The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-05-14 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: May 14, 2020 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV Channel 26 and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/. Members of the public may comment by sending an email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda. Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 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. 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [20PLN- 00024]: Request for Historic Designation Reclassification, From a Local Historic Resource Category 3 to a Category 2, of the Cardinal Hotel Located Within the National Register of Historic Places’ Ramona Street Architectural District. Environmental Assessment: No project under California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Zone District: CD-C (GF)(P) - Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. For More Information Contact Amy French, amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Hotel President, 488 University Avenue [19PLN- 00038]: Review of Proposed Building Modifications for Compliance with Secretary of the Interior's Standards; Architectural Review Application to Modify a Local Inventory Category 2 Resource, Including Interior and Exterior Renovations, to Convert Residentially Used Spaces to Hotel Use. The Building is Considered a Legal Non- Complying Facility, and is Eligible for Listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Environmental Assessment: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exempt per Guidelines 15301 for Existing Structures, 15302 for Reconstruction and 15331 for Restoration of Historic Resource. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 9, 2020 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Historic Resources Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://bit.ly/PAHRB. The HRB Boardmembers are: Chair David Bower Vice Chair Deborah Shepherd Boardmember Martin Bernstein Boardmember Roger Kohler Boardmember Michael Makinen Boardmember Christian Pease Boardmember Margaret Wimmer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Public comment is encouraged. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. 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. _______________________ 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. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrb@CityofPaloAlto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 935 2189 4451 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11326) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/14/2020 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: • 2020 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) 1 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 Cancelled 1/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 2/13/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 3/12/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 3/26/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled Shepherd, Pease 4/9/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Bower 4/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 5/14/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/28/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers TBD 6/11/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers TBD Shepherd 6/25/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers TBD 7/9/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 7/23/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 8/13/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/27/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd 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 # 11087) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/14/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 235 Hamilton Avenue (Cardinal Hotel) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [20PLN-00024]: Request for Historic Designation Reclassification, From a Local Historic Resource Category 3 to a Category 2, of the Cardinal Hotel Located Within the National Register of Historic Places’ Ramona Street Architectural District. Environmental Assessment: No project under California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Zone District: CD-C (GF)(P) - Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. For More Information Contact Amy French, amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend the City Council reclassify the building from a ‘Contributing Building’ Category 3 resource to a ‘Major Building’ Category 2 resource on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Report Summary This report is to support the review of a requested reclassification of the Cardinal Hotel, currently listed as a Category 3 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory. The hotel is located at 235 Hamilton Avenue as shown on the location map (Attachment A). The hotel site is located within a National Register Historic District; the Ramona Street Architectural District. The reclassification request is for an upgrade to a Category 2 resource. On October 24, 2019, the City’s consultant, Page and Turnbull, prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE). The evaluation found the Cardinal Hotel individually eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Architecture). 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The HRB is requested to recommend the reclassification. Specifically, the HRB may affirm that the building retains its integrity and determine the building’s consistency with the definition of a Category 2 historic resource as a ‘Major Building’. The HRB’s purview, as set forth in PAMC Section 16.49.040, includes recommending the reclassification to the City Council for approval, disapproval or modification. Background 1978 Inventory and 1985 Inventory Update The hotel was first evaluated and added to the local historic inventory in May of 1978 as a Category 3 resource. The inventory form was later updated on March 4, 1985 (Attachment B), when the property was deemed a contributing building to the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District (Attachment C). The 1985 Inventory form described the Cardinal Hotel as follows: ‘The three-story structure is rather more classical and formal than the Spanish Colonial Revival buildings of the Ramona Street Historic District, but it is important as a visual landmark and anchor.’1 The March 4, 1985 form update occurred before the nomination of the Ramona Street Architectural District for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Cardinal Hotel and Owner’s Request The Cardinal Hotel is a three-story hotel building with ground-floor retail uses located on Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue. The building was designed by a prolific California architect, William H. Weeks, in 1924. The Palo Alto Improvement Company retained Weeks as part of its effort to bring commercial development to Hamilton Avenue and to Palo Alto in general. Birge Clark was the supervising architect and the Cardinal Hotel is an important early project of his career. The building was built by John Madsen, a local general contractor. The Cardinal Hotel was developed as part of a group of eight buildings planned and constructed from 1924 to 1938. These buildings are found historically significant, as they represented an architecturally unified area. On May 21, 1985, the Ramona Street Architectural District was nominated and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). As a contributing property in the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District, the Cardinal Hotel is automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (Attachment C). The Cardinal Hotel is in excellent condition and remains largely unaltered under the ownership of the Dahls since 1944. The Dahls, now the third generation, still own the Cardinal Hotel. The Dahls now request the HRB to consider the building’s eligibility as a local inventory Category 2 resource – as a ‘Major Building’ in the local inventory. 1 Local historic inventory form for 235 Hamilton Avenue, updated on March 4, 1985 (Attachment B) 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 The Cardinal Hotel is located within the Commercial Downtown Community (CD-C) zone district, with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts. The site is also located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Historic Resource Evaluation The attached Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment D) considered the current historic status, provided a building description, and included a summary of historic context for the Cardinal Hotel. Specifically, the HRE included an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The HRE report, dated October 24, 2019, found the Cardinal Hotel individually eligible for CRHR listing under Criterion 1 (Events) and 3 (Architecture). Criteria for Designation and Historic Resource Category Definitions As a contributing building within the National Register Ramona Street Architectural District, the Cardinal Hotel has met the criteria for designation that are set forth in the City’s historic preservation ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49.040 (b) (Attachment E). Furthermore, PAMC Section 16.49,020 (b) provides definitions for the four inventory categories. A Category 3 building is defined as follows: 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. A Category 2 building is defined in the PAMC Section 16.49.020(b) as follows: 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. HRB Purview of Resources in the Downtown and Historic District Reclassification of the Cardinal Hotel from a Category 3 to a Category 2 resource would not change the current historic review process and standards for exterior alterations. Exterior alterations are not proposed at this time. Exterior modifications to the building or land use changes would be subject to meeting the CD-C (GF)(P) development standards and the Citywide Retail Preservation Ordinance. Benefits of Reclassification 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 As a contributing building in a national registered historic district, the Cardinal Hotel has a greater chance of obtaining grants or tax credits for rehabilitation. Such benefits are provided at the state and federal levels. The Cardinal Hotel is also eligible for historic preservation incentives set forth in the California Historical Building Code and the California’s energy standards. Reclassification from a Category 3 to a Category 2 resource at the local level would allow the Cardinal Hotel to participate in the CD-Zone’s Floor Area Bonus program upon completion of rehabilitation project. The current program only allows Category 1 and 2 resources in the local historic inventory to request a Historic Rehabilitation Bonus. Floor Area Bonus for Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation The property is currently identified as a seismic Category II building. Following reclassification to a Category 2 historic resource, the property could complete rehabilitations and request a Combined Historic and Seismic Bonus (double bonus) under PAMC Section 18.18.070(a)(4). Both seismic and historic rehabilitation would have to comply with standards referenced in PAMC Chapter 16.42 and the SOI standards. The Combined Bonus (double bonus) would allow the Cardinal Hotel to increase its floor area by 5,000 square feet or 50% of the existing building, whichever is greater. Reclassification followed by rehabilitation could allow the site to gain 15,534 square feet of floor area bonus.2 A floor area bonus does not count toward the gross floor area; however, the bonus area must be fully parked subject to applicable restrictions. That is, the bonus does not come with free parking – parking in lieu fees must be paid for the bonus area, or parking must be provided on site or within 500 feet of the site. The current gross floor area ratio (FAR) of the Cardinal Hotel is 2.832, where the maximum allowable FAR for the site is 3.0 in the CD-C zone. The double bonus area could be used partially on the site up to the allowable 3:1 FAR or transferred fully to another eligible non-historic receiver site in the CD zone. Any on-site use of bonus area on the Cardinal Hotel site would need City Council approval. Such approval is discretionary and may only be granted subject to specific findings.3 PAMC Section 18.18.080 governs the process to transfer bonus floor area (partially or entirely) to eligible non-historic receiver site(s) in the Downtown area. Analysis Italian Renaissance Revival Style 2 The gross floor area of the Cardinal Hotel is currently assessed as 31,068 square feet. The floor area bonus noted in this report is an approximate based on the plan submitted for the historic reclassification request. Further verification of the building’s gross floor area would be required upon the City’s review of detailed architectural drawings. 3 PAMC subsection 18.18.070(b)(8)(A), ‘The City Council must approve on-site use of such a FAR [Combined] bonus, Such approval is discretionary, and may be granted only upon making both of the following findings: (i) The exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR § 67,7); and (ii) The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be inconsistent with the historic character of the interior and exterior of the building and site. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 The Cardinal Hotel is stucco-clad three-story building that was designed in Italian Renaissance Revival style. The common characteristics of the Italian Renaissance style that are found on the Hotel Cardinal include, but are not limited to: - Flat and symmetrical facades - Flat roof decorated with clay tiles - Denticulate box cornice topped with clay tile - Pilasters with vintage car motifs - Decorative entrances accented by classical columns and exaggerated stonework courses - Horizontal bands or stone string courses to visually separate floor The modified Neo-Classical elements of the Cardinal Hotel do not fall neatly into the architectural styles of Monterey Colonial and Spanish Colonial Revival found in seven other buildings of the historic district. The Cardinal Hotel was included in the District for two reasons4: 1. The structure is an important urban design element as it balances the four-story Medico-Dental building on the opposite corner, 2. The Cardinal Hotel, which is finished with many of the materials identical to those of the other buildings in the district, complements these other structures and reinforces the visual character of the street. Along with 255-267 Hamilton Avenue, the Cardinal Hotel is one of the taller structures at the corner of Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue that completes the form of the street which would otherwise be composed of one- to three-story structures. The Cardinal Hotel is a good representation of its architectural style and it is modest enough to blend with the surrounding buildings in its scale, form and finishes as a contributing building in the District. Building Modifications Over the years, the Cardinal Hotel was upgraded for adaptive modern uses and general maintenance. Some of the notable changes are: - Removal of original flagpole on the roof - Repainting of façades, both three-dimensional details of the window enframements and the flat façade were painted in the same color different from the original color palette - Replacement of all original four-over-two double wood-sash with on-over-one metal- sash windows on the upper floors - Replacement of windows and doors on the ground floor in commercial spaces and main lobby entrances - Consolidation of original seven commercial spaces into four - Removal of two original store entrance doors on the Hamilton Avenue elevation for a new recessed corner entrance - Relocation of two store entrance doors on the Ramona Street elevation Local Significance as major building 4 National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form for the Ramona Street Architectural District dated May 21, 1985, Attachment C 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The Cardinal Hotel appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Architecture)5. The Cardinal Hotel is not only significant as a contributing building within a historic district. Its role in Palo Alto’s commercial development and the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction are also found significant as an individual historic resource at the state level. • Major regional importance The Cardinal Hotel was built as a first-class hotel in 1924 to attract business to the University South neighborhood and to the greater Palo Alto. Within the recognized Ramona Street Architectural District (the District), the Cardinal Hotel was the first building constructed to anchor this commercial development prior to the Great Depression. The Cardinal Hotel became an important social and recreational space for Palo Alto as well as providing commercial uses. • Meritorious works of the best architects The Cardinal Hotel was designed by a notable California architect, William H. Weeks, and a young Birge Clark. Both are considered as influential architects in the California and Palo Alto’s history. The Cardinal Hotel is a good example of Week’s work with classical features including columns, pilasters and modillion cornice. Many of the more Spanish Colonial Revival features on the Cardinal Hotel are believed to be Clark’s additions, as the Spanish Colonial Revival becomes his signature style. Their work on the Cardinal Hotel helped to shape the visual identity of this important commercial development in Palo Alto. • Stylistic development of architecture in the state or region The interior lobby of the Cardinal Hotel is significant for its craftsmanship and the interior work is reflective of the 1920s American Arts and Crafts Movement. The original features like mosaic tile flooring, a box-beam ceiling, a fireplace under a large shield, decorative columns and pilasters back dated to 1924 are still intact. • Distinctive architectural character and style The Cardinal Hotel has undergone minimal alterations since its construction in 1924. Overall massing and form have remained unchanged. Many of past alterations were in-kind and could be reversible. The most substantial changes have occurred on the ground floor commercial spaces, including changes to storefront doors and display windows. Though, the general organization of the commercial façade that consists of bulkheads, display windows, a ribbon of storefront transom windows above has been maintained. On the upper floors, most windows were replaced within the original fenestration openings. The window rhythms along with all the original decorative details on the façade have remained intact. 5 Historic resource evaluation (HRE) conducted by Page and Turnbull, Inc. October 24, 2019 is Attachment D 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 In its current state, the Cardinal Hotel retains most of the character-defining features, which enable the property to convey its historic identity and significance. The character-defining features of the Cardinal Hotel include, but are not limited to6: Exterior, upper stories • Symmetry of the street façades • Material palette of stucco, terra cotta, wrought iron, and clay tile • Decorative end bays with cast concrete surrounds of foliate Renaissance detail • 10-lite wood casement windows in end bays and in paired central bays on Hamilton Avenue façade • 10-lite wood casement windows in paired central bays on Hamilton Avenue façade • Spandrel panels with shields between windows on second and third stories along both primary façades • Horizontal band course to visually separate ground floor commercial uses from the hotel uses in the second and third floors • Centrally placed cartouche on third story of Hamilton Avenue façade • Wrought iron Juliet balconies along Hamilton Avenue façade • Denticulated box cornice with clay tile • Flat roof Exterior, ground floor • Recessed entrances for access to the hotel lobby on both Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street • Hamilton Avenue entrance accented by classical spiral Corinthian columns and pilasters • Metal marquees over hotel entrances • Organization and rhythm of storefronts with bulkhead, display windows, recessed entrances, and transom windows • Storefront transom windows arranged with fixed-sash, operable transoms, and fixed art glass, separated by mullions with an applied engaged turned post • Foliated terra cotta pilasters with vintage car motifs Interior, lobby • Batchelder Tile Company fireplace • Box beamed ceiling • Decorative tile flooring • Lighting fixtures by Otar the Lampmaker • Columns with rams’ head capitals and spiraled applied colonnettes • Skylight • Textured walls • Three-dimensional shield over fireplace • Open interior volume with wide halls to primary and secondary entrances 6 Excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation conducted by Page and Turnbull, Inc. on October 24, 2019, page 28-29. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 Seven Aspects of Integrity The Cardinal Hotel retains a high degree of all seven aspects of integrity, which effectively explain why, where, when and how this property is significant. The seven aspects that define integrity are location, setting design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The integrity assessment of the Cardinal Hotel is outlined as follows7: Location The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of location as it has remained in its original location. Setting The Cardinal Hotel substantially retains integrity of setting. The Cardinal Hotel is closely associated with its neighboring buildings along the 500 Block of Ramona Street. These buildings, which are contributing buildings with the Cardinal Hotel in the Ramona Street Architectural District, are substantially unaltered and share a primary period of development and significance with the subject building. The construction of new buildings across Hamilton Avenue have maintained a compatible height and massing and do not impact the general character of the commercial corridor immediately adjacent to the Cardinal Hotel. The construction of the Palo Alto Civic Center and City Hall across the intersection from the subject building is the most noticeable change to the immediate setting, but the creation of a public plaza and park at this corner has only increased the prominence of the Cardinal Hotel and the 500 block of Ramona Street. Therefore, the Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of setting. Design The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of design. The subject property has undergone minimal alteration since its construction in 1924. The building’s massing and overall form have remained unchanged. Alterations to the building’s fenestration include the replacement of the building’s four-over-two double-hung wood-sash windows with modern one-over-one hung metal sash. Changes to the colors of the façade have occurred but are reversible. Additionally, alterations to the building’s ground floor include the internal rearrangement (or combination) of commercial units and the replacement of storefront windows and doors, however the rhythm of openings remains largely intact. Thus, these alterations do not negatively impact the building’s overall design. The original design of the interior lobby and lounge remains substantially intact, and those minimal alterations that have occurred have been respectful of the materials, decoration, craftsmanship, and massing of this important interior space. Therefore, the subject building retains integrity of design. Materials 7 Excerpt from the Historic Resource Evaluation conducted by Page and Turnbull, Inc. on October 24, 2019, page 30-32. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 The Cardinal Hotel substantially retains integrity of materials. The subject property has undergone minimal alterations since its original construction in 1924. While replacements have been made to windows, doors, and storefronts, the other materials of the façade including the stucco finish, the terra cotta pilasters, cast concrete decorative elements, and the metal balconies and marquees, have remained intact. On the interior, original features and materials are largely intact. Where replacement has been necessary, such as the use of gold paint in place of gold leaf, the impact has been minimal. The replacement of storefront windows and doors has effected the largest change in original material; however, alterations have been in kind and the large glass display windows that characterize the façade remain extant. These minor alterations do not detract from the overall character or design of the building, the Cardinal Hotel substantially retains integrity of materials. Workmanship The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of workmanship. Many of the material choices and design elements that are characteristic of the building’s period of development and Italian Renaissance Revival style have been retained to a high degree. The building’s interior lobby remains highly intact regarding workmanship and is a significant example of the craftsmanship of the American Arts and Crafts movement. The restoration of the wrought iron lamps, tile flooring, and interior finishes has been sensitive and had maintained original features. Feeling The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of feeling. The property was originally designed for use as a hotel with commercial space along the ground floor and has been continually used as such since its opening in 1924. The building’s location, setting, design, materials, and workmanship have been retained, enabling the building to convey the overall feeling of a 1920s Italian Renaissance Revival hotel. Association The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of association. It retains a high level of integrity and conveys its association with the commercialization of the University South neighborhood, the growing profile of Palo Alto’s downtown in the 1920s, and its Italian Renaissance Revival design as an important collaboration between William H. Weeks and Birge Clark. Staff recommendations Staff concurs with the findings of the Page and Turnbull, Inc. evaluation. Therefore, staff supports the Cardinal Hotel owners in their request to upgrade the hotel’s Local Inventory classification from a Category 3 to a Category 2 resource. It appears that the Cardinal Hotel is of major regional importance as the first commercial anchor in the Ramona Street Architectural District. The building represents the meritorious work of William H. Weeks and Birge Clark. In its current state, the Cardinal Hotel has retained many of the character-defining features on the exterior facades and in the interior lobby. The building retains a high degree of all seven integrity to convey its significance and the original character remains intact. It is evident the Cardinal Hotel exceeds the criterion set forth for Category 3 buildings and it is more appropriately classified as a Category 2 resource in the local historic inventory 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 Environmental Review Maintenance of historic designation of a property or reclassification of historic designation of a property is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Notice of this HRB hearing appeared in the Daily Post on March 13, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the reclassification request for further discussion 2. Deny the reclassification request and the property will remain a Category 3 building Report Author & Contact Information HRB8 Liaison & Contact Information Christy Fong, Project Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (480) 304-5642 x 110 (650) 329-2336 Cfong@m-group.us amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A - Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B - Historic Resource Inventory - Category 3 (PDF) • Attachment C - Ramona Street Architectural District National Register Nomination (PDF) • Attachment D - Historic Resource Evaluation, by Page and Turnbull Inc Final (PDF) • Attachment E - PAMC Section 16.49.040 (b) Criteria for Designation (DOCX) 8 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 v Ctr Old Pro H a milton_Building N o la 25.0'7.5' 40.0' 75.0' 125.0' 125.0' 50.0' 102.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 25.0' 46.0' 100.0' 46.0' 100.0' 50.0' 35.0' 5.0' 15.0' 5.0' 50.0' 40.0' 100.0' 104.0' 100.0' 114.0' 50.0' 5.0'15.0'5.0' 35.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 0 0 35.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0'100. 125.0' 100. 100. 200 61 208 228 220 240 201 209 215 225 595 229 231 538- 542 536534 552548546 541- 547 230-238 23 5 530 545 581 533 535 537 26 1 26 7 532 520-526 555 539 528 247 53 541 600 597 602 604 R A M O N A S T R E E T E T H A MILT O N A V E N U E LA N E 12 W E S T LA N E 1 W A L K This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 0'51' Location Map 235 Hamilton Avenue (Cardinal Hotel) 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, 2020-02-28 23:33:42Parcel Report Online (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Property Line Subject Property 2.a Packet Pg. 17 S1•11 of California -The RemurC9S Agenc:y DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO REC,,EATION HlSTORIC REJE'URCES INVENTORY ( M"t~ .5-V-lrcc. _) !ENTIFICATION Cat. llI 1. Common name: Cardinal Hotel > s.r _____ _ $, ______ Mo. Yr. c o lTTM-------0 IC ____ __,NR _ SHL_ ::, ; Lai ______ Lon _____ Era_ Sig_ i Adm T2 T3 Cat HASS HAER Fed ------- 2. Historic name. if known:----------------------=---=------------ 3. Street or rural adqress __ 2_3-5_Ha_rn_:i _l_to_n_A_v_e_('-R_arn_o_n.;..a_S_t_r_e_e.;..t_Hi_';..;.s..;;.t..;;.o;;;..ri;;;..;;.c_Ui~s;;..;t;.;;r-=1::.;;c-t""') ______ _ City: __ P_a_l_o_A_l_t_o ________ _ ZIP: ______ County: __ S_a_n_t.;..a_C_l;;;.a.;...r;_a;;;._ __ _ 4. Present owner, if known: Bjarne B. Dahl .:et al Address: __ 1_3;_6_3;__.l\r_b_o_r_A_v_e ____ _ City: __ Io_s_Al_to_s_,_C_a ________ ZIP: 94022 Ownership is: Public □ Private 5. Present Use: ___ H_o_t_e_l __________ Original Use: ___ H_o_t_e_l ____________ _ Other past uses: __________________________________ _ :SCRIPTION 6. Briefly describe the present physicar" appearan~ of the ,ite or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: '.Ihe three-story structure is rather more classical and .formal than the Spanish Colonial Revival buildings of the Ramona Street Historic District, but it is important as a visual landmark and anchor. The ground floor ~ilasters incorpor- at·e the automobile as a decorative motif. ----------------------, 7. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets. roads, and prominent landmarks): ~ NO~TH lew. ln5) 8. Approximat~ property siz~: Lot size (in feet) Frontage __ l_OO __ _ Oepth __ l_OO ___ .; or approx. acreage ___ _ 9. Condition: (check one) a. Excellent (!] b. Good □ c. Fair 0 d. Oeter!orated D e. No longer in existence D 10. ls the feature a. Altered? D b. Unaltered? ~ 11. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) a. Open land D b. Scattered buildings D c. Densely built-up D d. Residential D e. Commercial l!J f. Industrial O · g. Other 0 -------------12. Threats to site: a. None known liJ b. Private devtlopment D c. Zoning D d. Public Works project D e. Vandalism D f. Other D _13. Oate(s) of enclosed photos,aph(s): ___ 1_9_7_8 ___ _ 1// • .> •, o. i>,s, . ' •. 1/ •' ';_, ~ I J ' .,, I '· ~- ' '· ' , . l 2.b Packet Pg. 18 235 Ha .ton NOTE: Th~ following (/tffl1s 14-19} an for strvcturtl$ only. 14. Primary exterior building material: a. Stone O b. Brick 0 c. Stua::o G d. At:!obe O e. Wood D / f. Other □----------------- 15. Is the structure: a. On its original site? (] b. Moved? 0 c. Unknown? 0 16. Year of initial construction 1921' This date is: a. Factual 00 b. Estimated 0 17. Architect (if known): _\-_l.:;...H_.;;._W_e_e;...k_s ___________________________ _ John :Madsen 18. Builder (if known): -~----------------------------------- 19. Related features: a. Barn O b. Carriage house 0 c. Outhouse O d. Shed(s) 0 e. Formal garden(s) 0 f. Windmill 0 SIGNIFICANCE g. Watertower/tankhouse 0 h. Other □-------------i. None [!] 20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): This building was designed by a major Californi~ architect especially noted for his numerous school building commissions; Birge H. Clark also was associated with the work as local supervising architect. The hotel was built ~r the Palo Alto lmJ:l'OVe- ment Co. as part of its effort to develop the commercial area along Ramona street and Hamilton Avenue. Until :he President Hotel was built in 1929 it had no rival in the city and has always been the principal hotel in the western area of Palo Alto. 21. Main theme of the historic resource: (Check only one): a. Ardiitecture ~ b. Arts & Leisure 0 c. Economic/Industrial O d. Exploration/Settlement O e. Government O f. Military D g. Religion O h. Social/Education 0 22. Sources: List books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: P.A. Times 3/1, 12-13/24 Birge H. Clark reminiscences and commercial building inventory I 23. Date form prepared: 1979, 1985 By (name): _L.;;.~_i_a_Mo_r_an---'-; _Hi_s...,t"'".~R_e_s,.,,o,...ur_c_e...,,s,......Bd~•~;--=-P_._A_._H_i_· _st_. _A_s_s_n_._ Address: 250 Hamilton Ave · City ___ P_a_l_o_A_l_t_o_, _C_'a_9_4_3_0_l __ _ ZIP: Phone: ____________ Organization: -----------------~----- (State Use Only) 2.b Packet Pg. 19 2.c Packet Pg. 20 2.c Packet Pg. 21 2.c Packet Pg. 22 2.c Packet Pg. 23 2.c Packet Pg. 24 2.c Packet Pg. 25 2.c Packet Pg. 26 2.c Packet Pg. 27 2.c Packet Pg. 28 2.c Packet Pg. 29 2.c Packet Pg. 30 2.c Packet Pg. 31 2.c Packet Pg. 32 2.c Packet Pg. 33 2.c Packet Pg. 34 2.c Packet Pg. 35 2.c Packet Pg. 36 2.c Packet Pg. 37 2.c Packet Pg. 38 2.c Packet Pg. 39 2.c Packet Pg. 40 2.c Packet Pg. 41 2.c Packet Pg. 42 2.c Packet Pg. 43 2.c Packet Pg. 44 2.c Packet Pg. 45 2.c Packet Pg. 46 2.c Packet Pg. 47 2.c Packet Pg. 48 2.c Packet Pg. 49 2.c Packet Pg. 50 2.c Packet Pg. 51 2.c Packet Pg. 52 2.c Packet Pg. 53 2.c Packet Pg. 54 2.c Packet Pg. 55 2.c Packet Pg. 56 2.c Packet Pg. 57 2.c Packet Pg. 58 2.c Packet Pg. 59 2.c Packet Pg. 60 2.c Packet Pg. 61 imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull THE CARDINAL HOTEL - 235 HAMILTON AVENUE HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA [16252A.14] PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PALO ALTO MAY 5, 2020 2.d Packet Pg. 62 2.d Packet Pg. 63 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 3 II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS .............................................................................. 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ............................................................................................ 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ............................................................................... 3 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .......................................................................................................... 4 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 5 EXTERIOR .............................................................................................................................................. 5 INTERIOR ............................................................................................................................................. 12 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ...................................................................................................... 14 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 16 PALO ALTO HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 16 UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................. 18 V. CARDINAL HOTEL - SITE HISTORY ................................................................... 19 SITE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................ 19 OWNERSHIP HISTORY .......................................................................................................................... 22 ARCHITECT: WILLIAM H. WEEKS (1864 -1936) ................................................................................... 23 BIRGE M. CLARK (1893 -1989) ............................................................................................................ 24 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE CARDINAL HOTEL .............................................................................. 25 VI. EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 26 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 26 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ...................................................................................................... 28 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................ 29 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 32 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 33 2.d Packet Pg. 64 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -2- Page & Turnbull I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of the City of Palo Alto for the property at 235 Hamilton Avenue (APN 120-26-073), also called the Cardinal Hotel, in the University South neighborhood of Palo Alto. The subject property is located in a CD-C (Downtown Commercial (community)) zoning district with both a ground floor (GF) and pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations. The Cardinal Hotel is located on the west side of Hamilton Avenue between Ramona Street and an alley that bisects the block between Ramona Street and Emerson Street. The parcel is nearly square in shape, with a stepped boundary along its northwestern side, approximately 100 feet wide by 104 to 114 feet deep (Figure 1). It contains one three-story hotel building with a commercial ground floor, which was designed in 1924 by William H. Weeks with Birge Clarke as supervising architect, and was constructed by a local builder, John Madsen. The Cardinal Hotel is currently listed as a contributing building of the Ramona Street Architectural District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and therefore also receives the protections of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The property is also listed as a contributing building in the Ramona Street Architectural District in the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Figure 1. City of Palo Alto parcel map. Subject property indicated by red outline. Source: City of Palo Alto, Online Parcel Reports, 2019. METHODOLOGY This report follows a standard outline used for Historic Resource Evaluation reports, and provides a summary of the current historic status, a building description, and historic context for the Cardinal Hotel building at 235 Hamilton Avenue. The report includes an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including the Palo Alto Development Services and the Palo Alto Historical Association, as well as various online sources including Palo Alto Stanford (PAST) Heritage, Ancestry.com, the California Digital 2.d Packet Pg. 65 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -3- Page & Turnbull Newspaper Collection, and Newspapers.com. Key primary sources consulted and cited in this report include Palo Alto building permit applications, city and county directories, and historical newspapers. All photographs in this report were taken by Page & Turnbull during a site visit on September 24, 2019, unless otherwise noted. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This HRE finds that the Cardinal Hotel appears to qualify as an eligible individual historic resource under Criterion 1 and Criterion 3 for the purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the Cardinal Hotel. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. The Cardinal Hotel is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a part of the Ramona Street Architectural District, a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. Properties can be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. The Cardinal Hotel is listed in the National Register as a contributing property in the Ramona Street Architectural District, and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Properties listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of “1” to “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register or California Register. Properties with a Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register or are already listed in one or both of the registers. A property assigned a Status Code of “3” or “4” appears to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally requires more research to support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be locally significant or to have contextual importance, while properties with a Status Code of “6” are not eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource has not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation. 2.d Packet Pg. 66 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -4- Page & Turnbull The Cardinal Hotel is listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code of 1D, which means “Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR.”1 The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara County that lists the status codes was in April 2012. PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The inventory is organized under the following four Categories:  Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.  Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.  Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden façades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. The Cardinal Hotel is listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as a category 3 building and is identified for its inclusion in the Ramona Street Architectural District. 1 California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, Updated April 2012. 2.d Packet Pg. 67 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -5- Page & Turnbull III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR The Cardinal Hotel is a three-story hotel building with ground-floor retail. The building was designed in an Italian Renaissance Revival style in 1924 (Figure 2). Located on a prominent corner at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street, the building has two nearly identical primary façades. The presence of an access road that divides the block between Ramona and Emerson streets provides the Cardinal Hotel with a fully exposed third façade. In plan, the building has a rectangular first story with U-shaped second and third floors that provide light and air to hotel rooms facing this inner lightwell. A skylight in this lightwell provides natural light to the hotel’s lobby. The subject building is clad in stucco and features a largely rectangular and flat façade under a flat roof with a denticulated box cornice topped with clay tile. The Ramona Street (northeast) and Hamilton Avenue (southeast) façades are nearly identical; on the ground floor, festooned terra cotta pilasters with vintage car motifs are placed at the building’s corners and flank the entrances to the hotel. The building originally included seven stores and a dining room for the hotel on the ground floor. Today the dining room has been converted to an additional storefront and the commercial spaces have been rearranged internally, with the removal of partitions, creating four restaurant and commercial spaces. Storefronts consist of bulkheads, glass storefront windows, and recessed entrances, and feature a band of transom windows over the storefronts. Entrances to the hotel are centrally located on both primary façades and are marked by recessed entrances under metal marquees. Upper stories consist of regular fenestration; windows are paired vertically in articulated surrounds with decorative spandrel panels containing shields located between second- and third-story windows. Figure 2: Site plan with approximate location of parcel boundary in orange. 2.d Packet Pg. 68 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -6- Page & Turnbull A neon three-sided blade sign reading “Cardinal Hotel” is positioned vertically along the upper two stories at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street (Figure 3). Figure 3: Primary facade (left) and secondary facade (right), looking west Hamilton Avenue (Southeast) Façade The southeast façade of the Cardinal Hotel faces Hamilton Avenue and the upper floors are symmetrical along a vertical axis (Figure 4). Arranged into eight bays, each end bay is given more visual prominence with additional decoration over the window enframements. Cast concrete details of curving vines, rosettes, and cherubs holding a shield are contained in the frieze panel of the cornice, with three-dimensional contoured foliate panels ending in decorative brackets flanking the window enframements. These vertically paired windows are also highlighted through the placement of wrought iron Juliet balconies over the storefront cornice between the ground and second floors. On the upper stories the original four-over-two double-hung wood sash have been replaced with modern one-over-one metal hung sash, while the original paired 10-lite wood casement windows are extant in each decorative end bay. The center two bays are paired through the placement of additional scrolled foliate decoration in the frieze panel, the placement of a balcony across the windows in the center two bays, and the presence of the ground floor main entrance, which features a large metal marquee. On the third story, a cartouche is placed prominently along the centerline of the façade. 2.d Packet Pg. 69 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -7- Page & Turnbull Figure 4: Blueprints of the Hamilton Avenue (southeast) elevation, 1924. Source: Birge Clark Architectural Papers, Stanford Digital Repository Figure 5: Hamilton Avenue (southeast) façade, looking north. Note that first bay of the southwest façade along the access road is designed to match the primary façades. 2.d Packet Pg. 70 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -8- Page & Turnbull Ground-floor storefronts are defined by a rhythm of bulkheads, glass storefront windows, recessed entrances, and a band of transom windows with groupings of fixed lites, operable transom-sash, and fixed art glass, separated by mullions with an applied engaged turned post, over the storefronts. The hotel’s original dining room, located at the far left (south) of the façade, has attenuated colonnettes framing the entrance. Storefronts to the right (north) of the hotel entrance have been combined into a restaurant space and the area of the transom windows has been covered with a canvas awning over metal framing. The primary entrance to this business is located at the right of the façade with a non- original recessed corner entrance. A second entrance, in the third bay from the right, is in its original location but with non-original material. The main entrance to the hotel is recessed and set between paired spiral Corinthian columns in the Roman style with adjacent unfluted Corinthian pilasters (Figure 6 and 7). A neon sign is mounted in the opening to the entrance vestibule. The entrance vestibule features paneled stone walls and a frieze panel of festoons. Unevenly divided double-leaf glass-paneled wood doors are set within a larger wall of transom-sash and fixed windows. Figure 6: Primary facade, main entrance to hotel. Figure 7: Detail, main entrance to hotel. 2.d Packet Pg. 71 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -9- Page & Turnbull Ramona Street (Northeast) Façade The northeast façade of the Cardinal Hotel is nearly identical to the primary façade, with its decorative end bays, but is not entirely symmetrical, with nine bays instead of eight (Figure 8). The second bay from the east (or left) contains two smaller windows on each story – with no decorative enframement – and a fire escape with an access ladder to the roof. On this façade, the original four- over-two double-hung wood sash have been replaced with modern metal hung sash, while the original paired 10-lite wood casement windows are extant in each decorative end bay. Figure 8. Blueprints of the secondary façade elevation, 1924. Source: Birge Clark Architectural Papers, Stanford Digital Repository. Ground-floor storefronts are defined by the same storefront system and decoration as applied to the Hamilton Avenue façade. Storefronts to the left (east) of the hotel entrance have been combined into a restaurant space and the transom windows have been covered with a canvas awning over metal framing. The primary entrance to this business is located at the left edge of the façade (also accessible from Hamilton Avenue) with a non-original recessed corner entrance (Figure 9). Storefronts to the right of the hotel entrance are largely intact with some replacement of materials. A canvas awning with metal frame extends across all three storefronts. A barber pole over the entrance to the first storefront at the right of the hotel entrance is believed to date to the opening of the hotel.2 2 Palo Alto Historical Association. Inventory of Historic Buildings Files. 2.d Packet Pg. 72 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -10- Page & Turnbull Figure 9: Ramona Street (northeast) façade, at corner of Hamilton Avenue, facing southwest. Figure 10: Secondary entrance to the Cardinal Hotel, facing southwest. The secondary entrance to the hotel lobby is recessed under a decorative metal marquee with neon signs mounted on each side (Figure 10). A marble step and tiled entrance vestibule leads to double- leaf glass-paneled wood doors with a paneled wood and glass surround. A wrought iron lamp hangs in the vestibule. The adjacent bay to this recessed entrance contains a modern service door with a partially infilled transom with vent, set into a plain stucco wall. Southwest Façade The southwest façade faces an access road that bisects the block between Emerson and Ramona streets. The first bay of the southwest façade (from the right or southernmost corner) is designed to match the decorative end bays of the primary street façades, completing the design from an oblique view looking north along Hamilton Avenue (Figure 5). This decorative bay retains its original paired 10-lite wood casement windows. The remaining eight bays of the southwest façade are utilitarian in design, clad in textured stucco with projecting stuccoed sills under regularly spaced windows. Metal vents with metal screening are located under first-story windows in the third and fourth bays from the rear of the building. A fire escape in the second bay from the south corner (towards Hamilton Avenue) includes an access ladder to the roof (Figure 11 and 12). 2.d Packet Pg. 73 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -11- Page & Turnbull Figure 11. Side (southwest) façade, looking north. Figure 12: Ground floor, first bay of side (southwest) façade, looking north. Northwest Façade The northwest façade is largely obscured by the adjacent building at 538-542 Ramona Street (Figure 13). The rear wall of the Cardinal Hotel is clad in textured stucco and window openings feature projecting sills. A portion of this façade is visible from Ramona Street, above the adjacent building, and neon lettering with a painted background for the Cardinal Hotel has been mounted on this wall (Figure 14). On the back corner of the lot, a single-leaf, round-arched wood door is set in a stucco wall, providing delivery access to the rear of the hotel (Figure 15). Figure 13. Northwest façade, looking east. Source: Bing Maps, 2019. 2.d Packet Pg. 74 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -12- Page & Turnbull Figure 14: Northwest facade visible above adjacent building, looking south. Figure 15: Northwest facade, looking east. INTERIOR The Cardinal Hotel’s first floor lobby and lounge is a large rectangular space with wide hallways that extend to both the primary entrance along Hamilton Avenue and the secondary entrance at Ramona Street (Figure 16). A wood check-in desk for hotel guests fills the southwest corner of the rectangular lobby and lounge, and an open staircase to the second floor is located in the southeast corner. This interior space features original mosaic tile flooring with decorative edging, textured stucco walls, a box-beam ceiling, a fireplace under a large shield, and columns and pilasters with rams’ head capitals and spiral colonnettes (Figure 17 and 18). The Arts and Crafts aesthetic of the space is highlighted by the original Batchelder Tile Company fireplace and the wrought iron lamps, chandeliers, and sconces by Santa Cruz metal craftsman John Otar, known as ‘Otar the Lampmaker.’3 3 Ernest A. Batchelder was an art tile artist involved in the American Arts and Crafts movement; the dark brown tile fireplace at the Cardinal Hotel is intended to resemble a carved wood fireplace at first glance. For a source on Otar the Lampmaker, see: “Santa Cruz Firm Executes Contract for Lighting Fixtures Which Will Grace Palo Alto’s Hotel Cardinal,” Santa Cruz Evening News, November 15, 1924, 4. 2.d Packet Pg. 75 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -13- Page & Turnbull Figure 16: Plan of first floor; lobby and lounge outlined in orange. Source: Birge Clark Architectural Papers, Stanford Digital Repository. Outline added by Page & Turnbull, 2019. Figure 17: Lobby and lounge, 1924. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 2.d Packet Pg. 76 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -14- Page & Turnbull Figure 18: Existing conditions. Lobby and lounge. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD Developed as part of a group of eight buildings planned and constructed from 1924 to 1938 (now the Ramona Street Architectural District), the Cardinal Hotel is meant to be viewed within its immediate context of contemporary commercial structures (Figure 19). These structures along the 500 block of Ramona Street are characterized by their stucco façades, with a muted color palette and wrought iron and clay tile, their pedestrian-oriented storefronts, and a height of one to four stories (Figure 20 and 21). Figure 19: Ramona Street Architectural District, diagram from National Register nomination of 1985, altered by Page & Turnbull, 2019. 2.d Packet Pg. 77 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -15- Page & Turnbull Figure 20: South side of Ramona Street (#518-542), northwest wall of Cardinal Hotel at left, looking south. Source: CAW Architects. New construction located across Hamilton Avenue maintains a similar height and massing as the Cardinal Hotel and its contemporary buildings, such as the adjacent Downing Block constructed in 1909 (Figure 22 and 23). Figure 21: Intersection of Ramona Street (left) and Hamilton Avenue (right); Medico-Dental building at corner (within the Ramona Street District), looking north. Source: Google Maps, 2019. Figure 22: South side of Hamilton Avenue, looking southwest. Source: Google Maps, 2019. Figure 23: North side of Hamilton Avenue, building adjacent to Cardinal Hotel (right). Source: Google Maps, 2019. 2.d Packet Pg. 78 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -16- Page & Turnbull In the 1960s, the demolition of buildings diagonally across the intersection from the Cardinal Hotel for the construction of the Palo Alto Civic Center and City Hall resulted in an open plaza along Hamilton Avenue that has given the Cardinal Hotel more visual prominence (Figure 24). IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT PALO ALTO HISTORY The earliest known settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people. The region was colonized in 1769 as part of Alta California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos which contained portions of land that became Palo Alto including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.4 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century. The current city of Palo Alto contains the former township of Mayfield, which was located just southwest of Alma Street, and was established in 1855 (Figure 25). Starting in 1876, the railroad magnate and California politician Leland Stanford began to purchase land in the area for his country estate, and in 1882 he purchased an additional 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield for his horse farm.5 Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. On March 9, 1885, Stanford University was founded on land of the Palo Alto Stock Farm through an endowment act by the California Assembly and Senate. Originally looking to connect Stanford University as a part of the already established town of Mayfield, Stanford asked residents of Mayfield to make the town a temperance town. Their refusal in 1886 caused Stanford to found the town of Palo Alto with aid from his friend, Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of private land, that was known initially as University Park (or the Hopkins Tract).6 This land was bounded by the San Francisquito Creek to the north and the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the south. A new train stop was created along University Avenue and the new town flourished in its close 4 Ward Winslow and Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993), 12-17. 5 Ibid, 35. 6 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030 (adopted by City Council, November 13, 2017), 16, accessed August 29, 2019, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915. Figure 24: Palo Alto City Hall, located diagonally across from the Cardinal Hotel. Source: Google maps. 2.d Packet Pg. 79 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -17- Page & Turnbull connection with the university. University Park, under its new name of Palo Alto, was incorporated in 1894. In its early years, Palo Alto was a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of University professors clustered in the neighborhood deemed Professorville. The development of a local streetcar in 1906, and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910, facilitated access to jobs outside the city and to the University, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto.7 In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.8 Figure 25. Detail view of “Santa Clara County Map Number One” by Thompson & West, 1876. Source: David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not grow substantially. World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the Peninsula; accordingly, Palo Alto saw rapid growth following the war as many families who had been stationed on the Peninsula by the military, or who worked in associated industries, chose to stay. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 52,287 in 1960.9 Palo Alto’s city center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation. Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west of the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into the 7 Dames & Moore, “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997- 2000,” 1-4. 8 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030, 16. 9 “City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,” Bay Area Census, accessed August 27, 2019, http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PaloAlto50.htm. 2.d Packet Pg. 80 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -18- Page & Turnbull 1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon Valley. Palo Alto consciously maintains its high proportion of open space to development and the suburban feeling and scale of its architecture.10 UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD The current University South neighborhood is located in the southern portion of the original University Park tract platted by Timothy Hopkins. It was the core part of the early city, along with today’s Downtown North neighborhood (located northwest of University Avenue, Downtown North is the main commercial corridor within the original core of Palo Alto). University South contains the residential and commercial areas that lay southeast of University Avenue, although it does not encompass Professorville, the residential neighborhood closely associated with early Stanford faculty members and their families. As a result, the neighborhood is U-shaped, bounded by University Avenue at the northwest, Alma Street and the railroad tracks at the south, and Middlefield Road at the northeast. The southeast boundary follows Embarcadero Road but steps northwest to Addison Avenue, so as to exclude Professorville. Figure 26. 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map of Palo Alto showing the street layout within the core of the city. The future location of the subject property is marked by the red star. Source: Digital Sanborn Maps, San Francisco Public Library The 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map illustrates that stores were located along University Avenue, and were particularly concentrated at its southwestern end, near the railroad, where a large lumberyard stood (Figure 26). Residences were scattered along the street just east and west of University Avenue on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. A few churches, hotels, and boarding houses also stood among many vacant lots. Contemporary newspapers called the homes that housed artisans and merchants in this area “neat cottages”—which stood in contrast to the houses occupied by Stanford faculty members, located to the southeast in what is today the Professorville neighborhood. 10 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030, 11-20. 2.d Packet Pg. 81 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -19- Page & Turnbull Some grander homes for more affluent residents were sprinkled throughout the current-day University South neighborhood.11 By 1901, Palo Alto had grown beyond its original core. Houses filled in the lots on the blocks around the railroad, while scattered residential development extended up to and beyond Middlefield Road. Institutions, such as schools and Palo Alto’s first public library, had been built in the area. During the first decade of the twentieth century, the University South neighborhood appears to have been built out with one- and two-story residences, but as the downtown commercial area prospered and expanded, University South became a desirable location for the growth of Palo Alto’s commercial interests.12 The work of the Palo Alto Improvement Company in the 1920s and 1930s aimed to support this growing commercial identity and the company worked to build several commercial structures south of University Avenue. Their projects concentrated on Ramona Street between University and Hamilton avenues and today are recognized as the Ramona Street Architectural District.13 The Cardinal Hotel was the first property to be built within this context and was seen as filling a critical need in the Palo Alto business community. The few hotel and boarding house options previously available in Palo Alto had been located near the train and were not considered comfortable or attractive for a longer stay. Providing a high-end commercial hotel was intended to attract businessmen not only to the University South neighborhood, but to Palo Alto in general. The creation of a large lobby and a dining hall were intended to allow the Cardinal Hotel to fill a role as a social space for the community. This was largely successful, and the Cardinal Hotel became a popular gathering place, hosting a variety of lectures, dances, events, and dinners for Palo Alto’s citizens.14 Many properties containing early residences in the University South neighborhood have gradually been redeveloped for commercial and institutional uses, as well as into multi-unit residential buildings. The neighborhood currently transitions from commercial and civic tenants concentrated along the University Avenue corridor toward the less dense character of adjacent residential neighborhoods. V. CARDINAL HOTEL - SITE HISTORY SITE DEVELOPMENT Prior to the erection of the present building, this lot contained three small wood-frame buildings that were associated with Horabin Fuel and Feed.15 This coal and wood lot, run by W. O. Horabin, had been located on the corner of Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue since at least 1911, but the buildings on the site dated to c. 1904.16 In 1921, Horabin purchased the lot from the Downing estate, 11 Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? “Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986) 5. 12 The 1924 Sanborn Map shows a variety of uses including a mixture of dwellings, stores, institutional, and light industrial uses. 13 “Ramona Street Architectural District.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Accessed October 2019. https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invR/RamonaStreet%20AD.html 14 “John Philip Souza Honored at Dinner,” Santa Cruz News, November 7, 1928, 6; “Palo Alto Hotel to Open Saturday,” San Francisco Examiner, December 9, 1924, 13. 15 “Horabin Acquires Business Corner.” Palo Alto Times. December 1, 1921. 16 Two of the three wood buildings are present on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, with the third added by the 1908 map. 2.d Packet Pg. 82 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -20- Page & Turnbull with the intention of ultimately moving his coal yard and then improving the lot with the construction of commercial buildings.17 By October of 1923, announcements for the erection of a “first class commercial hotel” had been announced to the public, and the incorporation of the Palo Alto Hotel Improvement Company – for the sole purpose of funding and completing the project – occurred soon after.18 The Palo Alto Hotel Improvement Company was associated with the similarly named Palo Alto Improvement Company, which was responsible for the construction of several commercial and mixed-use buildings in this northwest portion of the University South neighborhood, including many of the buildings within the locally- and NR-listed Ramona Street Architectural District. The Palo Alto Improvement Company sought to secure the commercial growth of University South and the availability of a first-class hotel building near the downtown was considered essential. Based on the building permit index record on file at the Palo Alto Historical Association – and corroborated by contemporary newspaper coverage and a December 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance map – the Cardinal Hotel, at 235 Hamilton Avenue, was constructed in 1924. The building was designed by William H. Weeks, a prominent California architect based in San Francisco, and the supervising architect for the project was Birge Clark, a highly significant architect for the city of Palo Alto. The builder of the property was John Madsen, a local general contractor. Construction Chronology The following table provides a timeline of construction activity at the Cardinal Hotel, based on building permit applications on file with Palo Alto Development Services: Permit # Date Owner Architect/ Contractor Description A 23972 9/19/1964 B. C. Dahl Acme Glass Company Replacement of storefront windows (247 Hamilton) A 27149 11/27/1967 Cardinal Coffee Shop Cardinal Coffee Shop Install Partition (247 Hamilton) A 28178 2/19/1969 Cardinal Coffee Shop Cardinal Coffee Shop Install two archways in existing wall to permit use of adjoining portico of building (247 Hamilton) A 28731 10/17/1969 Bjarne Dahl Hans Stavn Store front remodel, new glass and door (546 Ramona) A 29128 5/8/1970 Bjarne Dahl Andrew Helm Cover upper portion of wood window frame with plywood (247 Hamilton) A 32745 1/14/1974 Bjarne Dahl Hans Stavan Remodeling of entry way [at corner, remove doorway] (247 Hamilton) A 34451 5/28/1975 Bjarne Dahl Allsberry Sheet Metal Repair Marquee A 37342 5/9/1977 Bjarne Dahl & Bjarne Dahl Jr. Dick Friedlander Remodel store front and minor interior alterations (247 Hamilton) 17 “Horabin Acquires Business Corner.” 1921. 18 “Structure to be Built on Hamilton Avenue.” Palo Alto Times. October 24, 1923. 2.d Packet Pg. 83 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -21- Page & Turnbull 030568 3/10/2003 Bjarne Dahl Stout Roofing of California Overlay BUR with Carlisle Single Ply roof membrane 16PLN- 00122 4/5/2016 Bjarne Dahl & Marianne E., Trustee Helena Barrios Vincent Remove canopy; replace non- historic single pane storefront windows (three); new front door Permits prior to 1964 were not found on file at the Palo Alto Development Center. Alterations that are not indicated by the available permit history include the removal of the original flagpoles, the repainting of the façade, and the replacement of all original four-over-two double-hung wood-sash with one-over-one metal-sash windows. The window replacements are known to have occurred after 1985. 19 When the façade was repainted, both the three-dimensional details of the window enframements and the flat façade were painted the same color, removing some of the differentiation supplied by the original color palette (Figure 27). Archival sources provide a clue as to the original color palette, and state that the body of the building was Italian Sienna with wood trim and sash painted Exposition Green. Mention of the terra cotta having a “peacock blue” background is not apparent from historic photographs.20 Figure 27: Cardinal Hotel, ca. 1930s. Note contrasting façade colors on Ramona Street façade. Source: Palo Alto Historical Society Photograph Collection On the interior of the Cardinal Hotel, alterations to the lobby occurred at an unknown date and include the loss of the painted decoration on the box beam ceiling – which has been painted in white and cream colors – and the addition of a staircase in the north corner. The new staircase, which is 19 See photographs included in: National Register of Historic Places, Ramona Street Architectural District, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, National Register #86000592. 20 Records on file at PAHA cite the December 12, 1924 Palo Alto Times, which had a special section on the opening of the hotel; Palo Alto Historical Association. Inventory of Historic Buildings Files. 2.d Packet Pg. 84 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -22- Page & Turnbull visible in a 1985 photograph, resulted in the removal of a shield within an inscribed arch over the right doorway along the northwest wall. 21 Some of these changes on both the exterior and the interior may date to 1950, when the owners undertook a $50,000 rehabilitation and reopened the hotel as the “New Cardinal Hotel.”22 Available building permit applications at Palo Alto Development Services indicate that the most substantial changes have occurred in the ground floor commercial spaces, and include several window and door replacements, as well as the combination of the original seven commercial spaces into four. Many of these alterations were in-kind, and the rhythm of the storefronts have remained largely unaltered with two exceptions. The first, the addition of a storefront in the place of the original hotel dining room (at the far left of the Hamilton Street façade) occurred in 1940, with the opening of an antique shop in this space.23 The second alteration to make a permanent change on the ground floor occurred in 1974 with the remodeling of the storefront at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street. This permit, #A32745, included the removal of two entrance doors, one along each façade, in order to create a recessed corner entrance that is extant today. With the internal combination of storefront spaces, only one of the original storefront entrances has been removed, and the organization of the ground floor commercial façade, consisting of bulkheads, display windows, and a ribbon of storefront transom windows above, has remained largely intact. OWNERSHIP HISTORY The ownership history has been gathered from available documentation in historic newspapers, from permits at the Palo Alto Development Services, and from notes in the Palo Alto Historical Association’s Historic Architecture Inventory files. Due to the common practice of hotel managers operating a hotel business as a lease from the owner of the building, a number of people associated with the building are not in fact owners of the Cardinal Hotel. When first planned, the site was a project of the Palo Alto Improvement Co., which wanted to establish a commercial hotel to help anchor the growing commercial uses of the University South neighborhood. The Palo Alto Hotel Improvement Company was formed in November 1923 for the sole purpose of building the Cardinal Hotel, and not even a year after its completion, the building was sold to Leila R. Wishon and her son, Frank R. Wishon, of Los Angeles.24 Frank Wishon (1900-1984) was already a hotel operator at the Hotel Lankershim in Los Angeles and was involved in some capacity – likely a part owner – of the Hotel Montgomery in San José.25 His mother, Leila Rountree Wishon (1878-1955), had remarried after being widowed in 1911, and her second husband was William Wallace Whitecotton (1886-1933), whose family was involved in a 21 This alteration occurred prior to 1985. See: National Register of Historic Places, Ramona Street Architectural District, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, National Register #86000592. 22 Information held at Palo Alto Historical Association in the Building Permit Index Files references this rehabilitation and cites the Palo Alto Times, May 17, 1950. 23 Palo Alto Historical Association. Inventory of Historic Buildings Files. 24 For the creation of the Palo Alto Hotel Improvement Company, see: “Hotel Corporation Papers are Filed,” Palo Alto Times, November 5, 1923. For the sale to Wishon, see: “Angelino in Hotel Deal,” The Los Angeles Times, September 8, 1925, 4. 25 United States Federal Census, 1940; “Angelino in Hotel Deal,” The Los Angeles Times, September 8, 1925, 4. 2.d Packet Pg. 85 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -23- Page & Turnbull number of hotel ventures in California.26 Whitecotton was the owner of the Shattuck Hotel in Berkeley, which while it was under his ownership (1918-1942) was called the Whitecotton Hotel. It is likely that the Wishons and Whitecottons remained owners until sometime during the Great Depression when the Cardinal Hotel was foreclosed on and ended up in the hands of Bank of America.27 In 1940, the hotel passed to Ward Company, a business based in Palo Alto, but in 1944 the property was sold to Dahl and Benedict of Los Altos.28 Dahl and Benedict appear to have been Bjarne Cato Dahl, his wife Eve Dahl, George G. Benedict, and his wife Sigrid M. Benedict.29 Bjarne Cato Dahl (1897 -1989) appears to have been a significant architect in Hawaii. Dahl got his start in the office of Julia Morgan and went to Honolulu to supervise the construction of Morgan’s YWCA building. He chose to stay in Hawaii and became the head architect of the Territorial Public Works Department before forming a firm, Dahl & Conrad, with Connie Conrad in 1935.30 Due to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the Dahls sent their son Bjarne Dahl, Jr. back to California. For a short time, Bjarne Dahl, Jr., who was only 12 years old, lived with Julia Morgan.31 The Dahls relocated to Los Altos towards the end of World War II and became involved with the Cardinal Hotel. Eve Dahl and Sigrid Benedict were sisters, and George and Sigrid Benedict also relocated from Hawaii at this time. In 1950, under the ownership of Dahl and Benedict, the hotel underwent a $50,000 rehabilitation and was reopened as the “New Cardinal Hotel.”32 The Dahl family, now the third generation, still owns the Cardinal Hotel. The son of Bjarne Cato Dahl, Bjarne B. Dahl owned the hotel until his death in 2009. He was involved in the daily operation of the Cardinal Hotel and was also a well-known restorer of harpsichords and antique pianos.33 His children – Eva, Ester, and Stephan Dahl – own the hotel today. ARCHITECT: WILLIAM H. WEEKS (1864 -1936) William H. Weeks was a prolific California architect, particularly known for his designs of libraries and schools. His schools were particularly well regarded for their ability to balance the safety and comfort of children. Believed to have completed projects in over 160 cities across California, he also had commissions in Nevada and Oregon. Born in 1864 in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada, William Weeks got his start in architecture working with his father, a builder and designer. Apparently never formally trained, Weeks opened an architecture office in 1894 in Watsonville, California after being hired to build a Christian Church in that city. A number of commissions for houses in Watsonville followed, and 26 “Personal,” The Hotel World: The Hotel World and Travelers Journal, (Chicago: The Hotel World Interests, Inc.) February 1921, v. 92, n. 6, 31; “Dr. Whitecotton Dies at Age of 70,” Oakland Tribune, December 18, 1968, 15. 27 Palo Alto Historical Association. Inventory of Historic Buildings Files. 28 Ibid. 29 Bjarne C. Dahl was an architect. He first worked for Julia Morgan to supervise the construction of her YWCA building in Hawaii. He then maintained a firm Dahl & Conrad, in Hawaii. “Congratulations: Bjarne Cato Dahl,” The Honolulu Advertiser, May 25, 1940, 7. 30 Dean Sakamoto, et al, editors. Hawaiian Modernism: The Architecture of Vladimir Ossipoff, Honolulu : Honolulu Academy of Arts ; New Haven : in association with Yale University Press, 2007, 40. 31 Susan Riess, ed. The Julia Morgan Architectural History Project, Volume II, University of California, Berkeley: The Bancroft Library, 1976. 145-155. 32 Palo Alto Historical Association. Building Permit Index Files. 33 “Bjarne Dahl.” Palo Alto Online [obituaries]. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/obituaries/memorials/bjarne- dahl?o=1338 2.d Packet Pg. 86 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -24- Page & Turnbull with the success of his firm, Weeks opened another office in Salinas in 1897. He was immediately hired by industrialist Claus Spreckels to build several structures for his Spreckels Sugar Factory.34 A San Francisco office was opened in 1905, fortuitously positioning his business to assist in the rebuilding projects that followed the wreckage of the 1906 earthquake and fire. In 1924, Weeks took his son Harold into the firm, renaming it Weeks & Weeks, and soon after opened branches in Oakland (1924) and San José (1926).35 William Weeks designed many residential properties, courthouses, hotels, and churches, but is primarily associated with designing schools and libraries across California. While his libraries and municipal buildings tended towards a Classical aesthetic, he was adept in working in many styles and sought to build contextually. An issue of the Architect & Engineer of California in 1915 was dedicated to the work of Weeks. The selection of works included in this issue show buildings primarily with classical features including columns, pilasters, and modillioned cornices, but examples of his work in the Mission, Spanish, and Gothic revival styles are also included. The included article on Weeks’ practice states that in the first 18 years of his practice he had completed over a thousand buildings, with thirty to forty buildings under construction at any time.36 William Weeks passed away suddenly of a heart attack in 1936 at the age of 72.37 The firm was left to his son, Harold Weeks. BIRGE M. CLARK (1893 -1989) Birge M. Clark is considered the most influential architect in Palo Alto’s history. Clark was active during much of the twentieth century and was a proponent of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, which he called “Early California.” His prolific output, which included a variety of commercial, residential and industrial buildings, and his stylistic consistency greatly contributed to Palo Alto’s current character. Birge Clark was born April 16, 1893 in San Francisco. His father, Arthur B. Clark, had moved the family west the year before from Syracuse, New York to take a position as the first chairman of the Art and Architecture Department at Stanford University.38 Birge Clark received his formal training first in art and engineering at Stanford (Class of 1914), and then with a graduate degree in architecture from Columbia University in 1917. His first commission in 1919 was for the Lou Henry Hoover House on the Stanford campus. Clark played a major role in the creation of Palo Alto during the boom times of the 1920s. During this phase of the city’s development, Clark not only designed many Spanish Colonial Revival houses in the recently annexed residential neighborhoods, but he also designed many of the commercial blocks and government buildings that were gradually replacing the Victorian-era structures in the downtown shopping area. Well-known non-residential commissions of Clark’s include the former Palo Alto Police and Fire Station at 450 Bryant Street (now the Palo Alto Senior Center) (1927), the Post Office at 380 34 Betty Lewis, W. H. Weeks, Architect. Fresno, CA: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1989, 7. 35 Lewis, 33-34. 36 B.J.S. Cahill, “The Works of Mr. William H. Weeks, Architect.” Architect & Engineer [of California]. San Francisco, vol. 41, no. 2. May 1915, 49. 37 Lewis, 41. 38 Peter Gauvin, “Arthur B. Clark (1866-1949), Palo Alto Centennial (October 21, 1994). 2.d Packet Pg. 87 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -25- Page & Turnbull Hamilton Avenue (1932), the Lucie Stern Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road (1932) and many of the buildings within the Ramona Street Architectural District (1920s).39 Clark taught architecture at Stanford from 1950 until 1972. In 1980, he joined the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board. In 1984, Clark retired from active participation in his firm Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom and on April 30, 1989, he died at the age of 96. All told, Birge Clark designed approximately 450 buildings in the Bay Area. Many of his buildings have been listed in local registers and the National Register of Historic Places. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE CARDINAL HOTEL The Italian Renaissance style, sometimes referred to as the Italian Renaissance Revival or Renaissance Revival style, emerged in cities across the United States toward the end of the nineteenth century in response to popular architectural styles of the Victorian period. Much of the architecture of the Victorian era was dominated by free-flowing, picturesque styles—such as Gothic Revival, Shingle, and Queen Anne—that were inspired by medieval European precedents.40 In contrast, and as its name suggests, the Italian Renaissance style sought a return to the more formal architectural aesthetics of the Italian Renaissance and Baroque periods in France and Italy, which had in turn developed out of a rebirth of interest in the Classical civilizations of Greece and Rome in Florence in the fifteenth century. In this respect, the Italian Renaissance style was part of a long line of artistic and intellectual movements that were rooted in the art and architecture of Classical Greece and Rome.41 From the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, commercial, institutional, and residential buildings across the United States were designed in the Italian Renaissance style. As early as the 1880s the work of McKim, Mead & White in New York City – particularly their highly publicized Villard Houses (1882-1885) – popularized the Renaissance Revival style, and examples of the style in the United States proliferated in architectural publications of the era. Additionally, developments in photography helped to ensure that architects were familiar with accurate depictions of Roman antiquity, and these images were also widely circulated. However, it was the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago that captured the imagination of America. The Columbian Exposition’s classically inspired “White City” was visited by nearly 26 million people in only 6 months and played a major role in reviving interest in classical architecture. This preference for classical ornament and planning principles defined the design sensibilities of America at the turn of the century. The style steadily declined in popularity through the 1930s, as the Great Depression enveloped the country and interests in modern architectural styles grew.42 Common characteristics of the Italian Renaissance style include the following: • Entrances accented by classical columns or pilasters • Flat, symmetrical façades • Walls constructed of or clad with stone, stucco, or brick (generally stone-colored) • Horizontal bands of brick or stone string courses to visually separate floors 39 Peter Gauvin, “Birge Clark (1893-1989),” Palo Alto Centennial (May 25, 1994). 40 Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commissions, “Italian Renaissance Revival Style, 1890-1930,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, accessed July 8, 2019, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/italian-renaissance.html. 41“Italian Renaissance,” Architectural Styles of America and Europe, accessed July 8, 2019, https://architecturestyles.org/italian-renaissance/. 42 Virginia Savage McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. Revised Edition. New York: Knopf, 2015, 498. 2.d Packet Pg. 88 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -26- Page & Turnbull • Classical decorative motifs including cartouches, shields, garlands, and foliate running patterns • Expression of the piano nobile, with visual prominence of the second floor. • Low-pitched hipped roofs or flat roofs, occasionally decorated with clay tile The Cardinal Hotel depicts a number of features of the Italian Renaissance Revival style in its overall design, particularly the use of flat symmetrical primary façades under a flat roof, as well as the inclusion of classical features and motifs such as foliated and festooned decorative panels and pilasters, and a variety of cartouches. The façade is clearly organized with horizontal elements that delineate the upper stories from the ground floor. The use of a wide wrought iron balcony on the second story creates a similar visual prominence to a more traditional piano nobile. While the Cardinal Hotel is largely Italian Renaissance Revival in style, the use of stucco in place of stone allows the building to blend with the other buildings of the Ramona Street Architectural District, and illustrates the ability of the architect to incorporate local materials and regional styles in order to contextualize his designs. The collaboration between Weeks, who was skilled in a number of styles, and Birge Clark, whose career would be defined by his use of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, is particularly evident in the building’s lobby. The interior of the Cardinal Hotel is generally Spanish Colonial Revival with its dark colors, tile, textured walls, and box-beamed ceilings, but the inclusion of the work of local craftsmen illustrates the influence of the American Arts and Crafts movement. An interest in craft and workmanship in the 1910s and 1920s was the result of fears that industrialization was endangering craftsmanship. The choice to include the work of regional craftsmen at the Batchelder Tile Company and Otar the Lampmaker’s studio, reflected the contemporary values around craft and the idea that the inclusion of such craftmanship could define a comfortable space for relaxation and recreation. VI. EVALUATION CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria.  Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.  Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 2.d Packet Pg. 89 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -27- Page & Turnbull  Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.  Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The following section examines the eligibility of the Cardinal Hotel for individual listing in the California Register: Criterion 1 (Events) The Cardinal Hotel appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events). Built as a first-class hotel in 1924, the Cardinal Hotel was meant to attract additional business not only to the University South neighborhood, but also to greater Palo Alto. Seen as filling a long-standing need for increased hotel accommodations – particularly at the high end of the hostelries – the Cardinal Hotel provided comfortable accommodations as well as space for social events for the citizens of Palo Alto. Within the recognized Ramona Street Architectural District, the Cardinal Hotel is also notable for the fact that it was the first building constructed, with six of the seven other contributing buildings built by 1929 (the building at 535-537 Ramona Street was not built until 1938). As the first building within this new commercial development, the Cardinal Hotel played an important role in cementing the commercial development of the University South neighborhood. The Cardinal Hotel’s lobby became a popular gathering place for Palo Alto citizens and visitors, and held dances, events, lectures, and dinners, particularly before the Great Depression. Therefore, the Cardinal Hotel does appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2 (Persons) The Cardinal Hotel does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The subject building was developed by a group of businessmen with other commercial interests in Palo Alto. Soon after construction, the building was sold to Leila Wishon and her son Frank Wishon. Frank Wishon was already involved in the hotel industry at both the Hotel Lankershim in Los Angeles and the Hotel Montgomery in San José, prior to their purchase of the Hotel Cardinal. Leila Wishon primarily lived in Los Angeles, spending little time at the Cardinal Hotel, and beyond her partial ownership of the subject property, appears to have been more involved in the hotel industry through her second marriage to William Wallace Whitecotton. While Whitecotton may be a significant figure in the hotel industry of early twentieth century California, he is more closely associated with other properties, namely the Shattuck Hotel, and there is little evidence of his involvement in the Cardinal Hotel. The Dahl family has owned the Cardinal Hotel for the longest period of its history. Bjarne Dahl, Sr. was an architect and supervised the construction of Julia Morgan’s YWCA building in Honolulu, Hawaii. He then maintained an architecture firm (Dahl & Conrad) in Hawaii, before moving to Los Altos. While Bjarne Cato Dahl appears to be a significant regional architect, his body of professional work is more appropriately associated with Hawaii and not the Cardinal Hotel or Palo Alto. Additionally, Bjarne B. Dahl, Jr’s achievements in the restoration of harpsichords and antique pianos does not relate to the subject building. Thus, the Cardinal Hotel does not appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. 2.d Packet Pg. 90 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -28- Page & Turnbull Criterion 3 (Architecture) The Cardinal Hotel appears to be individually eligible under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The Cardinal Hotel is significant as the work of a notable California architect, William H. Weeks, and demonstrates his considerable range in design and style. The building’s Italian Renaissance Revival style façade is a well-balanced and detailed design that while presenting a sophisticated understanding of the style, is modest enough to blend with the surrounding buildings and demonstrates Weeks’ skill. The building is additionally significant for its design as a collaboration between Weeks and a young Birge Clark. It is unknown how much collaboration on design occurred between Weeks and Clark, but many of the building’s more Spanish Colonial Revival features are believed to be Clark’s additions, as the Spanish Colonial Revival would become his signature style. Birge Clark would go on to build the majority of buildings now included in the Ramona Street Architectural District over the next five years. His work on the Cardinal Hotel was an important accomplishment in his early career that helped to shape this 1920s commercial development and the visual identity of University South. The lobby of the Cardinal Hotel is significant for its architecture as an example of a 1920s interior reflective of the American Arts and Crafts movement. The contemporary focus on craftmanship is evident in the inclusion of decorative tile flooring, the Batchelder tile fireplace, and the wrought iron lamps by Otar the Lampmaker. The box beam ceiling is also a common feature of the Art and Crafts movement. Therefore, the Cardinal Hotel does appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The Cardinal Hotel does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 4 as a building that has the potential to provide information important to the prehistory or history of the City of Palo Alto, state, or nation. It does not feature construction or material types, or embody engineering practices that would, with additional study, provide important information. Page & Turnbull’s evaluation of this property was limited to age-eligible resources above ground and did not involve survey or evaluation of the subject property for the purposes of archaeological information. Period of Significance The period of significance for the Cardinal Hotel is 1924, corresponding to the year of the building’s construction. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character-defining features of the Cardinal Hotel include, but are not limited to: 2.d Packet Pg. 91 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -29- Page & Turnbull Exterior, upper stories • Symmetry of the street façades • Material palette of stucco, terra cotta, wrought iron, and clay tile • Decorative end bays with cast concrete surrounds of foliate Renaissance detail • 10-lite wood casement windows in end bays and in paired central bays on Hamilton Avenue façade • 10-lite wood casement windows in paired central bays on Hamilton Avenue façade • Spandrel panels with shields between windows on second and third stories along both primary façades • Horizontal bandcourse to visually separate ground floor commercial uses from the hotel uses in the second and third floors • Centrally placed cartouche on third story of Hamilton Avenue façade • Wrought iron Juliet balconies along Hamilton Avenue façade • Denticulated box cornice with clay tile • Flat roof Exterior, ground floor • Recessed entrances for access to the hotel lobby on both Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street • Hamilton Avenue entrance accented by classical spiral Corinthian columns and pilasters • Metal marquees over hotel entrances • Organization and rhythm of storefronts with bulkhead, display windows, recessed entrances, and transom windows • Storefront transom windows arranged with fixed-sash, operable transoms, and fixed art glass, separated by mullions with an applied engaged turned post • Foliated terra cotta pilasters with vintage car motifs Interior, lobby • Batchelder Tile Company fireplace • Box beamed ceiling • Decorative tile flooring • Lighting fixtures by Otar the Lampmaker • Columns with rams’ head capitals and spiraled applied colonnettes • Skylight • Textured walls • Three-dimensional shield over fireplace • Open interior volume with wide halls to primary and secondary entrances INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property or landscape must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion as described above and retain integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed 2.d Packet Pg. 92 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -30- Page & Turnbull during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined by the National Park Service as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”43 In order to evaluate whether the Cardinal Hotel retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance, Page & Turnbull used established integrity standards outlined by the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Seven variables, or aspects, that define integrity are used to evaluate a resource’s integrity—location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property must stand up under most or all of these aspects in order to retain overall integrity. If a property does not retain integrity, it can no longer convey its significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in local, state, or national registers. The seven aspects that define integrity are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property. Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Location The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of location as it has remained in its original location. Setting The Cardinal Hotel substantially retains integrity of setting. The Cardinal Hotel is closely associated with its neighboring buildings along the 500 Block of Ramona Street. These buildings, which are contributing buildings with the Cardinal Hotel in the Ramona Street Architectural District, are substantially unaltered and share a primary period of development and significance with the subject building. The construction of new buildings across Hamilton Avenue have maintained a compatible height and massing and do not impact the general character of the commercial corridor immediately adjacent to the Cardinal Hotel. The construction of the Palo Alto Civic Center and City Hall across the intersection from the subject building is the most noticeable change to the immediate setting, but the creation of a public plaza and park at this corner has only increased the prominence of the 43 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001) 11; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1995) 44. 2.d Packet Pg. 93 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -31- Page & Turnbull Cardinal Hotel and the 500 block of Ramona Street. Therefore, the Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of setting. Design The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of design. The subject property has undergone minimal alteration since its construction in 1924. The building’s massing and overall form have remained unchanged. Alterations to the building’s fenestration include the replacement of the building’s four-over-two double-hung wood-sash windows with modern one-over-one hung metal sash. Changes to the colors of the façade have occurred but are reversible. Additionally, alterations to the building’s ground floor include the internal rearrangement (or combination) of commercial units and the replacement of storefront windows and doors, however the rhythm of openings remains largely intact. Thus, these alterations do not negatively impact the building’s overall design. The original design of the interior lobby and lounge remains substantially intact, and those minimal alterations that have occurred have been respectful of the materials, decoration, craftsmanship, and massing of this important interior space. Therefore, the subject building retains integrity of design. Materials The Cardinal Hotel substantially retains integrity of materials. The subject property has undergone minimal alterations since its original construction in 1924. While replacements have been made to windows, doors, and storefronts, the other materials of the façade including the stucco finish, the terra cotta pilasters, cast concrete decorative elements, and the metal balconies and marquees, have remained intact. On the interior, original features and materials are largely intact. Where replacement has been necessary, such as the use of gold paint in place of gold leaf, the impact has been minimal. The replacement of storefront windows and doors has effected the largest change in original material; however, alterations have been in kind and the large glass display windows that characterize the façade remain extant. These minor alterations do not detract from the overall character or design of the building, the Cardinal Hotel substantially retains integrity of materials. Workmanship The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of workmanship. Many of the material choices and design elements that are characteristic of the building’s period of development and Italian Renaissance Revival style have been retained to a high degree. The building’s interior lobby remains highly intact in regard to workmanship and is a significant example of the craftsmanship of the American Arts and Crafts movement. The restoration of the wrought iron lamps, tile flooring, and interior finishes has been sensitive and had maintained original features. Feeling The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of feeling. The property was originally designed for use as a hotel with commercial space along the ground floor and has been continually used as such since its opening in 1924. The building’s location, setting, design, materials, and workmanship have been retained, enabling the building to convey the overall feeling of a 1920s Italian Renaissance Revival hotel. Association The Cardinal Hotel retains integrity of association. It retains a high level of integrity and is able to convey its association with the commercialization of the University South neighborhood, the growing profile of Palo Alto’s downtown in the 1920s, and its Italian Renaissance Revival design as an important collaboration between William H. Weeks and Birge Clark. 2.d Packet Pg. 94 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -32- Page & Turnbull Therefore, the Cardinal Hotel retains a high degree of all seven aspects of integrity such that it conveys its significance under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Architecture) of the California Register, with a period of significance of 1924-1938. VII. CONCLUSION The Cardinal Hotel at 235 Hamilton Avenue appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria 1 and 3. The property was already found significant as a contributing building within a historic district, but the building is additionally significant for its role as a commercial hotel developed to anchor the commercial corridor on Ramona Street that was only just taking shape in 1924. The building was the first to be completed as part of the larger work by the Palo Alto Development Company, and the Cardinal Hotel became an important social and recreational space for Palo Alto in addition to providing commercial uses. For its role in the development of Palo Alto and the University South neighborhood, the building is significant under Criterion 1. The building is also significant as the work of a prolific California architect, William H. Weeks, and is an important early project in the career of Birge Clark, Palo Alto’s most important architect. For the importance of its architects, as well as its refined Italian Renaissance Revival façade and Arts and Crafts interior, the Cardinal Hotel is significant under Criterion 3. The Cardinal Hotel at 235 Hamilton Avenue is therefore a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA review. 2.d Packet Pg. 95 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -33- Page & Turnbull VIII. REFERENCES CITED Published Works California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing. November 2004. Accessed October 22, 2018, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf. CEQA Guidelines. Accessed May 10, 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. Dames & Moore, Michael Corbett, and Denise Bradley. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, February 2001. Grimmer, Anne E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017. Accessed October 2019, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf. Lewis, Betty. W. H. Weeks, Architect. Fresno, CA: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1989. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. Revised Edition. New York: Knopf, 2015. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places, Ramona Street Architectural District, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, National Register #86000592. Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? “Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986). Sakamoto, Dean. et al, editors. Hawaiian Modernism: The Architecture of Vladimir Ossipoff, Honolulu: Honolulu Academy of Arts; in association with Yale University Press, 2007. Winslow, Ward and Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993. Public Records Building Permit Applications. Palo Alto Development Services. California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, April 5, 2012. City of Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan 2030. Adopted by City Council, November 13, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2019, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915. City of Palo Alto. Online Parcel Reports. http://199.33.32.49/ParcelReports/ United States Federal Census (1920, 1930, 1940). www.Ancestry.com. U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current. www.Ancestry.com. 2.d Packet Pg. 96 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -34- Page & Turnbull Newspapers and Periodicals Architect & Engineer [of California]. [Works of William H. Weeks, unnumbered plates]. San Francisco, vol. 41, no. 2. May 1915. “Angelino in Hotel Deal,” The Los Angeles Times, September 8, 1925, 4. “Berkeleyan Leases Hotel in Palo Alto,” San Francisco Examiner, June 2, 1926, 9. “Bjarne Dahl.” Palo Alto Online [obituaries]. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/obituaries/memorials/bjarne-dahl?o=1338 Cahill, B.J.S. “The Works of Mr. William H. Weeks, Architect.” Architect & Engineer [of California]. San Francisco, vol. 41, no. 2. May 1915. “Congratulations: Bjarne Cato Dahl,” The Honolulu Advertiser, May 25, 1940, 7. “Dr. Whitecotton Dies at Age of 70,” Oakland Tribune, December 18, 1968, 15. “Drama in Downtown Palo Alto,” San Mateo Times and Daily News, May 13, 1964. Gauvin, Peter. “Arthur B. Clark (1866-1949), Palo Alto Centennial (October 21, 1994). Gauvin, Peter. “Birge Clark (1893-1989),” Palo Alto Centennial (May 25, 1994). “Horabin Acquires Business Corner.” Palo Alto Times. December 1, 1921. “Hotel Corporation Papers are Filed,” Palo Alto Times, November 5, 1923. “Hotel Sold.” Oakland Tribune, October 26, 1930, 12. “John Philip Souza Honored at Dinner,” Santa Cruz News, November 7, 1928, 6. “Old Blacksmith Shop in Palo Alto Doomed.” Oakland Tribune, November 25, 1922, 7. “Palo Alto’s New Cardinal Hotel,” [advertisement] San Francisco Examiner, February 28, 1925, 7. “Palo Alto Hotel to Open Saturday,” Oakland Tribune, December 10, 1924, 36. “Palo Alto Hotel to Open Saturday,” San Francisco Examiner, December 9, 1924, 13. Palo Alto Historical Association, “The Cardinal Hotel Celebrates 90 Years,” The Tall Tree [PAHA newsletter], November 2015, v. 39, n. 3, 3. "Personal," The Hotel World: The Hotel World and Travelers Journal, (Chicago: The Hotel World Interests, Inc.) February 1921, v. 92, n. 6, 31 “Santa Cruz Firm Executes Contract for Lighting Fixtures Which Will Grace Palo Alto’s Hotel Cardinal,” Santa Cruz Evening News, November 15, 1924, 4. “Structure to be Built on Hamilton Avenue.” Palo Alto Times. October 24, 1923. Archival Records “Cardinal Hotel, Palo Alto, California,” Birge M. Clark architectural drawings, 1909-1954, Stanford Digital Repository, Stanford University Libraries. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. http://purl.stanford.edu/dt547bn7002 Palo Alto Historical Association. Building Permit Index Files. Palo Alto Historical Association. Inventory of Historic Buildings Files. Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto City Directories (1924-1978). Palo Alto Historical Association. Photograph Collection. http://archives.pahistory.org/index.php 2.d Packet Pg. 97 Historic Resource Evaluation Cardinal Hotel, 235 Hamilton Avenue [16252A.14] Palo Alto, California May 5, 2020 -35- Page & Turnbull Riess, Susan. ed. The Julia Morgan Architectural History Project, Volume II, [Interview with Bjarne Dahl, Sr. and Bjarne Dahl, Jr.], University of California, Berkeley: The Bancroft Library, 1976. 145- 155. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Accessed via San Francisco Public Library. University of California, Santa Barbara Library, Special Research Collections. Aerial Photography FrameFinder. https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos/aerial-photography-information. Internet Sources “City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,” Bay Area Census. Accessed August 27, 2019, http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PaloAlto50.htm. “Cardinal Hotel.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Accessed October 2019. https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invH/Hamilton235.html David Rumsey Historic Map Collection. Find A Grave. Accessed October 2019, www.findagrave.com. Google Maps. 2019. “Italian Renaissance,” Architectural Styles of America and Europe, accessed July 8, 2019, https://architecturestyles.org/italian-renaissance/. Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commissions, “Italian Renaissance Revival Style, 1890-1930,” Pennsylvania Architectural Field Guide, accessed July 8, 2019, http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/italian- renaissance.html. “Ramona Street Architectural District.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Accessed October 2019. https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invR/RamonaStreet%20AD.html 2.d Packet Pg. 98 2.d Packet Pg. 99 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax 2401 C Street, Suite BSacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 170 Maiden Lane, 5th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94108 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY www.page-turnbull.com 2.d Packet Pg. 100 Attachment E Municipal Code Section 16.49.040 (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: 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. 2.e Packet Pg. 101 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11133) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/14/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 488 University Avenue (Hotel President) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Hotel President, 488 University Avenue [19PLN-00038]: Review of Proposed Building Modifications for Compliance with Secretary of the Interior's Standards; Architectural Review Application to Modify a Local Inventory Category 2 Resource, Including Interior and Exterior Renovations, to Convert Residentially Used Spaces to Hotel Use. The Building is Considered a Legal Non-Complying Facility, and is Eligible for Listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Environmental Assessment: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exempt per Guidelines 15301 for Existing Structures, 15302 for Reconstruction and 15331 for Restoration of Historic Resource. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide a recommendation regarding the building modifications, confirming the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Report Summary The Hotel President building is a six-story, Inventory Category 2 building located at 488 University Avenue. This report transmits the historic resource evaluation and peer review. These reports (a) confirm the building is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, and (b) evaluate the proposed building modifications. 3 Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Built in 1929-30, Hotel President is a ‘grandfathered’ non-complying facility with respect to building height, floor area ratio (FAR) and setback projections (basement, marquee entry and balcony). The proposed project includes interior and exterior remodeling, rehabilitation, and conversion of the upper floor use. Most recent uses included 75 residential units and ground floor commercial spaces. The proposed use is commercial: a 100-guestroom hotel with ground floor commercial spaces. Attachment A provides a location map of the project site. The project plans are included as a link available in Attachment F. The applicant submits the applications pursuant to: • Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.120(b)(F), seeking a waiver to allow the conversion of residential space to non-residential space, and • PAMC Section 16.49.080(a)(1)(A), for architectural review of Downtown historic structures by the HRB, and • PAMC Section PAMC 18.18.060(e)(2), seeking the addition of elevator access to the rooftop via a Conditional Use Permit, which also would apply to the sale (on site) of alcoholic beverages. The HRB is requested to review of the proposed modifications for compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (SOI Standards). The review is associated with the Architectural Review application. This meeting is the first public hearing for the project. The HRB’s feedback will inform the Director of Planning and Development Services’ consideration of the project. Background The Hotel President building was constructed in 1929-1930 with ground floor commercial spaces and hotel lodging above the first floor. The architecture represents the Spanish colonial revival architectural style. In 1968, the building was converted from apartment/hotel use to full apartment use while the ground floor continued to be in commercial use. In 1978, the building was placed on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory (Category 2—major building of regional importance) as “a good example of the local restrained variant of the Spanish (or California) Colonial image.” The applicant requests Architectural Review approval to renovate the building’s exterior features and interior spaces. The applicant proposes to convert the 75 residential apartments into 100 hotel guestrooms. This conversion requires a waiver approval by City Council from PAMC Section 18.18.120(b)(F), since the building is a non-complying facility. Discussion Site and Surroundings The 9,425 square foot (SF) parcel is a rectangular shaped corner lot, developed with a six story, 51,115 SF building constructed in 1929-1930. The site takes vehicular access from a driveway on Cowper Street directly to a one-level basement garage. Deliveries to the site are via the 10-foot alley, located next to the building’s east wall and within the property boundaries. Pedestrian 3 Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 access would continue from University Avenue into an entry lobby; a new internal pedestrian corridor is proposed from Cowper Street to the ground floor lobby. The building also includes existing wireless telecommunications equipment on the roof. Adjacent uses include commercial, lodging, and offices. The architectural styles of buildings within the vicinity include an eclectic mix of contemporary and traditional architecture. These buildings range from low to mid-rise buildings, except for one high-rise, 15-story office building located at 525 University Avenue. Photo and Aerial Map of 488 University Avenue: Source: Google, 2020 Source: CNES/Airbus, Maxar, USGS 2020 Project Description The applicant proposes an interior renovation, use conversion of the upper floor spaces to create a 100-guestroom hotel, and exterior renovations. The applicant proposes restoration of the building’s original architectural and design elements; this includes building (seismic) and fire code (sprinklers) upgrades. The proposal does not include any new additions to the building, nor does it alter its footprint, mass, or scale. The proposal includes providing elevator access to the roof, allowing the roof terrace to be accessible by all [permitted under PAMC Section 18.18.060(e)(1) & (2)]. Proposed interior alterations: • Reconfiguration of the basement for storage, bicycle parking, and vehicle parking; • Reconfiguration of the six existing retail spaces on first floor o Retention of two of the existing retail spaces; o Merging two retail spaces to create a new corridor from the lobby to Cowper Street; o Creation of a lobby and lobby café from two of the existing vacant retail spaces; • Restoration and preservation of the historic elevator; 3 Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 • Addition of a new elevator; and • Preservation of historic elements within the existing lobby space Proposed exterior renovations: • Renovate roof terrace and construct new elevator penthouse • South Elevation o Paint stucco walls and mullions • West Elevation (University Avenue) o Remove storefront awnings (Sheets A300 & A301) o Replace non-historic tile at low walls along storefront #2 with tiles that match historic tiles (A300 & A301) o Reconstruct the iron hinged grille at main entry to lobby (A300 & A301) o Replace storefront windows, removal of door, addition of low tiled wall with tiles to match historic tiles (Space #4) (A300 & A301) o Replace storefront windows, remove door, continue low tiled wall with tiles to match historic tiles (Space #5) (A300 & A301) o Paint stucco walls, wrought iron balconies (A300 & A301), mullions, wood balcony (A300 & A301) o Replace door to match historic context (A300 & A301) • North Elevation (Cowper Street) o Remove storefront awnings (Sheets A302 & A303) o Paint stucco walls and mullions • East Elevation (Alley) o Replace window with new door to the kitchen (A304 & A305) o Paint stucco walls and mullions Comprehensive Plan Designation The subject property has the land use designation ‘Regional/Community Commercial’. This designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University Avenue/Downtown. Non- retail uses such as medical and dental offices are also permitted within areas having this designation; software development is a permitted use Downtown. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects are allowed on properties having this land use category. Non-residential Floor Area Ratios (FARs) range from 0.35 to 2.0. Consistent with the 3 Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi- family housing may be allowed in specific locations. The following Comprehensive Plan historic preservation/rehabilitation programs/policies apply to the project: • Policy L-7.1: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. • Program L-7.1.1: 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 L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. • Policy L-7.5: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. • Program L-7.8: Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. • Policy L-7.12: Maintain the historic integrity of building exteriors. Consider parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation. Zoning The site’s zoning designation is Community Commercial Downtown District with a Pedestrian Shopping Combining (CD-C (GF)(P)). The CD-C zoning district is a comprehensive district for the Downtown business area. This zone allows a wide range of commercial, residential and neighborhood service uses, including mixed uses. The Pedestrian Shopping (P) combining district is intended to modify the regulations of various commercial districts. This is found in locations where it is deemed essential to (1) foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and (2) avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment. The (P) district goal is to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The Ground Floor (GF) combining district is intended to provide design guidelines and modify the uses allowed in the commercial districts and sub-districts. The GF district goal is to promote active, pedestrian-oriented uses, with a high level of transparency and visual interest at the ground level. Noncomplying Facility The Hotel President was constructed in 1929-30; at the time, the building complied with the City’s then-prevailing zoning and building standards. Subsequent changes to the City’s zoning standards rendered the property a legal, non-complying facility, as defined in the PAMC Section 18.70.010 and further governed by regulations in PAMC Section 18.18.120. 3 Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The property is non-complying with respect to several zoning development standards. These include the following: • Height (50 feet maximum allowed versus 90 feet); • FAR (18,850 square feet maximum permitted versus 50,540 square feet proposed); and • Setbacks on University Avenue: o Basement protrudes nine feet o Marquee entry protrudes 8’-9” o Sixth floor balcony protrudes 2’-7” The project is subject to PAMC 18.18.120(b)(2)(F). This code section restricts conversion of residential space to a non-residential use for non-complying facilities. In accordance with this section, the applicant requests a City Council waiver to implement the use conversion. This issue is not within the HRB’s purview. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The applicant requests approval of the following discretionary applications: • Architectural Review (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are typically forwarded to the Director of Planning & Development Services for entitlement decision. As a designated Historic Resource (Category 2) located within the Downtown, modifications are also subject to HRB review. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The HRB will provide a recommendation based on the project’s consistency with the SOI Standards. For this project, the Council will receive the HRB’s recommendations on the AR application. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The applicant seeks approval, pursuant to PAMC 18.18.060(e)(2), to provide access to the rooftop (increasing height/expand floor area). The applicant seeks approval, pursuant to PAMC 18.42.090, of alcoholic beverages for sale and consumption on site. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by staff and recommendations are typically forwarded to the Director of Planning & Development Services. Since the project’s other requests include evaluation by the City Council, the request for the CUP will also be considered by the City Council. CUP projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. This request is not within the HRB’s purview to consider. • Waiver of Conversion of Residential Space: In accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.120(b)(2)(F), since the project is a non-complying facility, conversion of residential space to non-residential space is not permitted. An applicant asserting that the operation of this subsection (F) is preempted by state or federal law shall submit a statement of its position with all claims and all supporting documentary evidence at the time it applies for a change of use. The City Council shall hold at least one noticed public hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in PAMC 18.77.080 to consider 3 Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 whether to waive or adjust the requirements of one or more provisions of Titles 18 or 21. The City Council may seek additional information including, without limitation, third party peer review paid for at the applicant’s expense. This request is not within the HRB’s purview. Analysis Compliance with Development Standards The applicant submitted requests for Architectural Review, a Conditional Use Permit and a Waiver of PAMC Section 18.18.120(b)(2)(F). Attachment E summarizes the project’s compliance with the City’s zoning development standards. The height of building increases (85 feet to 90’- 3”) because of the elevator addition. This elevator would allow access to the renovated roof terrace. Buildings located in the CD-C sub-district that are noncomplying for height or gross floor area may be permitted to increase height and expand floor area to the minimum degree necessary, to provide rooftop access and related amenities. Such access and amenities may include features such as stairs, elevators, trellises, outdoor furniture, railings, lighting, and other similar features. Rooftop access area is not included in the gross floor area calculation. The rooftop access request is considered in conjunction with the requested conditional use permit. The proposed internal renovations result in a reduction in the site FAR from 5.42:1 to 5.36:1. This FAR is still greater than the allowable 2.0:1 FAR. Character Defining Features The applicant submitted a Historic Resources Report (HRE) and discussion of the SOI Standards in 2020 (prepared by Page & Turnbull, Attachment B). The City retained Metropolitan Planning Group, Inc. to conduct a peer review of the 2020 HRE and an updated review of the Standards as it relates to the new project (Attachment C). In summary, the peer review concurs with the findings of the 2020 HRE. Attachment D summarizes the character defining features of the property. There are later alterations to the building, specifically completed during the 1950s and in 1971. The modifications are outside of the building’s period of significance and are not considered to be character-defining features of the building. Eligibility for Listing on California Historic Register Listing Criteria The HRE examines the subject property’s eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register). A property may be eligible for listing on the California Register, if it is found to be significant under one or more of the following criteria: • Criterion 1, Events • Criterion 2, Persons • Criterion 3, Architecture • Criterion 4, Information Potential 3 Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 According to the HRE, the property appears individually eligible for Criteria 1 and 3. The peer review memorandum concurs with the HRE’s conclusions. Integrity The HRE also evaluates the existing building’s integrity for eligibility of listing on any local, state or national historic register. In order to qualify for listing in any local, state or national historic register, a property must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterium. The property must also retain integrity as defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation and National Park Service. Further guidance is provided by the National Register Bulletin on integrity. Without integrity, the property cannot remain eligible for listing on any register. The seven aspects that define integrity include: • Location • Setting • Design • Materials • Workmanship • Feeling • Association The property retains five of the seven aspects of integrity. The property substantially retains integrity of setting and materials. It retains enough integrity to convey its significance under Criteria 1 (Events) and 3 (Architecture) of the California Register, with a period of significance of 1929-1930. Summary of Impacts of Project on Building & Architectural Integrity In accordance with PAMC Section 16.49.050(a)(1)(A), because the project is a significant historic structure in the downtown area, it is subject to HRB review and recommendation. Staff requests the HRB’s feedback as to whether the project will enable the existing building to retain its historic character. The 2020 Report provides an updated analysis of the project’s impacts on architectural integrity of the historical resource. Note that eligibility for the California Register qualifies the Hotel President for use of the State Historic Building Code (SHBC), per Health and Safety Code Section 18955. Listing on the City’s Historic Inventory also qualifies the building for SHBC use. Use of the SHBC can be helpful in preserving a historic building’s integrity. Compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards Staff determines the proposed changes would meet the SOI Standards and summarizes those findings in the following table. The peer review memo concurs with the HRE report conclusions. SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis 3 Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The proposed project will absorb commercial square footage into an enlarged lobby area, which will be used by the hotel. The upper floors are renovated to accommodate 100 guestrooms. Although, this represents a change from a residential use, the building historically accommodated hotel and residential uses. The proposed hotel does not introduce a new use that what was originally constructed. The project will be implemented with minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and site. The project will adhere to Standard 1. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The building’s primary mass and form will not be altered. The addition of elevator access to the roof and the construction of a mechanical equipment screen is consistent with other elements on the roof and will not be visible from the public right-of-way. The project does not appear to impact any character-defining features of the exterior, basement or roof levels. Retention of commercial units at the ground floor will allow the building to continue to convey its mixed-use identity. The storefronts and interiors of commercial units four and five have already been altered, and further alteration of those units will not compromise the building’s ability to convey its significance as a mixed-use Spanish Colonial Revival building designed by the original architect. The removal of a portion of the dividing wall between the lobby and unit four will affect the 3 Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis lobby’s hall-style character and does not fully comply with Standard 2. However, the proposed improvement retains substantially the dividing wall and includes arched openings that are consistent with the architectural theme of the building. (See Figure 1) 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The proposed project does not include any new additions and does not alter the building footprint or scale. The proposed enlargement of the lobby will alter interior proportions at the first story. No other features from different historic periods are proposed that would create a false sense of historical development. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: Subsequent changes to the property (including the 1971 renovation by Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom Architects and other post-1930 alterations) have not acquired historic significance in their own right. Non-historic materials and features will also be removed or altered. Examples include formerly altered wall sections within the building lobby (i.e. former opening to commercial unit four within the southwest lobby wall and former opening to lounge/banquet room), removal of non- historic lobby floor tiling, the removal of non- historic storefront features, and the alteration of storefronts at commercial units four and five. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA 3 Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Explanation: The original materials, features, finishes and construction methods that characterize the structure’s historic architectural integrity will be retained. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: All retained historic features will be repaired. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The treatment method will comply with the standards and be gentle. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The project does not include any excavation. 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.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The conversion of commercial units to hotel lobby use will use clear demarcation of old versus new. A partial wall will be retained between the lobby and commercial unit four to avoid loss of a hall- style lobby. This is achieved by making new openings with a low-arch shape, which differentiates them from the round-arch primary entrance door and the post-and-lintel construction of the rest of the historic lobby’s structural elements. The historic lobby tile 3 Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis flooring will remain; newly renovated areas will feature differentiated flooring material and furnishings. Similarly, the renovation of upper floor units to hotel guest rooms will rely on contemporary design choices. The removal of a portion of the dividing wall between the lobby and unit four will affect the lobby’s hall-style character and does not fully comply with Standard 9. However, the proposed improvement retains substantially the dividing wall and includes arched openings that are consistent with the architectural theme of the building. (See Figure 1) 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.  CONSISTENT  NOT CONSISTENT  NA Explanation: The removal of a portion of the dividing wall between the lobby and unit four will affect the lobby’s hall-style character and does not fully comply with Standards 2 and 9, which specifically address spatial relationships and historic design features. Although the wall will not be entirely removed, it will have two large low-arched openings cut into it, opening the greater length of the wall from the entrance vestibule to the elevator. The proposed opening in the wall, however, is reversible and therefore is consistent with Standard 10. 3 Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 13 Figure 1: Interior Lobby Wall Condition (SOI 2 & 9) Source: ELS, Sheets A201 & A401, 2020 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 under CEQA pursuant to three classes: • Class 1 (Section 15301) for existing structures, since the project proposes repair, maintenance, minor alterations and involves a negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.; • Class 2 (Section 15302) for reconstruction since the project involves the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the structure will have substantially the same purpose and capacity; and • Class 31 (Section 15331) for restoration of a historic resource in that the project includes maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historic resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatments of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. The project restores the exterior character defining features and restores the original use of the lobby space and roof top terrace. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Staff placed notice of the HRB public hearing for this project in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the project to a date uncertain; or 2. Recommend project denial 3 Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 14 Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2336 sahsing@m-group.us amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Historic Resource Evaluation and SOI Standards Memo (PDF) • Attachment C: Peer Review of Historic Resource Evaluation (PDF) • Attachment D: Character Defining Features (DOCX) • Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 115 3.a Packet Pg. 116 imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull HOTEL PRESIDENT HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 480-498 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA [18120] PREPARED FOR: GPCA OWNER LLC FEBRUARY 6, 2020 3.b Packet Pg. 117 3.b Packet Pg. 118 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS .............................................................................. 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ............................................................................................ 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ............................................................................... 3 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .......................................................................................................... 3 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 5 EXTERIOR .............................................................................................................................................. 5 INTERIOR ............................................................................................................................................. 12 SURROUNDING AREA .......................................................................................................................... 16 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 18 PALO ALTO HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 18 UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................. 20 V. HISTORY OF THE HOTEL PRESIDENT ............................................................... 22 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 27 OWNERSHIP HISTORY .......................................................................................................................... 30 OCCUPANT HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 32 SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE ...................................................................................................... 33 BIRGE M. CLARK (1893-1989), ARCHITECT ......................................................................................... 33 VI. EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 35 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 35 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ...................................................................................................... 36 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................ 38 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 41 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 42 3.b Packet Pg. 119 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -2- Page & Turnbull I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of GPCA Owner LLC for the property at 480-498 University Avenue (APN 120-15-071), known as the Hotel President. The Hotel President was built in 1929-1930 and designed by local master architect Birge Clark in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The subject property is located at the southern corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street in a Downtown Commercial (community) (or CD-C) zoning district with both a ground floor (GF) and pedestrian shopping (P) combining district regulations. The parcel consists of a large rectangular lot of approximately 9,425-square-feet (Figure 1). Figure 1: City of Palo Alto parcel map. Subject property indicated by blue outline. Source: City of Palo Alto, Online Parcel Reports, 2020. METHODOLOGY This report follows a standard outline used for Historic Resource Evaluation reports, and provides a summary of the current historic status, a building description, and a historic context for the Hotel President. The report includes an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected for a prior due diligence report for the project applicant. The research included visits to various local repositories, including the Palo Alto Development Services and the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA), as well as various online sources including Palo Alto Stanford (PAST) Heritage, Ancestry.com, and Newspapers.com. Key primary sources consulted and cited in this report include Palo Alto building permit applications, city and county directories, and historical newspapers. All photographs in this report were taken by Page & Turnbull during a site visit in May 2018, unless otherwise noted. 3.b Packet Pg. 120 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -3- Page & Turnbull II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the Hotel President. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. The Hotel President is not currently listed in the National Register. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. Properties can be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register. The Hotel President is not currently listed in the California Register. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Properties listed or under review by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) of “1” to “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register or California Register. Properties with a Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register or are already listed in one or both of the registers. A property assigned a Status Code of “3” or “4” appears to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally requires more research to support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be locally significant or to have contextual importance, while properties with a Status Code of “6” are not eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource has not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation. The Hotel President is listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code of 5S2, meaning “an individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation.”1 The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara County that lists the status codes was in April 2012. 2 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The inventory is 1 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). 2 California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, Updated April 2012. 3.b Packet Pg. 121 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -4- Page & Turnbull organized under the following four Categories: ▪ Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. ▪ Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. ▪ Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden façades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. The Hotel President is a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. 3.b Packet Pg. 122 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -5- Page & Turnbull III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Hotel President is located on a large, rectangular parcel at the south corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street (Figure 2). The building’s primary northwest façade fronts University Avenue and the secondary northeast facade fronts Cowper Street. The southwest façade abuts the two-story building at 470 University Avenue and the southeast (rear) façade looks onto a narrow alley and the four-story Garden Court Hotel building at 520 Cowper Street. The six-story, rectangular-plan building was constructed in 1929-1930 and contains a basement, a first story with six commercial units and a private building lobby, five stories of lodging units, and a seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse and roof terrace. Figure 2: Aerial view of subject property at 488-98 University Avenue. The subject parcel is highlighted in orange. Source: Google Maps, 2018. Edited by Page & Turnbull. EXTERIOR The primary façade of the textured stucco-clad building features prominent marquee signage, six commercial storefronts, two-second-story Juliet balconies, and a sixth story wood gallery (or balcony) (Figure 3). The building’s upper levels feature a regular fenestration pattern with steel-frame fixed and casement windows. Some windows contain wired or opaque glazing. The building is topped with a parapeted flat roof, terra cotta clay tile end gables, and a terra cotta clay tile shed roof at the gallery level. Primary (Northwest) Façade The primary (northwest) façade features seven structural bays. The first and last bays slightly project at the upper floors. The first story contains six commercial storefronts and a central, recessed entrance vestibule that opens to the private building lobby (Figure 4). On the original architectural drawings, the commercial units are numbered one through six from left (north) to right (south). The units are numbered in this report and are addressed as follows: unit one: 498 University Avenue; unit 3.b Packet Pg. 123 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -6- Page & Turnbull two: 494 University Avenue; unit three: 490 University Avenue; unit four: 486 University Avenue; unit five: 482 University Avenue; and unit six: 480 University Avenue. Figure 3: Primary (northwest) façade of Hotel President, looking southeast. Source: Google Street View, photo submitted by Rahul Biswas in 2016. Figure 4: Storefronts at primary façade, view looking southeast. Commercial unit one at image left, commercial unit six at image right. Source: Google Street View. Each commercial unit is defined by a rectangular opening with scalloped chamfered top corners. Each commercial storefront contains a bulkhead(s), a single door, fixed plate glass storefront glazing, a fabric awning with scrolled metal brackets, and a multi-lite opaque glazed transom window. A steel seismic beam divides the storefront doors and windows from the transoms above. Spindlework screens shield the transoms, which contain four wood-frame inward-opening hopper windows flanked by fixed scalloped chamfered lites. The six commercial storefronts are otherwise varied in appearance and configuration. Unit one features a glazed wood-frame central door with a glass transom. The door is flanked by large wood-frame plate-glass windows that sit above tiled bulkheads (Figure 5). Unit two features a glazed wood-frame central door with a glass transom. The door is flanked by large wood-frame aluminum-sash plate glass windows that sit above tiled bulkheads 3.b Packet Pg. 124 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -7- Page & Turnbull (Figure 6). Unit three features a right-of-center glazed wood-frame door with a stained-glass transom.3 Two large wood-frame aluminum-sash plate glass windows sit above a tiled bulkhead. Unit four features a left-of-center glazed aluminum-frame door with a glass transom. Three aluminum- frame and aluminum-sash plate glass windows sit above an aluminum-panel bulkhead. Unit five features a slightly recessed storefront with can lighting, a left-of-center glazed wood-frame door, and a glazed-wood frame accordion door that sits above a tiled bulkhead. Unit six features a wood Dutch door with a nine-lite window in the upper half and a glass transom. The central door is flanked by large wood-frame plate glass windows that sit above tiled bulkheads. Figure 5: 498 University Avenue (commercial unit one). Figure 6: 494 University Avenue (commercial unit two). Figure 7: 482 University Avenue (commercial unit five). Figure 8: 480 University Avenue (commercial unit six). 3 The transom contains “490” numerals and the red and white barber pole symbol. 3.b Packet Pg. 125 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -8- Page & Turnbull Figure 9: Marquee at lobby entrance vestibule, view looking northeast. Figure 10: Transom above marquee. Figure 11: Recessed primary entrance vestibule. Figure 12: Transom above primary entrance doors and chandelier. Figure 13: Detail of vestibule tilework at lobby entrance vestibule Figure 14: Detail of lobby door handle. Similar to the commercial storefronts, the lobby entrance is defined by a rectangular opening with scalloped chamfered corners; the opening is narrower than the commercial storefronts. Rather than a fabric awning, a projecting cast iron marquee spans the opening of the recessed primary entrance vestibule. The marquee, supported by scrolled brackets, features “Hotel President” lettering bordered by palmette, scroll, and vegetal detailing. Openings amongst the lettering indicate the former presence of neon lighting. An opaque glazed transom sits above the marquee; a central fixed lite is 3.b Packet Pg. 126 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -9- Page & Turnbull flanked by scalloped chamfered fixed lites. The fully tiled primary entrance vestibule terminates at glazed wood-frame double doors flanked by sidelights and topped with an arched double transom. The right (south) door features a single decorative metal handle. A wrought-iron six-pointed star chandelier illuminates the vestibule. The first story of the building is visually differentiated from the upper five stories by two slightly projecting molded wood beltcourses. Second-story Juliet balconies are located at the far (north) and right (south) projecting bays (Figure 15). The balconies feature scrolled wrought-iron railings and corbel molded bases. The fenestration pattern at the upper five stories is vertically regular; the horizontal fenestration pattern, from left to right, includes: three double casement multi-lite windows; a fixed central window flanked by multi-lite casements, paired double casement multi-lite windows; a fixed central window flanked by multi-lite casements; a narrow five-lite fixed central window flanked by multi-lite casements; a fixed central window flanked by multi-lite casements, paired double casement multi-lite windows; a fixed central window flanked by multi-lite casements; and three double casement multi-lite windows (Figure 16).4 The only exceptions to the vertically regular fenestration pattern are at the sixth story. Three double casement arched windows with a molded sill and broken lintel are located at the north and south projecting bays. These arched windows sit beneath small, round, scallop-molded vents at the gable peaks. A wood gallery structure spans the central portion of the primary façade, between the gabled bays (Figure 17). The gallery’s floor beams are cantilevered from the building interior. Eight sets of paired wood posts with scrolled corbels support the gallery’s clay-tile shed roof. The structure is enclosed by a simple wood railing. Two sets of paired double doors lead from the sixth story apartments provide access to the gallery. Figure 15: Juliet balcony at south projecting bay of primary facade. Figure 16: Typical upper-level window. Figure 17: Gallery at sixth story of primary facade, view looking southeast 4 The multi-lite casement windows are four lites topped with a fixed lite; this configuration is present at all facades and applies to all uses of “multi-lite.” 3.b Packet Pg. 127 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -10- Page & Turnbull Northeast Façade The northeast façade of 480-98 University Avenue faces Cowper Street (Figure 18). The building’s sole garage entrance is located at the far left (south) portion of the façade; a ramp descends to the basement garage. A glazed wood-frame door located mid-façade provides access to commercial unit one. A storefront at the right (north) portion of the façade largely mirrors those at the primary façade. The storefront features scalloped chamfered corners, a tiled bulkhead, three wood-frame fixed plate glass storefront windows, and a multi-lite opaque transom window. Unlike the storefronts at the primary façade, the northeast storefront at commercial unit one does not contain an access door and the outer hopper windows have been infilled with air conditioning units (Figure 19). The upper five stories of the northeast façade sit above two molded beltcourses and feature vertically regular fenestration. Horizontal fenestration, from left (south) to right (north), consists of: a fixed central window flanked by multi-lite casements; two vertically-oriented four-lite casement windows; paired multi-lite glazed doors opening onto the fire escape; two vertically-oriented four-lite casement windows; and a fixed central window flanked by multi-lite casements. Figure 18: Northeast façade, view looking west. Figure 19: Storefront of commercial unit one fronting Cowper Street, view looking southwest. Southeast (Rear) Façade The southeast (rear) façade of 480-98 University Avenue is clad in board-formed concrete, rather than stucco (see Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22). The first and second stories feature irregular fenestration consisting of metal-sash windows and metal single doors. Windows are casement, double casement, awning, or industrial. One window features a vinyl frame. Metal single doors provide access to the commercial units. The upper three stories contain multi-lite double casement windows, fixed central windows flanked by multi-lite casements, and six-lite glazed double doors that open onto the rear fire escape. The rear façade also features venting, piping, and affixed air conditioning units. 3.b Packet Pg. 128 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -11- Page & Turnbull Figure 20: Southeast façade (image left), view looking west. Figure 21: First and second stories of southeast façade, view looking southwest. Figure 22: Upper levels of southeast façade. Figure 23: Southwest façade, view looking north. (Google Maps, 2020). Southwest Façade The southwest façade of 480-98 University Avenue abuts the neighboring two-story building at 470 University Avenue (Figure 23). The second story of the subject building is partially visible and features three three-lite casement windows. The upper four stories feature fixed central windows flanked by multi-lite casements, and vertically-oriented four-lite casement windows. Unlike the northeast Cowper Street façade and southeast (rear) façade, the southwest façade does not feature a fire escape. Roof The roof of 480-98 University Avenue contains a seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse (Figure 24). The stucco-clad penthouse contains an elevator operation room, fan room, storage rooms, and facilitates pedestrian access from the building interior to the roof. A wood pergola structure with decorative wood corbels is affixed to the southeast façade of the penthouse (Figure 25). The north 3.b Packet Pg. 129 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -12- Page & Turnbull area of the roof serves as a terrace shared by building tenants. A parapet wall encloses the full roof area, which contains various mechanical and satellite equipment at the southwest area. A roof vent affixed to the southwest façade of the penthouse circulates air throughout the entire building. At the northwest façade of the penthouse, two adjacent wood structures partially obscure the primary rectangular penthouse mass. Pergola rafter tails and a metal-frame window remain visible at the primary penthouse mass (where not obscured by the storage room structures); the projecting structures feature wood-sash four-lite awning windows, an aluminum screened door, and a wood door. The structures feature a slightly lower roofline than the primary penthouse mass.5 The main building roof, the penthouse roof, and the two storage structure roofs are flat; the end bays of the main building are gabled. The building features one central skylight at the south gable, and one skylight at the seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse. Figure 24: Rooftop circulation/utility penthouse with storage rooms, view looking south. Figure 25: Rooftop pergola, view looking northeast. INTERIOR The following sections describe the interior publicly accessible spaces of the Hotel President. Lobby and Mezzanine The lodging portion of the subject building is addressed 488 University Avenue. The entrance to the private lobby is located at the center of the building’s primary northwest façade, between commercial unit three and unit four. The Spanish Colonial Revival style lobby consists of an entrance hall area and a rear area containing an elevator, mailroom, and office. A mezzanine level is accessed via a tiled stairway. Features of the entrance hall include: polychrome floor tiles, decorative Spanish tiles at the floor perimeter, a wood-beamed ceiling with a wrought-iron chandelier, and decorative molded plaster ceiling brackets that visually separate the entrance hall area from the rear lobby spaces (see Figure 26 to Figure 32). Features of the single elevator cab include: a wood manual folding door with two wired glass lites, a metal security gate, leather-paneled walls, a copper ceiling, and brass fixtures (Figure 33). A passageway leads from the elevator to a single wood door at the far (northeast) end of the rear lobby, which provides access to commercial unit two. The wood-paneled passageway ceiling features painted wood beams and wrought iron light fixtures. A mailroom at the far rear lobby area features a plaster ceiling, a chandelier, and polychrome floor tiles (Figure 34 and Figure 36). A partially glazed wood door at the rear of the mailroom leads to an office. A tiled stairway with terra cotta paver treads, Spanish tile risers, and a scrolled wrought iron railing provides access from the lobby entrance hall to a mezzanine level (Figure 37). A storage closet (former telephone room) sits beneath the mezzanine stairway, across from the mailroom. A wood door located immediately left (northwest) of the mezzanine stair ascent provides access to commercial unit three. The mezzanine level is supported by wood posts with scrolled wood corbels with floral details. 5 One opening that appears to have originally contained an awning window is boarded over. 3.b Packet Pg. 130 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -13- Page & Turnbull A carved wood beam spans the length of the mezzanine floor. The mezzanine level contains: a hall leading to a rear bathroom, a landing area, a coved-ceiling corner, and a staircase leading to the building’s second story. A large mural depicting a Spanish streetscape is located at the quarter-turn landing of the second-story staircase (Error! Reference source not found.). Figure 26: Entrance hall of building lobby, view looking southeast. Figure 27: Entrance hall of lobby, view looking northwest. Figure 28: Lobby entrance hall ceiling and chandelier, view looking up. Figure 29: Polychrome tile flooring of lobby (extant at entrance hall and rear corridor from elevator). 3.b Packet Pg. 131 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -14- Page & Turnbull Figure 30: Tiles at floor perimeter of lobby. Figure 31: Passageway between elevator and mailroom/rear lobby area, view looking northeast. Figure 32: Passageway between elevator and mailroom/rear lobby area, view looking southwest. Figure 33: Interior of elevator cab. 3.b Packet Pg. 132 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -15- Page & Turnbull Figure 34: Lobby mailroom and office door, view looking east. Figure 35: Lobby passageway ceiling. Figure 36: Lobby mailroom ceiling. Figure 37: Tiled staircase to mezzanine level, view looking northeast. Figure 38: Detail of wood corbels at mezzanine support posts. Figure 39: Mezzanine landing, view looking southeast. 3.b Packet Pg. 133 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -16- Page & Turnbull Commercial Units The Hotel President contains six commercial units with storefronts along University Avenue. Commercial unit one also includes a storefront (including a tiled bulkhead, glazed storefront window, transom, and spindlework screen) and a separate single wood-frame glazed door at Cowper Street. All commercial unit interiors appear to have undergone some degree of tenant improvement work. Original plans by architect Birge Clark depict commercial units one, two, five and six with recessed entries; however, the storefronts were instead constructed flush with the primary façade. A large mural in unit five once depicted scenes of Stanford University; the mural is no longer extant. Unit three appears to retain its original picture rail molding; unit three retains one original pendant light and unit six appears to retain original wrought-iron light fixtures. Units one, two four, and six retain original mezzanine levels.6 SURROUNDING AREA The area immediately surrounding the subject building is primarily commercial in use, developed mainly with low and mid-rise commercial buildings. One high-rise office building (Palo Alto’s tallest) is located one block north of the subject building at 525 University Avenue (1965) (Figure 40). The four-story Garden Court Hotel at 520 Cowper Street (1985) is located southeast of the subject building. 500 University Avenue, located northeast of the subject building, is a newly constructed building that will be completed in 2018. Adjacent low-rise commercial buildings on University Avenue date to the 1920s (Figure 41). Buildings in the area are typically built out to their lot lines. Architectural styles in the immediate area are varied but include Spanish Colonial Revival and Modern styles. Views from the roof of the subject building are expansive due to the relative lack of high-rise development in the vicinity. Figure 40: High-rise office building at 525 University Avenue, one block north of the subject building. Source: Google maps 2019. 6 Page & Turnbull did not survey the rear portions of the commercial units; the extant mezzanines are depicted on 2018 as-built architectural drawings. 3.b Packet Pg. 134 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -17- Page & Turnbull Figure 41: Properties directly across the street from the subject building are low in scale. Source: Google Street View 2019. 3.b Packet Pg. 135 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -18- Page & Turnbull IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT PALO ALTO HISTORY The earliest known settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people. The region was colonized in 1769 as part of Alta California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos which contained portions of land that became Palo Alto including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.7 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century. The current city of Palo Alto contains the former township of Mayfield, which was located just southwest of Alma Street, and was established in 1855 (Figure 42). Starting in 1876, the railroad magnate and California politician Leland Stanford began to purchase land in the area for his country estate, and in 1882 he purchased an additional 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield for his horse farm.8 Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. On March 9, 1885, Stanford University was founded on land of the Palo Alto Stock Farm through an endowment act by the California Assembly and Senate. Originally looking to connect Stanford University as a part of the already established town of Mayfield, Stanford asked residents of Mayfield to make the town a temperance town. Their refusal in 1886 caused Stanford to found the town of Palo Alto with aid from his friend, Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of private land, that was known initially as University Park (or the Hopkins Tract).9 This land was bounded by the San Francisquito Creek to the north and the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the south. A new train stop was created along University Avenue and the new town flourished in its close connection with the university. University Park, under its new name of Palo Alto, was incorporated in 1894. In its early years, Palo Alto was a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of University professors clustered in the neighborhood deemed Professorville. The development of a local streetcar in 1906, and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910, facilitated access to jobs outside the city and to the University, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto.10 In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.11 Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not grow substantially. World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the Peninsula; accordingly, Palo Alto saw rapid growth following the war as many families who had been stationed on the Peninsula by the military, or who worked in associated industries, chose to stay. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 52,287 in 1960.12 7 Ward Winslow and Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993), 12-17. 8 Ibid, 35. 9 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030 (adopted by City Council, November 13, 2017), 16, accessed August 29, 2019, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915. 10 Dames & Moore, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-4. 11 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030, 16. 12 “City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,” Bay Area Census, accessed August 27, 2019, http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PaloAlto50.htm. 3.b Packet Pg. 136 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -19- Page & Turnbull Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and development in the city. The city center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.15 Palo Alto had been one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). Zoning matters were tasked to this advisory commission as early as 1917 in order to control development and design. Regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and appropriateness within residential areas fell under the purview of the CPC. From this early period, Palo Alto has maintained control over the built environment, which has resulted in its relatively low density and consistent aesthetic. However, the zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century played a part in the racial segregation of the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several neighborhoods were created with race covenants regarding home ownership and occupation, until this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.16 The academic nature of the town prevented factories or other big industries from settling in Palo Alto, limiting the range of people who would populate the area. Figure 42: Detail of “Official Map of Santa Clara, California” by Herrmann Brothers, 1890. Source: Library of Congress. Palo Alto’s city center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation. Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west of the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space.13 Small annexations continued into the 1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon Valley. Palo Alto consciously maintains its high proportion of open space to development and the suburban feeling and scale of its architecture. 13 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030, 11-20. 3.b Packet Pg. 137 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -20- Page & Turnbull UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD The current University South neighborhood is located in the southern portion of the original University Park tract platted by Timothy Hopkins. It was the core part of the early city, along with today’s Downtown North neighborhood (located northwest of University Avenue, Downtown North is the main commercial corridor within the original core of Palo Alto). University South contains the residential and commercial areas that lay southeast of University Avenue, although it does not encompass Professorville, the residential neighborhood closely associated with early Stanford faculty members and their families. As a result, the neighborhood is U-shaped, bounded by University Avenue at the northwest, Alma Street and the railroad tracks at the south, and Middlefield Road at the northeast. The southeast boundary follows Embarcadero Road but steps northwest to Addison Avenue, so as to exclude Professorville. Figure 43. 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map of Palo Alto showing the street layout within the core of the city. The future location of the subject property is marked by the red star. Source: San Francisco Public Library, Edited by Page & Turnbull. The 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map illustrates that stores were located along University Avenue, and were particularly concentrated at its southwestern end, near the railroad, where a large lumberyard stood (Figure 43). Residences were scattered along the street just east and west of University Avenue on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. A few churches, hotels, and boarding houses also stood among many vacant lots. Contemporary newspapers called the homes that housed artisans and merchants in this area “neat cottages”—which stood in contrast to the houses occupied by Stanford faculty members, located to the southeast in what is today the Professorville neighborhood. Some grander homes for more affluent residents were sprinkled throughout the current-day University South neighborhood.14 By 1901, Palo Alto had grown beyond its original core. Houses filled in the lots on the blocks around the railroad, while scattered residential development extended up to and beyond Middlefield Road. Institutions, such as schools and Palo Alto’s first public library, had been built in the area. During the 14 Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? “Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986) 5. 3.b Packet Pg. 138 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -21- Page & Turnbull first decade of the twentieth century, the University South neighborhood appears to have been built out with one- and two-story residences, but as the downtown commercial area prospered and expanded, University South became a desirable location for the growth of Palo Alto’s commercial interests.15 The work of the Palo Alto Improvement Company in the 1920s and 1930s aimed to support this growing commercial identity and the company worked to build several commercial structures south of University Avenue. Their projects concentrated on Ramona Street between University and Hamilton avenues and today are recognized as the Ramona Street Architectural District.16 By 1924, the previously vacant north quadrant of the block containing the subject parcel (bound by University Avenue, Cowper Street, Waverly Street and Hamilton Street) was developed with the two- story (12-unit) Cowper Court apartment building, a large auto garage, and a one-story dwelling. At the time of the Hotel President’s construction in 1929-30, the commercial core of the neighborhood effectively stopped at the 400-block of University Avenue, and the construction of the subject property was a statement of confidence in the continued growth of the commercial core. Many properties containing early residences in the University South neighborhood have gradually been redeveloped for commercial and institutional uses, as well as into multi-unit residential buildings. The neighborhood currently transitions from commercial and civic tenants concentrated along the University Avenue corridor toward the less dense character of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Figure 44: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance map. The subject building is shaded orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library, Edited by Page & Turnbull. 15 The 1924 Sanborn Map shows a variety of uses including a mixture of dwellings, stores, institutional, and light industrial uses. 16 “Ramona Street Architectural District.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Accessed October 2019. https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invR/RamonaStreet%20AD.html 3.b Packet Pg. 139 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -22- Page & Turnbull V. HISTORY OF THE HOTEL PRESIDENT 1929-1930s Plans for the subject building were announced in 1929 by managing owner J. Mort Blackburn. The building was designed by local architect Birge M. Clark and built by the James McLaughlin Company. Blackburn’s investment cost was approximated at $300,000. The Palo Alto Times reported that the building would contain two-room apartments and single hotel rooms, arranged in a manner that apartments and hotel rooms may be joined to serve as three-room apartments.17 Two and three- room apartments cost $57.50 and $65 per month and up, and transient hotel rooms cost $3.50 per day and up. The public was invited to visit the new “apartment hotel” building upon its grand opening on June 11, 1930. The six-story reinforced concrete Spanish Colonial Revival building featured a prominent wood gallery (or balcony) at the sixth floor of the primary façade. The building was visually distinguished as the tallest building on University Avenue at the time and advertisements highlighted the building as Palo Alto’s largest and most modern hotel. The building’s name, “Hotel President,” honored Stanford University graduate and then-President, Herbert Hoover, who had been one of Stanford’s earliest enrolled students. The building was originally opened with that name, and advertisements in 1932 and 1940 continued to use it (Figure 45 and Figure 46). However, an advertisement as early as 1934 used the name “Hotel President,” which suggests that different names began to be used somewhat interchangeably. Historic photographs from ca.1929 and the 1930s depict the building within its first decade of construction. Figure 45: Advertisement for Hotel President, ca.1930. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 46: Hotel President, ca.1930. View looking west. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 17 “5-story apartment house will be built here soon,” Palo Alto Times (June 12, 1929). 3.b Packet Pg. 140 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -23- Page & Turnbull Figure 47: University Avenue, ca.1930. View looking southwest. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 1940s The building was purchased ca.1939 by hotelier George T. Thompson, owner of a handful of hotels throughout northern California. Thompson placed advertisements and developed promotional brochures that highlighted the building’s Spanish Colonial Revival design and attractive amenities, such as the coffee shop and dining room located at the ground floor of the building. According to Thompson, the building was imbued “with just the right touch of Spanish atmosphere to harmonize with the local tradition.”18 Brochures featured the building’s distinguished primary entrance with a lavish wrought iron grille and tile surround (altered at an unknown date, prior to 1978) (Figure 48). The lobby entrance was lined with photographs of all the past presidents and featured a beamed ceiling, Spanish furniture, and polychrome tiling (Figure 49). One of the most novel features of the guest rooms and residential units was in-room radio service. Speakers were sunk into the walls, “their color and finish [to] harmonize with the woodwork,” and portable speakers sat on “tables, stands or other furniture…[to] blend with the furnishings.”19 A beautiful roof garden was “equipped with lounging furniture, [planned] so that shade as well as sunshine is available on the hot summer days and sheltering walls afford protection when the wind is brisk” (Figure 50).20 The building enjoyed its visually prominent position on University Avenue, in part thanks to oversize rooftop lettering that read: “Hotel President.” The Hotel President Company was formed by Thompson in 1940 to operate the hotel lease. In September 1949, George T. Thompson sold the Hotel President Company to Wallace J. Carlisle, who bought all corporate stock and took over active management of the 125-room hotel along with 18 Brochure (ca.1940s) held at the Palo Alto Historical Association. Of interest, the brochure specifies the Palo Alto Airport and Moffett Field as nearby perks, as well as the nearby Stanford University. 19 ” Hotel Features Radio Service,” Palo Alto Times (June 16, 1930). 20 Ibid. 3.b Packet Pg. 141 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -24- Page & Turnbull Mrs. Wallace Carlisle, and Robert Littler.21 By 1949, the building itself (separate from the hotel business under Hotel President Company) was owned by E.B. DeGolia of San Francisco and was leased to Carlisle’s hotel corporation.22 In December 1949, the building was featured in local news articles due to a union dispute. Union picketers protested the employment of non-union member Florence Wainwright, an artist commissioned by Carlisle to paint a mural on the wall of the building’s coffee shop (unit five) depicting scenes of Stanford University.23 It was determined that Carlisle’s hiring of a non-unionized worker for an artistic commission was legal. The first Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map to depict the subject building was published in 1949 (see Figure 44). The building was recorded with six stories, a seventh-story utility and circulation penthouse, and basement garage. A historic photograph of University Avenue confirms the building’s condition in 1949. Figure 48: Brochure of Hotel President, featuring the entrance and primary façade, ca.1940s. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 21 Hotel President sold to Menlo Park resident,” Palo Alto Times (September 24, 1949).; A note on the number of rooms: Multiple historic newspaper articles cite the existence of 125 rooms. However, available historic floor plans appear to indicate fewer than 125 rooms. The number and arrangement of apartment and transient hotel guest room units has changed over the decades and cannot be confirmed. 22 “Hotel President renovation work 3 months away,” Palo Alto Times (September 29, 1949) 23 “Art’s art, so painter paints on,” Palo Alto Times (December 2, 1949). 3.b Packet Pg. 142 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -25- Page & Turnbull Figure 49: Brochure detail of Hotel President lobby, ca.1940s. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 50: Brochure detail of Hotel President rooftop, ca.1940s. View looking southwest. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 51: Postcard of Hotel President, ca.1950s. View looking northeast. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 52: Hotel President lobby, 1958. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 1950s In 1949-51, the hotel’s coffee shop was renovated under the new ownership of Wallace J. Carlisle’s Hotel President Company. A more complete building renovation was launched December 1, 1955, after building owners Mr. and Mrs. E.B. De Golia resumed active operation of the building and named Clifford Shea manager.24 The De Golias’ renovation project was completed in 1956.25 Major changes included: the conversion of the coffee shop into a modern 60-seat dining room; the installation of a stainless steel kitchen; completely new furnishings for all of the Hotel President’s 110 24 At the time, the De Golias had managing interest at the time in both the Sir Francis Drake and St. Francis hotels in San Francisco. 25 “Hotel President completes $225,000 renovation job,” Palo Alto Times, (April 25, 1956) 3.b Packet Pg. 143 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -26- Page & Turnbull rooms, including installation of television sets in all of the units; new plumbing throughout the building and some re-wiring; new carpeting and lighting fixtures in the rooms and hallways; the installation of refrigerators in 20 apartment units; and the replacement of gas appliances with electric stoves. In regard to the room renovations, hotel manager Clifford Shea commented, “the only thing we kept was the telephones.”26 The Spanish Colonial Revival style in the public lobby areas was retained (Figure 52). The exterior of the building does not appear to be have been impacted by the 1955-56 renovation. 1960s In 1968, the building was converted from apartment/hotel use to full apartment use and was officially renamed the Hotel President Apartments. The ground floor continued to accommodate six commercial units and the central lobby (Figure 53). Melville Mack, president of the Hotel President Corporation in 1968, estimated the hotel, historically, was 40 percent occupied by permanent residents. Mack explained that “the change carries out a long trend toward accommodating permanent residents at the hotel…there also has been increased interest in permanent residence in the hotel building by employees working in the 15-story Palo Alto Office Center across the University Avenue-Cowper Street intersection.”27 Another apparent factor for the hotel’s full conversion to apartments was the recently-introduced one-way street system on University Avenue.28 According to Mack, “more permanent residents were admitted…when transient business dropped off after the start of the one-way experiment in the downtown area… ‘We were no longer able to tell people just to drive up University.’”29 Yet another factor in the change of use was the City’s updated sign ordinance, which required the removal of the hotel’s large rooftop sign, in turn making it more difficult for guests to find the hotel. Though not acknowledged by Mack at the time, other factors at play in the 1950s and 1960s appear to have contributed to the building’s conversion from a hotel apartment building to an apartment-only building. Increasing numbers of auto-friendly motels and resort-style hotels were constructed along El Camino Real, the main thoroughfare for travelers down the San Francisco Peninsula. These cheaper accommodation options brought stiff competition to Palo Alto’s two main downtown hotels, the Cardinal Hotel on Hamilton Avenue and Hotel President.30 The Hotel President Apartments conversion was completed in April of 1968. Individual telephone connections were installed in each room, and all units were updated with a refrigerator, cooking apparatus, and a television set. 75 units were distributed throughout the building’s five upper floors. Bachelor apartments rented from $125 per month upward, two-room units from $150 upward, and three-room units from $200 upward.31 1970s The building was photographed in 1978 for inclusion in the Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory (Figure 54). The survey form states the building’s reason for significance as: “a good example of the local restrained variant of the Spanish (or California) Colonial image. When built, its size and location were especially notable, since the commercial area then ended, for all practical purposes, at the 400 block of University Avenue. Thus, the style introduced in the more western area of the district now was prominently “anchored” and displayed at the opposite border of the commercial area... very important in terms of urban enclosure.” 26 Ibid. 27 “39-year-old Palo Alto hotel converting to apartments,” Palo Alto Times (March 18, 1968). 28 University Avenue was converted back to a two-way street at an unknown date. 29 “39-year-old Palo Alto hotel converting to apartments,” Palo Alto Times (March 18, 1968). 30 Matt Bowling, “Hotel President now a relic,” Palo Alto Daily News (November 4, 2007). 31 Ibid. 3.b Packet Pg. 144 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -27- Page & Turnbull Figure 53: Hotel President, 1968. View looking south. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 54: Hotel President, 1978. View looking south. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 1980s-90s In 1985, the new Garden Court Hotel was built southeast of the subject building at 520 Cowper Street. Renters at the Hotel President Apartments despaired, first from the construction noise and later because of the chimney smoke rising from the Garden Court’s in-room fireplaces into the windows of the Hotel President Apartments. In the 1990s, the subject building was repainted a soft yellow color with green trim.32 The departure from the building’s original off-white stucco with black trim was unpopular with some. The re- painting followed the building’s purchase by Russ Flynn, a prominent San Francisco landlord, and Chris Dressel. Other changes included the removal of defunct rooftop solar panels and the addition of Pluto’s restaurant in place of Henry’s.33 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The following table and accompanying narrative provide a timeline of known construction activity at 480-98 University Avenue, based on building permit applications on file with Palo Alto Building Inspection, historic photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. maps, physical observation, and plans available online as part of Stanford University’s collection of Birge M. Clark architectural drawings, 1909-1954. Permit applications listed as expired, withdrawn, or those dealing with minor upgrades such as fire sprinklers and alarms are not included. 32 Peter Gauvin, “Paint job irks historians,” Palo Alto Weekly (August 30, 1996). 33 The first legal cocktail in Palo Alto was allegedly served at Henry’s. 3.b Packet Pg. 145 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -28- Page & Turnbull Date Filed Address Permit App. # Architect / Builder Description of Work 9/10/1929 480-98 University Avenue NA Birge M. Clark Plan set dated September 10, 1929, titled “Apartment Hotel Building for J.M. Blackburn” 2/14/1966 480 University Avenue (unit six) 25496 Lindell Co. Remove interior non-bearing partition to open lobby area 3/11/1971 486 University Avenue (unit four) 29712 Acme Glass Commercial storefront alteration 4/6/1971 480-98 University Avenue NA Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom Architects Plan set dated April 6, 1971, titled “Alterations and Additions President Apartments” 4/5/1971 482 University Avenue (unit five) 29762 Design Rest. Inc. Installation of bar and back bar, paneling of side walls with mahogany panels, existing lattice work will be covered and taped34 12/1/1971 480 University Avenue (unit six) 30376 Rosken West, Ltd. Permit requested for 8” high partitions for offices #1 and #2, interior non-bearing 11/14/197 3 482 University Avenue (unit five) 32614 Paul Garnier Studios, Cor Lon Company Bar/restaurant seats approx. 100, no structural change made. Changing all surface area (tile floors, panel walls, paint ceiling, rebuild bar, add light fixtures) 11/15/197 3 482 University Avenue (unit five) 32618 A. Garnier Studios, Cor Lon Company Exterior remodel as per ARB approved plans 6/31/1982 489 University Avenue (unit one) 13-82-863 Richard Elmore Design Association Installation of bakery at existing copy shop, no alteration to building visually or structurally 12/17/198 2 480 University Avenue (unit six) B82-1339 N/A Small partition in store, 8’ high but 12” ceiling 10/17/199 6 482 University Avenue (unit five) 96-3341B Millennium Construction Interior design modifications involving upgrades in compliance with handicap accessibility, kitchen equipment and finish work associated with the equipment 10/17/199 6 482 University Avenue (unit five) 96-3341 Millennium Construction Interior and storefront remodel for Pluto’s restaurant 11/6/1996 482 University Avenue (unit five) 96-3585D N/A Interior demolition work of a project which is concurrently 34 Remaining text is illegible, appears to describe asbestos paint. 3.b Packet Pg. 146 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -29- Page & Turnbull Date Filed Address Permit App. # Architect / Builder Description of Work undergoing full building permit review (permit # 96- 3341). No demolition of storefront under this permit 4/13/1998 480-98 University Avenue (excluding 488 University Avenue) 98-301B San Jose Awning Company Installation of seven welded frame awnings 9/14/1999 488 University Avenue 00-0451 TDS Architects, Inc. Work completed for Cellular One cell site name “Downtown Palo Alto,” number “770.” Plans show basement and roof cable mounts and power conduits. Cell antennas on roof 5/17/2002 488 University Avenue 02-1582 Pacific 17 Telecommunic ations Engineering Consulting Work completed for AT&T. Antennas on roof June 2003 488 University Avenue 03-1840 Matrix Seismic Corp. Add kickplate and lever hardwares to all 1st floor entrance doors 6/29/2010 488 University Avenue 11-0884 HMH Design Group Work done for AT&T site no.CNU0770. Install two Wi-Fi antennas inside the building balcony area, install one cabinet and 2 RRUs 10/29/201 5 488 University Avenue 15-2576 Streamline Engineering Work done for AT&T. Modification of telecommunication facility 8/16/2016 488 University Avenue 16-1646 SAC Wireless Work done for AT&T. Antenna work 1/12/2018 488 University Avenue 98-0301 N/A Solar heating system, plumbing schematic Original plans by Birge M. Clark, dated September 10, 1929 and titled, “Apartment Hotel Building for J.M. Blackburn,” are available online at Stanford Atlas.35The Stanford Atlas collection also contains a renovation drawing by Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom Architects, dated April 6, 1971 and titled “Alterations and Additions President Apartments.”36 The singular plan sheet depicts a number of alterations, including: “cut 3-4ft opening in rear façade for doorway and install solid core or hollow metal door; cut and patch furred areas as required; in banquet room, patch floor flush with adjacent floor and install carpet to match existing; remove existing fireplace and finish walls to match existing; install 3-7ft solid core door in wood frame; close stair to basement (behind lobby elevator); 35 “Hotel President/apartment building, J.M. Blackburn, 480-98 University and Cowper, Palo Alto, California, 1929-30, 1971.” https://exhibits.stanford.edu/ua-maps-drawings/catalog?utf8=%E2%9C%93&exhibit_id=ua- maps-drawings&search_field=search&q=president+hotel 36 Ibid. The firm was led by Birge Clark, Walter Stromquist, and Paul Sandstrom. 3.b Packet Pg. 147 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -30- Page & Turnbull new cocktail lounge (plans and construction by lessor); interior alterations to jewelry store including removal interior door and bathroom alterations; close opening to women’s restroom from lobby, finish to match existing; remove existing doors from lobby to banquet room, patch opening to match adjacent finishes; new opening(s) at rear façade near garage ramp.”37 Physical observation and archival research has revealed additional alterations not indicated in the permit history and available architectural drawings. With the exception of cellular-related projects, all known alterations (included unpermitted alterations) are summarized below with dates or approximate dates provided in parentheses. • Interior renovation including: completely new furnishings for all of the upper floor 110 rooms, installation of television sets in all of the units; new plumbing throughout the building and some re-wiring; new carpeting and lighting fixtures in the rooms and hallways; the installation of refrigerators in 20 apartment units; and the replacement of gas appliances with electric stoves (1955-56) • Removal of prominent rooftop “Hotel President” signage (ca.1960s) • Removal of roof chimney and incinerator (date unknown) • Removal of the reception desk (prior to 1997) • Re-flooring of mailroom/former reception area floor tiling (ca.2000) • Installation of current mailboxes in mailroom area (date unknown) • Removal of a telephone booth under mezzanine stairs and installation of new door (date unknown) • Alteration of the front entrance (removal of wrought iron detailing within glazed portion of double doors, sidelights, and arched transom) (date unknown, after 1940s) • Alterations of openings at the first story of the rear façade (after 1971) • Addition of two storage structures at the northwest façade of the seventh-story rooftop utility/circulation penthouse (date unknown) • Removal of wood grating (flooring) at roof terrace (date unknown) • Seismic strengthening work, including two steel support beams in the basement and below all storefront transoms (date unknown) • Circulation changes: the infill of a passageway between the lobby and commercial unit four (ca.1971); slight relocation of/replacement of door between the lobby and commercial unit three; the infill of a staircase from the lounge/banquet room to the basement level; the enclosure of the central staircase at floors three, four, and five; and two new doors at the rear façade (date unknown) • Upper floor unit interior alterations of varying degrees (continuous) • The conversion of 125 upper floor units of various sizes to 75 units between 250 and 800 square feet (continuous)38 • Commercial unit storefront alterations: o All: removal and replacement of original awnings, which were likely retractable (1998); addition of kickplate and lever hardwares to all entrance doors (2003) o Unit one: none at University Avenue; two transom lites fitted with AC units and similar replacement bulkhead tiling at Cowper Street (date unknown) o Unit two: similar replacement bulkhead tiling and aluminum storefront window sashes (date unknown) 37 Ibid. 38 Multiple historic newspaper articles cite the existence of 125 rooms. However, available historic floor plans appear to indicate fewer than 125 rooms. The number and arrangement of apartment and transient hotel guest room units has changed over the decades and cannot be confirmed. 3.b Packet Pg. 148 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -31- Page & Turnbull o Unit three: replacement aluminum storefront window sashes (date unknown) o Unit four: replacement aluminum glazed single door, aluminum-frame storefront windows, aluminum bulkhead panels (1971) o Unit five: exterior remodel (1973); replacement recessed storefront, similar replacement bulkhead tiling, replacement wood-frame glazed accordion storefront and single door (relocated from original center placement to left placement) (1996) o Unit six: replacement single (Dutch) door (date unknown) • Commercial unit interior alterations: o Unit one: installation of bakery at copy shop (1982); periodic tenant improvements o Unit two: installation of false ceiling (date unknown), periodic tenant improvements o Unit three: periodic tenant improvements, though appears to retain an original light feature o Unit four: former passage to lobby infilled (1971), periodic tenant improvements o Unit five: Renovation of coffee shop (ca.1949-51); conversion of coffee shop into a modern 60-seat dining room; kitchen expansion into former lounge/banquet room area; the installation of a stainless-steel kitchen, installation of false ceiling, former opening to commercial unit four infilled, installation of two bars, new wall paneling, (1971), new bar/restaurant seat and all interior surfaces updated (1973); interior design modifications related to handicap accessibility and kitchen equipment (1996); ongoing tenant improvements. Wood-beamed ceiling of former hotel lounge/banquet room is extant o Unit six: partition removal (1966); partition installation (1973); partition installation (1982); periodic tenant improvements. Appears to retain original light fixtures. OWNERSHIP HISTORY The following ownership history has been gathered from available documentation in historic newspapers, city directories, census records, and permits at the Palo Alto Development Services. Year(s) Owner(s) Occupation / Notes 1929- ca. 1939 J. Mort Blackburn ca. 1939-1949 George T. Thompson 1949- 1955 Wallace J. Carlisle Owner of the hotel company, not the hotel itself 1949- ca. 1956 Mr. And Mrs. E.M. De Golia Took over management of hotel company in 1955 Unknown-1987 President Apartment Associates 1987-Unknown 498 University Ave Partners Unknown-1996 Greg Rec Webster 1996-201839 University President Associates LLC Also listed as University President Associates LP40 2018- GPCA Owner LLC 39 Note that an easement was filed on November 28, 2005, between University Presidents Associates LP and Comcast of California II Inc. 40 Note that permit #03-1840, filed June 2003, lists Flynn Investments as the property owner. Flynn Investments is not included in the property’s grantor/grantee records. Research revealed that Russ Flynn, a prominent San Francisco-based landlord, was a member of University President Associates. 3.b Packet Pg. 149 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -32- Page & Turnbull Select Owner Biographies J. Mort Blackburn The Hotel President was constructed in 1929 for owner J. Mort Blackburn. Research did not uncover additional information about Blackburn; he sold the property to George T. Thompson ca.1939. George T. Thompson George T. Thompson acquired the subject building ca. 1939. Thompson is known to have owned and managed several affiliated hotels, including the Hotel Sir Francis Drake Hotel and Maurice Hotel in San Francisco, the Eureka Inn in Eureka, and Sonoma Mission Inn in Boyes Springs. Wallace J. Carlisle (Lessor/Hotel Operator) Wallace J. Carlisle acquired all corporate stock of the Hotel President Company from George T. Thompson in September 1949. He leased the hotel company from building owners Mr. and Mrs. E.M. De Golia prior to 1955. Carlisle served as a Director of the hotel alongside his wife, Katharine, and Robert Littler.41 Carlisle was previously engaged in hotel management and brokerage in Idaho, Utah, and elsewhere in California. Carlisle served as a member of the board of directors of the California Northern Hotel Association and was a member of the California State Hotel Association. Carlisle and his wife moved to Palo Alto in 1944, and then to Menlo Park in 1947. Mr. and Mrs. E. B De Golia Mr. and Mrs. E. B. De Golia purchased the building from George T. Thompson in 1949 and leased the building to Wallace J. Carlisle prior to taking over full management of the hotel in 1955. Ca.1955, the De Golias had managing interest in both the Sir Francis Drake Hotel and St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. University President Associates LP/ Flynn Investments In 1966, the property was purchased by University President Associates, headed by Russ Flynn, a prominent San Francisco landlord, and Woodside resident Chris Dressel, a former Stanford/professional football player.42 OCCUPANT HISTORY Due to the large number of individuals who resided in the building over the years, building occupants were not researched for the preparation of this report, and city directories were not consulted. The commercial units at the ground floor of the building appear to have been consistently occupied. A longtime tenant was the Hotel President Coffee Shop and Dining Room, which operated in conjunction with the hotel and was located in commercial unit five. Later, Henry’s restaurant operated out of commercial unit five until the 1990s, when the current tenant, Pluto’s restaurant, moved in. A barber shop has operated out of commercial unit three since 1949. Additional tenants are known to have included a copy shop, a bakery, an optometrist, a camera shop, and a AAA office. More recent tenants include Gyro Gyro in commercial unit one, Yogurtland in commercial unit two, Norzin Collections in commercial unit four, and the Tobacco Czar (currently, Hemingway Cigars and Tobacco) in commercial unit six. 41 Hotel President sold to Menlo Park resident,” Palo Alto Times (September 24, 1949). Stanford graduate Robert Littler worked as a San Francisco attorney and was vice president of the Palo Alto Board of Education. 42 Peter Gauvin, “Paint Job irks historians,” Palo Alto Weekly (August 30, 1996). 3.b Packet Pg. 150 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -33- Page & Turnbull SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE Historically rooted in the building traditions of early Spanish and Mexican settlers of California and other Spanish colonies, this revival style was popular in California and the rest of the Southwest from the early 1900s to the 1930s, with variations on the style remaining popular today. Earlier Hispanic Revival styles were rooted in regional interpretations of traditional Spanish, Native American, and Mexican design and construction techniques, which were indigenous to California. Not as ornate as its earlier Mexican prototypes, the Mission Revival style was characterized by low-pitched or flat roofs (often composed of thatch, terracotta tile or tar), thick masonry walls of adobe brick or stucco, multiple doorways, deeply recessed openings with multi-lite windows, arcades, sculpted parapets resembling the typical Espadaña or belfry, and red clay tile roofs. The Mission Revival style was popular in California and much of the Southwest because it was derived from indigenous prototypes. By the 1920s, the Mission Revival in California was joined by the more elaborate Mediterranean and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. Making use of terracotta tile gabled roofs, thick masonry walls, plaster finishes, wrought iron grilles, balconies, and smaller fenestration openings, the Spanish Colonial Revival style was popular for commercial buildings, institutions, apartments, and houses. In California, the Spanish Colonial Revival came into prominence after the Panama-California Exposition in San Diego in 1915 and was very popular through the 1930s.43 The first Spanish Colonial Revival house in Palo Alto was designed by Santa Barbara architect George Washington Smith in 1924 at 1336 Cowper Street. Soon after, local architect Birge Clark began using the style for his residential and commercial projects in Palo Alto. BIRGE M. CLARK (1893-1989), ARCHITECT Birge M. Clark is considered the most influential architect in Palo Alto’s history. Clark was active during much of the twentieth century and was a proponent of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, which he called “Early California.” Clark’s prolific output and stylistic consistency greatly contributed to Palo Alto’s current character. Clark designed a variety of commercial, residential and industrial buildings, including 98 residences in Palo Alto and an additional 39 residences on the Stanford campus. Some of Clark’s most prominent residential commissions in Palo Alto include the houses on Coleridge Avenue between Cowper and Webster streets, the Dunker House at 420 Maple Street (1926) and the Lucie Stern residence at 1990 Cowper Street (1932). Other well-known non- residential commissions of Clark’s include the former Palo Alto Police and Fire Station at 450 Bryant Street (now the Palo Alto Senior Center) (1927), the Post Office at 380 Hamilton Avenue (1932), the Lucie Stern Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road (1932) and the 500 Block of Ramona Street (1920s).44 Birge Clark was born on April 16, 1893 in San Francisco. His father, Arthur B. Clark, had moved the family west the year before from Syracuse, New York to take a position as the first chairman of the Art and Architecture Department at Stanford University. Arthur Clark would later serve as the first mayor of Mayfield.45 Birge Clark graduated from Palo Alto High School in 1910. He studied art and engineering at Stanford University, where he graduated in 1914. Clark received his graduate degree in architecture from Columbia University in 1917. That same year he enlisted in the Army and went to France, where he served as a captain and a company commander in the Balloon Corps during World War I. Clark returned to Palo Alto in 1919, where he took part in the design of his first commission, 43 San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18 – Residential and Commercial Architectural Periods and Styles in San Francisco (January 2003). 44 Peter Gauvin, “Birge Clark (1893-1989),” Palo Alto Centennial (May 25, 1994). 45 Peter Gauvin, “Arthur B. Clark (1866-1949), Palo Alto Centennial (October 21, 1994). 3.b Packet Pg. 151 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -34- Page & Turnbull the Lou Henry Hoover House on the Stanford University campus. In 1922, he married Lucile Townley, with whom he would eventually have four children. Clark played a major role in the creation of Palo Alto during the boom times of the 1920s. During this phase of the city’s development, Clark designed many of the Spanish Colonial Revival houses and a few in other Revival styles in the recently annexed residential neighborhoods. Clark also designed many of the commercial blocks and government buildings that were gradually replacing the false-front Victorian-era structures in the downtown shopping area. Clark’s business tapered off during the Depression and World War II, when construction slowed. Just as he was considering a new career, Clark contracted with shipbuilding magnate Henry Kaiser to design a massive steel mill in Fontana, California. During this period, he also designed the first Hewlett Packard building on Page Mill Road in Palo Alto (1942). Another Hewlett Packard plant at 1501 Page Mill Road followed in 1957. Clark taught architecture at Stanford University from 1950 until 1972. In 1980, he joined the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board. In 1984, Clark retired from active participation in his firm Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom and on April 30, 1989, he died at the age of 96. All told, Birge Clark designed approximately 450 buildings in the Bay Area. Many of his buildings have been listed in local registers and the National Register of Historic Places. The Hotel President is a leading example of a work by Birge Clark. The building is an excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style – both locally and beyond – and strongly relates to the character of the surrounding area. 3.b Packet Pg. 152 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -35- Page & Turnbull VI. EVALUATION CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. ▪ Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. ▪ Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. ▪ Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. ▪ Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The following section examines the eligibility of the Hotel President for individual listing in the California Register: Criterion 1 (Events) The Hotel President was opened in 1930 as the Hotel President, a mixed-use building containing six commercial units, apartment units, and transient hotel guest rooms. The building appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) at the local level, for its role in the northeast extension of University Avenue as a commercial corridor, as an early mixed-use building with commercial units, residential apartment units, and transient hotel guest units, and for its association with President Herbert Hoover, an early graduate of Stanford University and a figure of local importance. The Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory survey form states the size and location of the building were especially notable, since the commercial area then ended, for all practical purposes, at the 400 block of University Avenue. Thus, the construction of the Hotel President was important in terms of Palo Alto’s urban design. At the time of its construction, the building was the largest on University Avenue and was the largest hotel in Palo Alto. The building’s mixed-use typology extended commercial activity on University Avenue, contributed to the city’s hospitality and tourist services, and also brought permanent residents to the downtown area. Therefore, the Hotel President does appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. 3.b Packet Pg. 153 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -36- Page & Turnbull Criterion 2 (Persons) The Hotel President does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Research has failed to suggest that any owners or hotel operators figured prominently enough in Palo Alto’s development to qualify the building for listing in the California Register under this criterion. Although city directories were not researched for the names of tenants and occupants, an intensive review of archival materials did not indicate any building tenants or occupants that would rise to a level of significance such that the building would qualify under this criterion. Thus, the Hotel President does not appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Architecture) The Hotel President appears eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that “embodies 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 subject building is significant for its high degree of architectural quality and its Spanish Colonial Revival style. Additionally, the building is readily identifiable in Palo Alto as a work by master architect Birge Clark. Birge Clark – the only architect who maintained an office in Palo Alto at the time of the building’s construction – predominantly designed his projects in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, which he called the Early California style. Constructed beginning in 1929 and opened as the Hotel President in 1930, the subject building is an excellent example of this style which was popular in American architecture from 1915 into the 1930s. By 1929 the style had already been established on University Avenue at adjacent and nearby buildings, including within the Ramona Street Architectural District, which is listed on the National Register. With the construction of the Hotel President, the Spanish Colonial Revival style became prominently anchored and displayed at the northeast border of Palo Alto’s commercial area. Therefore, the Hotel President does appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The Hotel President does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 4 as a building that has the potential to provide information important to the prehistory or history of the City of Palo Alto, state, or nation. It does not feature construction or material types, or embody engineering practices that would, with additional study, provide important information. Page & Turnbull’s evaluation of this property was limited to age-eligible resources above ground and did not involve survey or evaluation of the subject property for the purposes of archaeological information. Period of Significance The period of significance for the Hotel President is defined as 1929-1930, which includes the building’s initial construction and the opening of the Hotel President. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. 3.b Packet Pg. 154 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -37- Page & Turnbull The following character-defining features have been identified for the Hotel President at 480-98 University Avenue, which has a period of significance of 1929-30 and is significant for its role in the early commercial development of University Avenue, its Spanish Colonial Revival style, and as an excellent example of the work of master architect Birge M. Clark. The character‐defining features of the Hotel President include, but are not limited to: Exterior: ▪ Situated on the south corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street ▪ Six-story building with symmetrical massing ▪ Rectangular plan extending to property lines ▪ Concrete construction with stucco cladding ▪ Parapeted flat roof with terra cotta clay-tile gable ends and gallery shed roof ▪ Primary façade with seven structural bays; the first and last bays slightly project at the upper floors ▪ Recessed entrance vestibule for building lobby o Cast iron “Hotel President” marquee with scrolled support brackets o Double doors with sidelights and arched transom o Tile flooring and wall cladding o Wrought iron six-pointed chandelier ▪ Six commercial units at the primary northwest (University Avenue) façade (four of which retain most original storefront features) o Tiled bulkheads o Fixed plate glass storefront windows o Single wood doors with glazed transoms o Storefront transoms with scalloped chamfered upper corners, hopper windows, and fixed end lites o Spindlework screen that spans the storefront transoms ▪ Two beltcourses between first and second stories ▪ Wrought iron Juliet balconies at the first and last bays at the second story of the primary facade with corbelled moldings underneath ▪ Wood gallery at the central portion of the primary façade’s sixth story ▪ Storefront, single wood-frame glazed door, and garage opening at northeast (Cowper Street) facade ▪ Steel-sash, multi-lite, regular fenestration at upper floors throughout the building, including: o Fixed windows flanked by casement windows o Double casement windows o Single casement windows o Arched windows at sixth story primary façade o Some windows have wired glass or pebbled opaque glass ▪ Seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse, wood pergola, and rooftop terrace ▪ Fire escapes at northeast and southeast facades Interior: ▪ Building lobby o Polychrome tile flooring o Tile floor perimeter border o Wrought iron chandeliers o Molded plaster brackets o Single-cab elevator with manual folding door, security gate, leather-paneled walls, a copper ceiling, and brass fixtures o Wood-beamed ceiling 3.b Packet Pg. 155 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -38- Page & Turnbull o Mezzanine stairway with terra cotta treads, Spanish tile risers, and a wrought iron scrolled railing o Wood horizontal beam and support posts for mezzanine level featuring carved corbels ▪ Hall and stair circulation throughout upper floors o Hall running the length of building (southwest to northeast) o Hall running the partial width of the building (northwest to southeast) o Central staircase with skylight (accessible at mezzanine/second story and sixth/seventh story, enclosed/non-accessible at third, fourth, and fifth stories) o Southwest staircase with skylight (between second and sixth stories) o Shallow arched hall ceilings o Textured stucco wall cladding in the halls o Wood upper floor unit doors o South stairway wood-framed wired glass five-lite double doors o Second-story mural in stairwell leading from mezzanine level ▪ Lodging units at upper floors (second through sixth floors) ▪ Six commercial units at the first story o Presence of rear mezzanine levels in commercial units one, two, four and six46 o Wrought iron light fixtures in commercial unit six o Pendant light fixture in commercial unit three o Picture rail in commercial unit three o Wood-beamed ceiling in commercial unit five (at the rear portion, formerly the hotel lounge/banquet room) While later alterations—specifically the 1950s renovations and the 1971 first-story renovation—are 50 years old or nearly so, they are outside the building’s period of significance and are not considered to be character-defining features of the building. INTEGRITY In order to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property or landscape must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion as described above and retain integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined by the National Park Service as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”47 In order to evaluate whether the Hotel President retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance, Page & Turnbull used established integrity standards outlined by the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Seven variables, or aspects, that define integrity are used to evaluate a resource’s integrity—location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property must stand up under most or all of these aspects in order to retain overall integrity. If a property does not retain integrity, it can no longer convey its significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in local, state, or national registers. The seven aspects that define integrity are defined as follows: 46 Page & Turnbull did not survey the rear portions of the commercial units; the extant mezzanines are depicted on 2018 as- built architectural drawings by ELS. 47 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001) 11; U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1995) 44. 3.b Packet Pg. 156 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -39- Page & Turnbull Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property. Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Location The Hotel President retains integrity of location, as the location of original construction has not changed. Setting The Hotel President substantially retains integrity of setting. Some integrity of setting has been lost as the construction of the high-rise (15 story) building at 525 University Avenue and other mid-rise buildings have altered the character of the immediate vicinity, but the Hotel President is still located in a commercial neighborhood and continues to visually anchor this portion of University Avenue, and thus substantially retains integrity of setting. Design The Hotel President retains integrity of design. The building retains its form, massing, distinctive tiling, cast and wrought iron ornamentation, and wood gallery at the primary (University Avenue) façade. The primary façade has been of primary importance since the original construction of the building, as it was designed to be a substantial presence along University Avenue .Despite alterations to the commercial storefronts (ranging from window sash replacement to overall configuration changes) the primary façade of the Hotel President retains a high degree of integrity of design that enables the building to convey its architectural significance as an important work of master architect Birge Clark. Materials The Hotel President substantially retains integrity of materials. The primary façade has undergone minimal alteration since the hotel was opened in 1930. Those alterations that have occurred are largely limited to the ground floor commercial storefronts, but also include the removal of the prominent historic rooftop signage and the removal of wrought-iron detailing around the entrance doors. Regarding the interior, the Hotel President has experienced some changes to its circulation plan in the public spaces and a reconfiguring of rooms on the building’s upper levels. However, these material changes have not impacted the Hotel President’s ability to convey its significance or to show 3.b Packet Pg. 157 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -40- Page & Turnbull the quality of architectural design and craftsmanship that have defined the building since its opening in 1930. Therefore, the Hotel President substantially retains integrity of materials. Workmanship The Hotel President retains integrity of workmanship. Features that demonstrate evidence of period workmanship and construction methods include stucco cladding, a clay tile roof, distinctive tiling, cast and wrought iron ornamentation, and the wood gallery along the primary façade remain intact. Feeling The Hotel President retains integrity of feeling. The building retains the feeling of a 1930 Spanish Colonial Revival style mixed-use, hotel building designed by the master architect Birge Clark. The building’s design, materiality, and workmanship remain highly representative of Clark’s identified aesthetic which was known for thoughtfully integrating tilework and decorative metalwork into his Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings. Association The Hotel President retains integrity of association. The retention of commercial and lodging uses is sufficient for the building to retain integrity of association as a mixed-use building. Additionally, the building continues to communicate its association with Birge Clark and its role as one of Palo Alto’s most prominent mixed-use Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings from the 1920s and 1930s. Therefore, the Hotel President retains five of the seven aspects of integrity, and substantially retains integrity of setting and materials, and therefore retains enough integrity such that it conveys its significance under Criteria 1(Events) and 3 (Architecture) of the California Register, with a period of significance of 1929-1930. 3.b Packet Pg. 158 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -41- Page & Turnbull VII. CONCLUSION Constructed in 1929-30, 480-98 University Avenue is significant under California Register Criterion 1 at the local level for its role in extending the commercial corridor of University Avenue, as an early mixed-use building with commercial units, residential apartment units, and transient hotel guest units, and for its association with President Herbert Hoover, an early graduate of Stanford University and a figure of local importance. Additionally, the building is significant under California Register Criterion 3 as an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in Palo Alto and as a work of master local architect Birge M. Clark. The building is an excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, communicated through exterior tilework, textured stucco cladding, spindlework, a wood gallery, a terra cotta clay tile roof, and wrought iron detailing. The building interior features tilework, carved wood beams and corbels, wrought iron detailing, mural work, and an ornamented elevator. Overall, the building displays high artistic values. 3.b Packet Pg. 159 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -42- Page & Turnbull VIII. REFERENCES CITED Published Works “39-year-old Palo Alto hotel converting to apartments.” Palo Alto Times. March 18, 1968. “5-story apartment house will be built here soon.” Palo Alto Times. June 12, 1929. “Art’s art, so painter paints on.” Palo Alto Times. December 2, 1949. Bertelsen, Ann. “Birge M. Clark: The Man.” NCH&G. May 1989. Bowling, Matt. “Hotel President now a relic.” Palo Alto Daily News. November 4, 2007. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing. November 2004. Accessed October 22, 2018, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf. CEQA Guidelines. Accessed May 10, 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. Dames & Moore, Michael Corbett, and Denise Bradley. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, February 2001. Fortney, Mary T. “Post Office candidate for historic site.” The Peninsula Times Tribune. April 3, 1981. Gauvin, Peter. “Birge Clark (1893-1989).” Palo Alto Centennial. May 25, 1994. Gauvin, Peter. “Paint Job irks historians.” Palo Alto Weekly. August 30, 1996. Grimmer, Anne E. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017. Accessed October 2019, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf. “Hotel Features Radio Service.” Palo Alto Times. June 16, 1930. Kushman, Rick. “Birge Clark: the man behind the blueprints.” Palo Alto Centennial. April 15, 1994. Kushman, Rick. “Clark family has influenced local medicine, architecture.” Palo Alto Weekly. December 27, 1979. Lyhne, Bob. “Birge M. Clark: long memory for Peninsula living.” Palo Alto Times. February 11, 1978. McCormick, Peter. “Birge M. Clark has left his mark on Palo Alto.” San Jose Mercury News. May 30, 1984. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. Revised Edition. New York: Knopf, 2015. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Nowell, Jen. “Barbershops, nail salons spared from city’s wrath.” Daily Post. October 18, 2016. Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? “Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986). “Peninsula Architect Birge Clark, 96.” San Francisco Chronicle. May 3, 1989. 3.b Packet Pg. 160 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -43- Page & Turnbull “Hotel President completes $225,000 renovation job.” Palo Alto Times. April 25, 1956. “Hotel President renovation work 3 months away.” Palo Alto Times. September 29, 1949. “Hotel President sold to Menlo Park resident.” Palo Alto Times. September 24, 1949. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18 – Residential and Commercial Architectural Periods and Styles in San Francisco (January 2003). Voakes, Paul. “Clark firm to incorporate.” Palo Alto Times. January 27, 1978. Winslow, Ward and Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993. Public Records Building Permit Applications. Palo Alto Development Services. California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, April 5, 2012. City of Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan 2030. Adopted by City Council, November 13, 2017. Accessed August 29, 2019, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915. City of Palo Alto. Online Parcel Reports. https://xmap.cityofpaloalto.org/parcelreports/ United States Federal Census, www.Ancestry.com. U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current. www.Ancestry.com. Archival Records Palo Alto Historical Association. Building Permit Index Files. Palo Alto Historical Association. Inventory of Historic Buildings Files. Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto City Directories (1924-1978). Palo Alto Historical Association. Photograph Collection. http://archives.pahistory.org/index.php Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Accessed via San Francisco Public Library. University of California, Santa Barbara Library, Special Research Collections. Aerial Photography FrameFinder. https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos/aerial-photography-information. Internet Sources “AJ Capital Partners Acquires Hotel President Apartments to Be Converted to Graduate Palo Alto.” Hotel Executive. June 20, 2018. https://www.hotelexecutive.com/newswire/63585/aj-capital- partners-acquires-president-hotel-apartments-to-be-converted-to-graduate-palo-alto Ancestry.com Birge Clark architectural drawings, 1909-1954: Hotel President/apartment building, J.M. Blackburn, 480-498 University and Cowper, Palo Alto, California, 1929-1930, 1971.” Stanford University. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/ua-maps-drawings/catalog/nd845xn7898 “Birge Clark.” Palo Alto Online. May 25, 1994. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1994_May_25.CREATOR7.html Bowling, Matt. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com. http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php. 3.b Packet Pg. 161 Historic Resource Evaluation Hotel President [18120] Palo Alto, California February 6, 2020 -44- Page & Turnbull “City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,” Bay Area Census. Accessed August 27, 2019, http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PaloAlto50.htm. David Rumsey Historic Map Collection. Google Maps. 2019. Kushman, Rick. “Birge Clark: The Man Behind the Blueprints.” Palo Alto Historical Association. (April 15, 1994) http://www.service.com/paw/Centennial/1994_Apr_15.1920SE.html. “Prominent Architects and Builders.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. http://www.pastheritage.org/ArchBuild.html#c State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed June 2018, http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf. Weinstein, Dave. “Signature Style: Birge Clark/California Colonial/Palo Alto’s Favorite Architect Mixed Romance with Realism.” San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SIGNATURE-STYLE-Birge-Clark-California- 2576779.php 3.b Packet Pg. 162 3.b Packet Pg. 163 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY 170 Maiden Lane, 5th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94108 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax 2401 C Street, Suite BSacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax www.page-turnbull.com 3.b Packet Pg. 164 MEMORANDUM DATE March 2, 2020 PROJECT NO. 18120 TO Alex Stanford PROJECT Hotel President, 480-98 University Avenue OF GPCA Owner LLC FROM Barrett Reiter, Architectural Historian / Cultural Resources Planner CC Ruth Todd, Principal; Christina Dikas, Senior Architectural Historian VIA E-mail REGARDING: Hotel President – SOI Standards Consultation Memorandum INTRODUCTION GPCA Owner LLC has requested this Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Consultation Memorandum for a proposed project located at the Hotel President (480-98 University Avenue) in Palo Alto’s downtown area. The purpose is to outline the historic building’s character-defining features and provide comments regarding compliance of the proposed project to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. For improved understanding of the character-defining features of 480-98 University Avenue, Page & Turnbull has also provided an overview of the historic status and a brief architectural description of the Hotel President. Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit on May 24, 2018 and has reviewed the following relevant materials: ▪ Assessor’s records of the subject property ▪ Parcel map ▪ Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps ▪ Google Street View and Google Maps imagery ▪ Permits from previous projects at the subject building, held at Palo Alto Building Inspection ▪ Plans by Birge M. Clark (dated September 9, 1929) ▪ Plans by Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom Architects (April 4, 1971) ▪ ARB Submittal for Major Project drawing set by ELS Architecture and Urban Design (dated February 12, 2020) ▪ Materials held at Palo Alto Historical Association ▪ Palo Alto Historic Inventory HISTORIC STATUS OVERVIEW The Hotel President is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The subject property is listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory as a Category 2 property, indicating a “major 3.b Packet Pg. 165 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 2 of 12 [18120] building” of regional importance.1 Based on the 1978 inventory listing (revised in 1981 and 1985), the building is a “good example of the local restrained variant of the Spanish (or California) Colonial image. When built, its size and location were especially notable, since the commercial area then ended, for all practical purposes, at the 400 block of University Avenue. Thus, the style introduced in the more western area of the district now was prominently ‘anchored’ and displayed at the opposite border of the commercial area.”2 Consequently, the building is listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code of 5S2, meaning “an individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation.”3 Page & Turnbull evaluated the building for eligibility for listing in the California Register in a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared on February 6, 2020 and found it eligible under Criterion 1 (Events) and Criterion 3 (Architecture). At the time of its construction, the building was Palo Alto’s largest hotel and was the largest building on University Avenue. Its location at University Avenue and Cowper Street was notable in expanding the commercial corridor of University Avenue to the northeast, when it had previously remained more closely connected to the train station along Alma Street. Architecturally, the visually prominent building displays high artistic value and is an excellent example of a Spanish Colonial Revival style building by master architect Birge Clark. The building’s period of significance was identified in the HRE as 1929-30, which corresponds to when the building was constructed. Original materials and features that date to this period of significance are considered character-defining. BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The six-story building at 480-98 University Avenue was designed by Birge Clark in the Spanish Colonial Revival style in 1929-30. The builder was James McLaughlin Company. The property measures 130 feet by 62.5 feet and is located at the south corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The building’s primary (northwest) façade fronts University Avenue, while the rear (southeast) façade looks onto an alley accessed from Cowper Street. The first story contains six commercial units and a building lobby; the upper five stories contain vacant lodging units. The commercial units are noted in this memorandum as unit one, unit two, etc., and are addressed as follows: • Unit one: 498 University Avenue (Gyros Gyros) • Unit two: 494 University Avenue (Vacant) • Unit three: 490 University Avenue (President Barber Shop) • Unit four: 486 University Avenue (Vacant) • Unit five: 482 University Avenue (Pluto’s) • Unit six: 480 University Avenue (Hemingway Cigars and Tobacco) According to the Historic Building Inventory form, the “six-story building could be regarded as either Spanish Colonial or California Colonial in style. Its utilitarian image is enriched by a gallery running 1 Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, “Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory,” accessed June 2018, http://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invU/Univ488.html 2 Ibid. 3 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). 3.b Packet Pg. 166 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 3 of 12 [18120] along the upper floor. The entrance originally was marked by lavish use of wrought iron grille and tile, which has been removed.”4 Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit and observed the following characteristics and features: rectangular-plan six-story building with basement and seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse and roof terrace; concrete construction with textured stucco cladding; six first-story commercial units with single doors, storefront glazing, decorative tile bulkheads, awnings, hopper/fixed window transoms, and spindle work transom screens; two Juliet balconies at the second story of the primary façade; a long gallery at the sixth story of the primary façade; regular upper-level fenestration with multiple steel-sash window types; and a parapeted flat roof with terra cotta clay-tiled gable and shed roof portions. Figure 1: Aerial image. Hotel President shaded orange. North is up. Source: Google Maps, 2018. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 4 Ibid. Page & Turnbull has determined the entrance tile appears to have been retained, and only the wrought iron detailing of the glazed double doors, sidelights, and arched transom has been removed. 3.b Packet Pg. 167 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 4 of 12 [18120] Figure 2: Primary northwest façade of Hotel President. Note commercial units one through six (image left to image right), flanking central building lobby entrance. CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES For a property to be eligible for national, state, or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly retain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Character- defining features can be expressed in terms of form, proportion, structure, plan, style, materials, and ornamentation. The following character-defining features have been identified for the Hotel President at 480-98 University Avenue, which has a period of significance of 1929-30 and is significant for its role in the early commercial development of University Avenue, its Spanish Colonial Revival style, and as an excellent example of the work of master architect Birge M. Clark. The character‐defining features of the Hotel President include, but are not limited to: Exterior: ▪ Situated on the south corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street ▪ Six-story building with symmetrical massing ▪ Rectangular plan extending to property lines ▪ Concrete construction with stucco cladding ▪ Parapeted flat roof with terra cotta clay-tile gable ends and gallery shed roof ▪ Primary façade with seven structural bays; the first and last bays slightly project at the upper floors ▪ Recessed entrance vestibule for building lobby o Cast iron “Hotel President” marquee with scrolled support brackets o Double doors with sidelights and arched transom o Tile flooring and wall cladding o Wrought iron six-pointed chandelier 3.b Packet Pg. 168 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 5 of 12 [18120] ▪ Six commercial units at the primary northwest (University Avenue) façade (four of which retain most original storefront features) o Tiled bulkheads o Fixed plate glass storefront windows o Single wood doors with glazed transoms o Storefront transoms with scalloped chamfered upper corners, hopper windows, and fixed end lites o Spindlework screens that span the storefront transoms ▪ Two beltcourses between first and second stories ▪ Second-story wrought-iron Juliet balconies at the first and last bays of the primary façade with corbelled moldings underneath ▪ Sixth-story wood gallery at central portion of primary façade ▪ Storefront, single wood-frame glazed door, and garage opening at northeast (Cowper Street) façade ▪ Steel-sash, multi-lite, regular fenestration at upper floors throughout the building, including: o Fixed windows flanked by casement windows o Double casement windows o Single casement windows o Arched windows at sixth story primary façade o Some windows have wired glass or pebbled opaque glass ▪ Seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse, wood pergola, and rooftop terrace ▪ Fire escapes at northeast and southeast façades Interior: ▪ Building lobby o Polychrome tile flooring o Tile floor with perimeter border o Wrought-iron chandeliers o Molded plaster brackets o Single-cab elevator with manual folding door, security gate, leather-paneled walls, a copper ceiling, and brass fixtures o Wood-beamed ceiling o Mezzanine stairway with terra cotta treads, Spanish tile risers, and a wrought iron scrolled railing o Wood horizontal beam and support posts for mezzanine level featuring carved corbels ▪ Hall and stair circulation throughout upper floors o Hall running the length of building (southwest to northeast) o Hall running the partial width of the building (northwest to southeast) o Central staircase with skylight (accessible at mezzanine/second story and sixth/seventh story, enclosed/non-accessible at third, fourth, and fifth stories) o Southwest staircase with skylight (between second and sixth stories) o Shallow arched hall ceilings o Textured stucco wall cladding in the halls o Wood residential unit doors o South stairway wood-framed wired glass five-lite double doors o Second-story mural in stairwell leading from mezzanine level ▪ Lodging units at upper floors (second through sixth floors) 3.b Packet Pg. 169 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 6 of 12 [18120] ▪ Six commercial units at the first story o Presence of rear mezzanine levels in commercial units one, two, four and six5 o Wrought iron light fixtures in commercial unit six o Pendant light fixture in commercial unit three o Picture rail in commercial unit three o Wood-beamed ceiling in commercial unit five (at the rear portion, formerly the hotel lounge/banquet room) PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following proposed project description was provided by ELS with the proposed project drawing set: The scope of work for the Hotel President project centers around the restoration of the building’s original architectural and design elements, and includes critical modernization components to bring the building to code and outfitted to serve the community for decades to come. The existing ground floor retail is to remain, with the insertion of a hotel lobby and lounge in the vacant retail spaces. Floors two through six converts 75 vacant lodging units to 100 hotel guest rooms. The existing roof garden remains. 11 existing parking spaces in the basement are reconfigured into 12 full size parking spaces. The building is proposed to undergo a structural seismic retrofit, fully-sprinklered life safety upgrade, and ADA compliance. Non-historic storefronts at the new hotel lobby are proposed to be replaced with historically correct storefront systems, including copper mullions and ceramic tile bases. The exterior is proposed to be painted with a new color palette that celebrates the historic nature of the building.6 Basement (Sheet A200) The proposed project will demolish, alter, and add various storage rooms at the perimeter of the basement. An electrical room will be constructed on the northeast side. An engineer’s workshop, small storage room, linen room, elevator machine room, and mechanical room will be constructed in the south corner near the circulation. A new second elevator will be installed adjacent to the linen room. A new staircase will be inserted adjacent to the existing mechanical room at the south corner of the basement. The existing hall and (closed-off) stair adjacent to the existing central elevator will be demolished. The proposed project will accommodate 12 total parking spaces on site and will also provide six long-term bicycle storage spaces in the basement. 5 Page & Turnbull did not survey the rear portions of the commercial units; the extant mezzanines are depicted on 2018 as-built architectural drawings by ELS. 6 “Project Description,” ELS, Drawing set: ARB Submittal for Major Project, dated February 12, 2020, A001. 3.b Packet Pg. 170 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 7 of 12 [18120] First Floor (Sheet A201) The proposed project will include the demolition of the existing storefronts at commercial units four and five, to be replaced with glazed window walls. At the interior, commercial units one and two will be internally combined, and the rear portion of these two commercial units will be altered to include a circulation hallway that extends from the historic lobby northeast to a new opening along Cowper Street. Behind this new hallway, a luggage storage room, three individual bathrooms and a larger bathroom with three restroom stalls will be created. Commercial units three, and six will be retained. The existing historic lobby will be connected to a new hotel lobby via two large low-arched openings that will be cut into the southwest wall of the existing historic lobby. The new hotel lobby will be created by merging commercial units four and five. The existing elevator and mezzanine stairway will be retained. The rear portion of unit four will contain a new bar that extends to the northeast incorporating existing spaces used as a kitchen, an office, and a walk-in freezer. Historically, this area was open to the main lobby. The proposed project will re-introduce that opening to facilitate access between the historic lobby, new hotel lobby, and new bar. A new second elevator will be installed south of (behind) the existing elevator, within the footprint of commercial unit five. The rear portion of commercial unit five will be modified to accommodate the new elevator, a new kitchen, and a small office space (105 square feet). The rear portion of commercial units five and six will be altered to accommodate a new stairwell. Mezzanine Floor (Sheet A202) The mezzanine will retain the existing two storage rooms, restroom, and mezzanine at the southeast corner. A new circulation hallway will be added from the mezzanine stairs toward Cowper Street and two storage rooms will be added; one at the northeast corner and one across from the mezzanine stairs along the southeast wall. Typical Upper Floor (Sheet A207) The proposed project involves the conversion of 75 existing vacant lodging units to 100 hotel guest rooms. With the exception of the existing windows and portion of the existing hallway walls, all existing features and materials within unit interiors will be demolished. The northwest/southeast (short) hall that currently runs the partial width of the building’s upper stories will be enclosed and absorbed by new guest-room units. The main southwest/northeast (long) hall will be retained. The proposed project will retain the historic residential unit doors. However, the door openings will be re- arranged along the hall to align with re-sized guest rooms. The proposed project will install a second elevator cab south of the existing elevator cab, and the enclosed central staircase will be reopened at the third, fourth, and fifth floors. Roof (Sheet A250) The proposed project will minimally alter the seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse. The existing stair from the sixth story will be retained. The proposed project will provide elevator access via the new elevator that will be inserted partially within the existing fan room and will extend the building envelope to the south. The north-most storage room will be slightly expanded and divided into two single bathrooms accessed via a small vestibule, and a small storage room. New mechanical screens will be constructed on the east and north sides of the roof. The proposed project will retain the pergola and there will be a 749 square-foot roof garden. 3.b Packet Pg. 171 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 8 of 12 [18120] Exterior Envelope of Hotel President (Sheet A301, A303, A305) Few changes are being made to the exterior envelope of the Hotel President. Along the primary façade, alterations are limited to painting the building and removing non-historic features and replacing with historically accurate materials. The wrought iron grille at the main lobby entrance will be recreated, based on historic drawings and photos. These alterations include the replacement of non-historic storefront bulkheads (units two, four, and five) and a non-historic storefront door (unit six). The existing storefronts of commercial units four and five will be reconfigured; storefront doors will be removed and replaced with glazing over low bulkheads with tile cladding to match historic storefronts. Along the Cowper Street façade, the existing wood-frame door with glazing will be removed from its existing location and relocated to align with the new interior circulation hallway at the ground floor. Along the rear of the building, a door will be installed to replace an existing non-historic window. As currently proposed, beyond painting the building, no alterations are being made to the materials or fenestration of the west elevation. At the roofline, the addition of elevator access to the seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse results in the creation of an elevator bulkhead for mechanical support that will raise the existing roofline to 16 feet and 4 inches at its southern end. This height appears to be in keeping with the existing antenna enclosure and cellular equipment which will be retained. The eight-foot mechanical screen that will be added on the north end of the roof will not affect the existing historic clay tile roof. DISCUSSION OF SOI STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION COMPLIANCE The Hotel President is both an individually eligible resource for listing on the California Register under Criteria 1 and 3, and is a “Group A” historic resource, meaning an existing property that is listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, therefore alterations to the building are subject to HRB review under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance.7 The 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.”8 Projects that are not considered minor exterior alterations are subject to HRB review and may also be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), unless the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation (the SOI Standards).9 The Standards provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible “a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”10 7 City of Palo Alto, “Historic Resource Project Review FAQ,” https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64188 8 Section 16.49.050(C), Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. 9 CEQA Guidelines section 15331. 10 National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/. 3.b Packet Pg. 172 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 9 of 12 [18120] The following discussion considers the proposed project’s potential effects on, and compatibility with, the Hotel President, and provides comments on whether the project appears to adhere to the Standards. The Standards for Rehabilitation are: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 173 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 10 of 12 [18120] 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.11 The following comments are provided regarding the proposed project’s adherence to the applicable SOI Standards. As a consultation memorandum, the following discussion does not include a Standard-by-Standard analysis. It excludes discussion of Standard 6 (repair and replacement of historic materials and features), Standard 7 (chemical/physical treatments), and Standard 8 (archeological resources); as all retained historic features will be repaired, the treatment method will be gentle per the Standards, and no excavation is proposed on the site that would involve archaeological or below-ground resources. Rather, the following comments are grouped thematically in terms of use, treatment of historic character, treatment of historic materials and features, and compatibility and differentiation of new construction. Use (Standard 1): Under the proposed project, the subject building will remain mixed-use. However, the current six commercial units at the first story will be reduced to three units. The proposed project will absorb commercial square footage into an enlarged lobby space. The enlarged building lobby will be used by the hotel. The upper floors of the building will be renovated to accommodate 100 guest rooms. Although the proposed project involves a change from the most recent residential-only use, the building historically accommodated hotel and residential uses. The proposed hotel project therefore does not introduce a new use. The project will be implemented with minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. Historic character (Standards, 2, 9, and 10): The building’s primary mass and form will not be altered. The addition of elevator access to the seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse and the erection of a mechanical screen are consistent with existing elements along the roof and will not be visible from the public right of way. The majority of the building’s historic materials and features will be retained. The proposed project does not appear to impact any character-defining features at the exterior, basement, or roof levels. Retention of commercial units at the ground floor will allow the building to continue to convey its mixed-use identity. The storefronts and interiors of commercial units four and five have already been altered, and further alteration of those units will not compromise the building’s ability to convey its significance as a mixed-use Spanish Colonial Revival building designed by Birge Clark. Proposed alterations to the lobby retain most original lobby materials, as well as the mezzanine stairway and the elevator. Additionally, the proposed project includes the creation of a bar space within an area that was historically part of the Hotel President lobby but had been altered to house a commercial kitchen. This change will re-introduce the opening to facilitate access between the bar and lobby. 11 National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Technical Preservation Services: Rehabilitation as a Treatment,” accessed April 25, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment- rehabilitation.htm. 3.b Packet Pg. 174 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 11 of 12 [18120] The removal of a portion of the dividing wall between the lobby and unit four will affect the lobby’s hall-style character and does not fully comply with Standards 2 and 9, which specifically address spatial relationships and historic design features. Although the wall will not be entirely removed, it will have two large low-arched openings cut into it, opening the greater length of the wall from the entrance vestibule to the elevator. The proposed opening in the wall, however, is reversible and therefore is consistent with Standard 10. Proposed alterations to the upper floors involve a restructured floor plan to accommodate additional guest room units. As a result, historic door openings and dividing walls between units will be rearranged, and the short transversal hall will be mostly enclosed. The project will retain the historic doors and re-use them in new locations along the same double-loaded corridor. The central staircase will be reopened at the third, fourth, and fifth floors to restore stair circulation throughout all upper floors. The proposed alterations to the upper stories of the building will not impact the public’s understanding of the building’s historic significance or character. Removal of historic materials and features (Standards 2, 4, 5, and 9): The subject building’s period of significance is 1929-30. Subsequent changes to the property (including the 1971 renovation by Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom Architects and other post-1930 alterations) have not acquired historic significance in their own right. Thus, historic materials and features include that which remains from the building’s original construction in 1929-1930. The proposed project involves the retention of most existing historic materials. This includes exterior stucco cladding; the terra cotta clay-tile roofing; wood gallery; Juliet balconies; upper floor fenestration pattern and materiality; presence of some commercial units and commercial storefronts at the first story; tiled lobby entrance vestibule; most lobby materials and features; most circulation features; and the roof utility/circulation penthouse and terrace. The missing wrought iron grille at the primary lobby entrance will be recreated, based on original drawings and historic photos. Historic features that will be removed or altered include some parts of the building lobby (i.e. a portion of the southwest lobby wall and decorative tile border), the short transverse hall on the upper stories, and the rearrangement of door openings and dividing walls at the upper stories (historic hall doors will be salvaged and reused). Non-historic materials and features will also be removed or altered. Examples include formerly altered wall sections within the building lobby (ie. former opening to commercial unit four within the southwest lobby wall and former opening to lounge/banquet room), removal of non-historic lobby floor tiling, the removal of non-historic storefront features, and the alteration of storefronts at commercial units four and five. Compatibility, differentiation, and historical development (Standards 3 and 9): The proposed project does not include any new additions and does not alter the building footprint or scale. The proposed enlargement of the lobby will alter interior proportions at the first story. However, no conjectural features or elements from other historic periods will be added, and the proposed project will not create a false sense of historical development. The conversion of commercial units to hotel lobby use will employ clear demarcation of old versus new. A partial wall will be retained between the lobby and commercial unit four to avoid loss of a hall-style lobby. This is achieved by making new openings with a low-arch shape, which differentiates them from the round-arch primary entrance door and the post-and-lintel construction 3.b Packet Pg. 175 Hotel President – Historic Preservation Consultation Memorandum Page 12 of 12 [18120] of the rest of the historic lobby’s structural elements. The historic lobby tile flooring will remain; newly renovated areas will feature differentiated flooring material and furnishings. Similarly, the renovation of upper floor units to hotel guest rooms will rely on contemporary design choices. Overall SOI Standards Compliance Projects that comply with the SOI Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they “shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on a historic resource.”12 Projects that do not fully comply with the SOI Standards may cause either a significant or less-than-significant impact according to CEQA. As designed, the proposed project retains and preserves the overall historic character of the Hotel President at 480-498 University Avenue. The project involves rehabilitation in a manner mostly consistent with the SOI Standards, but does not appear to fully comply with Standards 2 and 9 due to the effect of opening the lobby wall on the spatial character of that historic public space. The project would fully comply with all of the SOI Standards if it was revised to cut a narrower arched opening in the side wall closest to the primary lobby entrance, as this would more clearly communicate the historic design’s intent. To the extent that there appear to be some alterations to the lobby of the Hotel President that are not fully compliant with the SOI Standards, the building will maintain the majority of its character- defining features and its overall ability to convey its significance as a mixed-use Spanish Colonial Revival building designed by Birge Clark. Thus, it does not appear that the project will cause a significant impact according to CEQA. 12 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). 3.b Packet Pg. 176 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP M-GROUP.us • 22561 Main Street, Suite 200 • Hayward, CA 94541 • 510.634.8443 • a new design on urban planning HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PEER REVIEW Hotel President 480-98 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Richard Patenaude | March 2020 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto retained M-Group to complete a peer review of the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report for the Hotel President at 480-98 University Avenue (subject property) in Palo Alto, California, which was prepared by Page & Turnbull in February 2020. M-Group reviewed the HRE report to determine the adequacy of the physical description, background research, and historic context, and the appropriateness of the conclusion that the subject property is significant under:  California Register Criterion 1 (Events) at the local level for its role in extending the commercial corridor of University Avenue; as an early mixed-use building with commercial units, residential apartment units, and for its association with President Herbert Hoover, an early graduate of Stanford University and a figure of local importance, and  California Register Criterion 3 (Architecture) as an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in Palo Alto. Furthermore, M-Group’s review included a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Consultation Memorandum, prepared by Page & Turnbull in March 2020 for GPCA Owner LLC, “to outline the historic building’s character-defining features and provide comments regarding compliance of [a] proposed project [affecting the hotel lobby] to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.” 2. FINDINGS M-Group concurs with Page & Turnbull that the Hotel President, at 480-98 University Avenue, is eligible for listing in the California Register. Page & Turnbull’s evaluation of the subject property is based on an adequate historic context. M-Group concurs that the building is an excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, 3.c Packet Pg. 177 480-98 UNIVERSITY AVE., PALO ALTO - HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PEER REVIEW 2 “communicated by its exterior tile work, textured stucco cladding, spindlework, a wood gallery, a terra cotta clay tile roof, and wrought iron detailing. The building interior features tilework, carved wood beams and corbels, wrought iron detailing, mural work, and an ornamented elevator. Overall, the building displays high artistic values.” M-Group furthermore concurs, that the proposed project to alter the hotel lobby, as designed, retains and preserves the overall historic character of the Hotel President. The project involves rehabilitation in a manner mostly consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Page & Turnbull reported that the project “does not appear to fully comply with Standards 2 and 9” (spatial relationships) “due to the effect of opening the lobby wall on the spatial character of that historic public face.” However, M-Group concurs that “the building will maintain the majority of its character-defining features and its overall ability to convey its significance as a mixed-use Spanish Colonial Revival building.” Furthermore, M-Group concurs that “it does not appear that the project will cause a significant impact” pursuant to CEQA. 3.c Packet Pg. 178 ATTACHMENT D CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES OF THE PROPERTY Exterior • Situated on the south corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street • Six-story building with symmetrical massing • Rectangular plan extending to property lines • Concrete construction with stucco cladding • Parapet flat roof with terra cotta clay-tile gable ends and gallery shed roof • Primary façade with seven structural bays; the first and last bays slightly project at the upper floors • Recessed entrance vestibule for building lobby o Cast iron “Hotel President” marquee with scrolled support brackets o Double doors with sidelights and arched transom o Tile flooring and wall cladding o Wrought iron six-pointed chandelier • Six commercial units at the primary northwest (University Avenue) façade (four of which retain most original storefront features) o Tiled bulkheads (low walls along storefronts) o Fixed plate glass storefront windows o Single wood doors with glazed transoms o Storefront transoms with scalloped chamfered upper corners, hopper windows, and fixed end lites o Spindle work screen that spans the storefront transoms • Two belt courses between first and second stories • Wrought iron Juliet balconies at the first and last bays at the second story of the primary facade with corbelled moldings underneath • Wood gallery at the central portion of the primary façade’s sixth story • Storefront, single wood-frame glazed door, and garage opening at northeast (Cowper Street) facade • Steel-sash, multi-lite, regular fenestration at upper floors throughout the building, including: o Fixed windows flanked by casement windows o Double casement windows o Single casement windows o Arched windows at sixth story primary façade o Some windows have wired glass or pebbled opaque glass • Seventh-story utility/circulation penthouse, wood pergola, and rooftop terrace • Fire escapes at northeast and southeast facades Interior: • Building lobby o Polychrome tile flooring o Tile floor perimeter border 3.d Packet Pg. 179 o Wrought iron chandeliers o Molded plaster brackets o Single-cab elevator with manual folding door, security gate, leather-paneled walls, a copper ceiling, and brass fixtures o Wood-beamed ceiling o Mezzanine stairway with terra cotta treads, Spanish tile risers, and a wrought iron scrolled railing • o Wood horizontal beam and support posts for mezzanine level featuring carved corbels • Hall and stair circulation throughout upper floors o Hall running the length of building (southwest to northeast) o Hall running the partial width of the building (northwest to southeast) o Central staircase with skylight (accessible at mezzanine/second story and sixth/seventh story, enclosed/non-accessible at third, fourth, and fifth stories) o Southwest staircase with skylight (between second and sixth stories) o Shallow arched hall ceilings o Textured stucco wall cladding in the halls o Wood upper floor unit doors o South stairway wood-framed wired glass five-lite double doors o Second-story mural in stairwell leading from mezzanine level • Lodging units at upper floors (second through sixth floors) • Six commercial units at the first story o Presence of rear mezzanine levels in commercial units one, two, four and six46 o Wrought iron light fixtures in commercial unit six o Pendant light fixture in commercial unit three o Picture rail in commercial unit three o Wood-beamed ceiling in commercial unit five (at the rear portion, formerly the hotel lounge/banquet room) 3.d Packet Pg. 180 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 488 University Avenue, 19PLN-00038 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (Cowper St.) None Required 7 ft 1 in 7 ft 1 in Rear Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Interior Side Yard None Required 10 ft 10 ft Street Side Yard (University Ave.) None Required 0 ft(6) 0 ft(6) Special Setback Pursuant to Code Section 20.08 N/A N/A Minimum street setback for sites sharing a common block face with any abutting residential zone district Note 4 N/A N/A Minimum yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential zone districts 10 feet (Note 1) N/A N/A Maximum Site Coverage None Required 3,092 sf 3,226 sf Maximum Height 50 ft (Note 3) 85 ft to penthouse 90 ft 1 in to Wireless equipment enclosure 90 ft 3 in to elevator Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 (18,850 sf) (Note 5) 5.42: 1 (51,115 sf) 5.36:1 (50,540 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Initial Height at side or rear lot line (Note 2) N/A N/A Slope (Note 2) N/A N/A Notes 1) The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding area required for site access. 2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the residential zone abutting the site line in question. 3) The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the height limit of the abutting residential district. 4) The minimum street setback shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the abutting single-family or multiple family development. 5) FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts. 6) Property includes entry marquee (8’-9”) on the ground floor and balcony (4’0”) on the 6th floor that encroach into this setback. 3.e Packet Pg. 181 Page 2 of 2 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District Type Required Existing Proposed Conforms? Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 250 sf 7,645 sf x 5 floors = 38,225/250 = 153 spaces 115 spaces after State reduction (1) 12 spaces 14 spaces, 25 off-site, 76 in-lieu Yes (2) Bicycle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 2,500 sf 40% Long Term (LT) 60% Short Term (ST) 20 spaces 8 LT 12 ST 12 ST 11 Long Term 12 Short Term Yes Loading Space 10,000-99,999 sf 1 space 1 1 Yes (1) California Health & Safety Code Section 18962 allows a 25% reduction for historic properties (2) Off site parking required and payment of parking in-lieu fee 3.e Packet Pg. 182 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning & Development Services 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 to find “488 University Avenue” 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=4536&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 183 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11329) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 5/14/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB draft Minutes April 9, 2020 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 9, 2020 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): • April 9, 2020 Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes April 9, 2020 (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 184 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair David Bower, Vice Chair Deborah Shepherd, Board Members Martin Bernstein, Michael Makinen, Christian Pease, and Margaret Wimmer Absent: Board Member Roger Kohler Oral Communications Chair Bower: Our first item on the agenda is Oral Communications. I apologize for being repetitive here. Because this is a virtual meeting, there will be a lot of repetition of this particular paragraph. At this time, if you wish to speak on an item not on the agenda and you're using the Zoom application, you may raise your hand to indicate your desire to speak. The raised hand button is located at the bottom of your Zoom screen. On my screen, it's on the left, but it may be another place. If you're dialing in from a phone, you can raise your hand by pressing *9. This will create a queue. The meeting host will unmute each speaker, display the time allowed for comments and alert you to when you may begin. Vinh, are there any individuals interested in Oral Communications? Vinh Nguyen: At this time, there are no raised hands. Let's give them a few seconds to see if anyone wants to raise their hand. Okay, seeing as there are no raised hands, we can proceed to the next item. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bower: Okay. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions, are there any, Amy? Amy French: No changes. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chair Bower: Let's move on to City Official Reports. The first item is the Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments. Amy, do you have any discussion of this? I presume that we will be meeting virtually until the County Health Department lifts the stay-in-place order. Ms. French: That is correct. We are not going to have the meeting of April 23, so that should be a cancel. The next meeting on our agenda is May 14, so we will give that a shot, assuming we have a quorum. If we don't have a quorum on the 14th, we'll try again for May 28th. If anyone cannot make it on May 14th, please let Vinh or myself know. Chair Bower: Any Board Member questions for Amy? I don't see any. There is, at this point, another opportunity for public comments. Please raise your hand, use the raise your hand feature if you would like to make a comment. If you are dialing in from a phone, you can raise your hand by pressing *9. Three minutes would be allowed for any comment on this item. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 9, 2020 Virtual Teleconference Meeting 8:30 A.M. 4.a Packet Pg. 185 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Mr. Nguyen: At this time, there are no raised hands. Let's give them a few seconds to see if anyone wants to raise their hand. Seeing as there are no raised hands, we can proceed with the agenda items. Study Session 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 411 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00384]: Historic Resources Board Study Session to Consider Hayes Group Architects' Request for a Preliminary Architectural Review of a Three-Unit Residential Project Which Adds Two Subterranean Housing Units to a Significant Building, Historic Inventory Category 2 Single-Family Residence, Including Exterior Changes, a Rear Addition and Expansion of the Existing Partial Basement. The Project Includes a Request for Bonus Floor Area (2,500 Square Feet) Following Successful Rehabilitation, and Transfer of the Bonus to an Eligible Downtown Receiver Site. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P)). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at Sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Bower: Item Number 2 is the public hearing, quasi-judicial study session for 411 Lytton Avenue. Planning number is 19PLN-00348. It is an Historic Resources Board study session to consider Hayes Group Architects' request for a preliminary Architectural Review of the three-unit residential project, which adds two subterranean housing units to a significant building, Historic Category 2, a single-family residence including exterior changes, a rear addition, and expansion of the existing partial basement. The project includes a request for bonus floor area of 2,500 square feet following successful rehabilitation and transfer of the bonus to an eligible Downtown receiver site. The Zoning District is Downtown Commercial, CD/C(P). Environmental assessment is not a project. For more information, please contact Planner Sheldon Sing [sic] at sahsing@m-group.us. Staff report. Ms. French: Thank you, Chair Bower. This is Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I will be introducing Sheldon Ah Sing, the project planner, who has a presentation. As well, we have an applicant presentation. Following those, we're enabled to take questions on the presentations. Sheldon. Sheldon Ah Sing: Good morning. Thank you. I'll just get the presentation up here. I do have a presentation. The applicant, Ken Hayes, is also in attendance and has a PowerPoint presentation. I will upload that for him. As well, the consultant that conducted the peer review of the Historic Resource Evaluation is also available for questions on the call. This is a preliminary review of rehabilitation work as well as a 223-square-foot addition of an existing Cat 2 house as well as an addition of two units below the existing structure on a very small site, .06-acre site. The request eventually includes Major Architectural Review, offsite parking as well as bonus floor area. Since this is a preliminary review, no recommendation is sought at this time. The project is located near the intersection of Lytton and Waverley. The site is within the Downtown CD-C District, as mentioned previously. The site does include an 854-square-foot, single-story, single-family house designated as Category 2 in 2014. The proposal is for interior and exterior remodeling to rehabilitate the historic structure as well as new construction including a single-story addition at the rear of the house with two new subterranean units below the building's footprint. Within the surrounding, it's characterized by single, two, and three-story buildings. The HRE was conducted in 2002 [sic]. That helped established integrity and eligibility of the building. It was peer reviewed in 2020, including an updated review of the Secretary of Interior Standards for any proposed additions. The HRE did identify character-defining features as well as non-contributing features and did establish a rehabilitation work program. Some of those have already been completed since 2012. The applicant can go into more detail about that. The HRE did find that the character-defining features make it an outstanding example of a simplified Craftsman-style bungalow. The peer review also confirmed the findings in the HRE and provided special analysis on the Secretary of Interior Standards based on the new construction proposed today. Regarding the rehabilitation work, it's really to conduct a structural engineering assessment of the foundation of the front porch, to replace the foundation, removal of any non-historic front and rear stairs—there's some pipe railing that's included on the front; it's not historic—but also to rehabilitate the existing character-defining features of the primary facade. That's the front facade that you see here. Regarding the new construction, on the left is the footprint of the house. What's in red would be removed and demolished. On the right is what's being proposed. It's 4.a Packet Pg. 186 City of Palo Alto Page 3 a 223-square-foot, single-story addition to the rear as well as two units, very small units, kind of micro units in a way, below the existing house. This provides a little better view. On the top, you're looking front towards the street, so this is the back of the property that you'd see where you have to head down some stairs to get there, some steps. The second image, you're looking very similarly as the first one but now towards the building. You can see the rear addition to the house as well as the entry to the new units. The other imagery you see is the adjacent property, 437 Lytton, where you have the parking lot and looking down into the subject property. You see the rear addition, using some materials that are different, not the same as the ones on the historic structure. The imagery below, you get a little more feel of how all this comes together with the units below, the existing house, and then the addition. The cross-section really puts it all together where you can see that they're adding onto the basement below. There's a half basement now, so they're excavating. Why are we here? As part of the Architectural Review process and because the site is designated an historic resource, the HRB will review and provide some informal feedback. This will be whether the project retains the historic character of the existing structure. Parallel to this process, the ARB will informally evaluate the project based on the Architectural Review findings and input from the HRB. There will be a follow-up meeting with the ARB very similar to this, informal. The applicant will take those comments and include those into their formal application if they so decide to pursue that. I did want to provide a little bit of summary on some of the impacts to the structure based on the project. The south elevation is Lytton. There really wouldn't be any impact here, like positive impacts regarding making the project and the building more consistent with its historic character. The west elevation, you begin to see the rear addition, the use of the painted-wood siding. It has a flat roof, which the parapet is at the same height of the wall of the existing building. Then, you start to see an expansion of the basement, the use of the board-form concrete. The painted-wood windows are a little different but yet compatible. The north is really where you see the most impact because that's the rear addition to the house, but it's not visible from the street. The east is the opposite of the west, so it's very similar. You can see the same materials and the same type of impacts. Since they are doing some rehabilitation work as well as a new addition, the project is subject to the Secretary of Interior Standards, and the project was found to be consistent with those as described in the table in the staff report. The project continues the historic residential use. The materials of the original structure will be retained and preserved, except for a portion of the rear. New materials would be compatible but not copy the historic structure. The existing structure does not contain significant changes from the original construction. The materials, features, and finishes characterize the architectural integrity, and those will be retained. The rear addition could be removed without damaging the integrity of the structure. As mentioned previously, because of rehabilitation work, the Code does allow for potential floor area bonus. The project may be eligible for this in the amount of 2,500 square feet after completing the work. The owner does not intend to use the bonus onsite, but the floor area could be transferred to a non-historic receiver site. In conclusion, the project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and does propose both rehabilitation and new construction. We are seeking some informal direction on the project to help with the Architectural Review and the formal submittal. This recommendation is to consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to staff and the applicant. That concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer questions. As I mentioned, the consultant that peer reviewed the HRE is also available for questions. Thank you. Chair Bower: Let me start, Sheldon, by asking some questions, and then I'll go around to Board Members and just ask you individually if you'd like to make comments. I note that, as I think all Board Members except maybe Christian and Debbie, will remember a similar project came to the HRB in March 2016. It was to join this property with the property next door. That project went all the way through Planning and went to the Council for approval, and the Council returned the project to the owners for redesign. Can you tell the Board what the Council's problem with the project was then? Mr. Ah Sing: I did summarize that a little bit in the staff report at a very high level. It did make it all the way to the Council on appeal. The issue was for the adjacent property. There's a mixed-use building. They had a large outdoor patio. The concern of the neighbors was privacy. It wasn't having to do with the single-family house that is the subject today. It was really the part of the project that was on the other property. 4.a Packet Pg. 187 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bower: When the HRB reviewed this, the Board approved it 4-2. There were two dissenting votes on the approval of that project, but it still moved forward. The lot size is 2,843. What's the floor area ratio allowed for that lot? That's obviously a non-standard lot. Mr. Ah Sing: It's 1:1 basically, so they can do up to 2,800 square feet essentially. They're under that amount. Chair Bower: Thank you. The Historic Inventory Report, which was done back in 2012 by PAST, identifies, as your report does, that the single-lite, double-hung windows are a very significant feature. Those are wood windows, as I see them. I visited the site yesterday by car. I'm wondering why the staff report would consider aluminum windows to be a compatible material when the building has no aluminum windows in it at all. Mr. Ah Sing: Maybe we can have the consultant, Richard Patenaude, weigh in on that issue. Chair Bower: That's fine. I'm curious just how the staff got to that point. There's also another—in the staff report on packet page 13 under analysis, there is a paragraph that I don't think I have seen in any staff report and that I find confusing. Maybe you could help me with this. It's under analysis. It's the second paragraph, and I'll just read it for you. 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 Development or his or 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 next line is what really puzzles me. The City considers projects that are evaluated and found to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards to meet the definition of a minor exterior alteration. That seems to me to be conflicting. This, I don't think, is a minor exterior alteration. What this suggests is that if this is considered minor, the staff would be able to make a decision about this, and the HRB Board Members would never see it. Can you help me understand this? Ms. French: I'm not sure if Sheldon was planning to answer this, but I can say that, when it comes back for the formal, this is an HRB project, HRB review. The minor part is the Architectural Review Board part. The HRB would only review a project that is minor, that is, it's not an over 5,000-square-foot addition. Therefore, it doesn't have to go to the ARB, but it does have to go to the HRB because of the Secretary of Interior Standards review. Chair Bower: I don't mean to belabor this point, but maybe that language for the HRB review should be removed from the staff report. As I read it and others that I've spoken to who are not on the Board read it, it would suggest that there's no HRB review here if it met the Secretary of Interior Standards. I have other questions for the applicant, but we can wait. Let me just move down the list alphabetically. Martin, you're there. Martin, do you have any comments, questions for staff? Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. Thank you, Chair Bower. Amy, I think you just clarified. In the future, this project will come back to the HRB for a formal discussion and formal motion. Is that correct? Ms. French: Yes, that is correct. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. I don't have that in front of me on my iPhone right now. Who prepared the HIE and who was the peer reviewer? Mr. Ah Sing: The HRE was from PAST, a company, and that was in 2012. It was peer reviewed by a colleague of mine with M-Group. He's also available to speak on his peer review today. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. M-Group is from the City of Palo Alto. Is that correct? Mr. Ah Sing: We are a consultant, and we were hired to assist the City (inaudible). 4.a Packet Pg. 188 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Bernstein: I have a question on the proposed parking agreement. The parking agreement is, in effect, or proposed for this project because of the adjacent property owner. Is that correct? Mr. Ah Sing: The parking is not really a part of this review for the HRB but will be for the ARB. Yes, the project requires some parking that cannot be supplied onsite. The Code does allow offsite parking. In this case, the applicant is pursuing the parking at the adjacent site, 437 Lytton. Board Member Bernstein: I understand from what I've been reading on this project is that both properties are currently owned by the same owner. Is that correct? Mr. Ah Sing: That is correct, yes. Board Member Bernstein: In the event that the other property owner—if that property gets sold to a different person, is this parking agreement in effect in perpetuity or does that parking agreement evaporate? Mr. Ah Sing: It would be in effect in perpetuity. We would have a three-party agreement. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. When it comes time to talk about the project specifically, Chair Bower, I'll have questions about that when you're ready for that course or my questioning. Chair Bower: Michael, you're next. Do you have any questions for staff? Board Member Mackinen: I don't have any questions. I guess you're not taking comments right now. You're just taking questions. Chair Bower: This is just questions for the staff report. We will get to a discussion of the project after the applicant makes their presentation. Board Member Mackinen: I'll hold my comments until we get to my comments. Chair Bower: Christian, any questions for staff? Board Member Pease: Not specifically, but I just want to reinforce your surprise at the paragraph about the minor exterior changes. I also saw that was cited in the draft report for the Certified Local Government report. I was going to say I would be interested in—I don't know if this would be called a study session or not—learning more about this process and what constitutes a minor change, particularly in aggregate. I'm just thinking of situations where there might be many requested minor exterior changes that none of them individually is major, but taken together they might be. I don't know if it would be possible in the future with staff to meet over this particular policy. Chair Bower: Maybe we can have that conversation when we get to the Certified Government report. We can have a little more conversation about that. Board Member Pease: That would probably work better. Thank you. Chair Bower: Debbie, any questions for staff? Board Member Shepherd: I think most of my questions can wait. With the previous application as regards the house, is this new application the same? The design. Chair Bower: My recollection is it's not because I don't think they had the two residential units in the basement. Sheldon would know better. 4.a Packet Pg. 189 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Ah Sing: That is correct. It is very different in that you have the two new units below. The applicant's presentation can provide a little more context on that as well. Board Member Shepherd: Thank you. Chair Bower: Margaret, how about you, any questions for staff? Board Member Wimmer: Yes. I was wondering if you could quickly review the zoning for this project, which is CD-C(P). I was just looking up what that means, and it looks like it's the Commercial Downtown District with a subdistrict of P, which is pedestrian. I just thought it would be great for the staff to review that Zoning District and how having a residential use in that district impacts the project, if any. Also, if you could touch on the fact that the project is in Flood Zone X, and there's a basement proposed. Is there any FEMA impact or does Flood Zone X mean they can do a basement? Usually in a flood zone you can't do a basement. Those are my two clarification questions. I do have further comments later. Mr. Ah Sing: I'm sharing a screen. I'm losing a little bit of resources in front of me. Sorry. If I lose audio (inaudible) question. Board Member Wimmer: I just quickly looked up what the CD-C(P) meant. I can read what I pulled up. CD means Commercial Downtown District, and then the subdistrict—the dash C means community. In parentheses, P means pedestrian shopping. It's Commercial Downtown-Community, Pedestrian, which is the general zoning and then the sub-zoning. I just thought maybe we could talk for a moment about what that means and if it has any impact or any considerations that we should take, considering the fact that it's a residential project in a Commercial Downtown zone. Mr. Ah Sing: I know the Downtown does allow for a mix of uses. In this case, you're looking at a historic structure, which you don't really want to change the front of it too much and the integrity of it. Certainly, for new projects there are certain factors and design criteria, such as the Downtown Urban Design Guide, that we take into consideration to make it consistent with the pedestrian commercial overlay. With historic structures, it's a little bit different in that you have to follow the Secretary of Interior Standards. Board Member Wimmer: Any comments about it being in Flood Zone X? Mr. Ah Sing: Certainly, the project was reviewed by Public Works Engineering, and it does have to follow all the requirements for dewatering and excavation and be consistent with the FEMA Guidelines. That will come. We did do an informal review of that, and nothing came up that was negative and that would prohibit them from doing something. As we go forward with the formal project, we'll get more insight on that. Board Member Wimmer: I guess Flood Zone X allows the addition of basements. In a lot of areas where a project is in a flood zone in R-1 District areas, a basement is absolutely not allowed. X might be the flood zone that's not as impacted or not as at-risk, but it's pretty close to that creek back there. Mr. Ah Sing: Flood Zone X is the good flood zone. That's the one where (inaudible) are okay. It's the other (crosstalk). Board Member Wimmer: I think that's right. I just thought I'd mention that. Chair Bower: Thank you, Sheldon. If there are no other questions, let's move onto the applicant presentation. Board Member Shepherd: David, I'm sorry. Could I ask one more question? Chair Bower: Certainly. 4.a Packet Pg. 190 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Shepherd: Is it every appropriate for the HRB to comment regarding fencing? Chair Bower: After the applicant presentation, you can comment on any portion of the project that would affect the historic resource. Board Member Shepherd: Thank you. Chair Bower: Vinh, applicant presentation. Ken Hayes: Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for continuing the work of the City during this crisis, appreciated by all, your commitment. My name's Ken Hayes, and I'll be doing the presentation on behalf of my client, Brad Ehikian. Brad has also joined onto this Zoom meeting, so he's probably just going to listen. If there are ever any questions for the owner, he is part of the meeting. I'd like to thank Sheldon for helping us get the application to this point. I have a brief presentation that Sheldon's going to control the slides. The first slide is—I'm just going to put my image up there because I'm in a place where my internet connection is very slow. I'm afraid if I have video on, it's going to be a problem. I didn't realize that until after I hooked up. I have a nice shirt on and everything, but I'm in my pajamas. The site is indicated here. It's a mid-block site on Lytton, between Kipling and Waverley. As Sheldon pointed out, it's a small site, 2,843 square feet. It is zoned CD-C(P). P is the pedestrian overlay part of it. The site is indicated in yellow, 411 Lytton. The surrounding properties to the rear are mostly residential. It's the RM-D Zone, but of course 411 is part of the Commercial Downtown District with the pedestrian overlay. You can see that indicated on the Zoning Map. The next slide, please, shows some existing views of the existing property. This is from the 437 Lytton side. This is the side of 411 Lytton where the other property is, that is owned by Mr. Ehikian. This is what we're calling the east side of the building. This is the rear. At the rear of the building, you can see that stair. It has a handrail, railing that's already been replaced. It's not original, but the landing below is the contributing portion that's going to be removed. The door at the landing and the window to the left would also be part of the removal to effect the addition to the rear. The existing cottage was built in 1901, and it is a Category 2. Mr. Ehikian raised it to a Category 2 in 2014. It is actually part of the first residential subdivision, you might have read, in Palo Alto. This is 437 Lytton. I'm just trying to give you the context. This is the other corner. We sit between two commercial buildings essentially. That slide is one that Sheldon had in his presentation as well. You can see the parking lot and the cottage. The next slide gives you our program. There are five points I wanted to make. We want to add two living units to increase the number of units to three. The reason for this is a single-family use is a noncomplying use, a nonconforming use in the CD-C. The only way to add onto this building is to make it—the owner under the previous application wanted to add a bedroom. After that application was defeated, the owner came back and said, "I want to add a bedroom still." The Planning Department said, "You can't expand a nonconforming use." That was the impetus of part of this project, how do we expand the existing single- family use, a noncomplying use, in this zone. The only way to do that is to make it a complying use. Adding two units below reclassifies this building or the use as multifamily, and multifamily is in fact a permitted use in the CD-C(P). Point 2, as a conforming use we'd expand the existing house by adding about 225 or 223 square feet for a bedroom and a bathroom and a little laundry area. We would develop the two studios in the basement. We wanted to create some outdoor landscaped areas that would be associated with all three living units. We'll show you how we've accomplished that for the subterranean living units. We want to respect the historic integrity and comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation, which goes without saying. We think this is a very sympathetic way of achieving that, given all the constraints that we have on the property. We wanted to figure out a way to free up the front of the building, so we wouldn't be blocked by cars, which makes it also more pedestrian friendly. Because Mr. Ehikian owns the property next door, it gives us this opportunity to enter into an agreement that would provide the parking for this small housing. These three parking spaces are what's required. We can achieve that next door. The next slide is architectural precedents. On the left-hand side, you get an idea of the aesthetic that we're working in to differentiate from the shingle siding but still use a wood product but oriented vertically instead of horizontally to, again, differentiate itself. The next two slides in this main slide are examples of living just below grade and how interesting it could be to have the living unit open up to an outdoor courtyard. The slide he's already passed over was images of the materials. 4.a Packet Pg. 191 City of Palo Alto Page 8 The shingles on the right-hand side would be reminiscent of what's there today. Board-form concrete is what we're working with. Obviously, foundations in that time and era were often created with board- form concrete. On the left-hand side is the vertical wood siding. This is imagery of what we envision for the garden. The space on the right is kind of a subterranean space that has a living area that opens onto it. I think it's a wonderfully beautiful space. The slides on the left give you an idea of some of the vegetation that we're thinking of below grade. This is the footprint of the 853-square-foot existing building with what's happening on the inside. We are going to be making some modifications on the inside. The next slide is the site plan that you saw in Sheldon's presentation. Next slide shows a setback. There's a 10-foot residential setback. When you're working with residential uses in the CD- C(P), there's no setbacks except at the rear. That is a 10-foot setback. Our addition has to comply with that. Fortunately, the deeper side of the site allows for an addition, freeing up the western or southwestern side of the site for solar exposure. It could be a warm, sun-filled space at certain times of the day. We're anticipating three different access points that could lead into the site. The existing in the center, obviously to the main front porch. Off to the left could be a visitor parking space, but it would also serve as a way into the units that are below grade. You'd walk in there and then go down the stair. On the right-hand side is another pathway that would lead to the rear of the site. That's set up so that if the unit on the left or the unit on the right, if we wanted to have independent access into them, it could be achieved this way. The next slide shows the parking in the lot next door. We would actually create a gate at the back of the site that would link the parking area to the area. All three tenants could have a parking space located there at the rear. The next slide shows you the addition in tan. That's the interior addition. There's a deck off the back. That's the light blue that you see appended to the tan area. Again, the two stairs that come down into the outdoor space below. The outdoor space in front would be available to everybody, but it's the front yard still for the main house, thinking that the rear deck would be more of a private outdoor space for the existing home itself. Let me just point out, in this slide you can see the changes on the inside. We're going to keep the two bedrooms on the left, reconfigure the bathroom that exists between them right now, and then the living room becomes conjoined with a little bit larger kitchen. You can see behind the kitchen is a small bathroom with a stacked laundry washer/dryer. You step down into the master bedroom addition at the rear where we have just enough space for the bedroom and a closet, and the door leads out to the deck. In case you're interested, we've got to provide trash and recycling. On the left-hand side, highlighted in lavender is where we would have a refuse/recycling enclosure so that you wouldn't be looking at garbage cans like you do today. This is the below-grade area. There are two small units. The one on the left is about 478 square feet, definitely a micro unit. The one on the right is a little bit bigger at just under 700 square feet, but they're both studios. They both have access to light and air, and their entries come off the rear sunken garden. We felt it's important to have light and ventilation to be able to move through the building. At the front, there's a couple of light wells that we would have a window into that light well that becomes another way out, perhaps, of the units for escape. It also provides a place where we can put a compressor for the mechanical system. The bathrooms, you can see, are located in the back. They form a core bathroom/dressing area. They're nice units. The one on the right has lots of storage and a little bit bigger kitchen. This is an elevation. At the top, the west elevation shows the stair as it descends to the courtyard, and sliding doors would provide entry into each of the units. We're trying to preserve the integrity of the historic hipped roof, which is a main feature of this square style cottage. By keeping the addition roof lower and flat, it essentially just becomes a wall or a fence that is added to the existing building. The prior application from 2014 actually had a roof on top of the addition which, in my mind, upon later study cluttered up the original hipped roof of the historic house. Really, no change to the front of the building. This is the east side at the top. That faces the parking lot. There's going to be a fence and a hedge along that side. By and large, we're rehabilitating that facade of the building, which I would say is visible from the parking lot. You can see at the back of that is where we would have the addition. To the very rear of that addition, it steps down and becomes the deck. The elevation below would be the north elevation. That's from the courtyard, looking back at the building. The existing window and the shingle wall is the one on the right. The hipped roof, obviously, is the existing. The board-form concrete would be reminiscent of a foundation from that era, and that forms the walls of the courtyard. It could be really wonderful, and it picks up the horizontality, in my opinion, of the shingle siding and gives the building something firm to rest on. A cross-section through the building. The one at the top is a cross-section through the front porch, if you will, kind of through the building and into the 4.a Packet Pg. 192 City of Palo Alto Page 9 courtyard behind. It shows the smaller studio below. The drawing below is a cross-section the other way, that looks back at the historic building towards Lytton, and it shows the new bedroom, which is associated with the historic house above, and then the new studio below. We just have some slides of imagery that we can walk through. We've got the historic siding and the wood trim. We've not decided on paint color yet, so please don't—I'd be happy to hear your comments on paint color, but we do plan on painting it after we restore any rot and the shingles and the wood siding. We will be changing the front porch and the handrails. We need handrails, but we don't like the pipe rails that are there. The brick porch appears to not be historic, so we'd restore that in a fashion that would be consistent. We have clues from a house around the corner that was also part of this property at one time. It has a wood porch, so we'd like to put a wood porch back onto this. Just a view of the front. We would be getting rid of the picket fence across the front of the building. We're not showing the hedge, but there's going to be a landscaped hedge that will go there and define a bit of a front yard, so people don't just walk onto the property. From the other side. You can see the light wells on the side. Those will be covered with a grate, so you could actually walk on top of them if you had to, but it's an open grate for light and air. Next slide is an overall aerial looking down to give you some perspective. The next slide shows you the basement outdoor courtyard. We're not including the rendering of the landscaping, but envision this with landscaping. You have a landscape plan conceptual plan in the plan set in front of you, that shows what we're thinking there. The next slide would show the outdoor space associated with the smaller unit. That's the stair there that runs up to Lytton Avenue, the board-form concrete on both sides. The next slide gets into what our historic preservation is going to be at the bottom are the existing elevations today. The row right above that shows a comparison of before and after, if you will. I probably don't need to dwell on that too much. The proposed alterations are replace the foundation. It's an old brick foundation that's falling apart. Remove the non-historic front stair. The rear stair is historic, but it's just contributing. There will be a partial demolition of the rear facade wall with a new entrance and construction of the rear bedroom. We'd rehabilitate the historic character-defining features on the primary facades. Really, there's going to be three facades that are essentially untouched, which is just wonderful about the proposal. There's the main hipped roof and the dormer, which are iconic for this style, the symmetrical one-over-one double-hung wood windows on either side. The temporary carport will be removed. That little picket fence is non-historic. That'll be removed. You can't really see the brick porch, but you see the pipe rails that stick up above the picket fence. That will also be removed. The next slide shows the wood-shingle siding. Where they're rotted, we'll have to replace. By and large, we'll be restoring them and then putting a finish coat of paint on them. The hipped roof actually has already been re-shingled, and that has probably gone to a more traditional wood shingle roof as opposed to an asphalt shingle roof. The owner elected to do that a few years ago after the prior proposal was defeated for the building next door. We will restore the rafter tails, the overhangs that do need a lot of work. The next slide shows the front porch and the Colonial Revival style, simple columns. The wood cap in the porch is listing. We're going to have to get in and put a new foundation most likely under that and then do the restorative work needed at that point. The next one just shows the one-over-one double-hung windows. You can see them going down the side of the building, so obviously all those will be touched upon and restored as part of this work. The last slide is the opposite slide from one of the first slides, that gives you an overview of the composition of the stairs and the sunken garden and the addition at the rear. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions and look forward to those. Chair Bower: Board Members, let's ask any questions you have, and we'll have a discussion after the question session. Let's do this in reverse order, so Margaret doesn't always have to be last. Margaret, any questions for Ken? Board Member Wimmer: I had a couple of quick questions. In regard to the front-facing light wells— again, I always go back to my knowledge of the different zoning neighborhoods. I know that this is a residential project in a Commercial Zoning District. In the typical R-1 zone, we wouldn't be allowed to have light wells in the front yard. I don't know if having the two light wells in the front yard triggers the necessity to have a variance or if that's allowed in this zone. I just don't know. 4.a Packet Pg. 193 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Hayes: Thank you for the question, Board Member Wimmer. The setback for this zoning district is zero at the front, so technically there is no front yard. There's no issue with the light wells being there. Board Member Wimmer: Thank you for clarifying that you're proposing to put flat grates over the light wells because those would have been required to have a guardrail around them if they were open, which would impact the historic front elevation. If there's a flat grate over it, are those considered egress light wells or just for light? Mr. Hayes: They're just really for light. They're not required for egress. They're for light and ventilation. I don't want to go back to the plan because I'm not controlling this. We want to be able to draw air through the units. There is a window that would be operable, like a big casement door that would allow the resident to open and walk into that light well if they needed to. Primarily for being able to open that and get ventilation through the unit. They could open their sliding door and then open that rear ventilation casement window, if you will, that is into that light well. It'll allow air to come through. Board Member Wimmer: In terms of the relationship of the size of that window to the light well, the light well's quite a bit bigger than the window itself. I'm sure you've considered that. The light wells are to the corner of the building, so they're quite wide. I just wanted to point that out. If you look at the basement floor plan in the back where the stair's coming down for that back basement unit, at first glance I saw this unidentified rectangular space that looked like it could almost be in the future—that's actually what the view on the screen is, the perfect view of that. See how there's the back unit, the stairs come down on your very left, and then there's a deck above this foundation. On the floor plan, you see that that's a whole space under there, but that's in the setback. How does … Mr. Hayes: That's not a space. It would be a retained—there's a retaining wall under the deck coplanar with the back of the master bedroom. We can't go into the setback. That's why that's like that. Board Member Wimmer: That's just a foundation. Mr. Hayes: That's right. Board Member Wimmer: I see. In terms of—this always happens to me—utilities, you have to have water heaters and you have to have furnaces. I know that you'll incorporate that in somehow, but those always take space. I don't know if you've made any provisions. That's not under our purview, but I always look for that because I always think, "Where is all that going to go?" You've got such a nice plan that I just mention that. Mr. Hayes: Because we're dealing with such a small site and a sensitive structure on that site, we obviously want to hide what we can and incorporate mechanical systems in areas that are still accessible but not necessarily prominent. It's also a very small project, so that's good. The mechanical equipment will likewise be very small. The original house has a nice attic space, so that attic space will be ideal for a horizontal furnace unit. We're probably going to put in an on-demand water heater that'll be associated with the new bathroom/laundry room addition. The units below, that equipment will be in the light well. There will be a small compressor in there, and then just a little fan coil inside each of the two units. We haven't decided where the on-demand water heaters are going to go. If those are gas, which might be a problem now, they would need a flue. It looks like everything's going electric anyway, so we wouldn't have to worry about the flues. Those will most likely be in the unit, more of a European approach. Board Member Wimmer: Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thanks, Margaret. Debbie, any questions? Board Member Shepherd: Yes. We're going to do comments later. Chair Bower: That's correct. 4.a Packet Pg. 194 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Shepherd: I think I'll just wait. Chair Bower: All right. Christian, any questions for Ken? Board Member Pease: No, thank you. Chair Bower: Michael? Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I have one question. The front porch of the house is deemed to be non- historic. Can you give me some idea of how old that porch is? Sometimes these additions, you might call it, or changes acquire historic integrity because they've been there for a long time. That's the crux of my question. Has it been a sufficiently long period of time to acquire historic integrity? Mr. Hayes: The HRE identified the railings as being non-historic. When I say the porch, I'm not referring to anything that is wood. The porch right outside the door, obviously, is all part of the original. The walls that surround it are part of the original, along with the columns and the roof. There's a brick addition that comes off—it looks like it's slammed up against the former wood shingles. That has the pipe railing mounted to it. That's what we're assuming is not historic and will be removed. Board Member Makinen: The pipe railings are your main thought there as far as changing. Mr. Hayes: The pipe railings will be removed. We have not got to the point of the design of the new railing. We're just showing right now a conceptual rail. The stairs are over 30 inches at the top above grade, so anything over 30 inches requires a guard. The new railings are probably going to have to be some kind of picket rail. I'll probably go around the corner and look at the sister house to this house and see what that one has, if that's still original. Board Member Makinen: The basic porch has been there for a long time. It's part of the original structure then. Mr. Hayes: That stays. It's like four steps that are made out of brick that's not part of the period. I don't know when it was done, though. Only the railing was addressed. It looks like the railings attach to that brick, so we're making an assumption that they were done at the same time. Chair Bower: Thank you, Michael. Martin, if you're still there, your turn if you have questions. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, Chair. My discussion will probably request Ken to respond to my comments. Should I wait until you get to that portion of our discussion? Chair Bower: Yeah, I think that's fine. Ken, I wanted to applaud your use of board-form concrete in the foundation and also adding the housing units. It's a good design characteristic that actually mimics the original house but won't be confused as being part of the original project. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Bower: I'm wondering if you know where the bonus FAR square footage is going to go. Mr. Hayes: I do not. Chair Bower: Is the lower outdoor space a community or a condo area or is that just for the lower two- unit residents? Mr. Hayes: Good question. I think we would like to make it just available to the lower units because the upstairs occupants have the deck at the back and the front yard. We haven't talked through that enough with my client. These will be condominiums, by the way. We've not proposed the condo map yet just 4.a Packet Pg. 195 City of Palo Alto Page 12 because this is all preliminary. We really want to get feedback before we take the next step. We think it's a great way to add units and make the use conforming. Chair Bower: You've got aluminum windows in all of the new addition, but the building has wood windows, double hung. I can see having wood casement windows, but I'm having some trouble understanding why aluminum would be considered compatible. I do understand the differentiation part, but I'm having trouble getting to the compatibility part. Mr. Hayes: I'd be hard pressed to look at a window from 15-20 feet away and say whether it was a painted-wood window or a painted-aluminum window if there's a sash and a frame. I would envision that these sliding doors would have—they'll be sash units. I don't envision these anodized aluminum. We're going to pick probably a dark paint color and have these Kynar-coated most likely. What's important would be the dimension of the sash. I think 20 feet away you're not going to be able to tell. Obviously, the aluminum would be a much more lasting product than the wood. I've got to say these wood windows have been on this house for 115 years. Chair Bowers: Wood windows tend to last a long time if you paint them. Mr. Hayes: I would disagree with that. I've already replaced the wood windows on my house that I built in 1987 because they … These redwood windows, you're right. Chair Bower: Thanks, Ken. This is a very thorough presentation. Now, we are going to move to public comments. Please use the raise your hand feature to indicate you have a public comment. The raise your hand button is located at the bottom of your Zoom screen. If you're dialing from a phone, you can press *9. Comments will be limited to three minutes. Vinh, do you see any raised hands? Mr. Nguyen: At this time, there are currently no raised hands. Let's give the attendees a couple of seconds to raise their hand if they want to. Seeing as how there are still no raised hands, we can proceed with the agenda. I just want to point out that Debbie has her hand raised. Board Member Shepherd: I have some comments. I want to commend the architect for spending time looking at 385 Waverley. It's really a rare opportunity to have a pair of houses extant. That house, built at the same time, appears to have been lovingly cared for. It's fresh and intact from what I can tell and is painted in the same way as this property at 411 Lytton is currently. One difference is the Waverley does not have shingles. It has horizontal, narrow boards cladding it. That brings me to a reservation overall. I'm struggling with horizontality versus verticality in your addition. I liked what you said about the board-form concrete. I agree with David. I think it's very nice. You said you felt it reflected the horizontality in the shingles. I'm surprised that you've chosen to go with such a vertical cladding on the addition. Possibly what is coloring my view is the images we're working with. I'm so glad you said you haven't made it to final decision about paint. Between the stark contrasting color and the extreme verticality, I find it very jarring. I realize that the intention is not to mimic the historic features of the structure. I find this incompatible. It is in our purview to talk about color. I looked up the guidelines for treatment under rehabilitation. I guess we'll revisit this when you've made a decision about color, when we see this the final time. I would express now reservations that I have about going with this very dark gray or dark brown that has been so popular and, I believe, is losing favor. I feel like it's starting to seem like a very dated and stylistic approach in everything, interior design, fashion, exterior paint color. The fencing I have the same issues with. Just looking at these images presented today, I feel like it's—I don't know—a sanitized approach to integrate the whole thing. I feel like the historic house has been lost in it. What does everyone else think? Mr. Hayes: It's my understanding that—I don't normally participate during the discussion. Is this contrary to your understanding? Chair Bower: No. Ken, it's fine if you want to make a comment. Because this is a study session, we only need to make comments like yours, Debbie. Presumably the final project, when it comes back to the 4.a Packet Pg. 196 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board, will have a materials palette and colors for all of us to work with. I don't think we need to spend any time on that. Did you have any other comments? Board Member Shepherd: No, but should we spend time on the question of horizontal versus vertical? Maybe I'm the only one that's troubled by that in the addition. Chair Bower: Let me ask all of the Board Members to comment, and then we can discuss after we get a complete sense of what the issues might be. We're going to go back into alphabetical order. Martin, comments? Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Bower. Hello, Ken, and hi, Brad. Martin Bernstein, HRB Member. You always do great, stellar presentations, Ken. Thank you for another one today. Looking at the drawing, on my screen it's the aerial view from northeast. I think it's image number 22 on my screen and then page 23 view from patio looking northeast. Are those available to other Board Members plus Ken? Mr. Hayes: I have it. Board Member Bernstein: I also have the same concern that Board Member Debbie mentioned about the horizontality and the verticality. Ken, you mentioned horizontality. I totally love the horizontal board- form concrete for the foundation serving as a plinth, you might say. When I look at the aerial view from northeast, my very first, immediate reaction was I see the differentiation because of the verticality but not the compatibility. If the horizontal feeling of the shingles plus the board-form can be continued on your new and upper-floor addition, above-grade addition, if that can be horizontal boards, you've got the compatibility plus the differentiation. That was pretty jarring to me. As proposed, I don't see any compatibility between the new and the old. If you just change that horizontal siding, then I think that meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for compatibility and differentiation. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thanks, Martin. Michael, any discussion? Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Chair Bower. I also have some concerns about the issue of compatibility that Board Member Bernstein brings up. This is always a constant battle between being compatible and also differentiating additions on historic properties. The thing that stands out most strongly to my eye is the fact that the flat roof on the addition is not compatible with the general shape of the roof of the main house. Some type of hipped roof would make it more compatible. You have enough elements in the addition that differentiate it without having to go to a flat roof. That would be my biggest comment, the visual appearance looks like it's something that's been stuck on there, and it's not very appealing from a historic standpoint with the original structure. I would encourage you to modify the flat roof into something that's more of a hipped roof that's compatible with the original structure. There's plenty of elements in your project that differentiate it so that nobody's going to be confused that it's part of an original structure. Chair Bower: Thank you, Michael. Christian, do you have anything you'd like to add? Board Member Pease: Yeah. I concur with the comments about the vertical lines on the addition in the back. I share those concerns. Chair Bower: Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: These are all very interesting comments. I am wondering if instead of having the vertical siding, if it's paint grade, painting it the same color as the shingles would make it blend a little bit more. It looks as though the wood siding is meant to be natural wood material, and it wouldn't be painted. That's what this presentation is indicating. Mr. Hayes: Correct. 4.a Packet Pg. 197 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Wimmer: If that was a paint-grade material and it was painted the same color as the shingles, maybe that would allow it to blend a little bit more. I agree that we're always looking for the differentiation. This project is a great example of differentiation. However, Martin brings up the interesting question, is it compatible. Also, Michael's comment about—I don't know if Ken has considered having a low hipped roof. That might make it seem a little bit more compatible. I think that's worth taking a look at, at least. The vertical doesn't really bother me too much, but I understand the rest of the Board Members' concern. Maybe when it comes back, we could see some variations on the siding. In terms of color, obviously we're going to maybe review that at a later date. I like darker colors. It makes it pop out a little bit more. This tiny little cottage, you walk by it, and you don't really notice it. The color can have an impact on the street noticeability of it. It's so small, it could compete better with what else is going on. One side note, which has nothing to do with this, I hate that low wall that's concealing the parking, the entrance to the parking lot. It looks like now they've stucco-ed over them. In some of these photographs, you see when they used to be that blue tile. I've always hated that. I know that's not on this property. Mr. Hayes: The building next door. Board Member Wimmer: Doesn't that same guy own it? At least, they could square it off or put some vines on it or make it an art installation. I've always hated that. Sorry. That's on a tangent. Strike that. I take that back. That's my input. Thanks. Chair Bower: Thanks, Margaret. I would take a wild guess here that that blue tile wall will be coming down. It wasn't in the last presentation when the bigger project was submitted in March. I share the same feelings that other Board Members have expressed about vertical siding as opposed to horizontal. I also share concern about the fact that the addition has a flat roof. That certainly is differentiated, but again I'm not sure how compatible that is. Typically, what we have seen in additions to Category 2 houses or buildings in Professorville is the material used to differentiate an addition from the original building would be the same. If it was wood shingles, it would be wood, but you'd have a different profile. It would be wood siding or in some cases if you had a specific shingle style on the original house, you just differentiated the shingle style on the addition. The Peninsula Art League that came before the Board several years ago, an addition to that building, the building had a very heavy dash plaster finish. The new building also had plaster, but it was smooth. We had a compatible material because they were the same, but the finish differentiated the old and the new. The other thing that I brought up earlier about the windows at least on the above-grade windows what distinguishes the double-hung windows is the way in which they are framed on the outside by the exterior trim and the interior as well, but we're not concerned with that. Again, I see these two windows on that addition as being stark and not compatible with the style of the rest of the building. Those are my strongest concerns about the building. I'm assuming and I like the idea that this is going to be a condominium project. That lower area will then become a joint-use space, and I think that it needs it because there's no other space on this property where you can actually get off the street. Ken, when this project comes back, I assume the fencing materials would be detailed. Mr. Hayes: Yes. What we're thinking is it would be natural wood siding. Not siding, natural boards that would define the boundary of the property. Chair Bower: We're looking forward to seeing this. Any other comments that any Board Members would like to make? I'm not seeing any raised hands. This does not require a vote because it's a study session. With that, we will move onto Item 4. Thank you, Ken, for spending time with us today and explaining the project. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks for all your comments. 3. Receive Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report for the 2018-2019 Reporting Period. 4.a Packet Pg. 198 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Bower: Moving onto Item 3, it's the review of the Certified Local Government Annual Report for the 2018-2019 period. Amy, do you have a staff perspective you'd like to share? Ms. French: I do. Can you give me a minute? I'm going to upload my screen. Chair Bower: That's fine. Ms. French: Thank you. Chair Bower: While Amy is loading this, following her comments, we will have a period where the public can also comment, and then we can discuss the report. Typically, we have not voted on this report. If Board Members feel we need to do that, I would be open to a motion to do so. Amy, are you ready? Ms. French: Yes. Can you see my screen? I've shared my screen. Board Member Pease: Yes, we can. Ms. French: The one note is this is the first page of the report that I would be sending by April 17th to the Office of Historic Preservation. You probably see the date of the Board review is incorrect. It says March 26th. That's because I had originally planned to bring this to you on March 26th, but COVID-19 happened. I will make a change to that date to say April 9th, today's date. That's one change I'm planning to make. I have a cover letter that goes with this. It talks about the two awards we received for the Eichler Neighborhood Guidelines that we produced and got approved by Council in 2018. The awards we got during this reporting period were the California Preservation Foundation award and the Docomomo award. That's feathers in our cap. Item 2 is about implementing our Comprehensive Plan policies for historic preservation. We've been talking about that over the past year. We've been implementing Policy 7.2. We've done 32 resource evaluations now, 22 of these were found ineligible for California Register, but we did find four single-family residential properties to be California Register eligible. We found six commercial or nonresidential properties were eligible for California Register. We talk about that in the report. We have an inventory upgrade, 526 Waverley. That was the Sport Shop and Toy World property. A note about outreach we did to the realtor community about that new program related to Policy 7.2. We also have a slide here about the Certified Local Government, which Palo Alto is a Certified Local Government, and we're in good standing. Because we're in good standing, we file these reports each year. We are able to submit an application for grant funding through the Office of Historic Preservation. We did that in the past for the Professorville Guidelines. We didn't do it with the Eichler Guidelines. Those were on us. We have in reserve an application to submit for this mid- century era context statement. We've had issues with staffing in the past. We still have that issue. We were considering submitting it in May this year, but COVID-19 happened. We've been struggling with other efforts. It might be unlikely given the economy to rely on taking something on with a consultant's assistance, but we'll put a pin in that for the moment. The report includes an attachment, which is where we are with our Comp Plan preservation policies. We're doing pretty well with 7.2 and some other items that we're processing. Salvage and reuse is going along. Some future year Comp Plan goals for historic preservation are on the screen. We've talked about those. We're not looking to take those up this year, but that's future years. The goals that I had in the report are holdovers from last year's report. Some of these things we began, and some we didn't. Here are the four goals that I am thinking to send for this year. You can weigh in on those if you'd like. Continuing to do evaluations for California Register in accordance with Policy 7.2 and working with folks who want to upgrade their properties' category in the Inventory as well as any property owners who wish to become nominated for the National Register or California Register. There are now tax benefits available from the State for properties that are on the California Register. Hopefully, moving forward with the HRB subcommittee proposal for a tailored Mills Act program. That's something that was begun a while back. There's one more. I intend to review the report to reflect these four goals. There is a fifth goal that I can also list. I had started looking at the demolitions of the potentially eligible homes and properties that the Dames and Moore report covered in 1988 and looking at cleaning up some of that data. There's a little bit of confusion on numbers and also seeing about the demolitions. We're doing better now because we have a Comp Plan policy that 4.a Packet Pg. 199 City of Palo Alto Page 16 addresses having a look and evaluating before allowing demolition. This is a snapshot of time from 2004 to 2020, how many of these properties have been retained. This list reflects—I don't really have a full conversation of this today, but we could put this on a future agenda to discuss, if you'd like. I thought this certainly counts as a fifth goal of tracking the demolitions that we could put on our report for this year. I'll end there and let folks comment on the Board, if we have any comments from the public. David, do you have any requests or suggestions? Chair Bower: Let's move to public comment access. If there are any people who are participating and want to make a comment, please raise your hand using the Zoom feature. If you are calling in on a phone, press *9 to let us know that you'd like to make a comment. We'll wait for a minute or two to see if anybody is interested in commenting. Vinh, if you don't see anything, just let us know. Mr. Nguyen: There are currently no attendees, but let's give them a couple of seconds to see if maybe one wants to join. Ms. French: Just like any HRB meeting, we don't have a lot of attendees. Mr. Nguyen: Seeing as how there's still no attendees, we can proceed with the agenda. Chair Bower: Thanks. Any comments from Board Members? Let me start by saying it would be very interesting for us to look at the last piece of information you provided about demolitions maybe when we're back in Council Chambers in 2022. Ms. French: Can we hope for sooner than that? Chair Bower: Some of us are in the high-risk category on this Board. Board Member Pease: You might lose a lot of structures in the interim. Chair Bower: Exactly. I'm being facetious. I think that would be useful. I think the rest of the report is pretty straightforward. Any other comments by Board Members? Christian, go ahead. Board Member Pease: I did want to return to this issue of minor exterior alterations you brought up. I was also mystified that it was in the study around the project we just discussed because it's irrelevant to that project. I wondered why it was there and so much copy space was devoted to it. Then, I found it in this report. I just think it's something I'd like to better understand. I understand that there is an ordinance that this quicker process can be invoked. Again, I would like to understand better some definitions here. I could foresee a situation where somebody comes in with many, many minor changes, each one of them insignificant on its own but taken as a whole might lead to major impacts. Would this be a path that would bypass us under this process? Ms. French: Let me try to explain. I was worried a little bit in the last item that I might have confused the issue. Whenever there's a three-unit residential project, it has to go to the Architectural Review Board. That's considered a major project. If that had been a two-unit project, then it wouldn't have to go to the ARB. It would only have to go to the HRB because it's in the Downtown, because it's listed on our Historic Inventory through Palo Alto. In addition, it's a California Register-eligible property. Because of those reasons, let's say it was a two-unit project. It would only be going to the HRB and then not the ARB. Hopefully, that's clear now on that project. As far as cumulative impacts, that's a CEQA situation. Being a California Register-eligible property, we have to look at the California Environmental Quality Act potential impacts of a project. If a number of minor changes to a historic resource are cumulative enough to become a major impact, then that's an impact to a resource, and that's a CEQA impact. There would have to be mitigation measures looked at. If there was a desire to do a Statement of Overriding Considerations because the project was so important, the Council would have to take that on. In this case, we are hoping that that project with the changes they will make and submit for their formal application we would be able to find it does meet the Secretary of Interior Standards and is not a CEQA 4.a Packet Pg. 200 City of Palo Alto Page 17 impact. As far as projects that are outside the Downtown and even some that are in the Downtown, if there are minor changes that don't really rise to the level of the HRB, that we can handle with our consultant who is a qualified consultant, we have done some of those at a staff level and not brought those to the HRB. Anything in Professorville we do bring to the HRB. Most of the Downtown stuff we do bring to the HRB. I don't know if I'm helping with that understanding. Certainly, we have the opportunity, Christian, for a retreat. We do a retreat every year. We had been looking at April for a retreat, but that's postponed at the moment. We will hopefully do one in the fall. I'm hoping that we'll be able to come back together this fall for a retreat and get to talk about some of these topics at length. Chair Bower: Amy, I'd like to suggest that we add that item to a retreat topic list. I think Christian brings up a very important point. This sequential chipping away of an historic resource is a potential as the City begins to implement this no gas connection to projects. I think we're going to see a lot more projects that are going to be incrementally remodeled so that the gas line can stay. Large commercial projects and large residential projects, they won't care. They'll just comply. It's the single-family or duplex residences that we will see that happening. We ought to have a policy in the Planning Department that makes these so-called small changes just that, and that means small. Moving a window a foot from its approved location is a small change. Removing the window is not a small change. We need to have some kind of public discussion about this and a sense of the Board that the Council can use and the Planning Department can use when making these decisions. Ms. French: Great idea. Chair Bower: Martin, do you want to make any comments? Board Member Bernstein: Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair Bower. One, the one that Christian just mentioned about these minor changes. If a minor change is at a staff level, does that staff level include consulting with the City of Palo Alto's historic consultant to discuss if it is in fact a minor alteration? Ms. French: We have an on-call consultant relationship with Page and Turnbull for projects. Most projects we are using Page and Turnbull. In this case, we have M-Group as our consultant, and they have historic preservation expertise on staff. That was Richard Patenaude, who I believe was participating in the call this morning in this meeting. It's less common that we have a different firm handling our reviews. Definitely building permits that come through for historic resources, we engage Page and Turnbull, our qualified professional historic preservation consultant. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. As far as the accomplishments for 2018-2019, it talks about adoption of Code changes. I know there were things where only Categories 1 and 2 can apply for some exceptions or other provisions. Now, it's Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 that can use all those potential incentives. Is that correct? Ms. French: Yes. We claimed that in the reporting period for 2017-2018. That was an accomplishment during that reporting period. What we do claim in this period is the subdivision incentive that we did associated with 874 Boyce, the sister homes on Boyce. That is a change that did happen during this review period from 2018 to 2019. We are claiming that as an accomplishment. Board Member Bernstein: Do you recall the changes that included Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4? Is that Chapter 18? Ms. French: Yes. That was related to home improvement exceptions in particular. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. I love the fact that you mentioned the Mills Act subcommittee. I encourage the Mills Act subcommittee, HRB subcommittee to continue working on that when that's available to be worked on. Amy, you mentioned something in your report about tax benefits for—what kind of properties did you suggest? 4.a Packet Pg. 201 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Ms. French: With the new California law that passed in the fall that we reported out in an earlier HRB meeting, this enables properties that are actually listed on the California Register to be eligible for tax benefits for improvements to the—I believe it's income tax for the cost of improvements to those resources. That's why I say we stand ready for anyone who wants to get their property actually on the Register. We stand ready to help with that. Board Member Bernstein: That includes these non-income-producing residential properties? Ms. French: Correct. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. Wonderful information. Thank you so much. Those are the only comments I have at this time. Thank you, Amy, and thank you, Chair Bower. Chair Bower: Any other comments from Board Members, Margaret, Debbie, Christian? Board Member Pease: Just glancing back through the draft report, did I remember correctly about a nascent initiative about reusing historic elements that are taken out of houses that are modified or other structures that are modified? Is that in here? Chair Bower: I think that's part of the Public Works Department's initiative that Phil Bobel came before the Board and described. I think that was before … Board Member Pease: I thought I read it in this draft, something about it in this draft. Ms. French: I think I might have noted the salvage component. That is something the Public Works Department is (crosstalk) on. Board Member Pease: That's somewhere else, okay. Thank you. I just thought it was really interesting and something that should be pursued. Thanks. Chair Bower: Again, we haven't voted on this in the past. Unless there's a change in heart here, I think we can just move onto the next item. Ms. French: Sure. If anyone has any edits that they see that they would like me to capture, for instance the training for each member or anything else, just send me an email. I have one more week to fix this up and send it off. Board Member Wimmer: On that note, Amy—sorry. Can I interject? Chair Bower: Certainly. Board Member Wimmer: On that note, I see that I don't have anything reported under my name. We are required as Board Members to do at least one training per year. Right? Chair Bower: Yes. Ms. French: Yes. It doesn't have to be directly related to historic, if it's about architecture in general. I know as a designer, Margaret, you probably have something to share. Board Member Wimmer: I'll have to look back and see. I know I've done a few things. I'll do that. Ms. French: It got a little awkward because May 2018 was our preservation conference in Palo Alto, but that was the prior reporting period. Chair Bower: Martin, did you want to say something? 4.a Packet Pg. 202 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Bernstein: Yes, Chair Bower. Amy, I'm looking on your report here. I don't see the names including mine of my reportable action for the training. I just have seven pages of your report. I sent into Vinh my two activities. Is my name listed as … Ms. French: I captured your trainings on the report. I'm not sure what you're looking at right now. The report I'm showing on the screen is just a PowerPoint, not the report itself. Board Member Bernstein: Okay. I just have the PowerPoint. Ms. French: We have the packet online, and you can look there to see. Also, I believe Vinh sent out the packet by email last Friday. You can find it there as well. Board Member Bernstein: It's showing that I met the training requirement. Is that correct? Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Bernstein: Good, thank you. That's all. Thank you. Chair Bower: All Board Members, Martin excluded, should look at the report and make sure that your training is in fact on there before next week so that we get an accurate view. Action Items Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of February 13, 2020 Chair Bower: Let's move onto Item Number 4, which is approval of the minutes of the Historic Resources Board, draft minutes for February 13, 2020 meeting. Public comment is permitted during this review. Let's start with any Board Member changes or additions to the draft minutes. Are there any? I'm not seeing any hands raised. I'm using that facetiously, but I don't see anybody stepping up. Martin, did you want to make any comments? Board Member Bernstein: I'm scrolling through my emails looking for that website. I'm just scrolling through my emails looking for an email from Vinh. I'm looking through all my emails right here. Chair Bower: It's April 3rd that Vinh sent out the agenda package. I think it was at the end of that package. It's a separate document. Board Member Bernstein: I'm going to April 3rd. Still looking. Here we are, April 3rd, and here's the packet. Let me open up that email. I see April 3rd. Clicked on it. Opening up, here we are. There are five attachments. I'll start with the last one and see if that's the minutes. Scrolling down, one of 20 pages. Chair Bower: While you're doing that, Martin, let me note that we will be taking a roll call vote on this after we hear from any members of the public that want to comment. I'll just call the roll alphabetically. You either say yea or nay for yes or no. Martin, are you … Board Member Bernstein: I'm downloading right now the minutes. Chair Bower: Amy, would it be appropriate to see if there are public comments that people can make? Ms. French: Yes. 4.a Packet Pg. 203 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Bower: Vinh, again this is the same protocol we've used earlier. Please raise your hand, use the raise your hand feature. It indicates you have a public comment. It's located at the bottom of the Zoom screen. If you're dialing in, press *9. Comment will be limited to three minutes. We'll take a moment to let anyone use those devices. Mr. Nguyen: We currently have no attendees in the meeting right now, so we may proceed with the agenda item. Chair Bower: Martin? Board Member Bernstein: I have it right now. I'm looking at the minutes. Let me take a look here. Chair Bower: Michael, Martin is looking at the minutes to see if he has any changes or additions. I gave an opportunity for the public to comment, but we have no public currently attending the virtual meeting. When Martin has finished his review, we'll … Board Member Bernstein: I don't see that I would have any comments or corrections. Chair Bower: If no one else has any additions or corrections, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Board Member Mackinen: I'll second it. Chair Bower: We have to have the first, the motion. Board Member Pease: I make a motion for approval. Chair Bower: Christian moves to approve the minutes. Michael, you second? Board Member Makinen: I second it, yeah. Chair Bower: In alphabetical order, please say yea or nay for approval or disapproval. Martin? Board Member Bernstein: I do see on the minutes is that project that I represented, so I can't vote on that portion of the minutes that includes my presentation to the HRB. I have to recuse myself from participating on that. I guess I'll have to—I can't vote on … Ms. French: You can abstain. You don't have to recuse. You can just abstain. Board Member Bernstein: I'll abstain because of my client's project that I represented to the HRB. I can't vote on the minutes. Chair Bower: Let me amend my statement a minute ago. Yea for yes, nay for no or abstain for not voting. Martin has abstained. Board Member Bernstein: Correct. Chair Bower: Michael? Board Member Makinen: Yea. Chair Bower: Christian? Board Member Pease: Yea. Chair Bower: Debbie? 4.a Packet Pg. 204 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Shepherd: Yea. Chair Bower: Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: Yea. Chair Bower: I'm voting yea as well. That's five yeas and one abstention. Subcommittee Items Chair Bower: We are at the last part of our meeting, Subcommittee Items. There are no subcommittee items I know of, and there's only one subcommittee that needs to be reconstituted, and that's the Mills Act subcommittee. Margaret and I were on that with Brandon when he was on the Board. Other Board Members who would be interested in participating in that subcommittee could email me or Amy. Just don't email all of us. We can reconstitute that. I think it's very close to being done. I'd like to move it out of the HRB and get onto the rest of the process. Board Member Wimmer: On that item, I feel like it would be good for us—because I was on that committee. Also Emily Vance was on it as well, right? Chair Bower: She was the planner when we were working on that. Board Member Wimmer: Right. She did such great documentation. It seems like it would be nice, at least, for us to revisit where we left off. It's been so long. Chair Bower: Amy sent me the files, and I looked through my files. We're not starting over. I think we're at the last 10 percent, which is where we define certain issues. Board Member Wimmer: I have very little track record besides meetings and my cryptic notes. That's great. Chair Bower: We need one person on that subcommittee. We can only have three. If one of you, besides Margaret, would like to be on that with us, then let me know, and we'll try to move that forward. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Bower: Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements. Are there any? Martin. Board Member Bernstein: How does the Board feel about if we have meetings like this all the time instead of meeting in person? Chair Bower: That's an interesting question. I personally prefer meeting in the Council. I'd like to be able to share the space. It's of value to be in the same place, but with COVID-19 that's going to be difficult until there's a vaccine for those of us in the high-risk category. Board Member Bernstein: That's my off-the-cuff comment. Maybe study sessions, where we're not taking any formal actions, we can all work remotely. When it comes to formal times for motions, maybe just meet. Just a query. That's all. Board Member Pease: As a follow on to that, as far as a retreat goes, I would rather not have to wait until late in the year to do that as a new member. I would be willing to do that or interested in doing that even if we have to do it via a session like this one. Ms. French: We can look towards perhaps June. We'll look and see what the availability of the members is because we like to have everybody available for retreats. Look at the calendar of regular meeting 4.a Packet Pg. 205 City of Palo Alto Page 22 dates and send in if you have issues with any of those dates. We can start looking sooner than September. It takes a little bit of an army to make these meetings run successfully. Of course, this is the first one that we've dealt with, so we had more people in the background helping. It seems like it went fairly well. We can try again in May. Chair Bower: I think this has gone better than I anticipated. I want to thank staff for having practice runs for Board Members. Ms. French: That helped. Chair Bower: It does help. The more you use this particular software tool, the easier it is to become comfortable with all of its features. I think we should consider a virtual retreat. Mostly, Amy, that's your work. It is discussion. We can make it open to the public; that's not difficult, I don't think. At any rate, I would like to do final approval of projects like the one that we reviewed today as a study session in person if we can. Again, I don't know how fast they'll turn that around. Any other comments? Board Member Makinen: I think the only comment I would make is it's a little more difficult to engage the public with this type of meeting. A regular meeting offers some benefits that we can't achieve through the virtual meetings here. Board Member Pease: I would follow that up and say I agree with that. I don't think there's any substitute for an in-person meeting from time to time. There are a lot of indicators that this is going to become the new normal. We ought to get used to it. If we could have a retreat sooner based on using the technology, we ought to look at that seriously. If it's proper, we ought to talk about how to structure that before staff goes to a lot of work to put it together. They did an excellent job today. Thank you very much for that. I don't see it as running Zoom continuously through a whole day. There might be ways of breaking it up or making it more humane in a way and being able to move forward. I don't think this is going away any time soon. Chair Bower: I agree with all of what Christian has just said. Maybe the way we could do a retreat is actually have it in discrete parts. It could be Parts A, B and C. We just do two hours max, and that would be enough. Board Member Pease: Yeah. If we delay to bat that around informally or have a little subcommittee look at that, I think it's worthwhile doing. I'm new to this, so I feel like I would lose a lot of time in becoming effective as part of this group if that retreat winds up being in the fall. Ms. French: So noted. We'll work on it, and I'll reach out to David with topics. We can communicate with David on what date seems like a good idea based on availability. Board Member Pease: Thank you. Chair Bower: If there are no other comments or announcements or questions, that's the end of our agenda. That would be the end of our meeting. I'd like to say a very big thank you to staff for making this move seamlessly. For the first try on this, this was pretty good. I watched the Council meeting on Monday night, and frankly I think we did better. Board Member Pease: We ought to give staff a big hand together. Chair Bower: Congratulations. Thank you all for being here. I'm sorry Roger wasn't able to join us. He may be able to join us at a future meeting. Everybody stay safe, stay well. We'll look forward to seeing you all at the next meeting, whether it be in person or virtual. Adjournment 4.a Packet Pg. 206