F. Herbert 2002 Outside
S-029657 Historic Property Survey for the Proposed Caltrain
Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and
Santa Clara Counties, California
Parsons, JRP
Historical
Consulting
Services, Far
Western
Anthropological
Research Group
Inc.
2002 Outside
S-029657 FTA021021A; Caltrain Electrification Program, San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties
(Concurrence Correspondence)
Knox Mellon 2002 Outside
S-029657 Final Finding of Effect Amendment, Caltrain Electrification
Project, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Meta Bunse 2003 Outside
S-029657 Draft Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain Electrification
Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Rand F. Herbert 2001 Outside
S-030233 Cultural Resources Analysis for Cingular Wireless Site
BA-350-02, “California Avenue Caltrain Station,” Palo
Alto, California (letter report)
Carolyn Losee 2004 Outside
S-031911 Archaeological Monitoring for the Palo Alto Water
Facilities Project, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,
California (ESA #201490; PL# 1772-01) (letter report)
Elena Reese 2006 Outside
S-032169 Cultural Resource Assessment Report, Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Center Project (PAITC), Santa Clara
County, California
Leigh A. Martin 2006 Outside
S-033061 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and
Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project,
State of California
Nancy Sikes,
Cindy Arrington,
Bryon Bass,
Chris Corey,
Kevin Hunt,
Steve O'Neil,
Catherine
Pruett, Tony
Sawyer, Michael
Tuma, Leslie
Wagner, and
Alex Wesson
2006 Within
S-033475 Verizon Cellular Communications Tower Site--Palo Alto
Retail, 219 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Jason D. Jones 2006 Outside
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
19 March 2019
Table 1
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project Site
NWIC
Report No. Title of Study Author(s) Date
Proximity to
Project Site
S-035835 Finding of Effect (No Adverse Effect), Proposed
Modifications to the Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad
Depot in Palo Alto, California, FTA070326A
HNTB Corp 2007 Outside
S-035932 Records Search Results for AT&T Mobility Audit Site
CNU0770/13313/1-A, 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto,
Santa Clara County, California 94301 (letter report)
Carolyn Losee 2009 Outside
S-035997 Cultural Resource Assessment, Palo Alto Caltrain Transit
Center Project, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Curt Duke and
Korene Russell
2003 Outside
S-037859 New Tower (“NT”) Submission Packet, FCC Form 620,
Channing Avenue & Middlefield Road, CN3548.
Dana E.
Supernowicz
2011 Outside
S-039048 Historic Property Survey Report, Finding of Effect, 801-
875 Alma Street Mixed Use Projects, Palo Alto, Santa
Clara County, California
Basin Research
Associates and
Ward Hill
2008 Outside
S-039469 Historical Resources Compliance Report for the San
Mateo County SMART Corridors Project, Segment III,
Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and
Palo Alto, San Mateo County & Santa Clara County,
California; EA #4A9201; EFIS #0400001169, Caltrans
District 4; SR 82 PM SM 0/4.8, SCL 24.1/26.4; SR 84 PM
24.6/28.7; US 101 PM 0.7/5.5; SR 109 PM 1.10/1.87; SR
114 PM 5.0/5.93
Neal Kaptain 2012 Outside
S-039469 Archaeological Survey Report for the San Mateo County
SMART Corridors Project, Segment III, Redwood City,
Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and Palo Alto, San
Mateo County and Santa Clara County, California; EA
#4A9201; EFIS #0400001169; Caltrans District 4; SR 82
PM SM 0/4.8; SCL 24.1/26.4; SR 84 PM 24.6/28.7; US
101 PM 0.7/5.5; SR 109 PM 1.10/1.87; SR 114 PM
5.0/5.93
Neal Kaptain 2012 Outside
S-039469 Post-Review Discovery and Monitoring Plan for the San
Mateo County SMART Corridors Project, Segment III,
Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and
Palo Alto, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County,
California; EA #4A9201; EFIS #0400001169, Caltrans
District 4; SR 82 PM SM 0/4.8; SCL 24.1/26.4; SR 84 PM
24.6/28.7; US 101 PM 0.7/5.5; SR 109 PM 1.10/1.87; SR
114 PM 5.0/5.93
Neal Kaptain 2012 Outside
S-039643 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for T-Mobile West, LLC, Candidate SF15104A
(Channing House), 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto, Santa
Clara County, California (letter report)
Jessica Tudor
and Kathleen A.
Crawford
2012 Outside
S-039704 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for T-
Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF15104A (Channing
House), 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California (letter report)
Wayne H.
Bonner and
Kathleen A.
Crawford
2012 Outside
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
20 March 2019
Table 1
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project Site
NWIC
Report No. Title of Study Author(s) Date
Proximity to
Project Site
S-039718 Direct APE Historic Architectural Assessment for T-
Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF04614A (Stanford Inn),
531 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,
California (letter report)
Wayne H.
Bonner and
Kathleen A.
Crawford
2012 Outside
S-039735 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for T-Mobile West, LLC Candidate SF04614A
(Stanford Inn), 531 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa
Clara County, California (letter report)
Jessica Tudor
and Kathleen A.
Crawford
2012 Outside
S-040641 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
Results for T-Mobile West, LLC, Candidate SFO4340A
(BA340 101 Alma Building), 101 Alma Street, Palo Alto,
Santa Clara County, California (letter report)
Cher L.
Peterson and
Kathleen A.
Crawford
2012 Outside
S-041536 Final Survey Report, Palo Alto Historical Survey Update,
August 1997- August 2000
Michael Corbett
and Denise
Bradley
2012 Within
S-041600 Collocation (“CO”) Submission Packet, AT&T POLY 1 -
Outdoor DAS, Utility Poles Along Waverly Street, Lincoln
Avenue, Emerson Street, Bryant Street, Park Avenue,
Rinconada Avenue, Arrowhead Way, Dennis Way
Dana
Supernowicz
2001 Outside
S-041600 Cultural Resources Study of the Palo Alto ODAS Project,
Nodes P1N1B, P1N7A, P1N8A, P1N10B, P1N13A,
P1N14A, P1N16A, P1N16B, P1N21A, P1N29A, P1N34A,
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Historic
Resource
Associates
2012 Outside
S-043661 Archaeological Assessment for Prior Disturbance, First
Congregational Church of Palo Alto/CN3649, 1985 Louis
Road, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, CA, EBI Project
Number: 61110231, TCNS Number: 73072
Michael A. Way 2011 Outside
S-044034 AT&T Polygon 1 - Outdoor DAS Dana E.
Supernowicz
and Holly D.
Moore
2013 Outside
S-045231 Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Action Plan for the
Oregon-Pagemill Expressway Project Palo Alto,
California: 04-SCL-0-0-CR
Robert Cartier 2012 Outside
S-045231 Extended Phase I Excavation for CA-SCL-596 and C-434
for the Oregon-Pagemill Expressway Project, Palo Alto,
California, 04-SCL-0-0-CR
Robert Cartier 2012 Outside
S-046284 Archaeological Monitoring Report for Caltrain Base
Stations 6,7,8 and 9, Cities of San Mateo, Redwood City,
Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale, San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Michael Konzak 2014 Outside
S-047075 2555 Park Boulevard Historic American Building Survey
(HABS)-Style Documentation Palto Alto, California
(15172)
Ruth Todd and
Christina Dikas
2015 Outside
Note: NWIC = Northwest Information Center.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
21 March 2019
S-029573
In 2000, Pacific Legacy Inc. conducted a cultural resources survey of six fiber-optic segments,
one of which passes through the northeast perimeter of the project area. No new archaeological
resources were identified as a result of the survey. Pacific Legacy recommended no further
archaeological work in the vicinity of the current project area for the fiber-optic installation.
S-033061
In 2006, SWCA Environmental Consultants conducted a cultural resources inventory for a wide
network of fiber-optic cables, one of which passes through the southwest perimeter of the project
area. The study included a records search, a Sacred Lands File search, relocation of existing
sites, and a pedestrian survey of the project area. No cultural resources were identified in the
current project area as a result of the survey. SWCA Environmental Consultants recommended
archaeological and tribal monitoring when ground-disturbing maintenance work was being
performed on the fiber-optic cable in the vicinity of the current project area.
S-041536
In 2000, Dames & Moore completed an inventory of historical built environment resources
within Palo Alto for the City’s Planning Division. The inventory included reconnaissance and
intensive surveys, identification of new historic resources, updating of known built environment
resources, and evaluation of particular properties that appeared eligible for the NRHP. The
inventory did not identify any NRHP-eligible resources within the current project area.
2.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
According to the NWIC records, there are no previously recorded cultural resources located
within the project site. However, there is one known locally designated resource within the
project area that was not identified by the NWIC – the Administration/Chapel building on
campus. This resource is discussed in greater detail as part of the larger evaluation (Sections 4.2
and 5). The records search did identify 29 resources within the 1-mile search radius. A summary
of these resources is listed in Table 2. The next closest resources to the campus are 1215
Emerson Street (a single family residence adjacent to the northwest corner of the project area
found eligible for the NRHP as an individual property through survey evaluation); a historic
utility pole approximately 100 feet to the south of the project area (P-43-0002809, not eligible
for the NRHP) and the Professorville Historic District (P-43-000551, NRHP Listed District),
located adjacent to the project area, on the north side of Embarcadero Road.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
22 March 2019
Table 2
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the Project Area
Primary
Number Resource Description Year (Recorded by)
Proximity to
Project Area
P-43-000388 Historic Structure:
Hostess House / Palo
Alto Veterans Memorial
Building
1971 (Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors)
1971 (Fern B. Hunt, Palo Alto Historical Association)
1972 (Dorothy F. Regnery, Palo Alto Historical Association)
1978 ((none), (none))
1979 (J. Cooper, (none))
Outside
P-43-000389 Historic Structure: John
Adams Squire House /
Squire House
1973 (Gay Woolley, (none))
1978 ((none), (none))
1979 (J. Cooper, (none))
Outside
P-43-000397 Historic Structure: T.B.
Downing House
1978 ((none), (none))
1979 (Paula Boghosian and John Beach, Historic Environment
Consultants)
1981 (T. McGregor, (none))
1984 ((none), Basin Research Associates Inc.)
Outside
P-43-000454 Historic Structure:
Pettigrew House
1976 ((none), Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors)
1978 ((none), (none))
1980 (Birge M. Clark, Palo Alto Historical Association)
1981 (T. McGregor, Cabrillo College)
1984 ((none), Basin Research Associates Inc.)
Outside
P-43-000463 Historic Structure: U S
Post Office / Hamilton
Branch
1969 ((none), Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors)
1979 (Paula Boghosian, John Beach, Historic Environment
Consultants)
1979 (Paula Boghosian, John Beach, Historic Environment
Consultants)
1979 (Paula Boghosian, John Beach, Historic Environment
Consultants)
1981 (T. McGregor, Cabrillo College)
Outside
P-43-000551 Historic District:
Professorville Historic
District
1978 ((none), (none))
1979 (Paula Boghosian and John Beach, Historic Environment
Consultants)
1981 (T. McGregor, (none))
Outside
P-43-000552 Historic Structure:
Norris Residence
1986 (Barbara Bocek, Stanford University, Department of
Anthropology)
Outside
P-43-000593 Prehistoric: Bryant
Street, Habitation debris
1987 (Barbara Bocek, Stanford University) Outside
P-43-000617 Prehistoric: Emerson
Street, Habitation debris
1990 (Barbara Bocek, Stanford University) Outside
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
23 March 2019
Table 2
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the Project Area
Primary
Number Resource Description Year (Recorded by)
Proximity to
Project Area
P-43-000627 Prehistoric: South
Court, Habitation debris
1990 (John Snyder, Caltrans)
1994 (Glory Anne Laffey, Archives and Architecture)
1999 (J. Berg, S. Mikesell, Far Western)
2000 (Michael Corbett, Dames & Moore)
2000 (Bunse, McMorris, Rogers, JRP Historical Consulting
Services)
2000 (Theresa Rogers/Meta Bunse, JRP Historical Consulting
Services)
2002 (C. McMorris, A. Blosser, JRP Historical Consulting
Services)
2008 (Denise Jurich, Jesse Martinez, PBS&J)
2012 (Sunshine Psota, Holman & Associates)
Outside
P-43-000928 Historic Structure:
Southern Pacific
Railroad
1975 (Paula Puch) Outside
P-43-001137 Historic Structure: 1110
Hamilton Ave
(Katherine Cameron, Palo Alto Historical Society) Outside
P-43-001138 Historic Structure: Old
Delta Tau Delta
Fraternity House
2005 (Dana E. Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates) Outside
P-43-001735 Historic Structure: First
Congregational Church
of Palo Alto
2006 (Jason D. Jones, URS Corporation) Outside
P-43-001845 Historic Structure: 219
University Ave., Palo
Alto
2001 (Winslow Hastie, Carey & Co. Inc.)
2008 (Ward Hill, Basin Research Associates Inc.)
Outside
P-43-002204 Historic Structure: 801
Alma Street
2008 (Ward Hill, Basin Research Associates Inc.) Outside
P-43-002205 Historic Structure: 853
Alma Street
2008 (Ward Hill, Basin Research Associates Inc.) Outside
P-43-002206 Historic Structure: 875
Alma Street
1978 ((none), (none))
2009 (Dana E. Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates)
Outside
P-43-002261 Historic Structure:
President Hotel
2010 (Dana E. Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates) Outside
P-43-002457 Historic Structure: St.
Albert the Great Church,
St. Elizabeth Seton
School and St. Thomas
Aquinas Catholic Parish
2012 (K.A. Crawford, Crawford Historic Services) Outside
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
24 March 2019
Table 2
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the Project Area
Primary
Number Resource Description Year (Recorded by)
Proximity to
Project Area
P-43-002750 Historic Structure: T-
Mobile West LLC
SF04614A/Stanford Inn
2012 (K.A. Crawford, Crawford Historic Services) Outside
P-43-002808 Historic Structure: T-
Mobile/West
LLCSF15104A/
Channing House
2012 (Dana Supernowicz, Historic Resource Associates) Outside
P-43-002809 Historic Structure: Palo
Alto CPAU Utility Poles
2001 (Michael Corbett, Dames and Moore) Outside
P-43-002868 Historic Structure:
University Avenue
Underpass
1995 (James McFall, Historic Resources Board – City of Palo
Alto)
Outside
P-43-002869 Historic Structure:
Southern Pacific
Railroad Depot
2000 (Michael Corbett, Dames and Moore) Outside
P-43-002871 Historic Structure:
Embarcadero
Underpass
2013 (Dana E. Supernowicz, Historic Resources Associates) Outside
P-43-003129 Historic Structure: Palo
Alto CPAU Utility Poles
2010 (Jesse Martinez, PBS&J) Outside
P-43-003137 Prehistoric/Protohistoric:
HST-90P, Habitation
debris
1975 (Dorothy F. Regnery, Palo Alto Historical Association)
1978 ((none), (none))
1979 (Dorothy F. Regnery, Palo Alto Historical Association)
1979 (J. Cooper, (none))
Outside
— Historic Structure: 1215
Emerson Street
2000 (Michael Corbett, Dames and Moore) Adjacent
2.2 Native American Coordination
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources within or near the project site, Dudek
contacted the NAHC to request a review of the Sacred Lands File. The NAHC emailed a
response on February 6, 2017, which failed to indicate the presence of cultural resources within
the search area and provided a contact list of Native American individuals and/or tribal
organizations who may have direct knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project site.
Documents related to the NAHC Sacred Lands File search are included in Appendix B.
Dudek prepared and sent letters to each of the six persons and entities on the contact list
requesting information about cultural sites and resources in or near the project site. These letters,
mailed on February 16, 2017, contained a brief description of the proposed project, a summary of
the Sacred Lands File search results, and a reference map. Recipients were asked to reply should
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
25 March 2019
they have any knowledge of cultural resources in the area. No responses have been received to
date. If any responses are received, they will be forwarded to the lead agency.
The proposed project is subject to compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (PRC Section 21074),
which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” as part of the CEQA
process, and requires the CEQA lead agency to notify any groups (who have requested
notification) of the proposed project who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of the project. Because Assembly Bill 52 is a government-to-government
process, all records of correspondence related to Assembly Bill 52 notification and any
subsequent consultation are on file with the City. The City reports that to-date, it has not received
any requests for Assembly Bill 52 notification.
2.3 Geomorphology
The topography of the Bay Area consists of north- to northwest-trending mountain ranges and
intervening valleys that are characteristic of the Coast Range geomorphic province. The
underlying geology is composed primarily of the Franciscan complex rock bounded on the east
by the Hayward Fault and on the west by the San Andreas Fault. The Franciscan rocks are
formed by pieces of former oceanic crust that have been accreted to North America by
subduction and collision of the North American and Pacific Plates. These rocks are primarily
marine sandstone and shale; however, chert and limestone are also found.
The project area is underlain by undifferentiated Quaternary alluvium, generally deposited over
the course of the Holocene. The alluvium material consists of interbedded clay, silt, sand, gravel,
and coarse debris deposited by streams and weathering of the hills to the west. The Bay Area
landscape has been subject to substantial change since the Late Pleistocene. Between 15,000 and
9,000 years ago, sea levels rose approximately 230 feet, resulting in the initial infilling of the
Bay (Meyer 2011). Studies indicate that the Bay was 124 feet below its present level 9,500 years
ago (USGS 1977). Over time, stream and river channels were diverted by sediments, resulting in
the creation of large alluvial floodplains, like the San Pablo Peninsula. The Bay continued to
grow in size over the last 4,000 years, allowing the formation of large tidal mudflats and peat
marshes, further promoting the deposition of sediment around the Bay. By approximately 3,500
years ago, the Bay was 22 feet below its current level (USGS 1977). Landforms became more
stable after approximately 2,800 years ago, after which there was less comparative deposition of
alluvial sediments. Radiocarbon dates taken from Palo Alto Marsh and lower Colma Creek
suggest that these were formed in the last 2,000 years (Meyer 2011).
The Bay shoreline was subject to alluvial filling as a result of historic agriculture, development,
and active landscape modification for commercial and residential use that began largely in the
mid-1800s. This resulted in the filling of creeks and marshy areas with alluvial sediments and
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
26 March 2019
imported fill. The urbanization of the Bay Area gained momentum in the post–World War II era,
and development encroached substantially on the remaining tidal wetlands. Creeks were partially
channelized and piped in some areas to protect continued development against the seasonal
flooding that was common throughout these areas. While many archaeological resources may
have been partially or completely destroyed by urban development, it is possible that some
resources may have been buried and protected by artificial fill deposited in these areas.
The geologic formation representing the subsurface soils in the project area, composed of
Holocene-age alluvial deposits, would have some potential to support the presence of intact buried
cultural deposits if undisturbed. Prehistoric cultural deposits are most likely to be encountered at
depths of less than 2 meters (approximately 7 feet) below the surface in the area, and historic
deposits are most likely to occur in the vicinity of historic age use. There is documentation of
prehistoric cultural deposits or human burials being encountered in excess of 7 meters (23 feet)
below the surface in surrounding areas, however such findings are rare and are characteristic of
specific contexts for soil formation that do not appear to apply to the project site. The project area
has a reduced relative potential for containing deposits compared to areas along creek channels,
most notably in the area of San Francisquito Creek to the north. The Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (City of Palo Alto 2007) supports this assessment, and
indicates that the project site falls within an area of “Moderate Sensitivity.” A geomorphological
study completed just south of the project area for the Caltrain Electrification Project (Clay and
Waechter 2009) also found this area to have a moderate potential to support subsurface prehistoric
cultural deposits, however did not recommend any further subsurface investigation or cultural
monitoring of work in the vicinity. A recommendation of “Moderate Sensitivity” does not indicate
the presence of cultural resources in itself, instead this level of sensitivity should be understood to
suggest that the Project APE does have some potential to contain intact buried cultural deposits
only if subsurface conditions remain largely undisturbed or other site-specific information relating
to resources is provided. The potential for unanticipated buried deposits must be adjusted based on
local context and the record of known archaeological resources. With regards to context and
present subsurface conditions, excavations for basement areas, foundations and utilities beneath the
existing buildings have disturbed sediments beyond the 2 meter maximum depth with potential to
contain unknown prehistoric cultural deposits. In particular, the current classroom building has a
full basement along Kellogg Ave and the campus center building has a partial basement. Records
search information does not indicate the presence of archaeological resources with in the APE or
surrounding vicinity. No historic-age activity likely to result in the deposition of significant
deposits has been documented at or near this location. Based on review of available information,
there is a relatively low potential for intact significant subsurface cultural deposits to persist in this
area given its disturbed subsurface conditions (beneath an existing multistory building).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
27 March 2019
2.4 Building Development and Archival Research
2.4.1 Castilleja School
On February 22 and 23, 2017, Dudek met with Dan Chapman, superintendent of buildings and
grounds for Castilleja School, and Mandy Brown, finance and operations analyst, to obtain
information on the development of the school and its campus. Mr. Chapman provided access to
campus building drawings and schematics, as well as access to all campus buildings. Mr.
Chapman also lent institutional knowledge for the construction and renovation projects
completed during his many years at Castilleja School (Chapman, pers. comm. 2017). Ms. Brown
provided extensive information on the history of the school, including materials pertaining to the
school’s architectural development (Brown, pers. comm. 2017).
2.4.2 Palo Alto Historical Association
On February 23, 2017, Dudek met with Steve Staiger, historian for the Palo Alto Historical
Association. Mr. Staiger provided numerous reference files pertaining to the history of the
Castilleja School (Staiger, pers. comm. 2017). The files contained a variety of materials,
including photographs, brochures, catalogs, letters, event programs, and newspaper articles.
2.4.3 City of Palo Alto Property Research
The City’s online property records indicate that the property located at 1235 Emerson Street
(APN 124-12-031) was constructed in 1979 and the property located at 1263 Emerson Street
(APN 124-12-031) was constructed in 1912. However, the online property report on the parcel
containing the bulk of the campus located at 1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034) did not
provide information about individual buildings, just the campus as a whole, and there were no
dates of construction listed in the report.
2.4.4 Historic Aerial and Topographical Map Review
Other sources of information regarding the history and development of the campus include the
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps (Sanborn) and historical aerial photograph research from
the years 1948, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1968, 1980, 1987, 1991, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009,
2010, and 2012 (NETR Online 2017).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
28 March 2019
3 HISTORIC CONTEXT
3.1 City of Palo Alto Historical Overview
Before its official founding, Palo Alto was home to a mix of Indian tribes known as the
Costeños. The term “Costeños” was a collective term to refer to native groups living in the
coastal areas around Half Moon Bay and Pescadero.
European settlement in the region began as early as 1769 with the arrival of Don Gaspar de Portola
and his men establishing camp near the San Francisquito Creek under “El Palo Alto,” the tall tree.
The next significant appearance of European development occurred 5 years later with the arrival of
Franciscan monks led by Padre Palou. The Franciscans sought a location for their new mission but
believed a more dependable water supply was required, and they moved on to Santa Clara from
Palo Alto. Once the mission establishment fell through, Don Rafael Soto from San Jose requested
permission to establish a rancho in the area. His rancho was named Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo
de San Francisquito and spanned 2,229 acres from “El Palo Alto to the bay and from south of the
present Stanford Stadium to the current Bayshore Freeway” (Bodovitz 1994).
Following the death of her father Don Rafael Soto, Maria Luisa continued to play a key role in
the development of Palo Alto through her marriage to a former British naval lieutenant and the
grant of an additional 12,545 acres for the establishment of their rancho named Rancho Cañada
de Raymundo, which made up the modern Searsville area. Following her husband’s death, Maria
Luisa remarried John Greer, who had previously served as an Irish sea captain (Bodovitz 1994).
Irish development continued in the Palo Alto area when two Irish men purchased 1,700 acres of
the Rancho de las Pulgas. The Irishmen constructed two homes on the 1,700-acre plot and
erected the Menlo Park gate in 1854. Construction of the gates began to attract wealthy residents
from San Francisco to the area, and the larger-scale development of the area began in the 1860s
and 1870s. While the San Franciscans established large estates around Menlo Park, the ranchos
continued to thrive (Bodovitz 1994).
Palo Alto was established just south of the limits of the old township of Mayfield, in
unincorporated Santa Clara County. The township of Mayfield was formed in 1855, in what is
now southern Palo Alto. In 1875, French financier Jean Baptiste Paulin Caperon, better known as
Peter Coutts, purchased land in Mayfield and four other parcels around three sides of today’s
College Terrace, comprising more than a thousand acres extending from present-day Page Mill
Road to Serra Street and from El Camino Real to the foothills.
Leland Stanford, President of the Southern Pacific Railroad and one of the “Big Four” of the
Central Pacific Railroad, started buying land in 1876 around the area in that would become Palo
Alto. Leland Stanford Sr. and his wife founded Stanford University in 1891, naming the
university in honor of their son Leland Jr., who died of typhoid fever at age 15 in 1884. During
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
29 March 2019
construction of the university, Stanford partnered with land developer Timothy Hopkins to create
a town near the future campus location. Stanford and Hopkins purchased parcels of land around
the site of the university from Henry Seale and the Greer family and plotted the land into streets
and lots. Hopkins wanted to name the town University Park, but Stanford preferred the
traditional Spanish name Palo Alto. University Avenue was slated to be the town’s main
thoroughfare. By the early 1890s, the first settlers arrived, buying homes on University,
Emerson, and Webster Streets, and Lytton Avenue. Commercial development quickly followed
along University Street, Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, and near the town’s train depot. In 1894,
Palo Alto was officially incorporated and began the process of developing and operating its own
utilities, including water, gas, an electric power plant, and a sewage system and treatment plant.
The first Palo Alto subdivision was College Terrace. In 1887, Alexander Gordon began
subdividing his land and developing streets that were named after eastern universities, with the
goal of selling his lots to Stanford faculty members. Gordon’s development eventually became
part of Mayfield, which was incorporated in 1903 and later annexed to Palo Alto in 1925
(Hatfield and Anderson 2008).
The Professorville Historic District is adjacent to the northwestern side of the project site. The
district roughly comprises the area bounded by Ramona, Addison, Embarcadero, and Waverley
Streets. The district is significant for its important historical associations and high architectural
value. The district represents one of the earliest residential areas in Palo Alto, housing the first
generation of professors at the fledgling Stanford University. Many of these professors shaped
the foundation and intellectual standards of the University, and the surrounding community. The
most significant aspect of the district is certainly its architectural value “due to the consistent
character and high quality of the buildings and streetscapes that comprise it. Landscaping
qualities contribute strongly to the character and ambience of the area, as do the Colonial Revival
and Craftsman shingle covered structures which largely constitute the cultural makeup of the
district.” (Boghosian and Beach 1979).
Castilleja Hall (later known as the Nardyne Apartments), located at 1121 Bryant Street, is
considered one of the more significant elements of the district. This Colonial Revival/Classic
Revival building was constructed c. 1892 and was one of first girl’s preparatory schools in the
area. The building was originally located at 319 Kingsley and moved to its present location in the
early 1900s, shortly before it was occupied by Castilleja Hall. Classes were held at this location
until the school’s permanent location at 1310 Bryant Street was constructed. Although unusual
for a residential district, the building’s unique architecture makes it a focal point of the historic
district (Boghosian and Beach 1979).
By the early twentieth century, the interurban railroad played an important role in connecting
Palo Alto and Mayfield with San Jose. Streetcars began operating in 1910, making the daily
commute for students and faculty of Stanford University much more convenient. Apartments and
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
30 March 2019
boarding houses began springing up along the streetcar routes to support students and shop
workers. Development in the downtown area centered around the railway station, with the
Cardinal Hotel (built in 1924) serving as an example of the early transit-oriented building boom.
The Crescent Park and Southgate Subdivisions were also built during this period. As the City’s
population continued to grow, more high-end housing, like these subdivisions, began to spring
up throughout the City. However, low-end rental housing was also introduced through the
construction of more affordable bungalow courts.
While the development boom slowed with the onset of the Great Depression, approximately 800 new
buildings were constructed in the City between 1931 and 1941. During this time, buildings were
constructed on a much tighter budget, using cheaper building materials and exhibiting less
ornamentation. Construction materials were generally in short supply and financing options were
limited. During World War II, many single-family homes were subdivided into apartments to meet
the demand for housing during this period of limited construction. After the war, new subdivisions
boomed and entire neighborhoods sprung up throughout the City. While initially built very cheaply,
later subdivisions utilized more modern and innovative designs by developers like Joseph Eichler.
After World War II, Palo Alto went through its largest expansion yet, nearly doubling in size when
the City boundary expanded south to Mountain View. New commercial buildings were quickly
developed to accommodate the daily needs of the growing City, including the Stanford Shopping
Center, which was constructed on land owned by the University. By the 1950s, the City had
transformed from a college town to a leader in technology, and there was a drastic increase in
research, light industrial, and office space. In 1951, Stanford Research Park was developed, bringing
accomplished scientists and entrepreneurs to the region (City of Palo Alto 2014).
3.1.1 School Development in Palo Alto
The development of schools in Palo Alto began in 1893, when men from surrounding communities
constructed the first schoolhouse in just 4 days. The school was a simple, two-room wooden structure
that supported 80 students and 2 teachers (1 of whom also acted as the school principal). Before
having its own school, Palo Alto had relied on its neighboring city of Mayfield for schooling.
Children would walk more than 2 miles each day to attend school in Mayfield because parents
understood the importance of their children being able to read, write, and learn new skills.
The city outgrew its first school in just 1 year (largely due to the establishment of Stanford
University in 1891). In 1894, a new 2-story, 6-room schoolhouse was built on Channing Street to
accommodate up to 240 students. However, Palo Alto still lacked a public high school. Anna
Zschokke, a local single mother, decided to start a high school with her own money. She began a
small private school out of her residence at 526 Forest Avenue that cost $6 per year and provided
students with college preparation courses.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
31 March 2019
College preparation and education was a key component of life in Palo Alto. Schools like Palo
Alto High offered courses in classic and modern languages, and the curriculum was supervised
by Stanford University in an effort to prepare high school students for entrance into Stanford
without examination. An article from the Palo Alto Times from 1894 stated that Palo Alto was a
key educational center with education starting for children as young as 3 years old in one of the
two kindergartens in the town.
During the early twentieth century, the school district constructed dozens of new schools,
including Palo Alto High School in 1918. The City’s first junior high school, David Star Jordan,
was constructed in 1937, Ellwood P. Cubberley High School in 1956, and Henry M. Gunn High
School in 1964. During the post-war population boom in the 1950s, Palo Alto built, on average,
one to three schools each year. As time went on, population growth declined and many schools
were forced to close their doors. Palo Alto Unified School District currently serves about 12,000
students (PAHA 2015).
3.1.2 Castilleja School History
Castilleja School is located in a residential neighborhood and has expanded over the years to
accommodate increased enrollment at the school. Much of the information presented below
about the history of the school is summarized from the book Castilleja: Celebrating a Century
(Croll and Pang 2007).
In the late 1800s, the education of women was often considered inferior to college preparatory
education for men; however, progressive women’s education pioneers sought to change this
perspective and began to establish schools focused on preparing women for higher education. While
the West Coast was a little slower to reform education than the East Coast, California quickly caught
up with its eastern counterparts in the early twentieth century. Examples of early West Coast
educational institutions resulting from this increased need for college preparatory school can be seen
with the establishment of schools like the Harvard School for Boys and the Westlake School for
Girls, both founded in the first 5 years of the twentieth century. Schools like these paved the way for
schools like Castilleja and demonstrate a true shift in educational mindsets in California pertaining to
preparing students for college entrance (Croll and Pang 2007; PAHA 1952).
The desire to provide college preparatory classes to women spurred Stanford alumna Mary Ishbel
Lockey (1872–1939) to found the Castilleja School in 1907 as an all-girls school. Born and
educated in Helena, Montana, Lockey was the daughter of wealthy parents who made their fortune
during Montana’s mining boom. Upon graduation from high school, Lockey began training to be a
teacher at the Normal School in Helena and then transferred to Stanford. She attended Stanford
with her brother Richard and graduated in 1902. Her early teaching jobs included the Miss Harker–
Miss Hughes School in Palo Alto and Palo Alto High School. After a few years of teaching at other
institutions, Lockey decided to establish her own school and serve as principal. Her family
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
32 March 2019
provided the financial backing she needed to establish Castilleja School and begin her journey as
the school’s principal and founder (PAT 1939). Lockey’s decision to start the Castilleja School is
also closely tied to her time at Stanford and her relationship with Stanford President Dr. David
Starr Jordan. During her time at Stanford, Lockey was mentored by Dr. Jordan, and after
graduation he strongly encouraged her to start her own school to prepare women for entry into
prestigious schools like Stanford.
Familiar with the Palo Alto area from her time at Stanford, Lockey capitalized on the increased
population growth and moderate weather and chose Palo Alto as the location for her school.
“Castilleja,” the chosen name for the school, comes from the botanical name for a native flower
to Santa Clara County, the Indian paintbrush (SJEN 1919). The original school (Castilleja Hall)
was founded in 1907 at 1121 Bryant Street. This building has been determined eligible as a
contributor to the NRHP-listed Professorville Historic District. The school was scheduled to
open on August 19, 1907 (PAT 1907). In its first year, the school had 14 teachers and 68
students and included kindergarten to 12th grade. While the school had been founded as a girls’
school, Lockey also opened enrollment in the lower grades for male day students. The bulk of
the student body was female, and there was a mix of boarding students and day students,
including some out-of-state students (Croll and Pang 2007).
Lockey, with Dr. Jordan’s advice, developed a strong college preparatory educational platform based
on her core values, known as the 5 Cs: “conscience, character, courtesy, charity, and courage.” These
values are still paramount to the school today and form the school’s floral emblem. However, Lockey
also understood that not all young women were interested in college, so she established a non-
college-bound curriculum to appeal to those students. Lockey’s philosophy for both educational
paths was focused on broad patterns of education and not simply on an academic curriculum, which
is clearly seen in her 5 Cs philosophy. Typical subjects were history, languages, mathematics, and
science intermixed with social customs, cooking, and etiquette training, with focuses on refined
speech and proper manners.
While Lockey believed that social and academic subject matter was paramount, she also believed
that the students should have the best possible teachers to prepare them for the future. Lockey
carefully chose instructors with college degrees, and some instructors completed graduate-level
work. The students greatly benefited from the curriculum at Castilleja and Lockey’s direction,
and many were reportedly admitted to schools like Stanford without formal examination (Croll
and Pang 2007).
Enrollment numbers before the Depression were reported in the Western Journal of Education, with
230 children enrolled in 1921. Enrollment declined during the Great Depression and World War II.
Following World War II, the City reported that enrollment for the school was only 235, which was
only a 5-student increase from 1921. Following Lockey’s death on March 4, 1939, Castilleja
experienced financial issues and lacked appropriate leadership candidates to guide the school
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
33 March 2019
through its troubled financial times following the Depression and during the war years. After two
short-lived principal appointments, Miss Margarita Espinosa was promoted from assistant
principal to principal in 1941. Miss Espinosa carried on the legacy of Lockey. Although these
years were not marked by growth and development, the school continued to function and enrollment
numbers rose in the years following World War II. In 1942–1943, the enrollment numbers for the
school were at 91, and by 1947, enrollment was at 235. The much-needed increase in enrollment led
to a decision in 1947 to make the school all girls and to no longer take on male students in the lower
grades. In 1958, the school made a decision to drop the lower grades from the educational platform
and only taught grades 7 to 12, which remained the situation until the early 1990s. In 1999, the City
reported that enrollment for the school was at 385 students, with 90 staff members (Croll and Pang
2007; WJE 1921).
Campus Development History
Purpose-Built Campus, 1910
Shortly after the founding in 1907, the school moved to its current location at 1310 Bryant Street
in 1910. At that time, Lockey purchased 4.5 acres of land from Alfred Seale, who had two
daughters who would eventually graduate from Lockey’s school. The site of the new school
offered an unobstructed view of the surrounding meadows, all the way to the foothills. Much of
the surrounding area consisted of open space and orchards, with sparse residential development.
The westerly-adjacent area now known as the Professorville Historic District had already seen
substantial residential development.
With the help of local planner/builder Gustav Laumeister, Lockey developed a site plan and
building plan for the campus at Bryant Street. Her plan included four buildings: a dormitory,
chapel, science building, and gymnasium. Early drawings from the period show the original
campus layout to be very similar to the campus today (Figure 4), with buildings around the
outside and a large circular greenspace in the center. The greenspace of the campus was only a
starting point for the development of the campus. According to a catalog from 1910 to 1911,
Lockey advertised the school as follows:
These plans are especially adapted to the school and the climate, and are most
attractive and practical. The buildings are strongly built and braced and have
excellent fire protection; the plumbing and the heating plant are of the latest and most
approved systems. Though the school lies just beyond the town limits, there is a
connection with the Palo Alto sewer… The sleeping porch is one of the most
attractive features of the building; it is situated on the third floor … has a southern
exposure, a roof, and protection from drafts and driving storms. Here, if desired, girls
may sleep out of doors all winter… The spacious living rooms are especially planned
for entertaining and for comfort. Small round tables are a feature of the cheery dining
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
34 March 2019
room… Particular attention has been paid to the lighting of all the buildings, and in
the Recitation Hall every room has east or south sun (Croll and Pang 2007).
Lockey, and many other early-twentieth century educational advocates, believed in the
importance of connecting educational achievement with physical surroundings. This logic is
partially what inspired the original landscaping and layout for the campus. “Splendid live oak
trees beautify the property, producing a park-like effect, and lawns, fruit trees, and gardens are
already in a state of advanced growth and bloom possible only in a climate like that of
California.” (Croll and Pang 2007:8). Trees and planting was important to Lockey, and she
frequently drew analogies between the growth of trees and the growth of young girls. Upon
moving to the campus in 1910, Lockey commented that the campus contained “just twenty-two
live oaks and nothing more.” (Croll and Pang 2007:50). From the campus’ earliest days, students
and faculty would come together to plant a tree or shrub every Arbor Day, and in 1911, the
students planted an entire orchard.
Figure 4 Castilleja School 1910 (Croll and Pang 2007)
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
35 March 2019
Growth and Development of the Campus, 1910–1960
Shortly after the original campus was completed, students and faculty added to the beauty of the
campus with annual tree plantings and creation of an orchard. Like other educational institutions,
Castilleja School developed somewhat organically to support growing enrollment numbers and
educational programs.
In 1921, the Western Journal of Education noted an enrollment of 230 children and described the
school as follows:
Surrounded by luxurious and well-kept gardens, the Castilleja private school in Palo
Alto, of which Miss Mary I. Lockey is principal, carries an air of refinement and
artistic atmosphere which is most delightful. The school grounds occupies almost five
acres. Outdoor study rooms are one of the features of the school. A new music and art
studio is under construction and a large swimming pool on the grounds will be
completed before the new term, which begins September 19 (WJE 1921).
Other early construction projects for the campus included a science lab, cottage, gymnasium,
tennis courts, and a chapel. The 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map (Figure 5) confirms
these early construction projects mentioned in the 1921 Western Journal of Education (Croll and
Pang 2007; Sanborn 1949). Figure 6 provides a map of the campus in the 1934 showing the
original campus buildings, nearly all of which have been replaced.
Construction of the Chapel in 1926 was by far the largest construction project undertaken by the
school since its move to the Bryant Street campus in 1910. The Chapel was designed by
esteemed local architect Birge Clark and had a 500-seat capacity. Since the school had no
specific religious affiliation and did not intend to use the Chapel as a church, the Chapel became
host to a variety of activities for the school, including vespers, lectures, presentations,
commencement, and performances (PAT 1926; PAW 1994).
By 1949, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps reveal that the school campus was comprised of the
following buildings:
Recitation Hall: The building appears to be L-shaped in plan and have 1 story largely
fronting Bryant Street. According to the map, the building was also used for classrooms.
Residence Hall/Dormitory: The building appears to be 2.5 stories and L-shaped in plan
largely fronting Bryant Street.
Chapel: The 1.5-story building is located to the rear of the Recitation Hall and appears to
be asymmetrical in plan.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
36 March 2019
Gymnasium: The 1-story building is located to the rear of the Chapel and is rectangular
in plan.
Bungalow: The 1.5-story building is roughly square in plan, fronts Kellogg Street, and is
to the rear of the Residence Hall/Dormitory.
Central Steam Heating Plant/Laboratories: The 2-story building is asymmetrical in
plan and fronts Kellogg Street.
Swimming Pool Complex: The swimming pool area is part of an interconnected series
of buildings and structures that includes an open-plan lattice structure that faces Kellogg
Street, a 1-story paint shop with what appears to be an open plan courtyard, a 1-story
stage, a 2-story shop, and a 1-story building housing dressing rooms, likely for the
swimming pool. The swimming pool is rectangular and there are no measurements.
Orchard House: The 2-story music hall building is rectangular in plan.
Lodge: The 1-story lodge building is rectangular in plan.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
37 March 2019
Figure 5 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map Showing Castilleja School
(Sanborn 1924)
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
38 March 2019
Figure 6 1934 Map of Castilleja School
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
39 March 2019
In addition, aerial photographs from 1948 demonstrate significant growth and development on
and around the campus. The surrounding neighborhood is entirely developed with residential
housing. In 1956 the grounds remain relatively unchanged, with the exception of two small
structures added to the front of the pool complex facing Kellogg Street (NETR Online 2017;
Sanborn 1949).
Campus Growth and Expansion, 1960–1980
Following the elimination of the lower grades in 1958, Castilleja School decided that its
buildings were outdated and decided to move forward with expansion and upgrades to the entire
campus. The original plan was very ambitious and called for the replacement of all campus
buildings; however, it was not fully carried out, because the Administration building and Chapel
remain. Information provided by Castilleja School provided a good construction timeline for all
major projects that would occur on campus between the 1960s and 1980s (Castilleja 2016).
The first project undertaken by the school was the construction of the new residence hall in 1960,
which was named the Arrillaga Family Campus Center. Although formally dedicated in 1962,
architectural drawings provided by the school provided a construction start date of 1960. The
original design of the Campus Center planned for housing 90 students and included recreation
style rooms with televisions lounges on each floor (Castilleja 2016; Croll and Pang 2007; PAT
1960; DPAT 1961).
A 1968 aerial photograph of the campus shows some changes to the building footprints on the
corner of Kellogg Avenue and Bryant Street, which is consistent with the school’s account of the
new building construction and architectural drawings of the multiphase construction of Rhoades
Hall (Figure 7), with its start as a dormitory and classroom building in 1965 known as Building
C and its completion as Rhoades Hall in 1967. Rhoades Hall spanned the space from the Campus
Center to the Administration building and contained 20 classrooms to support the 1967
enrollment of 300 students. The 1960s construction projects revolutionized the look of the
campus and remain today (Castilleja 2016; Croll and Pang 2007; PAT 1967; SFEC 1967).
Figure 7 Drawing of the 1960s Construction Projects
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
40 March 2019
Renovations, Demolitions, and New Construction, 1970–2000
In 1977, the Seipp-Wallace Pavilion was constructed and functioned as a gymnasium for the
school until it was replaced in 2008 with the current gymnasium/fitness center.
The Ely Fine Arts Center was proposed in the late 1970s and constructed in 1980 (Figure 8). In
that same year, the school completed extensive renovations on the 1926 Chapel. The interior
alterations converted the Chapel from its original function to an auditorium. The school also
added a 28-space parking lot to the site to support the needs of its students and faculty.
Figure 8 Ely Fine Arts Center
Extensive renovations to the campus buildings took place in the 1990s and early 2000s. The
1991–2002 aerial photographs lack good resolution to see changes to the campus clearly;
however, information provided by the City and representatives at Castilleja School helped
establish a development/alteration timeline.
One of the biggest drivers for change in the 1990s was the closure of the student resident
program. The lack of boarding residential students made the dormitory spaces in the Campus
Center and Rhoades Hall obsolete. In 1997, renovation of the Campus Center included an
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
41 March 2019
interior reconfiguration to replace living spaces on the second and third floors with classrooms,
reconfiguration of the first floor to house a library, and changes to the exterior iron stairwells to
meet modern code compliance.
In 1998, renovations began on Rhoades Hall to remove the dormitory spaces from the second floor
on the side of the building that faces Kellogg Avenue. The reconfiguration of the space resulted in
removing all dormitory rooms and replacing them with classrooms and offices for the students. The
removal of the dormitories allowed for a walkway along the campus-facing side of Rhoades Hall,
which did not exist prior to these renovations. These renovations made Rhoades Hall the continuous
classroom and office space it is today (Chapman 2017; PADN 1996; SJMN 1974).
The 1990s were also important because of the acquisition of 1263 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-033)
and its renovation. The renovation of the single-family residence to an alumnae house, now called the
Lockey House, took place in the late 1990s and included interior and exterior reconfigurations, as
well as extensive window replacements. The building was originally oriented to face Melville
Avenue, which was annexed by the school for the construction of a new softball field (SJMN 1992).
The adjacent property at 1235 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-031) was also purchased by the school
in the 1990s. Property records indicate that the building was constructed in 1979.
The early 2000s also represents a period of extensive change on campus with the renovation of
the Chapel and Administration building. The Administration building was lifted off its
foundation and moved slightly closer to Bryant Street so that a full basement and foundation
could be constructed. The interior renovations to the Administration building were extensive, and
there is no evidence remaining of the original interiors. Entrances to the building were also
reconfigured, shingles and stucco were replaced, a porch enclosed on the southeast elevation, and
all windows were replaced with double-paned wood windows that were designed to match the
historic single-paned windows originally installed.
Renovations to the Chapel were also quite extensive and included replacement of the balcony,
stage, and extension of the west exterior wall of the building. Another major change to the
Chapel was the connection of the Chapel to the Administration building and the removal of its
Bryant Street entrance on the east elevation. Presently, the Chapel is accessible from the inside
of the Administration building via the east elevation (Chapman 2017).
Since 2002, the school has continued to expand. In 2007, a basement addition to the physical arts
building was permitted. One of the most significant construction projects to take place since
2002 was the construction of the Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and Athletic Center in 2008.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
42 March 2019
Campus Architecture
Craftsman Style (1905-1930)
The Craftsman architecture movement in the United States is one of the most prevalent and
widespread movements that appealed to almost all social classes. The Arts and Crafts movement
began in the mid–late part of the nineteenth century in England as a reactionary movement
against the excessiveness and ostentatious designs of the Victorian era. One of the key
contributors to bringing the Craftsman movement to the United States was Gustav Stickley. His
work helped fuel the development of the Craftsman movement and spread it across the United
States. Upon its arrival in California, the Craftsman movement produced a truly unique
California architectural form—the California bungalow. Developed by the work of Greene and
Greene in Pasadena, the California Bungalow became one of the most widespread architectural
movements in California. In Palo Alto, the Craftsman style was often merged with elements from
Shingle and Colonial Revival styles to create a unique hybrid style (Foster 2004; McAlester
2015; PASH 2015).
The Craftsman style is characterized by the following features:
Overhanging eaves
Distinct horizontal lines
Low pitched roof designs
Wood shingle detailing, porches
Maximum of 2 stories, mostly 1 story or 1.5 stories
Paired windows
Tapered wooden porch supports
Extensive use of natural materials and finishes
Brick and/or stone chimneys
Exposed roof beams
Mid-Century Modern Style (1933-1965)
Following World War II, the United States focused on forward thinking, which sparked
architectural movements like the Mid-Century Modern style. Practitioners of the style were
focused on the most cutting-edge materials and techniques. Architects throughout California
implemented the design aesthetics made famous by early Modernists like Richard Neutra and
Frank Lloyd Wright, who created a variety of Modern architectural forms throughout California.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
43 March 2019
The Mid-Century Modern movement in California was characterized by simplistic and clear uses
of materials and structural components, open interior planning, and large expanses of glass. Mid-
Century Modern flourished in many cities and in many school construction projects supporting
the post-war population booms. The cost-effective nature of the style and the ability to mass-
produce Mid-Century Modern building materials like concrete, wood, steel, and glass made it the
perfect style for educational buildings.
Characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern style include the following:
1 to 2 stories in height
Post-and-beam construction using wood and/or steel
Cantilevered canopies and overhangs
Little to no exterior ornamentation
Open floor plans
Buildings sheathed in stucco, wood, brick, or steel frame with glass
Flat roof designs
Flush-mounted metal frame and clerestory windows
Large expanses of windows
Simple size and massing
Use of simplistic geometric shapes
Use of covered walkways with geometric canopies using such forms as butterfly or
folded plate
Exterior staircases, decks, patios, and balconies (Dyson 2015; Gebhard and Winter 2003;
McAlester 2015)
Campus Architects and Builders
Architect Roy Heald (Administration Building)
Roy Heald was a known architect in Palo Alto and the surrounding Bay Area. He arrived in
Santa Cruz, California, from Iowa by way of a covered wagon. According to his obituary in the
1966 Santa Cruz Sentinel, he was a member of the Santa Cruz pioneer family and first cousin to
Herbert Hoover (SCS 1966). One of his notable architectural works outside of the City was the
farm buildings and house he designed for Theodore Hoover on Waddell Creek in the Santa Cruz
Mountains in 1917. Other notable works include the following:
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
44 March 2019
950 University Avenue – De Forest Residence (1908) – Category 4 building on
City’s inventory
970 University Avenue – Lee House (1909) – Category 2 building on City’s inventory
Rancho del Oso Farm House and Barns, Waddell Creek, California, 1917
255–265 Lytton Avenue – Tiffany Funeral Home/Gatehouse Restaurant (1926) –
Category 4 building on City’s inventory
248 Homer Avenue (1925–1928 commercial building) – Category 3 building on
City’s inventory
In addition to his principal works listed above, Heald was also responsible for the construction of
the Castilleja School Administration building in 1910. Today the building is listed as a Category
3 building on the City’s inventory (PASH 2017; SCS 1966).
Builder Gustav Laumeister (Administration Building)
The builder Gustav Laumeister was one of the first building contractors in Palo Alto. During his
early training in Alameda, Monterey, and Menlo Park, Gustav gained valuable experience as a
builder, and after the 1906 earthquake he was involved in the rebuilding of the Stanford campus.
While Laumeister was best known for his residential projects, he was responsible for the
construction of some University Park office buildings and the Administration building at
Castilleja. His influence in Palo Alto is also notable as one of the founders of the Palo Alto
Historical Society (PASH 2002, 2017).
Architect Birge Clark (Chapel)
Son of Stanford art professor Arthur Bridgman Clark, Birge Clark was born in Palo Alto,
California, in 1894 and was exposed to architecture early in life. Clark graduated from Stanford
in 1914 and continued his education at Columbia University in New York City until 1917. His
early career was filled with a variety of projects, including residential, commercial, and
institutional architecture, and was largely in line with revivalist architecture traditions seen
throughout California, including Mission, Colonial, and Tudor Revival styles. Clark is a seminal
architect in the development of architectural style in Palo Alto, and his work helped create the
visual characteristics of post-1920s Palo Alto.
His principal architectural works include the following:
Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover House, Stanford, California, 1929
Charles and Kathleen Norris Residence, Palo Alto, California, 1929
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
45 March 2019
Palo Alto Post Office, Palo Alto, California, 1932
Palo Alto Community Center, Palo Alto, California, 1934
Palo Alto Times Newspaper Plant, Palo Alto, California, 1948
Magna Engineering Building, Menlo Park, California, 1951
Ray Lyman Wilbur Junior High School, Palo Alto, California, 1953
Camden High School, San Jose, California, 1957
Shell Oil Company Accounting Center, Menlo Park, California, 1961
Palo Alto Savings and Loan Building, Palo Alto, California, 1963
Hewlett-Packard Plant, Palo Alto, California, 1960–1970
Architecture Instructor at Stanford University from 1950 to 1972
In addition to Clark’s works above, he was responsible for the design of the Castilleja School
Chapel building in 1926 (AIA 1956, 1962, 1970; Boghosian and Beach 1979; Michelson 2015a).
Architect Paul James Huston (Campus Center and Maintenance Buildings)
Paul James Huston was born in 1916 in Galesburg, Illinois, and received his education from
Stanford University in 1939. Huston held numerous positions before starting his own firm in
Palo Alto in 1948, including draftsman for Richard Neutra, assistant Naval architect for the U.S.
Navy, and a draftsman for William Hempel of Palo Alto. His principal architectural works
include the following:
Tolley House, Atherton, California, 1950
William Kelley Residence, Atherton, California, 1952
Original Lockheed Buildings, Sunnyvale, 1956
University Club, Palo Alto, California, 1957
Mountain View Library, Mountain View, California, 1957
Draper, Gaither, and Anderson Building, Stanford, California, 1959
North Santa Clara County Courthouse, Palo Alto, California, 1961
Sheppard Cadillac Dealership, Menlo Park, California 1967
In addition to the listing of his principal works above, Huston designed the Campus Center and
maintenance buildings for the Castilleja School in 1960 (AIA 1956, 1962, 1970; Michelson 2015b).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
46 March 2019
Architect William Daseking (Ely Arts Center and Rhoades Hall)
Daseking was born in California in 1914 and was educated at the University of California,
Berkeley. Living most of his life in either Modesto or Atherton, California, Daseking studied at
the University of California, Berkeley, and began practicing architecture in 1938. He served as a
major in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from 1941 to 1946. Following his work with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Daseking became partner in the firm Keller and Daseking in Menlo
Park, California, in 1946. He worked on several residential, educational, and commercial
projects in the Bay Area during his time with the firm. His principal works include the following:
Ravenswood School District Manor Schools, East Palo Alto, California, 1952
Redeemer Lutheran Church, Redwood City, California, circa 1952
Hall of Flowers, San Mateo, California, 1965
In addition to his principal works listed above, Daseking was responsible for the designs of the
Ely Arts Center and Rhoades Hall at Castilleja School (AIA 1956, 1962, 1970;; Michelson
2015c; Palo Alto Online 1996).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
47 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
48 March 2019
4 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
4.1 Methods
Dudek architectural historian Sarah Corder, MFA, conducted a pedestrian survey of the
Castilleja School campus on February 22, 2017. The project site is entirely developed with an
active school campus. Therefore, an archaeological survey was not warranted. All buildings and
structures on campus that were constructed over 45 years ago were photographed, researched,
and evaluated in consideration of CRHR and City designation criteria and integrity requirements,
and in consideration of potential impacts to historical resources under CEQA. The survey
entailed walking all portions of the campus and documenting each building with notes and
photographs, specifically noting character-defining features, spatial relationships, and any
observed alterations. During the survey, Dan Chapman, superintendent of buildings and grounds,
and Mandy Brown, finance and operations analyst, provided access to locked facilities on the
campus and information concerning past construction and renovation projects on campus.
Dudek documented the fieldwork using field notes, digital photography, close-scale field maps,
and aerial photographs. Photographs of the project site were taken with a Canon Power Shot
SX160 IS digital camera with 16 megapixels and 16× optical zoom. All field notes, photographs,
and records related to the current study are on file at Dudek’s Pasadena, California, office.
4.2 Description of Surveyed Resources
Castilleja School is a collection of adjacent parcels and addresses that include 1310 Bryant Street (APN
124-12-034), 1235 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-031), and 1263 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-033).
Table 3 provides a description of all buildings and structures surveyed as part of the cultural
resources study, including a photograph of the building, current building name, historic building
name (if applicable), year built (if known), a general physical description of the building, and
any alterations identified through either building development research or during the cultural
resources survey.
A great deal of information regarding recent building renovations was provided by Dan
Chapman, who has worked for the Castilleja School in a facilities management role for the last
25 years and has extensive institutional knowledge of campus building projects.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
49 March 2019
Table 3
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Gunn Family Administration Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1910 Roy Heald
(architect)
and Gustav
Laumeister
(builder)
This building is currently listed
as a Category 3 building on the
City’s Historic Buildings
Inventory.
The 2-story building is irregular
in plan and now oriented to face
Embarcadero Road. The
building sits on a poured
concrete foundation. The ground
floor is clad in pebble-dash
stucco, and the second story is
clad in wood shingles. The roof
is sheathed in wood shingles.
The building was originally
designed in the Craftsman style
and features overhanging
eaves, wood shingle detailing,
paired Craftsman style windows,
wooden column supports, and
dormers. The building is the only
remaining original building to the
1910 founding of the school and
was designed by prominent
local architect Roy Heald and
constructed by Gustav
Laumeister.
2000: complete
reconfiguration of
the interior,
reconfiguration of
the entrance,
replacement of all
windows,
replacement of
shingles,
replacement of
stucco, removal of
building from the
foundation for
basement
addition, original
porch was
enclosed, roof
replaced,
trellis/arbor
addition, and
connection of
building to Chapel
and Rhoades
Hall.
Circle Feature
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1910 Unknown The use of greenspace in the
original and later designs was
important to Lockey and the
early students. The circle
feature appears on early maps
of the campus and has
remained a significant element
in the overall design of the
campus. While much of the
campus developed and built up
from the original plans, the use
of greenspace remains a key
component with the circle
feature.
The circle feature
is largely
unchanged with
the exception of
the grass being
replaced by
synthetic turf.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
50 March 2019
Table 3
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Lockey House,
1263 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-033)
1912 Unknown This 2-story, wood frame house
that is roughly L in-plan has
been significantly altered from
its original appearance. The
building sits on a poured
concrete foundation and is clad
in stucco. It features a complex
hipped roof sheathed in
composition shingles, and
exposed rafter tails. The façade
of the building is oriented to face
the Castilleja School campus to
the southeast, which is now the
main elevation of the house.
The main elevation features a
poured concrete stoop that is
offset to the west and accessed
by brick steps under a triangular
pediment. The six-panel wooden
entry door is flanked by fixed
wood windows, each of which
features four panes. The
remainder of the façade features
a large four-over-one window
flanked by two, two-over-one
windows. The second floor
windows are all three-over-one.
There was an addition made to
the north elevation of the
building for a kitchen expansion.
1990s: Enclosure
of the original
entry way and
addition of porch
that is oriented
toward campus,
interior
reconfiguration for
use as Alumni
house.
Dates unknown:
garage
construction and
kitchen addition.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
51 March 2019
Table 3
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1926 Birge Clark This building is currently listed
as a Category 3 building on the
City’s Historic Buildings
Inventory.
The 2-story Chapel was
designed by Birge Clark in 1926.
The building was originally
designed as a standalone
building, but was connected to
the Administration building in
2000. Constructed in the
Craftsman style, the building
retains many visual elements of
the style including overhanging
eaves, side gabled roof
sheathed in wood shingles,
wood shingle cladding, and
paired Craftsman style windows.
However, the building was
extensively renovated in 1980
and again in 2000 and has lost
much of its exterior and interior
integrity and configuration.
1980:
Replacement and
expansion of the
stage area,
replacement of the
ceiling, and
expansion of the
building to the west
with the addition of
the step down style
windows.
2000: Removal of
the building from
its foundation for
basement
construction,
connection to the
Administration
building,
replacement of
the balcony and
reconfiguration of
the entrance from
Bryant Street.
Arrillaga Family Campus Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1960–
1962
Paul
Huston
The 3-story building was poured
in place concrete construction
with a complex roofline that is
roughly rectangular in plan. The
building is oriented with entry
from Kellogg Street to the
southeast and the campus circle
to the northwest.
1997: interior
reconfiguration of
second and third
floors to replace the
original dormitory
space,
reconfiguration of
the first floor for the
library,
reconfiguration of
north elevation for
library entrance,
additional safety
bars installed on
outdoor staircase
railings, and the
addition of elevator.
2010: Building
was reroofed with
spray foam.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
52 March 2019
Table 3
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Rhoades Hall/Middle School Classrooms
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1965–
1967
William
Daseking
The 1967 2-story poured-in-
place concrete school building
was a phased construction
project that is irregular in plan.
The building is clad in brick
veneer under the first-story
windows, then clad in stucco
that is accented by vertical
concrete slat elements all set
under a spray foam roof. The
building is oriented with its main
entry point facing Bryant Street.
The main point of entry is
recessed and accessed by a
columned flat roof porch leading
to an elaborately carved set of
double doors slightly offset in a
2-story glass and metal wall
panel. Fenestration is regular
and all original metal windows
are intact. The building also
features one of the two sunken
gardens on campus, which is
located to the west of the
building.
1998: second
floor reconfigured
from dormitory
space to
classrooms and
offices,
connection to
Administration
building and
campus center
building.
2010: building
reroofed with a
spray foam roof
that is in keeping
with the color and
look of the original
roof material.
Maintenance
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1960 Paul
Huston
The 2-story maintenance
building was constructed in
1960. It is irregular in plan with a
rear carport under a spray foam
gabled roof with overhanging
eaves and exposed rafter tails.
Fenestration is irregular and a
variety of metal windows is
featured on all elevations. The
building is clad in concrete block
on the first story and vertical
wood siding on the second
story.
1980: The
building was
reroofed.
Circa 1990:
Sliding cage
doors were added
to the carport
section of the
building.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
53 March 2019
Table 3
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
1235 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-031)
1979 Unknown The 2-story house is L-shaped
in plan, clad in wood shingles
with a gabled roof sheathed in
composition shingles
constructed circa 1980. The
house is accessed by Emerson
Street by a poured-concrete
walkway. The house is
surrounded by a wooden fence
with a small entry door near the
garage that provides access to a
sizable yard with mature trees.
The house has an irregular
fenestration and all windows
appear to be either fixed or
double-hung vinyl windows. The
main façade features a
recessed entry point with
multiple-pane French style
doors.
No significant
changes were
observed.
Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
1980 William
Daseking
The circa 1980 2-story building
is rectangular in plan and is
oriented to the northeast. The
building is clad with concrete
block and features a flat roof.
The main (east) elevation of the
building features a recessed
entry point that is offset to the
north of the façade. The main
elevation also features a
wooden pergola that is
supported with concrete
columns with a poured concrete
walkway. The building also
features one of the two sunken
gardens on campus, which is
located to the east of building.
2010: Reroof of
building with
spray foam
Date unknown:
Addition of the
lockers, reroof of
the building,
addition of door to
building facing
Emerson and
replacement of
rotted wood on
the exterior trellis
system.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
54 March 2019
Table 3
Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built Architect Description
Identified and
Observed
Alterations
Swimming Pool
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
2001 Unknown The current swimming pool, the
third pool built at the same
location, was installed in 2001.
There have been
no significant
changes to the
pool since its
installation in
2001.
Pool Storage Building
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
2001 Unknown The small, 1-story, flat-roofed,
brick-veneer pool storage
building is used for chemical
and pool equipment storage.
There are no
known alterations.
Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and Athletic Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034)
2008 Kornberg
and
Associates
The 2-story gymnasium is
roughly rectangular in plan with
a flat roof and is clad in stucco
and wood shingles. The building
is accessed by a glass entryway
offset to the east
There are no
known alterations.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
55 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
56 March 2019
5 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
Extensive archival research, combined with an intensive pedestrian survey of the Castilleja
School, indicates that the campus contains one historical resource: the Administration/Chapel
building, which is currently listed as a Category 3 building on the City’s inventory of historic
resources; listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historical Resources Inventory with a
status code 5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation). While the
campus conveys its original plan on the most basic level (i.e., a central circle greenspace feature
surrounded by buildings and structures on the periphery), all other buildings/features on campus
were found to be ineligible for either individual listing or as a contributing element of a historic
district. Only buildings and structures over 45 years old were evaluated for historical
significance. Table 4 provides a summary of findings for all buildings/features on campus, and
Figure 9, (Castilleja School Eligibility Findings), provides an overview of the significance
evaluation findings. A Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 form set (DPR forms) for
the Castilleja School can be found in Appendix C.
Table 4
Castilleja School Buildings
Component Year Built Findings
Gunn Family Administration Center Building/
Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater
1910/1926 Locally listed (Category 3)
Circle greenspace feature 1910 Not eligible
Arrillaga Family Campus Center 1960–1962 Not eligible
Rhoades Hall 1965–1967 Not eligible
Maintenance Building 1960 Not eligible
Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center 1980 Not eligible
Swimming Pool 2001 Not eligible
Pool Storage Building 2001 Not eligible
Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and Athletic Center 2008 Not eligible
1263 Emerson Street (Lockey House) 1912 Not eligible
1235 Emerson Street 1979 Not eligible
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
57 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Castilleja School Eligibility Findings
Castilleja School Project
SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2017)
Da
t
e
:
7
/
8
/
2
0
1
9
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
b
d
o
k
k
e
s
t
u
l
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
\
F
i
g
9
_
C
a
s
t
i
l
l
e
j
a
S
c
h
o
o
l
H
i
s
t
o
ric
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
m
x
d
0 15075Feet
Project Boundary
Building Footprint
Eligible
Not Eligible
FIGURE 9
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
59 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
60 March 2019
5.1 California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation Criteria
The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with
previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP. According to PRC Section
5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial
integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria. Integrity is evaluated with
reference to specific criteria.
CRHR Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
The Castilleja School is one of the City’s oldest private schools, founded in 1907 and moved to
its current location in 1910. Castilleja School was established during a major period of growth in
the City as the interurban railroad was connected to larger nearby cities, streetcars began
operating, and both housing and commercial developments began to spring up throughout the
region. Castilleja School is associated with Palo Alto’s first boom of educational development
since college preparation became a particularly important focus in the community after the
opening of Stanford University in 1891 (of which Castilleja’s founder, Mary Lockey was an
alumni) and the arrival of many new families to the area. Castilleja was an all-girls school
specifically designed to prepare women for entry into prestigious universities like Stanford and
the school is associated with Palo Alto’s educational development and women’s educational
development. The current location at 1310 Bryant Street is the second location of the school. The
original school (Castilleja Hall) was founded in 1907 at 1121 Bryant Street. This building has
been determined eligible as a contributor to the NRHP-listed Professorville Historic District. The
existing campus at 1310 Bryant Street lacks sufficient integrity (as a whole) to convey any
important associations, as all but two of the original school buildings have been demolished.
Therefore, the school does not appear eligible under CRHR Criterion 1 as a historic district. For
similar reasons, the locally designated Administration/Chapel building does not meet this
criterion, as its setting and historical associations, have been significantly compromised by new
developments on the Castilleja School campus.
CRHR Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
The Castilleja School is associated with an individual important in Palo Alto’s past. In 1907,
Mary Ishbel Lockey (1872–1939) founded her own school at 1121 Bryant Street in Palo Alto.
Three years later, the school had outgrown its original home in a small rented house and
moved to its present day location down the street at 1310 Bryant Street. Lockey earned the
respect and trust of then Stanford University president, David Starr Jordan, who once said that
he had “implicit confidence in Miss Lockey,” such that he “would not hesitate to turn over the
management of Stanford [to her], were it necessary.” (Croll and Pang 2007, p. 2). Ms. Lockey
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
61 March 2019
is the central figure of the school’s legacy, which has remained true to Lockey’s vision. While
Lockey is considered an important local figure, strongly associated with women’s educational
development during a period that overlaps the American Women’s Suffrage Movement, the campus
itself lacks sufficient integrity (as a whole) to convey any important associations since all but two of
the original school buildings have been demolished. The school can no longer convey associations
with Lockey’s productive life in the field of education. Therefore, the school does not appear eligible
under CRHR Criterion 2 as a historic district. For similar reasons concerning a lack of integrity,
the locally designated Administration/Chapel building does not meet this criterion, as its setting
and historical associations have been significantly compromised by new developments on the
Castilleja School campus.
CRHR Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative
individual, or possesses high artistic values.
Historic District Consideration
Only two of the original school buildings remain on campus: the Administration and Chapel
buildings, which are now connected and constitute one building. While the campus maintains the
most general aspects of its original plan—a central circle feature surrounded by buildings that front
adjacent streets—it lacks sufficient integrity to constitute a historic district. Much of the campus has
been replaced over numerous construction periods that include the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, and early
2000s. Furthermore, the Craftsman style of the original school buildings has been almost entirely
replaced by Contemporary and Post-Modern-style buildings. Therefore, the campus does not appear
eligible as a historic district of campus buildings unified by architectural aesthetic or plan.
1960s Campus Buildings
None of the 1960s buildings were found to be individually eligible for CRHR or local designation.
While the Campus Center, Rhoades Hall, and Maintenance buildings retain their exterior integrity
(the interiors have been significantly altered), they lack the character-defining features of the
Contemporary style that one would expect to see in educational architecture such as use of exterior
cantilevered canopies, generous expanses of glazing to convey integration with the outdoors, and
expressionistic details such as butterfly and folded plate roof forms and curved/sweeping wall
surfaces. Although brick and stucco are used throughout, the buildings lack the broad, unadorned
expanses of these materials that are more typical of the style. The use of wooden slats on the exterior
classroom and campus center buildings offers a panelized appearance, a Japanese design influence
that came from Northern California, often referred to as Third Bay Tradition. The Maintenance
building also nods to this mixture of styles, exhibiting a combination of concrete block and vertical
wood siding.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
62 March 2019
Contemporary style features on the primary street elevations of the larger buildings are modest, with
the exception of the school’s main entrance to Rhoades Hall on Bryant Street, which exhibits a flat
roof supported by six square brick columns, and a glass and metal screenwall with a rectangular
pattern. The mid-century style of the 1960s buildings is better conveyed on the exterior elevations
that face inward toward the circle feature. The campus center exhibits exterior stairwells with metal
screens; and Rhoades Hall features outdoor corridors, L-shape posts that project from the exterior
walls, a butterfly roof locker structure, and open patio areas. The Maintenance building features
widely overhanging eaves and trapezoidal windows on its northwest elevation.
While the 1960s buildings embody some elements of the Contemporary style, with nods to Third
Bay Tradition, they are not considered a valuable example of either style, as they lack some of the
more distinctive characteristics of that would better convey these styles. Further, architects Paul
Huston (Campus Center and Maintenance buildings) and William Daseking (Rhoades Hall/middle
school classrooms) do not appear to be master architects, although both men completed numerous
projects throughout the Bay Area. Therefore, the 1960s buildings, including the Campus Center,
Rhoades Hall, and Maintenance building, do not appear eligible under CRHR Criterion 3 as either a
district or as individual resources.
Emerson Street Properties
The converted single-family residences located at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street were acquired
by Castilleja School in the 1990s. Records indicate that 1235 Emerson Street was constructed in
1979 and therefore does not appear eligible for the CRHR at this time. Site plans of 1263
Emerson Street from 1990 indicate that the property has undergone substantial alterations in
recent years, such that the property no longer retains integrity of its original design, including
modification of the original front entrance, reconfiguration of the porch, connecting a once-
detached garage, and what appears to be a rear addition. The property’s setting has also been
significantly altered since a portion of Melville Avenue was absorbed by the Castilleja Campus.
Therefore, the two residential properties on Emerson Street appear not eligible under CRHR
Criterion 3.
Original Campus Elements
Both the Administration and Chapel buildings were significantly altered in the early 2000s as part of
a campus renovation project (see alterations presented in Table 3), which included connecting the
two buildings together. These renovations completely altered the buildings’ interiors and made
substantial alterations to the buildings’ exteriors. While there are enough character-defining features
still present to convey the Craftsman style of both buildings, the work of master local architects has
been significantly impacted by alterations that took place outside the period of significance. The
Administration building was designed by architect Roy Heald and constructed by Gustav
Laumeister, who have multiple buildings listed on the City’s local register and have made important
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
63 March 2019
contributions to architecture in the Bay Area. The Chapel was designed by architect Birge Clark, one
of the most significant architects in the history of Palo Alto. Clark designed numerous buildings
throughout the City and has left an indelible mark on the City’s built environment. Despite the
buildings’ associations with significant local architects and that fact that the buildings retain enough
character-defining features to convey the Craftsman style, the alterations that occurred in recent years
have introduced new materials and design features that prevent the buildings from conveying their
original design intent or from representing a notable or important work by local master architects.
The replacement of nearly all windows; reconfiguration of the entrance; replacement of shingles;
replacement of stucco; the addition of a basement; enclosure of the original porch; trellis/arbor
addition; and connection of the Administration and Chapel buildings has substantially impacted
integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association with master local architects.
Therefore, the Administration/Chapel building appears not eligible under CRHR Criterion 3 due to a
lack of integrity (see Section 5.3).
CRHR Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
The Castilleja School buildings are unlikely to yield any information important to prehistory or
history, nor is it associated with any archaeological resources. Therefore, the campus buildings
do not appear eligible for listing under CRHR Criterion 4.
5.2 City of Palo Alto Evaluation Criteria
The Administration/Chapel building is currently listed as a Category 3 (Contributing Building),
defined as “a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a
neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors.” Despite significant
alterations to the building in recent years, it still meets the lower bar of a Category 3 building, which
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.”
For all of the reasons discussed above in the CRHR significance evaluation, none of the 1960s
buildings or Emerson Street properties appear to warrant consideration for local designation, due to a
lack of important historical associations and architectural merit:
Criterion 1: None of the 1960s buildings or Emerson Street properties are associated
with the lives of historic people or important events.
Criterion 2: None of the 1960s buildings or Emerson Street properties are representative
of an architectural style or way of life. While the 1960s buildings embody elements of the
Contemporary style, with nods to Third Bay Tradition, they are not considered a valuable
example of either style, and lack some of the more distinctive characteristics of these styles.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
64 March 2019
The converted single-family residences located at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street were
acquired by Castilleja School in the 1990s. Records indicate that 1235 Emerson Street
was constructed in 1979, and therefore does not appear eligible at this time. Site plans of
1263 Emerson Street from 1990 indicate that the property has undergone substantial
alterations in recent years, such that the property no longer retains integrity of its original
design.
Criterion 3: None of the 1960s buildings or Emerson Street properties represent types of
buildings that were once common but are now rare. Mid-Century Modern education buildings
are not rare in the City. Further, the buildings on the Castilleja Campus are not considered
valuable examples of their style, and they lack some of the more distinctive characteristics of
the style. The property at 1263 Emerson Street is too altered to qualify under this criterion,
especially in consideration of other Craftsman-style residences in the neighborhood that retain a
much higher level of integrity. The property at 1235 Emerson Street was built relatively
recently and does not appear to warrant consideration under this criterion.
Criterion 4: None of the buildings are connected with a business or use that was once
common but is now rare.
Criterion 5: With the exception of the already designated Administration/Chapel
building, none of the buildings were designed or constructed by an important architect.
Criterion 6: For the reasons discussed under Criterion 3, none of the 1960s buildings or
Emerson Street properties contain elements that demonstrate outstanding attention to
architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship.
5.3 Integrity Considerations
Overall, the Castilleja School does not retain requisite integrity of its location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The redefined school boundaries, extensive
renovations and replacement of all but two of the original campus buildings compromises much
of the campus’ integrity.
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival
of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance, and the historical
resource’s ability to convey that significance. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a
subjective judgment, but is must always be grounded in an understanding of a property’s
physical features and how they relate to its significance. Within the concept of integrity, there are
seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity: location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (NPS 1990). To retain historic integrity, a
property will generally possess several, if not most, of the aspects. The retention of specific
aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
65 March 2019
Location: The school’s location at 1310 Bryant Street represents the second location of the
school, which moved to its current location in 1910. Although the campus has been significantly
altered, the school does maintain its integrity of the school’s first purpose-built location since the
move in 1910. The Administration/Chapel building was moved slightly closer to Bryant Street as
part of foundation renovation activities, but this did not significantly impact its integrity of
location. The two houses on Emerson Street also appear to retain integrity of location.
Design: The campus as a whole does not maintain the integrity of the original design, as all of
the original buildings except two (the Administration and Chapel buildings) have been
demolished. Replacement of the original Craftsman style buildings with Contemporary and Post-
modern style buildings further compromises the design aesthetic of the campus. While of historic
age, the 1960s buildings do not have strong character defining features of the Contemporary
style and do not embody character defining features of the original Craftsman style campus
buildings. The residential building at 1263 Emerson Street (now referred to as the Lockey
House) has also been significantly altered from its original design with the reconfiguration of the
entry, attachment to a once detached garage, kitchen addition and porch enclosures. Extensive
alterations to the interior of the campus buildings further compromises the integrity of design,
thus the campus as a whole does not retain integrity of design. Further, the Administration and
Chapel buildings have undergone significant changes to their original design, once standing as
two independent buildings and now connected as one.
Setting: The campus as a whole no longer retains its original setting integrity due to multiple
alterations to the campus throughout its history. One of the most significant changes to the setting
is the annexation of Melville Avenue, which was the boundary of the school for numerous years.
Originally the school was bounded on the northwest by Melville Avenue but the closure and
subsequent development of the street with athletic areas compromises the setting of the school. The
expansion of the campus to include the Lockey House and the parcel at 1235 Emerson Avenue
further disrupts the original setting as it extends the boundaries of the school and creates a
sprawling urban campus concept versus the strict boundaries of the original campus under the 1310
Bryant Street parcel. While the property has always been located in a residential neighborhood, its
clear historic boundaries prior to the acquisition of the Lockey House, 1235 Emerson Street and the
annexation of Melville Avenue have negatively impacted the setting of the school in regards to the
characteristics that existed during the school’s period of historic significance. Therefore the
subject property does not retain integrity of setting.
Materials: The 1960s buildings retain their original materials with the exception of roof materials
that have been replaced with modern materials in recent years. The Lockey House does not retain
its original materials as there have been multiple material replacements and additions to the home
that compromises its integrity of materials. While some of the original Craftsman materials from
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
66 March 2019
the Administration/Chapel building remain, most original materials have been replaced with new
materials. Therefore, none of the buildings retain integrity of materials.
Workmanship: Taken as a whole, the campus does not retain integrity of workmanship, as
nearly all of the original campus buildings have been replaced, leaving little left of the original
workmanship.
Feeling: The subject property no longer conveys the aesthetic and historic sense that clearly
defined the original campus. While the buildings are still situated around a circle feature, the
replacement of all but two of the original campus buildings significantly compromises the
integrity of feeling. The expansion of the original boundaries of the campus to the northwest
further impacts the integrity of feeling, as one side of the campus is no longer part of a
residential neighborhood, but is now bordered by a busy city street – Embarcadero. While the
Administration and Chapel buildings offer the last remaining sentiment of the a campus that once
consisted entirely of Craftsman style buildings, their altered design and materials adds to a loss
of integrity of feeling.
Association: The 1960s buildings and the Lockey House have no association with the original
campus only with the school. The Lockey House has been further compromised when it was
converted from a single family residence to an educational building. Likewise, the original
Administration/Chapel buildings have been extensively altered such that they can no longer
convey associations with the original campus, and struggle to convey their associations with
important architects. Therefore, the campus as a whole does not retain its integrity of association.
5.4 Summary of Conclusions
As a result of the significance evaluation, including consideration of CRHR and City evaluation
criteria and integrity requirements, the Administration/Chapel building appears to remain eligible for
listing on City’s local register as a Category 3 (Contributing Building) which allows for a building to
have significant alterations. However, it does not retain requisite integrity for the CRHR.
All other buildings and structures on campus were found not eligible under all CRHR and City
evaluation criteria due to a lack of historical associations and compromised integrity. Finally,
the campus does not appear eligible as a historic district because nearly all of the original
campus buildings have been replaced.
As a result of these findings, the Administration/Chapel building is considered an historical
resource under CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact
historical resources. These potential impacts will be assessed in Section 6.1 (Identified Impacts)
of the complete cultural resources study report. Recommendations to reduce impacts to historical
resources are provided in Section 6.2 (Recommended Mitigation).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
67 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
68 March 2019
6 IMPACTS ANALYSIS
6.1 Identified Impacts
6.1.1 Direct Impacts
The project proposes to demolish six buildings associated with the Castilleja School campus.
These buildings include:
1235 Emerson Street
1263 Emerson Street
Rhoades Hall, Campus Center, Maintenance, and Fine Arts Center buildings (1310
Bryant Street)
All of these buildings were found not eligible for listing in the CRHR and the City’s local register
and are not considered historical resources under CEQA. Therefore, impacts resulting from
demolition of these buildings shall be considered less than significant.
6.1.2 Indirect Impacts
The following buildings will not be subject to direct impacts as a result of the proposed project,
however, it is possible that proposed project activities could result in indirect impacts to the
buildings:
Administration/Chapel building
1215 Emerson Street
Although no project-related impacts are proposed to the Administration/Chapel building, this
building is currently a designated local resource. As such, the building is considered an historical
resource under CEQA. Adjacent construction activities have the potential to significantly impact
this resource. However, with an appropriate level of protective mitigation, impacts to the building
can be considered less than significant (see MM-CUL-1).
Although no project-related impacts are proposed to 1215 Emerson Street (which is outside, but
adjacent to the northwest portion of the project area), it was previously found eligible for the
NRHP and is in very close proximity to proposed project activities that have the potential to
significantly impact this resource. However, with an appropriate level of protective mitigation,
impacts to the building can be considered less than significant (see MM-CUL-1).
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
69 March 2019
6.2 Recommended Mitigation
MM-CUL-1 In order to avoid potentially significant impacts to adjacent historical resources
(as described above), adoption of the following mitigation is recommended to
reduce projects impacts to these historical resources to a less-than-significant
level.
An appropriate level of protection shall be provided for the Administration/Chapel
Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson Street during proposed new
construction and renovation activities. A clear and concise preservation protection
plan shall be developed to provide these details. The protection plan shall be
prepared by a qualified historic preservation specialist and shall be appended to the
final set of construction plans for each construction phase. At a minimum, the
protection plan shall include the following:
Protective fencing shall be installed approximately 15 feet from the perimeter of
the Administration/Chapel Theater building and from the southern and eastern
property lines of the residence at 1215 Emerson Street, or a lesser distance if
recommended by a qualified historic preservation specialist. All construction
workers shall be instructed to keep all people, materials, and equipment outside
of the areas surrounded by protective fencing. The protective fencing shall
consist of brightly-colored mesh fencing at least four feet in height. The mesh
shall be mounted on six-foot tall poles, with at least two feet below ground, and
spaced a maximum of six feet apart.
Material and equipment delivery and stockpile areas shall be identified on the
protection plan, and shall be located as far as practicable from the
Administration/Chapel Theater building and the residence at 1215 Emerson
Street.
If cranes are used to install buildings or building components, no materials or
structures shall be suspended above or within 30 feet measured horizontally
from the exterior walls of the Administration/Chapel Theater building and the
residence at 1215 Emerson Street.
For demolition of the existing Classroom building, the protection plan shall
document the specific nature of demolition activities that would occur on any
portion of the building that touches or is within 10 feet of the
Administration/Chapel Theater building and provide recommendations for
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
70 March 2019
equipment usage and demolition techniques that will avoid adverse effects to
the Administration/Chapel Theater building.
The protection plan shall prescribe measures for containment of dust during
demolition, excavation, and construction. This may include wetting soils and
materials to prevent wind-blown dust; covering exposed materials, soil, and
unfinished buildings; and use of temporary barriers to prevent any wind-blown
dust from reaching historic structures.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
71 March 2019
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
72 March 2019
7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary of Findings
7.1.1 Built Environment
As a result of the significance evaluation, including consideration of CRHR and City evaluation
criteria and integrity requirements, the Castilleja School campus was found not eligible for
designation as a historic district due to the fact that most of the campus has been significantly
altered from its original appearance. Further, all of the 1960s buildings and the two residential
properties were found not eligible at the individual level due to a lack of important historical
associations and compromised integrity. However, the Administration/Chapel building appears to
remain eligible for listing on City’s local register as a Category 3 (Contributing Building).
As a result of these findings, the Administration/Chapel building is considered an historical
resource under CEQA. As such, the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact
historical resources. An impacts analysis indicates that potential impacts to the
Administration/Chapel building can be lessened to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of an appropriate level of protective mitigation. Management recommendations
to reduce significant impacts to historical resources are provided below.
7.1.2 Archaeology
No archaeological resources were identified within the project site or immediate vicinity as a
result of the CHRIS records search or Native American coordination. However, it is always
possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels. Based on
geomorphological evidence, and known buried cultural deposits in the Bay Area, the project site
should be treated as potentially sensitive for archaeological resources. Management
recommendations to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological resources and
human remains during campus construction activities are provided below.
7.2 Management Recommendations
7.2.1 Protection of Historical Resources During Demolition and
Construction Activities
An appropriate level of protection shall be provided for the Administration/Chapel building
during proposed new construction and renovation activities (see proposed MM-CUL-1). A clear
and concise preservation protection plan shall be developed to provide these details. At a
minimum, protective fencing shall be used during construction activities so historic buildings are
not inadvertently impacted. The protection plan shall also examine the potential effects of
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
73 March 2019
vibration on the building resulting from nearby demolition and construction activities. The final
preservation protection plan shall be appended to the final set of construction plans. The plan
should be completed, or at a minimum reviewed, by a qualified historic preservation specialist.
7.2.2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources
All construction crew should be alerted to the potential to encounter sensitive archaeological
material. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed
during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within
100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find
and determine whether additional study is warranted. Prehistoric archaeological deposits may be
indicated by the presence of discolored or dark soil, fire-affected material, concentrations of
fragmented or whole marine shell, burned or complete bone, non-local lithic materials, or the
characteristic observed to be atypical of the surrounding area. Common prehistoric artifacts may
include modified or battered lithic materials; lithic or bone tools that appeared to have been used
for chopping, drilling, or grinding; projectile points; fired clay ceramics or non-functional items;
and other items. Historic-age deposits are often indicated by the presence of glass bottles and
shards, ceramic material, building or domestic refuse, ferrous metal, or old features such as
concrete foundations or privies. Depending upon the significance of the find under CEQA (14
CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow
work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as
preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted.
7.2.3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains
are found, the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
remains shall occur until the county coroner has determined, within 2 working days of
notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If
the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or
she shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public
Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes
to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant
shall complete his/her inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The
designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the
property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
74 March 2019
8 REFERENCES
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act
AIA (American Institute of Architects). 1956. American Architects Directory 1956.
AIA. 1962. American Architects Directory 1962.
AIA. 1970. American Architects Directory 1970.
Bodovitz, K. 1994. “Returning to the Memorable Days of Yesteryear.” Palo Alto Online
[Website]. News Feature: Palo Alto Centennial. April 13, 1994.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/centennial/1890SA.php.
Boghosian, P., and J. Beach. 1979. National Register of Historic Places Inventory–Nomination
Form: “Professorville Historic District.” Prepared by Historic Environment Consultants
for the City of Palo Alto.
Brown, M. 2017. Interview with M. Brown (Finance and Operations Analyst for Castilleja
School) by S. Corder (Dudek). February 22 and 23, 2017.
Castilleja. 2016. Community Impact Report 2016. Electronic document Accessed March 21,
2017. https://issuu.com/castillejaschool/docs/castilleja_community_impact_report_.
Chapman, D.. 2017. Interview with D. Chapman (Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds for
Castilleja School) by S. Corder (Dudek). February 22 and 23, 2017.
City of Palo Alto. 1986. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code – Historic Preservation (Chapter 16.49).
City of Palo Alto. 2007. “Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas in the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.” City of Palo Alto General Plan.
City of Palo Alto. 2014. Comprehensive Plan Update, Cultural Resources, Draft Existing
Conditions Report. City of Palo Alto.
Clay, V., and S. Waechter 2009. Data Recovery and Late Discovery Treatment Plan for the Caltrain
Electrification Program Alternative: San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties,
California. With contributions by W. Hildebrandt and J. Meyer.
Croll, S., and H. Pang. 2007. Castilleja: Celebrating a Century. Palo Alto, California: Castilleja
School Foundation.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
75 March 2019
DPAT (Daily Palo Alto Times). 1961. “New Dormitory for Castilleja.” Daily Palo Alto Times.
August 19, 1961.
Dyson, C. 2015. "Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials.” Accessed March
17, 2017. https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/mid-century-commercial-modernism-design-
and-materials/.
Foster, G. 2004. American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gebhard, D., and R. Winter. 2003. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Layton, Utah:
Gibbs Smith Publishing.
Hatfield, B., and B. Anderson. 2008. Over Time: Palo Alto, 1947–1980. Charleston, South
Carolina: Arcadia Publishing.
McAlester, V.S. 2015. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Meyer, J. 2011. Buried Archaeological Site Assessment and Extended Phase I Subsurface
Explorations for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project, Caltrans District 04,
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, 04-ALA-CC-80, P.M. ALA 1.99/P.M. ALA
8.04, P.M. CC 0.0/P.M. CC 13.49, EA 3A7761/EA 3A7771.
Michelson, A. 2015a. “Birge Malcolm Clark (Architect).” Pacific Coast Architecture
Database. Accessed April 12, 2017. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/759/.
Michelson, A. 2015b. “Paul James Huston.” Pacific Coast Architecture
Database. Accessed February 28, 2017. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/3211/.
Michelson, A. 2015c. “William Henry Daseking.” Pacific Coast Architecture Database. Accessed
April 21, 2017. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/4134/.
NETR Online (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2017. Historical aerial photographs
from 1952, 1953, 1954, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, and
2012. Accessed February 15, 2017. Historicaerials.com.
NRB (National Register Bulletin) 2002. National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 2002.
PADN (Palo Alto Daily News). 1996. “Castilleja dumps dorms, expands campus.” Palo Alto Daily
News, September 25, 1996.
PAHA (Palo Alto Historical Association). 1952. The Tall Tree: The Story of Palo Alto and Its
Neighbors, Vol. 1, No. 4. October 1952.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
76 March 2019
PAHA. 2015. “Out of the File Cabinet, Into the Classroom.” A You Tube video Presented by the
Palo Alto Historical Association. Electronic document:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hULC9xSbvs
Palo Alto Online. 1996. “Deaths: William Henry Daseking.” Accessed March 27, 2017.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/community_pulse/1996_Sep_
4.OBITS04.html.
PASH (Palo Alto Stanford Heritage). 2002. “The Spirit of Place Reflected in the 100 Year Old
Homes of Gustav Laumeister.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Newsletter, Vol. 15, No 3.
Spring 2002.
PASH. 2015. “Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory: 1310 Bryant Street, Castilleja School for
Girls: Administration Building and Chapel.”
PASH. 2017. “Palo Alto Stanford Heritage.” Website. Accessed March 27, 2017.
http://www.pastheritage.org/index.html.
PAT (Palo Alto Times). 1907. “Castilleja School.” Palo Alto Times. August 7, 1907.
PAT. 1926. “Castilleja School is Building Chapel.” Palo Alto Times, March 20, 1926.
PAT. 1939. Mary Lockey Obituary. Palo Alto Times, March 6, 1939.
PAT. 1960. “Castilleja School Rebuilds.” Palo Alto Times, December 26, 1960.
PAT. 1967. “Castilleja School Dedicates New Building.” Palo Alto Times, November 10, 1967.
PAW (Palo Alto Weekly). 1994. Palo Alto: The First 100 Years: A Special Project of the Palo Alto
Weekly. Accessed https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/centennial/. April 13, 1994.
PRC (California Public Resources Code), Sections 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), as amended.
Sanborn (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company). 1924. 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps.
Sanborn Map and Publishing Company.
Sanborn (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company). 1949. 1927–1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
maps. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company.
SCS (Santa Cruz Sentinel). 1966. “Roy Heald of SC Pioneer Family Dies; Rites Today.
Newspapers.com, Santa Cruz Sentinel. July 17, 1966, p. 15.
Cultural Resources Study for the Castilleja School Project
10056
77 March 2019
SFEC (San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle). 1967. “Trustee Mrs. David Packard stands before
new building complex at Castilleja School for Girls in Palo Alto.” San Francisco Examiner
and Chronicle, November 12, 1967.
SJEN (San Jose Evening News). 1919. “Indian Paint Brush.” San Jose Evening News, June 19, 1919.
SJMN (San Jose Mercury News). 1974. “Castilleja School to Build Fine Arts-Athletics Complex.”
San Jose Mercury News, March 22, 1974.
SJMN. 1992. “School Wins Dispute over Soccer Field.” San Jose Mercury News, March 18, 1992.
Staiger, S. “History of Castilleja School.” Interview with S. Staiger (Historian for Palo Alto
Historical Association) by Dudek. February 23, 2017.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1977. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA – 1977 –
G76361. U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS.
WJE (Western Journal of Education). 1921. “Castilleja School.” Western Journal of Education Vol.
27, No. 7. July 1921.
APPENDIX A
CONFIDENTIAL Records Search Results
APPENDIX B
NAHC and Native American Coordination
February 15, 2017 10056
Ms. Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area
P.O. 360791
Milpitas, CA 95036
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Dear Ms. Cambra:
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct a cultural resources study for the Castilleja
School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project (the proposed project). The project proposal
is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels and merge the two parcels into the
Castilleja campus parcel. The project involves the construction of a below-grade parking structure,
the demolition of four (4) existing buildings and construction of one replacement building, the
lowering of the existing pool below grade, completion of a bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and lowering the circular driveway below grade.
The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja School in Palo Alto, California located at
1310 Bryant Street and the two adjacent parcels at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. The project area
falls within Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the USGS 7.5-Minute Palo
Alto Quadrangle (see attached map).
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this proposed project, Dudek
contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations
who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project site. The SLF
search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project area.
The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of
cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural
resources that may exist within or near the proposed project site, please contact me directly at
(760) 840-7556, adorrler@dudek.com, or at 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
within 15 days of receipt of this letter.
Ms. Cambra:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 2 February 2017
Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of
consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes
concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of
projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto, in writing
(pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Adriane Dorrler
Archaeologist
Attachment.: Records Search Map
Ms. Cambra:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 3 February 2017
February 15, 2017 10056
Mr. Andrew Galvan,
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 3152
Fremont, CA 94539
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Dear Mr. Galvan:
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct a cultural resources study for the Castilleja
School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project (the proposed project). The project proposal
is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels and merge the two parcels into the
Castilleja campus parcel. The project involves the construction of a below-grade parking structure,
the demolition of four (4) existing buildings and construction of one replacement building, the
lowering of the existing pool below grade, completion of a bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and lowering the circular driveway below grade.
The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja School in Palo Alto, California located at
1310 Bryant Street and the two adjacent parcels at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. The project area
falls within Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the USGS 7.5-Minute Palo
Alto Quadrangle (see attached map).
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this proposed project, Dudek
contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations
who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project site. The SLF
search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project area.
The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of
cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural
resources that may exist within or near the proposed project site, please contact me directly at
(760) 840-7556, adorrler@dudek.com, or at 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
within 15 days of receipt of this letter.
Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of
consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes
Mr. Galvan:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 2 February 2017
concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of
projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto, in writing
(pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Adriane Dorrler
Archaeologist
Attachment.: Records Search Map
Mr. Galvan:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 3 February 2017
February 15, 2017 10056
Ms. Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA 95632
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Dear Ms. Lopez:
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct a cultural resources study for the Castilleja
School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project (the proposed project). The project proposal
is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels and merge the two parcels into the
Castilleja campus parcel. The project involves the construction of a below-grade parking structure,
the demolition of four (4) existing buildings and construction of one replacement building, the
lowering of the existing pool below grade, completion of a bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and lowering the circular driveway below grade.
The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja School in Palo Alto, California located at
1310 Bryant Street and the two adjacent parcels at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. The project area
falls within Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the USGS 7.5-Minute Palo
Alto Quadrangle (see attached map).
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this proposed project, Dudek
contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations
who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project site. The SLF
search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project area.
The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of
cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural
resources that may exist within or near the proposed project site, please contact me directly at
(760) 840-7556, adorrler@dudek.com, or at 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
within 15 days of receipt of this letter.
Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of
consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes
Ms. Lopez:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 2 February 2017
concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of
projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto, in writing
(pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Adriane Dorrler
Archaeologist
Attachment.: Records Search Map
Ms. Lopez:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 3 February 2017
February 15, 2017 10056
Ms. Katherine Erolinda Perez,
P.O. Box 717
Linden, CA 95235
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Dear Ms. Perez:
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct a cultural resources study for the Castilleja
School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project (the proposed project). The project proposal
is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels and merge the two parcels into the
Castilleja campus parcel. The project involves the construction of a below-grade parking structure,
the demolition of four (4) existing buildings and construction of one replacement building, the
lowering of the existing pool below grade, completion of a bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and lowering the circular driveway below grade.
The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja School in Palo Alto, California located at
1310 Bryant Street and the two adjacent parcels at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. The project area
falls within Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the USGS 7.5-Minute Palo
Alto Quadrangle (see attached map).
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this proposed project, Dudek
contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations
who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project site. The SLF
search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project area.
The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of
cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural
resources that may exist within or near the proposed project site, please contact me directly at
(760) 840-7556, adorrler@dudek.com, or at 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
within 15 days of receipt of this letter.
Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of
consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes
concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of
Ms. Perez:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 2 February 2017
projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto, in writing
(pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Adriane Dorrler
Archaeologist
Attachment.: Records Search Map
Ms. Perez:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 3 February 2017
February 15, 2017 10056
Ms. Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Dear Ms. Sayers:
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct a cultural resources study for the Castilleja
School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project (the proposed project). The project proposal
is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels and merge the two parcels into the
Castilleja campus parcel. The project involves the construction of a below-grade parking structure,
the demolition of four (4) existing buildings and construction of one replacement building, the
lowering of the existing pool below grade, completion of a bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and lowering the circular driveway below grade.
The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja School in Palo Alto, California located at
1310 Bryant Street and the two adjacent parcels at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. The project area
falls within Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the USGS 7.5-Minute Palo
Alto Quadrangle (see attached map).
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this proposed project, Dudek
contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations
who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project site. The SLF
search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project area.
The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of
cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural
resources that may exist within or near the proposed project site, please contact me directly at
(760) 840-7556, adorrler@dudek.com, or at 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
within 15 days of receipt of this letter.
Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of
consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes
Ms. Sayers:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 2 February 2017
concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of
projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto, in writing
(pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Adriane Dorrler
Archaeologist
Attachment.: Records Search Map
Ms. Sayers:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 3 February 2017
February 15, 2017 10056
Ms. Irene Zwieriein, Chairperson
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Ohlone Costanoan
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California
Dear Ms. Zwieriein:
Dudek was retained by the City of Palo Alto to conduct a cultural resources study for the Castilleja
School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project (the proposed project). The project proposal
is to demolish two homes on adjacent Castilleja-owned parcels and merge the two parcels into the
Castilleja campus parcel. The project involves the construction of a below-grade parking structure,
the demolition of four (4) existing buildings and construction of one replacement building, the
lowering of the existing pool below grade, completion of a bikeway station on Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and lowering the circular driveway below grade.
The proposed project will occur at the existing Castilleja School in Palo Alto, California located at
1310 Bryant Street and the two adjacent parcels at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. The project area
falls within Sections 1 and 2 of Township 6 South, Range 3 West of the USGS 7.5-Minute Palo
Alto Quadrangle (see attached map).
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this proposed project, Dudek
contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations
who may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the proposed project site. The SLF
search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project area.
The NAHC recommended that we contact you regarding your knowledge of the presence of
cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. If you have any knowledge of cultural
resources that may exist within or near the proposed project site, please contact me directly at
(760) 840-7556, adorrler@dudek.com, or at 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
within 15 days of receipt of this letter.
Please note that this letter does not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification or initiation of
consultation. AB 52 is a process between the lead agency and California Native American Tribes
Ms. Zwieriein:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 2 February 2017
concerning potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Tribes that wish to be notified of
projects for the purposes of AB 52 must contact the lead agency, the City of Palo Alto, in writing
(pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (b)).
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Adriane Dorrler
Archaeologist
Attachment.: Records Search Map
Ms. Zwieriein:
Subject: Castilleja School Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara
County, California
10056 3 February 2017
APPENDIX C
DPR Form
Page 1 of 21 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Castilleja School
P1. Other Identifier: Castilleja School ____
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Palo Alto Date 1997 T 06S; R 03W; NE ¼ of SE ¼ of Sec 2 ; Mount Diablo B.M.
c. Address 1310 Bryant Street City Palo Alto Zip 94301
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10S , 575042.79 mE/ 4143936.66 mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate)
Castilleja School is a collection of adjacent parcels and addresses that include 1310
Bryant Street (APN 124-12-034), 1235 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-031), and 1263 Emerson
Street (APN 124-12-033) in the City of Palo Alto, San Clara County, California. The
property is bounded by Bryant Street to the northeast, Kingsley Avenue to the northwest,
Kellogg Avenue to the southeast, and Emerson Street to the southwest. Elevation: 41 feet
amsl; Decimal Degrees: 37.438878°, -122.151276°
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Twelve buildings make up the Castilleja School campus. These are summarized in Table 1.
(See Continuation Sheet)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP15 – education building; HP38 – women’s property; HP29
– landscape architecture; HP16 – religious building
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Administration
and classroom building.
Looking southeast
(IMG_1782)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: Historic Prehistoric
Both
1907 (Croll and Pang 2007)
*P7. Owner and Address:
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Sarah Corder, MFA
Dudek
853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208
Auburn, CA 95603
*P9. Date Recorded:
2/22/2017
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Pedestrian
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Dudek. 2019. “Cultural Resources Study
for the Castilleja School Project, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California.”
Prepared for City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
Page 2 of 21 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) __ Castilleja School __________
*Map Name: Palo Alto, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: __1997_________
DPR 523J (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Castilleja School *NRHP Status Code
Page 3 of 21
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
B1. Historic Name: Castilleja School
B2. Common Name: Castilleja School
B3. Original Use: College preparatory school and dormitory for girls
B4. Present Use: College preparatory school for girls
*B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman, Post Modern, Contemporary Style
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
(See Continuation Sheet)
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: Roy Heald (Administration Building); Birge Clark (Chapel); Paul Huston
(Campus Center and Maintenance buildings); William Daseking (Ely Arts Center and
Rhoades Hall/middle school classrooms)
b. Builder: Gustav Laumeister (Administration Building); others unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme Architecture (Contributing) Area City of Palo Alto (local)
Period of Significance 1910, 1926 Property Type Education Building Applicable Criteria Local - 3
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address
integrity.)
(See Continuation Sheet)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
(See Continuation Sheet)
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: S. Corder
*Date of Evaluation: March 2019
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)
N
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __4__ of __21__
P3a. Description (Continued): Table 1 provides a description of all buildings and
structures surveyed, including a photograph of the building, current building name,
historic building name, year built, a general physical description of the building, and
any alterations identified through either building development research or during the
cultural resources survey.
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
Gunn Family Administration Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
1910 Roy
Heald
(archi-
tect)
and
Gustav
Laumeist
er
(builder
)
This building is
currently listed as a
Category 3 building on
the City’s Historic
Buildings Inventory.
The 2-story building is
irregular in plan and
now oriented to face
Embarcadero Road. The
building sits on a
poured concrete
foundation. The ground
floor is clad in pebble-
dash stucco, and the
second story is clad in
wood shingles. The roof
is sheathed in wood
shingles. The building
was originally designed
in the Craftsman style
and features overhanging
eaves, wood shingle
detailing, paired
Craftsman style windows,
wooden column supports,
and dormers. The
building is the only
remaining original
building to the 1910
founding of the school
and was designed by
prominent local
architect Roy Heald and
constructed by Gustav
Laumeister.
2000:
complete
reconfigurati
on of the
interior,
reconfigurati
on of the
entrance,
replacement
of all
windows,
replacement
of shingles,
replacement
of stucco,
removal of
building from
the
foundation
for basement
addition,
original
porch was
enclosed,
roof
replaced,
trellis/arbor
addition, and
connection of
building to
Chapel and
Rhoades Hall.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __5__ of __21__
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
Circle Feature
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
1910 Unknown The use of greenspace in
the original and later
designs was important to
Lockey and the early
students. The circle
feature appears on early
maps of the campus and
has remained a
significant element in
the overall design of
the campus. While much
of the campus developed
and built up from the
original plans, the use
of greenspace remains a
key component with the
circle feature.
The circle
feature is
largely
unchanged
with the
exception of
the grass
being
replaced by
synthetic
turf.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __6__ of __21__
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
Lockey House,
1263 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-
033)
1912 Unknown This 2-story, wood frame
house that is roughly L
in-plan has been
significantly altered
from its original
appearance. The building
sits on a poured
concrete foundation and
is clad in stucco. It
features a complex
hipped roof sheathed in
composition shingles,
and exposed rafter
tails. The façade of the
building is oriented to
face the Castilleja
School campus to the
southeast, which is now
the main elevation of
the house. The main
elevation features a
poured concrete stoop
that is offset to the
west and accessed by
brick steps under a
triangular pediment. The
six-panel wooden entry
door is flanked by fixed
wood windows, each of
which features four
panes. The remainder of
the façade features a
large four-over-one
window flanked by two,
two-over-one windows.
The second floor windows
are all three-over-one.
There was an addition
made to the north
elevation of the
building for a kitchen
expansion.
1990s:
Enclosure of
the original
entry way and
addition of
porch that is
oriented
toward
campus,
interior
reconfigurati
on for use as
Alumni house.
Dates
unknown:
garage
construction
and kitchen
addition.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __7__ of __21__
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
1926 Birge
Clark
This building is
currently listed as a
Category 3 building on
the City’s Historic
Buildings Inventory.
The 2-story Chapel was
designed by Birge Clark
in 1926. The building
was originally designed
as a standalone
building, but was
connected to the
Administration building
in 2000. Constructed in
the Craftsman style, the
building retains many
visual elements of the
style including
overhanging eaves, side
gabled roof sheathed in
wood shingles, wood
shingle cladding, and
paired Craftsman style
windows. However, the
building was extensively
renovated in 1980 and
again in 2000 and has
lost much of its
exterior and interior
integrity and
configuration.
1980:
Replacement
and expansion
of the stage
area,
replacement of
the ceiling,
and expansion
of the
building to
the west with
the addition
of the step
down style
windows.
2000: Removal
of the
building from
its
foundation
for basement
construction,
connection to
the
Administratio
n building,
replacement
of the
balcony and
reconfigurati
on of the
entrance from
Bryant
Street.
Arrillaga Family Campus Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
1960–
1962
Paul
Huston
The 3-story building was
poured in place concrete
construction with a
complex roofline that is
roughly rectangular in
plan. The building is
oriented with entry from
Kellogg Street to the
southeast and the campus
circle to the northwest.
1997: interior
reconfiguratio
n of second
and third
floors to
replace the
original
dormitory
space,
reconfiguratio
n of the first
floor for the
library,
reconfiguratio
n of north
elevation for
library
entrance,
additional
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __8__ of __21__
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
safety bars
installed on
outdoor
staircase
railings, and
the addition
of elevator.
2010:
Building was
reroofed with
spray foam.
Rhoades Hall/Middle School
Classrooms
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
1965–
1967
William
Daseking
The 1967 2-story poured-
in-place concrete school
building was a phased
construction project
that is irregular in
plan. The building is
clad in brick veneer
under the first-story
windows, then clad in
stucco that is accented
by vertical concrete
slat elements all set
under a spray foam roof.
The building is oriented
with its main entry
point facing Bryant
Street. The main point
of entry is recessed and
accessed by a columned
flat roof porch leading
to an elaborately carved
set of double doors
slightly offset in a 2-
story glass and metal
wall panel. Fenestration
is regular and all
original metal windows
are intact. The building
also features one of the
two sunken gardens on
campus, which is located
to the west of the
building.
1998: second
floor
reconfigured
from
dormitory
space to
classrooms
and offices,
connection to
Administratio
n building
and campus
center
building.
2010:
building
reroofed with
a spray foam
roof that is
in keeping
with the
color and
look of the
original roof
material.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __9__ of __21__
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
Maintenance
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
1960 Paul
Huston
The 2-story maintenance
building was constructed
in 1960. It is irregular
in plan with a rear
carport under a spray
foam gabled roof with
overhanging eaves and
exposed rafter tails.
Fenestration is
irregular and a variety
of metal windows is
featured on all
elevations. The building
is clad in concrete
block on the first story
and vertical wood siding
on the second story.
1980: The
building was
reroofed.
Circa 1990:
Sliding cage
doors were
added to the
carport
section of
the building.
1235 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-
031)
1979 Unknown The 2-story house is L-
shaped in plan, clad in
wood shingles with a
gabled roof sheathed in
composition shingles
constructed circa 1980.
The house is accessed by
Emerson Street by a
poured-concrete walkway.
The house is surrounded
by a wooden fence with a
small entry door near
the garage that provides
access to a sizable yard
with mature trees. The
house has an irregular
fenestration and all
windows appear to be
either fixed or double-
hung vinyl windows. The
main façade features a
recessed entry point
with multiple-pane
French style doors.
No
significant
changes were
observed.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __10__ of __21__
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
1980 William
Daseking
The circa 1980 2-story
building is rectangular
in plan and is oriented
to the northeast. The
building is clad with
concrete block and
features a flat roof.
The main (east)
elevation of the
building features a
recessed entry point
that is offset to the
north of the façade. The
main elevation also
features a wooden
pergola that is
supported with concrete
columns with a poured
concrete walkway. The
building also features
one of the two sunken
gardens on campus, which
is located to the east
of building.
2010: Reroof
of building
with spray
foam
Date unknown:
Addition of
the lockers,
reroof of the
building,
addition of
door to
building
facing
Emerson and
replacement
of rotted
wood on the
exterior
trellis
system.
Swimming Pool
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
2001 Unknown The current swimming
pool, the third pool
built at the same
location, was installed
in 2001.
There have
been no
significant
changes to
the pool
since its
installation
in 2001.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __11__ of __21__
Table 1. Castilleja School Buildings and Structures Surveyed
Building Name, Address, and Parcel
Year
Built
Architec
t Description
Identified
and Observed
Alterations
Pool Storage Building
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
2001 Unknown The small, 1-story,
flat-roofed, brick-
veneer pool storage
building is used for
chemical and pool
equipment storage.
There are no
known
alterations.
Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and
Athletic Center
1310 Bryant Street (APN 124-12-
034)
2008 Kornberg
and
Associat
es
The 2-story gymnasium is
roughly rectangular in
plan with a flat roof
and is clad in stucco
and wood shingles. The
building is accessed by
a glass entryway offset
to the east
There are no
known
alterations.
B6. Construction History (Continued): Campus Development History
Purpose-Built Campus, 1910
Shortly after the founding in 1907, the school moved to its current location at 1310 Bryant Street
in 1910. At that time, Lockey purchased 4.5 acres of land from Alfred Seale, who had two daughters
who would eventually graduate from Lockey’s school. The site of the new school offered an unobstructed
view of the surrounding meadows, all the way to the foothills. Much of the surrounding area consisted
of open space and orchards, with sparse residential development. The westerly-adjacent area now
known as the Professorville Historic District had already seen substantial residential development.
With the help of local planner/builder Gustav Laumeister, Lockey developed a site plan and building
plan for the campus at Bryant Street. Her plan included four buildings: a dormitory, chapel, science
building, and gymnasium. Early drawings from the period show the original campus layout to be very
similar to the campus today, with buildings around the outside and a large circular greenspace in
the center. The greenspace of the campus was only a starting point for the development of the campus.
According to a catalog from 1910 to 1911, Lockey advertised the school as follows:
These plans are especially adapted to the school and the climate, and are most attractive and
practical. The buildings are strongly built and braced and have excellent fire protection; the
plumbing and the heating plant are of the latest and most approved systems. Though the school
lies just beyond the town limits, there is a connection with the Palo Alto sewer… The sleeping
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __12__ of __21__
porch is one of the most attractive features of the building; it is situated on the third floor
… has a southern exposure, a roof, and protection from drafts and driving storms. Here, if
desired, girls may sleep out of doors all winter… The spacious living rooms are especially
planned for entertaining and for comfort. Small round tables are a feature of the cheery dining
room… Particular attention has been paid to the lighting of all the buildings, and in the
Recitation Hall every room has east or south sun (Croll and Pang 2007).
Lockey, and many other early-twentieth century educational advocates, believed in the importance of
connecting educational achievement with physical surroundings. This logic is partially what inspired
the original landscaping and layout for the campus. “Splendid live oak trees beautify the property,
producing a park-like effect, and lawns, fruit trees, and gardens are already in a state of advanced
growth and bloom possible only in a climate like that of California.” (Croll and Pang 2007:8). Trees
and planting was important to Lockey, and she frequently drew analogies between the growth of trees
and the growth of young girls. Upon moving to the campus in 1910, Lockey commented that the campus
contained “just twenty-two live oaks and nothing more.” (Croll and Pang 2007:50). From the campus’
earliest days, students and faculty would come together to plant a tree or shrub every Arbor Day,
and in 1911, the students planted an entire orchard.
Growth and Development of the Campus, 1910–1960
Shortly after the original campus was completed, students and faculty added to the beauty of the
campus with annual tree plantings and creation of an orchard. Like other educational institutions,
Castilleja School developed somewhat organically to support growing enrollment numbers and
educational programs.
In 1921, the Western Journal of Education noted an enrollment of 230 children and described the
school as follows:
Surrounded by luxurious and well-kept gardens, the Castilleja private school in Palo Alto, of
which Miss Mary I. Lockey is principal, carries an air of refinement and artistic atmosphere
which is most delightful. The school grounds occupies almost five acres. Outdoor study rooms
are one of the features of the school. A new music and art studio is under construction and a
large swimming pool on the grounds will be completed before the new term, which begins September
19 (WJE 1921).
Other early construction projects for the campus included a science lab, cottage, gymnasium, tennis
courts, and a chapel. The 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map confirms these early construction
projects mentioned in the 1921 Western Journal of Education (Croll and Pang 2007; Sanborn 1949).
The figure below provides a map of the campus in the 1934 showing the original campus buildings,
nearly all of which have been replaced.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __13__ of __21__
1934 Map of Castilleja School
Construction of the Chapel in 1926 was by far the largest construction project undertaken by the
school since its move to the Bryant Street campus in 1910. The Chapel was designed by esteemed local
architect Birge Clark and had a 500-seat capacity. Since the school had no specific religious
affiliation and did not intend to use the Chapel as a church, the Chapel became host to a variety
of activities for the school, including vespers, lectures, presentations, commencement, and
performances (PAT 1926; PAW 1994).
By 1949, Sanborn Fire Insurance maps reveal that the school campus was comprised of the following
buildings (Sanborn 1949):
Recitation Hall: The building appears to be L-shaped in plan and have 1 story largely fronting
Bryant Street. According to the map, the building was also used for classrooms.
Residence Hall/Dormitory: The building appears to be 2.5 stories and L-shaped in plan largely
fronting Bryant Street.
Chapel: The 1.5-story building is located to the rear of the Recitation Hall and appears to be
asymmetrical in plan.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __14__ of __21__
Gymnasium: The 1-story building is located to the rear of the Chapel and is rectangular in plan.
Bungalow: The 1.5-story building is roughly square in plan, fronts Kellogg Street, and is to
the rear of the Residence Hall/Dormitory.
Central Steam Heating Plant/Laboratories: The 2-story building is asymmetrical in plan and
fronts Kellogg Street.
Swimming Pool Complex: The swimming pool area is part of an interconnected series of buildings
and structures that includes an open-plan lattice structure that faces Kellogg Street, a 1-
story paint shop with what appears to be an open plan courtyard, a 1-story stage, a 2-story
shop, and a 1-story building housing dressing rooms, likely for the swimming pool. The
swimming pool is rectangular and there are no measurements.
Orchard House: The 2-story music hall building is rectangular in plan.
Lodge: The 1-story lodge building is rectangular in plan.
Campus Growth and Expansion, 1960–1980
Following the elimination of the lower grades in 1958, Castilleja School decided that its buildings
were outdated and decided to move forward with expansion and upgrades to the entire campus. The
original plan was very ambitious and called for the replacement of all campus buildings; however,
it was not fully carried out, because the Administration building and Chapel remain. Information
provided by Castilleja School provided a good construction timeline for all major projects that
would occur on campus between the 1960s and 1980s (Castilleja 2016).
The first project undertaken by the school was the construction of the new residence hall in 1960,
which was named the Arrillaga Family Campus Center. Although formally dedicated in 1962,
architectural drawings provided by the school provided a construction start date of 1960. The
original design of the Campus Center planned for housing 90 students and included recreation style
rooms with televisions lounges on each floor (Castilleja 2016; Croll and Pang 2007; PAT 1960; DPAT
1961).
A 1968 aerial photograph of the campus shows some changes to the building footprints on the corner
of Kellogg Avenue and Bryant Street, which is consistent with the school’s account of the new
building construction and architectural drawings of the multiphase construction of Rhoades Hall,
with its start as a dormitory and classroom building in 1965 known as Building C and its completion
as Rhoades Hall in 1967. Rhoades Hall spanned the space from the Campus Center to the Administration
building and contained 20 classrooms to support the 1967 enrollment of 300 students. The 1960s
construction projects revolutionized the look of the campus and remain today (Castilleja 2016; Croll
and Pang 2007; PAT 1967; SFEC 1967).
Renovations, Demolitions, and New Construction, 1970–2000
In 1977, the Seipp-Wallace Pavilion was constructed and functioned as a gymnasium for the school
until it was replaced in 2008 with the current gymnasium/fitness center (Brown 2017; Chapman 2017).
The Ely Fine Arts Center was proposed in the late 1970s and constructed in 1980. In that same year,
the school completed extensive renovations on the 1926 Chapel. The interior alterations converted
the Chapel from its original function to an auditorium. The school also added a 28-space parking
lot to the site to support the needs of its students and faculty (Brown 2017; Chapman 2017).
Extensive renovations to the campus buildings took place in the 1990s and early 2000s. The 1991–
2002 aerial photographs lack good resolution to see changes to the campus clearly; however,
information provided by the City and representatives at Castilleja School helped establish a
development/alteration timeline.
One of the biggest drivers for change in the 1990s was the closure of the student resident program.
The lack of boarding residential students made the dormitory spaces in the Campus Center and Rhoades
Hall obsolete. In 1997, renovation of the Campus Center included an interior reconfiguration to
replace living spaces on the second and third floors with classrooms, reconfiguration of the first
floor to house a library, and changes to the exterior iron stairwells to meet modern code compliance
(Chapman 2017).
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __15__ of __21__
In 1998, renovations began on Rhoades Hall to remove the dormitory spaces from the second floor on
the side of the building that faces Kellogg Avenue. The reconfiguration of the space resulted in
removing all dormitory rooms and replacing them with classrooms and offices for the students. The
removal of the dormitories allowed for a walkway along the campus-facing side of Rhoades Hall, which
did not exist prior to these renovations. These renovations made Rhoades Hall the continuous
classroom and office space it is today (Chapman 2017; PADN 1996; SJMN 1974).
The 1990s were also important because of the acquisition of 1263 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-033)
and its renovation. The renovation of the single-family residence to an alumnae house, now called
the Lockey House, took place in the late 1990s and included interior and exterior reconfigurations,
as well as extensive window replacements. The building was originally oriented to face Melville
Avenue, which was annexed by the school for the construction of a new softball field (SJMN 1992).
The adjacent property at 1235 Emerson Street (APN 124-12-031) was also purchased by the school in
the 1990s. Property records indicate that the building was constructed in 1979.
The early 2000s also represents a period of extensive change on campus with the renovation of the
Chapel and Administration building. The Administration building was lifted off its foundation and
moved slightly closer to Bryant Street so that a full basement and foundation could be constructed.
The interior renovations to the Administration building were extensive, and there is no evidence
remaining of the original interiors. Entrances to the building were also reconfigured, shingles and
stucco were replaced, a porch enclosed on the southeast elevation, and all windows were replaced
with double-paned wood windows that were designed to match the historic single-paned windows
originally installed.
Renovations to the Chapel were also quite extensive and included replacement of the balcony, stage,
and extension of the west exterior wall of the building. Another major change to the Chapel was the
connection of the Chapel to the Administration building and the removal of its Bryant Street entrance
on the east elevation. Presently, the Chapel is accessible from the inside of the Administration
building via the east elevation (Chapman 2017).
Since 2002, the school has continued to expand. In 2007, a basement addition to the physical arts
building was permitted. One of the most significant construction projects to take place since 2002
was the construction of the Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and Athletic Center in 2008.
B10. Significance (Continued):
Extensive archival research, combined with an intensive pedestrian survey of the Castilleja School,
indicates that the campus contains one historical resource: the Administration/Chapel building,
which is currently listed as a Category 3 building on the City’s inventory of historic resources;
listed in the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historical Resources Inventory with a status code
5S2 (individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation). While the campus
conveys its original plan on the most basic level (i.e., a central circle greenspace feature
surrounded by buildings and structures on the periphery), all other buildings/features on campus
were found to be ineligible for either individual listing or as a contributing element of a
historic district. Only buildings and structures over 45 years old were evaluated for historical
significance. Table 2 provides a summary of findings for all buildings/features on campus, and
Figure 9, (Castilleja School Eligibility Findings), provides an overview of the significance
evaluation findings.
Table 2. Castilleja School Buildings
Component Year Built Findings
Gunn Family Administration Center
Building/ Elizabeth Hughes Chapel
Theater
1910/1926 Locally listed (Category 3)
Circle greenspace feature 1910 Not eligible
Arrillaga Family Campus Center 1960–1962 Not eligible
Rhoades Hall 1965–1967 Not eligible
Maintenance Building 1960 Not eligible
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __16__ of __21__
Table 2. Castilleja School Buildings
Component Year Built Findings
Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center 1980 Not eligible
Swimming Pool 2001 Not eligible
Pool Storage Building 2001 Not eligible
Joan Z. Lonergan Fitness and Athletic
Center
2008 Not eligible
1263 Emerson Street (Lockey House) 1912 Not eligible
1235 Emerson Street 1979 Not eligible
California Register of Historical Resources Evaluation Criteria
The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with
previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP. According to PRC Section
5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial
integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria. Integrity is evaluated with
reference to specific criteria.
CRHR Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
The Castilleja School is one of the City’s oldest private schools, founded in 1907 and moved to its
current location in 1910. Castilleja School was established during a major period of growth in the
City as the interurban railroad was connected to larger nearby cities, streetcars began operating,
and both housing and commercial developments began to spring up throughout the region. Castilleja
School is associated with Palo Alto’s first boom of educational development since college preparation
became a particularly important focus in the community after the opening of Stanford University in
1891 (of which Castilleja’s founder, Mary Lockey was an alumni) and the arrival of many new families
to the area. Castilleja was an all-girls school specifically designed to prepare women for entry
into prestigious universities like Stanford and the school is associated with Palo Alto’s educational
development and women’s educational development. The current location at 1310 Bryant Street is the
second location of the school. The original school (Castilleja Hall) was founded in 1907 at 1121
Bryant Street. This building has been determined eligible as a contributor to the NRHP-listed
Professorville Historic District. The existing campus at 1310 Bryant Street lacks sufficient
integrity (as a whole) to convey any important associations, as all but two of the original school
buildings have been demolished. Therefore, the school does not appear eligible under CRHR Criterion
1 as a historic district. For similar reasons, the locally designated Administration/Chapel building
does not meet this criterion, as its setting and historical associations, have been significantly
compromised by new developments on the Castilleja School campus.
CRHR Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
The Castilleja School is associated with an individual important in Palo Alto’s past. In 1907, Mary
Ishbel Lockey (1872–1939) founded her own school at 1121 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. Three years
later, the school had outgrown its original home in a small rented house and moved to its present
day location down the street at 1310 Bryant Street. Lockey earned the respect and trust of then
Stanford University president, David Starr Jordan, who once said that he had “implicit confidence
in Miss Lockey,” such that he “would not hesitate to turn over the management of Stanford [to her],
were it necessary.” (Croll and Pang 2007, p. 2). Ms. Lockey is the central figure of the school’s
legacy, which has remained true to Lockey’s vision. While Lockey is considered an important local
figure, strongly associated with women’s educational development during a period that overlaps the
American Women’s Suffrage Movement, the campus itself lacks sufficient integrity (as a whole) to
convey any important associations since all but two of the original school buildings have been
demolished. The school can no longer convey associations with Lockey’s productive life in the field
of education. Therefore, the school does not appear eligible under CRHR Criterion 2 as a historic
district. For similar reasons concerning a lack of integrity, the locally designated
Administration/Chapel building does not meet this criterion, as its setting and historical
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __17__ of __21__
associations have been significantly compromised by new developments on the Castilleja School campus.
CRHR Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
Historic District Consideration
Only two of the original school buildings remain on campus: the Administration and Chapel buildings,
which are now connected and constitute one building. While the campus maintains the most general
aspects of its original plan—a central circle feature surrounded by buildings that front adjacent
streets—it lacks sufficient integrity to constitute a historic district. Much of the campus has been
replaced over numerous construction periods that include the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, and early 2000s.
Furthermore, the Craftsman style of the original school buildings has been almost entirely replaced
by Contemporary and Post-Modern-style buildings. Therefore, the campus does not appear eligible as
a historic district of campus buildings unified by architectural aesthetic or plan.
1960s Campus Buildings
None of the 1960s buildings were found to be individually eligible for CRHR or local designation.
While the Campus Center, Rhoades Hall, and Maintenance buildings retain their exterior integrity
(the interiors have been significantly altered), they lack the character-defining features of the
Contemporary style that one would expect to see in educational architecture such as use of exterior
cantilevered canopies, generous expanses of glazing to convey integration with the outdoors, and
expressionistic details such as butterfly and folded plate roof forms and curved/sweeping wall
surfaces. Although brick and stucco are used throughout, the buildings lack the broad, unadorned
expanses of these materials that are more typical of the style. The use of wooden slats on the
exterior classroom and campus center buildings offers a panelized appearance, a Japanese design
influence that came from Northern California, often referred to as Third Bay Tradition. The
Maintenance building also nods to this mixture of styles, exhibiting a combination of concrete block
and vertical wood siding.
Contemporary style features on the primary street elevations of the larger buildings are modest,
with the exception of the school’s main entrance to Rhoades Hall on Bryant Street, which exhibits a
flat roof supported by six square brick columns, and a glass and metal screenwall with a rectangular
pattern. The mid-century style of the 1960s buildings is better conveyed on the exterior elevations
that face inward toward the circle feature. The campus center exhibits exterior stairwells with
metal screens; and Rhoades Hall features outdoor corridors, L-shape posts that project from the
exterior walls, a butterfly roof locker structure, and open patio areas. The Maintenance building
features widely overhanging eaves and trapezoidal windows on its northwest elevation.
While the 1960s buildings embody some elements of the Contemporary style, with nods to Third Bay
Tradition, they are not considered a valuable example of either style, as they lack some of the more
distinctive characteristics of that would better convey these styles. Further, architects Paul
Huston (Campus Center and Maintenance buildings) and William Daseking (Rhoades Hall/middle school
classrooms) do not appear to be master architects, although both men completed numerous projects
throughout the Bay Area. Therefore, the 1960s buildings, including the Campus Center, Rhoades Hall,
and Maintenance building, do not appear eligible under CRHR Criterion 3 as either a district or as
individual resources.
Emerson Street Properties
The converted single-family residences located at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street were acquired by
Castilleja School in the 1990s. Records indicate that 1235 Emerson Street was constructed in 1979
and therefore does not appear eligible for the CRHR at this time. Site plans of 1263 Emerson Street
from 1990 indicate that the property has undergone substantial alterations in recent years, such
that the property no longer retains integrity of its original design, including modification of the
original front entrance, reconfiguration of the porch, connecting a once-detached garage, and what
appears to be a rear addition. The property’s setting has also been significantly altered since a
portion of Melville Avenue was absorbed by the Castilleja Campus. Therefore, the two residential
properties on Emerson Street appear not eligible under CRHR Criterion 3.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __18__ of __21__
Original Campus Elements
Both the Administration and Chapel buildings were significantly altered in the early 2000s as part
of a campus renovation project (see alterations presented in Table 3), which included connecting
the two buildings together. These renovations completely altered the buildings’ interiors and made
substantial alterations to the buildings’ exteriors. While there are enough character-defining
features still present to convey the Craftsman style of both buildings, the work of master local
architects has been significantly impacted by alterations that took place outside the period of
significance. The Administration building was designed by architect Roy Heald and constructed by
Gustav Laumeister, who have multiple buildings listed on the City’s local register and have made
important contributions to architecture in the Bay Area. The Chapel was designed by architect Birge
Clark, one of the most significant architects in the history of Palo Alto. Clark designed numerous
buildings throughout the City and has left an indelible mark on the City’s built environment. Despite
the buildings’ associations with significant local architects and that fact that the buildings
retain enough character-defining features to convey the Craftsman style, the alterations that
occurred in recent years have introduced new materials and design features that prevent the buildings
from conveying their original design intent or from representing a notable or important work by
local master architects. The replacement of nearly all windows; reconfiguration of the entrance;
replacement of shingles; replacement of stucco; the addition of a basement; enclosure of the original
porch; trellis/arbor addition; and connection of the Administration and Chapel buildings has
substantially impacted integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association with
master local architects. Therefore, the Administration/Chapel building appears not eligible under
CRHR Criterion 3 due to a lack of integrity (see Section 5.3).
CRHR Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
The Castilleja School buildings are unlikely to yield any information important to prehistory or
history, nor is it associated with any archaeological resources. Therefore, the campus buildings do
not appear eligible for listing under CRHR Criterion 4.
City of Palo Alto Evaluation Criteria
The Administration/Chapel building is currently listed as a Category 3 (Contributing Building),
defined as “a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a
neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors.” Despite significant
alterations to the building in recent years, it still meets the lower bar of a Category 3 building,
which 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.”
For all of the reasons discussed above in the CRHR significance evaluation, none of the 1960s
buildings or Emerson Street properties appear to warrant consideration for local designation, due
to a lack of important historical associations and architectural merit:
Criterion 1: None of the 1960s buildings or Emerson Street properties are associated with the
lives of historic people or important events.
Criterion 2: None of the 1960s buildings or Emerson Street properties are representative of an
architectural style or way of life. While the 1960s buildings embody elements of the
Contemporary style, with nods to Third Bay Tradition, they are not considered a valuable
example of either style, and lack some of the more distinctive characteristics of these
styles. The converted single-family residences located at 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street were
acquired by Castilleja School in the 1990s. Records indicate that 1235 Emerson Street was
constructed in 1979, and therefore does not appear eligible at this time. Site plans of 1263
Emerson Street from 1990 indicate that the property has undergone substantial alterations in
recent years, such that the property no longer retains integrity of its original design.
Criterion 3: None of the 1960s buildings or Emerson Street properties represent types of
buildings that were once common but are now rare. Mid-Century Modern education buildings are
not rare in the City. Further, the buildings on the Castilleja Campus are not considered
valuable examples of their style, and they lack some of the more distinctive characteristics
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __19__ of __21__
of the style. The property at 1263 Emerson Street is too altered to qualify under this
criterion, especially in consideration of other Craftsman-style residences in the neighborhood
that retain a much higher level of integrity. The property at 1235 Emerson Street was built
relatively recently and does not appear to warrant consideration under this criterion.
Criterion 4: None of the buildings are connected with a business or use that was once common
but is now rare.
Criterion 5: With the exception of the already designated Administration/Chapel building, none
of the buildings were designed or constructed by an important architect.
Criterion 6: For the reasons discussed under Criterion 3, none of the 1960s buildings or Emerson
Street properties contain elements that demonstrate outstanding attention to architectural
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship.
Integrity Considerations
Overall, the Castilleja School does not retain requisite integrity of its location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The redefined school boundaries, extensive
renovations and replacement of all but two of the original campus buildings compromises much of the
campus’ integrity.
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival
of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance, and the historical
resource’s ability to convey that significance. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective
judgment, but is must always be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and
how they relate to its significance. Within the concept of integrity, there are seven aspects or
qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity: location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity, a property will generally
possess several, if not most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is
paramount for a property to convey its significance.
Location: The school’s location at 1310 Bryant Street represents the second location of the school,
which moved to its current location in 1910. Although the campus has been significantly altered,
the school does maintain its integrity of the school’s first purpose-built location since the move
in 1910. The Administration/Chapel building was moved slightly closer to Bryant Street as part of
foundation renovation activities, but this did not significantly impact its integrity of location.
The two houses on Emerson Street also appear to retain integrity of location.
Design: The campus as a whole does not maintain the integrity of the original design, as all of the
original buildings except two (the Administration and Chapel buildings) have been demolished.
Replacement of the original Craftsman style buildings with Contemporary and Post-modern style
buildings further compromises the design aesthetic of the campus. While of historic age, the 1960s
buildings do not have strong character defining features of the Contemporary style and do not embody
character defining features of the original Craftsman style campus buildings. The residential
building at 1263 Emerson Street (now referred to as the Lockey House) has also been significantly
altered from its original design with the reconfiguration of the entry, attachment to a once detached
garage, kitchen addition and porch enclosures. Extensive alterations to the interior of the campus
buildings further compromises the integrity of design, thus the campus as a whole does not retain
integrity of design. Further, the Administration and Chapel buildings have undergone significant
changes to their original design, once standing as two independent buildings and now connected as
one.
Setting: The campus as a whole no longer retains its original setting integrity due to multiple
alterations to the campus throughout its history. One of the most significant changes to the setting
is the annexation of Melville Avenue, which was the boundary of the school for numerous years.
Originally the school was bounded on the northwest by Melville Avenue but the closure and subsequent
development of the street with athletic areas compromises the setting of the school. The expansion
of the campus to include the Lockey House and the parcel at 1235 Emerson Avenue further disrupts
the original setting as it extends the boundaries of the school and creates a sprawling urban campus
concept versus the strict boundaries of the original campus under the 1310 Bryant Street parcel.
While the property has always been located in a residential neighborhood, its clear historic
boundaries prior to the acquisition of the Lockey House, 1235 Emerson Street and the annexation of
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __20__ of __21__
Melville Avenue have negatively impacted the setting of the school in regards to the characteristics
that existed during the school’s period of historic significance. Therefore the subject property
does not retain integrity of setting.
Materials: The 1960s buildings retain their original materials with the exception of roof materials
that have been replaced with modern materials in recent years. The Lockey House does not retain its
original materials as there have been multiple material replacements and additions to the home that
compromises its integrity of materials. While some of the original Craftsman materials from the
Administration/Chapel building remain, most original materials have been replaced with new materials.
Therefore, none of the buildings retain integrity of materials.
Workmanship: Taken as a whole, the campus does not retain integrity of workmanship, as nearly all
of the original campus buildings have been replaced, leaving little left of the original workmanship.
Feeling: The subject property no longer conveys the aesthetic and historic sense that clearly defined
the original campus. While the buildings are still situated around a circle feature, the replacement
of all but two of the original campus buildings significantly compromises the integrity of feeling.
The expansion of the original boundaries of the campus to the northwest further impacts the integrity
of feeling, as one side of the campus is no longer part of a residential neighborhood, but is now
bordered by a busy city street – Embarcadero. While the Administration and Chapel buildings offer
the last remaining sentiment of the a campus that once consisted entirely of Craftsman style
buildings, their altered design and materials adds to a loss of integrity of feeling.
Association: The 1960s buildings and the Lockey House have no association with the original campus
only with the school. The Lockey House has been further compromised when it was converted from a
single family residence to an educational building. Likewise, the original Administration/Chapel
buildings have been extensively altered such that they can no longer convey associations with the
original campus, and struggle to convey their associations with important architects. Therefore,
the campus as a whole does not retain its integrity of association.
B12. References (Continued):
Boghosian, P., and J. Beach. 1979. National Register of Historic Places Inventory–
Nomination Form: “Professorville Historic District.” Prepared by Historic
Environment Consultants for the City of Palo Alto.
Brown, M. 2017. Interview with M. Brown (Finance and Operations Analyst for Castilleja
School) by S. Corder (Dudek). February 22 and 23, 2017.
Castilleja. 2016. Community Impact Report 2016. Electronic document Accessed March 21,
2017.
https://issuu.com/castillejaschool/docs/castilleja_community_impact_report_.
Chapman, D. 2017. Interview with D. Chapman (Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds for
Castilleja School) by S. Corder (Dudek). February 22 and 23, 2017.
Croll, S., and H. Pang. 2007. Castilleja: Celebrating a Century. Palo Alto, California:
Castilleja School Foundation.
DPAT (Daily Palo Alto Times). 1961. “New Dormitory for Castilleja.” Daily Palo Alto
Times. August 19, 1961.
McAlester, V.S. 2015. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
NETR Online (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2017. Historical aerial
photographs from 1952, 1953, 1954, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2009, 2010, and 2012. Accessed February 15, 2017. Historicaerials.com.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) *Required information
State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: _Castilleja School ____________________________________________________________
Page __21__ of __21__
PADN (Palo Alto Daily News). 1996. “Castilleja dumps dorms, expands campus.” Palo Alto
Daily News, September 25, 1996.
PASH. 2015. “Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory: 1310 Bryant Street, Castilleja
School for Girls: Administration Building and Chapel.”
PAT (Palo Alto Times). 1907. “Castilleja School.” Palo Alto Times. August 7, 1907.
PAT. 1926. “Castilleja School is Building Chapel.” Palo Alto Times, March 20, 1926.
PAT. 1960. “Castilleja School Rebuilds.” Palo Alto Times, December 26, 1960.
PAT. 1967. “Castilleja School Dedicates New Building.” Palo Alto Times, November 10,
1967.
PAW (Palo Alto Weekly). 1994. Palo Alto: The First 100 Years: A Special Project of the
Palo Alto Weekly. Accessed
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news_features/centennial/. April 13, 1994.
Sanborn (Sanborn Fire Insurance Company). 1949. 1927–1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
maps. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company.
SFEC (San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle). 1967. “Trustee Mrs. David Packard stands
before new building complex at Castilleja School for Girls in Palo Alto.” San
Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, November 12, 1967.
SJMN (San Jose Mercury News). 1974. “Castilleja School to Build Fine Arts-Athletics
Complex.” San Jose Mercury News, March 22, 1974.
SJMN. 1992. “School Wins Dispute over Soccer Field.” San Jose Mercury News, March 18,
1992.
Staiger, S. “History of Castilleja School.” Interview with S. Staiger (Historian for Palo
Alto Historical Association) by Dudek. February 23, 2017.
WJE (Western Journal of Education). 1921. “Castilleja School.” Western Journal of
Education Vol. 27, No. 7. July 1921.
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-1
CHAPTER 5
AESTHETICS
The following analysis identifies changes in the visual environment experienced by existing off-
site viewers with exposure to the Castilleja School project (proposed project). In addition, the
analysis discusses the potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project
relative to visual compatibility with existing development and consistency with the City of Palo
Alto (City) Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to aesthetics and design.
The City received several comments addressing aesthetics in response to the Notice of Preparation
for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These comments identified neighbors’ concerns
regarding the compatibility of the proposed buildings with the surrounding residential
neighborhood, particularly in relation to building scale, massing and height, proposed setbacks,
tree loss, and the appearance of the garage. The Notice of Preparation, Initial Study and comments
received are provided in Appendix A.
5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Setting
The 6.58-acre project site is located in the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. Palo Alto is
located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area known as the
Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County and six cities. It sits between
the Santa Cruz Mountains and the San Francisco Bay.
The City of Palo Alto lies in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is part of the Coast Ranges
geomorphic province. The regional structure is dominated by the northwest-trending Santa Cruz
Mountains to the southwest and the Diablo Range across the bay to the northeast. The Santa Cruz
Mountains consist of two entirely different, incompatible core complexes, lying side by side and
separated from each other by large faults.
While there are no officially designated scenic highways within the City of Palo Alto, the 2030
Comprehensive Plan identifies several scenic routes including Embarcadero Road, Oregon
Expressway, and El Camino Real. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes the aesthetic qualities
provided by forested hills, marshland, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks and riparian corridors in and
adjacent to the City and notes that the community values several distinctive qualities of the City,
including its historic buildings, pedestrian scale, high-quality architecture, and beautiful streets
and parks. Maintaining the physical qualities of the City is an overarching consideration,
incorporated in all parts of the Comprehensive Plan.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-2
Palo Alto comprises 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. The City began as a university town
in 1894 to serve the newly established Stanford University. The City grew to many times its
original size over the next century as land to the south and east was annexed.
The City contains at least 35 identifiable neighborhoods. Because the City’s neighborhoods were
developed over more than a century’s time, each has a distinct character. Each neighborhood
demonstrates the architectural styles, building materials, scale, and street patterns that were typical
at the time of its development.
Visual Conditions in the Project Vicinity
The proposed project is located in a single-family residential neighborhood on the south side of
Embarcadero Road. The Professorville Historic District is located north of the project site, on the
opposite side of Embarcadero Road. While the neighborhood surrounding the project site is not a
designated historic district, many of the homes in the vicinity date to the early 1900s. Consistent
with the description in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan of neighborhoods built prior to the mid-
1940s, this area has a traditional pattern of development with relatively narrow streets in a grid
arrangement, curbside parking, vertical curbs, and street trees between the curb and sidewalk.
Homes are oriented to the street and parking is often located to the rear of the lot (Palo Alto 2017).
As shown in Figure 3-2, Site and Vicinity, in Chapter 3, Project Description, the area around
Castilleja School is heavily vegetated and has a moderately dense tree canopy. Figure 5-1,
Neighborhood Context Photographs, provides representative images of the neighborhood
surrounding the project site.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project site is fully developed with Castilleja
School facilities, including four academic buildings, an outdoor pool, a grassy area, a
soccer/baseball field, a small maintenance building, and surface parking lots. Two small residential
structures are also located on the project site; one is used as rental housing and the other, the
Lockey Alumnae House, is used for school functions and events. A total of 121 trees are located
on the site, four trees are located adjacent to the site on private property, and 42 street trees are
located immediately adjacent to the site within the public right-of-way. Figures 5-2 and 5-3,
Project Site Photographs, provide images that are representative of views of the Castilleja School
campus from the adjacent streets.
Scenic Roadways
Embarcadero Road runs along the northern boundary of the project site. The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan identifies Embarcadero Road as a scenic roadway. It runs from Harbor Road
to El Camino Real and provides secondary access to Stanford University. Embarcadero Road is
lined with trees, homes, parks, and schools, and westbound drivers on portions of this roadway
can enjoys views of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-3
5.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal and State Regulations
There are no federal or state regulations pertaining to aesthetics that are applicable to the evaluation
of the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project.
Local Regulations
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Land uses in the project area are governed by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan contains the City’s official policies on land use and community design,
transportation, housing, natural environment, business and economics, and community services.
Its policies apply to both public and private properties. Its focus is on the physical form of the City.
The Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan provides establishes
goals, policies and programs that promote a high-degree of aesthetic quality in all new land
development projects within the City. Goals and policies that are applicable to the analysis of the
proposed project’s aesthetic impacts include:
Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character
and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering
places
o Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance
city streets and public spaces
o Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
o Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines
and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial
design and architectural compatibility.
o Policy L-6.6: Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to
promote personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of
community safety.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-4
Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and
character of the city
o Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever
possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other
alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to
parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy
and sufficient parking to meet demand.
o Policy L-9.3 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood
amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches
and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation.
o Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared
outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential
neighborhoods.
Architectural Review Board
The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB) is established under Chapter 2.21 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. The ARB is responsible for design review of all new construction as well
as changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple-family projects. The ARB was
created to promote high aesthetic quality in land use development projects to ensure new projects
are visually compatible with neighboring land uses. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020
states “The purpose of architectural review is to:
1. Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city;
2. Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city;
3. Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements;
4. Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas;
and
5. Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which,
at the same time, are considerate of each other.”
The ARB provides recommendations on projects to the Director of Planning and to the City
Council for their final approval. The Comprehensive Plan notes that the ARB plays an important
role in maintaining the City’s overall design standards and recognizes that “Palo Alto has many
buildings of outstanding architectural merit representing a variety of styles and periods. The best
examples of these buildings are constructed with quality materials, show evidence of
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-5
craftsmanship, fit with their surroundings, and help make neighborhoods comfortable and
appealing” (Palo Alto 2017).
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
Title 8, Trees and Vegetation
Regulations regarding street trees, shrubs and plants, weed abatement, and tree preservation and
management are outlined in Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Chapter 8.04 establishes that
a permit is required in order to remove or plant street trees, shrubs or plants, which are defined as
those that are in the public right-of-way, parks or public places in the City. A permit is also
required to “excavate any ditch or tunnel; or place concrete or other pavement within a distance of
ten feet of the center of the trunk of any street tree.” Chapter 8.10, the City’s Tree Preservation
and Management Ordinance, provides measures to maintain and protect both public and private
trees to promote health, safety, welfare, and quality of life. This chapter defines Protected Trees
to include coast live oak and valley oak trees that are at least 11.5 inches in diameter, redwood
trees that are at least 18 inches in diameter (measured 54 inches above natural grade), and any tree
designated by the City Council as a heritage tree.
Title 18, Zoning
The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Title 18 of the Municipal Code) outlines the regulations for
development in specific areas of the City and includes provisions regarding the visual qualities of
the built environments. As noted in Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.2, the Zoning Ordinance is a
key tool for the City to regulate building and site design. It defines specific development standards,
such as building height and setbacks, for each zone district. It also establishes the City’s design
review process, and sets forth the following requirements for all development in the City:
Interior and exterior light sources must be shielded to prevent visibility from off-site and
lighting in outdoor areas must be of low intensity and operated on a timer.
Buildings should avoid use of reflective surfaces that can create glare.
Architectural features and landscaping should be used to reduce apparent building mass
and bulk.
Trash and storage areas, mechanical equipment, and loading docks should be screened.
The development standards for the R-1 (10,000) zone as established in Chapter 18.12. of the
Zoning Ordinance include the following:
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-6
Setbacks: a contextual standard for front yard setbacks, 20-foot minimum for rear yard
setbacks, 8-foot minimum interior side yard setback, and 16-foot minimum street side yard
setback.
Maximum building height: 30 feet for standard roofs, 33 feet for buildings with a roof
pitch of 12:12 or greater.
Maximum site coverage: 35 percent for multiple-story development, with an additional
five percent permitted to be covered by a patio or overhang.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.45 for the first 5,000 square feet of lot size and
0.30 for the square footage of the lot in excess of 5,000 square feet.
Maximum house size: 6,000 square feet
The Zoning Ordinance includes detailed specifications about how the gross floor area is
determined for specific types of building features, such as garages and entry features. It also
defines features that are excluded from the gross floor area, such as first floor porches meeting
certain limitations and basements that comply with the patio and light-well requirements described
in Section 18.12.090.
Chapter 18.23.030. Lighting
Chapter 18.23.030 of the Municipal Code establishes performance criteria related to lighting and
glare impacts for Multiple Family, Commercial, and Manufacturing and Industrial Districts to
minimize the visual impacts of lighting on, abutting, or nearby residential sites and from adjacent
roadways. For example, Chapter 18.23.030 requires that exterior lighting in parking areas,
pathways and common open space shall be designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe
and secure access on the site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or
visual intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural lighting that
projects upward. Other requirements include that where a light source is visible from outside the
property boundaries, such lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting
residential property line, and that interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow
visible from and/or intruding into nearby properties and shall be shielded to eliminate glare and
light spillover beyond the perimeter property line of the development.
Chapter 18.40.130. Landscaping
Chapter 18.40.130 of the Municipal Code establishes landscaping regulations and performance
criteria for all development within the city with the intent of encouraging creative and sustainable
landscape design that enhances structures, open space areas, streetscapes and parking areas.
Important goals supported by the landscaping regulations include preserving native plant species,
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-7
providing shade, and achieving landscape designs that can contribute to economic vitality and
public health as well as enhance the character of Palo Alto.
5.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Methods of Analysis
This Draft EIR evaluates whether the project would result in a “substantial adverse effect” to
existing scenic resources and the visual character of the site and surrounding area.
A description of the project site and the surrounding area was prepared based on site visits and
review of aerial photographs. This EIR relies upon the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal
Code to determine what visual elements have been deemed valuable by the community. The impact
analysis focuses on the manner in which development could alter the visual elements or features
defined as important visual resources that exist in or near the project site and the whether the
project would alter the visual character of the project site.
Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and on requirements in the Palo Alto Municipal
Code related to shadowing public spaces, the proposed project would have a significant aesthetic
impact if it would:
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings;
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area ("glare" is defined in this EIR as the reflection of harsh bright
light sufficient to cause physical discomfort or loss in visual performance and visibility);
or
Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks)
between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM from September 21 to March 21.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G also includes significance criteria related to scenic vistas and scenic
resources that are visible from state scenic highways. The project site does not contain any scenic
vistas and is not a feature within any scenic vistas. Therefore, development of the project would
have no effect on any scenic vistas. In addition, there are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the
project site and development of the project would have no effect related to damage to scenic
resources visible from a state scenic highway. Therefore, these issues are not addressed in this
EIR.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-8
Impact Analysis
IMPACT 5-1 Would the project substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings
SIGNIFICANCE: Less than Significant
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION: Less than Significant
The project site is relatively flat and is developed with approximately 166,231 square feet of
building space. This includes approximately 122,318 square feet of gross floor area as defined in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.10 (which is the amount of above-grade building space
onsite, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.2 and Impact 4-1, in Chapter 4, Land Use and
Planning) and 43,913 square feet of below-grade building space. As shown in Figure 3-3, Existing
Site Plan, in Chapter 3, Project Description, the majority of the existing buildings and
improvements are located along the perimeter of the project site. These include the Campus Center
building and the Gunn Administration building along Bryant Street; the Classroom building along
both Bryant Street and Kellogg Avenue; the maintenance building and Leonard Ely Fine Arts
Center along Emerson Street south of Melville Avenue, and the rental house and Lockey Alumnae
house located on Emerson Street north of Melville Avenue. Additionally, Spieker Field, which is
the school’s soccer and baseball field, is located along Embarcadero Road, with the Elizabeth
Hughes Chapel Theater building visible from the road southeast of the field. Other improvements
within the campus include the Fitness and Athletic Center, an outdoor pool, and a large grassy
circle generally in the center of the campus (the Circle).
There are surface parking lots containing a total of 74 parking stalls located along Bryant Street,
at the corner of Kellogg Avenue and Emerson Street, and on Emerson Street at the terminus of
Melville Avenue. There are 121 trees located on the site, four trees located adjacent to the site on
private property, and 42 street trees are located within the immediate vicinity of the site within
public right-of-way (Appendix C).
The proposed project would allow Castilleja School to increase enrollment at the campus by 125
students compared to the existing CUP enrollment cap and undertake a phased plan to demolish
seven structures within the project site and construct a below-grade parking garage, a new outdoor
pool, and a new academic building (to include the library, classrooms, staff offices, and common
space). The project would not alter the existing land use designation or the zoning at the project
site; although the two single-family residential structures in the western corner of the site would
be demolished to accommodate the expanded campus.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-9
Construction Period Effects
During demolition and construction activities, there would be a noticeable change in the visual
conditions within and adjacent to the project site due to the presence of heavy equipment and
trucks, and the temporary views of exposed earth and buildings being demolished and constructed.
These activities would result in temporary change in visual character, which is considered a less
than significant impact.
Changes in Campus-Wide Visual Character
Site Coverage and Building Intensity
The buildings proposed for demolition are the Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center building, maintenance
building, pool equipment building, Campus Center, Classroom building, the Lockey Alumnae
House, and the rental house. Combined, these buildings include 90,593 square feet of gross floor
area (above ground building space). Under the proposed phased development plan, Castilleja
School would construct a new academic building that consists of 84,124 square feet of the above-
grade gross floor area, along with approximately 46,768 square feet of below-grade building space.
With implementation of the proposed phased development plan, the total amount of open space on
the project site is anticipated to increase by approximately 12,257 square feet. The total amount
of proposed site coverage is 73,416 square feet, whereas the allowable site coverage for the project
site is 100,374 square feet (based on the Municipal Code standard for a maximum of 35 percent
coverage in the R-1 zone).
Parking
The parking garage is proposed to consist of approximately 50,500 square feet of below grade
building space with 115 parking spaces and a dual-lane pick-up/drop-off area. The existing at-
grade parking lots along Bryant Street and at the corner of Kellogg Avenue and Emerson Street
would be reconfigured. The third parking lot would be demolished and the site redeveloped to
support the below-grade pool. The project would reduce the number of surface parking spots by
47, leaving a total of 27 above ground off-street parking spaces to supplement the 115 spaces in
the garage for a total of 142 on-site parking spaces, where the Municipal Code requires only 104
parking spaces for the 32 proposed teaching stations. With construction of the parking garage,
students and families would be instructed to use the garage for pick-up and drop-off and daily
parking. This would reduce the amount of on-street and off-street at-grade parking, which would
improve the visual character of the project site and surrounding area.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-10
Changes in Visual Character from Key Viewpoints
The following analysis determines whether the project would result in a substantial adverse change
in visual conditions by considering the proposed building design, materials, scale, and massing in
relation to the existing conditions at the project site and the adjacent streets. The analysis is based
on the site plans provided in Appendix B, which present detailed architectural, landscaping, and
lighting plans for the proposed below-grade parking garage, swimming pool, Academic building,
and open space area in the northwestern portion of the project site. Key elements of the building
plans are included in the EIR in figures presented in Chapter 3, Project Description, as well as the
following:
Figures 4-1 and 4-2, Building Elevations, which identifies the proposed scale, massing,
fenestration, materials, and colors for the proposed Academic building;
Figure 5-4, Fence and Wall Types and Locations, which provides a plan view of the
proposed campus modifications, and indicates the location of each of the four different
types of gates and fences proposed to be used within the project site; and
Figure 5-5, Fence and Wall Designs, which provides the design details that would be used
for each wall and fence type.
Views from Embarcadero Road
Current views of the project site from Embarcadero Road consist of a low brick wall topped with a
steel fence consisting of vertical posts and chain link. Spieker Field is visible behind the fence.
There are 11 street trees along this frontage and five trees growing along the northern edge of Spieker
Field that provide substantial tree canopy in the foreground of this viewshed. All of these trees, the
brick wall, and the steel fence are proposed to be retained in place. Several of the trees near the
midpoint of the project site frontage on Embarcadero Road are deciduous, thus the tree canopy is not
present in winter and passers-by on Embarcadero Road have a clear view of the Elizabeth Hughes
Chapel and the existing Fitness and Athletic center during the winter season. Near Bryant Street,
there are six additional trees growing between the existing parking lot and Embarcadero Road, all of
which are proposed to be retained in place. These trees provide screening of the parking area and
activities within this portion of the campus from Embarcadero Road.
Views from Embarcadero Road would be substantially altered during construction of the below-
grade parking lot, which would be placed below Spieker Field and during the period in which the
temporary campus buildings are onsite. As shown in Figure 3-8, Temporary Campus Plan, the
temporary campus buildings would be placed on Spieker Field, with two rows of classroom
buildings generally parallel to Embarcadero Road and placed approximately 20 feet from the
property boundary. However, at the completion of all construction and restoration of Spieker Field,
the views from Embarcadero Road would not change substantially from the existing condition. Thus
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-11
the project would result in a less than significant change in the visual characteristics of the project
site as viewed from Embarcadero Road.
Views from Bryant Street
Current views of the project site from Bryant Street include a small parking lot near Embarcadero
Road, the Gunn Administration Building, and the Classroom building. A looped driveway that
provides space for student drop-off and pick-up extends along a portion of the site’s Bryant Street
frontage. Under the proposed project, the parking lot would be reduced to provide a single row of
parking along Bryant Street and a driveway ramp into the below-grade parking garage. As shown on
Figure 3-11, Landscaping Plan, and Figure 5-5, there are several trees within and adjacent to the
parking lot; one of these would be relocated and the rest would be retained in place. There are also
ten street trees along the project site’s Bryant Street frontage. Two of these would be relocated and
the rest would be retained in place. No changes to the Gunn Administration Building would be made.
The Classroom building would be demolished and replaced. As shown in Figure 3-6, Proposed
Campus Plan, the proposed Academic building would be constructed with one wing oriented parallel
to Bryant Street, one wing parallel to Kellogg Avenue, and an extension off the westerly end of that
wing oriented parallel to Emerson Street. As shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, Building Elevations, the
building frontage on Bryant Street would consist of two primary façades, each 30 feet in height,
connected by a solid wood fence with a pedestrian gate. The northerly of the two building façades
would be sided with wood shingles while the southerly façade would be sided with wood panels.
The northerly façade would be set back from Bryant Street by approximately 50 feet while the
southerly façade would be set back 20 feet. As shown in Figure 3-11, the area within the 20-foot
setback between the looped driveway and Kellogg Street would be landscaped with a bio-retention
swale and perimeter planting.
As shown in Figure 5-4, the fence connection the two façades would be Fence Type 4, a row of
bicycle parking would be placed in front of the northerly façade, a section of Fence Type 3 would
be constructed between the bicycle parking and Bryant Street, and Fence Type 1 would be
constructed between the northerly façade and the existing Gunn Administration Building. As shown
in Figure 5-5, Fence Type 4 would be six feet tall and Fence Type 3 would be four feet tall. Both
would have a steel frame and be faced with 1x4 cedar boards. Figure 4-2 shows that this section of
Fence Type 4 would have all of the 1x4 cedar board oriented with the wide side facing the street, to
provide a solid fence. The Fence Type 3 used in front of the bicycle parking would have sections
where the 1x4 cedar boards would be oriented with the narrow side facing the street and a four-inch
gap between boards, and other sections where the wide side would be facing the street and there
would be minimal gaps between boards (refer to the Plan view of the Fence Type 3 details on Figure
5-4). Fence Type 1 would consist of a 1-foot, six-inch tall brick wall topped with a four-inch layer
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-12
of concrete to match the existing hardscape in this area. This would be topped with a four-foot tall
steel fence painted to match the existing steel fencing at the administration building.
The project would replace the existing Classroom building with a new building that would be similar
in size, scale, and massing to the existing building. The new building would be approximately 4 feet
shorter than the existing building, and the massing as viewed from Bryant Street would be slightly
reduced because of the open section between the northerly and southerly building façades and the
separation that would be created between the northerly building façade and the Administration
building. This would improve visibility of the Administration building, which is a historic resource,
as discussed in Chapter 6, Cultural Resources. Landscaping and fencing would be similar to existing
landscaping and fencing within the project site and would be compatible with the residential nature
of the surrounding neighborhood. Thus the project would result in a less than significant change in
the visual characteristics of the project site as viewed from Bryant Street.
Views from Kellogg Avenue
Current views of the project site from Kellogg Avenue include the southern façades of the existing
classroom building and campus center building, and the small at-grade parking lot at the corner of
Kellogg Avenue and Emerson Street. There are two driveways accessing this parking lot off of
Kellogg Avenue. A looped driveway that provides space for bus loading and unloading extends
through the middle of the site’s Kellogg Avenue frontage.
Under the proposed project, the existing classroom building and campus center building would be
demolished and replaced with the new Academic building. The looped driveway would be
eliminated and the existing parking lot would be reconfigured and shifted towards Emerson Street
such that there would be only one driveway accessing the lot from Kellogg Avenue. The existing
classroom building extends approximately 140 feet along Kellogg Avenue from its intersection
with Bryant Street. There is a 30-foot wide separation between the classroom building and the
campus center building, with a solid wood fence and gate connecting the two buildings at ground
level. The campus center building extends another 195 feet along Kellogg Avenue towards
Emerson Street.
The proposed Academic building would extend for approximately 400 feet along Kellogg Avenue
from its intersection with Bryant Street and would have a maximum height of 30 feet. As shown
in Figure 4-2, Building Elevations, the building frontage on Kellogg Street would have long sections
sided with wood panels and storefront windows separated by solid concrete vertical bands. One
section near the middle of this façade would be sided with wood shingles and narrower windows on
the upper story and a windowed wall on the ground-level. The breaks in the vertical features and
materials coincide with horizontal articulation in the building, as shown on Figure 3-6, Proposed
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-13
Campus Plan, and Figure 5-4. With this horizontal articulation, the building setbacks from Kellogg
Avenue would range from 20 to 45 feet.
As shown on Figures 3-4 and 5-5, there are 11 street trees along this frontage. The street tree
closest to Emerson Street would be relocated while the rest would be retained in place. There are
also 13 trees between the public right of way and the southern façades of the two existing buildings.
The looped driveway along Kellogg Avenue would be demolished; the sidewalk would be repaved
and this area would be landscaped. The horizontal articulation of the Academic building façade
would allow for retention of the landscape trees in this area. The building design anticipated
retention of tree #45, which is a blue atlas cedar with a trunk that is 57 inches in diameter at breast
height. However, Castilleja School recently received a report regarding tree #45, which found the
tree to be diseased and dying from the inside to outside. The report concluded that the tree is
structurally unsound and recommended immediate removal (Bench 2019). Castilleja School has
submitted a separate Architectural Review application for a tree removal permit to the City, as
required by the City’s codes. Because the building design anticipated retention of this tree, and
the proposed project evaluated in this EIR does not require removal of the tree and does not
contribute to the existing disease affecting the tree, the potential removal of this tree is not
considered an impact of the proposed project. One of the 13 trees would be relocated and the
remaining 11 trees would be retained in place.
The project would replace the existing Classroom and Campus Center buildings with a new building
that would be similar in size, scale, and massing to the existing buildings. The new building would
be approximately four feet shorter than the existing building but would be approximately 35 feet
longer and would not maintain the existing break in the massing that occurs between the Classroom
and Campus Center buildings, which is shown in Photo 5 on Figure 5-2, Project Site Photographs.
The horizontal articulation and patterning of the building materials on the southern façade of the new
Academic building would help to break up the massing. All bus loading and unloading would occur
within the parking garage. This would remove bus activity from this predominantly residential
street, which would improve the visual character in terms of its compatibility with the neighboring
residences. Landscaping would be similar to existing landscaping within the project site and would
be compatible with the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood. Thus the project would
result in a less than significant change in the visual characteristics of the project site as viewed from
Kellogg Avenue.
As discussed previously, if the City approves removal of the blue atlas cedar due to its diseased and
dying condition would affect site aesthetics but would not be considered an impact of the proposed
project evaluated in this EIR. Further, if removal of this tree is approved under the separate
Architectural Review application, the project would accommodate replacement of the tree in the
same location.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-14
Views from Emerson Street
Current views of the project site from Emerson Street consist of a wooden fence and several closely
spaced trees near Kellogg Avenue, vehicles parked within the on-site parking lots on either side of
the Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center, views of the front of Lockey Alumnae House that are partially
screened with tree canopy and unscreened views of the Lockey house, and views of wooden fencing
and the garage of the rental house located north of the alumnae house.
The proposed project would not substantially change views of the site from Emerson Street near its
intersection with Kellogg Avenue. The street trees and onsite trees in this area would be retained in
place (Figure 5-5). Fencing and additional plantings would be added to the existing landscaped area.
As shown on Figure 5-4, fencing in this area would include Fence Type 3 and Fence Type 4. As
shown in Figure 5-5, and described previously, Fence Type 3 would be four feet tall, have a steel
frame, and 1x4 cedar boards with sections that have varied board orientation and spacing. Figure
5-4 also shows that Fence Type 4 would have the same steel framing and varied sections of 1x4-
inch reclaimed cedar boards but would be six feet in height. A 20-foot wide landscape zone would
be created around this fence. As shown on Figure 3-11, Landscaping Plan, vegetation used in this
area would include a variety of shrubs and flowering plants from the project’s “Perimeter Planting”
plant list. A small parking lot would be constructed behind the wooden fence such that some parked
cars would still be visible from Emerson Street, but the views would be filtered by the proposed
fencing and landscaping.
The Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center would be demolished and the below-grade swimming pool would
be constructed within the existing footprint for the Fine Arts Center and the parking lot to the north.
A bicycle parking area would be established on the north side of the pool area wall. There are five
street trees along the Emerson Street frontage in the area proposed for the new swimming pool. Four
of these would be retained in place while one would be relocated (Figure 5-5). In addition there are
seven trees located between the sidewalk and the Fine Arts Center and adjacent parking lot. All of
these would be retained within the 20-foot setback from Emerson Street (Figure 5-5).
Currently there is no fence or wall along this portion of Emerson Street. With construction of the
new swimming pool in this area, a sound wall would be constructed along Emerson Street adjacent
to the proposed swimming pool. This would shield views of the pool area, but would create a large
wall face along the Emerson Street sidewalk, which would change the aesthetics of the pedestrian
experience along this sidewalk. Figure 5-4 shows that Wall Type 1 would be constructed along the
Emerson Street frontage and between the proposed bicycle parking and pool. Figure 5-5 shows
that the sound wall would be six feet in height, with a kicker at the top. The kicker would be three
feet high but angled in towards the pool, thus reducing the perceived massing of the sound wall to
that of a standard 6-foot high wall. Horizontal wood slats would be mounted on the side of the
sound wall that faces Emerson Street. Additionally, a 20-foot wide landscape zone would be
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-15
created between the sound wall and the sidewalk and planted with shrubs and flowering plants
from the project’s “Perimeter Planting” plant list, as shown on Figure 3-11. A two-foot tall brick
planter, approximately three feet in depth, would be installed adjacent to the sound wall.
The parking garage driveway would be located north of the bicycle parking area, and the private
open space area would be established at the northern end of the site’s Emerson Street frontage.
Both of the residential structures in this portion of the project site would be demolished. The
parking garage would not be visible from any viewpoints surrounding the project site; only the
entrance and exit ramps and associated walls and fencing would be visible. As shown on Figure
5-4, the proposed gate at the parking garage exit ramp would be placed at the below-grade end of
the ramp, immediately at the exit to the garage structure, thus it would not be visible from Emerson
Street. The view from Emerson Street would be of driveway sloping downward to the garage and
of the fencing along each side of the driveway. As shown on Figure 5-4, the fencing on the
northwestern side of the driveway would be Fence Type 2 while Fence Type 4 would be used
along the southeastern side of the driveway and in front of the bicycle parking proposed to be
adjacent to the pool. As shown on Figure 5-5, Fence Type 2 would consist of steel framing with
posts spaced a maximum of five feet apart and 1x4-inch reclaimed cedar boards oriented with the
narrow side facing the street and spaced four inches apart, and with a height of three feet-six inches.
Fence Type 4 would be six feet in height with steel framing and 1x4-inch reclaimed cedar boards.
As described previously, in some sections, there would be a four-inch gap between the 1x4 boards
oriented with the narrow side facing the street and in other sections the 1x4 boards would be
oriented with the wide side facing the street, providing a more solid fence design. There are 22
trees interior to the project site that contribute to the tree canopy in the area surrounding the two
residential structures onsite. All of the trees would be removed or relocated to accommodate
construction of the parking garage. However, most of the trees closer to the street would be retained.
Figure 5-4 indicates that perimeter treatment for the 0.33-acre open space area between Emerson
Street and Speiker Field would include Fence Type 2 along Emerson Street and the parking garage
exit ramp, and Fence Type 5 between the open space and the adjacent private residential property.
Because Fence Type 2 orients all of the cedar boards with the narrow side facing the street, viewers
along Emerson Street would be able to see into the open space area. As shown on Figure 5-5,
Fence Type 5 is six feet tall and consists of horizontal 1x4 reclaimed cedar boards with ½-inch
spacing mounted on 2x6 tube steel posts spaced a maximum of eight feet on center. This provides
a generally solid fence typical of residential privacy fencing. The Emerson Street frontage would
experience a greater degree of change from the existing conditions than the other three frontages.
The two existing residential structures would be demolished, and 26 trees that are visible from this
frontage would be removed. New fencing and landscaping would be added, including the creation
of the 0.33-acre open space area. Considered as a whole, these changes would not substantially
alter the visual character of the project site or the surrounding area. The Emerson Street frontage
would continue to present the character of a school campus for middle and upper grades,
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-16
particularly in the southern portion of this frontage. The project would demolish two residential
structures that do not currently contribute to the institutional nature of the project site, but do
contribute to the residential homes development pattern at this end of Emerson. These structures
would be replaced with the driveway egress from the parking garage and associated fencing, and
with the private open space area. Views of portions of the parking garage structure and driveway
would be filtered by fencing and landscaping. While replacement of one residential structure with
a parking garage egress driveway could be seen as an adverse visual change if viewed in isolation,
the addition of fencing and landscaping to the frontage would soften the views of the driveway
and the replacement of a second residential structure with a landscaped open space area is
considered a beneficial visual change. Further, as noted above, the project would remove much of
the on-street and off-street vehicle parking from view, which is also a beneficial visual change.
Considering all of these factors, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
visual character of the project site viewed from Emerson Street.
Conclusion
In summary, the proposed project would reduce the number of structures onsite and increase the
amount of open space. Although it would increase the total square feet of building area dedicated to
the school use by 40,114 square feet, all but approximately 6,000 square feet of this increase
(represented by the demolition of the two residential buildings) would be located below grade and
there would be no increase in the gross floor area (above ground building space). The project would
improve the visual character of the site and its compatibility with the surrounding residential
neighborhood compared to the existing conditions by reducing the amount of at-grade parking, both
on-street and off-street, relocating bus loading and unloading to the below-grade parking garage, and
creating a private open space area in the northwestern corner of the project site. The proposed
building plans use materials, colors, and details that are compatible with the existing structures on
the site such that the overall campus would have a unified and coherent design. The project design
includes pedestrian scale fencing and gates to provide several paths of ingress and egress for students,
staff and visitors, including convenient bicycle parking.
The scale, massing, and character of proposed buildings, fencing, walls, and landscaping are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed in Impact 4-1 in Chapter 4, Land Use
and Planning, the proposed building would comply with the 30-foot maximum building height limit
in the R-1 zone. Complying with the height limit will help ensure that building scale and massing is
compatible with neighboring residences which consist of primarily two-story buildings. Wall and
fencing details include elements typical for residential properties, such as 1x4-inch cedar boards and
a band of circle detail at the top of iron fencing. The project would result in a greater amount of
open space within the project site and a reduction in the total amount of above ground building space.
Building massing would be similar to the existing conditions and incorporates horizontal articulation
to visually reduce the massing. Proposed landscaping incorporates retention of existing trees where
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-17
feasible, planting of replacement trees and additional landscaping throughout the campus. The plants
included in the landscaping plan are typical of residential landscapes in the vicinity and meet the
City’s requirements for low-water usage. The project also incorporates elements that meet the City’s
sustainability goals, such as rooftop photovoltaics, energy efficiency, and water-use efficiency.
Therefore the impacts of the proposed project on the visual character and quality of the project site
and surrounding area would be less than significant.
IMPACT 5-2 Would the project substantially shadow public open
space (other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks)?
SIGNIFICANCE: No Impact
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION: No Impact
There are no public spaces immediately adjacent to the project site other than the public roadways
that form the site boundaries. The nearest public space is the Elizabeth Gamble Garden
approximately two blocks to the east and would not be affected by the proposed project. Generally,
in the northern hemisphere, shadows are cast to the north. Embarcadero Road is located along the
project site’s northern boundary. Shadowing of Embarcadero Road would not be considered a
significant impact. Thus the project would have no impact associated with shadowing public open
spaces.
For informational purposes it is noted that some temporary shadowing of Embarcadero Road could
occur during the proposed Master Plan implementation phases 3 and 4, when Spieker Field would
be used as the temporary classroom building location. Buildings within the temporary campus
would be a maximum of 28 feet tall and would be placed onsite generally as shown in Figure 3-8,
Temporary Campus Plan, in Chapter 3. These buildings could cast some shadows on Embarcadero
Road. After construction of the new Academic building in the final phase of the proposed Master
Plan implementation, the temporary campus buildings would be removed and any shadowing of
the road associated with those buildings would no longer occur.
IMPACT 5-3 Would the project create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant
MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation Measure 5a
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION: Less than Significant
Lighting is necessary to provide proper site visibility, guide movement at and around a project site,
provide security, emphasize signs, and enhance architectural and landscape features. Site lighting
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-18
design considerations include mounting heights, light color, and shielding to focus lighting and to
avoid glare. Construction undertaken in implementation of the proposed Master Plan could result
in increased light and glare affecting surrounding properties and affecting safety on adjacent
roadways through the addition of building lights, parking lot lights, car headlights, and any
reflective building materials, including windows. Outdoor lighting sources create the greatest
potential for light and glare impacts on adjacent properties. Removal of vegetation and trees, which
can act as a natural shield, would also increase the potential for outdoor lighting to shine on
adjacent property.
Direct glare is caused by a light source such as a light fixture or the sun. Sources of glare can also
be surfaces that, after being illuminated by direct lighting or other indirect sources, have
measurable luminance and, in turn, become light sources themselves. Potential sources of light
and glare at nighttime would be lights and structural building features made of glass, metallic,
painted surfaces, and vehicles accessing the site. Light would be emitted from the proposed
buildings and surface parking lots during non-daylight hours. Light would also be emitted from
the pool when it is used for swim meets and water polo games during non-daylight hours. Lights,
aside from security lighting would be rarely used at the project site at nighttime would be directed
downward and would not directly illuminate adjacent residential areas. The Municipal Code
requires that lighting be installed such that no light source within the project site generates a light
level greater than 0.5 foot-candle (the amount of light generated by 1 candle at a distance of 1 foot)
on any off-site residential property.
In the daytime, glare sources would come from building materials and vehicles accessing the site.
In phase 1 (subterranean garage), the proposed materials are primarily concrete, with metal railings
for pedestrian stairways and bridges; the temporary campus buildings that would be installed on
the site under phase 2 use stucco and limited window glass; construction of the below grade pool
and sound wall in phase 3 would use concrete, wood, stone and metal; and the new academic
building constructed under phase 4 would use wood, steel, brick, metal panels, and windows. The
potential for windows to result in glare would be minimized with roof overhangs, tree retention
and planting, and fencing that would reduce direct solar exposure on windows and reduce the
potential for light reflecting off windows to create glare for drivers on adjacent streets. The project
does not propose use of highly reflective surfaces, such as mirrored glass, black glass, or metal
building materials. The project would not result in glare from new project light sources and
therefore would not adversely affect nighttime views or daytime safety.
The building plans in Appendix B2 include lighting plans and (see sheets LT.003 and LT.100
through LT.104). These plans show that lighting fixtures would include bollards and ground-level
fixtures along walkways and near building entrances, building-mounted lighting around building
perimeters and at entrances, ground-level lighting in bicycle parking areas, and wall mounted
lighting on steps and planter walls. Upward-directed spot lighting would be used only to highlight
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-19
specimen trees. Light levels at the project site perimeter would be 0.5 footcandle or less, thus the
project would not create substantial light spillover to adjacent public right-of-way or private
property.
Detailed construction plans have not yet been submitted for future Master Plan implementation
phases. It is not possible to verify at this time that the design, materials, and light levels of each
future improvement would meet the City’s development standards; therefore, this is considered a
potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 5a requires Castilleja School to submit
building materials and a lighting plan to the City for approval prior to construction. This would
allow the City to determine whether the proposed lighting plans are compliant with the
development standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The potential for light and glare impacts would
remain less than significant with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, as stipulated in
Mitigation Measure 5a.
IMPACT 5-4 Substantially contribute to cumulative impacts to the
visual character of the region.
SIGNIFICANCE: No Impact
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION: No Impact
As discussed in Section 4.1, there are several recently approved or pending projects in the vicinity.
The majority of these, located on single-family residential parcels, consist of modifications to or
demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling units. The projects in the cumulative scenario
are not expected to alter the visual character of the neighborhood around the project site. Thus
there is no significant cumulative aesthetic impact to which the project could contribute.
5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 5a Prior to issuance of building permits for each construction phase,
Castilleja School shall submit a lighting plan that identifies the specific light
fixtures to be used and their proposed locations. The lighting plan shall also
identify the expected light levels within the property and at the property boundaries.
5.5 REFERENCES CITED
Bench, Michael. 2019. Arborist Assessment for Tree #45. June 11, 2019.
Palo Alto, City of. 2017. Our Palo Alto 2030: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915.
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-20
Palo Alto, City of. 2018. Palo Alto Municipal Code. http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-
alto_ca/.
Da
t
e
:
7
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
t
f
r
i
e
s
e
n
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
E
I
R
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
5
-
1
_
C
o
n
t
e
x
t
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
m
x
d
Neighborhood Context Photographs
Castilleja School Project EIR
SOURCE: Only if non Dudek photos, change color in layout to Gray 60%FIGURE 5-1
Photo 1: Houses on NE side of Bryant Street Photo 2: Houses on NE side of Bryant Street Photo 3: Houses on SE side of Kellogg Avenue
Photo 4: Houses on SE side of Kellogg Avenue Photo 5: Adjacent residence on Emerson Street
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-22
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Da
t
e
:
7
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
t
f
r
i
e
s
e
n
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
E
I
R
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
5
-
2
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
m
x
d
Project Site Photographs
Castilleja School Project EIR
SOURCE: Only if non Dudek photos, change color in layout to Gray 60%FIGURE 5-2
Photo 1: Buildings facing Bryant Street
Photo 4: Buildings facing Kellogg Avenue
Photo 2: Buildings facing Bryant Street
Photo 5: Buildings facing Kellogg Avenue
Photo 3: View at corner of Bryant Street and Kellogg Avenue
Photo 6: View from Melville Avenue
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-24
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Da
t
e
:
7
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
9
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
t
f
r
i
e
s
e
n
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
E
I
R
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
_
5
-
3
_
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
m
x
d
Project Site Photographs
Castilleja School Project EIR
SOURCE: Only if non Dudek photos, change color in layout to Gray 60%FIGURE 5-3
Photo 1: Emerson Street view of Lockey House Photo 2: View of 1235 Emerson Street Photo 3: View from Embarcadero Road
Photo 4: View from Embarcadero Road Photo 5: View at corner of Bryant Street and Embarcadero Road
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK WALL AND
FENCE TO REMAIN
EXISTING BRICK WALL TO
REMAIN
TYPE 2
TY
P
E
4
TYPE 4
WALL TYPE 1
WALL TYPE 1
TYPE 5
TY
P
E
5
TYPE 3
TYPE 1
TY
P
E
5
EMERSON ST
KE
L
L
O
G
G
A
V
E
BRYANT ST
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
D
W
DN
STOP
25
ST
BIKE LANE
asfdsafds
mtext
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Tubing (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Tubing (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Tubing (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)
STOP
25
ST
BIKE LANE
asfdsafds
mtext
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Tubing (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Tubing (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Tubing (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_WBeam (KtiDetAc)
Kti_Lumber (KtiDetAc)
LP
LP
LP
LP
HPHP
LP
LP
LP
c
LP
LPLP
LP
LP
LP
LP
c
LPLP
PARKING GARAGE:
SEE PLANS BY OTHERS
TYPE 5
TYPE 3
TYPE 4
TYPE 4
2L-3.2
3
L-3.2
4
L-3.2
1
L-3.2TYPE 1
EXISTING BRICK WALL
AND FENCE TO
REMAIN
30 0 30 60
FENCE TYPE 1
LEGEND
FENCE TYPE 2
FENCE TYPE 3
FENCE TYPE 4
WALL TYPE 1 - ACOUSTIC
FOR FENCE DETAILS, SEE
SHEET L.3.0
FENCE TYPE 5
Fence and Wall Type and Location
Castilleja School Project EIR
FIGURE 5-4SOURCE: WRNS Studio 2019
Pa
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
E
I
R
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-28
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
35
2
3
(
5
7
<
/
,
1
(
3/$17,1*6,'(:$/.
6(
7
%
$
&
.
/
,
1
(
/$1'6&$3(=21(
393$1(/
67((/6758&785(
$&2867,&3$1(/:22'6/$76%5,&.3/$17(5
322/
)(1&(6(&7,21#322/
)(1&($;21#322/
Fence and Wall Design
Castilleja School Project EIR
FIGURE 5-4SOURCE: WRNS Studio 2019
Pa
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
E
I
R
5 – AESTHETICS
Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 10056
July 2019 5-30
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT E: History of Castilleja Campus and Enrollment
Note: This document, prepared by staff, also appeared as an attachment to the 2017 PTC report
Castilleja Campus Today
Original Campus
Castilleja School first opened August 1907; the original location was 1121 Bryant Street. In
August 2010, the school moved to 1310 Bryant Street, into four new structures; a three-story
dormitory, a recitation building, a domestic science building and a gymnasium. Images of the
original campus plan and floor plans of the original dormitory and gym are provided below.1
1920’s through 1950’s
In the 1920’s, the pool and chapel were added, along with a science lab, the Orchard House,
and an auditorium. Enrollment declined during the Great Depression and war years; by 1947,
1 Photos captured from the book “Castilleja, Celebrating a Century” by Sara Croll and Heather Allen Pang, available
at the Palo Alto Historical Association).
the enrollment for Kindergarten through 12th grade was 235 students. In 1958, the lower
grades (first through fourth) were dropped from the program; it became more of a college
preparatory program and the program was restricted to 7th through 12th grades by 1962, and
more buildings were added.
1960’s
In the 1960’s, a classroom and dormitory building fronting Kellogg Ave. was approved and built;
called the Arrillaga Family Campus Center, and completed in 1962; the dormitory housed 90
students. In 1965, a classroom/dormitory building (fronting Kellogg Avenue and Bryant Street)
was built to connect the administration building to the Kellogg-fronting dormitory, as pictured
below.
In 1967, the school built a new library and Rhoades Hall, containing 20 classrooms to
accommodate a projected enrollment of 300 students. The above street view shows the 1965
classroom/dormitory building at the corner; Rhoades hall connects the 1965 building to the
administration building. Below is a site plan from 1967.
1970s
In 1974, the school proposed a building for the visual, performing and physical arts. At that
time, Melville Avenue still crossed Emerson, tennis courts were located between Melville
Avenue and Embarcadero Road; Melville Avenue provided 30 on-street parking spaces (as seen
in below image).
In 1977, the school built the gymnasium (the Seipp-Wallace Pavilion) and in 1978, the school
requested permits for a Fine Arts building and attached Performing Arts Building.
1980s
In 1980, the school built the Ely Fine Arts Center. An image of the approved fine arts building is
below:
Also in 1980, the school renovated the Chapel to become an auditorium and where the
performing arts building had been planned, a parking lot for 28 spaces was installed instead.
History of Conditional Use Permits
The first CUP (file #60-UP-3) was issued by the City’s Zoning Administrator in 1960, along with a
Variance (file #60-V-3) for the three-story dormitory that violated the height limit. The permits
allowed classrooms, administrative offices, auditorium, library, dorm kitchen and dining room,
social room, gymnasium, swimming pool, tennis courts, caretaker’s quarters, shop and garage,
and the 41’ tall dormitory. The City issued another CUP in 1965.
CUPs in the 1970s
The 1974 CUP was conditioned to go to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and included
these conditions of approval (COA):
• COA#3: Every effort shall be made to minimize traffic and prevent on-street parking
congestion.
• COA# 4: All construction and development shall comply with all applicable codes and
ordinances and with the requirements of the Fire Chief.
The City issued a third CUP in 1979 CUP for a building addition to the chapel, with requirements
for providing 52 parking spaces, screened as approved by the ARB, designated student pick-up
and delivery areas, and compliance with prior CUP conditions.
CUPs in the 1990s
In the early 1990’s, sixth grade class was added back into the program. In 1991-92, the City
abandoned the Melville Avenue right-of-way between Emerson and Bryant Streets, and
approved a fourth CUP for Castilleja to use the abandoned area subject to the establishment of
a 28-space parking lot. The City also approved a Tentative Map to merge five parcels with the
abandoned Melville right-of-way, and a fence height Variance.
The City also approved a softball field on the new area; the 1992 plan showed redwood screen
trees as a buffer for the homes on Emerson Street. The 1992 CUP also included a condition
related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM):
The City issued a fifth CUP in 1995 (file #95-UP-47) that allowed Castilleja to convert the
dormitory into a library, classrooms and offices for a maximum of 385 students (approximately
154 middle school and 231 high school by the year 2000) through 1999. The 1995 CUP noted
an amendment would be needed to exceed 385 students. In 1999, still with 385 students and
90 staff members, Castilleja requested to increase enrollment by 30 middle schoolers, from 385
to 425 students in total.
CUPs of the 2000s
The City issued the sixth CUP (file #00-UP-23), allowing 415 students, subject to implementation
of a TDM program. Then in 2007, the school replaced the gym, adding basement area,
following adjustment to the CUP that placed restrictions on the gym use*.
The City also issued additional CUPs for temporary events (such as graduations) over several
decades.
*staff added this phrase to this document in 2019
"'-
Sm• of CalifOfnitl -TIie Rnaurca .-....c:v
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND flEC~EATION
f Ser I lffM, _______ 0 _____ ,..R -SHL_
SI .. _____ Mo. _ Yr.
( STORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
I Lit. _____ Lan _____ Er•_ Sig __
i Adm_ T2 _T3_ C.t_HAIS_HAER_Fea_
IDENTIFICATION Cat. IV
1• Common nirne: Nardyne Apartments ~ 4/,,,,1,fe IJ,.,,,, "1 f. 6 (et:. '1-1,-t,) _____________ ....,._;;,..._ _________ ._,;;,__;;,;;; __
2. Historic name. If known: ..... c;;.:a:;;:a_t;.::i==J:::l_e,111j,:a_H:;::a:ll=-----------------------
3. Street or rural adct,ess Jl 2) B:ey:axrt, street (f::ofe:nuu,r:1Ue Histpd,c D;S:,t,rict)
City: Pi)lo Alto ZIP: ______ Countv: SNJta CJ ara
-4. Present owner, if known: Ronald E • .Joraech Address: ll555 Debell Rd
City: ___ Lo,_.;.s_A_l;;;.t_o_s_H_i_ll ___ :s.._1 _C_a _______ ZIP: 94022 Ownership is: P~blic D Private @
5. Prell!nt Use: Apartment house Origin1I Use: ...;::;;S.::a::cb:.a.o:;o::.il _____________ _
Other past uses: ________________________________ _
O~SCfUPTION
~e. Briefly d~scribe tt!t sn1ent physical 1ppear■nc;e of tfl.e site Of structure and describe any maj01 alterations from its original
condition: • ,t. • ,. . . ! • •
A shingled version or inetitutiol\al ciaia1ci1111, thi11 two-et7or.r ilttJ1ld1ng .ba, thfl tlat
root, classical pilal!ltere and 00rrd.ce11, and other devices norm.al.17 associated with
masonry buildings or this style. · It iwa11 · aauwhat enlarged not long &tter being moved
l .,o its preaept ~ite,. a= ig~ altered when it was conTerted into apariaent■• An
,jarq photograph (1900) "indicates that the' columned! porch once ut.emed be7o~d the
front tacad• which now ancloaee the entr;r, and that the manaard roof had three front
donnere.
'
7. Locational sketch map (draw 1nd l1btl site ind
1Urrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks):
~NO~TH
~ .
8. Approximate property size:
Lot size (in feed Frontage 100
Depth 115
or approx. 1creage __ _
9. Condition: lchec:k one)
.. .
1. Excellent Ii]= b. Good O c. Fair 0
d. De;.,iorate~ tJ . ;, No lo~, in existence 0
10. 11 the fHture L Altered? [] b. Unaltered7 0
11. Surroundings: (Check more than one 1t nectssarvl
1. Open land O b. Scatt.,ld buildings 0
c. Densely buih•up □ d . Rtlldential ~
•· Commercial O f. Industrial O · ·
II• Other 0 ------------12. Threats to 11te:
1. None known OCj b. Private development D
c. Zoning D d. Pubhc Wo~s pro1ect
e. V1nd1lism O f. Other □ 0
1121 Bryant
NO rE: TII• fol/0111nn, (ltllml 14-19} .,.. for sttucru,. only.
14. Primary ••terior buildin; matwiat: a. Stone O b. Brica 0 c. Slucco O d. Adobe O •· Wooc:t ~
f. Other □, _______________ _
15. Is lh• stNclUre: a. On itsoriginet site? 0 b. Mow.11 [!]
(
c. Unknown7 0
11. Year of initial a>nstruction 1892 This date is: •· Factual r!J b. Estimated 0
17. Architect (if knownt: ---------------------------------
18. Builder (if known):. ~illiam Pluns ?j Pluns carried ou~ '!!!.,.!e.dition in 1894; George W. l·!osher
was the contrac~or tr:,.,-alterations in....1896, •
19. Rel1tad features: a. Barn LJ b. Carriage hou• LJ c. Outhoute LJ d. Shed(s) 0 •· Fonnal garden(sl 0
t. Windmilt D g. Watenower/tankhouse D h. 01her □------------i. None {!l
SIGNIFICANCE
20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons aaociated with the site when kr.o'Nnl :
'!'his handso1;.e building is an unusual version of the Classical mode. Two young n;idcli!"!'-,
graduates, Miss Eleanor Pearson am Miss Lucy Fletcher, came to Stanford in 1891 at th!
request of President David Starr Jordan to establish a girls' preparatory school. '!'he
school was opened on Alpine Road in that year, then moved in 1892 to 319 Kingsley Ave.
Castilleja Hall took its name from the crimson paintbrush which grew on the grounds at
its first location. Miss Pearson was succeeded as Principal by Mrs. Anna E. Peck in
1898. \-~hen tha school closed in 1901, Mrs. Lucy B. Angell, wife of Professor Frank
Angell, bought th~ building and had it moYed to ll2l Br.rant· arxi enlarged in 1902.
kiss Catherine Harker then operated har elementar,y school in the house from 1902-1907,
when !1iss Mary IDckey· foun:ied Castilleja Sdiool for 01.rla. Sheused the building until
new classrooms wer-., c.ompleted in 1910 at the school's present l'ocation_. 'lhe structure
then was remodeled again as Nardyne Apartments. Al.though virtually unique in Pal{ I
Alto, the structure retains its environmental relationship to the neighborhood thi--..1~
its surfacing material and use of classical elements, Tariations of which are found
in Colonial Revival styles at the area. ·
21. Milin theme of the historic resource: (Check only one): a. Architectunt I!] b. Arts & leisure 0
c. Economic/lndustri•I O d. Exploration/Settlement D •· Government D f. Military 0
g. Religion O h. Social/Education 00
22. Sources: List books, doa.iments, surveys, personal interviews, and their datm: P.A. City Directories j
P .". 1'.iL.es 7/Zl /94, 12/J0/96, 6/8/98; 8/J0/01; 14-2, J/28, 4/16/02; l/2/17;· 1/25/19;
LiV'P. v:uc, 6/8/98; Castilleja Hall booklet, P.A. Historical Assn.; ~ Tall Tree,
l, 14, Oct.ober 1957, 7-8;. see P.A. Live Ualc 1/1/00 tor early photo
2J. o,ne form preoared: 1971:i; 1985 Bv ( namet: __ c;;;.:a::a,r;.;:o_l;::.,a·m._.__G __ '!_O~r.::;::1?~8..Li __ H_i::;:s_t;;.;:o:;.:r'-;i;.::c:....;.R;;;:e;,::e~o~u=-r.:.c;::.e::;.!I .... B;;;.:n.:..:ar=-==:....· ;........,.? .... ,..o.1,\...,, ........ ~ .. .; -:u,
Addre?Ss: 250 Hamilton Ave Oty Palo ilto, Ca 94301 ZIP· Ass
Phone: __________ _ Or9aniz1tion: _____________________ _
(State U• Only)
0
Attachment H
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to HRB Members. These plans are available to the
public online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/castilleja
and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City
Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
In addition to the project webpage, project plans and other information is viewable online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “1310 Bryant Street” and open record by clicking on the green dot
3. Review the file 19PLN-00116 record details and open the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Plans are in four parts, labeled “Part 1, 2, 3, 5 August 22 plans”. The plans are in
uploaded in parts here and on the project website due to the size of the plans
1 of 1
ATTACHMENT I: CASTILLEJA SCHOOL PROJECT DRAFT EIR COMMENTS
The public comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Castilleja School Project
received August 23 through September 4, 2019 are included in the HRB packet.
Comments received July 17 through August 6, 2019 were contained in the PTC report of August
14, 2019, viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72895
Additional comments, received before the meeting at PTC member places on August 14 (plus
several additional comments received after August 14), are viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72753.
Other comments submitted July 17 through August 15 are viewable on this page:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73090. Public comments received
during the EIR comment period August 15 through August 22 are viewable on the project
webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/public_comments.asp
The comments received September 5 to September 16 will eventually be viewable on the
project webpage.
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 10625)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 9/12/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: HRB draft Minutes July 25, 2019
Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of July 25,
2019
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
• July 25, 2019
Attachments:
• Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes July 25, 2019 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2 Call to Order/Roll Call 3 4 Present: Chair Bower, Board Member Bernstein, Board Member Kohler, Board Member Wimmer 5 6 Absent: Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Shepherd 7 8 Chair Bower: Okay, I see lights on. We have a quorum, so Robin, would you call roll. 9 10 Ms. Robin Ellner: Four present and we do have a quorum. Thank you. 11
12 Chair Bower: Thank you Robin. 13 14 Oral Communications 15 16 Chair Bower: It’s nice to see faces in the audience this morning. Welcome to all of you. We’ll do oral 17 communications. Anyone that wants to speak on any topic not on our agenda, just three minutes. I don’t 18 have any cards, so we’ll move right on to the next item. 19 20 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 21 22 Chair Bower: Agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions. I don’t think… 23 24 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. 25
26 City Official Reports 27 28 1. 2019 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments. 29 30 Chair Bower: Okay, Official City Reports. 31 32 Ms. French: We do not have any today. 33 34 Chair Bower: Right. There’s one correction on the meeting schedule. I had thought I would be out of town 35 September 26th. I will not, I’ll be here, so, that’s another opportunity for us to have a meeting. 36
37 Study Session 38 39 Chair Bower: Okay, Study Session. It’s three minutes per speaker and I don’t think we’ll have a problem 40
letting everyone who wants to speak, speak. 41 42 43 Action Items 44 45
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES July 25, 2019
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2. Historic Resources Board Discussion and Comments on the Historic Resources 46
Evaluation of the Former Cannery Property Located at 340 Portage Avenue (Frys site), 47 within the North Ventura Coordinated A rea Plan (NVCAP). 48 49 Chair Bower: So, let’s move on to the Action Items: Historic Resources Board Discussion and Comments on 50 the Historic Resources evaluation of the Former Cannery Property Located at 340 Portage Avenue 51 commonly known to us Palo Altons as Frys, which is within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, which 52 you will see in the printed materials abbreviated as NVCAP. Okay, so I see that our consultant is here. 53 Please begin your presentation. 54 55 Ms. French: Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I’m introducing Elena Lee, who is the manager of the 56 project and is the long-range planning manager as well, and then, of course, we do have Christina Dikas, 57 Page & Turnbull. 58
59 Elena Lee, Manager of the Project and Long-Range Planning Manager: Thank you Amy. Good morning 60 Board Members. So, the purpose of today’s meeting is to review and discuss the Historic Resources 61 Evaluation prepared as part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The Plan is in its initial stages and 62 discussion on plan options have just begun; however, we anticipate three alternatives to be developed, but 63 those have not been proposed or developed quite yet. There will be multiple future meetings at the next 64 following stages to discuss those in detail, and the outcome of those meetings or the materials prepared 65 for those meetings will depend definitely on the discussion and the feedback from you today. There will 66 also be a second community meetings to actually also carefully review all of these options. So, we anticipate 67 that this project will require an environmental impact report or supplemental EIR because that has been 68 discovered through this process that the 340 Portage is eligible for the California Registry, and that will 69 require its own lengthy process and analysis. So, I’ll provide a brief overview of the North Ventura 70 Coordinated Area Plan process and as Amy said, Christina is here to present an overview of the HRE. So, 71 the NVCAP is a direct outcome of the Comp Plan update that was adopted in 2017, and there’s actually an 72 overview of the site. So, it’s basically a 60-acre site around the, what’s known as the Frys property, or 340 73
Portage. So, Comp Plan has Policy 1.7 which says that you should use coordinated area plans to help guide 74 development, especially in areas where there is potential change, and 340 Portage is one of the more open 75 sites available likely for development. So, especially Comp Plan Program L-4 10.1 states that “a coordinated 76 area plan shall be developed for the North Ventura Area and surrounding California Avenue area”. So, in 77 terms of the brief overview of the process, so City Council adopted goals and objectives and initiated the 78 project with a schedule and boundaries. It also authorized the formation of a Working Group, and there 79 are several members of the Working Group here today, because there has been a lot of interest expressed 80 on this particular issue. So, there have been four Working Group meetings held between October 2018 and 81 April 2019. On February 5th the first community workshop was held where they kind of went over, where 82
we went over the site context and also identified issues developed through the Working Group meetings 83 as well as raised by the community members. March 11th was a joint meeting between the Working Group 84
and City Council, held as a town hall on Ventura topics in general, but specifically also discussing the 85 coordinated area plan process. And on August 19th we are proposing to go back to City Council as a follow 86
up from the March 11th town hall. And we are tentatively scheduled also to go back to the Working Group 87
probably around August 21st. We also do have a website that is dedicated to this project, paloaltonvcap.org, 88
and that provides an overview of the project as a whole, including all staff reports and will also include a 89 link to this particular hearing. So, the procedures for the NVCAP process are outlined in Chapter 19.10. Oh, 90 there, sorry about that. And it states that “the intent is to create enhanced opportunities for building a 91 sense of community through public involvement with meaningful opportunities to help shape the physical 92 components of their neighborhoods and community”. And so primary statement that is really important for 93 this project is that it is, its intent is to create enhanced opportunities for public involvement. So, the general 94 process is that City Council initiates the CAP process and established goals and objectives. A working group 95 is appointed to advise the process, and then it includes regular public meetings, including a community 96 meeting. The Planning and Transportation Commission will hear about the, have an opportunity to hear 97 about the plan and also make their recommendations to City Council, as well as any environmental 98 documents. And then, finally, it will return to City Council, and throughout the process we will also be 99 providing updates to the various Boards and Commissions that have a role in this process, and especially, 100
City of Palo Alto Page 3
since there is a historic resource involved, they will be coming back to the HRB eventually. So, Page and 101
Turnbull was hired to provide historic analysis, including evaluation of the entire site. So, they did a 102 Windshield Survey evaluating all the potential sites, and it was, the determination was that 340 Portage, 103 which is the subject of this HRE was the only identified potential historic resource. So, the HRE identified 104 the property, including the Frys building itself, and the associated office building as eligible for listing in the 105 California Register of Historic Places, and it also qualified as a historic resource per the California 106 Environmental Quality Act. And we did receive multiple comments from the public regarding this project, 107 ranging in diversity of opinions about what should be done with the site, so those were presented. Those 108 will also be made available to our Working Group members and on our project website as well. And in 109 particular, Staff also wanted to respond to some of the comments that were raised. So, again, as I stated 110 the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the HRE and to get feedback from the Board about this, and also 111 to emphasize the fact that options have not been developed or finalized yet, so the meeting, today’s 112 meeting will go into feeding that, into that process to develop the options which obviously will, what we’ll 113
do with 340 Portage will be an important component of that. And I think one of the things that was raised 114 in particular was the rail spur that’s located behind 340 Portage, so that was abandoned a while ago and 115 the rail spur was actually removed in 1964 when it was abandoned. And I also want to mention that we 116 have the honor today of Gloria Hom in the audience today. She is actually the granddaughter of Thomas 117 Foon Chew, so she has agreed to speak to us about the project, but also is here today in the audience, so 118 I just wanted to mention that. And with that, I will turn this to Christina. 119 120 Chair Bower: Can I interrupt for just a moment? You mentioned that the NVCAP goals would be formed in 121 the form the development of this site. Could you very briefly just tell the Board and the audience what 122 those goals are? 123 124 Ms. Lee: Sure. Let me locate that on our website. 125 126 Chair Bower: (inaudible) 127 128
Ms. Lee: Sure, but yeah, there were specific goals that, goals and objectives that the City Council adopted 129 earlier this year, and those are available on our… But basically, the goals are around housing, the creation 130 of additional housing opportunities and having a connected land use pattern. Making a basically a mixed-131 use neighborhood, because it’s proximate to the Caltrain Station, having good transit, pedestrian and 132 bicycle connections, having a connected street grid, having adequate community facilities and 133 infrastructure, balance of community interests, having strong urban design and design guidelines and a 134 neighborhood fabric and sustainability and the environment. 135 136 Chair Bower: Thank you. 137 138 Christina Dikas: Good morning members of the Board. I think a little bit of my presentation on the left side 139 might get cut off, but hopefully, nothing of vital importance. I’m here to present the work that Page and 140 Turnbull did. We were contracted to the City to do this work. As Elena prefaced, Page and Turnbull looked 141 at the entire plan area to understand whether there were historic resources, and then as a result of that, 142
we drilled into the largest property on the site at 340 Portage and wrote a separate historic resource 143 evaluation for that property. So, just to explain a little bit about the survey that we did, we called this a 144 Windshield Survey. We went out, we had property data with construction dates, so we looked at every 145 building that was at least 50 years old, which is the threshold for potential historic significance for the 146 California Register and for CEQA. We took a picture of each of those and we created a table with some 147 basic property information. We also put together a historic context for the Mayfield Area and this Ventura 148 Neighborhood Area of Palo Alto to understand the development patterns and the people who lived there 149 over time. And so, though we didn’t do individual property research for all of these properties, we did have 150 a sense of their potential historic context and architecture based on the site visit that we did. Through that 151 process we found that none of the residences and commercial buildings in the area, aside from 340 Portage 152 appeared to be eligible for listing in the California Register. Most of the houses, particularly on Olive Avenue, 153 were built in 1946, after the War, so it appears that there was a lot of post-war housing construction which 154 was happening throughout Palo Alto and the Bay area, and that a lot of this neighborhood was really built 155
City of Palo Alto Page 4
out in the mid to late 40’s, though there were a smattering of earlier buildings before that time. W e had 156
received a question quite a while ago that we responded to in an earlier draft of a report before we finalized 157 it asking whether these houses were associated with the canning company. We didn’t uncover any historical 158 information that associated the construction of the houses with the canning company. Many of them, as I 159 just mentioned, were built in 1946, which was towards the end of the canning company’s period, which 160 ended in 1949. So, if the residences were associated, they likely were not historically significant for that 161 association. And while the Ventura neighborhood had more African-American and Latino residents than 162 other areas of Palo Alto in the mid-twentieth century, which was another topic that we dove into a little 163 bit, preliminary research did not find that the area’s history of accommodating under-represented 164 communities rises to a level of significance to warrant historic designation in the California Register. And 165 just to note, this aerial photo in the slide is from 1941, so you can see, you can kind of see the boundary 166 of the plan area, and that a large amount of the area was not yet developed until after 1941. All right, 167 actually, I’m going to go back to our first slide just for a moment. The large building that’s shaded orange 168
in this picture is 340 Portage, and then there’s a smaller building just to the right and bottom that’s shaded 169 blue by Ash Street, and that is the office building that I’m going to discuss. So, this is 340 Portage, former 170 cannery building that was built in stages between 1918 and the 1940’s, and this is the office building which 171 we, it was moved to its current location in 1940, and we believe that it may have been previously used as 172 a dormitory for the cannery and was built between, if that’s the case, was built between 1918 and 1925, 173 1918 being the date that the cannery was originally constructed and 1925 is when this dormitory building 174 shows up in the first Sanborn Fire Insurance map. So, I’m going to just describe a Statement of Significance 175 for this property. Agricultural industries, including fruit and vegetable canning were once the dominant 176 industries in Santa Clara County. The oldest portions of the cannery building were constructed in 1918 for 177 the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by Chinese immigrant and prominent canning 178 businessman, Thomas Foon Chew. Under Chew the Bayside Canning Company rose to become the third 179 largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world in the 1920’s behind only Libbey and Del Monte. After 180 Chew’s death, the cannery was subsequently purchased and operated for more than 20 years by the Sutter 181 Packing Company, another fruit and vegetable cannery. The Sutter Packing Company significantly expanded 182 the cannery building and its operations throughout the 1930’s and 40’s, as it prepared for and raced to 183
meet the demands of World War II. For a time, the cannery was the largest employer in the mid-peninsula, 184 and when it closed in 1949 it was the largest employer in Palo Alto. My understanding is that Safeway had 185 bought the Sutter Packing Company in 1946 and though the company was still very profitable, it didn’t fit 186 within their company profit scheme, so they closed it. The trajectory of canning operations at the plant, 187 which began in the early 20th Century, peaked in the 1920’s, increased production to meet the demands of 188
World War II, and then quickly declined as residential development and new industries began to replace 189 agricultural industries in the post-war period. This corresponds closely to the broad pattern of the history 190 of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. The building is a rare surviving example of Palo Alto’s and 191 Santa Clara County’s agricultural past, so we identified this property to be significant under Criterion 1 for 192 events with a period of significance between 1918 to 1949, the full period in which it operated as a cannery. 193 Just to comment on the other couple of potential criteria for the California Register, one is Criterion 2, 194 which is association with significant people. For a property to be found eligible for the California Register 195 under Criterion 2, it must be associated with a person who has contributed significantly to local, state and 196 national history and the property must be the best representation of the reason for which the person is 197
significant. The building at 340 Portage Avenue was originally built by Thomas Foon Chew in 1918 as a 198 second canning plant for his Bayside Canning Company, and continued under his ownership until his death 199 in 1931. Although Chew’s father had founded the cannery in Alviso, an earlier cannery as well in San 200 Francisco, Thomas Foon Chew is regarded as the primary driving force behind the Bayside Canning 201 Company’s growth into the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world by 1920. In spite of his 202 association with 340 Portage Avenue, the building was not the first canning plant constructed by Chew, 203 which is part of the National Register listed Alviso Historic District. In addition, and this is the most important 204 for this Criterion, the building was extensively expanded after Chew’s death, primarily when it was owned 205 and operated by the Sutter Packing Company. The building, therefore, does not retain enough integrity to 206 Chew’s period of association to be eligible under Criterion 2 for direct association with him, though his 207 contribution to the industry and this property is reflected during the early period of the Criterion 1 period 208 of significance, which I’ve already discussed, so it includes both the Bayside Cannery and the Sutter Packing 209 Company period. I’m happy to answer any questions, if that’s a little confusing. To be eligible for the 210
City of Palo Alto Page 5
California Register you need both significance and integrity, and so essentially what I’m saying is that there 211
wasn’t enough integrity only to Thomas Foon Chew’s period to be found eligible under that Criterion 212 because there were so many changes made after that. Yes. (crosstalk) I have a little bit more on my 213 presentation. 214 215 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, thank you Christine. 216 217 Ms. Dikas: Just to mention Criterion 3, which is significant architecture. We did not find that the property 218 was significant under Criterion 3, 340 Portage Avenue consists of what were originally several connected 219 cannery facilities and associated warehouse buildings. It’s primarily constructed of reinforced concrete with 220 utilitarian wood posts and beam construction and no ornamentation, consistent with its functional design. 221 The former office building at 3201 to 3225 Ash Street is a plain wood frame building built in a vernacular 222 style. Neither of the buildings appear to exhibit artistic value, nor are they particularly distinctive examples 223
of cannery building or industrial warehouse typology such that they would rise to a level of individual 224 significance for the California Register. So, for the purposes of CEQA, we found that 340 Portage was a 225 qualified historic resource and I will also mention, because it’s come up in a couple of public comments 226 about the National Register, that the State Office of Historic Preservation generally provide guidance that 227 the California Register and National Register have an equal footing, essentially the same criteria and the 228 Office of Historic Preservation doesn’t see any difference between levels of significance, so though we did 229 not specifically evaluate this property in our report for eligibility for the National Register, it’s assumed that 230 it would also be eligible for the National Register. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. 231 232 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Christine. You said something about, if you look on packet page 15, 233 please. And for members of the public, that’s the entire 340 Portage building. You said something about, 234 one of your last sentences, you said… Is it the entire structure on the orange on packet page 15, that is 235 eligible, right, for…? 236 237 Ms. Dikas: Correct. Both the orange and the blue buildings together are what we have identified as 238
significant on this site. 239 240 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, great. Thank you. 241 242 Chair Bower: Any other Board comments at this time? Maybe we’ll open it up to the public and hear what 243 our audience has to say about this. I have three, four cards. The first card is Laura. Please come up to the 244 podium and state your name and try to keep the microphone close to your mouth because it works better 245 and we’re recording. 246 247 Laura Bajuk: And I promise no singing. My name is Laura Bajuk. I’m the Executive Director of the Palo Alto 248 Museum, and I’m a resident of Palo Alto since I fell in love with one of your native sons 20 years ago. I 249 love this community. I love exploring its history. The statement I wanted to make was that first of all, the 250 Museum stands by to assist the City and the community in the interpretation of the history of, well, the 251 history of the community in general. So, as you address these issues, if there are things relating to history 252
interpretation, we can help with that, and we stand by to assist. We feel that’s part of our job. I think one 253 of our goals is to answer the questions behind the community, why does it look the way it does, why is the 254 railroad here? I think understanding the past layout of the community really answers those questions. One 255 of the things that ties into the cannery community for me is the economic impact of the railroad. The fact 256 that Southern Pacific comes to this area has to figure out how to get people to live here, and they decided 257 that orchards are going to be the most profitable opportunity. Profitable for small families who can support 258 their family, support themselves on a relatively small piece of land, grow the fruit, truck it down to the 259 railroad, which is where the canneries are located, and this is one of the biggest. Valley fruit fed the world. 260 Before tech, I’d say 180 years ago, or in the 1920’s, we would have talked about orchards and fruit the 261 way we talk about tech today. It makes me wonder, you know, 100 years from now how we’ll be talking 262 about out tech era that we’re in the middle of, as I look at my screen where I have my notes. We were 263 just as big to the rest of world at that time with fruit. So, there’s a tendency to be sentimental and think, 264 oh, it was so lovely when we had all those trees, but it was big business and it was a sticky business cutting 265
City of Palo Alto Page 6
apricots. It employed teenagers, minorities, women had jobs. People could afford to support their families 266
by working in the canneries. And it was immensely profitable for the railroad, because it was one of the 267 most expensive things you could ship. Gravel could sit by the side of the railroad and wouldn’t be harmed, 268 but fruit had to go quickly. And our fruit went all around the world thanks to Southern Pacific and their 269 global network, which predates those we have today. But the bottom of the market was reached after 270 World War II. During World War II you could sell all your fruit. Eighty per cent of the fruit in this area, I 271 believe, went to the military efforts to feed the troops. So, when the war ended, that was really the end of 272 this market, and at that same time we have people here who don’t want to leave California, and for good 273 reason. My family was one of them. We wanted to stay. We needed housing, so there was a huge boom. 274 Tech is building up, again influenced by World War II. People have jobs, this is where the jobs are. So, 275 where we are today is directly connected to what happened really not so long ago. And again, we stand 276 by to help in any way you would like to interpret it. Thank you. 277 278
Chair Bower: Thank you for sharing that. Next card I have is Karen Holman. Welcome. 279 280 Karen Holman: Good morning, and thank you for bringing this to the HRB and thank you for answering 281 some of the questions I had submitted. I appreciate that very much. I think it’s really important, several 282 things are important here. One of the things I think is important that, yes, clarifying that California National 283 Register, it’s presumed that if you’re California you’re also eligible for National Register. I think in many 284 people’s minds it makes a difference though, because National Register carries a lot more aplomb, if you 285 will, in people’s minds, so if sometimes we’re talking about this, California and by reference, National 286 Register, something like that. It also in the Staff presentation, I think it’s going to lead to some confusion 287 if it’s stated as one property has been identified as historic, when actually it is the cannery building and the 288 associated office. And I can understand that it might be one property, considered as one property, however, 289 it’s two different addresses, and I think that can lead to confusion if it’s only referred to as one history 290 building or property. I think there are many, many opportunities at this site. I’ve been following Ventura 291 very closely, because I care a great deal about it, as many people in the neighborhood do. Some people 292 are out of town because of vacations and such, that are committed to this project. And I think a lot of the 293
goals of the work of the plan can be accomplished in more creative ways than maybe are being considered 294 to this point in time. I did mention in my email yesterday this plan map. It’s a working tool that was handed 295 out to the Working Group, and I do want you all to see it. I don’t think you have been provided this. And 296 what’s important about this is that this was provided by Staff, not the property, major property owner. It 297 shows as areas parcels that may be redeveloped within the plan horizon. It shows the office building under 298 that color overlay, and it shows all of the cannery building except for two sections that are being proposed 299 for retention as being redeveloped, and I think that’s really important for you all to know, and I don’t know 300 where this came from or where the basis could be in CEQA or the Secretary Standards. Those proposals, 301 especially around the cannery building, one is to provide a street, which is right directly in front of the 302 existing cannery building, and two pedestrian/bicycle paths that run through where the building is now. 303 People who are walking and biking can make turns. I’m going to hand this, through Staff I’ll hand this to 304 you all. And I’d like to get that back if I could. And then the other thing is culturally. Thomas Foon Chew, 305 and I’m glad Gloria Hom is here today, Thomas Foon Chew accomplished not only what he did by this 306 cannery being the largest behind Del Monte and Heinz. Thank you to Page and Turnbull for discovering 307
that, but he was, this was one of the largest employers on the mid-peninsula under his ownership. Consider 308 that this was in a time when, this was not the most welcoming of environments, and he had, and photos 309 clarify this, he hired multi-cultural employees, and he accomplished that with an open, I’m kind of a little 310 bit interpreting here but not a lot. The photos demonstrate that he had multi-cultural employees, and I 311 think, you know, that kind of acceptance, that kind of model we could, especially at this time and place, 312 could really appreciate and benefit from that kind of model. And when it comes to the industrial buildings, 313 and then I’ll wrap up with this, when it comes to the industrial buildings, adaptive reuse has not been 314 considered for any of these buildings as far as I can tell, and I have gone to every one of the Working 315 Group meetings, and stayed to all of the meetings except for one, when I had to leave early. Consider 316 things like in Sebastopol the Barlow. The Barlow is a retail and commercial area that is industrial buildings 317 that were there and some in-fill buildings that were developed in keeping with that style, and it’s hopping 318 busy. It was flooded this last year in the rains, and I was there just recently again. Almost everyone has 319 come back and new companies have, new businesses have taken place there too. So, I think , we, you 320
City of Palo Alto Page 7
know, no working group and no plan are going to be able to accomplish everything, but I think much can 321
be accomplished while retaining these buildings, and I think it’s critical that we respect our cultural diversity 322 and the history that represented on this site, especially given its rarity, because most of the Valley of Heart’s 323 Delight relics have disappeared. Thank you very much for your time. 324 325 Chair Bower: Thank you. The next person is Terry Holzemer. 326 327 Terry Holzemer: Good morning. I am a member of the NVCAP or what you want to call the North Ventura 328 Working Group; however, I’m not representing them here today. I’m representing myself, okay. I would 329 like to take a moment first of all to support my view that the Frys Bayside Cannery site is not only historical, 330 historically significant to Palo Alto’s own history, but significant to this State’s, and even of national 331 significance. As you may have read in the Page and Turnbull Historic Resource Evaluation Report, the site 332 does meet Criterion 1, but does not, apparently, does not meet Criterion 2 and 3. I personally have done 333
research on this site and have done significant research on the past history, and have interviewed and 334 talked to not only Mrs. Hom, but to other people who were involved. I disagree with the Criterion, the Page 335 and Turnbull of Criterion 2 and 3, as well, which was not even really mentioned. I believe Criterion 2, the 336 significance of Thomas Foon Chew cannot be overestimated at all. I think this gentleman, he created 337 something out of literally nothing. In many ways I believe that he could be called in Chinese-A merican 338 history, the first great entrepreneur, American entrepreneur in America. I think that he came to this country 339 with really nothing and he created a business that became, like other people have said, the third largest 340 cannery in the world. And the significance of that is kind of lost over history. We don’t realize that before 341 there was high tech in this area, there was a growing business, the cannery and fruit business, which really 342 dominated this area. And also, was significant for the entire world, not only this country. I think Thomas 343 Foon Chew and his ability to not only cross barriers as other people have mentioned, but also to find 344 solutions to problems. He was one of the unique creators and inventors of the cannery industry. He created 345 a machine, for example, that automatically washed cannery wood boxes. This was something they had to 346 do every time they had new fruit, they had to wash the boxes. But he created a device that would do it 347 automatically. Probably the first invention of such a thing in the history of this area and maybe of the world, 348
actually. I think there is other significance of him as well. I think the idea that he created a business that 349 really made significance throughout the world. I would like to encourage you, if you have not seen this, 350 and I don’t know if it’s in your report or not, there is a story called, The Story of our Local Bayside Cannery, 351
that was published in 2010, and I would be glad to share that with you as well, and show you that. Finally, 352 I would just like to mention really quickly, if you’ve not seen this exhibit, it’s a great exhibit to go see. It’s 353 currently at the Los Altos History Museum, which I think you probably all have been there, but right now 354 it’s called Silicon Valley Eats, and it tells a little bit about the history of how this area became known as the 355
Heart’s Delight, you know, the Valley of Heart’s Delight. But in that exhibit, there’s a great exhibit on 356 Thomas Foon Chew, and I encourage you, if you have not seen it, to definitely go and observe and visit it 357 as well. Again, I’m also available if you would like to talk to me, since my research might be helpful to you 358 as well. Okay, thank you. 359 360 Chair Bower: Great. Thank you. If you could, if you’re willing to share the article that you, 2010 article you 361 were referring to, if you could give it to Staff. 362
363 Mr. Holzemer: I think Staff already has it; they do. 364 365 Chair Bower: Okay, great. Thank you for your comments. I’m going to go a little bit out of order here and 366 Kirsten Flynn. 367 368 Kirsten Flynn: Hello, I’m Kirsten Flynn. I’m a life-long resident of Palo Alto and a member of the North 369 Ventura Community Area Plan Team. And I want to say something to this subject. I, when I’m working 370 with the group and I work with the NVCAP because I have lived here so long and I’m so ingrained into the 371 community, and even though it kind of stresses me out to work with in a political setting. But what I try to 372 do is I try to focus on the overall goals and shared values of what the group is trying to accomplish, and I 373 think that we can all agree that the goals of redevelopment effort is to create affordable housing, because 374 you cannot open a newspaper without realizing that California is in an affordable housing crisis. And I have 375
City of Palo Alto Page 8
three young adult children who I would dearly love to live close to me, which they cannot presently do. We 376
enjoy the benefits of and enjoy being around the vibrant small office space environment were many startups 377 originate here in Palo Alto. And that’s part of something I think we do not want to necessarily quash; 378 however, we have been hurt by it because of the jobs/housing imbalance. And we all want a high-quality 379 place to live and work. So those are the overarching goals, sort of, and stay focused on those and we’ll 380 come out okay. And as far as that last point, I think that this building really has a huge effect on quality of 381 life. It really resonates for me as a Palo Alton, because I’ve seen that California is obsessed with the new, 382 we are obsessed with the new. We don’t have a lot of history because we’re a young state compared to 383 Europe or the East Coast. Perhaps we don’t have the most significant architectural resources, but what we 384 have is what we have. That’s what’s left is what is left. What has not already been erased. And a plaque 385 does not bring history to life. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed that the way a building does. And so what I’d 386 like to say is, I believe, I’m a designer in my private life and I believe design thinking, good design thinking 387 can solve a lot of problems if we say with an open mind and a creative confrontation to achieving these 388
goals, I believe we can achieve all of these goals and also preserve this building. And I would hope that 389 we make the best, most creative effort we can to do so. Okay, that’s all. Thank you. 390 391 Chair Bower: Thank you for those comments. And finally, I think we’re honored to have Thomas Foon 392 Chew’s granddaughter, Gloria Hom, here to speak. Welcome. 393 394 Gloria Hom: Thank you very much and thank you Elena for inviting me to the meeting. And I am Thomas 395 Foon Chew’s granddaughter, and I also am a fifty -plus years resident of Palo Alto. And I’m here to just say 396 that I’d like to maintain and retain the historical value of, and highlight Bayside Cannery. In the 1920’s 397 when it was in its heyday, it was the only large business in Palo Alto. I mean, Palo Alto was the University, 398 but in terms of a large business, Bayside Cannery was actually it. And I think it’s really an important 399 historical contribution to the area and certainly I would like to see it highlighted in some fashion and 400 certainly maintained. It was, it canned primarily peaches, apricots, pears and the Alviso Cannery canned 401 primarily tomatoes, but this area was mainly the fruits and fruit salads and, you know, used the train 402 system to transport the cans to other areas of the world. So, thank you very much for your time and if you 403
wanted any more information on the cannery, I would be very happy to submit it to you. 404 405 Chair Bower: Great. Thank you and I particularly appreciate the fact that you’ve come today to talk to us. 406 So, I don’t have any other cards. Maybe we’ll move on to Staff report. 407 408 Ms. Lee: If I may, I can respond to some of the questions that were raised during the public comments. 409 410 Chair Bower: Certainly, go ahead. 411 412 Ms. Lee: First of all, what I wanted to bring your attention to is that the project goals are up here. I can 413 send the link separately and post it up, but, so they do list what the goals are on housing and land use, 414 transit, pedestrian and bicycle connections, connected street grid, community facility, infrastructure, 415 balance of community interests, urban design and guidelines, sustainability and the environment. And just 416 quickly back to the top, there it goes. So, we have a section about the project engagement, which is where 417
you will find links to all of the reports and materials, resources and contact information. This is where we 418 list all upcoming meetings. And the article that Mr. Holzemer referenced is also included under the 419 engagement sections under the April 17th Working Group Meeting. and I can provide the link afterwards. 420
And then there were a few other items that I wanted to mention. And there was a plan that was shared 421 today that was shown at one of our Working Group meetings in the past. Just to clarify, yes, exactly that 422 one. That is also available at our website. But I wanted to clarify that the purpose of that plan was to start 423 a conversation about what the potential options are. It’s not a proposed option. We have not developed 424 one, but the purpose is to show what the potential pattern could be. We will be again going back to the 425 Working Group with more on that, but you know, it’s still early in the process. We’re still, we’re just about 426 finishing the data gathering stage right now. But the plan options are going to depend on a number of 427 factors, including the historic discussion, so, that discussion we’re having now. So, we need to have that 428 done before we can actually develop options. The other option, the other item is also looking at the creek. 429 One of the things that City Council mentioned was they wanted to look at naturalizing the creek, and that’s 430
City of Palo Alto Page 9
also an item that has to be done and analyzed in order for us to actually come up with options for discussion. 431
So, that is good information to have in the plans, that plan set, but it's just one piece of the background. 432 And again, as I have mentioned, adaptive reuse hasn’t been discussed because we actually haven’t come 433 to discussion. But, certainly, that’s something we will be considering when we come back with more on the 434 options. Thanks. 435 436 Chief Bower: Great. Thank you for pulling that page of goals up. I was sorry that we didn’t see on that list 437 of goals, historic preservation as part of it, considering that the cannery building is such an integral part of 438 this redevelopment process. I wanted to ask a couple of questions of Christina, if I could. I was interested 439 in the evaluation of the railroad siding. If you could pull up the aerial view of the site so we could look at 440 it? I’m wondering what, when you evaluate the significance of a siding, what’s the cutoff level of 441 significance? In the aerial view you can clearly see where it was and it hasn’t had railroad tracks there for 442 years, but the Highline Park in New York City, which is a former rail, elevated railway has some rails in 443
some portions and doesn’t, and yet it’s one of the most successful sort of rehabilitated uses to create a 444 park in New York City. So, could you comment on that a little bit? 445 446 Ms. Dikas: Sure. We didn’t find the rail spur specifically to be historically significant, but it contributes to 447 the history of the site overall and the building as part of its cannery function. As Elena mentioned and it’s 448 in our report, the tracks themselves were removed by Southern Pacific in 1964, so what remains is kind of 449 a pattern that’s reflected in the parking area currently. So, we mentioned that pattern as a character to 450 finding future of the site along with just a few landscape site features that contribute to the significance of 451 the cannery property. But we didn’t call out the track specifically. Does that answer your question? 452 453 Chair Bower: Yeah. I’m just concerned that just because we don’t have track there, that that particular 454 space loses significance and then becomes, it just basically disappears. By the way, that spur, I think, that’s 455 the spur that went, continued all the way down to Los Gatos and that the current Foothill Expressway 456 space, at least near Gunn High School used that abandoned spur, the County used that spur to develop 457 Foothill Expressway. So, it was, I remember as a child watching the trains come to Arastradero Road where 458
Gunn High School is now located every day in the afternoon, dropping off commuters to San Francisco. 459 Okay, another question. You had mentioned a, that the cannery buildings didn’t, I don’t want to 460 mischaracterize what you said, but maybe you could talk about how the architecture of the cannery building 461 was not significant, or am I remembering that correctly? 462 463 Ms. Dikas: That’s correct. We found that the buildings were, in their nature quite utilitarian and functional 464 and that there wasn’t anything that was specifically unique compared to other types of industrial buildings 465 to rise to an individual level of significance for the California Register under that Criterion. 466 467 Chair Bower: So, I guess I’m puzzled by that conclusion, because it seems to me that what that suggests 468 is that the only way a building, in this case a cannery building could be considered significant is if it was 469 unique or almost one of a kind, and the fact that this building has the characteristics of multiple canning 470 buildings, I mean, even ones down in Sunnyvale look similar to this one, or they are similar. I’m just now 471 sure why that wouldn’t be, rise to a level of significance that would add to support for a greater level of 472
importance. 473 474 Ms. Dikas: The building, the physical building is important in that it represents the reason for significance 475 which we’ve identified as the cannery operation under Criterion 1. So, that’s not do discount that the 476 physical building is not important. It must physically represent its reason for significance in its period of 477 significance, which we identified as 1918 to 1949. But we just didn’t find it to be individually significant for 478 its architecture itself, its design. It was a conglomeration of a series of additions over time that were really 479 made for the purpose of the cannery function and its development and growth, which reflects the Criterion 480 related to events and use that we identified more than like an architectural style or period typology. Things 481 of that nature that usually fall under the Criterion 3 discussion. 482 483 Chair Bower: Okay, so I’m thinking about Pier 70 in San Francisco, which is the oldest West Coast shipping 484 facility. It still operates today as a repair place. It is a huge conglomeration of buildings that occurred and 485
City of Palo Alto Page 10
were built over a long period of time in the early 1900’s. It’s being repurposed, all the old buildings that 486
are still standing, I think, are going to be repurposed and then there’s going to be infill. So, again, I’m 487 thinking in the case of this entire building at 340 Portage, it is an initial cannery building that is added on 488 to over a period of years, and each of those building additions become significant because the latest on is 489 only 79 years old, and the earliest one, 1918, now it’s 101 years old. So, again, I would think that this 490 would be significant, the entire building is significant and one of the things that troubled me most about 491 this initial proposal to get the conversation started is that it was going to cut the building up, and create 492 certain sort of preserved parts, and then basically destroy the rest. And I’m just wondering if you can… 493 Well, that’s okay. I think we’ve had enough conversation about this because I think it’s going to come back. 494 I don’t want to, I want to give my colleagues an opportunity to weigh in. I wonder if Staff could talk about 495 the Matadero Creek changes and how that might affect, you know, the historic buildings that we’re 496 considering. 497 498
Ms. Lee: Sure. So, right now we are in process of trying to select a consultant for the analysis if the creek. 499 So, the consultant’s analysis will let us know what is actually feasible to be improved. Some of the items 500 that were discussed would be fully naturalizing the creek, because right now it’s completely channelized in 501 that portion of it. However, it gets complicated because of the right-of-way issues and it’s, you know, and 502 impact on drainage further down the creek watershed. We’ve started conversations with Santa Clara Valley 503 Water District, but we’ll have to involve multiple other jurisdictions in terms of what’s feasible. So, once we 504 understand the feasibility of what we can do, then it can range from partial naturalization, no naturalization 505 where we would leave the creek alone, but we would improve on either side, so providing more of a 506 connectivity through the site, especially as it leads down south to the park. Or it could be partial 507 naturalization or it can be fully improving and naturalizing the site. So, as we look over the, as we develop 508 the plans for the site, it could be a range of things. It could be just by itself or we could try to help create 509 some sort of connection to whatever we propose for the other buildings within the plan site. 510 511 Chair Bower: So, if I understand correctly, the idea of naturalizing the creek channel would only occur 512 within this, the boundaries of this particular study are? 513
514 Ms. Lee: At this point, because that’s what this, we’re limited to the 60-acre site of this project. So, it would, 515 the creek runs through only the southern portion of the site. 516 517 Chair Bower: Okay. Colleagues, comments, questions? Martin. 518 519 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Bower. I was very interested in Laura Bajuk’s comments today 520 about what was significant when this building was first put into business, and that being the connection 521 between how famous this business was and our current Silicon Valley businesses. You know, the company 522 SPRINT, that stands for Southern Pacific Railroad Interconnection, so very interesting connection there. 523 Laura Bajuk was saying what was considered old then is now, we’re using the same words, Southern Pacific 524 Railroad, the internet SPRINT. Also, let’s see, when I was probably about 13 years old, I was a farm worker 525 and I picked green beans. It is now the property called Oakmead Industrial Park, so certainly one industry 526 down from farming to high tech. So, it certainly is part of the regional history. Did I hear Chair Bower say 527
something about historic preservation was not a goal for this area? 528 529 Ms. Lee: Um, it’s not, oh, sorry. 530 531 Chair Bower: Actually, what I said was I was unhappy not to see historic preservation as part of the listed 532 goals in that, but it might have been there because (crosstalk). 533 534 Board Member Bernstein: So, just a clarification, is historic preservation a listed goal? 535 536 Ms. Lee: It’s not listed by itself, but it is, you know, it is part of the neighborhood fabric and it also goes to 537 sustainability, so there is, it has been identified as something important by Council, but it isn’t listed 538 separately as a goal. 539 540
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Board Member Bernstein: Okay. For future meetings with the Working Group, would Staff consider including 541
that as a goal? 542 543 Ms. Lee: We can certainly bring that up. We are going back to Council in August and the Council does have 544 the ability, the prerogative to make changes to the goals and objectives. 545 546 Board Member Bernstein: Thanks. I’m going back to the railroad spur. There are a lot of communities on 547 the peninsula that still have actually the tracks themselves. For example, in San Carlos there are a lot of 548 metal fabrication companies all through that area, Corey Road for example, where the railroad tracks are 549 still in the parking lots, and they’re really fantastic. In Danville, I think it’s called the Iron Horse Trail, I 550 believe, and that used to be a railroad. The tracks have been removed but now it became actually a 551 parkway. So, there is still, the right-of-way is gone but it’s, but the use is still there. So, there would be 552 opportunities to have that railroad spur somehow recognized physically. I think that would be a nice 553
character-defining element to retain. The map that Ms. Holman presented to us, it did show it looks like 554 two cut throughs on the 340 Portage Street, but I assume that’s not the plan to do that, right? 555 556 Ms. Lee: It’s just brought up as a discussion point, so it hasn’t been actually proposed or selected. But it’s 557 just one of the items that we wanted the Working Group to consider, because connectivity was one of the 558 goals that City Council raised. 559 560 Board Member Bernstein: Right, yeah. So that’s obviously with removal of historic fabric, of course. 561 562 Ms. Lee: Yes. 563 564 Board Member Bernstein: Because once, hopefully historic preservation becomes a stated goal. 565 566 Ms. Lee: Right. Well, you know, so basically the goals and objectives really span a range of items. There’s 567 no way that we, as mentioned before, there’s no way that we can meet all of the goals, but it’s going to 568
be a balance of meeting some of the goals and then making other goals more important. So, it will be an 569 interesting discussion. 570 571 Board Member Bernstein: Sure, yeah. I’m looking at the photos on packet page 29. I don’t know if members 572 of the public can see. It’s a very small drawing. I’ll let Staff get to packet page 29. And looking at the upper 573 right-hand photograph of all the steel trusses there, I’m reminded when the project of the Creamery on 574 the 800 block of High Street came to the Historic Resources Board. Similar kind of structure, and the Board 575 discussed is there any way to get adaptive reuse of the structure so that that magnificent architectural 576 features can be retained. It was determined by enough of the different working groups and committees, 577 that the structure could not be saved physically because of deterioration. So, that was sadly torn down. 578 So, here’s an opportunity where the building is not deteriorating to the point where it is demolition by 579 neglect. So, that would support, I think, the idea that perhaps the structure itself is historically significant, 580 combined with the other significant aspects of integrity. That’s my comments for now. Thanks. 581 582
Chair Bower: Thank you Martin. Margret. 583 584 Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Thank you for all this great information because I always thought of the, I 585 mean, obviously Frys being a consumer in this area, going to Frys to shop, that was my sort of, the extent 586 of my experience there, so having a little bit more insight into the history of the site has been really 587 educational for me. I am just thinking about, for me I just think that there are three options for the 588 redevelopment of this site. Either to completely see it as a historic resource and preserve it. Or to completely 589 neglect the historic significance of the site or the buildings and just develop it as any developer would 590 probably go forth and do. Or find a common ground somewhere in between. I think to preserve this and 591 readapt it into something that is, community resource is a great idea, and I know that a lot of people have 592 said this could be a great artist colony. It could have open studios. I was reading some of the public 593 comments. But I think that just given the fact that we’ve already established that the building itself is not, 594 doesn’t have a historic quality, that I think to be able to remodel it in a way that it would be of use to the 595
City of Palo Alto Page 12
public, with public safety, fire issues. Obviously, there’s ADA issues because a lot of those buildings are 596
highly elevated because there were loading docks. I think that for a building to go through that process, 597 it’s basically going to be so drastically redesigned that I think a lot of the original aspects of the building 598 would just simply be lost. So, I think that Chair Bower and Martin’s comments about, let’s inject the fact 599 that we want to preserve this site in some way. I think that should be part of the criteria for the 600 redevelopment. I think, I don’t really see that we can preserve these buildings as they are now and make 601 them useful, but we don’t want to see everything lost and everyone just ignore the fact that the site does 602 exist. I think we need to find a common ground, and I think that there’s a creative way to do that, either 603 by keeping the footprint of the building, keeping some of the architectural features that are existing in the 604 building. Maybe the interior trusses or maybe this, I don’t know what we call this roofline, the monitor 605 roofs. I think that’s, I mean that’s sort of an iconic… You had some really great photos of it. Like this photo. 606 I mean, maybe just the, we take images of the existing site and have them, and have that as a design 607 element, part of the design criteria, and incorporate some of these historic elements. Maybe they’re not 608
the original historic elements, but maybe we can creatively adapt so we don’t lose this, I mean, it is a 609 resource because of the events that happened there. So, I think we should make a huge effort to retain it 610 in some way to honor it, pay homage to it. That’s what I would like to see. 611 612 Chair Bower: Thank you Margaret. Roger, comment? 613 614 Board Member Kohler: Yeah. I’m having a little trouble here, but in my old days, younger days I worked 615 for a company that used to blow stuff up into the air and we tried to figure out where the wind was blowing 616 and this kind of thing. And we were one block over, just right next to there, I think it’s Olive. I’m not sure 617 it that’s the corner. I’m just disclosing that as, that’s my notice there. And I just want to declare that I 618 know that property. I don’t know if I have… My question is, where do we go from here? What happens 619 from our discussion today? Does this go before the Council or how far a process, where are we in the 620 process? 621 622 Ms. Lee: So, basically we are going back to Council, you know, as part of the background we’ll let them 623
know that we’ve taken the HRE to the Historic Resources Board, but what we’re going to do is we’re going 624 to present a summary of what was discussed here to our Working Group. Staff will also take this information 625 as we prepare for the meeting, so, the Working Group will have your input as they consider different, the 626 plan alternatives that they’re going to be developing with Staff. 627 628 Board Member Kohler: I guess. 629 630 Chair Bower: Great. I wanted to, before we leave this topic, since we don’t have any Board Motions to 631 share with all the people here, this book that Amy French shared with me. And it’s titled Historic Bay Area 632
Visionaries and it described in the book, it actually has an entire chapter about the cannery and six other 633
people who are significant to the local history of Palo Alto and the peninsula. It was fascinating reading. 634 Juana Briones is in here and several other people, including Charlie Chaplin. Anyway, it has a very good 635 chapter about this building. 636 637
Ms. Lee: Thanks. I just wanted to kind of go back to that earlier topic. So, basically in terms of process, so 638 the process would be we would take all this input, we would present it to the Working Group. The Working 639 Group will work together with Staff to come up with the options, the different alternatives. We’ll take that 640 to the community at a community meeting sometime early next y ear. Then all of that goes to the City 641 Council for their review. City Council will come up with a preferred alternative. That preferred alternative 642 would then become the basis of the plan itself, and once a preferred alternative is chosen, then that will 643 go, that will help us start the work on the EIR for the project. So, at that point, it’s at that point when we 644 actually have project alternatives that will work with our environmental consultants as well as Page and 645 Turnbull to evaluate the impact, the historic impact of the proposed project. And then that will then go 646 through the process and up to Council for final adoption. 647 648 Chair Bower: Great. Thank you. I think that the Board, I hope all of the members that are not here today 649 can participate in the EIR review which will come when this project moves forward. I think our comments 650
City of Palo Alto Page 13
today would suggest that we feel that this project needs to take into consideration the historic character 651
of the cannery building and the office, and how that is expressed in the project development would be, of 652 course subject to all of the Working Group input, lots of other input, but our input, I think, is that somehow 653 these buildings need to be preserved and incorporated into a new project. I think that my colleagues here 654 today share that. So, Martin? 655 656 Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Thank you, Chair Bower. I have a question for Staff. Is this considered a, in 657 terms of historic preservation ordinances, is this considered a Group A or Group B? And so, Group A requires 658 it to be located in some historical category, which right now it’s not a historic category, correct? So, it’s not 659 a Group A, right? 660 661 Ms. French: So, that’s a handy document that needs updating, that is very helpful for the single-family 662 residential projects that we see coming through. In this case, you know, this is a non-residential project 663
that is subject to architectural review. So, there’s going to be a discretionary project on this site which then 664 kicks it into the CEQA review. This document you’re holding, the bulletin is really helpful for Staff to 665 understand, you know, single-family residential which often is not subject to discretionary reviews. 666 (crosstalk) 667 668 Board Member Bernstein: So, Group A and Group B only refers to residential properties, not, is that correct? 669 670 Ms. French: Well, that’s the focus of that bulletin. Yeah. So, it’s been identified now as an eligible resource, 671 so we consider it a CEQA resource for the purpose of review. 672 673 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, all right. Just following up my thoughts about this, so it says under Group 674 B Historic Resource, it’s listed in the National. So, right now it’s not listed, correct? Okay. 675 676 Ms. French: Correct. And only the property owner can petition the State to have their property listed 677 actually. So, the eligibility is the thing that kicks it into CEQA review. But the listing itself is up to the 678
property owner. 679 680 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, all right. So, thank you for clarifying that. I did not know that this only 681 refers to, am I correct, this only refers to residential properties, Group A and Group B? Is that correct? 682 683 Ms. French: I think we should schedule a separate meeting for this bulletin, if you don’t mind. So, have 684 further discussion. I’m not prepared to discuss that. 685 686 Board Member Bernstein: I see, okay. I do see that on today’s agenda that this is actually not listed as a 687 study session. This is an action item, according to this agenda, right? This is an action item meeting, not a 688 study session. 689 690 Ms. French: I mean, to the extent that your comments will be considered in the next steps in this process, 691 I think it’s an action item. There’s no project under CEQA currently to make a recommendation to Council, 692
for instance, but I guess it’s kind of a study session, but you know, because… I don’t think we need a vote, 693 straw poll or anything. 694 695 Ms. Lee: No, I don’t think we need a formal vote, but we’ll definitely be forwarding on your comments and 696 recommendations to the Working Group. 697 698 Chair Bower: So, it’s an action item that doesn’t require any action. 699 700 Ms. French: Yeah. 701 702 Board Member Bernstein: Can Staff assure the Board that, again, it is because of potential eligibility… It’s 703 potential eligibility correct? 704 705
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Ms. French: It’s no long potentially eligible, it is eligible. 706
707 Board Member Bernstein: Okay. 708 709 Ms. French: Because this study has been done. Once a study has been done to find it eligible, I mean, I 710 would from your comments surmise that you are concurring that it’s eligible and as you’ve read through 711 the report this is, one of your functions is to review an important document such as this and weigh in, I 712 guess, if you’d like. 713 714 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, so we’re guaranteed that this is tied into CEQA then? 715 716 Ms. French: Correct. 717 718
Board Member Bernstein. And that ties into the Secretary of Interior Standards for any alterations to historic 719 resource, correct? 720 721 Ms. French: Well, I think again, that’s got a more… Lower-level projects, yes, but because environmental 722 impact report would be prepared, that would weigh the, you know, retention versus demolition, let’s say, 723 of the existing buildings on this site, that go up to Council. Then Council makes a decision. You know, if 724 the Council decision is to retain the buildings, then, you know, then modifications there too would be 725 mitigated or what have you. 726 727 Board Member Bernstein: Okay. Well, thanks for clarifying that. When I was the words ‘potentially eligible’ 728 I thought, okay, so that doesn’t mean it’s eligible, but you’re saying it is eligible, therefore, CEQA is 729 guaranteed, it would have to respond to CEQA requirements. Okay, thank you. 730 731 Ms. French: Yes. 732 733
Chair Bower: So, just… One second Margaret. Just so it’s clear, I think I’d like to take a pole of Board 734 Members and just to verify that we do feel that this is eligible, it meets the criteria for listing, so that there’s 735 no ambiguity about that in the record. Anybody disagree with that, that this is an eligible building? The 736 criteria qualifies it? 737 738 Board Member Bernstein: I agree that it is, yeah. 739 740 Chair Bower: Margaret? 741 742 Board Member Wimmer: Yeah. Just a quick question. So, if Page and Turnbull has reviewed the, all the 743 findings and they’ve clearly stated that it’s, the building itself is not… I mean, I think the site and the event 744 of the site is, makes it eligible, but if we have a professional that has found, has done this report, how does 745 that weigh in? 746 747
Ms. Dikas: It was not found to be significant for its architecture or design, but that doesn’t mean that the 748 building is not significant. The building itself represents the significance associated with the use and events 749 of the cannery function, and so we did still call out character-defining features of the building as well as 750 the site. So, there is still a physical representation that, when it comes down to it there isn’t really a 751 difference when you’re evaluating a project, which Criterion was found to be the significant one. 752 753 Board Member Wimmer: Thank you. That makes it more clear. Yeah, I agree. 754 755 Chair Bower: Roger, you concur? 756 757 Board Member Kohler: Yeah. 758 759
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Bower: Yeah, all right. So, all of us concur that this building is significant and should, could be listed, 760
so that that’s clearly transmitted to the Council. Okay. 761 762 Board Member Wimmer: I have one quick question. Is this project going to circle back to us as the plans 763 develop, or is this the last time we’ll review this project? 764 765 Ms. Lee: No, this will come back. So, once we’ve developed plan alternatives and we’ll be doing the CEQA 766 analysis, so that will come back to you for your recommendation. 767 768 Chair Bower: All right. 769 770 Ms. French: Ideally, we would come back during the public comment period, like we’re doing with the 771 Castilleja Project, for instance. So, you would have a public meeting during the comment period, if we can 772
swing that to have a coordinated discussion. 773 774 Board Member Bernstein: Chair Bower, I see there’s, since the public hearing is still open, I see a member 775 of the public who would like to make a comment please. 776 777 Chair Bower: Oh, please. 778 779 (inaudible, no mic) 780 781 Ms. Bajuk: So, as I mentioned earlier, housing was a pressing concern at the end of the war. It’s still a 782 pressing concern. It’s amazing how things don’t really change too much. But as a suggestion, orchards 783 were replaced by housing at that time period, but we’ve retained a few throughout the County. Los Alto is 784 still fighting to protect its trees around that civic center and the museum I used to manage. Thank you, 785 Martin, for mentioning it, to go to that exhibit. So, a few have been kept as living monuments. I think 786 there’s an opportunity here to keep a portion of the real facility. I’m going to back up a minute and say I 787
was very disappointed when we went to Europe to learn that castles didn’t look like what Disney had taught 788 me they looked like. And so, there’s a sentimentalization that can happen or sort of a fauxness that can 789 come with trying to emulate our past. But we can’t preserve all of it. We need this space to be used for the 790 betterment of the community. But, perhaps a corner, maybe the corner that talks the most about Thomas 791 Foon Chew and his contributions to our community. You know, the cannery was expended after his death. 792 It was expanded by later owners, but what’s the piece that most attaches to him, and is there some section 793 of that that could speak to that history. And also, the railroad history. I’m actually active because my 794 husband is, with railroad museums and I know we could do something interesting about the interpretation 795 of the fruit industry. For example, Southern Pacific employed the Stanford swim team, I think in the 40’s 796 or so, for publicity shots where they were stoking ice into the top of the refrigerator units that would carry 797 the fruit. They weren’t wearing much. It was sort of the beefcake of the day. This was their promotion’s 798 department thinking this was wise. These are the sorts of stories that are attached here that people aren’t 799 familiar with and bring a smile to our faces too, when we think how things haven’t changed. Industrial 800 buildings aren’t sexy. They’re not meant to be. They’re functional and even the Eiffel Tower was considered 801
too industrial, too commercial, too boring. It didn’t reflect the aesthetic of the day. Perhaps, as time passes, 802 that would change with an industrial building like this. But perhaps a small corner can be kept. Again, real 803 places are the ones that teach history, not the recreated ones. So, even, not matter how fabulous our 804 museum is, and it’s going to be fabulous, it is going to an historic site that gives the greatest impression 805 to people when they’re thinking about history, and it is the most trusted source of history. History museums 806 come second. And third on that list, from a survey from Indiana is someone who was actually at an historic 807 site or in an historic occurrence, like a World War II veteran. So, try to keep a piece of the authentic history. 808 A small corner would be my hope. Thank you. 809 810 Chair Bower: Thank you Laura, and I’m not sure I can pronounce your last name. Bajuk. Anyway, you are 811 our first and our last commentator. Do you want to make a comment? 812 813
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to make one quick comment. I forgot to mention that I can remember 814
seeing the train come off and go up and then you’d go up to Los Altos. You know, the main drag is up 815 there. The train used to run along that area as well. I guess I’m old enough to remember some of that. 816 817 Chair Bower: Okay, I’d like to point the public or anyone who is going to read the transcript of this meeting 818 to page eight and nine in our packets where the Staff has very cogently summarized the significance of 819 this building in terms of Criterion 1, which is events. And then second, aspects of integrity, there are seven 820 of them that define integrity, location, setting, design setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and 821 association, and this set of buildings retains six of the seven. I think that’s one of the strongest statements 822 about any building that’s come before this Board since I’ve been on here, and that’s rather, I think that’s 823 significant, not to overuse the term. So, I want to thank all of you who are here. We’re going to go into 824 basic Board business after this. And in particular, I thank Gloria Hom for coming to the meeting. It is 825 particularly, to me, meaningful to have somebody who is related to people who we’re talking about in an 826
historic sense. Thank you, Christina and Page and Turnbull and Staff, for your help in this, and I do think 827 we all look forward to having it come back. And thank everyone who has commented. It’s the first time 828 we’ve had a meeting with anybody in the audience in several meetings. 829 830 Approval of Minutes 831 832 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13, 2019. 833 834 Chair Bower: So, we’re going to move on to housekeeping, approval of minutes. Once again, I slogged 835 through the minutes. They’re getting better, but… Any Board Members that have any… 836 837 Board Member Bernstein: So, I can’t vote on it. I was not here. 838 839 Chair Bower: No, you can abstain, which is what I do. So, do I have a motion to approve? 840 841
Board Member Wimmer: I’d like to make a motion to approve what we discussed today. 842 843 Chair Bower: Yeah. Roger second? 844 845 Board Member Kohler: Sure. 846 847 Chair Bower: All right, all in favor of approving the minutes from June 13, 2019 say aye. Roger? 848 849 Board Member Kohler: Yeah, aye. 850 851 Board Member Bernstein: I abstain. I was not participating in that meeting. 852 853 Chair Bower: Okay, so we have three. 854 855
(off mic) 856 857 Chair Bower: Well, so, Martin wants to abstain from the minutes, does that mean... 858 859 (off mic) 860 861 Chair Bower: Yeah, so we have a quorum. He doesn’t have to vote for or against or, yeah, okay. So, it’s 862 three yes and one abstention. 863 864 MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0, BOARD MEMBER BERNSTEIN ABSTAINED, VICE CHAIR 865 COREY, BOARD MEMBERS MAKINEN AND SHEPHERD ABSENT 866 867
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Board Member Wimmer: Actually, David, it says that I was absent during that meeting, and I came late 868
because I was in traffic, but I did come. Should, can I change that? Can we change that in the minutes? 869 870 Chair Bower: Oh yeah. 871 872 Board Member Wimmer: I was actually, it says that I was absent for the meeting on June 13th. 873
874 Chair Bower: She came late. 875 876 Board Member Wimmer: When, in fact, I… 877 878 Ms. French: Are you speaking about packet page four? 879 880
Board Member Wimmer: We’re just looking at the minutes, so page 92. It says that I was absent for that 881 meeting, but I was actually present, a little tardy. 882 883 Ms. French: Okay, we’ll make that correction. Thank you. 884 885 Subcommittee Items 886 887 Chair Bower: Okay, subcommittee items. After this meeting Roger and I will meet with Amy to discuss the 888 520, is it 527 Waverley? Is that the right address? 889 890 Ms. French: 526. 891 892 Chair Bower: 526 Waverly, right. The tile and entry. There are no other subcommittee reports that I’m 893 aware of. 894 895
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 896 897 Chair Bower: So, Board Member questions, comments, announcements? 898 899 Board Member Kohler: I guess I forgot to let people know you could look at, I happened to grab these on 900 my way in. These are things I put together over the years and so… 901 902 Chair Bower: Right, so Roger is referring to the photographs that he has laid out on the dais behind Amy 903 that have pictures of, historic pictures of Palo Alto. I have a question. What’s the deadline for our in-service 904 training for this year? You know, we have to go to, we have certain requirements. 905 906 Ms. French: I don’t know the deadline offhand. I mean, you know, we want to make sure we keep going 907 to trainings. 908 909
Chair Bower: Well, I think that the report (crosstalk) October first. I mean, we file it in February, but I 910 think, but it’s a look back period and I want to be sure. I haven’t been able to get to one. 911 912 Ms. French: Whatever you attend between now and February, or whatever, January when I bring it to you, 913 I’ll put it on the list. 914 915 Adjournment 916 917 Chair Bower: Okay, if we have no other comments or questions, then we’ll adjourn the meeting at 10 918 o’clock. Thank you all. 919 920 921