Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-12 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: December 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 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 / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 840 Kipling Street [18PLN-00185]: Request for Historic Resources Board Consideration of Proposed Additions and Modifications to a Residence Previously Determined by the HRB to be a Contributing Resource Within the Boundaries of the SOFA I Coordinated Area Plan. The Project Request Includes Individual Review and a Variance for the Construction of a Second Story Addition on a Substandard Lot. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Additions to existing structure). Zoning District: R-2 (Low-Density Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Christy Fong at Christylmfong@gmail.com Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Informational Report: Processes for Nominations to the City's Historic Resources Inventory, Inventory Category Upgrades, and Implementation of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies for Historic Preservation _______________________ 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. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 12, 2019 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment in Chambers Reconvene for Field Trip 5. Historic Resources Board Field Trip to Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) Project Site Under Construction. The City Council Approved the JMZ Project at the Conclusion of the Architectural Review Process. The tour will begin at Lucie Stern Community Center’s Service Desk (1305 Middlefield Road) at approximately 10:45 AM after adjournment of the regular public hearing items in the Council Chambers. Appropriate apparel for active construction site required, including closed toe shoes. _______________________ 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 & Development Services 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 # 10301) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/12/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 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: • 2019 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 4 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 /17 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 Cancelled 10/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 10/24/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 11/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 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 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2020 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/9/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 1/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/13/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/12/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/26/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/9/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/14/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/28/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/11/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/25/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/9/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/13/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/27/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/10/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/24/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/8/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/22/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/12/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/26/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thanksgiving 12/10/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/24/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Day before Christmas 2020 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 10822) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 840 Kipling Street: Additions and Modifications to a SOFA I Contributing Structure Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 840 Kipling Street [18PLN- 00185]: Request for Historic Resources Board Consideration of Proposed Additions and Modifications to a Residence Previously Determined by the HRB to be a Contributing Resource Within the Boundaries of the SOFA I Coordinated Area Plan. The Project Request Includes Individual Review and a Variance for the Construction of a Second Story Addition on a Substandard Lot. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Additions to existing structure). Zoning District: R-2 (Low-Density Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Christy Fong at Christylmfong@gmail.com From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Confirm the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This will inform the Director of Planning and Development Services’ consideration of the requested Individual Review and Variance applications for second story development on a substandard sized lot. Report Summary The applicant requests approval of Individual Review (IR) and Variance applications to allow first- and second-story additions to an historic resource. The subject is located at 840 Kipling 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Street. The residence was built in 19121 and lies on a substandard, R-2 zoned lot within the boundaries of the South of Forest Area I Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA I CAP) (Attachment A). Pursuant to the SOFA I CAP, City staff seeks the HRB’s recommendation on projects involving alterations, modifications or demolition of identified historic resources. The HRB’s purview includes review of the modifications for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI Standards). The HRB’s feedback will inform staff’s consideration of the project requests and preparation of findings for approval of the applications. Background 1998 Determination The HRB evaluated the property in 1998, to determine its ‘historic merit’ under the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance (ORD No. 4381). At the HRB hearing of March 4, 19982, the HRB unanimously agreed the property had historic merit and recommended the property to be designated as a ‘contributing residence’. There is no evidence the City Council formally added this property to the Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory as a Contributing (Category 3 or 4) structure. SOFA I CAP Chapter IV of the SOFA I CAP establishes the review procedures for historic resources. The HRB will provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Services on projects with alterations, modifications or demolition of identified historic resources. 2019 HRB Study Session The proposed project was presented to the HRB in a study session on February 14, 2019 (Staff Report, Attachment F). The HRB provided initial feedback on the proposed project’s consistency with the SOI Standards. Draft excerpt minutes reflecting the HRB study session are provided as Attachment G. City’s Review for SOI Standards Compliance The City’s historic preservation consultant (Page and Turnbull, Inc.) reviewed the project plans dated March 4, 2019, for consistency with the SOI standards (Memorandum, Attachment D). The project plans in March ‘appear(ed) to be in compliance with six of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and (is) partially in compliance with Standard 5, but (is) not in compliance with Standards 2, 9 and 10’.3 The applicant revised the project to reflect the recommendations and guidance provided by the HRB and the City’s consultant to achieve consistency with the SOI standards. The applicant 1 The year of construction is based on the Santa Clara County Residential Unit Property Record for 840 Kipling Street, as referenced on Page 7 of the ‘840 Kipling Street – Revised Plans 9.3.2019 – Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis’ dated September 20, 2019, prepared by Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2 Staff report and meeting minutes for the HRB meeting on March 4, 1998 were included as attachments to the staff report of the Study Session on February 14, 2019. The staff report of the study session on February 14, 2019 is attached as Attachment F. 3 Excerpt from ‘840 Kipling Street –Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis’ dated March 19, 2019, prepared by Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 submitted revised plans on September 3, 2019; the City’s consultant conducted an SOI Standards consistency analysis and provided another memorandum on September 20, 2019 (Attachment E). The consultant analyzed the revised plan against each of the ten SOI standards and found the plans complied with all ten standards. The plans submitted November 4, 2019, retain the project scope and include minor adjustments necessary to complete the application and ensure zoning compliance. The adjustments in the current project plans will not require changes to the findings of the most recent SOI analysis. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval for an approximately 184 square feet (sf) first-floor addition at the rear, a new partial basement beneath the rear addition, and a 489 sf second- story addition. The existing home contains 1,192 sf of floor area in a single-story building and the property also contains a detached garage. Along with the proposed additions, modifications to existing windows and doors are proposed for all exterior walls of the building. The proposed scope of work is summarized in the following sections: Exterior alterations throughout the house o Roof: New roofing material will be composition asphalt shingles to match existing roofing. o Exterior siding: New exterior siding at the addition will be 1”x 4” bevel wood siding with a similar profile as the existing siding, which is 1”x12” 3-drop wood siding. o Windows: New windows at the addition will be aluminum-clad wood windows with simulated divided lites, with double-hung or awning sashes. o Doors: New doors at the addition will be aluminum-clad wood doors. North (front) façade o No alterations to the north (primary) façade are indicated. o The second-story addition will be set back from the front façade (also see rear façade below). East (left side) façade o A one-story rear addition and second-story addition will be constructed (see rear façade below). o One skylight will be located on the east-facing slope of the roof of the second-story addition. o Two existing, double-hung historic windows on the east façade will be retained. o One existing, smaller double-hung historic window on the east façade will be removed. o The gable of the cross-gabled roof form and historic materials will be retained. o A new aluminum-clad, wood awning window with simulated divided lites will be added at the original gable end of the east façade. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Rear (south) façade o The flat-roofed projecting portions (dated circa 1912-1924) at rear façade will be removed. o The existing rear wood deck will be removed. o A one-story addition will be constructed at the rear façade. o The rear addition has a partial hipped roof at the east side and a gabled roof form at the west side. o Paired fully glazed aluminum-clad wood doors with aluminum-clad wood side- lites and transoms will be installed at the gable roof portion of the addition. o A second-story addition with a front gabled roof will be constructed, located toward the southeast corner of the residence and set back from the first story façades. o The second-story addition will be located above the historic portion of the residence as well as the proposed horizontal rear addition. o The second-story addition is set back behind the front façade and open front entry porch and set back from the cross-gable roof elements on the east and west facades. o All historic material at the cornice at edge of the rear (south) façade roof will be removed. o New exterior stairs will be added at the southwest corner of the residence and will provide access to new partial basement below the rear addition. o A new rear wood deck with steps on the south side will be constructed at the rear of the proposed one-story addition. o New aluminum-clad wood windows with simulated divided lites will be installed at the additions on the rear (south) façade. West (right side) façade o A one-story rear addition and a second-story addition will be constructed (also see rear façade above). o Three shed-roof dormers will be located on the west façade of the second-story addition. o Two existing, historic windows at the south (rear) end of the west façade will be removed. o The gable of cross-gabled roof form and associated historic materials will be retained. o The chimney, including the exterior brick at the lower portion of the west façade, will be retained. o One new aluminum-clad, double-hung wood window will be added at the south (rear) end of the original portion of the west façade (below the cross gable). o One skylight will be located on the west-facing slope of the roof of the second-story addition. o New exterior access stairs will be added along west side of the proposed new rear deck, accessing the new partial basement below the rear addition. Discussion 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 The project site is surrounded by single-family and low- density, multi-family residential uses. The areas north and east of the site are zoned R-2 and areas to the south are zoned DHS (Detached Housing on Small Lots). The lot to the north of this residence is 836 Kipling Street, also a substandard lot. It contains a smaller one-story home constructed in approximately 1916. The lot at 441 Channing Avenue to the south of this site is larger and contains two units, a two-story single-family residence with a single-story accessory dwelling unit. The location map (right) shows the project site’s irregular shape and location. An analysis of the historic aspects of the property is included in Attachment E and was referenced in the March 4, 1998 Historic Resources Board Staff Report.4 A list of the character defining – features are listed as follow: o The simple rectangular-shaped massing and one-and-a-half story construction [however, based on closer inspection of the house, Page & Turnbull would characterize this as one-story construction with an attic] o Medium-pitched cross-gabled roof with boxed eaves and profiled fascia boards with return o Exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding with a profiled water table banding o Partial-width covered porch at left corner with exposed beams and trellis structure, square posts and pilasters resting on a solid balustrade, brick stoop and stairs, and two divided lite wood doors o Focal window under the front-facing gable o A large fixed sash with divided lite transom and sidelites o Two horizontally emphasized window units in the attic above also feature divided lites o Corbeled wood cornice o Fenestration, including pattern, materiality and operation, at side facades o Fully glazed wood primary entrance door with divided lites at the front entry porch 4 The staff report and meeting minutes for the HRB meeting on March 4, 1998 were included as attachments to the staff report of the Study Session on February 14, 2019. The staff report of the study session on February 14, 2019 is attached as Attachment F. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The rear flat-roofed volume has not been identified as a character-defining feature as it does not exhibit materials, craftsmanship or decorative details that contribute to the historic character of 840 Kipling Street. Compliance with Applicable Regulations As detailed in the previous staff report to the HRB on February 14, 2019, the project must be consistent with relevant policies and guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, SOFA I CAP and Individual Guidelines (Attachment B). The project is subject to the R-2 zoning regulations, where single-family residential uses are permitted. Since the project is located on a substandard lot with an area of 4,893 square feet and a lot width of 39.5 feet,5 development is limited to one habitable floor with a maximum height of 17 feet. As noted, the applicant has submitted requests for a Variance and Individual Review for the proposed second-story addition. Since the project will alter more than 75% of the existing walls, including siding and cladding, the project also requests for approval of Variance to allow an approximately 6.3 foot extension to the existing noncomplying first floor wall on the west elevation, which extends approximately 2.5 feet into the six foot side yard setback. For the Variance request, standard Variance findings outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.76.030 (c) are included in Attachment C. Though not within the purview of the HRB, consideration of the site’s special constraints is relevant for the Director’s action on the requested Variance. The subject site presents a special constraint, given its irregular lot shape. The two protected redwood trees present additional constraints at the rear side of the property. These physical and natural constraints restrict the buildable area of the lot, which limits expansions below and on the ground floor. Staff would support the proposed additions, when the alterations are deemed to be consistent with the SOI Standards, because these additions enable the preservation of the protected trees on the site. Analysis Staff has determined the proposed changes would meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation 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 ☐ NA Explanation: The proposed project will allow 840 Kipling Street to continue its residential use. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 1. 5 The subject lot is considered as substandard with the lot width that is less than 50 feet and a lot area that is less than 4,980 square feet (83% of the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet) than what are allowed in the R-2 zoning district. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis 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 ☐ NA Explanation: The majority of the original horizontal wood siding with a profile water table banding will be unaffected at the primary and side facades. The partial-width covered porch, primary façade windows, and the boxed eaves with profiled fascia boards will be unaltered at the primary façade. The second- story addition will be set back from the side facades, and the side-facing cross-gable portions of the roof and will be retained, ensuring that the overall form and massing of the historic residence remain legible. Three of the historic side windows (two at the west façade and one at the east façade) will be removed, and five historic side windows (three at the west façade and two at the east façade) will be retained. The majority of the historic side windows will be retained. The windows being removed are generally located toward the rear of the residence and are thus less visually prominent. Two new windows will be added at historic portions of the residence, one small awning window at the gable end on the east façade, and one typical double-hung window at the south end of the west façade. These new windows do not have a substantial impact on the historic materials, features, or spaces that characterize the property. As most of the character-defining features are being retained and preserved, or minimally impacted, the proposed project will adhere to Standard 2. 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 ☐ NA Explanation: No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings will be added to the building. The proposed rear one-story horizontal addition and second-story vertical addition will both feature horizontal 1”x 4” bevel wood siding which has a different 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis profile to the historic siding and will therefore not create a false sense of development. The new windows at the proposed addition will be aluminum-clad wood windows with double- hung and casement operation with simulated divided lites, and the doors will be aluminum- clad wood. The proposed new windows and doors at the proposed addition will also not create a false sense of history. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 3. 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 ☐ NA Explanation: Based on review of previous documentation, Sanborn maps, and photographs of the foundation and crawlspace, it appears that the residence at 840 Kipling Street was developed in several phases between 1912 and circa 1924. The front additions prior to circa 1924 have acquired historic significance in their own right and should be retained. The rear flat-roofed volume of the house will be demolished, and although it is also likely an addition from sometime between 1912 and circa 1924, is not considered character-defining feature and has not acquired historic significance. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 4. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: As described in Standard 2, most character-defining features and materials will be retained. Three of the historic side windows will be removed, but five will be retained. The rear flat-roofed volume of the house will also be demolished; however, it is not considered a distinctive or character-defining feature. The original horizontal wood siding and profiled water table banding will be retained at the primary façade and the majority of the side facades. The boxed eaves, profiled fascia boards with returns, and corbeled wood cornice will be 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis retained at the primary and side façades, and the side-gable elements of the cross-gable roof will be retained. All of the primary façade windows and doors will be retained in place. Despite the removal of three historic side windows and the removal of the corbeled wood cornice at the rear façade, the majority of historic features, finishes and examples of craftsmanship will be retained. Thus, the project adheres to Standard 5. 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 ☐ NA Explanation: It does not appear that any deteriorated historic materials will be removed or replaced. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 6. 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 undertaken using the gentlest means possible. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The project does not include any physical treatments to clean historic materials. Thus, as currently planned, the project will adhere to Standard 7. 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 ☐ NA Explanation: Some excavation will be required for the new partial basement and foundation below the rear addition. In the case of an encounter with archaeological materials, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project will adhere to Standard 8. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: Per the discussion in Standards 2 and 5, the addition of the rear horizontal 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. addition and second-story vertical addition is set back from all facades and will preserve the characteristic cross-gabled roof form. Although the second-story vertical addition alters the historic massing of the residence, the historic one-story-with-attic massing of the residence will be clearly legible due to the set back of the addition. Furthermore, the scale of the vertical addition is relatively compatible in scale, and will not overwhelm the historic bungalow. The horizontal rear addition is one story and very compatible in scale, siting, and design. Other essential spatial relationships and features will remain intact or minimally impacted, as discussed above in Standards 2 and 5. The siding at the proposed addition will be 1”x4” bevel wood siding which is distinguished from the existing, historic 1”x12” 3-drop wood siding, but compatible in profile and material. New windows will be aluminum-clad wood windows with double-hung or casement operation. The proposed new window and doors are compatible with the historic materials and yet will be clearly distinguished from the historic features. 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 ☐ NA Explanation: The proposed addition is set back from the historic first story facades, and retains the character-defining cross-gabled roof form. Thus, although some reconstruction would be required if the vertical addition was removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the building would be largely intact. The horizontal rear addition is primarily impacting a non-historic one-story flat-roofed volume, and thus does would not significantly impact the essential form and integrity of the historic residence if removed in the future. Thus, the proposed project adheres to Standard 10. 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15301(e) (Additions to existing structures). The exemption allows for additions up to 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. The City’s consultant has determined the proposed additions would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and would not cause significant adverse impact on the historic resource. The project qualifies as “exempt” with a determination of no significant adverse impact. Public Notification, Outreach and Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 29, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 26, 2019, which is 16 days in advance of the HRB meeting. An immediate neighbor provided written comments at the initial stage of the project, noting concerns that the proposed second story addition would impact the neighbor’s views, privacy and light. Next Steps The Director of Planning and Development Services will act on the IR and Variance applications after receiving a recommendation from the HRB with respect to SOI Standards compliance. The application has been reviewed for compliance with the Individual Review (IR) Guidelines for the second-story addition and the proposed design meets the IR Guidelines. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project based on modified findings and conditions. 2. Continue the project to a date uncertain. 3. Recommend denial of the proposed project. Report Author & Contact Information HRB6 Liaison & Contact Information Christy Fong, Consulting Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official 650-505-9759 (650) 329-2336 christylmfong@gmail.com amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 Attachments: • Attachment A - Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B - Relevant Policies and Guidelines from Comprehensive Plan, SOFA I CAP and Individual Review Guidelines (DOCX) • Attachment C - Variance Findings, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 (c) (DOCX) • Attachment D - March 19, 2019 SOIS Compliance Analysis (PDF) • Attachment E - September 20, 2019 SOIS Compliance Analysis (PDF) • Attachment F - February 14, 2019 HRB Study Session Staff Report (PDF) • Attachment G - February 14, 2019 HRB Study Session Draft Excerpt Minutes (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 18 120-17-099 20-17-006 120-17-024 120-17-025 120-17-026 120-17-030 120-17-031 120-17-032 120-17-027 120-17-028 120-17-017 120-17-018 120-17-019 120-17-020 120-17-090 120 120-17-044 120-17-116 120-17-100 120-17-102 120-17-101 120-17-044 R E E T KIPLIN G S T R E E T C832 832 838 846 471 471 459 459 835 855 840 840 836 836 834 834 845 845 835 835-837 833 839 839 841 841 843 843 451 451 453 453 915 440 428 426 865 865 857 857 441 441 441A 829 829 818-824 820 822 824 424 430 30 52 425 425 837 831 426 905 05 905 A 909 909A This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Building Roofline Assessment Parcel Subject Property 0'50' 840 Kipling Street Subject Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto cfong2, 2019-10-31 16:19:24 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) CHA N N I N G A V E N U E Attachment A2.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment B Relevant Policies and Guidelines from Comprehensive Plan, SOFA I CAP and Individual Review Guidelines Comprehensive Plan, Historic Preservation Relevant Policies Applicable to the Project: • Policy L7.1.1: Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district. • Policy L7.1.2: Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area. • Policy L-7.2: If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining features of the building.) • Policy L7.8.1: Promote and expand available incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones and revise existing zoning and permit regulations to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse. • Policy L7.8.2: Create incentives to encourage salvage and reuse of discarded historic building materials. • Policy L7.8.3: Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances to older buildings. Use the State Historical Building Code for designated historic buildings. • Policy L7.12.1: Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in the Zoning Code to determine if there is an effective balance between historic preservation and meeting parking needs. South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1 Relevant Policies Applicable to the Project: • Policy DC-6: Protect and maintain Heritage Trees. In addition, promote preservation of Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak and which are not yet large enough to qualify for the ordinance protection. Incorporate planting of these native oak species in the proposed park, other established open spaces, plazas, etc. and in other appropriate locations in the Plan Area. However, if the location of protected trees are such that they significantly hinder the achievement of other community goals, (ie affordable housing) they may be removed. Any removal would be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and would require tree replacement policy established in the Tree Preservation Ordinance. • Policy DC-7: Provide for and strongly encourage the preservation of significant trees in the plan area when feasible through the granting of minor exceptions in the Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines. • Policy DC-9: Encourage public and private efforts to maintain, preserve, and use historic buildings and other historic resources in the SOFA Plan Area in order to maintain the scale and character of the area. Encourage use of incentives programs found in SOFA CAP and Palo Alto Municipal Code. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 • Policy DC-14: Promote continuation or restoration of the original use of historic buildings wherever possible, but allow adaptive reuse if compatible with preservation of historic features where original use is infeasible. • Policy DC-15: Permit continued non-conforming use of historic buildings if necessary to assure preservation and restoration of historic resources. Continuation of the original use or a similar use should be pursued wherever feasible. Established and designated historic resources shall be exempt from the minimum densities outlined in the Plan. • Policy DC-19: Promote quality design as defined by style, detail, massing, materials, etc. Implementation of the design guidelines should allow for flexibility and diversity in relation to the overall content of the neighborhood area. • Policy DC-20: Build on existing lot patterns such as the small lot pattern and lots with two or more detached units to create variety and scale with new development. Prohibit aggregation of existing lots in the Detached Houses on Small Lot (DHS) areas but allow flexibility in the minimum and maximum lot sizes to accommodate unusual lot configurations. Individual Review Guidelines • Guideline 1: Site Planning Key Points Approval Criterion: The driveway, garage and house shall be placed and configured to reinforce the neighborhood’s existing site patterns (i.e. building footprint configuration and location, setbacks, and yard areas) and the garage and driveway shall be subordinate to the house, landscape and pedestrian entry as seen from the street. • Guideline 2: Height, Mass and Scale Key Points Approval Criterion: The scale (perceived size), mass (bulk or volume) and height (vertical profile) of a new house or upper story addition shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention to adapting to the height and massing of adjacent homes. • Guideline 3: Form and Rooflines Key Points Approval Criterion: The architectural form and massing shall be carefully crafted to reduce visual mass, and distinguish the house’s architectural lines or style. Roof profiles shall enhance the form, scale and proportion of primary and secondary house volumes, while rendering garage and entry forms subordinate in mass and scale to principal building forms. Upper floor additions shall also be balanced and integrated with the existing building. • Guideline 4: Facades and Entries Approval Criterion: Publicly viewed facades shall be composed with a clear and cohesive architectural expression (i.e the composition and articulation of walls, fenestration and eave lines), and include visual focal point(s) and the supportive use of materials and detailing. Entries shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and integrated with the home in composition, scale and design character. The carport or garage and garage door design shall be consistent with the selected architectural style of the home. • Guideline 5: Windows and Decks Key Points Approval Criterion: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Attachment C Variance Findings Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 (c) (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and (4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 0 PAGE &TURNBULL imagining change in historic env’ronments through design,research,and technology MEMORANDUM DATE March 19,2019 PROJECT NO.16252AA,Palo Alto PO# TO Claire Hodgkins,Planner PROJECT 840 Kipling Street,Palo OF City of Palo Alto Planning and FROM Hannah Simonson, Community Environment Department Architectural Historian; 250 Hamilton Avenue,5th Floor Christina Dikas,Senior Palo Alto,CA 94301 Architectural Historian CC Amy French,Chief Planning Official VIA E-mail REGARDING:840 Kipling Street —Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto has requested this Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis for a proposed project located at 840 Kipling Street in the University South neighborhood.The purpose is to review the proposed exterior alterations to the single-family residence with respect to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation.For improved understanding of 840 Kipling Street,Page &Turnbull has also provided an overview of the historic status and a brief architectural description. City staff provided Page &Turnbull with the following relevant materials on February 21,2019: •Historic Resources Board Minutes,March 4,1998,Regular Meeting. •Historic Resources Board Staff Report,“Pope Residence @840 Kipling:Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No.98-HRB-12),” March 4,1998. •State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)523A (Primary Record)and 523B (Building,Structure,and Object Record)forms for 840 Kipling Street,dated March 19, 1998. •Drawing set by Martin Bernstein Architect,AlA for proposed addition at 840 Kipling Street, dated January 24,2019,revised March 4,2019. Page &Turnbull conducted a site visit on February 28,2019 to photograph the exterior of the house. Additional historic research was not conducted;rather,Page &Turnbull referred to existing historic documentation provided by the City of Palo Alto. HISTORIC STATUS OVERVIEW State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record)and 523B (Building,Structure,and Object Record) forms were prepared in 1998 by Barbara Judy, ARCHiTECTURE PLANNING &RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY 417 Montgomery Street,81’Floor San Francisco CA 94104 T 415.362.5)54 F 4)5362.5560 wiwpageturnbuI).com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 23 0•,0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 2 of 13 [16252A.4] Preservation Architect.The evaluation determined that the subject building was eligible for local listing Under the historic designation “Contributing Residence”under Criterion 4: Criteria for Historic Designation: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources,840 Kipling satisfies the Criterion 4,as the design of this residence employs period architectural themes which are characteristic of residences of the 1910s. Categorization: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources,840 Kipling best fits the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE.Staff concluded that the residence,in its scale,style and setting,supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district.1 The period of significance was identified as 1919,the year of construction.2 Materials and features that date to this period of significance are considered historic. DPR forms were prepared which assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code of 5S3,which means that it “Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation,”on March 19,1998. However,these DPR forms do not appear to have been sent to the California Office of Historic Preservation,as the Status Code is not formally listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS)database. Although a motion to approve the “Application of Elizabeth McCaul Beasley for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single-family residence constructed prior to 1940 within an R-1 zone district”was approved by the Historic Resources Board on March 4,1998,the subject building at 840 Kipling Street is not formally listed in Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory.4 BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The one-and-a-half-story bungalow at 840 Kipling Street was designed with Craftsman style influences in 1919.The residence is located on the south side of Kipling Street,between Homer and Channing avenues.5According to the DPR 523A form, This [840 Kipling Street]is a modest Bungalow with Craftsman detailing compactly set on a small (42’x 112’)University Park lot characterized by minimal landscaping. Historic Resources Board Staff Report,“Pope Residence @840 Kipling:Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed priorto 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No.98-HRB-12),”March 4,1998. 2 Ibid. Office of Historic Preservation,“Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Santa clara county”(California Historic Resources Information System,April 5,2012);California State Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation,“Technical Assistance Bulletin #6:User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory”(Sacramento,November 2004),4. Historic Resources Board Minutes,March 4,1998,Regular Meeting;and City of Palo Alto,“Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory,”accessed February 27,2019,httpsi/www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebank/documents/3504. The subject property is oriented slightly northeast of true north.The proposed plans identify the primary façade as the “north façade.”This memorandum uses the plan orientation for consistency with the proposed project drawing set. PAGE &TURNBULL. 417 Montgomery Street,8’Floor,San Francisco,CA 94104 T 415.362.5154 F 415.362.5560 www.pageturnbullcom Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 24 0 0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 3 of 13 [16252A.4] Constructed post World War I in 1919,ata time when relatively few homes were built in Palo Alto,the structure’s massing and detailing shows a transition from the Queen Anne to the Craftsman Bungalow.The first occupants were American Railway Express agent,William J.Rick,and his wife,Helen. Signature Bungalow features include the simple rectangular-shaped massing and story-and-a-half construction;medium-pitched,cross-gabled roof with boxed eaves and a profiled fascia boards with return;exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding with a profiled water table banding;and partial-width covered front porch at the left corner with exposed beams and trellis structure,square posts and pilasters resting on a solid balustrade,brick stoop and stairs, and two divided lite wood doors.A Craftsman style focal window under the front-facing gable features a large fixed sash with divided lite transom and sidelites.Two horizontally emphasized units in the attic above also feature divided lites.6 The primary cladding of the residence is 1”x12”3-drop horizontal wood siding and the roof is clad with composite asphalt shingles.A corbeled wood cornice is located beneath the overhanging boxed eaves and wood shingles are located within the gable ends of the roof.The primary entrance door is located on the east-facing wall of the open front porch,and is a fully glazed wood door with divided lites.7 On the north-facing wall of the open front porch are paired,fully glazed wood doors with divided lites.Two flat-roofed projecting volumes are located at the rear façade.The western-most projecting rear volume is clad in flush,vertical wood siding,and features three undivided wood casement windows and a partially glazed wood door with wood steps accessing a non-original wood patio.The eastern-most projecting rear volume is slightly taller,projects further out,is clad in horizontal wood drop siding,and features one-over-one double-hung wood windows.A partial basement,which is accessed from exterior brick steps at the rear façade,is located beneath the eastern-most projecting rear volume. The exterior of the subject building appears unaltered since 1998,when the DPR forms were prepared.Photographs below illustrate the residence in its current condition (Figure Ito Figure 10). Barbara Judy,“State of california —The Resources Agency,Department of Parks and Recreation,Primary Record” for “840 Kipling Street”(March 19,1998),1. 840 Kipling Street faces northeast.However,the primary façade has been referred to as plan north in architectural drawings,so for consistency this memorandum will refer to the primary (northeast)façade as the “primary (north)façade,”the southeast façade as the east façade,and so on. PAGE &TURNBULL 417 Montgomery Street 8”Floor,San Froncsco,CA 94104 1 415.362.5154 F 415.362,5560 www.page-turnbuil.com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 25 0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4J PAGE &TURNBULL Page 4 of 13 -I o 2:Fully-glazed a doors on north-facing wall of the front porch. Figure 3:Primary entrance door on the east-facing wall of the front porch. 417 Montqomery Street 8 Floor Son trancisco CA 94104 I 4l 362 5154 F 315 362 5560 www page turnbull corn Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 26 0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] PAGE &TURNBULL C Page 5 of 13 Figure : Figure 5:Partial view or facing north. Flat-roof volume visible at the left is located at the rear of the residence. view of east facade,facing west. Figure 6:Rear (south)façade of 840 417 Montgomery Street.8 Floor,Sjn Froncsco,CA 94104 T 415.362.5154 F 415362.5560 www.poge-iurnbull.com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 27 n 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [1625 2A.4} Page 6 of 13 Building permit and in-depth historic research was not conducted as part of this memo.The shed roof over the open front porch and flat-roof volume at the rear of the house both appear in a 1941 aerial photograph and the earliest available 1924 Sanborn fire insurance map (Figure 11 and Figure 12).Based on the material detailing and design of the rear volume,it is possible that it is a very early addition,constructed at some point between 1919 and 1924.The 1949 Sanborn fire insurance map indicates the same footprint of the residence,and the footprint does not appear to have been altered since (Figure 13).Two detached garage buildings appear in the 1924 Sanborn IAGE &TURNBULL Figure 7:Access to partial basement via exterior brick stairs at the rear façade.Vertical flush wood siding is visible at the left (west)portion of the projecting,flat-roofed rear volume. hi ure 8:Uonnection between the flat-roofed rear volume and main volume of the residence,looking north along the west façade.The siding is not aligned,and the roof eave detailing differs from the main volume. view of west façade 1,’ight),loot Previous Alterations ‘artial view of west façade, facing north. 417 Montqomerj treet 8 Floør San FranLisco CA 94104 1 415 362 5154 F 415 362 5560 www page turnbull corn Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 28 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4J 0 Page 70113 map,which have been moved and/or replaced;however,the garage will not be addressed in this memorand urn. Minor alterations observed through visual inspection include the cladding of the top of the chimney stack in wood siding,and the replacement of wood shingle roofing with asphalt shingle roofing. Wood-frame or aluminum-frame screens have also been installed over most windows. CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES. A list of character-defining features for 840 Kipling Street was included in the March 4,1998 Historic Resources Board Staff Report,“Pope Residence @840 Kipling:Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No.98- HRB-12).”Current best practice is to identify character-defining features on more than just the primary façade if they contribute to the significance of the building.As such,Page &Turnbull has identified several additional character-defining features for 840 Kipling. Character-Defining Features Identified in 7998 Historic Resource Board Staff Report: •The simple rectangular-shaped massing and one-and-a-half story construction •Medium-pitched cross-gabled roof with boxed eaves and profiled fascia boards with return •Exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding with a profiled water table banding PAGE &TURNBULL Figure 11:1924 Sanborn fire insurance map illustrating 840 Kipling Street.Source:San Francisco Public Library. Figure 12:1941 aerial phOtogr3ph of 840 Kipling Street.Source:Fairchild Aerial Surveys,Flight C_7065,Frame 43,April 14,1941,UC Santa Barbara Library, FrameFinder. Figure 13:1949 Sanborn fire insurance map illustrating 840 Kipling Street. Source:San Francisco Public Library. 417 Montgomery Street,8’Floor San Francsco,CA 94104 I 415.362.5154 F 415.362.5560 ww.pogeturnbuJ.com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 29 0 0 840 Kipling Street, Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 8 of 13 [1625 2A.4] •Partial-width coveted porch at left cornet with exposed beams and trellis structure,square posts and pilasters resting on a solid balustrade,brick stoop and stairs,and two divided lite wood doors. •Focal window under the front-facing gable •A large fixed sash with divided lite transom and sidelites •Two horizontally emphasized window units in the attic above also feature divided lites.8 Additional Character-Defining Features Identified by Page &Turnbull: •Corbeled wood cornice •Fenestration,including pattern,materiality and operation,at side facades •Fully glazed wood primary entrance door with divided lites at the front entry porch. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The scope of work indicated in the revised March 4,2019 drawing set for 840 Kipling Street by Martin Bernstein Architect,AlA,states that the project will include a first story addition and remodel, second story addition,and a basement addition.9 The proposed project involves the addition of 207.60 square feet to the first story of the house (currently 1,168.81 square feet,plus a 102.77 square-foot porch),and the addition of a 489.30 square-foot second story.1°A new partial basement will be constructed beneath the rear addition. Proposed changes to the exterior of the house are outlined below. Exterior alterations and finish specifications throughout the house:1 Roof:New roofing material will be composition asphalt shingles to match existing roofing. Exterior siding:New exterior siding at the addition will be 1”x4”bevel wood siding with a similar profile as the existing siding which is 1”x12”3-drop wood siding. Windows:New windows at the addition will be aluminum-clad wood windows with simulated divided lites,with double-hung or awning sashes. Doors:New doors at the addition will be aluminum-clad wood doors with simulated divided lites. o Existing siding will be salvaged for re-installation at resized doorway openings on the front porch. North (primary)façade: o Second-story addition will be set back from the front façade (also see south façade below). Location of existing primary entrance door and paired,partially glazed doors at the front porch will be swapped. 8 Historic Resources Board Staff Report,‘Pope Residence @840 Kipling:Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No.98-HRB-12),”March 4,1998. 8 Martin Bernstein Architect,AlA.“House Addition,Reyna/Kutlu Residence,840 Kipling Street,Palo Alto,CA,”dated January 24,2019,revised March 4,2019,A 1.0. ID Ibid. Ibid.,A5.1 and email correspondence with Martin Bernstein Architect on March 4,2019 (City of Palo Alto Planner Claire Hodgkins copied on all email communication). PAGE &TURNBULL 417 Montgomery Street,8”Floor.San Francisco.CA 9410$1 415.362.5154 F 1)5.3625560 www.page-turnbull.com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 30 N 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 9of 13 [16252A.4] Existing 1”x12”3-drop wood siding will be salvaged to fill resized doorway openings at front porch. East (side)façade: A one-story rear volume and second-story volume will be added and set back from all facades (see rear façade below). One skylight will be located on the east-facing slope of the roof of the second-story addition. Three existing,historic windows on the east façade will be removed. The gable of the cross-gabled roof form and historic materials will be removed and altered to a front (north)-facing gable roof second story,set back on a hipped roof first story. A new aluminum-clad,wood window with double-hung and awning operation will be added at the original portion of the west façade. South (rear)façade: The flat-roofed projecting volumes at rear façade will be removed. o A one-story volume will be added to the rear gabled-roof at west side and a partial hipped-roof will be added at east side. A second-story,gable-roofed volume set back from south and east façades will be added.The second story addition is located at the southeast corner of the residence,set back from all facades,and is approximately two-thirds the length of the house. The second-story addition will include three shed-roof dormers. All of the remaining historic material at the cornice and cross-gable roof of the main volume of the house will be removed. All of the existing material from the projecting flat-roofed volumes (likely early additions dating to c.1919-24)will be removed. o New exterior stairs will be added at the southwest corner of the residence and will provide access to new partial-basement below the rear addition. New aluminum-clad wood windows and doors with simulated divided lites will be added;the new windows and doors at south façade will be located in areas that are part of the addition. West (side)façade: A one-story rear volume and a second-story volume set back from all facades will be added (also see rear façade above). Three shed-roof dorm ers will be located on the west façade of the second-story addition. Two existing, historic windows at the south end of the west façade will be removed. o The gable of cross-gabled roof form and associated historic materials will be removed, and altered to a front (north)-facing gable roof. o New aluminum-clad,double-hung wood windows will be added at the original portion of the west façade. o A skylight will be added at the original location of the cross-gable roof from. a New exterior access stairs will be added along west façade,accessing the new partial basement below the rear addition. PAGE &TURNBULL 417 Montgomery Street,8 Floor.San Francisco.CA 94104 T 415.362.5154 F 415362.5560 www.page-turnbuil.com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 31 0 0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 10 of 13 [16252A.4] DISCUSSION OF STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION COMPLIANCE Under Palo Alto’s historic preservation ordinance,planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Historic Resources Board.Minor exterior alterations are “those alterations which the director of planning and community environment or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure,its site or surroundings.”12 Projects that are not considered minor exterior alterations are subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and also go to the Historic Resources Board for review.13 The following discussion considers the proposed project’s potential effects on,and compatibility with,the house at 840 Kipling Street,and provides comments on whether the project appears to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Standards for Rehabilitation are: 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. The proposed project will allow 840 Kipling Street to continue its residential use.Thus,the project will adhere to Standard 1. 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. The majority of the original horizontal wood siding with a profile water table banding will be unaffected at the primary and side facades.The partial-width covered porch, primary façade windows,and the boxed eaves with profiled fascia boards will be unaltered at the primary façade. However,it appears that the project will affect a number of the other character-defining features. The second-story addition will result in the removal of the side-facing cross-gable portions of the roof and will alter the massing of the residence.Five of the side windows (two at the west façade and three at the east façade)will be removed.The removal of these windows and installation of windows of different material,sizes,operation,and location will result in a very different pattern of openings on the side façades.The locations of the primary entrance door and paired doors off the entrance porch will be swapped,further altering the original pattern of openings.The changes to the massing,roofline,and pattern of original windows and doors have a cumulative effect to the historic character of the residence,such that the project does not appear to adhere to Standard 2. Please see the following section for additional recommendations for a sensitive treatment of the historic building. 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 12 Section 16.49.050(C),Palo Alto Municipal Code,Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. 13 City of Palo Alto,“Historic Resource Project Review FAQ,”https:I/vaww.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicax/filebankldocuments/64188. PAGE &TURNBULL 417 Monlgornery Street.8’-Floor.Son froncisco.CA 93104 1 415.362.5154 F 315 362.5560 wwpcge-turnbuil.corn Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 32 0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 11 of 13 [16252A.4] conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings,shall not be undertaken. No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings will be added to the building. The location of the single primary entry door and paired doors at the front entry porch will be switched.Existing,historic wood siding will be salvaged for re-installation at the resized doorway openings on the front porch. The switched original doors have the potential to create a false sense of historical development,as in the future it may not be clear that they have been moved.The proposed rear one-story addition and second-story addition will feature horizontal 1”x4”bevel wood siding which has a different profile to the historic siding and will therefore not create a false sense of development.The new windows at the proposed addition will be aluminum-clad wood windows with double-hung and casement operation with simulated divided lites,and the doors will also be aluminum-clad wood with simulated divided lites.The proposed new windows and doors at the proposed addition will also not create a false sense of history.Thus,the project will substantially adhere to Standard 3. 4.Most properties change over time;those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. It does not appear that the building contains any features that have acquired historic significance in their own right.The rear flat-roofed bay of the house will be demolished,but this bay may be an early addition and is not considered character-defining feature and has not acquired historic significance. Thus,the project will adhere to Standard 4. 5.Distinctive features,finishes,and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. As described in Standard 2,five of the original side windows will be removed and the side-facing portions of the cross-gable roof will be removed.These are distinctive,original features that contribute to the Craftsman style bungalow design of the residence.The rear flat-roofed bay of the house will also be demolished,but may be an early addition and is not considered a distinctive or character-defining feature. The original horizontal wood siding and profiled water table banding will be retained at the primary façade and the majority of the side facades.The boxed eaves,profiled fascia boards with returns,and corbeled wood cornice will be retained at the primary façade.All of the primary façade windows will be retained,but the doors at the front porch will be swapped,resulting in an alteration of the openings and the surrounding siding. Thus,the project appears only partially adhere to Standard 5.Please see the following section for additional recommendations for a sensitive treatment of the historic building. 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 ofmissing features shall be substantiated by documentary,physical, or pictorial evidence. It does not appear that any deteriorated historic materials will be removed or replaced.Thus,the project will adhere to Standard 6. PAGE &TURNBULL 417 Montgomery Street,8 Floor,San Francisco,CA 94104 1 415.362.5154 F 415.362.5560 www.poge-turnbull.com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 33 0 0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 12 of 13 [16252A.4] 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 undertaken using the gentlest means possible. The project does not include any physical treatments to clean historic materials.Thus,the project will adhere to Standard 7. 8.Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved.If such resources must be disturbed,mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Some excavation will be required for the new partial basement and foundation below the rear addition.in the case of an encounter with archaeological materials, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed,the proposed project will adhere to Rehabilitation Standard 8. 9.New additions,exterior alterations,or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,features,and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,features,size,scale and proportion,and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Per the discussion in Standards 2 and 5,the addition of the rear and second-story addition will result in the removal of the characteristic cross-gabled roof form,the removal of five original windows,and will alter the massing from one-and-a-half stories to two stories. The siding at the proposed addition will be 1“x4”bevel wood siding which is distinguished from the existing,historic 1”x12”3-drop wood siding,but compatible in profile and material.New windows will be aluminum-clad wood windows with double-hung or casement operation.The proposed new materials are compatible with the historic materials and differentiated. However,based on the extent of alterations to the existing historic materials,features,and spatial relationships,the project does not appear to adhere to Standard 9.Please see the following section for additional recommendations for a sensitive treatment of the historic building. 70.New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that ifremoved in the future,the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Since the proposed addition results in the removal of five original windows and the removal of the character-defining cross gabled roof form,if removed in the future and the essential form and integrity of the building would be impaired.Thus,the project does not adhere to Standard 10. Summary of Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis As the above analysis demonstrates,the project as currently designed appears to be in compliance with six the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation,and is partially in PAGE &TURNBULL 417 Montoomery Street.8 Floor.Son Francisco,CA 94104 T 415.3615154 F 415.3625560 .‘,ww.page-turnbull.coni Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 34 0.0 840 Kipling Street,Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis Page 13 of 13 [16252A.41 compliance with Standard 5,but is not in compliance with Standards 2,9 and 10.Overall,the project as currently designed does not appear to be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. RECOMMENDATIONS This section includes recommendations to better comply with the Secretaiy of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation: •Consider a rear,one-and-a-half story addition,rather than a second story addition,which would have a more minimal impact on the historic roofline and form of the residence •Retain the cross-gabled roof elements and associated historic materials while designing of the proposed addition. •Consider retaining more of the historic side façade windows. •Consider retaining the original primary entrance door and paired porch doors in their current, historic locations. Page &Turnbull also recommends referring to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,Rehabilitating,Restoring,and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, which offers guidance for designing with historic preservation in mind:httrs://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-20 17.pdf.Preservation Brief 14,New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:Preservation Concerns should also be consulted: https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-rweserve/briefs/1 4-exterior-additions.htm. QUALI FICATIONS Page &Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page &Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings,resources,and civic areas.The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation.Page & Turnbull’s staff includes licensed architects,designers,historians,conservators,and planners.All professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. As an architectural historian and cultural resources planner within Page &Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Studio,Hannah Simonson meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History.She has experience surveying,researching,and evaluating historic properties,as well as analyzing proposed projects for potential impacts to historic resources. IAGE &TURNBULL 41?Montgrnery Street 8 Floor.Son Francisco,CA 94104 F 415.362.5154 F 415362.5560 wwpoge-turnbuII.com Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 35 0..0 Attachment D 2.d Packet Pg. 36 MEMORANDUM DATE September 20, 2019 PROJECT NO. 16252A.4; Palo Alto PO# S18171921 TO Christy Fong, Planner PROJECT 840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto OF City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Hannah Simonson, Architectural Historian; Christina Dikas, Senior Architectural Historian CC Amy French, Chief Planning Official VIA E-mail REGARDING: 840 Kipling Street – Revised Plans 9.3.2019 – Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto has requested this Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis for a proposed project located at 840 Kipling Street in the University South neighborhood. The purpose is to review the proposed exterior alterations to the single-family residence with respect to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation. For improved understanding of 840 Kipling Street, Page & Turnbull has also provided an overview of the historic status and a brief architectural description. City staff provided Page & Turnbull with the following relevant materials on February 21, 2019: • Historic Resources Board Minutes, March 4, 1998, Regular Meeting. • Historic Resources Board Staff Report, “Pope Residence @ 840 Kipling: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No. 98-HRB-12),” March 4, 1998. • State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms for 840 Kipling Street, dated March 19, 1998. • Drawing set by Martin Bernstein Architect, AIA for proposed addition at 840 Kipling Street, dated January 24, 2019, revised March 4, 2019. After initial comment and recommendations from Page & Turnbull, the project applicants and architect revised their project plans and submitted a new set of drawings. Page & Turnbull also reviewed the following relevant materials provided by city staff: • Letter from homeowners/project applicants, Steve Reyna and Aysen Kutlu, “840 Kipling: Response to Historic Analysis by Barbara Judy, Page & Turnbull,” dated June 10, 2019. • Revised drawing set by Martin Bernstein Architect, AIA for proposed addition at 840 Kipling Street, dated September 3, 2019 Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 37 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 2 of 14 Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit on February 28, 2019 to photograph the exterior of the house. Additional historic research was not conducted; rather, Page & Turnbull referred to existing historic documentation provided by the City of Palo Alto. HISTORIC STATUS OVERVIEW State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms were prepared in 1998 by Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect. The evaluation determined that the subject building was eligible for local listing under the historic designation “Contributing Residence” under Criterion 4: Criteria for Historic Designation: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 840 Kipling satisfies the Criterion 4, as the design of this residence employs period architectural themes which are characteristic of residences of the 1910s. Categorization: Under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 840 Kipling best fits the category of CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE. Staff concluded that the residence, in its scale, style and setting, supports the historic character of its neighborhood grouping and district.1 DPR forms were prepared which assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code of 5S3, which means that it “Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation,” on March 19, 1998.2 However, these DPR forms do not appear to have been sent to the California Office of Historic Preservation, as the Status Code is not formally listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database. Although a motion to approve the “Application of Elizabeth McCaul Beasley for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single-family residence constructed prior to 1940 within an R-1 zone district” was approved by the Historic Resources Board on March 4, 1998, the subject building at 840 Kipling Street is not formally listed in Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory.3 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report, “Pope Residence @ 840 Kipling: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No. 98-HRB-12),” March 4, 1998. 2 Office of Historic Preservation, “Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County” (California Historic Resources Information System, April 5, 2012); California State Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, “Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory” (Sacramento, November 2004), 4. 3 Historic Resources Board Minutes, March 4, 1998, Regular Meeting; and City of Palo Alto, “Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory,” accessed February 27, 2019, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/3504. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 38 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 3 of 14 BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The one story bungalow with an attic at 840 Kipling Street was designed with Craftsman style influences. The residence is located on the south side of Kipling Street, between Homer and Channing avenues.4 According to the DPR 523A form, This [840 Kipling Street] is a modest Bungalow with Craftsman detailing compactly set on a small (42’ x 112’) University Park lot characterized by minimal landscaping. […] Signature Bungalow features include the simple rectangular-shaped massing and story-and-a-half construction; medium-pitched, cross-gabled roof with boxed eaves and a profiled fascia boards with return; exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding with a profiled water table banding; and partial-width covered front porch at the left corner with exposed beams and trellis structure, square posts and pilasters resting on a solid balustrade, brick stoop and stairs, and two divided lite wood doors. A Craftsman style focal window under the front-facing gable features a large fixed sash with divided lite transom and sidelites. Two horizontally emphasized units in the attic above also feature divided lites.5 The primary cladding of the residence is 1”x12” 3-drop horizontal wood siding and the roof is clad with composite asphalt shingles. A corbeled wood cornice is located beneath the overhanging boxed eaves and wood shingles are located within the gable ends of the roof. The primary entrance door is located on the east-facing wall of the open front porch, and is a fully glazed wood door with divided lites. On the north-facing wall of the open front porch are paired, fully glazed wood doors with divided lites. Two flat-roofed projecting volumes are located at the rear façade. The western-most projecting rear volume is clad in flush, vertical wood siding, and features three undivided wood casement windows and a partially glazed wood door with wood steps accessing a non-original wood patio. The eastern-most projecting rear volume is slightly taller, projects further out, is clad in horizontal wood drop siding, and features one-over-one double-hung wood windows. A partial basement, which is accessed from exterior brick steps at the rear façade, is located beneath the eastern-most projecting rear volume. The exterior of the subject building appears unaltered since 1998, when the DPR forms were prepared. Photographs below illustrate the residence in its current condition (Figure 1 to Figure 10). 4 The subject property is oriented slightly northeast of true north. The proposed plans identify the primary façade as the “north façade.” This memorandum uses the plan orientation for consistency with the proposed project drawing set. 5 Barbara Judy, “State of California — The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Primary Record” for “840 Kipling Street” (March 19, 1998), 1. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 39 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 4 of 14 Figure 1: Primary (north) façade of 840 Kipling, looking south. Figure 2: Fully-glazed double doors on north-facing wall of the front porch. Figure 3: Primary entrance door on the east-facing wall of the front porch. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 40 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 5 of 14 Figure 4: Partial view of east façade, facing west. Figure 5: Partial view of east façade, facing north. Flat-roof volume visible at the left is located at the rear of the residence. Figure 6: Rear (south) façade of 840 Kipling, looking north. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 41 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 6 of 14 Figure 7: Access to partial basement via exterior brick stairs at the rear façade. Vertical flush wood siding is visible at the left (west) portion of the projecting, flat-roofed rear volume. Figure 8: Connection between the flat-roofed rear volume and main volume of the residence, looking north along the west façade. The siding is not aligned, and the roof eave detailing differs from the main volume. Figure 9: Partial view of west façade (right), looking south. Figure 10: Partial view of west façade, facing north. Construction Chronology Building permit and in-depth historic research was not conducted as part of this memo. However, Page & Turnbull reviewed the 1998 DPR forms prepared by Barbara Judy, available Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerial photographs, and a letter from the homeowners and project applicants “840 Kipling: Response to Historic Analysis by Barbara Judy, Page & Turnbull,” dated June 9, 2019. The letter includes a copy of the Santa Clara County Residential Unit Property Record for 840 Kipling Street, as well as several photographs of the foundation and crawlspace of the property. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 42 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 7 of 14 The period of significance was identified as 1919 in the 1998 DPR form by Barbara Judy, which she had determined to be the year of construction.6 However, the Santa Clara County Residential Unit Property Record for 840 Kipling Street states that the year of construction is 1912. This year of construction appears to be corroborated by Palo Alto city directories which list a Mrs. de Hauthmoll residing at 840 Kipling Street in the 1917-1918 and 1918-1919 city directories. Photographs of the crawlspace and foundation provided by the homeowners/ project applicants appear to indicate that the house was developed and expanded in several phases; likely the flat-roof portion of the house immediately south of the front porch was constructed first, followed by a front addition comprising the current primary (north façade). These additions appear to have been constructed prior to 1924 as the shed roof over the open front porch and flat-roof portion at the rear of the house both appear in the earliest available 1924 Sanborn fire insurance map (Figure 11). The front addition in particular exhibits Craftsman style details that are characteristic of residential architecture in Palo Alto in the 1910s and early 1920s and can be understood to have gained historic significance. As such, Page & Turnbull finds that the period of significance for 840 Kipling Street is better described as 1912 to circa 1924. A 1941 aerial photograph and the 1949 Sanborn fire insurance map both indicate the same footprint of the residence as in the 1924 Sanborn map, and the footprint does not appear to have been altered since (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Two detached garage buildings appear in the 1924 Sanborn map, which have been moved and/or replaced; however, the garage will not be addressed in this memorandum. Minor alterations observed through visual inspection include the cladding of the top of the chimney stack in wood siding, and the replacement of wood shingle roofing with asphalt shingle roofing. Wood-frame or aluminum-frame screens have also been installed over most windows. 6 No source for the 1919 construction date is provided in the DPR form. Barbara Judy, “State of California — The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Primary Record” for “840 Kipling Street” (March 19, 1998), 1. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 43 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 8 of 14 Figure 11: 1924 Sanborn fire insurance map illustrating 840 Kipling Street. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Figure 12: 1941 aerial photograph of 840 Kipling Street. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C_7065, Frame 43, April 14, 1941, UC Santa Barbara Library, FrameFinder. Figure 13: 1949 Sanborn fire insurance map illustrating 840 Kipling Street. Source: San Francisco Public Library. CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES. A list of character-defining features for 840 Kipling Street was included in the March 4, 1998 Historic Resources Board Staff Report, “Pope Residence @ 840 Kipling: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No. 98- HRB-12).” Current best practice is to identify character-defining features on more than just the primary façade if they contribute to the significance of the building. As such, Page & Turnbull has identified several additional character-defining features for 840 Kipling. As stated above, Page & Turnbull has identified the period of significance for 840 Kipling Street to be 1912 to circa 1924. Character-Defining Features Identified in 1998 Historic Resource Board Staff Report: • The simple rectangular-shaped massing and one-and-a-half story construction [however, based on closer inspection of the house, Page & Turnbull would characterize this as one-story construction with an attic] • Medium-pitched cross-gabled roof with boxed eaves and profiled fascia boards with return • Exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding with a profiled water table banding • Partial-width covered porch at left corner with exposed beams and trellis structure, square posts and pilasters resting on a solid balustrade, brick stoop and stairs, and two divided lite wood doors. • Focal window under the front-facing gable • A large fixed sash with divided lite transom and sidelites Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 44 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 9 of 14 • Two horizontally emphasized window units in the attic above also feature divided lites.7 Additional Character-Defining Features Identified by Page & Turnbull: • Corbeled wood cornice • Fenestration, including pattern, materiality and operation, at side facades • Fully glazed wood primary entrance door with divided lites at the front entry porch. The rear flat-roofed volume has not been identified as a character-defining feature as it does not exhibit materials, craftsmanship or decorative details that contribute to the historic character of 840 Kipling Street. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The scope of work indicated in the revised September 3, 2019 drawing set for 840 Kipling Street by Martin Bernstein Architect, AIA, states that the project will include a first story addition and remodel, second story addition, and a basement addition.8 The proposed project involves the addition of 207.74 square feet to the first story of the house (currently 1,168.81 square feet, plus a 102.77 square-foot porch), and the addition of a 489.30 square-foot second story.9 A new partial basement will be constructed beneath the rear addition. Proposed changes to the exterior of the house are outlined below. ▪ Exterior alterations and finish specifications throughout the house:10  Roof: New roofing material will be composition asphalt shingles to match existing roofing.  Exterior siding: New exterior siding at the addition will be 1”x4” bevel wood siding with a similar profile as the existing siding which is 1”x12” 3-drop wood siding.11  Windows: New windows at the addition will be aluminum-clad wood windows with simulated divided lites, with double-hung or awning sashes.  Doors: New doors at the addition will be aluminum-clad wood doors with simulated divided lites. ▪ North (primary) façade:  Second-story addition will be set back from the front façade (also see rear façade below).  No other alterations to the north (primary) façade are indicated. 7 Historic Resources Board Staff Report, “Pope Residence @ 840 Kipling: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 zone district (File No. 98-HRB-12),” March 4, 1998. 8 Martin Bernstein Architect, AIA, “House Addition, Reyna/Kutlu Residence, 840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA,” dated September 3, 2019, 2019. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., A5.1; and email correspondence with Martin Bernstein Architect on March 4, 2019 (City of Palo Alto Planner Claire Hodgkins copied on email communication). 11 Martin Bernstein Architect, AIA, “House Addition, Reyna/Kutlu Residence, 840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA,” dated September 3, 2019, 2019; and email correspondence with Marin Bernstein Architect on September 18, 2019 (City of Palo Alto Planner Christy Fong copied on email communication). Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 45 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 10 of 14 ▪ East (side) façade:  A one-story rear addition and second-story addition will be constructed and set back from all facades (see rear façade below).  One skylight will be located on the east-facing slope of the roof of the second-story addition.  Two existing, double-hung historic windows on the east façade will be retained.  One existing, smaller double-hung historic window on the east façade will be removed.  The gable of the cross-gabled roof form and historic materials will be retained.  A new aluminum-clad, wood awning window with simulated divided lites will be added at the original gable end of the east façade.12 ▪ Rear (south) façade:  The flat-roofed projecting portions (dated circa 1912-1924) at rear façade will be removed.  The existing rear wood deck will be removed.  A one-story horizontal addition will be constructed at the rear façade. ▪ The horizontal rear addition has a partial hipped roof at the east side and a gabled roof form at the west side. ▪ Paired fully glazed aluminum-clad wood doors with aluminum-clad wood sidelites and transoms will be installed at the gable roof portion of the horizontal addition. The doors and sidelites will both have simulated divided lites.  A second-story vertical addition with a front gabled roof will be constructed, located toward the southeast corner of the residence and set back from all facades of the first story. ▪ The second-story vertical addition will be located above the historic portion of the residence as well as the proposed horizontal rear addition. ▪ The second-story vertical addition is set back behind the front façade and open front entry porch, and is set back from the cross-gable roof elements on the east and west facades.  All historic material at the cornice at edge of the rear (south) façade roof will be removed.  New exterior stairs will be added at the southwest corner of the residence and will provide access to new partial basement below the rear addition.  A new rear wood deck with steps on the south side will be constructed at the rear of the proposed one-story horizontal addition.  New aluminum-clad wood windows and doors with simulated divided lites will be installed at the additions on the rear (south) façade. ▪ West (side) façade:  A one-story rear addition and a second-story addition set back from all facades will be constructed (also see rear façade above).  Three shed-roof dormers will be located on the west façade of the second-story addition. 12 Email correspondence with Marin Bernstein Architect on September 18, 2019 (City of Palo Alto Planner Christy Fong copied on email communication). Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 46 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 11 of 14  Two existing, historic windows at the south (rear) end of the west façade will be removed.  The gable of cross-gabled roof form and associated historic materials will be retained.  The chimney, including the exterior brick at the lower portion of the west façade, will be retained.13  One new aluminum-clad, double-hung wood window will be added at the south (rear) end of the original portion of the west façade (below the cross gable).  One skylight will be located on the west-facing slope of the roof of the second-story addition.  New exterior access stairs will be added along west side of the proposed new rear deck, accessing the new partial basement below the rear addition. DISCUSSION OF STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION COMPLIANCE Under Palo Alto’s historic preservation ordinance, planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Historic Resources Board. Minor exterior alterations are “those alterations which the director of planning and community environment or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.”14 Projects that are not considered minor exterior alterations are subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and also go to the Historic Resources Board for review.15 The following discussion considers the proposed project’s potential effects on, and compatibility with, the house at 840 Kipling Street, and provides comments on whether the project appears to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The Standards for Rehabilitation are: 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. The proposed project will allow 840 Kipling Street to continue its residential use. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 1. 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. The majority of the original horizontal wood siding with a profile water table banding will be unaffected at the primary and side facades. The partial-width covered porch, primary façade windows, and the boxed eaves with profiled fascia boards will be unaltered at the primary façade. The second-story addition will be set back from the side facades, and the side-facing cross-gable 13 Email correspondence with Marin Bernstein Architect on September 18, 2019 (City of Palo Alto Planner Christy Fong copied on email communication). 14 Section 16.49.050(C), Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. 15 City of Palo Alto, “Historic Resource Project Review FAQ,” https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64188. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 47 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 12 of 14 portions of the roof and will be retained, ensuring that the overall form and massing of the historic residence remain legible. Three of the historic side windows (two at the west façade and one at the east façade) will be removed, and five historic side windows (three at the west façade and two at the east façade) will be retained. The majority of the historic side windows will be retained, and the windows being removed are generally located toward the rear of the residence, and are thus less visually prominent. Two new windows will be added at historic portions of the residence, one small awning window at the gable end on the east façade, and one typical double-hung window at the south end of the west façade. These new windows do not have a substantial impact on the historic materials, features, or spaces that characterize the property. As most of the character- defining features are being retained and preserved, or minimally impacted, the proposed project will adhere to Standard 2. 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. No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings will be added to the building. The proposed rear one-story horizontal addition and second-story vertical addition will both feature horizontal 1”x 4” bevel wood siding which has a different profile to the historic siding and will therefore not create a false sense of development. The new windows at the proposed addition will be aluminum-clad wood windows with double-hung and casement operation with simulated divided lites, and the doors will also be aluminum-clad wood with simulated divided lites. The proposed new windows and doors at the proposed addition will also not create a false sense of history. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 3. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. Based on review of previous documentation, Sanborn maps, and photographs of the foundation and crawlspace, it appears that the residence at 840 Kipling Street was developed in several phases between 1912 and circa 1924. The front additions prior to circa 1924 have acquired historic significance in their own right and should be retained. The rear flat-roofed volume of the house will be demolished, and although it is also likely an addition from sometime between 1912 and circa 1924, is not considered character-defining feature and has not acquired historic significance. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 4. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. As described in Standard 2, most character-defining features and materials will be retained. Three of the historic side windows will be removed, but five will be retained. The rear flat-roofed volume of the house will also be demolished, but is not considered a distinctive or character- defining feature. The original horizontal wood siding and profiled water table banding will be retained at the primary façade and the majority of the side facades. The boxed eaves, profiled fascia boards with returns, and corbeled wood cornice will be retained at the primary and side façades, and the side-gable elements of the cross-gable roof will be retained. All of the primary façade windows and doors will be retained in place. Despite the removal of three historic side Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 48 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 13 of 14 windows and the removal of the corbeled wood cornice at the rear façade, the majority of historic features, finishes and examples of craftsmanship will be retained. Thus, the project adheres to Standard 5. 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. It does not appear that any deteriorated historic materials will be removed or replaced. Thus, the project will adhere to Standard 6. 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 undertaken using the gentlest means possible. The project does not include any physical treatments to clean historic materials. Thus, as currently planned, the project will adhere to Standard 7. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Some excavation will be required for the new partial basement and foundation below the rear addition. In the case of an encounter with archaeological materials, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project will adhere to Standard 8. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Per the discussion in Standards 2 and 5, the addition of the rear horizontal addition and second- story vertical addition is set back from all facades and will preserve the characteristic cross- gabled roof form. Although the second-story vertical addition alters the historic massing of the residence, the historic one-story-with-attic massing of the residence will be clearly legible due to the set back of the addition. Furthermore, the scale of the vertical addition is relatively compatible in scale, and will not overwhelm the historic bungalow. The horizontal rear addition is one story and very compatible in scale, siting, and design. Other essential spatial relationships and features will remain intact or minimally impacted, as discussed above in Standards 2 and 5. The siding at the proposed addition will be 1”x4” bevel wood siding which is distinguished from the existing, historic 1”x12” 3-drop wood siding, but compatible in profile and material. New windows will be aluminum-clad wood windows with double-hung or casement operation. The Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 49 840 Kipling Street (Revised Plans 9.3.19) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabiltiation Compliance Analysis [16252A.4] Page 14 of 14 proposed new window and doors are compatible with the historic materials and yet will be clearly distinguished from the historic features. Thus, the proposed project adheres to Standard 9. 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. The proposed addition is set back from the historic first story facades, and retains the character- defining cross-gabled roof form. Thus, although some reconstruction would be required if the vertical addition was removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the building would be largely intact. The horizontal rear addition is primarily impacting a non-historic one-story flat- roofed volume, and thus does would not significantly impact the essential form and integrity of the historic residence if removed in the future. Thus, the proposed project adheres to Standard 10. CONCLUSION As the above analysis demonstrates, the project as currently designed appears to be in compliance with all ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. QUALIFICATIONS Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation. Page & Turnbull’s staff includes licensed architects, designers, historians, conservators, and planners. All professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. As an architectural historian and cultural resources planner within Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Studio, Hannah Simonson meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. She has experience surveying, researching, and evaluating historic properties, as well as analyzing proposed projects for potential impacts to historic resources. Attachment E 2.e Packet Pg. 50 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 10041) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/14/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 840 Kipling Street Study Session Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 840 Kipling Street [18PLN- 00185]: Study Session for Historic Resources Board Consideration of Proposed Modifications to a Craftsman Bungalow Previously Determined by the HRB to be a Contributing Resource Within the Boundaries of the SOFA I Coordinated Area Plan. Environmental Assessment: No Formal Action is Requested At This Time; Therefore, No Formal Review in Accordance With The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Has Been Completed. Prior to Any Formal Decision, The Project Will be Assessed in Accordance With CEQA. Zoning District: R-1 (Low Density Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action: 1. Provide comments in a study session regarding the proposed modifications to the historic home at 840 Kipling Street. Report Summary The proposed project includes a request for a second-story addition to a 1922 Craftsman Bungalow on a substandard, R-2 zoned lot within the boundaries of the South of Forest Area I Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA I CAP). Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.49.050, the HRB is asked to review alterations to contributing buildings in the Downtown (which includes the SOFA I area). The HRB’s purview includes review of the modifications for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards). A map of the project is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment D. Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 As a study session item, no formal direction is requested at this time and further analysis of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, and SOFA I CAP, including any applicable guidelines will be required prior to issuance of any formal decision. Accordingly, there may be aspects of the plans provided for this study session that do not comply with the City’s regulations. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present the project to the HRB in order to obtain initial feedback on the proposed modifications to this historic structure. Staff is seeking the HRB’s comments on these preliminary designs prior to, and in conjunction with, Page and Turnbull’s review of the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Project Description The applicant is requesting approval for an approximately 207 square foot(sf) addition to the rear of the existing structure at 840 Kipling, in addition to an approximately 490 sf second floor addition and revisions to several windows and doors on all sides of the structure. Because the lot is considered substandard due to both the overall size of the lot as well as the width of the lot, the proposed second-story addition requires approval of a Variance in addition to Individual Review (IR) approval. The project also requests approval of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) to allow an approximately ten foot extension to the existing noncomplying wall on the north side of the property, which extends approximately three feet into the six foot side yard setback. There are several site-specific factors staff may consider in making a determination with respect to the requested Variance and HIE, including the applicant’s intent to preserve the historic resource and the applicant’s interest in preserving the protected redwoods at the rear of the property. The City’s historic preservation consultant, Page and Turnbull, has received the recently submitted plans, and will also be providing a formal review of the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Background The City adopted the SOFA I CAP in 1998. The subject property is located within the boundaries of this Coordinated Area Plan. The Historic Preservation Ordinance (PAMC 16.49) requires HRB review of alterations to contributing buildings in the Downtown. The Downtown area defined in the Historic Preservation Ordinance includes all sites within the SOFA I CAP. A "contributing building” is defined in the municipal code as “any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate 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.” In 1996, City Council approved a work program to revise the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Inventory and on October 28, 1996, adopted an Interim Ordinance to provide Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 greater protection of existing and potential historical resources; Council extended the Interim Ordinance until May 1998. However, ultimately Council did not formally adopt a permanent ordinance that reflected the interim ordinance requirements. In 1998, the site was evaluated to determine its “historical merit” (a term described in the 1998 interim ordinance). The historic analysis concluded the site was eligible as a contributing building on the local register and was eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under criterion 3 (Architecture). It was not deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The HRB held a hearing on March 4, 1998 to formally evaluate whether the existing residence at 840 Kipling had historic merit and should be designated as a contributing building. The staff report for the March 4, 1998 hearing, which is included in Attachment B, outlines the findings of the historic evaluation, including a summary of the criteria by which it is considered eligible and the character defining features of the building. At that hearing, the HRB unanimously agreed that the building at this site has historic merit and should be designated as a contributing building. The minutes from that hearing are provided in Attachment C. Although, staff is unable to find evidence that Council formally added the property to Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory as a Contributing (Category 3 or 4) structure following the HRB’s 1998 recommendation, for these reasons, and because the building has been deemed eligible for the CRHR, staff is evaluating this project under the same standards as other contributing historic buildings formally designated on the City’s Inventory. Discussion The site is located in an area surrounded by single-family and low density multi-family residential uses. The areas north and east of the site are zoned R-2 and areas to the south are zoned DHS. The lot to the north of this residence is also substandard and, similar to the subject property, contains a smaller home constructed in approximately 1933. The lot at 441 Channing Avenue to the south of this site is larger and contains two units, a single-family residence with a second dwelling unit. The location map (below left) shows the project site’s irregular shape and location. The photo (below right) is of the primary, street facing façade. An analysis of the historic aspects of the property, including a summary of the character defining features, is included in Attachment B. Further analysis of the property, particularly with respect to its integrity, will be obtained from the City’s consultant. Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Source: Google Maps Based on the analysis prepared and presented to the HRB for the March 4, 1998 hearing, signature bungalow features of the property include:  The simple rectangular-shaped massing and story-and-a-half construction  Medium-pitched cross-gables roof with boxed eaves and profiled fascia boards with return  Exterior walls clad in horizontal wood siding with a profiled water table banding  Partial-width covered porch at left corner with exposed beams and trellis structure, square posts and pilasters resting on a solid balustrade, bricj stiios and stairs, and two divided lite wood doors And signature craftsman style features include:  Focal window under the front-facing gable  A large fixed sash with divided lite transom and sidelites  Two horizontally emphasized units in the attic above also feature divided lites As noted in the previous staff report, the project was determined to be eligible for the City’s local register because, under Palo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic resources, the project was found to satisfy Criterion 4, as the design of the residence employed period architectural themes characteristic of residences from the 1910s to 1940s. This also correlates to Criterion 3 under the California Register of Historic Resources, which includes “Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.” The report notes that the other residences within the vicinity on Kipling and Homer presents a concentration of turn-of-the-century structures that is uncommon in Palo Alto. It states that many Victorian residences and bungalows exist, interspersed with Craftsman style residences. Though modern apartment dwellings are interspersed with the period designs, these newer structures are integrated into the period environment by continuity in landscaping and compatible scale. Comprehensive Plan Designation Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The subject property at 840 Kipling is near the easterly edge of the SOFA I CAP boundaries, as shown on the map below. All parcels within this area have a land use designation of SOFA I CAP. Residential uses are encouraged within this land use designation, and as noted above, the properties immediately adjacent to this site are all residential or low density multi-residential uses. Retention of existing housing, particularly historic housing, is strongly encouraged under the SOFA I CAP policies. In particular, Policy H-10 of the SOFA I CAP states, “Strongly encourage retention of existing housing, particularly historic housing units, rental housing and other housing that is rented at affordable raters, where land and construction costs have been largely amortized.” The complete SOFA I CAP can be viewed here: https://tinyurl.com/SOFA-I-CAP. In addition, Table 1 outlines the Comprehensive Plan policies with respect to historic preservation from the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to the project. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan 2030 Historic Preservation Policies Applicable to the Project Policy L7.1.1: Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district. Policy L7.1.2: Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Policy L-7.2: If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining features of the building.) Policy L7.8.1: Promote and expand available incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones and revise existing zoning and permit regulations to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse. Policy L7.8.2: Create incentives to encourage salvage and reuse of discarded historic building materials. Policy L7.8.3: Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances to older Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 buildings. Use the State Historical Building Code for designated historic buildings. Policy L7.12.1: Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in the Zoning Code to determine if there is an effective balance between historic preservation and meeting parking needs. Because the site is zoned R-2, rather than being zoned under one of the zoning districts outlined in the SOFA I CAP (such as DHS zoning), it is subject to the standard review processes outlined under Title 18 of the PAMC and under the Historic Preservation Ordinance codified in Title 16 rather than the revised review processes outlined under the SOFA I CAP for the zoning established under that plan. Zoning The project site is zoned R-2, low density residential, similar to many of the parcels north, east, and west of the site. Single-family residential uses are permitted uses within the R-2 zone district. The area immediately south of the site, including the adjacent property at the corner of Kipling and Channing are zoned DHS (Detached Housing on Small Lots), which provides for residential development similar to historic patterns and densities within the existing surrounding residential neighborhood. Exterior Alteration of Historic Structures In accordance with PAMC Section 16.49.050(a)(1)(B), because the project is a contributing historic structure in the downtown area, it is subject to HRB review. In accordance with this code section, staff requests the HRB review this application and provide informal feedback as to whether the project retains the historic character of the existing structure. As noted in the code, planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations to historic structures. Minor exterior alterations are “those alterations which the Director of Planning and Community Environment or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.” The City considers projects that are evaluated and found to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to meet the definition of a minor exterior alteration. Environmental Review No discretionary action is proposed or requested at this time; therefore, the project has not yet been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, prior to any future recommendation or decision on the formal application, the project would be assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Next Steps The next step is evaluation of the project by the City’s consultant (Page and Turnbull) for compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Staff understands that it is the applicant’s intent to modify the plans as necessary to ensure compliance with the Standards. Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2336 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: March 4, 1998 HRB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment C: March 4, 1998 HRB Minutes (PDF)  Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 57 120-17-006 120-17-025 120-17-030 120-17-032 120-17-027 120-17-028 120-17-021 120-17-017 120-17-018 120-17-090 120-17-045 120-17-044 120-17-089 120-17-044 100.0' 51.7' 100.0' 51.7' 100.0' 37.5' 100.0'100.0' 37.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 25.7' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 39.5' 75.0' 5.5' 50.0' 20.0' 12.5' 25.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 25.0' 12.5' 100.0' 50.0' 125.0' 62.5' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 135.0' 135.0' 50.0' 135.0' 62.5' 135.0' 62.5' 42.5' 42.5' 125.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 250.0' 50.0' 135.0' 62.5' 100.0' 75 1' 37.9' 38.0' 115.1' 15.1' 38.0' 115.1' 115.1' 38.1' .1' 48.3' 100.3' 48.3' 100.0' 85.5' 74.8'85.7' 75.0' 50.0' 80.2' 50.0' 80.0' 42.5' 125.0' 125.0' 832 8 471 459 835 840836834 845 400 835-837 833 839 841 843 451 453 25915 440 428 426 483 865 857 441 441A 829 818-824 430 42 852A 852 62A 862 872 425 831 26 905 905 A 909 909A R E E T KIPLIN G S T R E ET C H A N NIN G DHS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Historic Site abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes 0'57' 840 Kipling Street CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2019-02-06 18:21:18 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 58 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 59 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 60 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 61 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 62 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 63 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 64 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 65 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 66 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 67 Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members and libraries. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “840 Kipling” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4497&TargetID=319 Attachment F 2.f Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present:Chair David Bower; Vice Chair Brandon Corey, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen, Deborah Shepherd Absent: HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: February 14, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. Study Session 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 840 Kipling Street [18PLN00185]: Study Session for Historic Resources Board Consideration of Proposed Modifications to a Craftsman Bungalow Previously Determined by the HRB to be a Contributing Resource Within the Boundaries of the SOFA I Coordinated Area Plan. Environmental Assessment: No Formal Action is Requested At This Time; Therefore, No Formal Review in Accordance With The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Has Been Completed. Prior to Any Formal Decision, The Project Will be Assessed in Accordance With CEQA. Zoning District: R-1 (Low Density Residential). For More Project Planner Claire Hodgkins atInformation Contact the Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Bower: Move onto the study session, public hearing about 840 Kipling. It’s a study session so we will not be making any determinations today. It allows us to hear about the design plans and provide our input to the – excuse me – the architect who happens to be our colleague Martin. Martin, you probably have something to say about that. Mr. Bernstein: Yes, thank you, Chair Bower. Yes, so I’m the architect for this project for the study session so I’ll be stepping down from the HRB Board for this item. Thank you. I will be making a presentation though. Attachment G Martin BernsteinRecuse: 2.g Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning Board Members, Claire Hodgkins, I’m the Project Planner for this project. The proposed project is located at 840 Kipling, it’s in the R-2 Zoning and under the SOFA I Cap as the land use designation under our Comprehensive Plan. There are a couple things requested as part of this project. A variance to allow construction of a second story on a substandard lot, Individual Review for the new second story addition, and a Home Improvement Acceptation to allow for the extension of a non-complying wall at the rear of the property. This did come to the HRB, I believe it was 1990 as noted in the Staff report, a historic evaluation was done and analyzed and documented in that Staff report and the HRB determined at that time that the home had historic merit. So, in order to move forward and make the findings for a variance, part of those findings would be that the house is historic. In which case, all additions and modifications to the house must be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The recommended motion is just as you noted, this was just a study session so no formal action is requested. Staff is just interested in HRB’s initial feedback on these proposed modifications as they relate to the character of the existing structure. I do just want to note one additional item which is that the home – because they are requesting a Home Improvement Exception, if they choose to move forward with that request, 25 – more than – 75 percent or more of the home on the exterior walls must be maintained. I do want to note that in Staff’s initial review of this plan set, the current plan set in front of you, it appeared that more than 75 percent of the exterior wall or sorry, more than 25 percent of the exterior walls were being revised. There may need to be some modifications in order to meet that requirement under code. With that, key considerations today are just the proposed modifications and how they align with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Particularly the character-defining features outlines in the previous historic evaluation which were outlined in the Staff report. If you guys want them, I do have each of the elevations, the existing and the proposed next to each other. With that, I’ll turn it back to you and recommend that you hear a brief presentation from the applicant as well. Chair Bower: Great, thank you. Good context to start. Martin, please proceed. Mr. Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Bower. Just for members of the public, so I am on the Historic Resources Board and yet I did receive a ruling from the California Fair Political Practice Commission that as a sole proprietor without employees I’m allowed to represent the project to the Board. I do have some drawings to submit to the Board. I also have copies of those for Staff, I’ll hand these out. These are Staff – copies for Staff and each of these goes to each Board Member, thank you. I’ll give you a chance to take a look at those. The – with me today is also the owner, Stephen Reyna, he’s the owner of the home. You’ve owned the home for how long now, sir? Mr. Stephen Reyna: 1998. Chair Bower: Right and that’s – because you’ve done this before it’s allowed by – because you’re a sole proprietor. Ok, just so everyone understands that. Vice Chair Corey: (inaudible – off mic) Ms. French: I’d like to introduce Claire Hodgkins. I think maybe some of you haven’t met her but she’s one of our Planners and will be the Project Planner and present the project. Chair Bower: So, before you start, excuse me, I just wanted to disclose that very good friend of mine own this building back in the 80’s. I can’t really remember the interior of it but I do remember the somewhat unique character of this building as it’s representative of a type of building that was built in Palo Alto at the time. My friends don’t own it anymore so I don’t have any conflict as far as I know and I have visited the site, Monday, to look at the – to see what it looks like now. Anyone else have any disclosures like that? Ok, please proceed. Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Bernstein: Since 1998, 20-years. I’d like to just start off by introduction that the goal for Steve and his wife, Aysen, is just to create a modest addition and then keep everything compatible with the neighborhood character and then also the historic character. I just want to make a note that the house is not on the City’s Master List of Historic Structures on the Historic Inventory but because we are in SOFA, that’s why this contributing structure is required to come before the HRB. I’d like to talk just briefly about why we are proposing a second story. This is an R-2 lot, it’s 87-square feet below the size of a lot needed to be a standard lot and hence that is why we have to apply for a variance for a second floor. Variances -- on a substandard lot maximum height is 17-feet and only one habitable floor. So, because we’re just 87-square feet, we need to apply for a variance for that additional second floor and additional height. As you may have seen in the drawings, we’re essentially at the maximum lot coverage and therefore any additional square footage needs to be then therefore on the second floor then hence—now hence the variance. There’s another reason for the not extending the first floor further than what we’re proposing is that you can – perhaps you’ve seen on the drawings there are two major Redwood Trees and Palo Alto has the Tree Protection Zone. What is critically important about maintaining these Tree Protection Zones, if you see on the photo, I sent you of this tree at the next-door neighbor. In fact, you can see Steph and Aysen’s house in that photo, this is from their rear yard, 63-inch diameter Redwood Tree. The neighbor’s house was within that Tree Protection Zone and the City’s Planning Arborist issued a demolition permit for that tree. Not only did the – to protect any historic structure, we need to be away from these – the Redwood Trees that are on Steph and Aysen’s property. As you can see in the diagrams, we’re right up to that Tree Protection Zone and again, we just don’t want the history of having structures being damaged and then a City Planning Arborist issuing demolitions for significant trees so again, those are just another reason. We’ve got the – we’re at the maximum basically lot coverage essentially and then the Tree Protection Zones so that’s again, another reason just to go up rather than getting closer to those trees. There was a hybrid development on this house. The original house was, in the rear portion, it was – there was a kitchen, a one-bedroom and a dining room. Over the years then the front living room was developed, the front porches developed and there’s also a flat section of the existing front portion of the house that’s actually defective. It’s a flat roof, we actually have photos of it, of the ceiling caving in. Anyway, our goal is for the existing historic – now historic living room and the historic porch, we want to maintain that street facing character. That flat roof we want to make that correct with the compatibility of the existing front of the house and that’s what brings us to these renderings that you have in front of you. I’ll hold my example up here and for members of the public. That rendering and all three of those renderings are showing then the historic front gable of the front now living room and then the existing historic porch. Chair Bower: Excuse me, Martin? Mr. Bernstein: Yeah? Chair Bower: Can you show that again because I don’t see that in (interrupted) Mr. Bernstein: Oh, you don’t have a copy of it? Chair Bower: No, we don’t have a copy of that. Mr. Bernstein: Oh, did I not (interrupted) Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bower: I mean we have the plan views but… Ms. French: (inaudible – off mic) Chair Bower: Oh, alright, thank you. Mr. Bernstein: Ok thank you, Amy. Chair Bower: Go ahead. Mr. Bernstein: Just make sure everybody has it. Does everybody have… Chair Bower: Ok, now we’re ready. Mr. Bernstein: Ok, thanks, good. So, the renderings are now showing the front street facing façade of the historic living and its existing fenestration and then the existing front porch in those views here. The – as we all know we have many tools for creating compatibility and I’m just going to quickly read those here. Thanks for the moment. Well I do have them right here, I’m sorry. We all worked on the Professorville Historic Guidelines but the emphasis I want to make is, because this applies to all historic properties, is the idea of how do we get compatibility with new versus old. So, I’ll just reading some of the criteria, locate new addition at the rear of the residences whenever possible. So, as you see on some of the other drawings the second floor is definitely set back. I think its setback about 18-feet from the front so that’s the purpose of these renderings that you saw. To minimize additional bulk, just use some sloping roofs and that’s in some of the guidelines. Avoid building a rear addition that is wider than the front of the house. Employ compatible massing and roof forms and you’ve seen that we’ve done that. Make the roof forms similar to the historic structures, we did the sloping roofs. Respect the existing residence by using cladding and roofing materials that are compatible. Construct new window materials that are similar in style but different so we’re using aluminum clad and we got simulated divided lights. Design window patterns that are similar to the existing which we have done. So, differentiation would be probably the most important principle that we want to employ. Then you can see on one of your other handouts that hopefully you’ve received, it shows then all the new addition work and, in the back, it has horizontal siding. The existing siding on the house is actually 1 x 12s but it’s brought up so it looks like its 1 x 4 but’s its one piece of 1 x 12 that’s sculpted. We’re proposing on the new addition for differentiation to be 1 x 6 lap siding. Very similar to the existing but a different dimension and again that’s outlined also in the Professorville Design Guidelines for differentiation. Alright so those are some of the differentiations but the main point is again, the subordination of the second floor. That’s important so again the step back, we did that, and then also on the second floor the plate heights. So, for technical reasons, for member of the public, plate heights is the height from the floor to the start of the exterior wall before sloping up. We dropped that down to 7 foot 6 inches, still habitual heights but at least we can lower it a little bit here. Again, that was the main point of these elevations that you have is just to show how it is subordinate from the house there. Good. Look at my notes. Those are the main points and I’d be open to questions. I’d also like to introduce the owner, Stephen Reyna. Would you like to make any comments? Mr. Reyna: Good morning Board Members. If I should break into a coughing fit please forgive me. I just went through a bad flu last week and my wife is at home. She wanted to be here but she’s at home right now suffering from what I went through last week. Back in 1997-1998 we were looking for a house and we counted, we probably went through -- physically went through about 100 different homes looking for something we thought would fit. We were actually looking originally for a three-bedroom, two bathrooms so that we could have some space to grow in because we were looking for a family. Then when we walked into 840 Kipling, this was home. This was the first home we’d walked into that just grabbed us and said this is where we want to live. You know it’s smaller than we wanted but the beauty of it, the charm of it just made our decision when we walked in. We bought it that weekend, two days after we found out about it. We love old houses, we love historic character of our house both the interior and the exterior. The porch with the open beams inside that we can sit and have our coffee. The picture window Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 5 and the divided light paneling above and below. Inside, if Mr. Bower remembers, there a craftsman like fireplace with built in bookcases on the left and the right. We’ve got divided light pocket doors between the living room and the dining room and there’s a built-in hutch in the dining room. I mean all of these just have the characters that just called to us and as we’re coming up with – these are the things, both interior and exterior that we want to preserve and build on in a compatible way. Now, we’ve been there 20-years. We now have a teenage son, we have two aging moms that want to visit and take of as best we can and this two in one is just not working. We actually – because we are a substandard lot, we have more FAR available then we can build on the first floor and so our solution was to find a way to add a historic, compatible structure on the second floor. Our goal is always modest. We’re not here to build an elephant house. We don’t want an elephant house but we do want is something that reflects and expands on the historical character that called to us when we first saw this house and chose it as our home. So, our fundamental goal, even when we were interviewing the architects, find somebody who understands historic homes. That was our first criteria and we have this design in front of you, a modest addition on top of a beautiful first story, 1912 house. We believe our architect Martin has done a great job of achieving the goals we set out to achieve and we look forward to your comments. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you. Mr. Bernstein: I have one more comment, if I may? I’d like to just make a brief comment about our proposed Home Improvement Acceptation. The ordinance reads that, as Planner Claire mentioned, to retain 75 percent of the existing walls. Where we’re proposing the rear addition on the fist floor, so those existing rear walls obviously are being removed. The ordinance, we didn’t see it written about what about the existing walls – the side walls to remain. One of the interruptions that the City has been using is even if on that existing wall, if you move a window over a little bit, that’s considered not retaining that area of the existing wall. I’ve seen some other applications that were responding to that issue. if you move a stud to replace – that’s considered not maintaining so anyway, it just becomes maybe something to consider is that what is meant by existing wall to remain? Anyway, there’s an HIE to allow the additional square footage but how – what’s considered an existing wall to remain? It gets pretty technical and I don’t know maybe that seems to discourage – anyway it becomes a challenge. So, I just wanted to make – anyway, that’s the issue with the – how the HIE is – how the regulation is implemented. As Steve mentioned – here’s the existing character of the street facing façade as you can see but again, we did take actually good counsel from Planner Claire Hodgkins and also then the good counsel from Arnold Mammarella about making sure that the proposed second floor is subordinate. That’s why I did the plate height and then we moved it back, I think it’s something like 18-feet back from the street facing façade just to keep everything subordinate. Then all the differentiation issues as I mentioned so again, we have a lot of good tools for differentiation so we tried to apply all those things. Again, so as I mentioned I think on previous projects is the good counsel received from Planning Staff and then the IR consultant. I do think these things – those advices to make good – better projects and I’m grateful for the City to offer those things to us. Anyway, so we’re hear to answer any questions or respond to any comments. Thank you. Chair Bower: Do you have questions? Ok, Brandon. Vice Chair Corey: Maybe this is also a question for the Planner. I’m trying to understand this 75 percent/25 percent. Is it – I think you probably confused me more Martin in some of the details there but is it the existing – are the only exterior walls that are changing the back walls on the rear? That’s what I’m trying to understand. Ms. Hodgkins: The way that we analyze – that Staff analyzes that is just looking at the façade of each side and where changes are being made to the façade, whether it’s moving a window, removing a window, or adding windows or doors or changing the wall entirely. Any areas of change is what we look at. Vice Chair Corey: But it’s exterior walls, right? Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. Hodgkins: Of the exterior walls, yes. Vice Chair Corey: So, what – so then it sounds to me then there’s portions of the front of the existing house that are changing in subtle ways that I’m not following on the plans? Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, so I can show you really quickly. Vice Chair Corey: Perfect. Ms. Hodgkins: Where’s the – can I have this? Ms. French: (inaudible – off mic) Ms. Hodgkins: I’ll look at each elevation kind of just to briefly go over so the area of change on the front would be this front door is being revised and the windows being added. We don’t count new area, we’re looking at just the existing façade. So, all this is being retained, there’s some changes happening here. On the east façade you can see that there’s a significant number of changes. You’re looking at the change of the rear here, you’re looking at all of the windows being revised on the entire façade, and some changes to the wall. On the rear it’s basically most of the façade is being changed and on the west side there’s only a small change at the rear. You can see these three windows are being retained and then this one is being revised for the addition. Vice Chair Corey: Thanks, that was – thank you. So, Martin? Mr. Bernstein: Yes, thank you Brandon for asking that question. If you look on Page A4.0 please. So, you can see my calculations for existing wall to remain and existing walls to be removed. The diagonal indicated walls, that was my diagram for walls to be removed, and that’s then less than 75 percent. Claire’s bringing up an interesting and good point about yes, we are changing windows on the left side there. To the point from a historic and compatibility issue from the street facing façade, if you look at the porch, Clair is correct. We are modifying the front doors to the bedroom on Page A4.0 and we are modifying the door to the living room. Those are historic doors there, we are just switching locations of those because now the entry is where the bedroom is. That’s becoming the new front entry so we are keeping the historic doors, we’re just switching the location of those two. Vice Chair Corey: Got it. Mr. Bernstein: My comment is, if you look at from the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation is there’s no change in the massing, there’s no change in the locations of the doors, there’s no change in the historical character, we’re salvaging materials, we’re not throwing it away. Anyway, so it’s just how is that HIE defined as changing exterior walls. That could be a subject of a future conversation but currently the City is saying if you make that change, you’re not retaining that existing wall. So, let’s talk about historic character and what harm is being done by doing that and anyways, that’s a comment. Chair Bower: How close are you to the 75 percent number? Mr. Bernstein: Let’s see, we are… Vice Chair Corey: 74.5 Mr. Bernstein: … 70… Vice Chair Corey: It says 74.5. Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ms. Hodgkins: So, we’re not though, (crosstalk) I mean it’s clear that it’s not calculated the way that Staff calculates it. Mr. Bernstein: Correct. Ms. Hodgkins: So, we’re not – I’m not saying that there’s not a solution, I just wanted to point it out because it may mean that some changes might be made to ensure that they are meeting the 25 percent. I don’t know at this point in time exactly how much they are changing when that calculation is done but it seems to be more than 25 percent right now. So, it would probably require some revisions to meet that code requirement or some changes might be required and they don’t move forward with the HIE but the variance still moves forward. So, there’s a couple different options but we just wanted to call that out for attention as you analyze it. Chair Bower: If I can jump in here. It seems to me as Martin points out, the purpose of this particular calculation is to prevent basically massive destruction of the exterior surface which is what we’re really protecting with our Historic Ordinance or historic designations. We want to maintain that, we’re not really talking about the inside, and I would have to agree with Martin that adding a window in a wall, flipping those doors around is – well moving the French door from the living room to the current existing bedroom number one might remove some siding but the rest of it would remain unchanged. You wouldn’t take the siding off and add new siding so it’s really a modest thing. I think the calculation could hopefully be more elastic when we’re talking about taking existing materials and simply putting them in a different location. If it turns out that that’s not the way planning decides to calculate it, it seems to me that it’s possible that you could just leave the front porch alone. While that might not be ideal, at least then you retain those two walls and maybe that gets you closer to 25 percent. I mean I would say that I think that most of the materials stay as it is currently sided so the siding wouldn’t be removed. That’s the purpose of this particular requirement. Vice Chair Corey: I guess my question on that is how do you – if you look at even, I guess the side walls, it feels like you’d have to cut out a lot of material. You’d have to reuse a lot of material around the windows but you’d also have to redo – you’re not going to cut and leave siding half way across. So, you’re going to have replace the entire line of siding across the back of the house. So naturally it feels to me like if you look at this west elevation, does this mean a third of the siding is being replaced along the entire length or how does that – you know what I mean? You don’t patch up pieces of siding. Chair Bower: Right. Vice Chair Corey: So, this is a specific thing on the front, just in general to that house there could be a lot of patchwork. I do like the idea of preserving the doors on the front. I mean it’s a neat idea, just… Chair Bower: It’s an option. Vice Chair Corey: …yeah, it’s an option. Chair Bower: Way back when I was a newly graduated collage graduate and I started my business, it was very difficult to find someone who would make – you couldn’t buy – this is called three lap siding in the trades. You couldn’t find it and so we painstakingly removed the siding for areas where we needed to patch. Now that’s something that doesn’t exist in 100-foot long pieces. It’s all pieced on that building and it’s pieced at random ways and then painted. You don’t see the – were each piece stops and you can take the old siding off and you can patch it in in other places. Now, of course, you can hire – you can get that siding reproduces exactly as it is for about $100 set up fee plus the cost of material. It wasn’t available then so it’s possible to take it off and piece it back and really retains it. Some of it will break but you know that’s a more expensive and painstaking way of doing it but it can be done. I just wanted to interject that that’s a possibly and I think that is done on other historic buildings. Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Bernstein: That’s a good point, Chair Bower. We’ve got 38-linear feet of wall by 9-feet high of this – what was your reference to it as? Three… Chair Bower: It’s three lap siding. Mr. Bernstein: Three lap siding. Chair Bower: They’re probably originally 16-foot lengths. That was pretty standard (inaudible)(crosstalk) Mr. Bernstein: Yeah so these are one – basically it’s 1-inch by 12-inch piece at scale. Chair Bower: Exactly. Mr. Bernstein: We’ve got 38-linear feet of that around the back of the building that we’re removing. Again, as part – as you all know and Staff knows, part of the Comprehensive Plan is salvage not recycle. Chair Bower: I’m only – let me just say one more thing. I think the eastern side here is most likely – because there’s so much work to be done on that side with the second story addition, I would envision that side would be all new material of some sort. Other parts of the façade which have fewer penetrations – new penetrations of removing or moving windows probably could use original siding. That’s just a… Vice Chair Corey: I guess I’m not trying to belabor the point, I guess my question is if in theory to do these windows, all the siding on that was replaced. How is that factored in to the 75 percent area because in theory you could say I’m touching a window on each side but I’ll replace all the siding in like kind. That’s what I’m trying to understand. I’m not saying that’s the intent, I just want to understand. Ms. Hodgkins: We do count all of that if it’s being removed. That is actually something that we’re finding in the field. So, when we calculate we actually do require them to calculate slightly beyond what the change in window is and stuff because once you start cutting a window you’re not stopping at exactly where the window is. The whole point of that section of the Home Improvement Exception is simply to try and discourage complete façade remodels. It’s not to stop you from doing a single change on a door or a window or anything. It’s simple to – if we are going to allow for a non-complying wall to be extended in this case, we want the façade to be maintained because the whole point is to maintain the existing structure to the extent feasible. We put that in because we’re finding that a lot of structures where you know we were doing this Home Improvement Exception with the intent to keep the house but the entire façade was being changed. So, they’re not really keeping the house in the end. Chair Bower: There’s a building on Channing between Webster and Middlefield that had three lap siding on it and sadly, it stayed there for most of the renovation. Then near the end they ripped all the siding off and put 1 x 6 siding on it. Totally different look, kind of destroyed the look of the building. Not relevant to this discussion but I understand what drives this particular requirement. Mr. Bernstein: I agree with Claire. It’s a – for preservation, let’s put some regulations that discourage or prohibit so it’s a fair regulation. Chair Bower: Although if you came to the Building Department and said I have dry rot in my siding and I need to replace it and I want to replace it in kind. There wouldn’t be any issue so this is where these requirements with important objectives can actually become more difficult and maybe not achieve what is intended. Mr. Bernstein: Just one other comment, if I may please? Just again, part of our goal today is just to hear the Board’s comments about for compatibility for the existing structure, meeting – conforming with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Again, because of the risk of building to close to a Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Page 9 tree, I just didn’t want another tree permit on our property to be granted approval. So then also the historic structure can stay in perpetuity -- so hearing -- in support of our variance. So, hearing from the Board that agreement that the proposal meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for subordination, setback, a lower plate height for the upper level. Enough differentiation that it meets these standards that would be our goal for today. Ms. French: I would just interrupt to say that this is a study session and there’s no biding comments. We aren’t prepared – we haven’t – we have our Page and Turnbull, that is our expert help, and we would have to come back with that analysis. Chair Bower: Sure. Roger. Board Member Kohler: Staff, if you look on the page here that says new north and new south and you see the daylight plane and it comes really close to the gutter. You know where it says new north and new south, see here the gutters are and the daylight plane? We’re being told now that – from Staff that you can’t be that close. You have to be 1 to 2-feet away from the gutter with the daylight plane. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah so, this project is still being analyzed under the IR Guidelines. I will note that we ask anything adjacent, single story residences to be below the daylight plane. This one is not next to a single- story residence on that side. That’s not to say that what they’re doing is going to be approved. This is still going to be reviewed under the IR Guidelines for analysis. Board Member Kohler: So that relies on adjacent homes, whether – how close you can get? Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah so, we look for everything to be…(interrupted) Board Member Kohler: Is that written down anywhere? Ms. Hodgkins: Well, it’s shown in the IR Guidelines. We look at the diagrams that they show and we’re looking to provide space when it’s adjacent to a single-story residence. In this case they look to design to try and push away from the adjacent single-family residences on the right side. It’s still being reviewed by our consulting architect for consistency with the IR Guidelines. Chair Bower: Anyone else? Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: I drove by the project today and it looks like there’s also an application for that right-side house at 836. I would assume their doing a second-story addition there too. Oh, well… Mr. Bernstein: No, they’re not doing a second-story floor addition. Board Member Wimmer: Oh, ok. Well I just thought maybe there would be some impact there. I mean I think also what Martin’s done is I think it’s very complementary to what’s existing. The only thing I want to ask about is the existing front gable and then there’s the new upper gable. I’m wondering if on that west side elevation that you would want to connect that upper roof with the existing lower roof so you don’t have an interruption? You could go from the lower roof plane and connect it in one plane instead of having that skip. I don’t know if that would… (interrupted) Mr. Bernstein: I think… Board Member Wimmer: … prevent water… Mr. Bernstein: One of the – I’m sorry, what was your last comment? Board Member Wimmer: I was just saying that that’s – I would – I was wondering if you’d consider doing that? Just having a continuous roof on that side. Also, I believe you could have some kind of a dormer or Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Page 10 a shed dormer window in that bedroom three that can violate the daylight plane for a certain width; like 15-feet or something. So that might help your bedroom three to allow you to have another window that’s facing that west side but that might add square footage. Mr. Bernstein: We did – I think one of the earlier drawings we had those planes lining up and my thought on that is that now you’re starting to perhaps offer some confusions. Say well what’s the historic gable, what’s the new gable and again, because of the Secretary we really wanted to emphasize and be clear here’s historic, here’s new. I think that my comments about that. Board Member Wimmer: That makes sense. Mr. Bernstein: As far as – we had – again, we did some dormers but now we’re going to start – as you can see in the diagram on A5.1, we start interrupting that daylight plane. There’s an existing one-story house very nearby and we just didn’t want to start violating those daylight planes. Board Member Wimmer: I think you’re allowed – with a dormer I think a dormer can protrude into the daylight plane for a certain width. That might allow you to have an additional window in that bedroom but in the rear bedroom you already have windows on two elevations so that should be fine. Just a thought. Chair Bower: Thanks Margaret. Michael? Board Member Makinen: Yes, I think we should keep in mind the overall goal in a rehabilitation of a historic property and that is to make it suitable for moderate living but still retain the historic flavor and character of the house. I think that’s the overwriting principle we should be paying attention to right now. Clearly the house, as originally constructed, is not suitable for modern family living and here the homeowner is making every attempt to preserve the character of the house and fit within the guidelines of what rehabilitation is. So, I would encourage to accept the changes here because I believe that the historic character is retained and the sides of the house are essentially not visible from the street. So, the façade is the only thing that is of real importance as far as the historic character goes. I think if we kind of take a more general view of this, what is trying to be achieved right here, and not try to nitpick every little thing right here will go a long ways towards maintaining the proper perspective. Chair Bower: Thank you Michael. I think you’re spot on there. Debbi, did you have any comments you want to make? Board Member Shepherd: No. Chair Bower: Ok. I have a couple comments. It seems to me that a variance for this property is exactly the right vehicle to take and so this project is constrained by history. To Michael’s point, the development of the property – the property to the, I think it’s the east, those properties were all built when the Palo Alto Medical Foundation moved. Mr. Bernstein: Correct. Chair Bower: Those are far denser and much closer than anything we would allow now but that’s was I guess a planned development decision. As Michael points out this building is not visible from the street except on the front facades. That’s probably our focus, we’re required to analyze all these things we’ve been talking about but I think it’s relatively insignificant. One of the questions that I think you might want to answer before you move forward is or as you move forward is whether you’ve thought about putting a basement under the entire building and not adding a second story? You’re not in the flood zone and I realize that’s difficult to do but Roger and I – Roger designed and I built a basement under a property on Emerson in Professorville. Suspending the building and putting an entire half a house underneath the house. Probably more expensive now than it was then but it’s something that somebody might ask. Well why do you have to go up when you could go down? Economics are an issue. I don’t – I’m not asking Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Page 11 you to answer that but I just think that’s something to think of. The only other thing I’m having a little trouble with the 1 x 6 siding as opposed to three lap siding. I understand the differentiation issue, I’m just – again, it won’t be seen so it probably doesn’t matter but I’m just – as I envision it, it seems to me to be a little disjointed. I know exactly why you’re doing it, I’m not being critical of it, and I can’t offer a better solution. Vice Chair Corey: I was thinking about that too. Another possibility might be to do something in between on the siding because I get the idea, you’re trying to differential but is there something – is there a 1 x 8 or something that may look more different but maybe not as disjointed? That might be an idea. Chair Bower: We had a project in Professorville maybe 5-years ago that had the same siding, three lap siding, and then extended the building out back. I cannot remember what we did – what was proposed there. Frankly, there’s nothing wrong with 1 x 6 siding. I’d rather see 1 x 6 than 1 x 8 but I think there was a – if I remember any of this correctly, there was a vision or a dividing line between old and new that allowed a material that was almost the same as what was on the building to go forward. Mr. Bernstein: We can explore those things. Again, I’m in total support of differentiation and then now – however, if it goes through the process, we can show some alternatives features but the differentiation is important so we want to keep it. Other things that we are doing for differentiation in addition to the simulated divided lights versus a tree divided light, we’re going to go – we’re proposing aluminum clad windows (inaudible). Other things we’re doing is on the front gables underneath the barge board, technical term, there is a profiled molding underneath that barge board. What I’ll be proposing on the construction drawings is that – and future planning drawings is the molding underneath the barge board on the front gables will be a more simple profile. So again, we’re just looking at ways to get different so that – yeah, here are the differences. So, for our trained eyes we can see the difference but still have the compatibility. Chair Bower: One of the most interesting things that I heard at a seminar given by the California Historic Historian I think was a comment about differentiation of these types of details we’re talking about. He said basically only architects and builders are ever going to see these. Mr. Bernstein: True or historians. Chair Bower: I mean the general public doesn’t understand that one molding is different than another so it’s the attempt to make it clear to a trained professional eye where the existing building stopped and the new building starts. I think you’ve done a good job of addressing those issues. Mr. Bernstein: Great, thanks. Chair Bower: Alright, any other comments? Well good luck, I hope we will see this back. Mr. Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Attachment G 2.g Packet Pg. 79 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 10749) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/12/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Informational Report on Nominations, Upgrades, and Historic Resource Evaluations Title: Informational Report: Processes for Nominations to the City's Historic Resources Inventory, Inventory Category Upgrades, and Implementation of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies for Historic Preservation From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review this report and receive staff’s presentation; input from board members is welcomed, but no board action is requested or required. Report Summary This report provides excerpts from the Palo Alto Municipal Code to support an HRB discussion of several processes related to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. The report provides summaries of the current processes for: (1) Nominating properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (2) Upgrading inventoried properties from one category to another (3) Preparing Historic Resource Evaluations for single family residential properties previously shown on study lists and noted in the City’s database as “potentially eligible” for California Register. The report also provides an update of historic status of properties evaluated after Council adopted Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2 in December 2017. The attached spreadsheet (Attachment A) reflects the results of Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE) performed to implement this policy over the last two years following policy adoption. Background and Discussion 1. Nominating Properties to the Inventory 3 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 There have been public inquiries recently to learn who can nominate a property to the City’s Inventory, and how the process unfolds. Some owners are interested in exploring the City’s preservation incentives, such as the subdivision incentive for preservation. These incentives are reflected on the City’s historic preservation webpages, here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/historic_preservation/preservation_incentives.a sp. Any person may nominate a property for designation as a historic structure/site or district. A nomination to the inventory that leads to inventory listing can qualify properties for incentives and other benefits. Historic Inventory Categories Defined The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49) includes a definitions section (Section 16.49 020), which describes the Inventory categories: Category 1: "Exceptional building" means any building or group of buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. Category 2: "Major building" means any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the 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: "Contributing building" means any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate 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. 2. Rehabilitation of Historic Inventory Resources and Category Upgrades Recently, several property owners have expressed interest in rehabilitating their inventoried buildings in the Downtown. One advantage to upgrading a historic resource located in the Downtown to ‘Major Building’ or ‘Exceptional Building’ is that the property can become eligible for bonus floor area following the historic rehabilitation, to use on site or transfer off site. Request for Inventory Category Upgrade from’ Contributing Building’ to ‘Major Building’ One pending example is the former Toy and Sport World building designed by Birge Clark, located at 526 Waverley Street. The HRB reviewed this category upgrade request from Inventory Category 3 (Contributing Building) to Category 2 (Major Building), associated with a façade restoration and rehabilitation. The owner recently completed construction and 3 Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 requested to move forward to City Council for approval of the category upgrade. The City’s consultant is now preparing a historic structure report to document the completed rehabilitation and provide further evaluation of this building. The owner is also exploring restoring the rear portion of the building to the original building footprint. 3. Policy 7.2 Implementation Staff has previously described the current implementation of Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2. For this report, staff has prepared a spreadsheet listing the Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE) performed following the December 2017 City Council adoption of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2. The implementation of Policy 7.2 is via case-by-case evaluations. Resulting determinations are noted on the attached document. It is important that members of the public who own potentially historic properties are aware of this policy as well as the processes for upgrading their inventory category or requesting inclusion of their property or other property on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. Prior to the Comprehensive Plan adoption, and to this day, non-residential properties and multi-family residential properties are evaluated whenever a property owner submits a major development application. Staff reviews significant projects for compliance with the City’s codes and policies and evaluates such projects with respect to environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The March 14, 2019 HRB Retreat staff report, viewable at this link, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69713, included the Comp Plan’s historic preservation policies and discussion about Policy 7.2 implementation outreach. Minutes are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71609. On February 14, 2019, staff had also presented this information to the HRB. Staff noted that, since January 2018, the implementation of Policy 7.2 included a focus on the residential properties still only showing on the City’s Parcel Reports as “Potentially California Register Eligible” following completion of the 1998-2000 historic survey. Staff took this approach since the properties were all built before 1948, had not been evaluated beyond the 1998 ‘windshield survey’, and had not been placed on the National Register Eligible properties list that resulted from the survey. The potentially eligible properties are evaluated for their eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources, on a case by case basis. Staff has been tracking the outcomes of these evaluations. Staff gives notice to proceed on these evaluations once the property owner contacts staff and provides funds for the analysis. Typically, this is done when the owner is contemplating an application for discretionary, Individual Review or other residential entitlement process. PAMC An excerpted section from Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49 should be helpful for any discussion regarding the designation of historic structures, sites and districts: 3 Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 16.49.040 Designation of historic structures/sites. (a) Procedure for Designation of Historic Structures/Sites or Districts. Any individual or group may propose designation as a historic structure/site or district. Such proposals shall be reviewed by the historic resources board, which will make its recommendation to the council. Designation of a historic structure/site or district must be approved by the city council. The procedure for such designation is as follows: (1) Any proposal for designation shall be filed with the department of planning and community environment and shall include the following data: (A) The address and assessor's parcel number of the site or boundaries of the proposed district; (B) A description detailing the structure/site or district's special aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of a historic nature; (C) A description of the historical value of the structure/site or district; (D) A description of the current condition of and any known threats to the structure/site or district; (E) What restoration, if any, would be necessary to return the structure/site or district to its original appearance; (F) Sketches, drawings, photographs or other descriptive material; (G) Other supporting information. (2) Each proposal shall be considered by the historic resources board at a public hearing within sixty days of the receipt of the proposal. In any case where an application for a planning or building permit affecting the exterior of a building is pending concurrently with a proposal for designation, the recommendation of the historic resources board shall be made within twenty days of receipt of the proposal. (3) Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be given at least twelve days prior to the date of the hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, or by mail to the applicant, to the owner or owners of the property, and to the owners of property within three hundred feet of the site. (4) The historic resources board shall recommend to the city council approval, disapproval or modification of an application for designation. (5) The city council may approve, disapprove or modify a recommendation for designation and, in any case where an application for a planning or building permit is pending concurrently with the proposal for designation, such decision shall be made within thirty days of the recommendation, if any, of the historic resources board. (6) After approval of the designation of a structure/site or district, the city clerk shall send to the owners of the property so designated, by mail, a letter outlining the basis for such designation and the regulations which result from such designation. Notice of this designation shall also be filed in the building department and the department of planning and community environment files. (b) Criteria for Designation. 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: 3 Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 (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. (Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986) Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A- October 25, 2019 - HRE Status Tracking (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 84 Last Updated: October 25, 2019 HRE Status Evaluations 2018-2019 Includes residential sites previously identified on Priority 1 and 2 lists as potentially eligible for California Register of Historic Resources which were not found eligible for the National Register ELIGIBLE for California Register of Historic Resources Address GIST status Determined by HRE Received by City 1145 Lincoln Ave 003-19-059 (Single-family) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180726 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 7/26/18 518-526 Bryant St 120-26-061 (commercial/ residential) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180807 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 8/7/18 1027 Waverley St 120-18-027 (Single-family) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180926 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/26/18 885 College Ave 137-02-002 (Single-family) Stanford Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20181121 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 11/21/18 2140 Yale St 137-01-133 (Single-family) Stanford Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190116 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/16/19 980 Middlefield Rd 120-05-077 (commercial) Found CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190116 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/16/19 340 Portage Ave 132-38-071 (Multi-family) (Fry’s/old cannery & office) No update in GIST Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/26/19 788 San Antonio Rd 147-03-041 (commercial/ residential) No update in GIST Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/15/19 235 Hamilton Ave 120-26-073 (commercial) Category 3; Ramona St District (Cardinal Hotel building considering modifications) Page and Turnbull, Inc. 10/24/2019 3.a Packet Pg. 85 Last Updated: October 25, 2019 HRE Status Includes some properties previously identified as potentially CRHR eligible NON-ELIGIBLE for California Register of Historic Resources Address GIST status Determined by HRE Received by City 2348 South Court 124-14-008 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180202 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/2/18 1849 Middlefield Rd 003-58-060 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Historic Planner Emily Vance; 20180214 Emily Vance Historic Planner 2/14/18 1940 Webster St 124-06-057 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180323 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/23/2018 1750 University Ave 003-10-003 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180507 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 5/7/18 1445 Tasso St 120-08-049 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.; 20180622 Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. 6/22/18 2251 Bowdoin St 137-05-073 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180712 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 7/12/18 3707-3709 El Camino Real 132-41-085 (Commercial) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180914 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/14/2018 2342-2344 Yale St 137-01-110 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180917 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/17/18 2050 Dartmouth St 137-06-043 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20180924 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 9/24/2018 327 Tennyson Ave 124-08-049 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible By Page Turnbull; 20181121 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 11/21/18 853 Alma St 120-28-046 (SOFA II CAP) (Multi-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20181214 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 12/14/18 846 Lytton Ave 003-03-027 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 201801221 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 12/21/2018 2080 Cornell St 137-03-022 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190116 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/16/19 3.a Packet Pg. 86 Last Updated: October 25, 2019 Continued, not CRHR 181 Addison Ave 120-28-088 (Multi-family) (SOFA II CAP) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190123 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 1/23/19 1828 Middlefield Rd 120-08-049 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190208 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 2/8/19 2050 Princeton St 137-03-051 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190228 Page and Turnbull, Inc 2/28/2019 796 San Antonio Rd 147-03-042 (Commercial/ residential) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190315 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/15/19 1012 High St 120-30-030 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190329 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 3/29/2019 716 San Antonio Rd 147-05-087 (commercial/ residential) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190501 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 5/1/19 2135 Emerson St 124-19-086 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull, 20190701 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 7/1/2019 436 Waverley St 120-15-040 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190815 Page and Turnbull, Inc. 8/15/2019 567-569 Homer Ave 120-04-074 (Two-Family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190826 Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/26/2019 922 College Ave 137-03-030 (Single-family) Stanford Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190828 Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/28/19 2151 Princeton St 137-03-004 (Single-family) Stanford Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190828 Page and Turnbull, Inc 8/28/19 1307 University Ave 003-06-035 (Single- family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20190904 Page and Turnbull, Inc 9/4/2019 1630 Castilleja Ave 124-23-028 (Single-family) Found Not CRHR Eligible by Page Turnbull; 20191010 Page and Turnbull, Inc 10/10/2019 3.a Packet Pg. 87 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 10917) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/12/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB draft Minutes September 12, 2019 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 12, 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): • September 12, 2019 Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes September 12, 2019 (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Bower, Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Bernstein, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Shepherd, Board Member Wimmer Absent: Board Member Kohler Chair Bower: Okay, all of us Board Members that are going to be present are here, so let’s call the meeting to order and Robin, can you take roll? Ms. Robin Ellner: Six present. Chair Bower: Thank you Robin. Oral Communications Chair Bower: We’ll move to oral communications. Anyone who wants to speak about anything other than the topic at hand is welcome to come up and speak, three minutes max. I’m not seeing any cards, nor any takers. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bower: Let’s move on to Agenda, Changes, Deletions, Additions. I don’t know of any. Ms. Amy French: Good morning. There are no changes. Chair Bower: Good morning. Thank you. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chair Bower: So, why don’t we skip City Official Reports, put that at the end of our meeting, because that’s not relevant to our current topic today. I’d like to welcome Vinh Nguyen, who is our new Board Liaison. Vinh, thank you for joining us. We’ll miss Robin. Robin, this is your last meeting with us. Ms. Ellner: It is, and I have to say it’s been a real pleasure of the past two years, being the secretary to the HRB, and I will miss all of you. So, thank you. Chair Bower: Well, we’ll miss you too. Thank you. [The Board moved to Study Session] HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: September 12, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. 4.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Bower: Okay, if we want to get the meeting back on track. We have just housekeeping issues. We just to do housekeeping here, I think. I’m trying to get to page five of our packet. Our September 26th meeting has been cancelled. Ms. French: Yes. Chair Bower: We will have an October 10th meeting, presumably? Ms. French: We can, if there are agenda items, which… Chair Bower: Hang on a second. Guys in the back… (off mic) Chair Bower: Okay. Amy, October 10th looks like a real meeting day? Ms. French: It’s a, well all meetings are potential meeting dates, kind of like all 50-year-old and older homes are potential historic home, but if we don’t have a meeting item, which you know, is generated by projects that come in, or a need to have a training session or some kind of thing that somebody has identified that we have time to put together. Chair Bower: Okay. In our recent communication, though, you mentioned that there may be a project coming? Ms. French: I was looking at the potential for that, but I don’t have an answer at the moment. Chair Bower: All right, so we have the possibility of five more, one, two, three, four, five, five more meetings. Debbie and I will not be at two of those. What’s really important is to always tell Vinh, our new aide if you’re not going to be here, so that we know that we have a quorum. (off mic) Chair Bower: The 26th of September is cancelled. Yeah. Vinh sent an email yesterday. Ms. French: (off mic) four potential meetings because the November 28th meeting, I think, is Thanksgiving. So, that’s cancelled. Chair Bower: Yeah, okay. Ms. French: Unless you want to bring the turkey. Chair Bower: Yeah, right. No, I don’t think the Council Chambers will be open. All right. [The Board moved to Approval of Minutes] Study Session Chair Bower: Our Study Session, we have lots of people here and we want to get to the discussion of the main topic of conversation. Action Items 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 4.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 3 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. Chair Bower: Okay, let’s move on to our Action Item. It’s a public hearing about the project at 1310 Bryant Street, 1235, 1263 Emerson Street. It’s an HRB review of the Draft Environmental, the EIR, which is prepared for Castilleja. I guess, Amy, we have a Staff Report to start. Ms. Amy French: Yes, good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. Today the focus is the Environmental Impact report for the project. I need to run over here and get the mouse. Oh shoot, security alert, great. Okay, end of pause. Amy French still. Starting my presentation. This is the second opportunity for the public, in a public hearing setting to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Here is the outline for today. I’m going to provide a bit of campus history. Talk about today’s campus a bit and the adjacent school property. We have an Historic Resource on site, the Gunn Building. We have the adjacent Emerson Street. Two properties are within the project site, another is not and separately owned. And then we have our next steps for the HRB and your purview. Then we have our consultant, Kathy Layendecker of Dudek who will be presenting with her associate here on the Environmental Impact Report itself, with the focus on the Cultural Resources Chapter in particular. So, just for fun, I have an old slide here from 1894 when Palo Alto’s first school was already built. Back in 1892 there was a building at 319 Kingsley. It was the first girls’ prep school in Palo Alto. That school closed in 1901 and the building itself was moved from 319 Kingsley, three doors down to 1121 Bryant. The building is still there today. It’s called Castilleja Hall and it became Harker’s Elementary and then it served for three years as Castilleja School for Girls. We moved to this site, which is the current campus of Castilleja School. As you can see, 1910, there were about four buildings, a three-story dormitory, a chapel, a science building and a gymnasium. You can see here, the Recitation Hall, which later became – it still exists today as the administration building. And here was the dorm that was removed years later. Back in 1924 we have a Sanborn map which shows the buildings that were present. The campus expanded a bit at that point. There were 230 students. We have another historical image showing the Birge Clark Building, which is the chapel that came along in 1926. And that remains as of today. So, these two buildings are the historic buildings on the site, the administration building and the chapel, called the Gunn Building. Then there were some other fun things on this map showing some Castilleja property off site here, with a couple of homes and a field, and then we had some tennis courts across Melville. Here’s just a long history of use permits. The first use permit was issued in 1960, and that included a 90-student dormitory that exceeded the current, today’s high limit, for sure. There was a variance for that. And there’s a long string of changes to the campus through conditional use permit. Not to get into detail on this, but just to show you the use permit has been the method of modifying the campus over the years. Here’s today’s Castilleja School. And you can see this was formerly Melville Street, formerly went through the campus. It was, the City Council approved removal of that, abandonment of the easement and Castilleja extended the campus across there. So, here’s today’s school property showing the various buildings, etc. These are the Castilleja-owned properties on Emerson Street. They are two separate parcels today. Castilleja proposes to merge the existing campus parcel with these two parcels. And this is an adjacent separately owned property. It is an Historic Resource as well. So, this shows the Historic Resource, the chapel designed by Birge Clark, and this is the administration building. This is an adjacent classroom building that was from the 1960’s. Here is that 1960’s building. That’s proposed to be demolished. Here it is as existing and here it is as proposed with the removal of the building and replacement with a new building. This is the historic Gunn Building. This is showing the Phase IV academic building that’s proposed. This is showing, and the applicant will be providing a few slides showing this, but there’s a couple of options that they’re looking at. They propose to remove this building and expose the Gunn Building, the historic building, and they’re showing potential treatments to that exposed façade. There are fences around the property. Again, this is a proposal showing the fence that would go in Phase IV next to the existing admin building, and between the new building that they propose and this admin building. So, you can see the fence is looking similar to the existing fence. This shows just a map showing the proposed space between. It’s about fifty feet between the new proposed building and the chapel here, or sorry, the administration building, and where that fence would go that 4.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 4 was in the earlier slide. The aesthetics to put on that administration building, they’re showing the cedar wood shingles. Again, the applicant says they have some slides on this. This shows the Emerson Street condition. The Environmental Document goes into, analyzes or reports out on the buildings on the campus and they also note this adjacent Historic Resource here on the separate property. Here are the dates of these buildings, 1912 for this house, 1979 for this house and 1917 for this house. So, here’s the picture of the Historic Resource at 1215. It’s National Register eligible. This is what the applicant proposes is to remove those two structures and replace with a park that would be a private park and with some access to the community. In any case, the consultant we have here today can answer questions about this, but basically Chapter Six of the EIR says that the historic significance and integrity of 1215 Emerson, the Resource, is not dependent on the adjacent nearby structure presence, and that the 1979 home that Castilleja proposes to remove is outside of 1215 Emerson’s period of significance. So, I just pulled that out of the EIR to help out with the discussion. Here are the homes here showing that 1979 home and the 1263 Emerson, the 1912 home. I have some slides showing the changes that took place with 1263 Emerson. This is again pulled out of the EIR that talks about the architectural merit of 1263, you know, because the building has been significantly modified. So, those are some notes there. Again, I have some slides, because I did research through the building permits. In 1973 there was a detached garage that oriented to Melville. Then, the parcel map came through, that lots used to be, here two lots oriented to Melville, underlying lots. In 1977 they proposed to reorient the lots, so the lots were then reoriented towards Emerson Street. Then in 1979 there was a brief variance because the new parcel orientation created a smaller setback in the rear than 20, which was required. Then a new garage was approved, this garage in 1991. This was all before Castilleja owned the property. Here is the original entry of that 1263 Emerson. In 1993 Castilleja acquired this property and went through some changes here. This is the building today, has this porch which came about in 1998. That was around the time that Dames & Moore did the study of the City potential resources, and so it was around the same time that this remodel happened. This just shows the plans I found. This was the existing condition with that smaller entry and a separation between the building and the garage, and then this is the 1998 changes that connected the building with this building, and proposed this new porch that is there today. So, here we are at the purview. You know, there’s an architecture review application that has been submitted. We have not visited the ARB yet. That won’t be for some time because we’re in the Environmental Impact Review portion of the review. And then the Planning and Transportation Commission has conducted the EIR hearing and they have not yet had discussions about the applications on file that are in their purview. So, that’s all in our Staff Report about this. So, the next step is the applicant is trying to complete the architecture review application and the tentative map application. They have a file that came in August 22 that’s available online for anyone who wants to see those, the map and the plans. And then we’re projecting to move ahead with public hearings coming up this fall and winter. So, I’m going to, this is the slide that basically shows the CEQA process here that we’re in. We have the initial study analysis preparation. This was in 2017. We published the Draft EIR July 17 of this year, and a final EIR would come out with responses to comments. So, I’m going to turn it over to our consultant. Ms. Kathryn Wha (phonetic): Good morning. As Amy said, my name is Kathryn Wha. I’m the senior project manager with Dudek, and with me today is Katie Haley (phonetic). She is our architectural historian. I’m going to do the presentation myself, just to kind of keep it a little bit more efficient, but both of us are more than happy to answer questions. So, just a quick overview of my presentation, it kind of mirrors the format that Amy just went through, but a slightly different focus, just to give you a good overview of the EIR content, so you have a good understanding of the project overall. So, this site just lists the various entitlements that are requested with the project, again to provide you with the context of what the project involves. So, as Amy mentioned, the school operates under a conditional use permit, and so that’s really, the main focus is amending the conditional use permit to allow building modifications, demolition and new construction that’s proposed. One of the key elements of the project is to construct the underground parking garage, which would be in the location where the two residential structures are currently located. And then that allows for placing that park type setting at the ground surface where those houses currently are. As Amy mentioned, the Historic Resources on the campus, the administration and chapel building are not proposed to be modified, other than the exterior finishes and exterior staircase. Another key feature of the project is to remove the current swimming pool and reconstruct a swimming pool below grade along the Emerson frontage, and then to construct a classroom 4.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 5 or academic building, I think it’s labeled on this slide, that would include library and classroom facilities and other spaces that are necessary for the school’s educational programs. And then this site gives an overview of some of the landscaping treatment. The different colors are just sort of different zones of landscaping that are proposed, so there is a different sort of pallet of plants that are proposed in each one, and there’s more details in the site plans. For the proposed new construction, again, the library is the portion that would be closest to the administration building, but as the slides that Amy presented show, there would be a much greater kind of setback between the two buildings than currently exists. And then this slide, the bottom image there shows the exterior staircase that would be added, or is proposed to be added to the administration building. So then, just a quick overview on the California Environmental Quality Act and what the City’s obligations are under that regulation. So, this is the quick overview of the process. As Amy mentioned, we had an initial study and then Notice of Preparation that was circulated in 2017. And that was sort of our first formal description of the proposed project and how we would be approaching the Environmental Impact Analysis. So, all of the comments that were received at that time were reviewed and reflected in how we prepared the actual draft EIR. The draft EIR CEQA requires a minimum 45-day public review period. For this project, the City determined to provide a 60- day public review period, which ends this coming Monday, the 16th. And then once we have all of the comments, we will provide responses to those comments. Where necessary we can make amendments or revisions to the text of the draft EIR to help provide clarification and maybe some refinements to the discussion and mitigation measures. And then that becomes the final EIR, which is what the City Council ultimately would determine whether or not to certify, and that would indicate that the City Council believes that it has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. The draft EIR is required to include a detailed project description, so we have a long chapter explaining all of the elements that are proposed within the project, and supported by figures to really demonstrate to the public what’s proposed there. We have, we define what the existing conditions are of the project area specific to each of the resource topics that we’re evaluating impacts for, and then determine whether the proposed changes that the project would bring about would have a significant impact on that existing condition. We also look at mitigation measures and project alternatives that can help us avoid or reduce any of those significant impacts. And then consider some of the other CEQA issues, such as growth inducement, accumulative impacts and those to give the City a full idea of the environmental effects of the project as a whole. So, these next few slides just run quickly through the impacts and mitigation measures that we round in each of the resource areas because I know that the Historic Resources Board is focused on historic resources and you don’t really want to get into all the details. I wanted to just keep this as a really quick overview for you. We did find a few significant and unavoidable impacts, and these are primarily related to the way that traffic patterns would change by the proposal to create an underground parking garage and really concentrate all of the pickup and drop off activity in that garage. But an important consideration under CEQA is that if you find a significant and unavoidable impact, to make sure that is well documented and disclosed, and that would require if the City Council ultimately wants to approve the project and certify the EIR, they would need to adopt what’s called a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explains what tradeoffs the City feels warrant accepting a project that has significant and unavoidable impacts. Those significant and unavoidable impacts, as I said, are related mostly to the traffic patterns, and so they really don’t affect the Historic Resources issues, but I wanted to make sure you all were aware of those. So, one of those was under land use in terms of compatibility of the project with the neighborhood, but again, that discussion really focuses on the traffic issues. For all of the other impacts, such as the aesthetics and noise, we found that the project would be compatible with the neighborhood. It is really the change in traffic patterns that cause that to be a significant and unavoidable impact. With respect to cultural resources, which is the last row on this table on this side, we found that the impacts would be less than significant. The project would not adversely affect the historic significance of the Gunn Administration Building and the chapel building, and would not affect the historical significance of the neighboring property, as Amy discussed. Transportation, as I mentioned, is where we did find some key impacts, and so there are some mitigation measures identified. The project proposes to increase their transportation demand management efforts to help reduce the amount of traffic that may be brought in new traffic that may come to the campus. It also looked at the typical things of noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and several of these impacts or several of these issues, we found that there could be minor changes in the environment that required mitigation and the mitigation measures that we have identified are very typical standard types of measures that are applied 4.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 6 to most projects throughout the State. So, there’s not really a unique consideration for this project compared to other projects of similar types. So, similarly, this site goes over some of the other topics of geology, biology and there was one other one on there, oh, energy conservation. We did find that this project would actually have a good benefit in terms of energy conservation by replacing older buildings with newer, more energy-efficient structures, and would incorporate solar voltaic panels on the roofs. Finally, hazards and hazardous materials is something that we evaluated in the initial study and Notice of Preparation and again, found that it’s a very common thing that you’ll find asbestos and lead-based paints and lead-containing materials in buildings of this age. So, again, it’s very standard, typical mitigation measures that we identified to make sure that those don’t cause adverse health effects in the neighborhood. And as I mentioned, CEQA requires that you look at project alternatives to try to avoid and reduce impacts, and so this slide summarizes the three alternatives that we looked at. The no project alternative is something that’s required by CEQA, so that’s where you just imagine the situation where the project has no change, it doesn’t go ahead, and so the property stays the way that it is currently. We also looked at reducing enrollment to 506 students compared to the 540 that’s proposed and we found that that would slightly reduce the building sizes and allow for some minor modifications to the site plan. And then the second alternative, excuse me, the third alternative was the same student cap, but we also played with the parking. The project proposes more parking than is required under the City’s codes, and so we looked at reducing that sort of excess parking to see whether that could reduce any of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. And we really found that all of these alternatives would result in similar impacts as the proposed project. There may be slight changes up and down, but nothing that would avoid any of the significant and unavoidable project impacts. So, the draft EIR has been out for almost 60 days now, and so we have received a large volume of comments, and this site just summarizes the main topics that we’ve been seeing repeated in those comments. So, there’s a lot of comments about the land use intensity and density in terms of how, is this proposed campus and proposed student enrollment appropriate for the size of the campus. Obviously, concerns about traffic and noise and aesthetics. And then with respect to historic resources, and I know you guys have had a chance to review some of the comments, and so there has been concern from the neighbors about the historic significance of the Lockey House and as Amy pointed out, that was determined in our analysis not to be registered due to the extent of changes that have happened to that building over time. And then another more recently, there was a comment letter that related to consideration of whether the neighborhood around the school should be considered as an historic district, and that is something that the proposed project doesn’t affect anything outside of its boundaries, and so that’s not something that we typically would look at in a CEQA analysis, but we’re certainly happy to answer questions on that one as well. I think the other comments are pretty typical of the concerns that we would hear from the community members on projects, so again, I just wanted to provide that context for you guys. And so, just to wrap up what the CEQA process required, as I mentioned, the public review period for this EIR ends on Monday, which means that all comments should be submitted to the City by the end of business on that day, and folks are aware of the email address that can be used to submit comments and they can also be submitted by standard U.S. mail or even hand delivered, for that personal touch. So, just the contact information is here on this slide for anyone who needs that information. And that was the conclusion of my presentation. I’m happy to answer any questions. Chair Bower: Thank you Kathryn. I wanted to remind everyone today before we move on to the next phase, that the purpose of our meeting today, as articulated in our staff-prepared materials, is to provide members of the community with another opportunity to comment on the draft EIR and in particular, to allow the Historic Resources Board to discuss and focus primarily on historic resources evaluation, and there are attachments in the materials at the back, C and A, that list the issues we want to address today. What we don’t want to address, and we don’t have the purview of addressing are the land use issues, the parking issues, traffic. That’s really not our scope of review. It’s a legitimate issue for the community, but it’s not our focus, and so I would like to keep our comments to the historic resource issues that we address as a Board. So, Amy, do you have any questions before we open up to public comment? Ms. French: I don’t. I mean, if anyone has questions for staff or consultants, may hold them till after the public comments, if that works? 4.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Bower: Yeah, I think that was my intent. So, write them down. Oh, actually, there are some housekeeping issues, so Brandon, you start. Vice Chair Corey: Housekeeping? Chair Bower: Disclosures. Vice Chair Corey: Oh. I wanted to disclose that I own property within 500 feet of Castilleja. I don’t reside there, but… Chair Bower: I don’t know if that would disqualify Brandon. Martin? Board Member Bernstein: Yes, thank you Chair Bower. I would like to disclose I met with, earlier this week, a Kathy Layendecker. She is the Associate Head of the school, so I went to the property just to take a look at the historic structures there, and she was kind enough to give me a tour of the properties. Chair Bower: And I need to disclose that in the late 1990’s I worked on 1263 Emerson, the Lockey House, and I also built the house at 1310 Emerson in 1998. I’m no longer in business, so I don’t think that presents a conflict, but just wanted to make sure everyone understood that I have some experience with the site and the buildings. Also, I’ve lived here for 68 years and understand the significance of Castilleja in the community. Anyone else want to make any comments? Okay, so we will circle back to comments or questions for staff. Let’s start with Adam Woltag. He is speaking for more than five people, and so because he’s aggregated the comments of other people, he has 15 minutes allotted time. Welcome. Adam Woltag: Good morning. My name is Adam Woltag. I’m a design partner with WRNS Studio and we’re the architects for the new Castilleja campus. So, I have hopefully, a brief presentation that I would really appreciate the Board’s comments on the architectural resource on the Gunn Building. The new campus presents a really great opportunity for the east façade of that building, so we’d love to get some of your input. So, the first slide we have up here shows the existing condition, and in that dashed box which is really important to note is that actually the chapel building, the administration building and the classroom building are all co-joined together to kind of one large building. The proposed design actually looks at demolishing the Rhoades classroom building and building a new classroom building about 50 feet away from the east façade of the Gunn Building. That presents a really tremendous opportunity for new pedestrian gateway and entry into campus, and it frees up or liberates that eastern façade of the Gunn Building. So, these are some of the photographs of the photographs of the existing conditions today of both of the chapel building and the administration building. Great examples of craftsman architecture. They are beautiful buildings. Primarily the materials that are primarily used are cedar shingles, expressed roof details, a pebble flash stucco finish on the lower story of the Gunn Building, and kind of a mix of symmetrical and asymmetrical kind of window treatments along it. But really beautiful architectural kind of expression. On the left you see an aerial view of the existing campus and, again, just focusing on the fact that the Rhoades Building really abuts the eastern façade of the administration building. On the right is the proposed design of the campus and what you really, I think, need to kind of focus on is the fact that that new building is 50 feet away from the façade of the Gunn Building. The architectural character along that Bryant Street façade is also important to note, and the new architectural character is really influenced by the character of the existing architectural resources. So, some of the key findings that were pulled from the draft EIR we wanted to kind of bring out today. First and foremost, the Gunn and the Hughes Chapel Building are listed on Palo Alto’s Historic inventory as Category 3 contributing buildings. All the campus buildings were evaluated that were over 45 years old for potential historic significance, and no additional properties were found eligible for the California Register or Palo Alto inventory. Even though the campus relatively holds to its initial kind of structure, it still lacks enough integrity to constitute as an historic district. And then finally, I think it’s 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street residences were not found eligible for listing as historic resources on the local inventory or on the California Register. So, I’m going to walk through a little bit of the history of the Gunn Building and the Hughes Chapel 4.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Building and how they kind of got married together over time. In 1910, as you see here in blue, that was really the original configuration of the Gunn Building. It’s entrance initially faced Bryant Street, as you see there. There is also an historic foot on the lower right-hand corner of the slide where you can kind of see that eastern façade as it was originally designed. A key to point out there is a gateway that runs along Bryant Street and reaches towards the other, I think it was a dormitory building at that time. In 1926 the Hughes Chapel was constructed as a separate independent, stand-alone building with its entrance facing Bryant Street. They did not touch at that time. They functioned independently from one another. Similar in architectural details but, obviously, not the same. In 1967 Rhoades Hall was built, completely different architectural style, a cast-in-place concrete building. It went all the way up to that eastern façade, did not necessarily connect to the Gunn Building, but it did come up and really just touch that façade. Again, the chapel building and the administration building were still separate independent structures. The most significant improvements and adjustments to the project came in 2000, when both the administration building and the chapel building were significantly remodeled on the interior. Basements were added to each one of those buildings, and the entries were reorganized into kind of a co-joined kind of lobby space you see there, that really connected those two buildings together to function as one building. And then Hughes Hall was actually connected and provided a required exit from the Gunn Building through Hughes Hall and out to the exterior. The proposed design actually now demolishes the Rhoades Hall and creates a new pedestrian entry facing Bryant Street that leads directly into the circle, the center of campus. It opens up an opportunity there to provide a required exit from the Gunn Building and an opportunity for a new campus gateway. These are the elevations of the Gunn and Rhoades, I’m sorry, the Gunn and the chapel building. The two bottom elevations are of most significance here. You can see the proposed kind of revised eastern elevation of the administration building. And across from it, 50 feet away, the proposed elevated of the academic building, the library building, that would be facing that elevation. A key to note are the architectural materials that the new campus building will be using, inspired by the wood shingles of the historic resources, that library building will be using the same type of cedar shingles, cast-in-place concrete and metal details and highlights throughout the rest of the campus. So, looking at that Bryant Street elevation, it is the design intent here to continue the same architectural gateway that you see along the Embarcadero, all the way along Emerson and to basically connect the library building to the Gunn Administration Building there. The same brickwork, the same metal detailing and concrete caps. As we scoot around to face that freed-up elevation, that eastern elevation of the Gunn Building, you’re starting to see the required exits there that we’re proposing in Option 1. The intent of this design option is to provide a complimentary but contrasting design approach. The stair is going to obviously be designed to not kind of confuse any historic reference to the building. We think it’s simple. We think it’s elegant. We think it’s quiet and it provides the most minimal, we think, structural and architectural impact to that eastern façade of the Gunn Building. It’s going to be interesting to see what is going to be revealed after Rhoades Hall is removed, but the idea is to continue to same architectural language along that eastern façade, the incorporation of cedar shingles, the pebble flash stucco treatment, the same color of paint, all of that to just carry that same architectural character around that eastern façade. These are some views that illustrate how that stair would be incorporated to that façade. Key to note here is that stair would be landing on basically on the edge of a planter that would pick up again on some of that brick detailing that would carry in from the gateway along Bryant Street in to campus. Here’s another view, a little bit of an aerial view that shows how that would all come together along that façade. Option 2 looks at something that is a little bit more robust and one might say starts to blur a little bit more the lines of what is new and what is historic. The architectural cues here for that exit stair start to pick up on some of the architectural detailing of the Hughes Chapel. A little bit thicker posts, thicker rails and a bit more engagement on that eastern façade of the Gunn Building. Larger, you know, fenestrations, a little bit more impact to the building. We think it’s appropriate but it does have a much more significant impact to that façade. Here again, you start to see from the interior of campus looking out towards Bryant and again from Bryant Street looking back into campus and you can see the impact of that stair. So, really, the summary slide here just starts to outline the differences between each one of t hose design options. The first one is really a lighter, we think a little bit more, you know, complimentary but contrasting design approach to the existing architectural resource. A little bit less impact to that façade, but again carrying on the same architectural language, we think, and picking up on those same details. Option 2, much more robust and we think maybe blurs the line, maybe we went a little bit too far 4.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 9 along that blurring, but we think it’s something we wanted to look in contrast and get some of your opinions on. I am able to take questions here or I can sit down and wait. (no mic) Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Bower, and thank you for your presentation. Your name again, please? Mr. Woltag: Adam Woltag. Board Member Bernstein: Adam, thanks. Let’s see, did you show a slide of the existing Gunn Building before there was an attachment? Let’s go back to that photo of, I think there was an historic photo, I think, of the eastern view. There was a sketch I think, or something. Mr. Woltag: Oh, there was an historic photo, yeah. Board Member Bernstein: There you go, yeah. Have you considered the, because the HRB has approved previous projects where as long as there is some photo documentation of what was there existing, to actually go back to restorative to make it look like that photograph? Have you considered that? Mr. Woltag: We did look at that. I think what we can start to discern from this elevation compared to what we’re being proposed, it looks like there may be some windows along that façade that we would definitely consider, you know, looking at putting back into the building. It does, though, start to provide a little – it does start to provide more impact to that façade and we wanted to put forth to this group if that’s something that would be beneficial or not to the architectural resource. Board Member Bernstein: So, that could be something the Board, Chair Bower, that could be something that the Board looks at is actually, since there is photo documentation what that east façade looked like, that’s something the Board then we can discuss. If that could be our recommendation. Chair Bower: I think when the project comes back in the next phase, aren’t we going to review the actual architectural detailing? Ms. French: Well, this is, we’re cutting into the presentation here, so should adjust that accordingly. The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not have Category 3’s and 4’s coming to the Board, if they’re outside of downtown or National Register District. So, technically, it does not have to come back to this Board as the architectural review application. The ARB could refer this to the HRB for comments. So, you know, I think you could provide comments today that would be captured in minutes. You could request a session to talk in more detail, since we’re just seeing these today. We can do that. Chair Bower: Okay. Since we don’t have any action today, we’re just doing the review, why don’t we consider your comments or any Board Member’s comments as part of the record, and then we can review the comments later and then decide whether we want to request that the ARB send the project back to us. But I think it’s perfectly appropriate to, for Board Members to comment on these changes to the historic buildings. So, noted. Board Member Bernstein: Okay, just a quick comment then. Chair Bower: Okay. Board Member Bernstein: You said Adam, right? Mr. Woltag: Correct. 4.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Bernstein: So, Adam made a reference to Option 2 being a little more robust and I would agree with Adam’s comment that it looks a little bit too robust and it starts to just distract from the historical quality. So, that’s why I looked at the historic thing. So, the windows again may interfere with the program of the existing building. Certainly, there have been enough examples throughout history, as you may know, where at least you could put on the window frames on the outside, again, just historical reference. And I think that can then respond to your comment about maybe Option 2 is too robust. We have some good historical records here and for the historical qualities to maintain that Category 3 building, yeah. Mr. Woltag: Great. We will definitely look into that. Yes, thank you. Board Member Bernstein: My other question, a general question is, will the HRB minutes be part of the comments that are incorporated into the draft Environmental Review period? Ms. French: Yes, they will. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. Thank you Chair. Chair Bower: I’d like to follow up on Martin’s observation and let other Board Members express their questions. In the two options you provide, what’s striking to me is, excuse me, Option 1, I think, has a minimal impact on the building and since we consistently see before this Board changes to buildings and have to evaluate impact, even though all of them could be undone, I think minimal changes that keep the existing building or return the building, in this case, to its more, closer to its original form is desirable, rather than a more robust, as you describe it, statement that clearly differentiates it, but then once again has a greater impact. So, my feeling is less is better. Okay, anybody else have a comment on this particular presentation? Okay. Well, thank you very much. Next speaker is Andy Reed followed by Rob Levitsky. And three minutes for comments now. So, state your name for the record. (off mic) Chair Bower: Okay, sure. Also, please stay very close to the microphone. Andie Reed: Okay, great. Thank you, Chairman and Historic Board Members. I appreciate your hard work today in consideration of this project. My name is Andie Reed and I live at 160 Melville Avenue. In Chapter 6, Cultural Resources, the DEIR only studies the area of the school property as it exists today, and the two residential properties that the school proposes to demolish to use those lots for the school, making it a half acre larger than it is currently. Dudek did not study the surrounding area. A very important element of the National Historic Preservation Act is Section 106, in which the area of potential effects needs to be determined and should take place early in the environmental review process. Further study of the effects is required if the land use changes, which it does from residential to school property, or does the destruction of the buildings change traffic patterns, which specifically yes, because it is demolishing houses and trees in order to accommodate an underground garage. Here is what I call the short block of Emerson. I have circled with green and the green surrounding blocks are residential. The red outline is the school property and the red hash marks in the two residential blocks are proposed to be subsumed into school property. This next slide is the same area, but a larger view. All of the yellowed ones have been listed in Priorities Studies 1 or 2, or the Cultural Resources Book as eligible or potentially eligible for California Registry and the green outlined buildings are all dating from 1900 to 1930. And Professorville is right across the street. These surrounding areas of eclectic older houses that contribute to the character and atmosphere of the block would be substantially degraded by the change of context, replacing houses with an underground garage exit. Also, in Chapter 5, Aesthetics, the DEIR states that the Emerson Street frontage would experience a great degree of change in condition because of demolishing houses, including the 100-year-old Lockey House, but it concludes that these changes would not substantially alter the visual character of the site. Here I’m showing you the two houses that are on the chopping block, and this is the Lockey House alone, how beautifully it is surrounded by its trees. Who would determine that replacing these residences with an underground garage exit would not affect the 4.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 11 visual character? As the City’s Historic Review Board, please note the DEIR’s erroneous conclusions and note that the garage structure would change a residential block to commercial. Please recommend retaining the residential feel of our neighborhood, and leaving this block intact. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you for your comments. Rob Levitsky followed by Kimberly Wong. Rob Levitsky: I’m waiting for the slides to come up. I want to thank Adam for his architectural chatter. But I’m here to talk about another historic resource, which is the trees. Nothing that seems to have been mentioned in the last 15 or 20 minutes. We have, even new builders, several of you are builders, know that Palo Alto has an ordinance protecting oaks and redwoods, and yet none of that shows up in the DEIR. The Environmental Impact Report is supposed to get everything out so that policy makers can make decisions that are appropriate, and yet we have no information about the trees. From the Palo Alto Technical Tree Manual, which you builders would know about, oaks wider than 11½ inches in diameter or redwoods 18 inches in diameter are protected by definition in the City of Palo Alto, and there’s about, let’s see – so here’s a picture of the six redwoods trees pushing 100 feet in height, not mentioned in the report other than to say that they found only insignificant, less than significant value. So, the Technical Tree Manual says that you can cut a tree down if it’s dead or dying, if it’s hazardous like structural problems with branches, if its roots are interfering with the utilities or with a basement, or if you’re affecting more than 25 percent of the buildable area. And none of the protected trees shown on the Castilleja property meets those criteria. So, it would take an overriding consideration by the City Council to kill any of these trees. Now, Stanford ten years ago started working on the Med Center and they had a similar problem with some oaks, and these are the oak trees next to the Stanford Hospital and there’s nine of them and they show up in the biological resources section of the EIR, which does not exist on the Castilleja DEIR. And what Stanford decided to do was protect these trees and had several options just dealing with the minimum impact on these trees, and they decided to, in fact, not build over this location here, and in fact, make it a special caplin (phonetic) lawn is what it’s called. And so they, Stanford, chose as their preferred option to protect the trees. Here again are the trees at Castilleja, another view here, and then here’s another view from Emerson Street, and you’ll notice the canopy is about 100 feet high with oaks in front of it, all something that people see as they’re walking down the street, and cannot be replaces with some mitigation of 15-foot trees from a box. Beep, beep, beep. Anyway, this DEIR will not stand. It will have to go back for further review because they’ve – you can’t just ignore local ordinances and murder all these trees. Thank you. Chair Bower: Great. Thank you. Kimberly Wong followed by Neva Yarkin. Kimberly Wong: Hi. My name is Kimberly Wong of 1260 Emerson Street. Thank you for reviewing the draft EIR Cultural Resources report of Castilleja’s proposal before the Lockey House, as well as its neighbor is demolished. I feel that the evaluation of the Lockey House as an historical resource was not sufficient. There were several items of my own research that were overlooked. The Lockey House was next to three homes on the Melville Street that the City gave to Castilleja for its playing field in 1993. This was a loss to the fabric of the neighborhood. And now the school is attempting to remove two more homes, leaving only one out of six homes on that small block, and for what? A garage to bring more, to bring significant and unmitigable traffic and unavoidable impacts to the neighborhood. The report also forgot to mention that in 2010 there was a celebration and dedication of this home to Miss Mary Lockey and the school’s alumnae. The fact that this home is associated with persons of significance with our past, founding the longest lasting nonsectarian girls’ school in the U.S. today should qualify the home for the National Historic Register. Dudek also failed to name an architect or builder for the Lockey House. Gustav Laumeister’s son-in-law, Henry Seale, who sold Miss Lockey the plot of land was hired to develop the campus for her. The possibility that this famed Professorville developer could have also built the Lockey House was not studied and should be. Lastly, Dudek’s historian on page 16 reports that the Lockey House that still holds guests and events, no longer retains the integrity of the original design, just because of a few additions. Please take a look at the photos and determine whether or not it retains the characteristics of the turn-of- the-century home. I think it still looks very lovely. I request that there be a full historical evaluation of the Lockey House to determine the architect or builder, the year that it was built, because I found a lot of discrepancies, and subsequent building permits to evaluate the significance 4.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 12 of these alterations. And whether the fabric of the neighborhood would be replaceably and significantly changed with its loss forever. I would prefer that Castilleja keep the Lockey Home to house guests and intimate get togethers, as they do now. They could also convert part of the home to a museum to showcase Castilleja’s and Miss Lockey’s and her alumnae’s contributions to Palo Alto’s rich history for future generations to enjoy. Thank you very much. Chair Bower: Thank you. Neva Yarkin followed by Peggy McKee. Neva Yarkin: My name is Neva Yarkin, and I live at 133 Churchill Avenue, around the corner from Castilleja. If Castilleja gets their expansion for another 125 new students, this whole area will be changing. Over 70 percent of the students come from outside of Palo Alto. How is this expansion helping Palo Alto residents? Rebuilding classrooms, changing the pool, the redwood trees would disappear, two houses will be destroyed and an underground commercial parking garage will be built. All this will change the landscape and structure of this six-acre site, and also the historic character of the neighborhood. The Bryant bike boulevard will be destroyed in the process. How can you have many cars entering from the Embarcadero the new underground commercial parking garage on the same street as bike riders? There will be accidents waiting to happen, and all for a modest amount of new parking spaces for the garage. Besides massive construction for years to come, 125 new students will add to our traffic problems we already happen to have. How will Castilleja expansion really be beneficial to all the citizens of Palo Alto? Thank you for your time. Chair Bower: Thank you. Peggy McKee followed by Heather Allen Pang. Peggy McKee: Hello. Good morning. Chair Bower: Sorry, could you state your name into the… Ms. McKee: I was going to say good morning first. Chair Bower: Okay. Fair point. Ms. McKee: Okay. My name is Peggy McKee. I live on Cowper Street between Seale and Santa Rita. It is my pleasure to speak to the HRB on behalf of Castilleja, its place in the Palo Alto community and in Palo Alto’s history. I have lived in Palo Alto for more than 50 years, and like many others, I cherish the way it has enriched my life and the lives of my family and friends. We settled here in the 1960’s, sent our children to Walter Hays Jordan, as it then was, and Paly. I taught history at Castilleja for 45 years, and helped to develop curriculum that would ensure a state-of-the-art, cutting edge education for young women of Palo Alto and its environs. My granddaughter graduated in 2016. The mission and goal of the school to educate young women to reach their fullest potential have never changed. It remains the only nonsectarian all girls high school in the Bay Area. Indeed, Castilleja at the lofty age of 112 years is almost as old as Palo Alto itself. As a Palo Alto resident interested in my community, I served on the Board of the Palo Alto Historical Association, currently co-edited its newsletter and helped to arrange and publicize programs that highlight Palo Alto’s unique history. I was an early member of the Palo Alto History Museum Board and am presently an archivist at the Women’s Club. I enjoy taking visiting friends on walks through old Palo Alto, the Jobs House, Professorville, the Garage and Crescent Park, the Zuckerberg Compound, pointing out who has lived where and what used to be there. Palo Alto is near and dear to my heart and I consider it one of Palo Alto’s crown jewels. Like many of you, I have watched the architectural evolution of Palo Alto, as small houses which I remember with some fondness are replaced by large, new constructions, some in jarring juxtaposition to their neighbors. These, of course, accurately reflect the prosperity, wealth and status of many residents, but they have also changed the ambience of the old neighborhood. That means I have to stop, right? Castilleja has respected the conception of its own buildings and the integrity of the neighborhood in which it has made its home for more than a century. It would border on tragedy, in my opinion, to shatter those links. Thank you. Chair Bower: Heather Allen Pang followed by Allen Cooper. 4.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Heather Allen Pang: My name is Heather Allen Pang. Good morning. It is a pleasure to speak to the Historic Resources Board this morning. I grew up in Palo Alto on the 300 block of Melville, and I walked across Embarcadero with no traffic light to attend Castilleja. I have been teaching history at Castilleja for 20 years now. I am the school archivist and the co-author of Castilleja’s history book celebrating a century. And I am proud that I work for a school that does care about its own history. I also have a Ph.D. in American History from U.C. Davis and I am a member of the Palo Alto Historical Association Board at the moment. Castilleja has been in Palo Alto at its current location longer than most institutions have been in Palo Alto. The school was founded with the support and encouragement of people from Palo Alto and Stanford, and the location has been central to the traditions, ideas and goals of the school. It has been, and continues to be an ideal place to educate young women in the heart of a city that has always valued education. In this plan for modernization, Castilleja has been careful to stay true to the history of the school and the neighborhood. The school cares about its history, preserving the Birge Clark Chapel, the circle and the administration building. Many of the school’s long-standing traditions, for example, are opening ceremony on the circle, our senior speeches, creative and entertaining arts programs and baccalaureate and historic chapel take place in these historic buildings. These spaces are not being impacted by the proposed project, other than the re-exposing of the side of the Gunn Building to be as it was before the current classroom buildings were built. We want to make the new buildings fit into the historic character of the neighborhood and continue to teach and learn around this circle, the literal and metaphorical heart of the school. The school is critical, the circle is critical to the school’s program in that it provides an open space for community sport and learning. The new building designs honor the materials and character of the neighborhood in a more respectful way than the existing buildings to, while they vault us into the 21st century in both supporting educational needs and environmental sustainability. This project incorporates tenants that are valued by Palo Alto. The care the school is taking to build to the highest environmental standards, serving as a leader in Palo Alto, a City that is leading the way in the fight against climate change, the way Castilleja works to educate girls which honors both the history of the school and the history of Palo Alto, and the attention to the architectural feeling of the City and the neighborhood. As one of the few institutions that has been here in the City for more than 110 years, we’re proud to continue to work towards things that have historically been important in Palo Alto – education, leadership and the environment. Thank you for your attention. Chair Bower: Thank you. Allen Cooper followed by Kathy, I’m not sure if I can… Allen Cooper: Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Allen Cooper. I live at 270 Kellogg Avenue, directly across the street from Castilleja. I live in a house that was built in 1909, one year before Castilleja was built at that site. I would like to address the issue of damage to historic buildings in two ways. We feel, I feel that we live in an historic district in the area with the surrounding streets. All of you have heard and seen a map of all the historic homes. These are potential Category 3 homes. My home is a potential Category 3 home. I worry that the DEIR has not addressed the issue of neighborhood historic homes and the potential damage to those homes through environmental impacts of dust, vibration, chemicals during the construction of the Castilleja site. On a secondary thought, I’m concerned about the potential damage to the historic buildings at Castilleja, the administration building and also to the property on Emerson due to liquefaction. The geologic report that was done for the DEIR is in error, as was also pointed out by the review of that report, but nothing has been done. And the main problem is that liquefaction does not appear to be a bad issue unless, that’s without a garage, but if you take away the over burden for the garage, it then does become a potential issue, and this was pointed out. What is needed is more information. So, there is a potential for damage to those buildings in a case in which the environment conditions were such that you could have liquefaction and a large earthquake. So, those, that collapse of garage would induce that problem. I think that my own personal feeling is that more needs to be done by the DEIR in addressing the historical issues to the neighborhood and to these buildings on Castilleja property and adjacent to it. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you for the comment. One moment. Amy, do you want to make an announcement? 4.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. French: Yes. Earlier Commissioner, Vice Chair Corey had mentioned that he owns property, does not live within 500 feet, but owns property, and you know, we weren’t aware of that before, and my understanding is Board Member Corey was thinking this was a study session and then was not a place where comments were at issue. I think it’s, I’ve consulted with our City Attorney. She has confirmed that he is conflicted and, therefore, it’s best to recuse for any matter pertaining to Castilleja, including today’s meeting. So, I would suggest departure. Vice Chair Corey: Thank you. Chair Bower: I’m sorry. The City’s interpretation of this is that if you’re conflicted you can’t be in the room because the mere presence of a conflicted individual that’s on our Board could have an impact on other Board Members, even though we’re not coming to any conclusions today. In honor of the City’s requirements, Corey has to leave. So, I’ll take over timing. All right. Thank you. Sorry for the interruption. Kathy, and I apologize for not being able to pronounce your last name. I can’t read it, so help me with that. Kathy Layendecker: It’s Layendecker. I have actually a request to make. There is somebody who would like to speak today. Her card is in, but she can’t stay the whole time. Could I swap my time and speak later when she was…? Chair Bower: Sure. Ms. Layendecker: It’s Catharine Garber, and I’ll go wherever Catharine is in that stack. Thank you. Catharine Garber: Well, similar name, so that works. Good morning Chair Bower and Historic Resource Board. Catharine Garber. I’m a principle at Fergus Garber Young Architects and have been practicing architecture in Palo Alto since the mid 90’s. I live right next to Green Middle School. My children, both boys, attended Palo Alto schools. My strongest relationship with Castilleja is that I ride my bicycle by it on my way to work on Town and Country every day. In my 20-plus years of practice as an architect here in Palo Alto, I have done quite a few extensive remodels and additions of historic homes within several blocks of Castilleja, two each on Ramona, Bryant and Kingsley, two on Cowper and nine on Coleridge, and I have designed a number of new homes in the neighborhood, one each on Kellogg, Emerson and Waverly and two on Cowper. This City staff and Review Board Members have repeatedly stated that our designs have been compatible with the neighborhood. It’s something I take great pride in. I love Professorville and old Palo Alto, and have enjoyed being part of its preservation and its evolution into what I think is one of the most interesting neighborhoods anywhere in the country. As with other interested community members, and as a curious architect, I’ve taken a look at Castilleja’s proposal. I like its overall design. I was pleased to see that the historic Gunn Building will retain its look and again, have its eastern façade exposed. And I think the new construction is compatible. The new buildings are very quiet and the materials nicely compliment the historic building. It’s reassuring that the scale and the massing will not be much different from today, so the neighborhood should feel similar. I also wanted to comment on the handsome gates and fencing that the landscape architect is proposing. They are more interesting and better detained than you see on most commercial buildings. And I think it will blend in nicely with the neighborhood. I was also impressed with the selection of their plants and trees. I think the landscaping looks dense and is well crafted as is found on most residential projects in the neighborhood. Lastly, I wanted to add my two cents on removing the two houses on Emerson and replacing them with a park. I ride my bike by them almost every day and both of these properties present themselves with the single 18 or 20-foot-wide garage door. That’s what you see from the streets. It’s not that appealing. I’d much rather ride by a park. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts on the project. Chair Bower: Great. Thank you. Dan Chapman followed by Mindie Romanowsky. You’re last. (off mic) 4.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Bower: Oh, okay, fine. Please Kathy. So, Dan is not coming up. Kathy Layendecker: Dan is here but he has ceded his time for me. Chair Bower: Okay, so Dan you’ve become Kathy. All right. Kathy Layendecker Good morning Chair Bower and Historic Resources Board Members. I’m Kathy Layendecker, as you’ve heard, Associate Head of the School of Castilleja. And in that capacity, I’m responsible for overseeing the CUP application process. Thank you for this opportunity to share details about Castilleja’s new master plan that seeks to modernize our learning spaces while honoring the school’s historic significance in Palo Alto. As you’ve already heard, Castilleja has been part of the educational fabric of Palo Alto since 1907, and at its current location since 1910. As such, we have celebrated our historical significance to Palo Alto through a thoughtful planning process that considers both our traditions and the 21st century needs of our students and our campus. The buildings we hope to replace have served Castilleja well for almost 60 years and we want to create new spaces that will last even longer. With such a rich history at this location, we have worked hard to preserve the historic buildings, the chapel theatre and the Gunn Administration Building, and the many other enduring traditions, such as the circle at the heart of our campus and the robust canopy our many trees provide. At the same time, we want to embrace the future with flexible spaces that will support 21st century learning, sustainable systems and operations that minimize our impact on the environment and improvements to our design that will allow us to blend more gently into the neighborhood’s aesthetic while minimizing our impact on the neighborhood. As a City, Palo Alto strikes a balance between revered traditions. Castilleja is seeking to do the same. We are pleased that the draft EIR, Environmental Impact Report found our project to be 100 percent compliant with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto and Castilleja have a long history. They were young together and have grown into robust and interconnected communities over the last century. It is gratifying, though not at all surprising to see that the City and the school’s goals and values are so closely aligned. It is also gratifying to realize that the DEIR found no significant impacts in either its aesthetic or cultural resources reviews. We have created and concise proposal that protects the historic elements of our campus throughout the project. The final details of our preservation plan will be prepared by a historic preservation specialist and through every phase of construction, personnel will receive specific cultural resource awareness training. The DEIR notes and supports all of the measures we have created, and choices we have made to protect the historic cultural and architectural resources on our site. At Castilleja, we are steeped in tradition as a community. Our students are joined through generations of shared experience on this campus, can I take Dan’s time too? Okay, thanks. And our students, employees, alumnae and families all value our rich history, value our neighborhood and value Palo Alto. The project keeps those values at its core. The DEIR found that our new spaces will better suit our one neighborhood aesthetic then our current buildings, incorporating elements that improve the architectural, cultural and aesthetic relationship between the buildings on our campus and the houses in our neighborhood. We look forward to this next phase in Castilleja and Palo Alto’s shared history, and we welcome feedback from the Historic Resources Board as a valuable step in the process. Thank you for your time. Chair Bower: Thank you. Mindie Romanowsky followed by Aysem Kilinc. Pardon me for mispronouncing names. Mindie Romanowsky: Good morning. My name is Mindie Romanowsky. I am a partner with the law firm of Jorgenson Siegel McClure & Flegel in Menlo Park, and I am the land use attorney representing Castilleja in this project. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning about the cultural resources related to Castilleja’s proposed master plan project in this application. Before we embarked on the design of the master plan, it was critical to understand the historic constraints, so for that reason we hired the historic architecture firm of TreanorHL formerly known as Carey & Co. to educate our team on the historic significance of all of our structures and features on campus. Based on that analysis, we embarked on the thoughtfully designed master plan that you have before you today, and that was studied in the draft EIR, all with respect to the integrity of the historic structures and features on campus. And as a result, when the draft EIR was published we were very pleased that the cultural resources section of the 4.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 16 draft EIR found no significant or unavoidable impacts. Castilleja is deeply interested in ensuring that this EIR evaluates all the CEQA impacts, so that it’s a legally defensible document. To that end, this morning I would like to highlight a few minor items that need to be clarified in the final EIR that are related to cultural resources. They’ve already been touched on, but they include the fact that there was a minor oversight in the cultural resources section indicating that the Gunn Administration Building would not be impacted, and as you’ve heard this morning, it will be slightly impacted to be re-exposing the east façade of the building, and you’ve seen some of the options that have been considered. In any event, we intend to fully comply with the mitigation measures already discussed at 6A and 6B in the draft EIR to respect the features of the Gunn Administration Building throughout construction and into the future. Finally, the question has been raised about the historic integrity of 1263 Emerson, the Lockey House. I think it’s of interest that the house was named after our dear founder, Mary Lockey, but Miss Lockey never did live in the home, and just because a building is named in the memory of someone, legally it does not make it historic. That is not the legal standard. We do have the utmost of respect for our founder, and that’s why we gave it the name. We will likely name other things in her honor in the future. Finally, as you will hear from our historic consultant, there has been follow-up research about the Lockey House and it is of no legal historic significance and we will be submitting detailed comment letters to that end. Thank you very much for your time and your service. Chair Bower: Thank you. Aysem Kilinc and followed by Pria Graves. Aysem Kilinc: Hello. My name is Aysem Kilinc I am an architectural historian at TreanorHL, known as Carey & Company. We are an architectural firm in San Francisco specializing in historic preservation. We looked at the 1263 Emerson Street. The cultural resources study by Dudek only addressed the integrity of the house, but did not look at the historic significance under all California Register criteria. So, we performed additional research on the house. We went to the City of Palo Alto. Oops, that’s okay? Chair Bower: That was not for you. Ms. Kilinc: That was quick. So, we went to the City of Palo Alto, the Assessor’s Office at the County and Palo Alto’s Historical Association and we (not understood) on-line resources, and we reviewed the house at 1263 Emerson Street, but did not find it as significant for listing in the California Register or (not understood). We also reviewed the project that was prepared by WRNS Studio on the administration building, and in general we find that the removal of the connection between two buildings and the addition of new doors and stairs will be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. The project will not adversely affect the character-defining features of the administration building. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you. I apologize for the poor performance on the timer. All right, Pria Graves, followed by Rita Vrhel. I’m sorry again. Pria Graves: Good morning. My name is Pria Graves. I live in College Terrace. Not near this, but I do bicycle by it all the time, and I have already expressed my concerns about the impact on the bicycle boulevard, both of construction and the long-term effect of cars trying to get into the underground garage. This morning, though, I want to keep my comments brief and simply reiterate the concerns about the isolation that is being imposed on the lovely little house at the corner of Emerson and Embarcadero, as well as the impact on the rest of folks on Emerson, losing a lot of their cultural context. They’re losing the houses across the street, which while not wonderful, gives them a residential context, not a commercial context. And I think that’s very dangerous. I would like to see the EIR evaluate more of the surrounding neighborhood, and look at what the impact of this change is. Not all of it is bad, but I think that there are, more evaluation is what’s needed. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thank you. All right. Rita Vrhel: I’d like my time not to start until we can put a slide… Chair Bower: The guy who’s got the slide. 4.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 17 (off mic) Ms. Vrhel: He’s already got it. It’s part of Rob’s discussion. So, please don’t start my time. (off mic) Ms. Vrhel: Does somebody else want to speak? Chair Bower: Dan Chapman is my last card, but I don’t know whether you, yeah, okay. So, we don’t have anybody else. Ms. Vrhel: Bad time to take a break. So, I want the slide of the garage. (off mic) Ms. Vrhel: Okay. So, my name is Rita Vrhel. I live over on Channing Avenue, but I am a Castilleja parent. My daughter went there for five years. I wound encourage you, since the entire DEIR was mentioned in this presentation to review the entire DEIR and you will find when you do, that this DEIR is sloppy, incomplete and very inaccurate. I reviewed sections on geology, dewatering and noise, and the report actually tells us that they cannot tell us the amount of noise for construction because they don’t actually know what equipment will be used. I find that ridiculous as a parent who read Richard Scarry’s construction books to their child. This is basically what will be, the neighbors will be looking at. This is the City Hall garage, but a garage similar to this is proposed for the site of the two houses that are in question regarding historical significance. One of the things that is frequently said is that whoever pays for the report gets the report that they want. I certainly think that this is the situation here. You saw the picture of the Lockey House with the redwood trees behind it. So now this is what the neighbors are going to get on Emerson Street with a park instead of the City Hall building. This in four to five years of constant construction. The two houses in question on Emerson are crucial to Castilleja’s expansion. They’re just not two little houses that have garages. If the garages are making them non-historical at this point, take down the garage. But please ask for another historical analysis, because the analysis that is presented in this sloppy DEIR is inaccurate, incomplete and I think, shameful. Thank you very much. Chair Bower: Thank you. That completes the public comment section. I’d like to bring the discussion back to the Board. In the public comments this morning there were four, and I suggest these are general topics that were addressed. One was the change, all changes to the administration/chapel buildings, and in particular the new stair that’s coming on and how the building, the portion of the administration building that’s going to be revealed by the demolition will be handled. In that discussion, or in comments the compatibility was addressed, massing, size, scale, materials used, architecture and design, and then how those modifications contrast with the existing building so that they are not misinterpreted as original features. Second is tree protection. Third is the Lockey House. And then the fourth, there are actually five, the fourth issue was whether an historic district is a consideration. And finally, whether the DEIR, there are a number of questions about the thoroughness and competence of the DIER. So, if we could, I’d like to go back and talk to staff about how the Lockey House was evaluated, and to start with I imagine that the Lockey House could come before the HRB and be presented as a renovation, and in, if you can imagine that project, what the project designers would argue is that all the changes could be undone and the building could be recovered in its original form. So, when I see a report that says the original features have been compromised, I think about how that could be done in reverse and so I’d like you to address that issue for the community. Is that question clear? So, imagine this in reverse. It’s a renovation and the proposal is to take off all of the changes, undo them, and bring it back to where it was. Why wouldn’t that, yeah, so that approach. And the reason I’m asking that question is because your report says the house has been compromised by changes, but we frequently see projects come to the Board that have, that ask to have the changes reversed and to renovate the building. And so… Female: I think if you were going to propose doing renovations… 4.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Bower: Key your mic. Female: I’m sorry. I think you were going to propose to do renovations to the property that would bring it back to its original appearance, including especially attaching the overall building to the garage and replacing the porch that changed the massing of the building, that maybe you could then, again, after those changes have been implemented, reassess it for significance. Because then it would read as the early 1900’s home that it was initially constructed as. But as it currently stands, I do substantiate the finding in our technical report that as it currently stands, it doesn’t read as it was originally constructed, and lacks the historic integrity to convey its significant association as an early 1900’s building. Chair Bowe: Okay. So, as an example of a project we recently reviewed, it’s the Palo Alto Sport and Toy World on Waverly. It had been significantly modified in the 70’s, took a lot of historic fabric off. They came to the Board and they said, ‘we want to restore this building. You can’t restore historic fabric, but we want to put it back the way it was, because we want a Category 3 designation’, so they can do other things. We approved that project. They’ve done that work and the building now looks remarkably, or when it is completed, it’s almost complete, will look remarkably like it did. Then they would come back. My point here is, the report says that building has no significance, but I can foresee a situation where it could recover its significance. Female: It could, but that’s not the… We are evaluating its existing condition, and we can’t foresee that somebody is going to… It’s not part of the project to say that, it was different if one of the project elements was to look at the Lockey House and say an Option 2 or 3 of the project was to look at it and say, ‘okay, well we’re thinking about bringing it bringing it back.’ That’s different, but then we would still need to reassess it after it’s been brought back. Does that make sense? Chair Bower: Yeah, it does. Female: Because that’s the hard part is that we’re not evaluating somebody’s future plan for it, or even speculative future plan. We have to look at it as it currently stands today. Chair Bower: Absolutely. So, I am reminded, and the reason I’m being somewhat persistent about, in this questioning, in the many seminars I have taken on CEQA application, the one phrase that repeatedly is expressed is, there is no mitigation for demolition. So, once demolition occurs, it’s done. And I’m simply trying to raise the issue that, while this project calls for the demolition of that building, because it currently doesn’t have, doesn’t merit any classification in the City or State or Federal Registers, it still could be renovated. It could be recovered in the future, and once it’s demolished, it’s gone. That’s my point. So, thank you for clarifying that. I have another question for you. The idea that there is an historic district that could be created by houses surrounding the project, could you address what would be considered if an historic district were going to be established? What kinds of criteria would be considered? And I’m sorry, I don’t mean to put you on the spot on this, but just in general what kinds of things would you consider? Female: For a local district you would want to look at the general character of the area and you would want to see, you know, what the, how many contributing buildings, how many noncontributing buildings and establish a period of significance for the neighborhood. But I think it’s important to state that that wasn’t addressed in the report because the study area was limited to the school. So… Chair Bower: I’m not making comment… Female: But, you’re just, the questions focused on, you know, what you’d have to do. Chair Bower: We received as a Board information that suggests that an historic district could be created there, and the purpose of our hearing is to explore that kind of an issue, because that might have impact 4.a Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 19 on this project. So, obviously, the number of contributing buildings would be important, their age. Those are, I think, the threshold. Female: We would want to establish what the period of significance is for the residential district, and you know, what’s the theme of the residential district. Is it based on architecture or is there also an event or significant historical association that it also has tied to? So, I mean, it would be probably an extensive study to figure out what the correct criteria. And maybe it would fall at the local level, it could fall under a few. Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. So, the reason I’m asking the question again is, this is raised. We can’t address it here today, but the significant elements of an historic district would be, as you point out, the number of buildings, the area, its significance, the district’s significance in Palo Alto’s history, maybe the people who lived there, the architects who designed buildings in there, the people who paid for and lived in the buildings. Those are the things that made Professorville an historic district. They created Professorville as an historic district because it was a multitude of factors, and in the information presented to us as a Board, there is really just the beginnings of an idea of a district, and I didn’t see in that information, and it’s not part of your job or description in terms of this project to evaluate that, but I bring up all of this and I’m being verbose about this, because I don’t see that that has a really likely potential of being an historic district based on what we normally see. Female: You would also want to make sure that you understood what, you’d have to establish an historic boundary for the district, exactly. Or, you know, in addition. Chair Bower: Right. Good luck with that. We had a lot of trouble with Professorville establishing a district in this City for years and years and years, so. Okay. I don’t want to dominate the discussion. Deb, did you have a question? Board Member Shepherd: I just had a point of clarification. I’m sorry, I didn’t get your name. You’re sitting in the last row in the back there, yes. So, you presented some information about the Lockey House, a further evaluation that you did to supplement what we received from Dudek. Who engaged you to do that? Aysem Kilinc: Hello. Aysem Kilinc. Castilleja School engaged us to look at the property’s historic significance. Board Member Shepherd: Thank you very much. I’m sorry I missed that, and that seemed important. Chair Bower: Martin. Board Member Shepherd: I just want to finish. Chair Bower: There is another question for you. Do you have a question? (crosstalk) Board Member Shephard: And I just want to comment on that, because Annie, when you presented we had received that information as a Board in a letter, but in your presentation today, you didn’t reference what we also received, which you just referred to, which is an additional report from our architectural historian named Kostura, which addressed or raises these questions about the Lockey House, and about other historic potentially contributing buildings in the neighborhood. And it just raises questions and I feel not enough research has been done. Go ahead. Ms. Kilinc: I just want to add one more thing. We will be submitting a detailed letter to the City that covers all our research and evaluation for the Lockey House. 4.a Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Bower: Martin, you have a question for the same. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. Aysem is your name? Ms. Kilinc: Aysem. Board Member Bernstein: Aysem, Aysem, thanks. So, first question just for process, is your report in the draft Environmental Impact Report? Ms. Kilinc: No, it isn’t. Board Member Bernstein: So, I think it would be useful, I believe, for the HRB to see your report, so is there a process where we can see reports, we can evaluate what you’re reporting? Ms. Kilinc: We will submit a letter to the City by Monday, so you can see it, I guess, on Monday. I don’t know how to process. Board Member Bernstein: Okay, because there might be an opportunity based on what you present in your report that the HRB may have some comments on it. So, I don’t know what the process is of how we can see your report and then comment on it if we think comments are appropriate. Ms. Kilinc: I think Amy is going to… Chair Bower: Amy. Ms. French: It’s Amy French. The comments are due on Monday for the draft Environmental Impact Report in its entirety, including the cultural resources and the supplementing documents, the technical documents. The document that the applicant’s historic preservation specialist refers to was not a part of the draft EIR, so comments on that are not due on Monday, because they’re not part of the draft EIR. Board Member Bernstein: Right. Ms. French: So, you know, certainly any application materials we receive from the applicant we post to the project web page, you know, plans and the like. This is a report. We will be happy to post that to our, you know, community facing electronic files. I’m happy to send it to you in the next packet or however by email, I’m happy to do that, once received. Board Member Bernstein: All right. Thanks. And then, let’s see, the HRB received by email an historic commentary from William Kostura. Is that part of the draft environmental impact? Is that included in the draft EIR also? Ms. French: It is not. It’s a comment. Amy French again. It is a comment on the draft EIR that is considered in preparation of the final. So, you know, staff and the consultant will be combing through all the comments and the final EIR addresses the comments, so it’s a comment on the draft EIR. Board Member Bernstein: Okay. Ms. Reed: If I may… Chair Bower: Could you tell us again who you are. Ms. Reed: Yes. My name is Andie Reed and I’m with the neighborhood group that surrounds this area and we asked Mr. Kostura to take a walk with us around the neighborhood and, yes, I agree it comes close to what may be an historic district, but he says in the report that it’s a draft and it’s a start at it, and that it wouldn’t likely qualify the high levels of that designation, but rather to… I’m trying to let you 4.a Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 21 all understand how this neighborhood and its eclectic older houses, how important it is to all of us to retain that character. And our request not to have that impacted. We’re not against the school modernizing. We don’t want the underground garage, the houses torn down in our neighborhood for the underground garage. Thank you. Board Member Bernstein: Question for Kathryn or Katie. Under, when you presented your alternatives, I did not see on the list of project alternatives to retain the two homes on Emerson Street. Would that be appropriate to add as a project alternative? Ms. Wha (phonetic): CEQA requires that when we look at project alternatives, they are alternatives that can meet most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially reducing one of the project’s significant environmental effects. So, based on the draft EIR analysis, we didn’t find any significant environmental effects that are directly tied to a loss of those two houses, and that’s why we didn’t look at that as a project alternative. However, as we go through all of the comments that are, have been received and will be received, if that has been raised as a community concern, so that’s definitely something that we will do a little bit more work on or perhaps a lot more work on to refine the analysis and determine whether or not we need to elevate that concern to be an environmental impact. But there’s a lot of, you know, the CEQA guidelines really direct how we determine whether something is a significant impact or not, and so that is really tied to that consideration. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you for that. Also, on the DEIR on packet page 118, you can turn to that before I ask my question. When you’re ready I’ll ask my question. Packet page 118. Ms. French: Is there a paragraph? Board Member Bernstein: Under Emerson’s three properties, it says ‘the property no longer retains integrity and, therefore, not qualified to be, for historic. So, I see these words here. Is there a report, an historic report that’s in this DEIR that supports that conclusion? I didn’t see one, but maybe you know if there is such a report. Ms. Wha (phonetic): So, that page that you’re looking at, that is part of the historic resources evaluation. So, the text, you know, that section, so the prior page there’s a heading that says “CRHR Criterion Three”. So, this is the analysis and I believe that sort of the history and the documentation of the changes that have occurred to these properties are also presented in that report. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. And who’s the qualified historic person who prepared that report? Ms. Wha (phonetic) So, that’s the report that was prepared by Dudek, the primary preparer is Samantha Murray. She and Katie have worked together and work on reviewing the materials. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you for that. All right, just my last comment in support of Chair Bower’s comment about the reversibility of projects. The HRB has reviewed and approved other projects where based on enough documentation what was an original house from the turn of the century, the HRB has approved renovations that removed and reversed non-historic things to it. So, that would be something that I think the HRB, or at least I’m interested in seeing further information on that aspect for the Lockey House. Thank you. Chair Bower: So, Michael, you’re next Margaret. Board Member Makinen: I’d just like to comment on Chair Bower’s thought about the historic district. I think that does have merit. This school may have had significant influence on the early Palo Alto history, and I think that it’s not been captured adequately and a consideration of an historic district theme, I think the EIR downplays that. And I think it really should be explored in more detail, the potential to be an historic district. 4.a Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Shepherd: Can I add to that? Chair Bower: Certainly. Board Member Shepherd: I agree when you mentioned the word theme. I think the unique relationship historically between the school and the community is something that, it’s a very delicate balance, but it’s a story worth telling and we should be careful not to lose it. Board Member Makinen: Yeah, there’s some significant early contributors to this school, I think, that are worthy of being recognized as part of an historic district. Of course, the event would be the contribution to the education of the City in its early formative days. All those things should be considered in an historic district report. I don’t think they’re adequately addressed here. Chair Bower: Okay. Martin has to leave in eight minutes. Margaret you had a comment and then I’d like to bring it back to the Chair. Board Member Wimmer: Yes. When we were just discussing the Lockey House, and the fact that the alterations over the years have rendered it potentially no longer historic, were those alterations done by Castilleja School? Ms. French: They purchased it in 1990. Board Member Wimmer: So, I believe those alterations were done by Castilleja? Ms. French: Yeah, 1993. I’ll bring up those slides again that I prepared. In 1993 Castilleja acquired and modified, changed the address to Emerson. That’s correct, okay. Back before Castilleja acquired it, in the 70’s, the garage that was oriented to Melville was removed, so that was maybe the original garage, I don’t know, or it could have been later. The orientation of the lots was changed from Melville to Emerson. The new garage came in 1979, 1991, sorry. This was also before Castilleja purchased the property. And this looks like the original entry, and that was replaced in 1998 with this modification that added the porch. Board Member Wimmer: Right, but the report says that both residences were acquired by Castilleja in, oh, in the 1990’s. It was not specific. Ms. French: Yeah, 1993 was the date that Castilleja, was the year. Board Member Wimmer: 1993. So, the alterations that rendered it potentially no longer historic were done prior to Castilleja acquiring the property, or did they, in fact, do those alterations? Ms. French: I believe Castilleja did those alterations in 1998. Board Member Wimmer: So, I mean, isn’t that kind of… Chair Bower: Let me interject here. I worked on this house in the 80’s, not in the 90’s. I did a kitchen remodel on the original house. The garage was there. This house, my clients exchanged this house for a house across the street at 1310 Emerson, and then they tore that house down and I built them a new one. My understanding is Castilleja did the entrance modifications and the connection of the house to the garage, because when I worked there in the 80’s, it didn’t exist. So, I think Castilleja, I’m not certain about this, but I think Castilleja owned the building when those modifications were made. Ms. French: I’m sorry, so you said the kitchen remodel happened in the 80’s. So, that’s before Castilleja owned it. Chair Bower: Right, yeah. Because I worked for the then owners, who now… 4.a Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Ms. French: So, that’s back here, this kitchen area, I guess. Is that the kitchen. Board Member Wimmer: But I think the alteration that most significantly alters it is the connection between the garage and the main house, and the addition of the front entry porch, which was done by Castilleja, correct? (crosstalk) Board Member Wimmer: So, I guess what I’m leading to is now they’ve done that, now they can say that it renders it potentially no longer historic. I just was bringing up that point. Ms. French: Well, to be clear, it was not put, when Dames and Moore did the study in 1998 to 2000, this was on the potential list. They went through both those priority lists one and two, and then 165 ended up being sent to the State as National Register eligible. So, it was evaluated for, you know, on some level, as many others were, and then there were only, you know, a couple, over 100 that ended up National Register eligible. We still do have an obligation to evaluate homes for California Register eligible before issuing demolition permits. Those that were initially identified as potentially eligible. Board Member Wimmer: And then my second quick question is, I mean it seems to be that there are some themes that the public is bringing up. You know, being sensitive to the neighborhood in general, you know, the trees and other miscellaneous thing. So, does the EIR, now it’s a draft, but does it take it a step further and address some of those, you know, themes that seem to be coming up in terms of what the, how the community is reviewing this and what their questions are? Do you address those specifically? Ms. Wha (phonetic): Yes. So, the final EIR will have two main parts. One is the responses to comments and the second is any revisions that we make to the draft EIR. You know, as I said before, CEQA has some really strict guidelines as to what would consider as an environmental affect, and so sometimes the responses to things that are, you know, important to the community still don’t raise to the level of what CEQA would consider to be an environmental affect. So, we certainly address all of that in the responses to comments, because that is… You know, the City needs to consider more than just the environmental review in deliberating upon a project. But CEQA has a fairly well-defined envelop of what is considered an environmental impact and what is more of a community concern. So, we do, in the responses to comments try to make those kinds of issues clear, and then where the comments have touched upon something that is an environmental issue, then we do make modifications to the draft EIR to help clarify or elaborate upon or amplify some of the analysis. Chair Bower: So, Martin has to leave shortly. Do you want to make a quick comment, because I want, before you leave? Board Member Bernstein: Yes, thank you. The issue of the demolition of protected trees, is that listed anywhere in the draft Environmental Impact Report? Ms. Wha (phonetic): Yes. That’s evaluated in the land-use chapter. There’s a table that identifies each tree and what is proposed to happen to that tree, and then was mitigation needs to happen to ensure that the project complies with the City’s tree preservation and replacement ordinance. Board Member Bernstein: Great. So, Adam, on your tree page T2.0, you list, well, you name, I mean the name of your company is on it, but it’s BFS Landscape is actually the author of the plan. It does list tree number 112, which is a redwood to be removed, but on, maybe you can make a comment to the BFS Landscape architects. It doesn’t show on that plan that it’s going to be removed, so that should be corrected. It’s tree number 112, and that’s on page T2.0. (off mic) 4.a Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Bower: Martin, I want to honor your need to leave. Board Member Bernstein: I have one more question. Chair Bower: Okay, then you have to stay until… Ms. French: Just to clarify, because you’re bringing up plans, we’re not really focused on the plans to day. I don’t have a set in front of me, but we’re pretty sure what you’re referring to is a tree that was removed several years ago. So, because it was determined to be diseased. Board Member Bernstein: Good, okay. Ms. French: Yeah. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you for that. This is my last comment and then Chair will take his comment. So, I’d like to enter into the record to request that the ARB does refer the proposed modifications to the Gunn structure to the HRB. Thank you. Chair Bower: Okay. So, what I would like to do is just briefly poll Board Members. My sense of our hearing today is that the Board, in questions we have asked have concerns about the Gunn Administration Building’s modifications, the Lockey House evaluation and historic district consideration. So, I would say, I’m interested in knowing if Board Members feel that those are areas where the draft EIR has, is not sufficient and that we, whether or not Board Members feel that they should be addressed more fully and also to follow up on Martin’s suggestion. I do think that the HRB should see the final design considerations for the Administration Gunn Building as part of our normal oversight. So, is that a fair evaluation of our, evaluation of this particular DEIR? I’m not going to take a vote. It’s just a sense of the Board kind of issue. So, if there is support for those things, is that, could you just indicate? (off mic) Chair Bower: Margaret, I feel the same. Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, I agree. Chair Bower: All right. So then the response to the portions of the DEIR that we have purview over, it seems that Board would like more information about the three items I just mentioned, and that they be addressed in a final draft, and that for Amy and the ARB interface, maybe you can communicate with them that we would like to see this. I would be happy to be there with you to do that. Ms. French: Sure. And they would receive a copy of the minutes of this meeting as well. Chair Bower: All right. I think, since Martin has to leave and I think we’ve covered questions that would wrap up Item number two on our agenda, and that will go to housekeeping. Maybe we’ll take a five- minute break to allow those people who don’t need to be in our housekeeping issues to leave. Thank you all for participating today. This is what makes projects better. I know that it’s not always reassuring when you come to meetings like this, but all input is taken seriously and it does improve the final result. So, thank you again for coming. [The Board took a short break after which the Board moved to City Official Reports.] Approval of Minutes 4.a Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 25 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of July 25, 2019. Chair Bower: All right, and then the last item is approval of minutes, not the last item. That’s the second to the last item. I continue to be frustrated by the transcriptions, but that’s probably the result of my inability to be articulate and clear. But anybody have any changes or additions to the minutes for July 25th? Not hearing any, do I have a motion to approve? Board Member Wimmer: I move to approve the minutes. Chair Bower: Second? Board Member Shepherd: I have to abstain, because I wasn’t at the meeting. Board Member Makinen: I abstain too. I wasn’t there. Chair Bower: I could second it. Why don’t we just push this forward, continue the consideration when we have our next meeting? Ms. French: Well, I mean, because they’re pretty much verbatim, I think delaying approving them might be detrimental to the process that they’re in with that NVCAP. Chair Bower: Okay, I’ll second. All in favor say aye. All opposed? All abstain. Okay, two in favor, two abstentions, no denials. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 2-0, BOARD MEMBERS SHEPHERD AND MAKINEN ABSTAINED, VICE CHAIR COREY, BOARD MEMBERS BERNSTEIN AND KOHLER ABSENT Subcommittee Items Chair Bower: Subcommittee Items, the Subcommittee for the Palo Alto Sport and Toy World Building is going to meet after this meeting and conclude what I think is the final issue about the tile. We don’t have any other subcommittees currently active. Any Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bower: Any Board Member questions, comments, announcements? Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I have a question. I know that each year we’re required to do some educational programs. I don’t believe I’ve done any this year, that I recall. Chair Bower: Neither have I. Board Member Wimmer: It’s a calendar year, right? Ms. French: Yeah. There’s something coming up, a few things coming up. I can send those out and gently encourage. You know, there’s so many opportunities. There’s webinars and this kind of thing that you can do for, you know, and let us know about them. Chair Bower: They haven’t had very many here in the Bay Area when I’ve been in town. So, I haven’t gone to any this year either. But webinars are, they are a possibility. Board Member Makinen: I took the webinar from the California Preservation Foundation on contextual infill. Chair Bower: Oh yeah. 4.a Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Makinen: It was pretty good. Ms. French: And so, any time you do take some kind of course, you should alert me so then, you know, I have this task every year to prepare this annual report of how’s our driving. Not so good on my part. Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I’ll send you an email. Chair Bower: All right, good. Any other comments, questions? No. Not seeing any, then I’ll adjourn the meeting. Thank you all. Adjournment 4.a Packet Pg. 114