Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-24 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Historic Resources Board Regular Meeting Agenda: September 24, 2020 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 924 4578 2014 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 ****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 and Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow. 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 Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION ITEM 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [19PLN-00116]: Historic Resources Board Review of Castilleja School's Architectural Review Application; Project Alternative (Final EIR Alternative #4) Retains Castilleja's _______________________ 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. Two Emerson Street Homes With Reduced Garage and Disbursed Circulation. Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal Associated With a Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and Variance for Gross Floor Area (GFA) Replacement. Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 29, 2020 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 359 Embarcadero [20PLN-00185]: Review of Proposed Renovations to an Existing Single-Family Residence in the Professorville District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residence). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Nicole Laureola at nicole.laureola@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 14, 2020 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Historic Resources Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers are: Chair David Bower Vice Chair 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: 924 4578 2014 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 # 11629) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 9/24/2020 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: x 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 Virtual Meeting Cancelled 6/11/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled Shepherd 6/25/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 7/9/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled Shepherd 7/23/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled Shepherd 8/13/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 8/27/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled Shepherd 9/10/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 9/24/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 10/8/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 10/22/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 11/12/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 11/26/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Thanksgiving 12/10/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 12/24/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting 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 # 11538) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/24/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Castilleja School Title: PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION ITEM 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [19PLN-00116]: Historic Resources Board Review of Castilleja School's Architectural Review Application; Project Alternative (Final EIR Alternative #4) Retains Castilleja's Two Emerson Street Homes With Reduced Garage and Disbursed Circulation. Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal Associated With a Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and Variance for Gross Floor Area (GFA) Replacement. Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 29, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Receive the presentation of the Applicant’s Project Alternative plans (Final EIR Alternative #4) retaining the two Emerson Street houses, and 2. Provide input into draft Architectural Review finding 2B (in Attachment A) with respect to historic preservation (Gunn Building). The HRB may also wish to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)1 published July 29, 2020. It responds to comments and provides clarifications; particularly: 1. Chapter 2 Master Response 9 regarding historical resources (pp 2-116 to 2-122), 2. Responses to comments made during the HRB meeting (pp 3-972 to 3-975), and 3. Information responding to the HRB’s September 2019 requests (DEIR Chapter 6 revised pages 6-11, 6-12, 6-21 and 6-22). 1 Final EIR published July 29, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4823&TargetID=319 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Report Summary This staff report is to support the HRB’s review of campus redevelopment plans that involve retention of the Emerson Street homes and modification to the local Historic Inventory Category 3 resource, the Gunn Building. The ARB reviewed Alternative #4 plans on August 20th; they are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78041. Additional applicant submittals in August and September 2020 are viewable on the Project Documents webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/project_documents_.asp The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not require HRB review of changes to Inventory Category 3 buildings outside Downtown or historic districts. However, the HRB requested to review the modifications. The HRB may also take the opportunity to provide input or comment on the draft Architectural Review (AR) finding 2B relating to historic preservation; specifically, verbiage related to the Gunn Building rehabilitation following its separation from the Rhoades Hall that is proposed to be demolished. The HRB’s September 2019 comments on the Draft EIR are reflected in meeting minutes2. The Final EIR responds to the HRB request for more information on the Lockey house, with additional description and analysis. Responses to comments include discussion regarding the potential for a historic district. On the following page are Final EIR page numbers and links to assist the HRB in its review of the Final EIR. x Responses to comments at HRB meeting in the Final EIR show as ‘E2’ and are found on pages 3-972 through 3-975 at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77806 x Final EIR Chapter 2 Master Response 9, pages 2-116 through 2-122 is viewable at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77803 x Draft EIR Chapter 6 updates, pages 6-11 to 6-12 (Lockey House) and pages 6-21 and 6- 22, viewable here https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77807 Background/Discussion Community Comments City staff maintain webpages related to the Castilleja School project, including a page for public comments. Comments on the Final EIR for consideration by boards, commission and Council are viewable: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/public_comments.asp. Additional public comments submitted directly to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council are found on those webpages. Submittal of Project Alternative Plans 2 HRB meeting minutes September 2019 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77795 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 The Applicant’s Project Alternative, submitted in February 2020 to address community comments, re-designed walls and gates near the Gunn building. These are only slightly different than the walls and gates the HRB viewed in September 2019, but may be of interest to the HRB. As of the staff report preparation, the applicant had not yet submitted updated images for the proposed treatment Gunn building facade. The applicant has focused on responding to ARB comments of August 20, 2020. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Review August 2020 The ARB meeting of August 20th was focused on the Final EIR and the Project Alternative (Alternative 4, discussed in Final EIR). The October 1st meeting is targeted for ARB review of the applicant’s approach to massing and architectural refinements along the Academic Building’s Kellogg Street facade. Documents the applicant submitted September 9th are now in review. A total of 21 speakers addressed the project at the ARB hearing; some were speaking for multiple persons attending the meeting that ceded their time to the speaker. There were two Applicant-affiliated speakers as well. One of the Applicant-affiliated speakers was the head of school; she stated Castilleja would like to proceed with the Project Alternative (Alternative #4), the environmentally superior alternative, as the project going forward. Links to the staff report3, video4 minutes5 and staff presentation6 are provided in footnotes below. The ARB continued the hearing to enable the applicant to address suggestions for design refinements. Collectively, the ARB (more than one member) voiced these comments: • The Project Alternative is supported more than Project (don’t encroach into Embarcadero setback, do not have a single garage drop off solution) • Kellogg side is an improvement over existing, but could use modification (too long, plate height unbroken), needs to be broken up (roofline, style, mass); an entrance of importance, coordinated, should drive design • Consider tunnel length/where it ends up (consider circle destination)/consider a symbolic entrance • Keep the circle, but consider landscape modifications • More info/drawings/discussion is needed on: • Sustainability (rooftop solar structures, rain screens, materials changes – metal, solar study) • Landscaping including ROW, replacement oaks spacing issue, design intent, user comfort • Enlarged elevations to see detail • Modular units for temporary campus – need to know what this will look like • Other aspects not design: TDM management, FAR, construction traffic, noise; study not adding students until construction is complete 3 August 20, 2020 ARB staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78021 4 August 20, 2020 ARB video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-8202020/ 5 August 20, 2020 ARB excerpt minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78325 6 August 20, 2020 ARB staff presentation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78197 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Concepts and documents responding to ARB comments will be discussed with the ARB October 1st. The adjustments include removal of a portion of the second floor at Kellogg Avenue. This component of the design is unrelated to the treatment of the historic Gunn Building. Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review August and September 2020 August 26, 2020 Meeting The PTC meeting of August 26th was focused on the Final EIR and the Project Alternative (Alternative 4, discussed in Final EIR). A total of 58 public speakers, some were speaking for multiple parties, provided comments. Additionally, two applicant-affiliated speakers provided comments during the public testimony hearing segment. The applicant’s rebuttal time enabled the applicant to state an intent to submit a response letter addressing public comments regarding the garage, recirculation and the project alternative. The applicant’s response letter is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78330 Links to the August 26, 2020 PTC report7 video8 minutes9 and staff presentation10 are provided in footnotes below. After completion of the public testimony, the Commissioners posed 28 questions for staff to answer during the continued hearing on September 9th. September 9, 2020 Meeting Staff prepared a report responsive to Commissioners’ questions. Staff’s report11, presentation12 and video13 are on the City’s webpages; links are provided below. The PTC determined (on a 4- 1-2 (absent) vote) the EIR was sufficient to recommend City Council action. The PTC voted 4-1-2 to continue its hearing to October 14, 2020; this enables staff to prepare draft findings and conditions for the Conditional Use Permit and Gross Floor Area Replacement Variance. Historic Resources Board Review The Draft EIR noted Castilleja’s Emerson Street houses are ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The Project Alternative retains these two houses. This is not due to historic value; it is responsive to concerns regarding residential character and retention of housing units. In September 2019, the HRB briefly discussed the Lockey house, the older of the two Castilleja- owned houses on Emerson Street. The HRB asked whether retention of the Emerson houses was a project alternative. The HRB focused on potential impacts to cultural resources during 7 PTC August 26, 2020 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78102 8 PTC August 26, 2020 video: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-8262020/ 9 PTC August 26, 2020 excerpt minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78326 10 PTC August 26, 2020 staff presentation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78198 11 PTC September 9, 2020 staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78346 12 PTC September 9, 2020 presentation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp 13 PTC September 9, 2020 video: https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-and- commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission/ 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 consideration of the Draft EIR. The HRB viewed potential changes to the exposed façade of the Category 3 resource; i.e. the Gunn Administration Building. The 2019 HRB staff report14 did not include detailed description of the façade treatment; however, the Applicant’s presentation included the below images illustrating façade modifications. Many of the eight public speakers (including the Castilleja applicant team, and speakers on behalf of Castilleja) submitted individual written comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR responds to individual and HRB meeting comments. Speakers’ concerns included: x Demolition of Castilleja’s two Emerson Street homes and removal of the six redwood trees next to the Emerson Street homes, to create the subterranean garage and landscaped open area, x Interest in retention of the Lockey House, x Aesthetics concerns/block character degradation, given the Emerson garage exit, x Interest in neighborhood historic homes and context for the home at 1215 Emerson, x Bike boulevard concern, x Liquefaction concern for historic buildings, due to the geologic report, and x Construction noise. Speakers also expressed support during the HRB meeting, noting: x The design would be compatible, given the proposed use of materials complimenting the campus’ historic building, and similar scale and massing as the existing building, x The value in separating the Gunn Building from the attached building, and x The new gates, fencing, and landscaping were appreciated. The HRB concluded its hearing with requests for additional information regarding the: x Gunn Administration Building’s final design considerations, x Lockey House evaluation, and x Consideration of a historic district, noting this is not the applicant’s responsibility and that no application for a district has been submitted (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.040 allows any individual or group to propose designating a historic district). Project Description 14 HRB September 12, 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73280 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The Final EIR provides descriptions of the original Project and the Applicant’s Project Alternative (Alternative #4), as shown in the most recent plans submitted in 202015. The Project and Project Alternative both propose: (1) Demolishing five campus buildings (including the Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center fronting Emerson Street, classroom and campus center buildings along Bryant and Kellogg), (2) Replacing campus gross floor area (GFA) on the campus parcel in a new academic building that also increases below-grade, non GFA space, (3) Constructing a subterranean garage accessed from the existing Bryant Street surface parking lot with a two-way access ramp, and a one-way garage exit ramp 80 feet from Emerson Street to a driveway opposite Melville Avenue; garage completion is associated with the phase 1 student enrollment increase, (4) Providing a below grade pedestrian passage from the garage to campus buildings, (5) Demolishing the at-grade pool and constructing a below-grade pool and pool sound wall, (6) Providing for below-grade delivery and trash enclosures/waste pick-up with reconstruction of the Circle in the center of the campus, and (7) Installing new landscaping and fences. Project Alternative #4 The Project Alternative (Alternative #4) is described in the Final EIR. The Applicant’s plans, responsive to several community concerns, enabled further evaluation and recommendation of another alternative. This alternative does not propose changes to the Project Objectives, proposed enrollment cap, or the number and frequency of special events. The Project Alternative: x Reconfigures the subterranean garage footprint, x Allows retention of Castilleja’s two residential structures on Emerson Street and the row of six redwood trees at the western edge of Spieker Field; x Reduces the overall size of the garage and moves the structure outside the Embarcadero Road setback; x Distributes school traffic to three drop-off/pick-up locations around the campus (retaining the Kellogg Avenue drop off driveway); x Removes the right-turn only restriction for vehicles exiting the garage, avoiding the Project’s TIRE Index impact on Emerson Street, subject to mitigations that would avoid creating any new TIRE Index impacts. x Provides on-site parking spaces meeting the code-required spaces; x Reduces the size of the Academic Building at the ground floor level by 754 square feet (offset by increasing the building’s below-grade level by 800 square feet); x Includes site modifications; namely, reconstruction of the existing loop driveway on Kellogg Avenue, in generally the same location; and x Retains 21 more trees than the proposed project. Gunn Building: Changes to this historic resource include: 15 Project Alternative Plans reviewed by the ARB and PTC in August: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78041 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 x Refinishing the exterior wall on the eastern façade following demolition of the classroom building to cover the exposed sections of the wall with stucco on the first floor and wood shingles on the second floor, consistent with the existing building materials and finishes. x Installing new doors on the first and second floors and new exterior stairs to provide access to the second floor. x Matching the existing exterior finishes in material, color and dimension and the not altering the building dimensions. x Continuing to convey the building’s distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of fine craftsmanship, to maintain and preserve the Administration Building’s character-defining features (stucco- and shingle-clad exterior walls, wood shingle roofing, and Craftsman style features). The applicant does not propose any modifications to the Elizabeth Hughes Chapel Theater which is adjacent to the Gunn Building. Discussion The 2020 Project plan set includes before-after images of the Gunn building as viewed from Bryant Street. Below left, it is attached to the Rhoades Hall. Below right, it is separated from the new Academic building. Landscaping and open gate are viewable between the buildings. Before – Rhodes Hall Attached to Gunn Building Proposal - Rhodes Hall Removed Project plan set Sheet L2.0 shows landscaping, gate, wall, and pathways in between the Gunn building and proposed Academic building. An excerpt of this sheet follows. The proposal is to install a solid, six-foot-tall concrete wall finished with reclaimed cedar in a horizontal pattern, with a double gate of 1x4 reclaimed cedar boards with 4-inch spacing in a steel frame, attached at each side to 2x6 tube steel posts. The 2020 plans for this location 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 differ from the 2019 plans, which showed a low brick wall with metal vertical pickets. The below images show the fence and double gate proposed between these buildings. Wall Type 1 Gate Type C Environmental Review Page references pertinent to historic preservation topics in the Final EIR are provided on page one of this report. The Revised Draft EIR Chapter 6, Cultural Resources, and Final EIR Chapter 2 Master Responses regarding the potential for a historic district and tree views from Professorville are pertinent to the HRB’s purview. Content is viewable in these locations: x Gunn Building Alterations: DEIR Chapter 6 pages 6-21 and 6-22 (No adverse effects to the historic significance and integrity of the Administration Center and Chapel Theater); x Lockey Alumnae House is not eligible for CRHR: DEIR pages 6-11 and 6-12; x Historic District Potential – Campus and Neighborhood: Master Response 2.9.2; and x Landscape Features: Master Response 2.9.4. Next Steps On October 1, 2020, the ARB will resume its public hearing to provide direction to the Applicant on concepts for adjusting the Academic Building. The ARB will also have the opportunity to discuss Architectural Review findings, of which Finding 2B (see Attachment C) is related to historic preservation. Draft approval conditions and CUP and Variance findings will be prepared and published prior to the PTC public hearing October 14, 2020. Report Author & Contact Information HRB16 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX) x Attachment B: Project Plans on Building Eye (DOCX) x Attachment C: General AR Findings Highlighting Draft Finding 2b for HRB Input (DOCX) 16 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment A Location Map – Castilleja School 2.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment B Project Plans These plans and other documents are available to the HRB and the public online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/castilleja Project Alternative Plans: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78041 Project Plans Part 1: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77810 Project Plans Part 2: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77811 Note that the Project Alternative is Alternative #4 in the EIR. Project Plans contain a large number of plan sheets; many are applicable to the Project Alternative as well. Directions to review Project plans and other public documents on Building Eye: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1310 Bryant Street” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “project plans” 2.b Packet Pg. 16 ATTACHMENT C GENERAL FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL 1310 Bryant Street 19PLN-00116 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 2b. The project retains and improves the existing Historic Resource Category 3 resource, the Gunn Administration Building, in a way that demonstrates compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, by: x Separating it from the Rhoades building to be demolished; x Refinishing the exterior wall on the eastern façade with stucco on the first floor and wood shingles on the second floor, consistent with the existing building materials and finishes; x Adding new doors on the first and second floors and constructing new exterior stairs to provide access to the second floor; x Maintaining and preserving distinctive finishes and character-defining features, including its stucco- and shingle-clad exterior walls, wood shingle roofing, and Craftsman style features; x Installing stucco and shingle cladding to match the existing exterior finishes in material, color and dimension; the refinishing plans would not alter the building dimensions; x Enabling, upon project implementation, the Administration Center to continue to convey its distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, and examples of fine craftsmanship. 2.c Packet Pg. 17 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 2.c Packet Pg. 18 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11566) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/24/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 359 Embarcadero: Renovation to Professorville Home Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 359 Embarcadero [20PLN- 00185]: Review of Proposed Renovations to an Existing Single- Family Residence in the Professorville District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residence). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Nicole Laureola at nicole.laureola@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Review and provide comments on the proposed modifications to the Category 4 historic resource at 359 Embarcadero Road with respect to the project’s compliance with the Professorville Historic District Guidelines (Guidelines) and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation. Report Summary This report is to assist the HRB evaluate modifications to a single-family home. The home was designed by Bertrand & Chamberlin and built in 1901 within the Professorville Historic District (Professorville). Project plans are provided via weblink (see Attachment A). The project consists of alterations and additions to a single-family residence that is currently 4,095 square feet as well as demolition of the detached garage. The property is individually designated on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 4 historic resource but is considered ‘significant’ due to its location within Professorville. The brief Inventory form (Attachment D) indicates the home was influenced by the Prairie School. In June 2020, the City’s consultant, Page and Turnbull (P&T), prepared a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) identifying the Character Defining Features (Attachment C). This was intended to assist the new property owner’s architect in preparing plans. Since the property is on the City’s Inventory, and the project does not require a discretionary permit, there has been no 3 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 evaluation of the property’s potential eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The HRB is requested to review the August 2020 plans. The HRB’s input is particularly requested on the lanai alterations, roof form, and maintaining some sort of visual connection between the primary façade and Embarcadero Road. P&T’s SOIS compliance analysis led to a determination the proposed removal of the inner porch room or ‘lanai’ and its original materials would impact the significance and integrity of the historic resource. The applicant evaluated the project with respect to the Professorville Guidelines in the attached letter (Attachment E). Background The proposal seeks private upkeep of a Category 4 historic resource on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. The project includes converting the rear façade into the new front façade, while converting the front façade into the rear façade. This involves stair removal at the current front and porch addition at the current rear. Additionally, the project proposes removal of the chimney and detached garage, a large ground-floor addition, a small second-floor addition, retention of the existing detached ADU, and changes to hardscaping and landscaping. This Category 4 resource is considered ‘significant’ due to its location in Professorville; however, a ministerial permit (building permit) is proposed. Per Policy 7.2 verbiage, since the home is already on the inventory, and significant, the City is not required to consider whether or not it is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources prior to issuance of a building permit for alterations. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7 ‘Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, sites and districts’ has policies relevant to the HRB discussion of this project: o 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; o Policy L7.2: If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character-defining features of the building. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49 The City’s regulations for HRB review of historic structures are contained in Chapter 16.49. The below code sections, beginning with 16.49.020 Definitions, are relevant to this review: 3 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 x 16.49.020 item (b) “Historic Categories” defines Category 3 or 4, or "Contributing building", as “any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.” x 16.49.020 item (c) "Historic district" means “a collection of buildings in a geographically definable area possessing a significant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by past events, or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district should have integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship and association. The collective value of a historic district taken together may be greater than the value of each individual building. All structures/sites within a historic district are categorized as significant on the historic inventory.” x 16.49.050(a)(1)(B) states, “The historic resources board shall review applications involving single-family and duplex residences which are historic structures/sites in the downtown area or which are significant buildings elsewhere in the city. Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory.” x 16.49.050(a)(1)(C) states, “The planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines which the historic resources board may adopt. Minor exterior alterations are those alterations which the director of planning and [development services] community environment or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.” The application for historic review is to be accompanied by a building permit application. There is no other ‘discretionary review’ such as Individual Review. Through preliminary review discussions, the City’s consultant found the proposed minor alterations/addition could adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics: the applicant proposes to alter a character-defining feature of the building (the lanai). Therefore, the alterations are not considered ‘minor’. The HRB is reviewing the proposal as well because it is a ‘significant’ single family residence in Professorville, which benefits from Council-adopted Guidelines. However, compliance with the HRB’s recommendations is voluntary rather than mandatory, per the historic ordinance as noted above. Property Size, Historic Inventory and Configuration The property is large (23,620 sq.ft.) and has three long frontages: Embarcadero Road (162 feet), Melville Avenue, and Waverley Street (225 feet). The 1978 Historic Inventory considered this 3 Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 home a Category 4 historic resource. The Inventory form notes 359 Embarcadero has the qualities of early Prairie School design, a style rarely seen in Palo Alto at that time. While it is a corner lot, the property is also a through lot. Since Melville Avenue is the narrowest street facing lot line, it is considered the front property line, pursuant to the Zoning Code definitions; this renders the Embarcadero frontage as the rear property line. The home’s original front façade faced Embarcadero Road. It has previously been addressed as both 374 Melville and 370 Embarcadero. The original owners used the Melville Avenue address periodically; however, the Embarcadero Road façade is the primary designed façade and early photographs show the building from Embarcadero Road. The lanai is the enclosed hexagonal area in the below diagram, surrounded by the covered porch. Below view of the home from Embarcadero Road today shows vegetation fairly well obscures the porch area. Professorville Historic District Guidelines The property at 359 Embarcadero Road is within the locally designated Professorville Historic district; it is not located within the National Register District boundaries (see map below): 3 Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 The Professorville Historic District Guidelines (Guidelines), adopted in October 2016, apply to all properties within the National and Locally designated area. The Guidelines are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61618. The Guidelines note: x “Prairie School architecture is most often associated with Frank Lloyd Wright and the flat landscapes of the American Midwest. Its influence, however, is seen on residences throughout Professorville.” x Character-defining features that contribute to an early residence’s visual appeal should be preserved. Guidance for modifications to this home can be found in Sections 3 and 4 of the Guidelines. x Guidelines Section 4, pages 77-87 “Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from Early Periods of Development (c. 1890-1930s)” contain the following guidelines applicable to this project review: o 4.1 New Additions to Early Residences Should Respect the Primacy and Historic Features of the Original Building. ƒ 4.1.1 Additions should be placed where they will not distract from the volume of the historic residence. ƒ 4.1.2 New additions should be sized appropriately to the scale of the historic residence. ƒ 4.1.3 If a home already has a non-historic addition, consider placing a new addition at the same location in order to alter historic character as little as possible. o 4.2 The Architectural Character of a New Addition Should Be Compatible with the Historic Residence ƒ 4.2.1 The massing and roof forms of an addition should draw on the architectural cues of the existing residence. ƒ 4.2.2 The characteristic materials of a residence should inform the choice of materials for a new addition. 3 Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 ƒ 4.2.3 The fenestration pattern of an addition should generally match that of the existing residence. ƒ 4.2.4 An effort should be made to differentiate an addition from the original building. o 4.5.1 Selectively demolishing character-defining features and volumes diminishes the overall historic character of a home and should be avoided. x Guidelines Section 3, page 68 “Additional Character-Defining Features That Contribute to an Early Residence’s Visual Appeal Should Be Preserved” is also applicable to the project review. Character Defining Features Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) The HRE (Attachment C) outlines character defining features (CDF) of the existing residence, as well as features not original to the home and added outside the period of significance (not character defining features). Character Defining Features (CDFs) include: x Irregular massing (central two-story section with projecting one-story volumes) x Stucco cladding x Hipped roof with wide eaves, exposed rafter tails, and wood paneled soffits – roofline extended at rear entrance (new porch) and changed along kitchen wing and extension x Open-air front porch with enclosed central room and asymmetrically placed primary entrance x Symmetry of front porch, front stairs, and two-story volume along the east façade, including the intersection of the hipped roof over the front porch with the second-story roofline and interior chimney x Partially glazed wood door at primary entrance with oversized decorative metal hardware x Additional enclosed angled porch on south façade x Original multi-lite windows, including asymmetrically divided double-hung windows and paired casement windows x Door and window enframements with wide molded wood surrounds Non CDFs include: x Attached sunroom, located between kitchen wing and bedroom wing x Metal railing along front entrance steps (east façade) x Horizontal wood siding along basement level x Replacement kitchen windows x Greenhouse window within enclosed side porch (south façade) x Rear entrance stairs and railing (west façade) x Stairs and landing to enclosed side porch (south façade) x Detached garage x Detached accessory dwelling unit x Entrance gate along Embarcadero Road 3 Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Project Description The project includes converting the rear façade into the new front façade, while converting the front façade into the rear façade. This involves stair removal at the current front and porch addition at the current rear. Additionally, the project proposes removal of the chimney and detached garage, a large ground-floor addition, a small second-floor addition, retention of the existing detached ADU, and changes to hardscaping and landscaping. Discussion SOIS Analysis P&T and staff reviewed earlier iterations of this project in June and offered suggestions regarding the proposal’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards). Upon review of the most recent submission (August 12, 2020), P&T and staff found the design to be consistent with all but one of the ten SOIS for Rehabilitation (Standard 5). The below analysis describes the project’s consistency with the 9 of the 10 Standards and recommends measures to enable compliance with Standard 5. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis Standards for Rehabilitation Project Analysis Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable No change in use is currently proposed. The subject building was constructed as a single-family residential property and will continue to be used as a single-family residential property. The project is consistent with Standard 1. Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable The proposed project retains a number of character- defining features of the historic resource including its irregular massing, its stucco cladding, the symmetry of the Embarcadero Road façade porch with its hipped roof that meets the second-story roof and chimney, its decorative primary entrance door, the majority of its original multi-lite windows, and the majority of its wood door and window enframements. The project meets a 3 Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 number of the Professorville Design Guidelines that describe the repair and retention of historic features, including the location of historic doors. Character-defining features that will be removed include the enclosed central room within the porch (the lanai) and some original windows along the kitchen wing (within the niche with basement entrance). Alterations will also be made to the roofline of both the enclosed porch on the south façade and the roofline of the kitchen wing which will impact select areas of the eaves, soffit, and exposed rafter tails. While the chimney will remain as a design feature of the exterior building envelope, the historic location of the fireplace will be replaced with windows that will be visible within the open porch (due to the removal of the enclosed central room). Due to the significance around the chimney and the central placement of the hearth within the design language of the Prairie style, the visible removal of the hearth is inconsistent with the building’s Prairie style. If, as proposed, the enclosed central room of the porch is removed, Page & Turnbull recommends that some portion of the inner wall of the porch at the location of the hearth is not glazed. The proposed project will alter the historic spatial relationships of the building as the primary façade on Embarcadero Road will become the rear of the building and will be largely enclosed with walls and plantings. Page & Turnbull recommends that a lower fence along a portion of Embarcadero Road be used to retain the view of the building from the street. Incorporating this recommendation would more fully meet the guidance of Standard 2. 3 Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 Proposed changes to the building’s roofs are largely consistent with Standard 2, as they either do not impact character-defining features or, in the case of the kitchen wing roof, balance the retention of historic eaves, soffits, and rafter tails along the east façade with the need to raise the height of the roof where it meets the second story to accommodate infilling the existing recessed portion of the kitchen wing. The recladding of the roof of the enclosed south porch does not detract from the building’s historic significance as it retains the form and massing of the roof, which is significant as an element of the building’s dramatic overall roof form. The project proposes to alter a significant character- defining feature of the primary façade and will change the spatial relationship of the primary façade to the street. However, the project does retain the majority of the building’s character-defining features and will continue to communicate its Prairie style character, and the project thus is substantially compliant with Standard 2. If the project retains some visual connection between the historic primary façade and Embarcadero Road, the project will more completely meet the guidance of Standard 2. Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable No conjectural elements or features from other historic properties are proposed to be added to the building within the project as proposed. The project is consistent with Standard 3. Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable The historic resource’s period of significance is 1901, 3 Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 dating to the year that the building was completed. Alterations to the subject building since its completion include the construction of a rear addition (sunporch), alterations to the exterior openings of the kitchen, the addition of horizonal redwood siding along the exterior, and the construction of a garage and ADU on the property. None of these alterations have gained historic significance in their own right, and therefore do not need to be retained or preserved. The project is consistent with Standard 4. Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. ܆ Consistent ܈ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable Features that characterize the property and demonstrate its Prairie style have been identified as character-defining features in the June 2020 Historic Resource Evaluation completed for this property. The proposed project will retain a large number of original materials and features including 28 of the 34 original windows, most original wood window and door surrounds, the building’s stucco cladding, the original wood entrance door with its oversized metal hardware, most of the extant original features of the roofs and eaves and will recreate the entry porch stairs in a more historically accurate material and design. The proposed project will remove some character- defining features along the primary façade, including the building’s unique enclosed inner porch room (the lanai) and six original windows (three first floor windows and three basement windows). The enclosed inner room of the primary porch is a distinctive feature of the primary façade and demonstrates the Prairie style through its repeated use of glazing and the geometric design of the porch and inner room, which are located along the rear wall of the hearth. Demolition of this inner porch room will remove original exterior cladding and glazing materials including original windows and window surrounds – which are proposed to be relocated to 3 Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 restore the south façade’s enclosed porch – and will remove original stucco walls. The removal of this distinctive feature and its original materials would impact the significance and integrity of the historic resource. Therefore, the project is not consistent with Standard 5. Additionally, the removal of a character-defining feature that contributes to “an early residence’s visual appeal” is not consistent with the Professorville Design Guideline 3.3. Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable As designed, the proposed project does not specify removal or replacement of deteriorated historic features. In the event that any deteriorated features are encountered during the course of the project, the Standards for Rehabilitation recommend repair rather than replacement. Any features that may require replacement due to a degree of severe deterioration beyond repair should be replaced in-kind based upon physical evidence, i.e. any deteriorated material of the historic windows should be repaired or, if necessary, replaced in kind, and patching of the stucco façade should match the historic material, color, pattern, etc. Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable The proposed project does not propose the use of any chemical or physical treatments on historic materials. If any treatments become necessary, as long as they undertaken using the gentlest means possible and follow the guidance of the Standards, the project will be consistent with Standard 7. Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable 3 Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 mitigation measures will be undertaken. The proposed project involves excavation of the subject property for the erection of the addition and alterations to the basement/crawlspace below the residence. If any archaeological material is discovered during construction, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project is consistent with Standard 8. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work 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 ܆ Not Applicable New additions and exterior alterations include the erection of a new porch on the west façade (the new primary residential entrance), the construction of a new porch in the location of the existing sunporch, the erection of a freestanding garage building, the construction of fences and gates along the property line, and the alteration of the kitchen wing with a new addition appended at its northern end. With the exception of new construction along the kitchen wing and the erection of fencing around the property, the above new construction will not destroy historic materials or spatial relationships of the property. Alterations to the kitchen wing include the removal of original windows and the recessed niche with basement entrance and the construction of the addition at the north end. The choice of extending the kitchen wing is in keeping with the building’s overall massing with its two- story central core and one-story wings that extend laterally. As currently proposed, the addition largely blends with the historic building through its use of matching stucco 3 Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 13 cladding, the use of matching eaves, rafter tails, and soffit, and the installation of similar doors and windows to the original multi-lite windows of the historic resource. The eaves of the addition are slightly shallower than the historic eaves, and the addition has a notably lower floorplate in order to subtly differentiate the new construction from the original material of the historic resource. The erection of fencing and gates that enclose the property, in addition with the overall change in making the historic primary façade the new rear façade, changes the relationship of the building to the street. As recommended under the discussion of Standard 2, ensuring that some aspect of the original relationship of the building and the street remain, such as including a lower fence along a portion of Embarcadero Road, would allow the building to more clearly communicate the significance and importance of its Prairie style façade. The proposed project will change the spatial relationship of the historic resource, however with minor changes along the Embarcadero property line, the project can be made Standards compliant. If the recommendation of providing a view of the primary façade is followed, the project will meet the guidance of Standard 9. The new addition is thoughtfully designed to blend with the historic building and is differentiated from the historic building through its lower massing and floorplate and the use of slightly shallower eaves. Therefore, the project is substantially consistent with Standard 9. Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property ܈ Consistent ܆ Not Consistent ܆ Not Applicable New construction (see Standard 9) is located and 3 Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 14 and its environment would be unimpaired. designed to complement the historic resource, and if removed in the future would largely allow the historic building to retain its historic integrity. The new porches along the west façade and the existing location of the sunroom are areas historically along the rear façade of the building and therefore are less significant and more open to change. Additionally, the removal of the proposed garage building would not impact the historic resource or the historic spatial qualities of the site, as it is also located in what was historically considered the rear of the property. The addition to the kitchen wing, if removed in the future, would also not impact the building’s ability to communicate its historic significance as the building will retain most of its character-defining features and its massing of a central two-story volume with projecting one-story wings. The demolition of the proposed fences and gates would largely restore the views of the building from the street and would improve the building’s ability to demonstrate its historic significance. The project is consistent with Standard 10. Professorville Guidelines Review The applicant’s architect provided a letter (Attachment E) evaluating the project to the Guidelines. Staff and P&T reviewed the letter. P&T notes the following Guidelines’ relevance to the project: x 4.1.3 ‘If a home already has a non-historic addition, consider placing a new addition at the same location in order to alter historic character as little as possible.’ o P&T previously recommended the applicant look more at placing the addition along the rear in the location of the existing sunroom, which will be demolished and turned into a porch along the rear of the building. However, the proposed addition does match the massing of the historic building and its placement is consistent with the historic design of the building. 3 Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 15 x 3.3 ‘Additional Character-Defining Features That Contribute to an Early Residence’s Visual Appeal Should Be Preserved.’ o The removal of a character-defining feature that contributes to “an early residence’s visual appeal” is not consistent with this Guideline. In summary, P&T found that the project keeps a number of character-defining features but proposes to alter the porch lanai (interior portion), replace some original windows, and modify some rooflines on the original portion of the house. As noted, the HRB is requested to weigh in on the lanai alterations, roof form, and maintaining some sort of visual connection between the primary façade and Embarcadero Road. Policy Implications Implementation of Comprehensive Plan Program L7.1.2 has not commenced. Program 7.1.2 states, “Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area.” The Ordinance is not effective in supporting preservation of historic resources, with voluntary compliance stated explicitly, when no discretionary permit (planning entitlement) is required. This Category 4 resource, though in the Professorville District and therefore ‘significant’, has limited protections in the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan policies, given the proposal for a ministerial permit (building permit only). 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. The project is not a discretionary review; it is a ministerial project (exempt from CEQA per Class 15268, since only a building permit is required for this project). Next Steps The next step is for the applicant to submit a building permit. The project does not require a discretionary application. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Nicole Laureola, Associate Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2155 (650) 329-2336 nicole.laureola@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 16 Attachments: x Attachment A: Project Plans (PDF) x Attachment B: Applicant Letter Regarding Professorville District (PDF) x Attachment C: Historic Resource Evaluation (PDF) x Attachment D: DPR for 359 Embarcadero (PDF) x Attachment E: Parcel Map (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 34 A0.000 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. COVER SHEET DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL A7.200 1 4 A5.000 3 A3.000 2 A2.000 IDXXX.X WXXX.X BUILDING ELEVATION KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # BUILDING SECTION KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # INTERIOR ELEVATION KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # DETAIL BUBBLE KEY: DETAIL #/SHEET # ROOM NAME KEY: ROOM NAME/ ROOM # REVISION NUMBER ALIGN (E) WALL TO REMAIN (E) WALL TO BE REMOVED (N) EXTERIOR WALL (N) LOW-HT WALL (N) 2x4 WALL (N) 2x6 WALL (N) 2x8 WALL (N) CONC. WALL 24 1 3 CLOSET 104 WINDOW KEY: WINDOW NUMBER DOOR KEY: DOOR NUMBER SITE RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY TWO-STORY DWELLING. NEW FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TOWARDS THE WAVERLY PROPERTY LINE AND NEW COVERED PORCH TOWARDS THE MELVILLE PROPERTY LINE. NEW DETACHED GARAGE. NEW HARDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPING, INCLUDING PATIOS, PORCHES, AND POOL. EXISTING ADU OUT OF SCOPE. 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA PROJECT DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL LEGEND 359 EMBARCADERO RD. PERSPECTIVE VIEW ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 23,620 SQ FT X 35% 23,620 SQ FT X 5% TOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: MAIN HOUSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PORCHES AND STAIRS TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO: 5,000 SF X 45% 23,620 SF X 30% TOTAL (E) MAIN HOUSE FLOOR AREA: (E) FIRST FLOOR (E) SECOND FLOOR TOTAL (E) TOTAL FLOOR AREA: (E) MAIN HOUSE (E) ADU (E) DETACHED GARAGE TOTAL (E) TOTAL (NON-FAR) PROPOSED MAIN HOUSE FLOOR AREA: (P) FIRST FLOOR (P) SECOND FLOOR TOTAL PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA: (P) MAIN HOUSE (E) ADU (NOT IN SCOPE) (P) DETACHED GARAGE TOTAL (P) BASEMENT (NON-FAR) ABBREVIATIONS & AND @ AT ø DIAMETER OR ROUND ADJ ADJUSTABLE AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ALUM ALUMINUM APPR APPROXIMATELY ATTN ATTENTION BD BOARD BLDG BUILDING BO BOTTOM OF CL CENTERLINE CLG CEILING CLOS CLOSET CLR CLEAR CONC CONCRETE CONT CONTINUOUS (D) DEMOLITION DIM DIMENSION DN DOWN DS DOWNSPOUT DTL DETAIL (E) EXISTING EA EACH ELEV ELEVATION EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT EXT EXTERIOR FD FLOOR DRAIN FIN FINISH FLR FLOOR FOC FACE OF CONCRETE FOF FACE OF FINISH FOS FACE OF STUD FS FIRE SPRINKLER GA GAGE OR GAUGE GALV GALVANIZED GL GRIDLINE GYP GYPSUM WALL BOARD INCL INCLUDES OR INCLUDING INSUL INSULATION INT INTERIOR MATL MATERIAL MECH MECHANICAL MFR MANUFACTURER MAX MAXIMUM MIN MINIMUM (N) NEW NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NOM NOMINAL NTS NOT TO SCALE O/ OVER OC ON CENTER OCC OCCUPANT(S) OH OPPOSITE HAND OSB ORIENTED STRAND BOARD (P) PROPOSED PL PROPERTY LINE PLWD PLYWOOD PTD PAINTED PWDR POWDER RWL RAIN WATER LEADER RCP REFLECTED CEILING PLAN REQD REQUIRED RD ROOF DRAIN RM ROOM SC SEALED CONCRETE SF SQUARE FOOT SIM SIMILAR SS STAINLESS STEEL STL STEEL STOR STORAGE T TREAD OR TILE T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE TBD TO BE DETERMINED TJI TRUSS JOIST I-SECTION TO TOP OF TOS TOB OF SLAB TYP TYPICAL UON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED VEST VESTIBULE VIF VERIFY IN FIELD W/ WITH WD WOOD WC WATER CLOSET WH WATER HEATER WO WHERE OCCURS 1) FIRE SPRINKLERS 2) GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT 3) EV CHARGER SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN CONFORMANCE W/SECTION 1704 &1705 OF THE 2016 CBC& THE APPROVED SPECIAL INSPECTION AGREEMENT, WHERE SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS REQD BY THE BLDG DEPT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE SPECIAL INSPECTION AGENCY A MIN. OF 48 HRS PRIOR TO ANY REQUESTED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS.AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING WORK SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO SPECIAL INSPECTION BY AN OUTSIDE, THIRD-PARTY, SPECIAL INSPECTION TESTING AGENCY EMPLOYED BY THE OWNER & THEIR REPRESENTATIVE: - OBSERVATION & TESTING BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - CONCRETE REINFORCING, PLACEMENT & COMPRESSION TESTING - SHEARWALL & DIAPHRAGM NAILING, CHORDS / COLLECTORS, AND CONTINUITY STRAPS - STRUCTURAL STEEL WELDING (FIELD & SHOP) - SIMPSON STRONG-TIE WSW STRONG WALLS SPECIAL INSPECTIONS & TESTING 8,267 SF 1,181 SF 9,448 SF 4,031 SF 1,183 SF 624 SF 5,797 SF 2,250 SF 7,086 SF 9,336 SF 3,195 SF 900 SF 4,095 SF 4,095 SF 799 SF 439 SF 5,333 SF 988 SF 4,031 SF 900 SF 4,931 SF 4,931 SF 799 SF 384 SF 6,114 SF 194 SF FIRE DEPT REQUIREMENTS 1) INSTALL A NFPA 13-D FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE MAIN HOUSE, ADU, & GARAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. 2) INSTALL SMOKE DETECTORS INSIDE & OUTSIDE EVERY SLEEPING AREA, AT THE TOP, INTERMEDIATE & LOWER STAIRWAY LANDINGS. INSTALL CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS OUTSIDE EVERY SLEEPING AREA. SMOKE DETECTORS & CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS TO BE INNER CONNECTED FOR ALARM. GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ROMIG ENGINEERS DATE JULY 15TH, 2020 BUILDING CODE 2019 CBC (2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, TITLE 24, PART 2) ELECTRICAL CODE 2019 CEC (2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, TITLE 24, PART 3) MECHANICAL CODE 2019 CMC (2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, TITLE 24, PART 4) PLUMBING CODE 2019 CPC (2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, TITLE 24, PART 5) ENERGY CODE 2019 CEC (2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, TITLE 24, PART 6) FIRE CODE 2019 CFC (2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, TITLE 24, PART 9, APP. B&C) GREEN BUILDING 2019 CALGREEN (2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, TITLE 24, PART 11) APPLICABLE CODES & REGULATIONS DEFERRED SUBMITTALS SEPARATE PERMITS (MAX LOT COVERAGE 8,267 SF) (PATIOS, PORCHES, TRELLIS & OVERHANGS) < 9,448 SF OK < 5,800 SF OK < 9,336 SF OK < 5,800 SF OK < 9,336 SF OK OWNER: BILL AND LESLEY KING ADDRESS: 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 APN : 120-20-025 ZONING: R-1 (10,000) - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OCCUPANCY: R-3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B STORIES: THREE (INCLUDING BASEMENT) FIRE SUPPRESSION: (N) SPRINKLERS THROUGHOUT FLOOD ZONE: X HISTORICAL CATEGORY: 4 - PROFESSORVILLE GARAGE PLACEMENT: NO CONTEXTUAL GARAGE SETBACK APPLIES CONTEXTUAL FRONT SETBACK: THERE ARE ONLY (3) ELIGIBLE PARCELS IN THIS BLOCK OF MELVILLE. THE SITE IS NOT SUBJECT TO A CONTEXTUAL FRONT SETBACK. LOT AREA/SF: 23,620 SF PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3.a Packet Pg. 35 A0.001 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. PROJECT DIRECTORY & SHEET INDEX DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ARCHITECTURAL A0.000 A0.001 SU1 A1.000 A1.010 A1.020 A1.021 A1.022 A1.030 A1.031 A1.040 A1.041 A1.042 A1.100 A1.200 A1.201 A1.202 A1.210 A1.211 A1.212 A1.220 A1.221 A1.300 A1.301 A1.302 A2.000 A2.001 A2.100 A2.101 A2.102 A2.103 A2.104 A2.200 A9.000 A9.010 A9.020 A9.100 A9.110 A9.120 T-2 T-3 COVER SHEET PROJECT DIRECTORY & SHEET INDEX TOPO SURVEY (E) / (D) SITE PLAN (E) / (D) BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (E) / (D) SECOND FLOOR KEY PLAN (E) / (D) SECOND FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (E) / (D) ROOF KEY PLAN (E) / (D) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN (E) / (D) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN (P) SITE PLAN (P) BASEMENT FLOOR KEY PLAN (P) BASEMENT FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (P) BASEMENT FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (P) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN (P) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (P) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (P) SECOND FLOOR KEY PLAN (P) SECOND FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN (P) ROOF KEY PLAN (P) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN (P) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN (E) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (E) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (E) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - DAYLIGHT P… (E) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - DETACHED … (E) AREA CALCS (E) AREA CALCS & LOT COVERAGE (E) AREA CALCS (P) AREA CALCS (P) AREA CALCS & LOT COVERAGE (P) AREA CALCS ARBORIST REPORT ARBORIST REPORT LANDSCAPE L1.00 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN OWNER 359EMBARC LLC 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO, CA 94301 ARCHITECT & OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 TEL: 650.459.3700 CONTACT: JILLIAN LANGLEY EMAIL: JILLIAN@FG-ARCH.COM TEL: 650.597.6129 CONTRACTOR MARRONE & MARRONE 1160 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE, STE 19 SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TEL: 408.371.4003 CONTACT: TYLER COKE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BOXLEAF DESIGN 2732 BROADWAY REDWOOD CITY, CA 94062 TEL: 650.362.3755 CONTACT: SARAH WARTO EMAIL: SARAH@BOXLEAFDESIGN.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BKG STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 1600 EL CAMINO REAL, UNIT C SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TEL: 650.489.9224 CONTACT: JOE GIVENS EMAIL: JOE@BKGSE.COM CIVIL ENGINEER BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DRIVE, SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 TEL: 650.482.6375 CONTACT: CRAIG SMITH EMAIL: CSMITH@BKF.COM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC 1390 EL CAMINO REAL, 2ND FLOOR SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TEL: 650.591.5224 CONTACT: TOM PORTER EMAIL: TOM@ROMIGENGINEERS.COM SURVEYOR LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC 2495 INDUSTRIAL PKWY W HAYWARD, CA 94545 TEL: 510.887.4086 CONTACT: DARREN BUNTING EMAIL: DBUNTING@LEABRAZE.COM ARBORIST URBAN TREE MANAGEMENT, INC. P.O. BOX 971 LOS GATOS, CA 95031 TEL: 650.321.0202 CONTACT: MICHAEL YOUNG EMAIL: MICHAEL@URBANTREEMANAGEMENT.COM PROJECT DIRECTORYSHEET INDEX 3.a Packet Pg. 36 SU1 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. TOPO SURVEY DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL 3.a Packet Pg. 37 A1.000 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) SITE PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ± 12'-0" PL TO CURB 24'-0" SP ECIAL SETBACK ± 1 1 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " PL T O C U R B 16 ' - 0 " ST R E E T S I D E S E T B A C K ± 11'-10 1/2" PL TO CURB 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK TPZ: 11'-3" 10X TREE Ø TPZ : 1 2 '-5 5 /8 " 1 0 X TR E E Ø TPZ: 7'-6" 10X TREE Ø TPZ: 11'-8" 10X TREE Ø TPZ: 16'-8" 10X TREE Ø (E) 36.7 (E) 36.3 (E) 36.2 (E) 36.03 (E) 35.2 (E) 36.8 (E) 36.5 (E) TEL. POLE (E) EB (E) EB (E) TS (E) HVE (E) TEL. POLE (E) TEL. POLE (E) SSCO (E) TEL. POLE (E) SILVER MAPLE (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) T (E) LIQUIDAMBAR (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) LONDON PLANE (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) MAGNOLIA (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) CHINESE HACKBERRY (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) LOQUAT (E) OLIVE (E) CALIFORNIA FAN PALM TO BE REMOVED (E) EUCALYPTUS (E) CANARY ISLAND DATE PALM (E) COAST REDWOOD (E) EB (E) COAST LIVE OAK TO BE REMOVED (E) COAST REDWOOD (PROTECTED & REGULATED TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) COAST REDWOOD (PROTECTED & REGULATED TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) CONC STEPS TO BE REMOVED (E) PATH TO BE REMOVED (E) ELEC. METER TO BE RELOCATED (E) PATH TO BE REMOVED (E) BRICK STEPS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED (E) ARBOR TO BE REMOVED (E) PATH TO BE REMOVED (E) RIVER ROCK TO BE REMOVED (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE REMOVED (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE REMOVED (E) WD STEPS TO BE REMOVED DASHED LINES INDICATE SITE FEATURES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) ROOM TO BE REMOVED. FOUNDATIONS TO BE PRESERVED, TBD (E) GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED (E) GATE TO BE REMOVED (E) PORCH & STEPS TO BE REMOVED (E) SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK (E ) S I D E W A L K (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK (E) ASH (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) 6'-0" WD FENCE TO REMAIN ROOF ABOVE, TYP. ROOF ABOVE, TYP. (E) ASH (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) TEL. POLE (E) MAGNOLIA (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 STREET SIDE SETBACK SPECIAL SE TBACK INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FR O N T S E T B A C K N42° 25' 19" W 141.13' N70° 12' 15 " E 1 5 9.70' N51° 42' 00" W 223.59' N3 8 ° 2 0 ' 4 1 " E 1 1 2 . 8 2 ' (E ) S I D E W A L K (E) CURB CUT & DRIVEWAY TO BE REPLACED W/(N) CURB, GUTTER, & SIDEWALK. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN A STREET WORK PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS AT THE DEVELOPMENT CENTER. LANAI INNER LANAI SPACE TO BE REMOVED (E) CURB CUT & DRIVEWAY TO BE REPLACED W/(N) CURB, GUTTER, & SIDEWALK. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN A STREET WORK PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS AT THE DEVELOPMENT CENTER. (E) CURB, GUTTER, & SIDEWALK TO BE REPLACED W/(N) CURB CUT & DRIVEWAY. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN A STREET WORK PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS AT THE DEVELOPMENT CENTER. (E) STEPS & PATH TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E) SSCO TO BE RELOCATED EM B A RC A D E R O R O A D WAVERLY STREET ME L V I L L E A V E N U E 461 465 464 466 460 463 462 459 458 457 456 455 454 453 452 451 450 467 468 469 470 471 (E) DECK TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E) 36.5 (E) LONDON PLANE (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 8'-0" INT E R IOR S IDE SET B A CK TPZ: 1 4 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " 10X T R E E Ø FR O N T S E T B A C K STREET SIDE SETBACK SPECIAL SETBACK 359 EMBARCADERO (E) TWO STORY RESIDENCE W/ MECH. BASEMENT - - - (E) FIRST FLOOR FF = 0'-0" (±40.4 VIF) (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED (E) ADU NOT IN SCOPE 04'8' 16' (E) ##.# SEE SHEET A0.020 GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL SITE NOTES 1) ALL EXISTING HARDSCAPE TO BE REMOVED, UON BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PERIMETER FENCING TREE PROTECTION FENCING DEMOLITION LINE CLOSEST SURVEY POINT TO DETERMIND (E) GRADE FOR DAYLIGHT PLANES, SEE SU1 SITE PLAN LEGEND EB ELECTRIC BOX EM ELECTRIC METER GM GAS METER HVE HIGH VOLTAGE ELEC. VAULT T TELEPHONE TS TRAFFIC SIGNAL SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT WM WATER METER ABBREVIATIONS (E) / (D) SITE PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" (E) TREE TO REMAIN (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED 3.a Packet Pg. 38 A1.010 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E003 E004 E001 E0 0 2 E0 0 5 ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF± 32'-11 5/8" VIF (E) STAIR TO BE REMOVED (E) STAIR TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) DOORS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. INFILL (E) NICHE. SEE PROPOSED PLANS & ELEVS STORAGE (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN UPGRADES & REVISIONS TO (E) FOUNDATIONS TO BE DESIGNED & COORD. W/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER & GEOTECH, TYP. UPGRADES & REVISIONS TO (E) FOUNDATIONS TO BE DESIGNED & COORD. W/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER & GEOTECH, TYP. (E) LANAI STEPS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E)(DEMO) (E)(DEMO) (E) (E) (DEMO) (E) (DEMO) 2 A2.000 1 A2.001 1 A2.000 2 A2.001 7 A2.200 2 A2.102 2 A2.103 2 A2.100 2 A2.101 DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WALLS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. AREA TO BE EXCAVATED FOR NEW STAIR, SEE PROPOSED PLANS (E) FDN TO REMAIN. UPGRADE AS REQD, SSD (E) FDN TO REMAIN. UPGRADE AS REQD, SSD (E) FDN TO REMAIN. UPGRADE AS REQD, SSD (E) FDN TO REMAIN. UPGRADE AS REQD, SSD (E) FDN TO REMAIN. UPGRADE AS REQD, SSD (E) CRAWLSPACE VENT TO BE REMOVED & INFILLED, TYP (E) CMU BLOCK LEDGE TO REMAIN (E) POST & FOOTING TO BE REMOVED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS & STRUCTURAL DOCS FOR REVISED POST SUPPORT LOCATIONS MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 4 4 3 3 2 2 ED B G EDB G 02'4' 8' E### R### NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) REFER TO FLOOR PLAN NOTES ON SHEET A0.020 GENERAL NOTES 2) (E) FLOOR FRAMING TO REMAIN, U.O.N. 3) (E) EXT. WALL FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN, U.O.N. SEE PLANS & ELEVATIONS 4) (E) FLOOR, WALL, & CEILING FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. U.O.N. 5) (E) STAIRS, INT. DOORS, CABINETRY, MILLWORK, APPLIANCES, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING FIXTURES & LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE REMOVED, TYP U.O.N. 6) (E) CRAWL SPACE VENTS TO BE REMOVED & INFILLED, TYP. 7) (E) FOUNDATIONS UNDER HOUSE TO REMAIN, TYP. UON (E) / (D) PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 39 A1.020 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E104 E105 R1 02 R1 0 3 R1 0 5 R1 0 4 R106 R107 R101E103 E101 R1 0 8 E1 0 0 E1 0 2 ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F EQ ± 17'-10 3/4" VIF EQ ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF ± 19'- 11" VI F ± 22'-7/8 " VIF (E) STAIRS TO BE REMOVED (E) FIREPLACE TO BE REMOVED DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WALLS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) BATH CABINETS, FIXTURES & FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) CONC. STEPS TO BE REMOVED (E) WD STEPS TO BE REMOVED (E) STEPS & LOW WALLS TO BE REMOVED & REBUILT. SLD (E) FLOOR, WALL & CEILING FINISHES TO BE REMOVED. TYP, UON (E) KITCHEN CABINETS, APPLIANCES, FIXTURES & FINISHES TO BE REMOVED DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) DOORS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) EXT. STUCCO TO REMAIN WHERE FEASIBLE, TYP. (E) EXT. WALL FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN TYP UON (E) FIREPLACE TO BE REMOVED (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED (E) SCREEN DOOR TO BE REMOVED LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. (E) WALLS TO REMAIN, WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED. SEE ELEVS. TYP AT CONSERVATORY. (E) WALL TO REMAIN, DEMO SELECT AREAS FOR (N) WINDOWS, SEE ELEVS. TYP AT (P) KITCHEN. (E) WALL TO REMAIN, DEMO SELECT AREAS FOR (N) WINDOWS, SEE ELEVS. TYP AT (P) KITCHEN. LIVING ROOM SITTING ROOM CONSERVATORY PWDR LAUNDRY KITCHEN STORAGEPANTRY KITCHEN PORCH DINING BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 HALL BATH LANAIMELVILLE PORCH SIDEYARD STAIR (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED SEE A1.000 (E) / (D) SITE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (E) (DEMO) (E)(DEMO) (E)(DEMO) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (DEMO) 2 A2.000 1 A2.001 1 A2.000 2 A2.001 4 A2.200 3 A2.200 8 A2.200 7 A2.200 2 A2.102 2 A2.103 2 A2.100 2 A2.101 4 4 3 3 2 2 E E D D B B G G MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 04'8'12' E### R### PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) REFER TO FLOOR PLAN NOTES ON SHEET A0.020 GENERAL NOTES 2) (E) FLOOR FRAMING TO REMAIN, U.O.N. 3) (E) EXT. WALL FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN, U.O.N. SEE PLANS & ELEVATIONS 4) (E) FLOOR, WALL, & CEILING FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. U.O.N. 5) (E) STAIRS, INT. DOORS, CABINETRY, MILLWORK, APPLIANCES, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING FIXTURES & LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE REMOVED, TYP U.O.N. (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND (E) / (D) PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 40 A1.021 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E105 E101 R1 0 8 ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F ± 1 9' -1 1" V I F ± 22 '-7/8" VIF (E) STAIRS TO BE REMOVED (E) BATH CABINETS, FIXTURES & FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) KITCHEN CABINETS, APPLIANCES, FIXTURES & FINISHES TO BE REMOVED DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) EXT. STUCCO TO REMAIN WHERE FEASIBLE, TYP. (E) EXT. WALL FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN TYP UON (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. (E) WALL TO REMAIN, DEMO SELECT AREAS FOR (N) WINDOWS, SEE ELEVS. TYP AT (P) KITCHEN. (E) WALL TO REMAIN, DEMO SELECT AREAS FOR (N) WINDOWS, SEE ELEVS. TYP AT (P) KITCHEN. PWDR LAUNDRY KITCHEN STORAGEPANTRY KITCHEN PORCH DINING (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED (E)(DEMO) (E) (E) (E) (E) 1 A2.000 4 A2.200 3 A2.200 8 A2.200 7 A2.200 2 A2.101 3 3 2 2 ED B G MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' E### R### SEE A1.020 (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND (E) / (D) PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 41 A1.022 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E104 E105 R1 02 R1 03 R1 0 5 R1 0 4 R1 06 R1 07 R101E103 E101 R1 0 8 E1 0 0 E1 0 2 ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F EQ ± 17'-10 3/4" VIF EQ ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF (E) STAIRS TO BE REMOVED (E) FIREPLACE TO BE REMOVED DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WALLS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) BATH CABINETS, FIXTURES & FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) CONC. STEPS TO BE REMOVED (E) WD STEPS TO BE REMOVED (E) STEPS & LOW WALLS TO BE REMOVED & REBUILT. SLD (E) FLOOR, WALL & CEILING FINISHES TO BE REMOVED. TYP, UON DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) DOORS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) EXT. STUCCO TO REMAIN WHERE FEASIBLE, TYP. (E) EXT. WALL FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN TYP UON (E) FIREPLACE TO BE REMOVED (E) SCREEN DOOR TO BE REMOVED (E) WALLS TO REMAIN, WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED. SEE ELEVS. TYP AT CONSERVATORY. (E) WALL TO REMAIN, DEMO SELECT AREAS FOR (N) WINDOWS, SEE ELEVS. TYP AT (P) KITCHEN. LIVING ROOM SITTING ROOM CONSERVATORY PWDR BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 HALL BATH LANAIMELVILLE PORCH SIDEYARD STAIR SEE A1.000 (E) / (D) SITE PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (E) (DEMO) (E)(DEMO) (E) (DEMO) 2 A2.000 1 A2.001 2 A2.001 2 A2.102 2 A2.103 2 A2.100 4 4 3 3 EDB B G MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' E### R### SEE A1.020 (E) / (D) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND (E) / (D) PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 42 A1.030 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) SECOND FLOOR KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E2 0 4 E203 E202 E2 0 1 E209E210 FAMILY RM BATH ATTIC BALCONY ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12(E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED (E)(DEMO) (E)(DEMO) (E) (E) (E) (E) ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F ± 8'-4 1/2" VIF ± 1 4 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " V I F ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WALLS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) FLOOR, WALL & CEILING FINISHES TO BE REMOVED. TYP, UON DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) DOORS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) BATH CABINETS, FIXTURES & FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) BALCONY TO BE REMOVED (E) MILLWORK TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) GLASS ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REBUILT TO MATCH TYP. ROOF (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. ±1.5% (E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±3 : 12(E) VIF (E) (DEMO) (E) (DEMO) 2 A2.000 1 A2.001 1 A2.000 2 A2.001 4 A2.200 3 A2.200 8 A2.200 7 A2.200 2 A2.102 2 A2.103 2 A2.100 2 A2.101 ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±3 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±3 : 12 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF 4 4 3 3 2 2 E E D D B B G G E205 E206 E2 0 8 E2 0 7 (E) ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E) ROOF & STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 04'8'12' E### R### PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) REFER TO FLOOR PLAN NOTES ON SHEET A0.020 GENERAL NOTES 2) (E) FLOOR FRAMING TO REMAIN, U.O.N. 3) (E) EXT. WALL FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN, U.O.N. SEE PLANS & ELEVATIONS 4) (E) FLOOR, WALL, & CEILING FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. U.O.N. 5) (E) STAIRS, INT. DOORS, CABINETRY, MILLWORK, APPLIANCES, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING FIXTURES & LIGHTING FIXTURES TO BE REMOVED, TYP U.O.N. 6) ALL (E) COMPOSITE ROOFING TO BE REMOVED. (E) ROOF SHEATHING & STRUCTURE TO REMAIN UON 7) (E) ROOF PENETRATIONS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. UON (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND (E) / (D) PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 43 A1.031 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) SECOND FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E2 0 4 E203 E202 E2 0 1 E209E210 FAMILY RM BATH ATTIC BALCONY ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E ) V IF ± 6 : 12 (E ) V IF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F (E)(DEMO) ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 8'-4 1/2" VIF ± 1 4 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " V I F ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) WALLS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) FLOOR, WALL & CEILING FINISHES TO BE REMOVED. TYP, UON DASHED LINES INDICATED (E) DOORS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) BATH CABINETS, FIXTURES & FINISHES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) BALCONY TO BE REMOVED (E) MILLWORK TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) GLASS ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REBUILT TO MATCH TYP. ROOF LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. ±1.5% (E) VIF ±3 : 12(E) V IF (E) (DEMO) (E) (DEMO) 2 A2.000 1 A2.001 2 A2.001 2 A2.102 2 A2.103 2 A2.100 ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±3 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±3 : 1 2 (E) V I F 4 4 3 3 EDB B G E205 E206 E2 0 8 E2 0 7 (E) ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' E### R### SEE A1.030 (E) / (D) SECOND FLOOR KEY PLAN PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND (E) / (D) PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 44 A1.040 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) ROOF KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12(E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF 2 A2.000 1 A2.001 1 A2.000 2 A2.001 4 A2.200 3 A2.200 8 A2.200 7 A2.200 2 A2.102 2 A2.103 2 A2.100 2 A2.101 (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH IN SHAPE & SIZE (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) BALCONY TO BE REMOVED (E) GLASS ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REBUILT TO MATCH TYP. ROOF (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED (E)(DEMO) (E)(DEMO) (E) (E) (E) (E) ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±3 : 12(E) VIF ±1.5% (E) VIF (E) (DEMO) (E) (DEMO) ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±3 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±3 : 12 (E ) V I F 4 4 3 3 2 2 E E D D B B G G (E) ROOF & STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED (E) ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 04'8'12' PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) ALL (E) COMPOSITE ROOFING TO BE REMOVED. (E) ROOF SHEATHING & STRUCTURE TO REMAIN UON 2) (E) ROOF PENETRATIONS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. UON (E) / (D) ROOF PLAN NOTES: KEY PLAN 3.a Packet Pg. 45 A1.041 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 1 A2.000 4 A2.200 3 A2.200 8 A2.200 7 A2.200 2 A2.101 (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED (E)(DEMO) (E) (E) (E) (E) ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±1.5% (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF 3 3 2 2 ED B G (E) ROOF & STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED (E) ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN SEE A1.040 (E) / (D) ROOF KEY PLAN (E) / (D) ROOF PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 46 A1.042 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) / (D) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E ) V IF ± 6 : 12 (E ) V IF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF 2 A2.000 1 A2.001 2 A2.001 2 A2.102 2 A2.103 2 A2.100 (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH IN SHAPE & SIZE (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) BALCONY TO BE REMOVED (E) GLASS ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REBUILT TO MATCH TYP. ROOF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF (E)(DEMO) ±3 : 12(E) V IF ±1.5% (E) VIF (E) (DEMO) (E) (DEMO) ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±3 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±3 : 1 2 (E) V I F 4 4 3 3 EDB B G (E) ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN SEE A1.040 (E) / (D) ROOF KEY PLAN (E) / (D) ROOF PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 47 A1.100 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) SITE PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ± 12'-0" PL TO CURB 24'-0" SP ECIAL SETBACK ± 1 1 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " PL T O C U R B 16 ' - 0 " ST R E E T S I D E S E T B A C K ± 11'-10 1/2" PL TO CURB 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK TPZ: 11'-3" 10X TREE Ø TPZ : 1 2 '-5 5 /8 " 1 0 X TR E E Ø ± 17'- 8 3/8" PL TO FO F ± 13'-7 1/4" (N) DRIVEWAY TO STREET TREE, SLD 16'-0" (N) DRIVEWAY, SLD ± 20'-5 5/8" (N) DRIVEWAY TO STREET TREE, SLD ± 60'-4 1/2" PL TO FOF TPZ: 7'-6" 10X TREE Ø TPZ: 11'-8" 10X TREE Ø TPZ: 16'-8" 10X TREE Ø (E) 36.7 (E) 36.3 36.5AVG (E) 36.2 (E) 36.03 36.12 AVG (E) 35.2 (E) 36.8 (E) 36.5 (E) TEL. POLE (E) EB (E) EB (E) TS (E) HVE (E) TEL. POLE (E) TEL. POLE (E) SSCO (E) TEL. POLE (E) SILVER MAPLE (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) T (E) LIQUIDAMBAR (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) LONDON PLANE (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) MAGNOLIA (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) CHINESE HACKBERRY (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) OLIVE (E) EUCALYPTUS (E) CANARY ISLAND DATE PALM (E) COAST REDWOOD (E) EB (E) COAST REDWOOD (PROTECTED & REGULATED TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) COAST REDWOOD (PROTECTED & REGULATED TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) SIDEWALK(E) SIDEWALK (E ) S I D E W A L K (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK (E) ASH (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) 6'-0" WD FENCE TO REMAIN ROOF ABOVE, TYP. ROOF ABOVE, TYP. (E) ASH (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 (E) TEL. POLE (E) MAGNOLIA (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 STREET SIDE SETBACK SPECIAL SE TBACK INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK FR O N T S E T B A C K N42° 25' 19" W 141.13' N70° 12' 15 " E 1 5 9.70' N51° 42' 00" W 223.59' N3 8 ° 2 0 ' 4 1 " E 1 1 2 . 8 2 ' (N) FRONT PORCH (N) KITCHEN PORCH WAVERLY DRIVE COURT (E ) S I D E W A L K (N) STAIRS AT (E) LOCATION LANAI (N) ELEC. METER (N ) T R A S H EN C L O S U R E MELVILLE DRIVEWAY 12'X24' POOL SPA BENCH, SLD BENCH, SLD (N) SIDEWALK & CURB TO REPLACE (E) CURB CUT (N) SIDEWALK & CURB TO REPLACE (E) CURB CUT FOUNTAIN, SLD FOUNTAIN, SLD (N) FENCE, SLD EM B A RC A D E R O R O A D WAVERLY STREET ME L V I L L E A V E N U E 461 465 464 460 463 462 459 458 456 455 454 453 452 451 450 468 470 471 HVA C E QU IPM ENT DN POO L EQU IP M ENT, TB D (E) 36.5 36.65 AVG 35.85 AVG (E) LONDON PLANE (REGULATED STREET TREE): BEFORE WORKING IN THIS AREA CONTACT THE PROJECT ARBORIST AT (650) 321-0202 8'-0" INT E R IOR S IDE SET B A CK TPZ: 1 4 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " 10X T R E E Ø FR O N T S E T B A C K STREET SIDE SETBACK SPECIAL SETBACK 359 EMBARCADERO (E) TWO STORY RESIDENCE W/ MECH. BASEMENT - - - (E) FIRST FLOOR FF = 0'-0" (±40.4 VIF) (E) ADU NOT IN SCOPE (N) ADDITION - - - ADDITION FF = (+36.9) (N) DETACHED GARAGE - - - FF = (+36.5) DN DN CALCULATED AVG. (E) GRADE FOR DAYLIGHT PLANES. SEE ELEV. SHEETS A2.000-A2.003 04'8' 16' ##.# AVG (E) ##.# 1) GAS: (N) GAS METER AT (N) LOCATION FOR (E) ADU, TBD 2) ELECTRIC: (N) 400 AMP ELECTRIC METER AT (N) LOCATION; PROVIDE 3'-0" X 3'-0" CLR. LEVEL WORK AREA 3) WATER: (N) WATER METER. WATER LINE FROM THE WATER METER TO THE HOUSE SHALL BE A MIN. OF 2" IN DIAMETER. 4) SANITARY SEWER: (E) SSCO TO REMAIN, TBD UTILITY NOTES SEE SHEET A0.020 GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL SITE NOTES 1) FF HTS & STAIRS TO GRADE TO BE COORD. W/ CIVIL ENGINEER 2) EARTHWORK, PAVEMENT & SLAB SUB GRADE PREP, FDN CONSTRUCTION, SWIMMING POOL CONSTRUCTION, PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION, UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILLING, & SITE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE W/THE GEOTECH REPORT PREPARED BY ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC., DATED JULY 15, 2020. ROMIG ENGINEERS SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HRS IN ADVANCE OF EARTHWORK & FDN CONSTRUCTION AND SHOULD OBSERVE & TEST DURING EARTHWORK & FDN CONSTRUCTION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE GEOTECH REPORT. BUILDING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PERIMETER FENCING TREE PROTECTION FENCING CLOSEST SURVEY POINT TO DETERMIND (E) GRADE FOR DAYLIGHT PLANES, SEE SU1 SITE PLAN LEGEND EB ELECTRIC BOX EM ELECTRIC METER GM GAS METER HVE HIGH VOLTAGE ELEC. VAULT T TELEPHONE TS TRAFFIC SIGNAL SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT WM WATER METER ABBREVIATIONS SITE PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" (E) TREE TO REMAIN (N) TREE, SLD 3.a Packet Pg. 48 A1.200 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 2 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) BASEMENT FLOOR KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E0 0 5 E003 E004 E001 E0 0 2 ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 21 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 38'-2 3/4"± 9'-4 3/8" 8'-11 1/2" ± 19'-10" VIF 9'-5 1/4" ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F 8'-1 1/2" 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 29'-9 1/4" 31 ' - 4 1 / 2 " E Q MECH. 001 UP(E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN UPGRADES & REVISIONS TO (E) FOUNDATIONS TO BE DESIGNED & COORD. W/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER & GEOTECH, TYP. UPGRADES & REVISIONS TO (E) FOUNDATIONS TO BE DESIGNED & COORD. W/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER & GEOTECH, TYP. STAIR 002 (N) FRONT PORCH FOUNDATION TBD (N) LANAI STEPS FOUNDATION TBD (N) GARAGE FOUNDATION TBD (N) ADDITION FOUNDATION TBD (N) CRAWLSPACE, TBD 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.101 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 (N) STAIR, TO BE COORD. MATCH LINE MATCH LINE E E D D G G F F B B 4 4 3 3 1 1 C C 5 5 6 6 H H J J 2 2 A A 04'8'12' E### R### BASEMENT PLAN NOTES NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) (N) NFPA-13-D FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT MAIN HOUSE & DETACHED GARAGE, TO BE DESIGNED & SUBMITTED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 49 A1.201 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) BASEMENT FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E0 0 5 E004 ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 21 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 38'-2 3/4"± 9'-4 3/8" 8'-11 1/2" ± 19'-10" VIF 9'-5 1/4" EQ MECH (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (N) ADDITION FOUNDATION TBD (N) CRAWLSPACE, TBD 1 A2.101 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE ED G F F B 3 3 1 1 C C 2 2 A 02'4' 8' E### R### BASEMENT PLAN NOTES SEE A1.200 (P) BASEMENT FLOOR KEY PLAN PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 50 A1.202 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) BASEMENT FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E003 E004 E001 E0 02 ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F 8'-1 1/2" 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 29'-9 1/4" 31 ' - 4 1 / 2 " E Q MECH. 001 UP(E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN UPGRADES & REVISIONS TO (E) FOUNDATIONS TO BE DESIGNED & COORD. W/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER & GEOTECH, TYP. UPGRADES & REVISIONS TO (E) FOUNDATIONS TO BE DESIGNED & COORD. W/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER & GEOTECH, TYP. STAIR 002 (N) FRONT PORCH FOUNDATION TBD (N) LANAI STEPS FOUNDATION TBD (N) GARAGE FOUNDATION TBD TBD 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 (N) STAIR, TO BE COORD. MATCH LINE MATCH LINE ED G B B 4 4 3 3 5 5 6 6 H H J J A A 02'4' 8' E### R### PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN BASEMENT PLAN NOTES SEE A1.200 (P) BASEMENT FLOOR KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 51 A1.210 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E104 E105 R103 R102 R105R104 R1 0 6 R107 R1 0 8 R101 E103 E101 E1 0 0 E1 0 2 W D ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 8'-1 1/2"± 32'-11 5/8" VIF ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF29'-9 1/4" EQ 3 0 ' - 0 " E Q ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 21 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 38'-2 3/4"± 9'-4 3/8" 1'-6" 8'-11 1/2" ± 19'-10" VIF 9'-5 1/4" EQ ± 17'-10 3/4" VIF EQ CAR CHARGER LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. LINE OF (N) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. (N) HANDRAIL LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. ART M. BEDROOM 107 M.CLOS 105 PWDR 103 VEST. 102 ENTRY HALL 101 STAIR 109 M. BATH 108 M. W/C 108 GREAT RM 110 LANAI FRONT PORCH KITCHEN 111 PANTRY 112 STAIR HALL 113 M. HALL 104 M.CLOS 106 BEDROOM 116 BATH 117 REC RM 119 LAUNDRY BENCH W/HOOKS, CUBBIES, ADDITIONAL STORAGE, TBD CL O S BOOKSHELVES REF/FRZ UP DN KITCHEN PORCH VEST. 115 FULL HT STORAGE DN DN STUDY 118 BENCH MECH SPACE BELOW FIRST FLR LANDING DESK BE N C H 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.101 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 FULL HTSTORAGE E E D D G G F F B B 4 4 3 3 1 1 C C 5 5 6 6 H H J J 2 2 A A 10 ' - 5 1 / 2 " MUD RM 114 GARAGE 120 SIDE ENTRY DN DN PLANTERPLANTER PLANTER PLANTER MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 04'8'12' E### R### NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & THE GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT 2) SEE ROOF PLAN FOR OVERHANG DIMENSIONS 3) (N) NFPA-13-D FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT MAIN HOUSE, ADU & DETACHED GARAGE, TO BE DESIGNED & SUBMITTED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT FLOOR PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 52 A1.211 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E105 R101E101 W D EQ ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 21 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 38'-2 3/4"± 9'-4 3/8" 1'-6" 8'-11 1/2" ± 19'-10" VIF 9'-5 1/4" LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. LINE OF (N) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. ART ENTRY HALL 101 KITCHEN 111 PANTRY 112 STAIR HALL 113 BEDROOM 116 BATH 117 REC RM 119 LAUNDRY BENCH W/HOOKS, CUBBIES, ADDITIONAL STORAGE, TBD CL O S BOOKSHELVES REF/FRZ KITCHEN PORCH VEST. 115 FULL HT STORAGE DN STUDY 118 BENCH DESK BE N C H 1 A2.101 FULL HT STORAGE ED G F F B 3 3 1 1 C C 2 2 A 10 ' - 5 1 / 2 " MUD RM 114 SIDE ENTRY DN DN PLANTERPLANTER PLANTER MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' E### R### SEE A1.210 (P) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN FLOOR PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 53 A1.212 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) FIRST FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E104 E105 R103 R1 02 R105R104 R1 0 6 R1 07 R1 0 8 R101 E103 E101 E1 0 0 E1 0 2 ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 8'-1 1/2"± 32'-11 5/8" VIF ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF29'-9 1/4" EQ 3 0 ' - 0 " E Q ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F EQ ± 17'-10 3/4" VIF EQ CAR CHARGER (N) HANDRAIL LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. M. BEDROOM 107 M.CLOS 105 PWDR 103 VEST. 102 ENTRY HALL 101 STAIR 109 M. BATH 108 M. W/C 108 GREAT RM 110 LANAI FRONT PORCH M. HALL 104 M.CLOS 106 BOOKSHELVES REF/FRZ UP DN DN BENCH MECH SPACE BELOW FIRST FLR LANDING 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 FULL HT STORAGE ED G B B 4 4 3 3 5 5 6 6 H H J J A A GARAGE 120 DN PLANTER MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' E### R### PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN SEE A1.210 (P) FIRST FLOOR KEY PLAN FLOOR PLAN NOTES (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 54 A1.220 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) SECOND FLOOR KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E2 0 4 E203 E202 E2 0 1 E209E210 ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12(E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 21 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 38'-2 3/4"± 9'-4 3/8" 8'-11 1/2" ± 19'-10" VIF 9'-5 1/4" 8'-1 1/2" EQ 3 0 ' - 0 " E Q ± 8'-4 1/2" VIF ± 1 4 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " V I F 29'-9 1/4" 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF ROOFING, TYP. (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF ROOFING, TYP. LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. BEDROOM 204 BEDROOM 201 BATH 202 BATH 203 HALL 200 DN ATTIC 205 DE S K DR E S S E R CL O S CL O S C L O S DE S K DR E S S E R C L O S CL O S CL O S 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.101 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 E E D D G G F F B B 4 4 3 3 1 1 C C 5 5 6 6 H H J J 2 2 A A E205 E206 E2 0 8 E2 0 7 6 : 1 2 SOLAR READY AREA QTY & LAYOUT TBD SOLAR READY AREA QTY & LAYOUT TBD 6 : 12 (E) VIF 6 : 12 (E) VIF MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 04'8'12' E### R### NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & THE GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT 2) SEE ROOF PLAN FOR OVERHANG DIMENSIONS 3) (N) NFPA-13-D FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT MAIN HOUSE, ADU & DETACHED GARAGE, TO BE DESIGNED & SUBMITTED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT 4) (N) COMPOSITE ROOFING, TYP. FLOOR PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 55 A1.221 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) SECOND FLOOR PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL E2 0 4 E203 E202 E2 0 1 E209E210 ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E ) V IF ± 6 : 12 (E ) V IF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F 8'-1 1/2" EQ 3 0 ' - 0 " E Q ± 8'-4 1/2" VIF ± 1 4 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " V I F 29'-9 1/4" 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF ROOFING, TYP. (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF ROOFING, TYP. LINE OF (E) ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE, TYP. BEDROOM 204 BEDROOM 201 BATH 202 BATH 203 HALL 200 DN ATTIC 205 DE S K DR E S S E R CL O S CL O S C L O S DE S K DR E S S E R C L O S CL O S CL O S 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 ED G B B 4 4 3 3 5 5 6 6 H H J J A A E205 E206 E2 0 8 E2 0 7 SOLAR READY AREA QTY & LAYOUT TBD MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' E### R### SEE A1.220 (P) SECOND FLOOR KEY PLAN FLOOR PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND 3.a Packet Pg. 56 A1.300 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) ROOF KEY PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12(E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF29'-9 1/4" 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF8'-1 1/2" ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 21 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 38'-2 3/4"± 9'-4 3/8" 8'-11 1/2" ± 19'-10" VIF 9'-5 1/4" 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.101 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 (N) STUCCO CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATION TO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE & SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO (N) ROOF (N) ROOF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF 6 : 12 (E) VIF 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 126 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 (E) VIF 6 : 12 (E) VIF E E D D G G F F B B 4 4 3 3 1 1 C C 5 5 6 6 H H J J 2 2 A A SOLAR READY AREA QTY & LAYOUT TBD SOLAR READY AREA QTY & LAYOUT TBD 6 : 1 2 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 04'8'12' NOTE: ALL EXISTING DIMS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING DIMS IN FIELD & COORDINATE/REVISE GRIDLINES W/ARCHITECT AS REQD. 1) 36" TYP. OVERHANG AT (E) FIRST FLOOR ROOF EAVES, 30" TYP. OVERHANG AT (E) SECOND FLOOR ROOF EAVES. CONTRACTOR TO VIF. 2) 24" TYP. OVERHANG AT ALL (P) NEW ROOF EAVES, TYP 3) (N) COMPOSITE ROOFING, TYP. ROOF PLAN NOTES PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN 3.a Packet Pg. 57 A1.301 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 2 8 ' - 4 1 / 2 " V I F 21 ' - 1 0 5 / 8 " 38'-2 3/4"± 9'-4 3/8" 8'-11 1/2" ± 19'-10" VIF 9'-5 1/4" 1 A2.101 (N) ROOF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F 6 : 12 6 : 126 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 (E) VIF 6 : 12 (E) VIF ED G F F B 3 1 1 C C 2 2 A SOLAR READY AREA QTY & LAYOUT TBD 6 : 1 2 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN SEE A1.300 (P) ROOF KEY PLAN ROOF PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 58 A1.302 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) ROOF PARTIAL PLAN DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E ) V IF ± 6 : 12 (E ) V IF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ± 19'-10" VIF ± 18'-9 5/8" VIF29'-9 1/4" 12 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " ± 32'-11 5/8" VIF8'-1 1/2" ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F ± 3 2 ' - 9 " V I F 1 A2.100 1 A2.103 1 A2.102 6 A2.200 2 A2.200 5 A2.200 1 A2.200 (N) STUCCO CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATION TO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE & SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO (N) ROOF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 1 2 (E ) V I F ±6 : 12 (E) VIF ±6 : 12 (E) VIF 6 : 12 (E) VIF 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 1 2 6 : 12 ED G B B 4 4 3 3 5 5 6 6 H H J J A A SOLAR READY AREA QTY & LAYOUT TBD MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 02'4' 8' PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" KEY PLAN SEE A1.300 (P) ROOF KEY PLAN ROOF PLAN NOTES 3.a Packet Pg. 59 A2.000 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL /2" (E) DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (E) CHIMNEY (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) BALCONY (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) DECORATIVE WD FRONT DOOR BEYOND (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) SCREEN DOOR & PARTITION WALL (E) STAIR & DOOR TO BASEMENT E208E207 E208 R106R105R104R103 E002 R102 R107 R108E100 +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (E) CHIMNEY (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF (E) DETACHED GARAGE SEE A2.200 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T SI D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 8' - 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 12 12 12 ±6 ±6±6 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 (E) GLASS ROOF (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS (E) HANDRAIL 16 ' - 0 " (E) CHIMNEY (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS AND MTL HANDRAIL (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS (E) CONC. STEPS & MTL. HANDRAIL (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT, TYP.(E) GAS METER (E) PTD WD DOOR W/DIVIDED LITES, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING, TYP. E101 E202 E210E209 E105 E004 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 60°12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6±6 E### R### (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(E) EAST (EMBARCADERO RD.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(E) NORTH (WAVERLY ST.) ELEVATION 02'4' 8' GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT REFER TO 4/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION 3.a Packet Pg. 60 A2.001 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/PROJECTING SILLS (E) CONCRETE STEPS & MTL. HANDRAIL (E) PTD WD DOOR W/DIVIDED LITES, TYP. (E) BALCONY (E) GLASS ROOF (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT, TYP.(E) WD STEPS & WD HANDRAIL (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. E102 E204E201 E001 (E) CHIMNEY +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF (E) DETACHED GARAGE REFER TO A2.200 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 8' - 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 6 1212 1212 12 ±6 ±6 ±6±6±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 (E) CHIMNEY (E) GROUND FLOOR F.F. -3'-6" 16 ' - 0 " (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) BALCONY (E) GLASS ROOF (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS (E) CHIMNEY E103 R101 E203 E205 E206 E104 E003E002E001 (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS AND MTL HANDRAIL 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 60° 12 1212 12±3 ±6 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±3 (E) CHIMNEY (E) WD STEPS & WD HANDRAIL (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) CONC. STEPS & MTL. HANDRAIL (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING, TYP. E### R### (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(E) WEST (MELVILLE AVE.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(E) SOUTH ELEVATION 02'4' 8' GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT REFER TO 2/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION 3.a Packet Pg. 61 A2.100 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) DOWNSPOUTS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED, TYP. (E) BALCONY TO BE REMOVED (E) GLASS ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH TYP. ROOF ASSEMBLY (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE W/NEW MATLS (E) STUCCO TO REMAIN WHERE FEASIBLE, TYP. (E) NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS & (E) PTD MOLDED SURROUNDS & PROJECTING SILLS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED W/ORIGINAL WINDOWS R102 - R108 (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) SCREEN DOOR & PARTITION WALL TO BE REMOVED (E) ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE MODIFIED. SEE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (E) STAIR & DOOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REMOVED (E) MTL HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED (E) FRONT DECORATIVE WD DOOR BEYOND TO REMAIN E207 E208 R107R106R105R104R103R102 E002 E001 R108E100 +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH IN SHAPE & SIZE (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED SEE A2.200 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T SI D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 8' - 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K (E) NICHE AREA TO BE INFILLED. SEE PROPOSED PLANS 12 12 12 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6±6 12 ±6 (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. RELOCATED & REFURBISHED PTD WD WINDOWS R102 - R108. WINDOW TRIM DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) LANAI STEPS TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE. NEW MATLS TO BE WD STAIRS W/ LOW STUCCO SIDE WALLS (N) STUCCO AT ADDITION. FINISH TO MATCH (E) IN MATL & TEXTURE, TYP. ED118.1 ED119.1 E207 E208 E005E002 R106 R107 R108 E100 (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (P) GROUND FLOOR F.F. (+36.9) (N) CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATION TO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE & SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 6 12 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T SI D E Y A R D S E T B A C K 8' - 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 12 1212 12 12 6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 6 12 (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN E### R### (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(D) EAST (EMBARCADERO RD.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(P) EAST (EMBARCADERO RD.) ELEVATION 02'4' 8' GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT REFER TO 4/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION REFER TO 3/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION 3.a Packet Pg. 62 A2.101 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL 16 ' - 0 " (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH IN SHAPE & SIZE (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED, TYP. (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE W/ NEW MATLS (E) GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED (E) PTD WD DOORS W/ DIVIDED LITES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. UON. (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN (E) STUCCO TO REMAIN WHERE FEASIBLE, TYP. (E) DOWNSPOUTS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) CONC. STEPS & MTL HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT TO BE REMOVED & INFILLED, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING TO BE REMOVED, TYP. E209 E210 E202 E101 E105 E004 (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) MTL HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 60°12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6±6 AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) GROUND FLOOR F.F. (+36.9) 16 ' - 0 " (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN (N) PTD WD WINDOWS. DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATION TO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE & SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) LANAI STEPS TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE. NEW MATLS TO BE WD STAIRS W/LOW STUCCO SIDE WALLS (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. (N) COVERED FRONT PORCH E209 E210 E202 R101 E101 RELOCATED & REFURBISHED PTD WD WINDOW. TRIM DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 12 6 12 6 1260° ±6 FENCED ENCLOSURE FOR POOL EQUIPMENT, TBD 12 ±6 6 12 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 (N) STUCCO AT ADDITION. FINISH TO MATCH (E) IN MATL & TEXTURE, TYP. E### R### (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(D) NORTH (WAVERLY ST.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(P) NORTH (WAVERLY ST.) ELEVATION 02'4' 8' GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT 3.a Packet Pg. 63 A2.102 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) CONC STEPS & MTL. HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED (E) PTD WD DOOR W/DIVIDED LITES TO BE REMOVED, TYP. UON. (E) BALCONY TO BE REMOVED (E) GLASS ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH TYP. ROOF ASSEMBLY (E) WD STEPS & WD HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT TO BE REMOVED & INFILLED, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) DOWNSPOUTS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS & (E) PTD MOLDED SURROUNDS & PROJECTING SILLS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED W/ORIGINAL WINDOWS R102 - R108 E201 E204 E001 E102 +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 8' - 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 6 1212 1212 12 ±6 ±6 ±6±6±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED SEE A2.200 (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) STUCCO AT ADDITION. FINISH TO MATCH (E) IN MATL & TEXTURE, TYP. (N) PTD WD WINDOWS. DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP.(N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) PTD WD STAIRS (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF, TYP. (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF, TYP. E201 E204 E102 R102 R103 E001 RELOCATED & REFURBISHED PTD WD WINDOWS. TRIM DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD SOFFITS TO REMAIN, TYP. (N) PTD WD STAIRS (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP (N) STUCCO PLANTER +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (P) GROUND FLOOR F.F. (+36.9) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 8' - 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 1212 1212 ±6 ±6 6±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 6 12 (N) DECORATIVE WD FRONT DOOR E### R### (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(D) WEST (MELVILLE AVE.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(P) WEST (MELVILLE AVE.) ELEVATION 02'4' 8' GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT REFER TO 1/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION REFER TO 2/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION 3.a Packet Pg. 64 A2.103 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (D) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) GROUND FLOOR F.F. -3'-6" 16 ' - 0 " (E) BALCONY TO BE REMOVED (E) GLASS ROOF TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH TYP. ROOF ASSEMBLY (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH IN SHAPE & SIZE (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED, TYP. E103 E001 E002 E003 E104 E206E205 E203 R101 (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE W/ NEW MATLS (E) MTL HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 60° 12 12 1212 12 ±6 12 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 (E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED (E) NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS & (E) PTD MOLDED SURROUNDS & PROJECTING SILLS TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED W/ORIGINAL WINDOWS R102 - R108 (E) WD STEPS & WD HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED (E) STUCCO TO REMAIN WHERE FEASIBLE, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) CONC. STEPS & MTL. HANDRAIL TO BE REMOVED (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT TO BE REMOVED & INFILLED, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) GROUND FLOOR F.F. - (+36.9) 16 ' - 0 " (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN (N) LANAI STEPS TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE. NEW MATLS TO BE WD STAIRS W/ LOW STUCCO SIDE WALLS (N) PTD WD WINDOW. DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATION TO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE & SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) COVERED FRONT PORCH E103 E203 E205 E206 R102 R103 R104 R105 R106 R107 E002E001 E003 E104 (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 60°6 12 12 1212 12 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 HVAC EQPT, TBD RELOCATED & REFURBISHED PTD WD WINDOWS. TRIM DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. E### R### (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO REMAIN (E) HISTORIC WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED & RELOCATED, SEE PROPOSED PLANS AND ELEVS. (E) DOOR & WINDOW LEGEND SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(D) SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(P) SOUTH ELEVATION 02'4' 8' GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT 3.a Packet Pg. 65 A2.104 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - DAYLIGHT PLANES DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL 17'-7"8'-3 1/2" 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " (E) DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (E) CHIMNEY (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) BALCONY (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) DECORATIVE WD FRONT DOOR BEYOND (E) PTD EXPOSEDRAFTER TAILS &PANELED WDEAVES, TYP. (E) SCREEN DOOR & PARTITION WALL (E) STAIR & DOOR TOBASEMENT E208E207 E208 R106R105R104R103 E002 R102 R107 R108E100 PR O P E R T Y L I N E +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.5) AVG. (E) GRADE (+35.2) (E) CHIMNEY (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF (E) DETACHED GARAGESEE A2.200 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T SID E Y A R D S E T B A C K 8'- 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 45° 12 12 12 ±6 ±6±6 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 (E) GLASS ROOF (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS (E) HANDRAIL 45° 10 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP. RELOCATED & REFURBISHED PTD WD WINDOWS R102 - R108. WINDOW TRIM DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) LANAI STEPS TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE. NEW MATLS TO BE WD STAIRS W/ LOW STUCCO SIDE WALLS (N) STUCCO AT ADDITION. FINISH TO MATCH (E) IN MATL & TEXTURE, TYP. ED118.1 ED119.1 E207 E208 E005E002 R106 R107 R108 E100 (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP PR O P E R T Y L I N E +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F.+10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) (P) GROUND FLOOR F.F. (+36.9)AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.5) AVG. (E) GRADE (+35.2) (N) CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATION TO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE & SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 6 12 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T SID E Y A R D S E T B A C K 8'- 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 45° 12 1212 12 12 6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 6 12 (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN 45° 16 ' - 0 " (E) CHIMNEY (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) DOWNSPOUTS, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS& PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) BRICK LANAI STEPSAND MTL HANDRAIL (E) PTD WD WINDOW &PTD MOLDED WDSURROUNDS W/PROJECTING SILLS (E) CONC. STEPS & MTL. HANDRAIL (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT, TYP.(E) GAS METER (E) PTD WD DOOR W/DIVIDED LITES, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WDBD SIDING, TYP. E101 E202 E210E209 E105 E004 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE(+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 60°12 12 12 12 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6±6 (E) GROUND FLOOR F.F. (+36.9) 16 ' - 0 " (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS TO REMAIN (N) PTD WD WINDOWS. DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTERTAILS & PANELED WD EAVESTO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATIONTO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE &SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) LANAI STEPS TO MATCH(E) SHAPE & SIZE. NEWMATLS TO BE WD STAIRSW/LOW STUCCO SIDE WALLS (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO REMAIN, TYP.(N) COVEREDFRONT PORCH E209 E210 E202 R101 E101 RELOCATED & REFURBISHED PTD WD WINDOW. TRIM DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE(+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 12 6 12 6 1260° ±6 FENCED ENCLOSURE FOR POOL EQUIPMENT, TBD 12 ±6 6 12 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 ±6 (N) STUCCO AT ADDITION. FINISH TO MATCH (E) IN MATL & TEXTURE, TYP. 10 ' - 0 " (E) COMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/PROJECTING SILLS (E) CONCRETE STEPS & MTL.HANDRAIL (E) PTD WD DOOR W/DIVIDED LITES, TYP. (E) BALCONY (E) GLASS ROOF (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT, TYP.(E) WD STEPS & WD HANDRAIL (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSEDRAFTER TAILS &PANELED WDEAVES, TYP. (E) DOWNSPOUTS,TYP. E102 E204E201 E001 (E) CHIMNEY +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F.+10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE(+36.5) AVG. (E) GRADE (+35.2) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF (E) DETACHED GARAGE REFER TO A2.200 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 8'- 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 45° 45° PR O P E R T Y L I N E 6 1212 1212 12 ±6 ±6 ±6±6±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 (E) CHIMNEY 10 ' - 0 " (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLEROOFING, TYP. (N) STUCCO AT ADDITION. FINISH TO MATCH (E) IN MATL & TEXTURE, TYP. (N) PTD WD WINDOWS. DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP.(N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTERTAILS & PANELED WD EAVESTO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) PTD WD STAIRS (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF, TYP. (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF, TYP. E201 E204 E102 R102 R103 E001 RELOCATED &REFURBISHED PTD WDWINDOWS. TRIM DTLSTO MATCH (E), TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD SOFFITS TO REMAIN, TYP. (N) PTD WD STAIRS (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP (N) STUCCO PLANTER +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF(3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F.+0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.5) AVG. (E) GRADE(+35.2) (P) GROUND FLOOR F.F.(+36.9) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K 8'- 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 45° 45° PR O P E R T Y L I N E 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 1212 1212 ±6 ±6 6±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 6 12 (N) DECORATIVEWD FRONT DOOR (E) GROUND FLOOR F.F. -3'-6" 16 ' - 0 " (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLEROOFING, TYP. (E) BALCONY (E) GLASS ROOF (E) PTD WD WINDOW & PTD MOLDED WD SURROUNDS W/ PROJECTING SILLS (E) CHIMNEY E103 R101 E203 E205 E206 E104 E003E002E001 (E) BRICK LANAI STEPS AND MTL HANDRAIL 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT(MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F.+10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE+23'-10 3/4" VIF 60° 12 1212 12±3 ±6 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±3 (E) CHIMNEY (E) WD STEPS & WD HANDRAIL (E) STUCCO, TYP. (E) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES, TYP. (E) CONC. STEPS & MTL. HANDRAIL (E) CRAWL SPACE VENT, TYP. (E) HORIZONTAL WD BD SIDING, TYP. (E) GROUND FLOOR F.F. - (+36.9) 16 ' - 0 " POSITE SHINGLEROOFING, TYP. (E) PTD WDWINDOW & PTDMOLDED WDSURROUNDS W/PROJECTINGSILLS TO REMAIN (N) LANAI STEPS TO MATCH (E) SHAPE & SIZE. NEW MATLS TO BE WD STAIRS W/ LOW STUCCO SIDE WALLS (N) PTD WD WINDOW. DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) CHIMNEY IN (E) LOCATION TO MATCH (E) IN SHAPE & SIZE. CLAD IN STUCCO EXPOSED RAFTERNELED WD EAVESCH (E), TYP. UON. ED FRONT PORCH E103 E203 E205 E206 R102 R103 R104 R105 R106 R107 E002E001 E003 E104 (E) PTD EXPOSEDRAFTER TAILS &PANELED WD EAVESTO REMAIN, TYP. (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP 24 ' - 0 " R E A R Y A R D SP E C I A L S E T B A C K +30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +35.2) +26'-0" AFF (3RD FLOOR EQUIVALENCY) (E) SECOND FLOOR F.F. +10'-11" VIF (E) FIRST FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+40.4 VIF) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.12) (E) ROOF RIDGE +23'-10 3/4" VIF 60°6 12 12 1212 12 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 ±6 ±6 12 ±6 12 ±6 HVAC EQPT, TBD RELOCATED & REFURBISHED PTD WD WINDOWS. TRIM DTLS TO MATCH (E), TYP. SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4(E) EAST (EMBARCADERO RD.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3(P) EAST (EMBARCADERO RD.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"8(E) NORTH (WAVERLY ST.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"7(P) NORTH (WAVERLY ST.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2(E) WEST (MELVILLE AVE.) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1(P) WEST (MELVILLE AVE.) ELEVATION 04'8' 16' SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"6(E) SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"5(P) SOUTH ELEVATION GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT 3.a Packet Pg. 66 A2.200 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) & (P) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - DETACHED GARAGES DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) STUCCO WALL. FINISH TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP GARAGE FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+36.5 ) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.65) +12'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +36.65) 8' - 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1 3 6 12 6 12 (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) STUCCO WALL. FINISH TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP GARAGE FLOOR F.F. (+36.5 ) +12'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +36.65) 20 ' - 0 " F R O N T YA R D S E T B A C K 6 12 6 12 GARAGE FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+36.5 ) +12'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +36.65) 20 ' - 0 " F R O N T YA R D S E T B A C K 6 12 6 12 (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) STUCCO WALL. FINISH TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) PAINTED WD DOOR (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP +12'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (MEASURED FROM +36.65) GARAGE FLOOR F.F. +0'-0" (+36.5 ) AVG. (E) GRADE (+36.65) 8'- 0 " I N T E R I O R S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E 1 3 6 12 6 12 (N) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. (N) STUCCO WALL. FINISH TO MATCH (E), TYP. (N) PTD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS & PANELED WD EAVES TO MATCH (E), TYP. UON. (N) PAINTED WD DOOR (N) PTD BASE TRIM, TYP (E) DOWNSPOUT (E) STUCCO (E) HORIZONTAL WD SIDING (E) COMPOSITE SHINGE ROOFING (E) ELEC. PANEL TO BE RELOCATED (E) ROOF RIDGE +9'-3 5/8" (+49.7 VIF) (E) GARAGE F.F. (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) STUCCO (E) HORIZONTAL WD SIDING (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING (E) DOWNSPOUT (E) FENCE/GATE (E) ROOF RIDGE +9'-3 5/8" (+49.7 VIF) (E) GARAGE F.F. (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) DOWNSPOUT (E) STUCCO (E) HORIZONTAL WD SIDING (E) COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOFING (E) PAINTED WD DOOR (E) ROOF RIDGE +9'-3 5/8" (+49.7 VIF) (E) GARAGE F.F. 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T SI D E Y A R D S E T B A C K (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) STUCCO (E) HORIZONTAL WD SIDING (E) PAINTED WD DOOR (E) DOWNSPOUT (E) ROOF RIDGE +9'-3 5/8" (+49.7 VIF) (E) GARAGE F.F. 16 ' - 0 " S T R E E T SI D E Y A R D S E T B A C K (E) COMPOSITE SHINGE ROOFING (E) DETACHED GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(P) EAST GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"6(P) NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5(P) SOUTH GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(P) WEST (MELVILLE AVE.) GARAGE ELEVATION 02'4' 8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"8(E) NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"7(E) SOUTH GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4(E) EAST (EMBARCADERO RD.) GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3(E) WEST GARAGE ELEVATION 9(P) GARAGE DAYLIGHT PLANE 3D GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT GRADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DAYLIGHT PLANE SHALL BE AN AVERAGE OF THE GRADE AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE BUILDING & GRADE AT THE CLOSEST POINT ON THE ADJACENT LOT REFER TO 4/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION REFER TO 2/A2.104 FOR FULL DAYLIGHT PLANE INFORMATION 12 ' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 3 1 3.a Packet Pg. 67 A9.000 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) NON-FAR CALCS FLOOR BASEMENT ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E000 E001 E002 E003 AREA 263 52 99 448 862 sq ft (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (N) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED BLOCK E000 A: 263 sq ft BLOCK E002 A: 99 sq ft BLOCK E003 A: 448 sq ft BLOCK E001 A: 52 sq ft 16 ' - 2 " 6' - 4 " 18'-9"4'-11" 15'-6" 20'-4" 10 ' - 8 " 22 ' - 0 " 1(E) BASEMENT AREA CALCS 04'8'12' NON-FAR BASIS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS: - THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS IN A MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD WALLS - COVERED PARKING & ALL ACCESSORY BLGS GREATER THAN 120 SF - ALL SECOND & THIRD FLOOR EQUIVALENTS - BASEMENTS THAT COMPLY W/PATIO & LIGHTWELL REQTS OF 18.12.070 ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - GARDEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS ARBORS & TRELLISES W/A SEMI SOLID ROOF ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - STAIR WELLS AT ALL FLOOR & ALL AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% ENCLOSED AND COVERED - BAY WINDOW PROTRUSIONS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FDN & WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN 7FT IN LENGTH ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - CHIMNEYS & FIREBOXES/FIREPLACES ARE INCLUDED ONCE IN FAR AREA - EAVE OVERHANGS LESS THAN 4' ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - INT. SPACES W/PERIMETER WALLS ARE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - EXT. COVERED SPACES ARE MEASURED FROM EXT. FACE OF STUD IN EXT. WALL TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - 2ND FLOOR ROOFED OR ENCLOSED PORCHES, ARCADES, BALCONIES, PORTICOS, & BREEZEWAYS ARE COUNTED ONCE FAR CALCULATIONS LEGEND FLOOR AREA NOTES TOTAL (E) BASEMENT NON-FAR PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3.a Packet Pg. 68 A9.010 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) AREA CALCS & LOT COVERAGE DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) FAR CALCS (ADU) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E100 AREA 799 799 sq ft (E) FAR CALCS (DETACHED GARAGE) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E101 AREA 439 439 sq ft (E) FAR CALCS (MAIN HOUSE) FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E102 E103 E104 E105 E106 E107 E108 E109 AREA 1,729 86 66 301 209 100 451 253 3,195 sq ft (E) LOT COVERAGE FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME (E) ADU (E) CONSERVATORY STAIRS (E) GARAGE (E) KITCHEN PORCH (E) LANAI STAIRS (E) MAIN HOUSE (E) MELVILLE STAIRS ZONE NUMBER -- -- -- -- -- -- -- AREA 799 34 439 80 40 3,195 34 4,621 sq ft 5' - 5 " BLOCK E109 A: 253 sq ft (E) KITCHEN PORCH A: 80 sq ft (E) LANAI STAIRS A: 40 sq ft (E) CONSERVATORY STAIRS A: 34 sq ft (E) MELVILLE STAIRS A: 34 sq ft 5' - 3 " 4'- 1 0 " 31 ' - 9 " 9' - 4 " 13 ' - 1 " 9'- 4 " 12 ' - 7 " 4' - 7 " 4' - 1 1 " 16 ' - 9 " 11 ' - 8 " 52'-10"9'-6"9'-4" 17'-11" 5'-3"7'-5"5'-3" 7'-4" 3'-2" 6'-10" 15'-1" 6"3'-1"5'-0"20'-6" 15'-8" 2 2 ' - 1 " 2 ' - 1 " 32 ' - 9 " 6'- 4 " 22 ' - 0 " BLOCK E102 A: 1,729 sq ft BLOCK E108 A: 451 sq ft BLOCK E107 A: 100 sq ft BLOCK E104 A: 66 sq ft BLOCK E103 A: 86 sq ft BLOCK E106 A: 209 sq ft BLOCK E105 A: 301 sq ft 22 ' - 1 " 35'-11" 2' - 1 " 3'-10" BLOCK E100 A: 799 sq ft 1(E) FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCS 04'8'12' 3(E) ADU AREA CALCS 2(E) DETACHED GARAGE AREA CALCS (E) FAR BASIS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS: - THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS IN A MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD WALLS - COVERED PARKING & ALL ACCESSORY BLGS GREATER THAN 120 SF - ALL SECOND & THIRD FLOOR EQUIVALENTS - BASEMENTS THAT COMPLY W/PATIO & LIGHTWELL REQTS OF 18.12.070 ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - GARDEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS ARBORS & TRELLISES W/A SEMI SOLID ROOF ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - STAIR WELLS AT ALL FLOOR & ALL AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% ENCLOSED AND COVERED - BAY WINDOW PROTRUSIONS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FDN & WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN 7FT IN LENGTH ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - CHIMNEYS & FIREBOXES/FIREPLACES ARE INCLUDED ONCE IN FAR AREA - EAVE OVERHANGS LESS THAN 4' ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - INT. SPACES W/PERIMETER WALLS ARE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - EXT. COVERED SPACES ARE MEASURED FROM EXT. FACE OF STUD IN EXT. WALL TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - 2ND FLOOR ROOFED OR ENCLOSED PORCHES, ARCADES, BALCONIES, PORTICOS, & BREEZEWAYS ARE COUNTED ONCE FAR CALCULATIONS LEGEND LOT COVERAGE FLOOR AREA NOTES BASIS FOR LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS: - FOOTPRINTS OF ALL STRUCTURES INCLUDING MAIN RESIDENCE & DETACHED GARAGE -PROJECTING ELEMANTS SUCH AS PORCHES & PATIO COVERS -FOR ROOF OVERHANGS OR EAVES THAT EXCEED 4FT THE PORTION THAT IS BEYOND 4FT -ROOF OVERHANGS UP TO 4FT ARE EXCLUDED FROM LOT COVERAGE -UNCOVERED STRUCTURES LESS THAN 30" ABOVE GRADE ARE EXCLUDED FROM LOT COVERAGE LOT COVERAGE NOTES TOTAL (E) FIRST FLOOR AREA TOTAL (E) ADU FLOOR AREA TOTAL (E) DETACHED GARAGE FLOOR AREA TOTAL (E) LOT COVERAGE PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH <9,448 SF OK BLOCK E101 A: 439 sq ft 22'-1" 19 ' - 1 1 " 3.a Packet Pg. 69 A9.020 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (E) AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) FAR CALCS (ADU) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E100 AREA 799 799 sq ft (E) FAR CALCS (DETACHED GARAGE) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E101 AREA 439 439 sq ft (E) FAR CALCS (MAIN HOUSE) FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) SECOND FLOOR ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E102 E103 E104 E105 E106 E107 E108 E109 E200 E201 E202 AREA 1,729 86 66 301 209 100 451 253 3,195 sq ft 653 125 122 900 sq ft 4,095 sq ft (E) NON-FAR CALCS FLOOR BASEMENT SECOND FLOOR ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER E000 E001 E002 E003 E204 AREA 263 52 99 448 862 sq ft 85 85 sq ft 947 sq ft BLOCK E200 A: 653 sq ft BLOCK E201 A: 125 sq ft BLOCK E202 A: 122 sq ft BLOCK E204 A: 85 sq ft 12'-8" 9' - 8 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 32 ' - 1 1 " 19'-10" 8'-5" 1(E) SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCS 04'8'12' (E) FAR BASIS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS: - THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS IN A MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD WALLS - COVERED PARKING & ALL ACCESSORY BLGS GREATER THAN 120 SF - ALL SECOND & THIRD FLOOR EQUIVALENTS - BASEMENTS THAT COMPLY W/PATIO & LIGHTWELL REQTS OF 18.12.070 ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - GARDEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS ARBORS & TRELLISES W/A SEMI SOLID ROOF ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - STAIR WELLS AT ALL FLOOR & ALL AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% ENCLOSED AND COVERED - BAY WINDOW PROTRUSIONS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FDN & WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN 7FT IN LENGTH ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - CHIMNEYS & FIREBOXES/FIREPLACES ARE INCLUDED ONCE IN FAR AREA - EAVE OVERHANGS LESS THAN 4' ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - INT. SPACES W/PERIMETER WALLS ARE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - EXT. COVERED SPACES ARE MEASURED FROM EXT. FACE OF STUD IN EXT. WALL TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - 2ND FLOOR ROOFED OR ENCLOSED PORCHES, ARCADES, BALCONIES, PORTICOS, & BREEZEWAYS ARE COUNTED ONCE FAR CALCULATIONS LEGEND FLOOR AREA NOTES TOTAL (E) BASEMENT NON-FAR TOTAL (E) FIRST FLOOR AREA TOTAL (E) SECOND FLOOR AREA TOTAL (E) MAIN HOUSE AREA TOTAL (E) ADU FLOOR AREA TOTAL (E) DETACHED GARAGE FLOOR AREA EXISTING FAR (E) MAIN HOUSE (E) ADU (E) DETACHED GARAGE (E) TOTAL 4,095 SF 799 SF 439 SF 5,333 SF <5,800 SF OK <9,336 SF OK PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH NON-FAR TOTAL (E) NON-FAR TOTAL (E) SECOND FLOOR NON-FAR 3.a Packet Pg. 70 A9.100 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (P) NON-FAR CALCS FLOOR BASEMENT ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 000 001 002 AREA 30 21 143 194 sq ft (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (E) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (N) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (N) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (N) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED (N) CRAWLSPACE NOT INCLUDED BLOCK 002 A: 143 sq ft BLOCK 001 A: 21 sq ft BLOCK 000 A: 30 sq ft 3'-2"9'-5" 7'-7" 15 ' - 3 " 4' - 0 " 6'- 9 " 1(P) BASEMENT AREA CALCS 04'8'12' NON-FAR BASIS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS: - THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS IN A MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD WALLS - COVERED PARKING & ALL ACCESSORY BLGS GREATER THAN 120 SF - ALL SECOND & THIRD FLOOR EQUIVALENTS - BASEMENTS THAT COMPLY W/PATIO & LIGHTWELL REQTS OF 18.12.070 ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - GARDEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS ARBORS & TRELLISES W/A SEMI SOLID ROOF ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - STAIR WELLS AT ALL FLOOR & ALL AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% ENCLOSED AND COVERED - BAY WINDOW PROTRUSIONS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FDN & WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN 7FT IN LENGTH ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - CHIMNEYS & FIREBOXES/FIREPLACES ARE INCLUDED ONCE IN FAR AREA - EAVE OVERHANGS LESS THAN 4' ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - INT. SPACES W/PERIMETER WALLS ARE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - EXT. COVERED SPACES ARE MEASURED FROM EXT. FACE OF STUD IN EXT. WALL TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - 2ND FLOOR ROOFED OR ENCLOSED PORCHES, ARCADES, BALCONIES, PORTICOS, & BREEZEWAYS ARE COUNTED ONCE FAR CALCULATIONS LEGEND FLOOR AREA NOTES TOTAL (P) BASEMENT NON-FAR PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3.a Packet Pg. 71 A9.110 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) AREA CALCS & LOT COVERAGE DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) FAR CALCS (ADU) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 100 AREA 799 799 sq ft (P) FAR CALCS (DETACHED GARAGE) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 101 AREA 384 384 sq ft (P) FAR CALCS (MAIN HOUSE) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 AREA 199 1,729 86 66 301 209 576 865 4,031 sq ft (P) LOT COVERAGE FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME (E) ADU (P) FRONT PORCH (P) GARAGE (P) KITCHEN PORCH (P) LANAI STAIRS (P) MAIN HOUSE ZONE NUMBER -- -- -- -- -- -- AREA 799 88 384 455 40 4,031 5,797 sq ft 10'-4" 1'-6" 6'-8" 2'-0" 5'- 3 " 4' - 1 0 " (P) LANAI STAIRS A: 40 sq ft BLOCK 102 A: 199 sq ft BLOCK 109 A: 865 sq ft (P) KITCHEN PORCH A: 455 sq ft (P) FRONT PORCH A: 88 sq ft 5'-3" 4'-10" 31 ' - 9 " 9'- 4 " 13 ' - 1 " 9' - 4 " 30 ' - 0 " 19 ' - 9 " 4' - 0 " 4'- 1 " 17'-11" 5'-3"7'-5"5'-3" 3'-2" 3'-4" 18'-1" 13'-8"20'-6" 2 2 ' - 1 " 2 '- 1 " 3'-10" 20 ' - 4 " 8'- 8 " 1'- 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 7 " 3'-4" 38'-3" 52'-10" 32 ' - 9 " 28 ' - 1 " 9'-6"9'-4" 22 ' - 3 " BLOCK 103 A: 1,729 sq ft BLOCK 108 A: 576 sq ft BLOCK 105 A: 66 sq ft BLOCK 104 A: 86 sq ft BLOCK 107 A: 209 sq ft BLOCK 106 A: 301 sq ft BLOCK 101 A: 384 sq ft 29'-9" 12 ' - 1 1 " 22 ' - 1 " 35'-11" 2' - 1 " 3'-10" BLOCK 100 A: 799 sq ft 1(P) FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCS 04'8'12' 2(P) DETACHED GARAGE AREA CALCS 3(E) ADU AREA CALCS (P) FAR BASIS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS: - THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS IN A MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD WALLS - COVERED PARKING & ALL ACCESSORY BLGS GREATER THAN 120 SF - ALL SECOND & THIRD FLOOR EQUIVALENTS - BASEMENTS THAT COMPLY W/PATIO & LIGHTWELL REQTS OF 18.12.070 ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - GARDEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS ARBORS & TRELLISES W/A SEMI SOLID ROOF ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - STAIR WELLS AT ALL FLOOR & ALL AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% ENCLOSED AND COVERED - BAY WINDOW PROTRUSIONS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FDN & WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN 7FT IN LENGTH ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - CHIMNEYS & FIREBOXES/FIREPLACES ARE INCLUDED ONCE IN FAR AREA - EAVE OVERHANGS LESS THAN 4' ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - INT. SPACES W/PERIMETER WALLS ARE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - EXT. COVERED SPACES ARE MEASURED FROM EXT. FACE OF STUD IN EXT. WALL TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - 2ND FLOOR ROOFED OR ENCLOSED PORCHES, ARCADES, BALCONIES, PORTICOS, & BREEZEWAYS ARE COUNTED ONCE FAR CALCULATIONS LEGEND LOT COVERAGE FLOOR AREA NOTES BASIS FOR LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS: - FOOTPRINTS OF ALL STRUCTURES INCLUDING MAIN RESIDENCE & DETACHED GARAGE - PROJECTING ELEMENTS SUCH AS PORCHES & PATIO COVERS - FOR ROOF OVERHANGS OR EAVES THAT EXCEED 4FT THE PORTION THAT IS BEYOND 4FT - ROOF OVERHANGS UP TO 4FT ARE EXCLUDED FROM LOT COVERAGE - UNCOVERED STRUCTURES LESS THAN 30" ABOVE GRADE ARE EXCLUDED FROM LOT COVERAGE LOT COVERAGE NOTES TOTAL (P) FIRST FLOOR AREA TOTAL (E) ADU FLOOR AREA TOTAL (P) DETACHED GARAGE FLOOR AREA TOTAL (P) LOT COVERAGE PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH <9,448 SF OK 3.a Packet Pg. 72 A9.120 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. (P) AREA CALCS DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL (E) FAR CALCS (ADU) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 100 AREA 799 799 sq ft (P) FAR CALCS (DETACHED GARAGE) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) ZONE NAME BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 101 AREA 384 384 sq ft (P) NON-FAR CALCS FLOOR BASEMENT ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 000 001 002 AREA 30 21 143 194 sq ft (P) FAR CALCS (MAIN HOUSE) FLOOR FIRST FLOOR (+40.4) SECOND FLOOR ZONE NAME BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK ZONE NUMBER 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 200 201 202 AREA 199 1,729 86 66 301 209 576 865 4,031 sq ft 653 125 122 900 sq ft 4,931 sq ft BLOCK 202 A: 122 sq ft 12'-8" 9'- 8 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 32 ' - 1 1 " 19'-10" 8'-4" BLOCK 200 A: 653 sq ft BLOCK 201 A: 125 sq ft 1(P) SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCS 04'8'12' (P) FAR BASIS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS: - THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS IN A MAIN STRUCTURE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD WALLS - COVERED PARKING & ALL ACCESSORY BLGS GREATER THAN 120 SF - ALL SECOND & THIRD FLOOR EQUIVALENTS - BASEMENTS THAT COMPLY W/PATIO & LIGHTWELL REQTS OF 18.12.070 ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - GARDEN STRUCTURES, SUCH AS ARBORS & TRELLISES W/A SEMI SOLID ROOF ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - STAIR WELLS AT ALL FLOOR & ALL AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50% ENCLOSED AND COVERED - BAY WINDOW PROTRUSIONS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE FDN & WHICH ARE NO MORE THAN 7FT IN LENGTH ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - CHIMNEYS & FIREBOXES/FIREPLACES ARE INCLUDED ONCE IN FAR AREA - EAVE OVERHANGS LESS THAN 4' ARE EXCLUDED FROM FAR AREA - INT. SPACES W/PERIMETER WALLS ARE MEASURED TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - EXT. COVERED SPACES ARE MEASURED FROM EXT. FACE OF STUD IN EXT. WALL TO EXT. FACE OF STUD - 2ND FLOOR ROOFED OR ENCLOSED PORCHES, ARCADES, BALCONIES, PORTICOS, & BREEZEWAYS ARE COUNTED ONCE FAR CALCULATIONS LEGEND FLOOR AREA NOTES TOTAL (P) NON-FAR TOTAL (P) FIRST FLOOR AREA TOTAL (P) SECOND FLOOR AREA TOTAL (P) MAIN HOUSE AREA TOTAL (E) ADU FLOOR AREA TOTAL (P) DETACHED GARAGE FLOOR AREA PROPOSED FAR (P) MAIN HOUSE (E) ADU (P) DETACHED GARAGE (P) TOTAL 4,931 SF 799 SF 384 SF 6,114 SF <5,800 SF OK <9,336 SF OK PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 3.a Packet Pg. 73 T-2 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. ARBORIST REPORT DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL 1 359 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Assignment It was our assignment to physically inspect trees in the survey area based on a topographic map provided by the client. We were to map, tag and compile data for each tree and write an inventory/survey report documenting my observations. Summary This survey provides a numbered map with complete and detailed information for each tree surveyed. There are twenty-two trees included in this report. Twelve street trees and three Coast redwoods are protected trees under the City of Palo Alto’s regulated tree ordinance. None of the trees in this survey are recommended for removal. Discussion All the trees surveyed were examined and then rated based on their individual health and structure according to the table following. For example, a tree may be rated “good” under the health column for excellent/vigorous appearance and growth, while the same tree may be rated “fair/poor” in the structure column if structural mitigation is needed. More complete descriptions of how health and structure are rated can be found under the “Methods” section of this report. The complete list of trees and all relevant information, including their health and structure ratings, their “protected/significant” status, a map along with recommendations for their care can be found in the data sheet that accompanies this report. Rating Health Structure Good excellent/vigorous flawless Fair/good no significant health concerns very stable Fair showing initial or temporary disease, pests or lack of vitality. measures should be taken to improve health and appearance. routine maintenance needed such as pruning or end weight reduction as tree grows Fair/poor in decline, significant health issues significant structural weakness(es), mitigation needed, mitigation may or may not preserve the tree Poor dead or near dead hazard 2 Methods The trunks of the trees are measured using an arborist’s diameter tape at 54” above soil grade. In cases where the main trunk divides below 54”, the tree is measured (per the City of Palo Alto’s regulated tree ordinance) at the point where the trunks divide. In these cases, the height of that measurement is given in the notes column on the attached data sheet. The canopy height and spread are estimated using visual references only. The condition of each tree is assessed by visual observation only from a standing position without climbing or using aerial equipment. No invasive equipment is used. Consequently, it is possible that individual tree(s) may have internal (or underground) health problems or structural defects, which are not detectable by visual inspection. In cases where it is thought further investigation is warranted, a “full tree risk assessment” is recommended. This assessment may be inclusive of drilling or using sonar equipment to detect internal decay and include climbing or the use of aerial equipment to assess higher portions of the tree. The health of an individual tree is rated based on leaf color and size, canopy density, new shoot growth and the absence or presence of pests or disease. Individual tree structure is rated based on the growth pattern of the tree (including whether it is leaning); the presence or absence of poor limb attachments (such as co-dominant leaders); the length and weight of limbs and the extent and location of apparent decay. For each tree, a structural rating of fair or above indicates that the structure can be maintained with routine pruning such as removing dead branches and reducing end weight as the tree grows. A fair/poor rating indicates that the tree has significant structural weaknesses and corrective action is warranted. The notes section for that tree will then recommend a strategy/technique to improve the structure or mitigate structural stresses. A poor structural rating indicates that the tree or portions of the tree are likely to fail and that there is little that can constructively be done about the problem other than removal of the tree or large portions of the tree. Very large trees that are rated Fair/Poor for structure AND that are near structures or in an area frequently traveled by cars or people, receive an additional **CONSIDER REMOVAL” notation under recommendations. This is included because structural mitigation techniques do not guarantee against structural failure, especially in very large trees. Property owners may or may not choose to remove this type of tree but should be aware that if a very large tree experiences a major structural failure, the danger to nearby people or property is significant. Survey Area Observations The property is located in a residential area within the City of Palo Alto and is unoccupied. The lot is roughly rectangular with the property border on Embarcadero road heading diagonally to the Southwest. The property is a flat corner lot with only one parcel boarding on the Southwest side. 3 Tree Health on This Property Generally, the health of the trees in this survey area range from fair/good to fair/poor. All of the trees in this survey would benefit from regular maintenance, pruning and irrigation. Individual issues and recommendations for each tree are listed under the “Notes” column on the accompanying data sheet. Tree Structure on This Property Ideally, trees are pruned for structure when young and are properly mainained to reduce end- weight as they grow. This practice prevents excessively long, lateral branches that are prone to breaking off due to weight or wind. As mentioned above all trees on this property would benefit from routine maintenance, pruning and irrigation, therefore all trees have received fair/good to fair/poor structure ratings. Local Regulations Governing Trees Public/Street Trees All public trees are regulated. Public or street trees are all trees growing within the street right-of-way, on public property such as parks, and outside private property. In some cases, property lines lie several feet behind the sidewalks. A permit from the Public Works and Planning Departments is required prior to any work on or within the dripline of any public/street tree. Protected Trees Protected trees include trees of specific species or distinctive character, public or private. Individual species of trees that are protected are all Coast Live Oaks, Valley Oaks (greater than 11.5 inches in diameter), and Coast Redwood (greater than 18 inches in diameter). Heritage Trees are also protected. Heritage trees are individual trees of any size or species or historical significance that are deemed as such by City Council. Property owners may also nominate a tree for Heritage Tree status if it has characteristics that are distinctive. Designated Trees Designated trees are all trees (public and private), when associated with a development project, that are specifically designated by the City to be saved and protected on public and private property which is subject to discretionary development review. These instances can include variances, home improvement exceptions, architectural reviews, site and design reviews, subdivision reviews, etc. 4 Risks to Trees by Construction Besides the above-mentioned health and structure-related issues, the trees at this site could be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems; the trenching across the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation; or the routing of construction traffic across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root dieback. It is therefore essential that Tree Protection Fencing be used as per the Architect’s drawings. In constructing underground utilities, it is essential that the location of trenches be done outside the drip lines of trees except where approved by the Arborist. General Tree Protection Plan Protective fencing is required to be provided during the construction period to protect trees to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. Fencing is recommended to be located 8 to 10 X the diameter at breast height (DBH) in all directions from the tree. DBH for each tree is shown in the attached data table. The minimum recommendation for tree protection fencing location is 6 X the DBH, where a larger distance is not possible. There are areas where we will amend this distance based upon tree condition and proposed construction. In my experience, the protective fencing must: a. Consist of chain link fencing and having a minimum height of 6 feet. b. Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. c. Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center. d. Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment. e. Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed, unless approved be a certified arborist. f. Tree Protection Signage shall be mounted to all individual tree protection fences. Based on the existing development and the condition and location of trees present on site, the following is recommended: 1. The Project Arborists is Michael Young (650) 321-0202. A Project Arborist should supervise any excavation activities within the tree protection zone of these trees. 2. Any roots exposed during construction activities that are larger than 2 inches in diameter should not be cut or damaged until the project Arborist has an opportunity to assess the impact that removing these roots could have on the trees. 3. The area under the drip line of trees should be thoroughly irrigated to a soil depth of 18” every 3-4 weeks during the dry months. 4. Mulch should cover all bare soils within the tree protection fencing. This material must be 6-8 inches in depth after spreading, which must be done by hand. Course wood chips are preferred because they are organic and degrade naturally over time. 5. Loose soil and mulch must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root zones or the root collars of protected trees. 5 6. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically approved by a Certified Arborist. For trenching, this means: a. Trenches for any underground utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a Certified Arborist. Alternative methods of installation may be suggested. b. Landscape irrigation trenches must be located a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunks of protected trees unless otherwise noted and approved by the Arborist. 7. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected trees. 8. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. 9. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 10. Landscape irrigation systems must be designed to avoid water striking the trunks of trees, especially oak trees. 11. Any pruning must be done by a Company with an Arborist Certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 12. Any plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publication detailing plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from The California Oak Foundation’s 1991 publication “Compatible Plants Under & Around Oaks” details plants compatible with California native oaks and is currently available online at: http://californiaoaks.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/CompatiblePlantsUnderAroundOaks.pdf + + + + + I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge and that this report was prepared in good faith. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. Respectfully, Michael P. Young (650) 321-0202 | po box 971 los gatos ca 95031 | urbantreemanagement.com contractor’s license # 755989 | certified arborist WC#23 | certified tree risk assessor #1399 Tree Inventory of 359 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared by Urban Tree Management, Inc. May 18, 2020 3.a Packet Pg. 74 T-3 FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 81 ENCINA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650.459.3700 www.fg-arch.com LICE N S E D ARCH I T E C T S T A T E OFCAL I F O R NIA DANIEL MASON GARBER C-28915 03-31-2021 35 9 E M B A R C A D E R O R D . : 8 / 7 / 2 0 1 : 4 3 P M 359 EMBARCADERO RD. ARBORIST REPORT DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUANCES © FERGUS GARBER ARCHITECTS 2020 REV 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD PALO ALTO CA 08/06/20 HRB SUBMITTAL 6 TREE SURVEY DATA URBAN TREE MANAGEMENT INC., Los Gatos, CA Address:359 Embarcadero Rd Palo Alto, CA 94301 Inspection Date:5/18/ 2020 KEY Ratings For health and structure are given separately for each tree according to the table below. Good IE, a tree may be rated "Good" under the health column For excellent, vigorous appearance and Fair, Good growth, while the same tree may be rated "Fair, Poor" in the structure column if structural mitigation is needed. Fair Fair, Poor Poor Tag no Common Name Diameter at Breast Height (in)2 W/H HEALTH STRUCTURE PROTECTED (X) REMOVAL (X) PROTECTED REMOVAL (XX) NOTES, RECOMMENDATIONS 450 Magnolia 7 15'/20' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, thin canopy, multiple leaders at 8', street tree 451 Chinese hackberry 6.75 15'/25' f f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, multiple leaders at 9', street tree 452 Magnolia 13 28'/30' f f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, multiple leaders at 9', street tree 453 London plane 4.5 12'/20' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, thin canopy, street tree 454 London plane 2.25 8'/12' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, thin canopy, street tree 455 Liquidambar 13.25 20'/40' f f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, codominant leaders at 7' with good attachment, street tree 456 London plane 4 12'/18' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, thin canopy, street tree 457 London plane 4.25 15'/20' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, thin canopy, street tree 458 London plane 3.5 15'/20' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, thin canopy, street tree 459 Silver maple 12 25'/35' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, codominant leaders at 9', thin canopy, street tree 460 Ash 15.5 40'/45' fp f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, codominant leaders at 7', thin canopy, street tree 461 Ash 17.5 45'/45' f f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, multiple leaders at 7', street tree 462 Coast redwood 27 30'/75' fg fg x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP 463 Coast redwood 17.5 25'/55' fg fg Recommend EWR, DWR, SP 464 Coast redwood 34.75 40'/75' fg f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, tree was topped 465 Coast redwood 30.5 35'/75' fg f x Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, tree was topped 466 Coast live oak 2.5 8'/15' f fp Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, leaning heavily needs support as a young tree 467 Loquat 5/4.75/4.5/3.5/2 25'/20' f fp Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, multiple leaders from base, leaning 468 Olive 18 30'/35' fp f Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, multiple leaders at 12', thin canopy 469 California fan palm 14.75 12'/25' f f Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE 470 Eucalyptus 35/39 65'/85' fg f Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE, codominant leaders at base 471 Canary island date palm 27.5 35'/45' f f Recommend EWR, DWR, SP, RCE TOTAL TREES 22 PROTECTED TOTAL 15 REMOVAL TOTAL 0 PROTECTED REMOVALS TOTAL 0 KEY TO ACRONYMS DWR - Dead Wood Removal EWR - End Weight Reduction: pruning to remove weight from limb ends, thus reducing the potential for limb failure RCE - Root Collar Excavation: excavating a small area around a tree that is currently buried by soil or refuse above buttress roots, usually done with a hand shovel. SP - Structural pruning - removal of selected non-dominant leaders in order to balance the tree Public/Street Trees All public trees are regulated. Public or street trees are all trees growing within the street right-of-way, on public property such as parks, and outside private property. In some cases property lines lie several feet behind the sidewalks. A permit from the Public Works and Planning Departments is required prior to any work on or within the dripline of any public/street tree. Protected Trees Protected trees include trees of specific species or distinctive character, public or private. Individual species of trees that are protected are all Coast Live Oaks, Valley Oaks (greater than 11.5 inches in diameter), and Coast Redwood (greater than 18 inches in diameter). Heritage Trees are also protected. Heritage trees are individual trees of any size or species or historical significance that are deemed as such by City Council. Property owners may also nominate a tree for Heritage Tree status if it has characteristics that are distinctive. Designated Trees Designated trees are all trees (public and private), when associated with a development project, that are specifically designated by the City to be saved and protected on public and private property which is subject to discretionary development review. These instances can include variances, home improvement exceptions, architectural reviews, site and design reviews, subdivision reviews, etc. Common Name Latin Name Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora Chinese hackberry Celtis sinensis London plane Platanus × acerifolia Liquidambar Liquidambar styraciflua Silver maple Acer saccharinum Ash Fraxinus sp. Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Loquat Eriobotrya japonica Olive Olea europaea California fan palm Washingtonia filifera Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus Canary island date palm Phoenix canariensis dead or near dead hazard Health Structure excellent, vigorous flawless no significant health concerns very stable declining; measures should be taken to improve health and appearance routine maintenance needed in decline: significant health issues mitigation needed, it may or may not preserve this tree 1TREE SURVEY DIAGRAM 2TREE SURVEY DATA 3.a Packet Pg. 75 3.a Packet Pg. 76 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road Proposed Renovation and Addition at 359 Embarcadero Road Response to Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines in regard to renovation of the existing home at 359 Embarcadero Road. This document outlines Fergus Garber Architects’ response to the guidelines regarding the renovation of a Category 4 historic home within the Professorville district, at 359 Embarcadero Road. Using the design guidelines indicated below, we believe that the proposed renovation and addition will remain within the character of the neighborhood and within the character of the existing residence. For reference, included in this document are photos of the historic facade from Embarcadero Road taken circa 1904 (Fig 1, page 11), present day (Fig 2, page 12) and a rendering of the same view with the proposed design (Fig 3, page 12). Additional reference materials are also provided at the end of this letter to supplement written discussions below, as noted. 3. Guidelines for Maintaining, Repairing, and Replacing Historic Materials 3.1 Historic exterior materials should be maintained and repaired whenever possible, and if deteriorated they should be replaced in kind. 3.1.1 Historic wall cladding materials should be maintained and repaired, in order to keep them in good working condition. Deteriorated historic exterior cladding materials should be replaced in kind to match the material, size, and profile of the original as closely as possible. - Stucco: The proposed design will retain as much existing stucco cladding material as feasible. However, because most of the stucco cladding is original (120 years old), the contractor may suggest upgrades to waterproofing in select locations; for longevity and reliability in the years ahead. In the event that the exterior stucco is found to be deteriorated in some locations, it will be replaced in kind to match the material and texture of the original as closely as possible. - Horizontal wood siding: Per the HRE, the horizontal wood board siding was 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 77 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 2 installed in 1989. As such, this material is not considered to be a historic wall cladding material. The proposed design indicates removal of the horizontal wood board siding and replacement with stucco cladding to the bottom of the wall, finished with a horizontal base. The proposed base will be detailed to closely align with the original design intent per drawings provided in the HRE and in a manner more typical to Prairie School architecture. 3.1.2 Historic roofing materials should be maintained and repaired in place. Failing roofing materials should be replaced with the goal of matching the material and appearance of the original as closely as possible. - Not applicable. In 2018 the subject building was reroofed with a composite shingle system. 3.2 Repair Historic Windows and Doors Whenever Feasible, and Replace in Kind Where Necessary. 3.2.1 Historic windows are important character-defining features and should be retained and repaired when feasible. - The proposed design retains and repairs as many historic windows as is feasible. Please refer to the Historic Window Plans (Fig 4 - 6, pages 13 & 14) for graphic representation of which windows in the existing house are indicated by the HRE as original historic windows. Windows that have been altered in past renovations are not included in the historic counts for consideration below.The proposed design preserves all but (6) of (34) existing historic windows. Specifics are as follows: Second Floor: - All (10) second story historic windows will be retained and repaired in their original locations. *Windows E201 - E210 on the plans. First Floor: - (13) of (16) first floor historic windows will be retained as follows: - (5) historic windows will be retained and repaired in their original locations. *Windows E101 - E105 on the plans. - (8) first floor historic windows are indicated to be retained, repaired, and relocated to historic locations in an effort to preserve historic material and to more closely resemble the originally intended design. *Windows R101 - R108 on the plans. Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 78 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 3 Basement: - (5) of the (8) basement historic crawlspace awning windows will be retained and repaired in their original locations. *Windows E001 - E005 on the plans. 3.2.2 The appearance and location of historic doors should be maintained. - The proposed design retains the existing historic front door in its original location on the Embarcadero facade. *Door E100 on the plans. 3.3 Additional Character-Defining Features That Contribute to an Early Residence’s Visual Appeal Should Be Preserved. 3.3.1 Repair character-defining decorative features, and if replacement is required match the new as closely as possible to the original. - Paneled eaves, exposed rafter tails, and trims: The proposed design will retain as much of the existing paneled eaves, exposed rafter tails, and trim material as feasible. If replacement is required due to deterioration in some locations, it will be detailed to match the original as closely as possible. - Window trim at existing windows to remain: The proposed design will retain as much of the existing window trim with wide molded wood surrounds at existing windows as feasible. If replacement is required due to deterioration in some locations, it will be detailed to match the original as closely as possible. 3.3.2 Consider recreating missing historic features of a residence, if adequate documentation exists to determine its historic appearance and materials. - Windows: - The proposed design will replace the existing non-historic glass block window at the existing first floor North facade with a historic window to preserve historic material and to more closely resemble the originally intended design as documented in the historic elevations. *Window R101 on the plans. - The proposed design will replace the existing non-historic windows at the enclosed angled porch on the South facade with relocated historic windows to preserve historic material and to more closely resemble the originally intended design as documented in the historic elevations and photo circa Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 79 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 4 1904 (Fig 1, page 11). *Windows R102 - R108 on the plans. -Embarcadero Facade Features - Chimney: The existing chimney at the East Facade was noted as plaster in the original drawings, but is currently clad in painted metal. The proposed design intends to replace the chimney in kind for shape and size, but clad in stucco; its originally intended material. - Front Stair: The front stair to the covered porch on the East Facade was originally a wood stair with stucco walls per original drawings and photo circa 1904 (Fig 1, page 11), but was later reconstructed entirely of brick. The proposed design intends to replace the stair to match original shape and size, but constructed of wood stairs and stucco side walls; per originally intended materials. The proposed design would also remove the non-historic metal handrail added to the center of the stairs and replace it with a simple, appropriate, code compliant side handrail. Please refer to Existing East Elevation and Proposed East Elevation images at the end of this document (Fig 7 & 8, page 15). 3.4 The Historic Character of Homes Should Be an Important Consideration When Exploring Green Technology. 3.4.1 Solar panels and other energy capture devices should be placed to have as small an impact on historic character as possible. - The proposed solar panel array will have little impact on the historic character of the home given the proposed areas will be located on the South roof over the proposed Master Bedroom wing and the West roof over the proposed kitchen wing. Neither roof is visible from Embarcadero; the historic front facade of the home. Please refer to the Proposed Roof Plan sheets A1.300 - A1.302 for graphic indication of these locations. 3.4.2 Sustainable materials should be considered while planning exterior alterations. - The client is very interested in the use of sustainable materials. There will be a large effort to remodel this house sustainably. Given the project is still in the schematic design phase, exact product specifications are yet to be determined. Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 80 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 5 4. Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from Early Periods of Development (c. 1890-1930s) 4.1 New Additions to Early Residences Should Respect The Primacy of the Original Building. 4.1.1 Additions should be placed on their lots where they will not distract from the volume of the original residence. - The proposed addition is located at the end of the existing kitchen wing with its Embarcadero facade sitting +/- 9’-4” back from the front-most projection of the existing covered porch; respecting the existing volume and its hierarchy. Additionally, the addition’s height and volume differentiates from the original building by stepping the finish floor and plate height down +/- 3’-6”, closer to grade. Please refer to the Proposed Elevation sheets A2.100 - A2.103 for graphic representation of the massing. 4.1.2 New additions should be sized appropriately to their lots and the scale of the residence. - The proposed addition and detached garage adds only 695 gross square feet to the property. In addition, the proposed structure finished floor drops +/- 3’-6” below the existing finish floor to allow a lower plate height at the addition, respecting the volume of the existing structure. We believe that these features are modest in floor area and respect the scale of the lot and existing residence. 4.2 The Architectural Character of a New Addition Should Be Compatible with, Yet Differentiated from, the Original Residence. 4.2.1 The massing and roof forms of an addition should draw on the architectural cues of the existing residence. - The proposed massing and roof forms of the addition draw on the architectural cues of the existing residence by matching the general volume width and roof pitches. The eave overhangs, however, are pulled in to differentiate new roofs from existing. Furthermore, the volume and finished floor height of the addition steps down to clearly differentiate it from the original building. Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 81 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 6 4.2.2 The characteristic materials of a residence should inform the choice of materials for a new addition. - The proposed materials of the addition will match the existing; painted wood windows and trims, stucco cladding, and composite roofing. 4.2.3 The fenestration pattern of an addition should generally match that of the existing residence. - The proposed fenestration pattern of double hung and casement windows at the addition nods to existing window types, sizes, and proportions in an effort to generally match those of the existing residence; but will not exactly replicate, therefore differentiating the new windows from the existing ones. No new window types are proposed to be introduced. 4.2.4 An effort should be made to differentiate an addition from the original building. - The proposed addition towards the Waverly property line not only steps down in finish floor height and plate height, but differentiates its volume by changing the plane of the Embarcadero facade; helping to distinguish itself as secondary to the front-most main symmetrical two-story mass of the original building. 4.3 New Dormers and Second-Story Additions Should Be Designed to Be Compatible with the Character of the Original Residence. 4.3.1 New dormers should be scaled so as to retain the predominance of the original roof form and the overall character of the neighborhood. - Not applicable. Neither the existing design nor proposed includes dormers. 4.3.2 The architectural character of a residence should guide the design of a new dormer. - Not applicable. Neither the existing design nor proposed includes dormers. 4.4 Garages and Other Accessory Buildings Dating to the Early Period of Development Can Be Converted for Other Uses, But Retaining Their Historic Character Should Be an Important Goal of the Project. Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 82 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 7 4.4.1 Historic accessory buildings, such as garages and carriage barns, are important components of each property and should be preserved. - Not applicable. The existing garage was added in 1989, along with the ADU. 4.4.2 New accessory dwelling units constructed on early properties should be designed and placed so that they are visually unobtrusive and respect the primacy of the earlier residence. - The proposed accessory / detached garage on Melville Avenue sits far back from the historic Embarcadero facade and as such is visually unobtrusive and respectful of the original residence. 4.5 A Residence Should Not Be Lifted or Moved on Its Lot. 4.5.1 Early residences in Professorville should not be raised above their historic height in order to accommodate a higher basement level. - Not applicable. The existing height and basement level will remain as is. 4.5.2 In nearly every case, early residences should be left in their original locations. If moved, a home’s character-defining orientation and setting should be maintained. - Not applicable. The existing home will remain in its original location with its character-defining orientation and setting maintained. 4.6 Demolition of Features and Volumes on an Early Residence Should Be Minimized as Much as Possible. 4.6.1 Do not demolish homes that contribute to Professorville’s historic character. - Not applicable. The proposed design does not demolish the existing home. 4.6.2 Selectively demolishing character-defining features and volumes diminishes the overall historic character of a home and should be avoided. - The clients have heavily compromised their original vision for their new home in an attempt to avoid demolishing character defining features and volumes per the recommendations given by Page & Turnbull on behalf of city staff in the preliminary design meeting. Part of their preservation attempts include: Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 83 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 8 - Reducing the size and massing of the proposed addition following initial feedback - Only locating additions at non-character defining facades - Only removing volumes inside of the exterior-most facade - Only removing (6) of the (34) historic windows (Fig 4 - 6, pages 13 & 14) - Only making changes in massing towards the end of the historically compromised kitchen wing which has undergone non-historical renovations in 1924, 1969, 1989, and 1993 - In addition, the clients have decided to spend their time and money restoring other parts of the house back to its original state including: - Restoring the angled porch on the South facade to more closely resemble its originally intended state. - Restoring the North facade of the bedroom wing to more closely resemble its original state. - Restoring the front step materials to closer resemble the original material palette. (Fig 7 & 8, page 15) 4.6.3 An existing addition that was constructed during Professorville’s early period of development (through the 1930s) contributes to the residence’s historic character. - Per page 22 of the HRE, “The first known major alteration to occur to the subject building was the addition of a screened porch with a flat roof in the location of the existing sunroom. This feature was added prior to 1924… In 1989, a permit submitted by Gain and Jane John included... scopes for replacing the enclosed porch with a new sunroom.” This addition is not original to the building and was remodeled both in program and structure after Professorville’s early period of development. Page & Turnbull found this addition to be non-character defining. Because the addition was limited to the rear facade and is not in keeping with the original massing nor design features, we feel that the proposed design is more aligned with the original architectural intent, and that the removal of this sunroom is a positive change. Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 84 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 9 Response to Page & Turnbull’s Character defining features in regard to renovation of the existing home at 359 Embarcadero Road. “The following character defining features have been identified for 359 Embarcadero Road and convey the property’s significance as a Prairie style residence designed by Bertrand & Chamberlin and constructed in 1901” Irregular massing consisting of a central two-story section with projecting one-story volumes - The proposed design retains this character defining feature. Stucco cladding -The proposed design retains this character defining feature. Please refer to Section 3.1.1 above for discussion regarding original stucco. Hipped roof with wide eaves, exposed rafter tails, and wood paneled soffits -The proposed design retains these character defining features intact at the second floor, the Embarcadero covered porch, and both existing one story wings. - At the existing and proposed kitchen wing: the majority of the roof is to be retained but the proposed roofline is modified where it intersects the two story volume for a cleaner architectural expression; as precedented by the Prairie School Style. At this intersection, some original material will be modified to accommodate these changes. - At the proposed addition: the new rafter tails, roof trims, and wood paneled eaves will be detailed to match existing, but project out from the house slightly less to differentiate the new mass from the old. -At the Melville facade: the proposed roofline is extended to accommodate a new front porch. Open-air front porch with enclosed central room and asymmetrically placed primary entrance - The proposed design alters the open-air front porch as it removes the enclosed central room. The asymmetrically placed primary entrance is retained and the new fenestration along that facade maintains an asymmetrical elevation. - Note: in the proposed design, the formal entry door will be along Melville. Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 85 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 10 However, the historic entry door location is proposed to be retained to honor the historic property. While the owner has agreed to the request by Page & Turnbull to keep the original door in this location, should the HRB allow it, the owner would prefer to move the door to the new Melville side so the historic door can be highlighted as the new front door. Symmetry of front porch, front stairs, and two-story volume along the east facade, including the intersection of the hipped roof over the front porch with the second-story roofline and interior chimney -The proposed design retains the symmetry of the front porch, front stairs, and two-story volume along the east facade, including the intersection of the hipped roof over the front porch with the second-story roofline and interior chimney. These features are largely unchanged in the proposed design. (Fig 7 & 8, page 15) Partially glazed wood door at primary entrance with oversized decorative metal hardware -The proposed design retains this character defining feature, per the recommendation given by Page & Turnbull on behalf of city staff in the preliminary design meeting. Additional enclosed angled porch on south facade -The proposed design retains this character defining feature while making an effort to replace the windows with more historically accurate windows to match the rest of the residence. Additionally, the proposed design replaces the glazed roof and balcony above this area with a solid roof to match the typical roof throughout the residence. During the preliminary design discussion with Page & Turnbull, this design change was noted as a positive improvement. Original multi-lite windows, including asymmetrically divided double-hung windows and paired casement windows -The proposed design retains this character defining feature. Please refer to Section 3.2.1 above for discussion regarding the original windows. Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 86 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 11 Door and window enframements with wide molded wood surrounds -The existing door and window enframements with wide molded wood surrounds will be kept at all existing windows proposed to remain, where feasible. Proposed doors and window trims will be detailed to match existing, for continuity. FIGURE 1: PHOTO OF HISTORIC FACADE FROM EMBARCADERO ROAD, TAKEN CIRCA 1904 Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 87 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 12 FIGURE 2: PHOTO OF HISTORIC FACADE FROM EMBARCADERO ROAD, TAKEN PRESENT DAY 2020 FIGURE 3: RENDERING OF HISTORIC FACADE FROM EMBARCADERO ROAD WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 88 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 13 FIGURE 4: HISTORICAL WINDOW PLAN, SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE INDICATED BY THE HRE AS ORIGINAL HISTORICAL UNITS ALL (10) HISTORICAL WINDOWS WILL BE RETAINED & REPAIRED IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATIONS FIGURE 5: HISTORICAL WINDOW PLAN, FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE INDICATED BY THE HRE AS ORIGINAL HISTORICAL UNITS (5) HISTORICAL WINDOWS WILL BE RETAINED & REPAIRED IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATIONS, (8) TO BE RELOCATED Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 89 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 14 FIGURE 6: HISTORICAL WINDOW PLAN, BASEMENT FLOOR WINDOWS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ARE INDICATED BY THE HRE AS ORIGINAL HISTORICAL UNITS (5) HISTORICAL CRAWLSPACE WINDOWS WILL BE RETAINED & REPAIRED IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATIONS Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 90 August 6, 2020 Historic Review Board Project: 359 Embarcadero Road page 15 FIGURE 7: EXISTING EAST ELEVATION OF SYMMETRICAL TWO-STORY MASS, COVERED PORCH, & STAIR FIGURE 8: PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION OF SYMMETRICAL TWO-STORY MASS, COVERED PORCH, & STAIR Fergus Garber Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto , CA 94301 phone (650) 459.3700 3.b Packet Pg. 91 imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA [16252A.38] PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PALO ALTO JUNE 15, 2020 DRAFT 3.c Packet Pg. 92 3.c Packet Pg. 93 Historic Resource Evaluation 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS .............................................................................. 2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ............................................................................................ 2 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 2 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ............................................................................... 2 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .......................................................................................................... 3 PALO ALTO HISTORIC SURVEY UPDATE .................................................................................................. 4 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 6 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD .................................................................................................................... 6 MAIN RESIDENCE .................................................................................................................................. 6 GARAGE AT 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD ............................................................................................... 12 ACCESSORY DWELLING AT 1300 WAVERLY STREET .............................................................................. 12 ENTRANCE GATE ................................................................................................................................. 13 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ...................................................................................................... 14 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 15 PALO ALTO HISTORY ............................................................................................................................ 15 PROFESSORVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD ..................................................................................................... 16 V. PROPERTY HISTORY ........................................................................................... 18 DEVELOPMENT OF 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD ................................................................................... 18 OWNERSHIP HISTORY .......................................................................................................................... 23 BERTRAND & CHAMBERLIN, ARCHITECT ............................................................................................ 25 DESIGN OF 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD ............................................................................................... 27 VI. EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 28 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 28 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ...................................................................................................... 30 INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................ 31 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 34 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 35 3.c Packet Pg. 94 3.c Packet Pg. 95 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -1- 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 359 Embarcadero Road (APN 120-20-025). The subject property is located on an irregularly shaped block on the south side of Waverly Street between the Embarcadero Road and Melville Avenue. The property is located along the southeastern edge of the Professorville neighborhood of Palo Alto in a R-1 (Residential single-family) zoning district. The irregularly shaped parcel consists of approximately 23,620-square-feet and contains a single-family residence, a detached garage, and a freestanding accessory dwelling (Figure 1). The residence, alternately addressed as 374 Melville Avenue (and briefly as 370 Embarcadero Road) was erected in 1901, and designed by Bertrand & Chamberlin, an architectural firm operating out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Prairie style building was constructed by local builder George W. Mosher for the original owner-occupant Sylvester Strong and his wife Sarah L. Strong. 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 359 Embarcadero Road. 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 at various local repositories, including the Palo Alto Development Services and the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA), as well as 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 2020, unless otherwise noted. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This HRE finds that 359 Embarcadero Road appears to qualify as an eligible individual historic resource for the purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to its unusual Prairie style as designed by Bertrand & Chamberlin, a well-known Minnesota firm. The building additionally is a contributing resource to the locally designated Professorville Historic District. 3.c Packet Pg. 96 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -2- Page & Turnbull II. EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to 359 Embarcadero Road. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 359 Embarcadero Road is not currently listed in the National Register. The subject building is located outside the boundaries of the National Register listed Professorville Historic District, and therefore is not a contributing resource to the National Register listed historic district. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. 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. 359 Embarcadero Road 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. 359 Embarcadero Road is listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database with a status code of 5S2.1 A status code of 5S2 entails that the property “is eligible for local listing or designation.”2 The most recent update to the CHRIS database for Santa Clara County that lists the status codes was in April 2012. 1 California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, Updated April 2012. 2 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 May 22, 2020, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf. 3.c Packet Pg. 97 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -3- Page & Turnbull 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: ƒ 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. ƒ 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. ƒ 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. Palo Alto Professorville Historic District The City of Palo Alto adopted the Professorville Historic District to the City’s Historic Inventory in 1979. At the time of listing in 1979, the local Palo Alto district used the same boundaries as established in the National Register nomination for the district. In 1993, the locally designated district’s boundaries were expanded east to Embarcadero Road, beyond the earlier identified district, encompassing the block of the subject building (Figure 2). 359 Embarcadero Road is listed as a Category 4 building in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory and is considered a Category 4 or Contributing Building to the Professorville Historic District as it is located within the existing boundaries of the historic district 3.c Packet Pg. 98 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -4- Page & Turnbull Figure 2: Professorville Historic District Boundaries. Source: Page & Turnbull, Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines, (Palo Alto, CA: October 2016), 11. Edited by Page & Turnbull with subject parcel shaded orange. PALO ALTO HISTORIC SURVEY UPDATE Between 1997 and 2000, a comprehensive update to the 1979 Historic Inventory was undertaken by historic preservation firm Dames & Moore.3 The goal of this update was to identify additional properties in Palo Alto that were eligible to the National Register. This effort began with a reconnaissance survey of approximately 6,600 properties constructed prior to 1947. The reconnaissance survey produced two Study Priority lists. Approximately 600 properties were identified as Study Priority 1, indicating they appeared individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C (Architecture). Approximately 2,700 properties were identified as Study Priority 2, representing those properties that did not appear individually eligible to the National Register under Criterion C (including common local building types) but retained high integrity. 4 The reconnaissance survey was followed by an intensive-level survey of all Study Priority 1 and 2 properties. Historic research was conducted on the owners, architects/builders, and past uses of the Study Priority 1 properties. Research also informed the preparation of historic context statements on topics such as local property types, significant historical themes, and prolific architects and builders, in order to identify any potential significant associations of Study Priority 2 properties. 3 Dames & Moore, Michael Corbett, and Denise Bradley. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, February 2001. 4 Ibid., 2-5. 3.c Packet Pg. 99 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -5- Page & Turnbull In January 1999, Dames & Moore prepared an interim findings report that listed preliminary evaluations of the National Register and California Register eligibility of Study Priority 1 and 2 properties. 291 properties were found potentially eligible as individual resources to the National Register and California Register. 1,789 further properties were found potentially eligible to the California Register only. Because the survey focused on determining National Register eligibility, the project did not finalize the preliminary evaluations regarding potential California Register eligibility. 359 Embarcadero Road is not listed with the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update. 3.c Packet Pg. 100 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -6- Page & Turnbull III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD 359 Embarcadero Road contains a two-story, single-family home built in 1901, and a detached garage and an accessory dwelling, both built in 1989 (Figure 3). All three buildings are clad in lightly textured stucco and sit on concrete foundations. MAIN RESIDENCE The residence is irregular in plan with a central two-story section with one-story projecting volumes extending orthogonally. Along the primary façade, an open-air covered porch that contains the primary residential entrance extends toward Embarcadero Road. An enclosed sunroom within an angled bay extends to the south, a one-story bedroom wing extends to the west (towards Melville Avenue), and a one-story kitchen wing extends to the north. An enclosed one-story sunroom sits between the kitchen wing and bedroom wing on the northwest side of the building. All rooflines are hipped and are clad in composite material, apart from the sunroom which features a flat roof. Along the hipped roofs, wide eaves contain exposed rafter tails and paneled wood soffits. The building is clad primarily in textured stucco with a section of horizontal wood cladding along the basement level of some façades. Two window types with wood frames and surrounds – including three-over-one asymmetrically divided double-hung sash and paired six-lite casement sash – are repeated throughout the building and will be referred to as “typical double-hung windows” and “typical casement windows,” respectively. Typical casement windows are primarily found along the second story. All windows have molded wood surrounds with projecting sills unless otherwise noted. Figure 3: Site plan with approximate location of parcel boundary in orange. Source: Google Maps, 2020. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 3.c Packet Pg. 101 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -7- Page & Turnbull Primary (East) Façade The primary (east) façade of the residence faces Embarcadero Road. Although this façade faces southeast of true east, for the purposes of this report the primary façade will be referred to as facing east, and so on, for the other façade directions. An unusual angled covered porch with a hipped roofline defines the primary façade and houses the main entrance to the residence (Figure 4). This porch, which consists of half of an octagon, is capped by a steeply pitched roof that rises to a peak and meets the base of the second-floor roofline. While only a portion of the primary façade, this main feature is highly symmetrical, with a stucco chimney rising from the roof of the second floor where the rooflines meet and typical casement windows that flank the chimney along the second story. Figure 4: Main section of primary façade. Additional section hidden by vegetation. Looking west. The porch is reached via brick stairs with slump stone side walls and a metal handrail mounted along the centerline of the stairs. The angled sidewalls of the porch contain large openings with projecting wood sills, and the sides of the porch (facing both north and south facades) contain multi-lite fixed windows (Figure 5). The porch is not a single open volume and instead features a central room (accessible from the interior) enclosed with typical double-hung windows. The primary entrance is located at the left (south) side of the porch. A partially screened wood door within a screened partition leads to a vestibule containing the main entrance door, which is a decorative solid wood partially glazed door with oversized decorative hinges, door handle and push plate (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The far right side of the porch – mirroring the location of the entrance door – contains a typical double-hung window. 3.c Packet Pg. 102 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -8- Page & Turnbull Figure 5: right side of front porch. Looking northwest. Figure 6: Screened vestibule within porch. Looking southwest. Figure 7: Primary entrance door. Looking west. To the right (north) of the front porch, the one-story kitchen wing extends laterally towards Waverly Street (Figure 8). Immediately to the right of the front porch is a recessed section that contains stairs down to a wood basement door, while along the first floor a narrow two-over-one asymmetrically divided double-hung wood sash window is located on the east-facing wall while a small fixed wood sash window is located on the south-facing wall. To the right of this recessed section is the remainder of the kitchen wing, which features two two-lite awning sash basement windows at grade, and two square replacement windows with fixed glazing along the first floor. Figure 8: Primary (east) façade showing kitchen wing. 3.c Packet Pg. 103 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -9- Page & Turnbull North Façade The north façade of the residence consists of north-facing walls along the kitchen wing, sunroom, and bedroom wing. The north-facing wall of the kitchen wing consists of two two-lite awning sash basement windows at grade and a number of utility boxes and wiring at the right of the façade, while along the first floor are a single square replacement window with fixed glazing at the left and a shorter replacement aluminum slider window at the right side of the façade (Figure 9). Figure 9: North façade of kitchen wing. Garage roofline at top of frame. Looking southeast. Figure 10: Oblique view of north and west façades of the sunporch (north façade at left), and the north façade of the bedroom wing. Looking southeast. Roof of accessory dwelling at far right of frame in foreground. The north façade of the sunporch consists of paired casement windows with simulated divided lites at the right, and a fully glazed single-leaf wood door with simulated divided lites at the left (Figure 10). This door is accessed via a small porch with painted wood steps and solid stucco side walls with wood handrails. The horizontal wood siding that is applied to the height of the basement level begins at this small porch and continues along the north, west, and part of the south façades of the residence. The north façade of the bedroom wing contains a single typical double-hung window. The north façades of the second floor contain two six-over-one double hung windows along the east portion of the north façade (visible over the kitchen wing), and a single typical casement window on the north facing wall to the left (over the bedroom wing). 3.c Packet Pg. 104 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -10- Page & Turnbull West Façade The west façade of the residence consists of west-facing walls along the kitchen wing, sunroom, and bedroom wing. The west façade of the kitchen wing contains a partially glazed single-leaf wood door covered with a screen door within a molded wood surround. A utility sink sits to the left of the rear kitchen door within the porch (Figure 11). The west façade of the sunporch contains six casement windows with simulated divided lites grouped in pairs across the façade. Figure 11: View of west façade of the kitchen wing (at left) and oblique view of north and west façades of sunporch (west façade at right). Looking east. Figure 12: Detail of west façade of bedroom wing showing secondary entrance and openings. Looking east. The west façade of the bedroom wing is symmetrically arranged with a centrally placed secondary entrance door reached via concrete steps with metal handrails. This entrance is flanked by typical double-hung windows. The secondary entrance door consists of a partially glazed single-leaf door with true divided lites and sits within a molded wood surround (Figure 12 and Figure 13). The west façade of the second floor contains typical casement windows at both the left and right of the façade. These windows are separated by a small section of the second floor that projects to the west. A stucco chimney rises from the peak of the hipped roof along the first floor. South Façade The south façade of the residence contains the south-facing wall of the bedroom wing as well as the enclosed porch and two-story central volume of the residence. The one-story bedroom wing contains two typical double-hung windows. The horizontal wood siding that wraps the building along its west façade and portions of its north and south facades ends at the right edge of the bedroom wing where it meets the main portion of the residence (Figure 13). Wood steps with a wood railing lead to a secondary entrance door within a west-facing wall of the ground floor enclosed porch. The door consists of a partially glazed single-leaf wood panel door with a molded wood surround. Similar to the front porch, this enclosed side porch consists of a half octagon shape with a hipped roof. The roof of this porch consists of translucent glazing with metal muntins. The central and canted portions of the porch contain fixed glazing with connected wood sills and surrounds. The east-facing wall of the porch contains a projecting “greenhouse window.” Two two-lite awning sash basement windows are contained in the canted side walls of the enclosed porch (Figure 14 and Figure 15). 3.c Packet Pg. 105 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -11- Page & Turnbull A balcony is located over the enclosed porch at the second floor, and openings within the balcony consist of a centrally placed partially glazed wood panel door and two six-over-one double hung windows. A natural fiber shed roof with metal supports has been added to the front of the hipped roof over the balcony. A typical casement window sits within a setback section of the second floor at the far left (west) (Figure 16). Figure 13: Oblique view of residence showing west façade of bedroom wing and south façade. Looking northeast. Figure 14: South façade. Looking north. Figure 15: Oblique view of south façade. Looking northwest. Figure 16: Oblique view of south façade. Looking northeast. 3.c Packet Pg. 106 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -12- Page & Turnbull GARAGE AT 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD The freestanding garage building, located directly to the north of the main residence, is a single-story, two-car garage with a hipped roof that complements the main building in materials, design, and massing. The building is detailed with exposed rafter tails under the eaves and horizontal wood siding along the bottom half of the building. A roll-up wood garage door is located on the main (east) façade, while a partially glazed wood door is located on the west façade (Figure 17 and Figure 18). The garage building has no additional openings on the north or south façades. Figure 17: Oblique view of primary (east) façade and south façade (at left). Looking northwest. Figure 18: Oblique view of rear (west) façade of garage; north façade at left. Looking southeast. ACCESSORY DWELLING AT 1300 WAVERLY STREET Located parallel to Waverly Street, the accessory dwelling unit consists of a gable roofline oriented east-west and clad with composite roofing. A narrow wood beam projects from both gable ends. The accessory dwelling complements the main residence in materials and design, and features wide eaves and stucco cladding with the same horizontal wood panel detailing on portions of the main residence. All fenestration consists of composite sash windows. Figure 19: East façade, with north façade visible at right. Looking southwest. Figure 20: North façade with primary entrance. Looking southeast. The east façade of the building is symmetrically organized and features four bays of glazing that stretch from roofline to near the floorplate and consist of fixed polygonal windows within the gable peak and rectangular glazing below (Figure 19). The lower glazing consists – from left to right – of a single fixed window over an awning sash window, a fully glazed door, and two additional fixed and awning sash arrangements. A wood porch is reached via a concrete step with a metal railing. 3.c Packet Pg. 107 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -13- Page & Turnbull The north façade contains – from left to right – two sets of three casement windows and a single-leaf wood panel door. This primary entrance is reached via concrete steps and a landing with metal handrails. A mailbox and lamp are mounted to the right (west) of the entrance door (Figure 20). Figure 21: Oblique view of accessory dwelling showing west (at left) and south façades. Looking northeast. Figure 22: Detail of right (east) end of south façade. Looking north. The west façade features two symmetrical fixed windows within the gable peak and two double-hung windows along the first floor (Figure 21). The south façade contains – from left to right – two widely spaced narrow fixed windows over awning sash along the left half of the building, and two double-hung windows flanking an exterior chimney (Figure 22). ENTRANCE GATE An entrance gate is located along Embarcadero Road and consists of an exposed wood beam structure with rafter tails and cross bracing (Figure 23). The entrance gate features a gable roof with a clay tile roof. Figure 23: Entrance gate along Embarcadero Road. Looking northwest. 3.c Packet Pg. 108 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -14- Page & Turnbull SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD 359 Embarcadero Road sits along the eastern edge of Palo Alto’s Professorville neighborhood. To the north and west of the subject building, the neighborhood is entirely residential and generally features one-and-one-half to two-and-one-half story single-family residential buildings set back from the street with front gardens. The eastern area of Professorville was originally known for having larger lots than the more densely developed western portion of the neighborhood and residences are more likely to be set in large gardens or lawns and feature detached garages (Figure 25 and Figure 26). Residences are most commonly in the Shingle or Craftsman styles, but also include late Victorian-era buildings as well as early twentieth century buildings in the various revival styles, particularly in the Spanish Colonial Revival style (Figure 24 and Figure 28). Some contemporary buildings were constructed as infill development projects as large older parcels were subdivided (Figure 27). Embarcadero Road is a main thoroughfare and creates a strong eastern edge of the Professorville neighborhood. The eastern side of the street, across from the subject property, marks the beginning of the Seale Addition neighborhood. Figure 24: 1303 Waverly Street, across street to the north of the subject building. Looking north. Figure 25: 363 Melville Avenue, across street to the west of the subject building. Looking west. Figure 26: 353 Melville Avenue, across street to the west of the subject building. Looking west. Figure 27: 340 Melville Avenue, directly south of the subject building. Looking southeast. Figure 28: 330 Melville Avenue, south of the subject building. Looking northeast. 3.c Packet Pg. 109 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -15- 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.5 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. 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.6 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. Figure 29: Detail of “Official Map of Santa Clara, California” by Herrmann Brothers, 1890. Note that University Park on this map is present day Palo Alto. Source: Library of Congress. 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) (Figure 29).7 This land was bounded by 5 Ward Winslow and Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993), 12-17. 6 Ibid, 35. 7 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 110 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -16- Page & Turnbull 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.8 In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.9 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 1960.10 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 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.11 PROFESSORVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD 359 Embarcadero Road is located in Palo Alto’s Professorville neighborhood. The following historic context for the Professorville neighborhood is excerpted from the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines.12 Professorville belongs to the historic core of Palo Alto. Neither the neighborhood nor the city at large existed prior to the opening of Stanford University, which Leland and Jane Stanford established on land belonging to their large horse farm in northwestern Santa Clara County. By the time Stanford University opened its doors in 1891, over 700 acres of land east of the new campus had been set aside for a townsite that could house those affiliated with the university. A number of freshly arrived faculty members wished to purchase land and build homes for their families in this new college town, known as Palo Alto. They chose the fledgling neighborhood that lay near the eastern boundary of the campus, across the Southern Pacific rail line. For its early academic residents, the neighborhood received the name Professorville. Its large lots and close proximity to the university 8 Dames & Moore, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-4. 9 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030, 16. 10 “City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County,” Bay Area Census, accessed August 27, 2019, http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/PaloAlto50.htm. 11 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan 2030, 11-20. 12 Page & Turnbull, Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines, (Palo Alto, CA: April 2016). 3.c Packet Pg. 111 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -17- Page & Turnbull were attractive features for early residents, and homes were steadily built there during the 1890s and first decades of the twentieth century. Professorville’s academic atmosphere fostered an appreciation for fashionable architectural styles. When faculty residents arrived in California, they imported elements of residential architecture from the areas where they had previously lived: the Eastern and Midwestern United States. Many new residences showed the influence of the Shingle, Arts and Crafts, and Colonial Revival styles, reflecting a San Francisco Bay Area regional interpretation known as the First Bay Tradition. These residences frequently were clad in wood shingles and had asymmetric façades, which created a naturalistic impression throughout the neighborhood. Bernard Maybeck, one of the pioneers of the First Bay Tradition at the turn of the twentieth century, was commissioned to build a home for Emma Kellogg at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bryant Street. After this house burned, Maybeck designed its distinctive replacement, now commonly known as the Sunbonnet House. Other newly built residences in the early twentieth century showed the influence of Revival styles, such as Tudor and Spanish Colonial. Yet all exhibited a high quality of craftsmanship and design—truly notable for the somewhat isolated outpost of Palo Alto at this time. [….] By the 1920s, much of Professorville had been largely built out with single-family homes. Most had detached automobile garages by this time, which were typically placed at the rear of the lot. The development pattern of the neighborhood, particularly in its western half, was characterized by a regular rhythm of handsome residences, each surrounded by a well-appointed lawn. The eastern half of the neighborhood, on the other hand, retained grander homes on expansive lots that resembled small estates. One element that linked both halves of Professorville was an impressive tree canopy, created in part by the immense redwood and live oak trees that predated the development of Palo Alto and were left standing in private yards as well as in public roadways. Over time, several of Professorville’s larger lots were subdivided, and any parcels that remained empty were filled in the postwar period. Kingsley Court, a cluster of 10 cottages designed by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge Clark, was constructed in 1940. In the following decades, a handful of Modernist style houses were added to the neighborhood, as well as two new religious complexes: St. Ann’s Chapel (established by playwright and diplomat Clare Boothe Luce to memorialize her deceased daughter) and the First Presbyterian Church. Professorville’s residents also shifted away from the faculty who had originally built homes there, as many of the large residences were converted to student housing by mid-century. In the 1970s and 1980s interest in historic preservation increased, and over time many of the homes in the neighborhood were rehabilitated and returned to single-family residential use.13 Professorville was designated as a National Register historic district in 1979. The nomination recognized “the unique background of the area’s origins and its early ties to the founding of both the University and Palo Alto itself. As such, the Professorville Historic District creates a strong sense of place and time expressive of Palo Alto’s intrinsic character and heritage.”14 The City of Palo Alto adopted the Professorville Historic District to the City’s Historic Inventory in 1979. 13 Ibid., 25-28. 14 National Register of Historic Places, Professorville Historic District, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, California, National Register #80000861, 8-2. 3.c Packet Pg. 112 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -18- Page & Turnbull V. PROPERTY HISTORY DEVELOPMENT OF 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD Prior to the erection of the subject building, the subject parcel was previously undeveloped. At the time the residence was built in 1901, the entire triangular block bounded by Embarcadero Road, Melville Avenue, and Waverly Street were all part of a single parcel owned by Sylvester and Sarah L. Strong. It is likely that the residence and its barn/carriage house (now 330 Melville Avenue, see Figure 28) were the first buildings to be erected on the block. The building was designed by the architectural firm of Bertrand & Chamberlin, with offices located in Minneapolis, and was built by local Palo Alto builder G. W. Mosher. The original circa 1901 plans by Bertrand & Chamberlin are on file at the Palo Alto Historical Association and illustrate that the building was constructed to be remarkably close to the original design (Figure 30). Minor differences include the installation of different kitchen windows and fewer basement windows. Figure 30: East façade, designed by Bertrand & Chamberlin, circa 1901. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. A 1901 Sanborn Map Company map, published soon after the subject building was completed, shows what appears to be the original as-built footprint of the residence (Figure 31).15 Comparing this footprint to the plan drawing of the first floor by Bertrand & Chamberlin shows that a wraparound porch was omitted from the final design (Figure 32). A photograph of the completed residence was included in an article on Palo Alto in a September 1904 edition of Overland Monthly, and shows that a small porch with stuccoed side walls was originally present along the south façade (Figure 33).16 15 The Sanborn Map Company was called the Sanborn-Perris Map Company in 1901, but Sanborn Map Company is used here to prevent confusion when referring to the company’s later maps. 16 “Artistic Homes of Palo Alto,” Overland Monthly (Accessed via HathiTrust), v. 44, no. 3, 372. 3.c Packet Pg. 113 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -19- Page & Turnbull Figure 31: Sanborn Map Company map, 1901, page 9, showing subject buidling and its block. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Figure 32: First floor plan, designed by Bertrand & Chamberlin, circa 1901. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Figure 33: Primary façade, photograph taken soon after completion, circa 1904. Source: Overland Monthly, 1904. Courtesy of the Palo Alto Historical Association. 3.c Packet Pg. 114 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -20- Page & Turnbull A Sanborn Map Company map from 1924 shows both a more nuanced depiction of the subject building – calling out its angled open porch with enclosed interior one-story volume – and shows that an addition (in the current location of the sunporch) had already been constructed between the kitchen wing and the bedroom wing (Figure 34). By this date, the barn/carriage house had been converted to an automobile garage. Additionally, a one-story dwelling to house two servants is visible in the 1924 map, although it was known to have been erected on the parcel prior to 1908.17 It was razed at an unknown date. Figure 34: Sanborn Map Company map, 1924. Page 17. Approximate subject parcel outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 35: April 1941, aerial photograph. Approximate parcel outlined in orange. Source: FrameFinder, Flight C-7065, Frame 58. Edited by Page & Turnbull. By the time an aerial photograph was captured in April 1941, the existing entrance gate was present along Embarcadero Road (Figure 35). Construction Chronology The following table provides a timeline of construction activity at 359 Embarcadero Road based on information provided by the building permit index available at the archives of the Palo Alto Historical Association and the building permit applications on file with Palo Alto Development Services. Permit # Date Owner Architect/ Contractor Description 1901 Sylvester Strong Bertrand & Chamberlin (architects); G. W. Mosher (builder) Building built ($6,000) 1/1902 Sylvester Strong G.W. Mosher Repairs on barn ($900) [currently 330 Melville Avenue] 10/1950 Walter John A. J. Port Alteration $1,100 17 “The ‘Strong Home’ for Sale,” advertisement, 1908, on file in the Historic Building Inventory at the Palo Alto Historical Association; see Figure 34 for location of one-story dwelling. 3.c Packet Pg. 115 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -21- Page & Turnbull 24079 7/29/1964 Gain A. John (owner) Install redwood siding approximately five feet from ground 28810 11/19/1969 Gain A. John (owner) Remodel kitchen – remove one window, enlarge one window 09999 10/13/1977 Gain A. John Searl Roofing Co. Reroofing heavy shake roof 89-2044 10/17/1989 Gain A. and Jane John Carroll S. Rankin Erect cottage on property at northeast corner; erect garage along east side of property; add new aggregate concrete and brick driveway and parking area between Waverly Street and Embarcadero Road; various interior alterations. [Items that were not completed include: erect new trellis and covered walkways between garage and residence; add deck to south elevation; add sunroom that replaces a screened porch on the north elevation; add a “greenhouse window” in kitchen.] 93-6398 6/7/1993 Gain A. and Jane John Carroll S. Rankin Revisions to previous plans for sunroom [includes a smaller footprint than originally detailed in 1989 plans]; interior alterations to finishes, laundry, kitchen, corridor, stair vestibule; interior alterations to upstairs bedroom, bathroom, attic ventilation and attic access; install glass block in previous window opening between sunroom and master bath; re- stucco kitchen wall (along porch) to hide areas of previously infilled windows 18-01926 7/18/2018 [not listed] Reroof and install new plywood deck and composite shingle system While the subject building remains largely intact, a number of alterations have occurred that include the construction of an addition and two ancillary structures, and the replacement or removal of original windows. These alterations have largely been limited to secondary façades, particularly along the west and north elevations. 3.c Packet Pg. 116 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -22- Page & Turnbull The first known major alteration to occur to the subject building was the addition of a screened porch with a flat roof in the location of the existing sunroom. This feature was added prior to 1924. At some point prior to 1941, the entrance gate was erected along Embarcadero Road (Figure 35).18 An unknown alteration, costing $1,100 was carried out by Walter John in 1950. Beginning in 1964, under the ownership of Gain and Jane John, a series of larger alterations were undertaken. The first alteration was to add horizontal redwood siding to the building at some locations under permit 24079. A 1969 kitchen remodel removed one window and enlarged an existing window at an unspecified location (either along the north or west façades of the kitchen wing). In 1977, the building was reroofed in-kind with wood shakes.19 In 1989, a permit submitted by Gain and Jane John included the construction of both the detached garage and the accessory dwelling on the parcel. In addition, this alteration included scopes for replacing the enclosed porch with a new sunroom, installing an aggregate concrete driveway and parking area at the east of the parcel, and installing additional horizontal redwood siding to match existing siding. Not all of the alterations were completed under the 1989 permit, and in 1993 an additional permit was filed to revise the plans for the sunroom to include a smaller footprint than originally planned in 1989. This permit also included installing additional horizontal redwood siding, installing a greenhouse window in the kitchen, and restuccoing the west façade of the kitchen to hide areas where window openings had previously been infilled. A number of interior alterations were also included under this permit. In 2018 the subject building was reroofed with a composite shingling system.20 Additional alterations to the building that are not detailed by the permit records but are apparent from a comparison of historic photographs and existing conditions include: the removal of a flagpole along the second-story balcony, the shortening of the interior kitchen chimney, the replacement of all kitchen windows, the replacement of the stairs to the front porch with slump stone sidewalls and brick steps (stairs originally consisted of wood treads and risers with stucco side walls), the installation of a metal railing along the stairs to the front porch, the erection of the screened partition creating a vestibule within the front porch, the replacement of all windows within the enclosed porch, and the installation of concrete stairs and metal railings along the secondary entrance (to the bedroom wing) along the west façade.21 The open porch along the south façade – visible in the circa- 1904 photograph – was removed at an unknown date. Overall, the building retains the vast majority of its design features and materials, and significant alterations, such as the addition of the sunporch and the construction of the accessory dwelling and detached garage, have been limited to rear facades or set apart from the main building. 18 Aerial photograph, Flight C-7065, Frame 58, April 1941, University of California, Santa Barbara, FrameFinder. 19 See permit #09999, issued October 1977. 20 See permit #18-01926, issued July 2018. 21 It is unknown when the 25-lite fixed windows were added to the front porch. As the earliest photograph of the building appears to show screening at the location of the fixed window along the south side of the porch, it is unlikely that these windows are original. 3.c Packet Pg. 117 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -23- Page & Turnbull 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) and Occupant(s) (known owners in bold) Occupation 1901–1908 Sylvester Strong Sarah L. Strong Jennie Strong Wheat merchant; retired 1908–1924 Sarah L. Strong By 1926–193122 Walter H. John Jennie (Strong) John23 Virginia John Gain John Accountant Student Student 1931–1954 Walter John Gain John Jane John Accountant; Manager, Palo Alto Shelter; Retired Student; Accountant 1954–2005 Gain Allen John Jane M. John Accountant 2005–2019 David John; John-Shimer Trust; Michael Paul and Katherine John Trust24 November 2019–present 359 Embarc LLC The subject building was constructed for Sylvester (1843-1923) and Sarah Strong (1843-1924) in 1901. Sylvester Strong was a wheat merchant from Minneapolis and, as reported in the Palo Alto Live Oak in June of 1901, Strong purchased the parcel from a previous owner, Frederick C. Clark and “had plans prepared for a handsome country residence.” Strong’s wife Sarah and his daughter Jane (“Jennie”) resided at the subject building in Palo Alto while Sylvester traveled between his business in Minneapolis and visited Palo Alto periodically.25 By late 1906, Sarah and Sylvester Strong were seeking a divorce and, as part of the settlement agreement, divided their assets.26 The subject building was listed as an asset to be sold by auction in 1908, with subsequent monies to be divided between Sarah and Sylvester. However, the parcel’s ownership was instead transferred to Sarah Strong despite significant advertisements for the planned auction.27 Sarah Strong resided at 359 Embarcadero Road until her death in 1924.28 With Sarah Strong’s death in 1924, the house was left to Jennie Strong, who had been married in 1908 to Walter John, an accountant. Jennie and Walter John had two children, Virginia and Gain, and 22 In 1928 the building’s address reliably becomes 359 Embarcadero Road. City Directories, 1920s. 23 Jennie John died in 1931. 24 The John children inherited the property upon Gain John’s death in 2005. The ownership history lists several individuals and trusts that were established within the period from 2005-2019. This has been simplified for clarity. 25 “Locals,” Palo Alto Times, (March 21, 1902), 2; “Local Items,” Palo Alto Press, (March 26, 1902), 3. 26 “Mrs. Strong Granted Divorce for Cruelty,” San Francisco Examiner, (December 13, 1906), 9. 27 “The ‘Strong Home’ for Sale,” 1908. 28 “Sarah L. Strong,” Palo Alto Times, (May 3, 1924). 3.c Packet Pg. 118 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -24- Page & Turnbull had been living in Washington state since their marriage.29 It appears that by 1920 the John children were living in Palo Alto with their grandmother.30 By 1926, Jennie and Walter John and their two children were living at 359 Embarcadero Road. Jennie John passed away in 1931, but Walter lived at the subject building until his death in 1954.31 Gain John lived at 359 Embarcadero for much of his life, first living with his grandmother beginning at the age of five, and then with his parents following Sarah Strong’s death in 1924. In 1950, he married Jane E. Marks.32 By 1953, Gain and Jane John were living at the subject building.33 They had three children, David, Barbara, and Katherine, and lived at the subject property until their respective deaths, Jane in 1998 and Gain in 2005. It is under the ownership of Gain and Jane John that most of the known alterations to the building occurred. Following Gain John’s death in 2005, the building was inherited by the children of Gain and Jane John. In 2019, 359 Embarcadero Road was purchased by the current owner. Select Owner and Occupant Biographies Sylvester Strong (1843–1923) and Sarah L. Strong (1843–1924) Sylvester Strong was born in Michigan in 1843 but resided in Wisconsin for much of his life. In 1868 Sylvester was married to his first wife, Harriet M. Swaney, who bore him a son the following year. Harriet appears to have passed away soon after the birth of their son, George Strong. Sylvester was remarried in 1870 to Sarah L. Allen. They had a daughter, Jane “Jennie” L. Strong in 1880 (Figure 36). Sylvester pursued a career in wheat and grain sales in Wisconsin and Minnesota before relocating to California in 1901. Figure 36: Sylvester, Sarah, George, and Jennie Strong. Family portrait, circa 1882. Source: Ancestry.com. 29 Gain appears to have been a family name from Sarah L. (nee Allen) Strong’s family. 30 “Gain John,” [obituary] Palo Alto Weekly Online, (June 22, 2005) Accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2005/2005_06_22.obits22.shtml 31 Palo Alto City Directories. 32 “Gain A. John,” California Marriage Index, Ancestry.com, Accessed May 29, 2020. 33 Palo Alto city directories are unavailable for 1951 and 1952. 3.c Packet Pg. 119 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -25- Page & Turnbull Following the divorce of Sarah and Sylvester Strong in 1906, and their complete separation by 1908, Sylvester relocated to Pacific Grove and became involved in real estate. In 1914, at the age of 70, Sylvester married his third wife, Bertha Norris from Minnesota.34 Sylvester Strong died in 1923. Sarah Strong died in Palo Alto in 1924. Walter H. John (1877–1954) and Jennie Louise Strong John (1880–1931) Jennie L. Strong – the daughter of Sylvester and Sarah L. Strong – was married to Walter H. John in Palo Alto in 1908. Shortly after their marriage, they moved to Washington State where Walter worked as an accountant. Early in his career he was a treasurer for an apple grower’s association in Spokane, Washington and then was a secretary-treasurer for the Spokane Heat, Light & Power Company. Walter and Jennie’s two children, Virginia and Gain, were born in Washington. The family moved to 359 Embarcadero Road in 1926. Jennie died in 1931, only a few years after they moved into the subject building. Walter became a manager at the Palo Alto Shelter in 1934 at the time that it became a community kitchen, and he served as treasurer of the local Boy Scout council.35 He passed away in 1954. Gain Allen John (1915–2005) and Jane John (not known–1998) Gain John was born in Seattle in 1915 to Walter and Jennie John and began living at the subject building at the age of five.36 He attended Stanford University where he studied business. In 1933, he took a year off to canoe the Amazon River. Following World War II, in which he served in the Army Air Corps, he had a career in accounting at various companies in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1950 he married Jane Marks in Los Angeles. Archival research uncovered little information about Jane John regarding her civic, professional, or personal life. Gain John was active in the Palo Alto Historical Association and was one of the producers of Palo Alto: A Centennial History, co-written by Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association. BERTRAND & CHAMBERLIN, ARCHITECT Bertrand & Chamberlin were a Minneapolis, Minnesota-based architecture firm that was active from 1897 until 1931. The partners, George Emile Bertrand (1859–1931) and Arthur Bishop Chamberlin (1865–1933) were both from the Midwest and began their careers in architecture in the 1880s. While Bertrand practiced primarily in Minneapolis, establishing a practice in 1886, Chamberlin relocated to Seattle from 1890 to 1896 before returning to Minneapolis just prior to forming Bertrand & Chamberlin.37 In Seattle, Chamberlin worked as a delineator for a number of firms including Saunders & Houghton (1890–1891), John Parkinson (1891–1893), and William E. Boone (1893). Chamberlin’s skill as a delineator brought him significant work and exposed him to a wide variety of contemporary trends and developments in architecture (Figure 37).38 Despite only working in the northwest for six years, Chamberlin is believed to be “responsible for well over half of all drawings of Northwest architecture 34 “Pacific Grove Man Leaves Big Estate,” The Californian [Salinas, California], (August 16, 1923), 4. 35 “W.H. John, former P.A. Shleter chief, dies,” Daily Palo Alto Times, (June 3, 1954), on file in the Palo Alto Obituary Index at the Palo Alto Historical Association. 36 “Gain John,” [obituary] Palo Alto Weekly Online, ( June 22, 2005) Accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2005/2005_06_22.obits22.shtml 37 Bertrand and Chamberlin collection (N 168), Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries, Accessed May 20, 2020, https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2362 38 Chamberlin studied under noted delineator Harvey Ellis just prior to his move to Seattle. See Jeffrey Karl Ochsner, "A. B. Chamberlin: The Illustration of Seattle Architecture, 1890-1896." The Pacific Northwest Quarterly, v. 81, no. 4 (1990): 130-44. Accessed May 20, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40491148 3.c Packet Pg. 120 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -26- Page & Turnbull published in the early nineties and for almost all drawings of Seattle buildings that appeared in American Architect and Building News.”39 Chamberlin had a private practice in Seattle from 1893–1894, and then worked in partnership with Carl Siebrand as Chamberlin & Siebrand through 1895. 40 Figure 37: An example of an illustration done by Arthur Bishop Chamberlin. The Fremont School, designed by John Parkinson in 1891. Source: dchamberlinarchitect.com Figure 38: The Minneapolis Auditorium, 1905 by Bertrand & Chamberlin. Source: Google Books, Hudson’s Dictionary of Minneapolis and Vicinity. It appears that little scholarship has been done on Bertrand & Chamberlin, but that they were a well- known firm responsible for large civic projects in Minneapolis that were published in contemporary architectural journals and periodicals. Their work was generally completed in a classicizing style, although the influence of Louis Sullivan can be seen in some of their projects including the 1905 Minneapolis Auditorium (Figure 38). Additional known projects include the Minneapolis Athletic Club (1913), the State Bank of Commerce (1921), the Chamber of Commerce Building (1928), and the School of Incarnation (1929). Bertrand & Chamberlin were also registered architects in the Saskatchewan Association of Architects in the Saskatchewan province of Canada beginning in 1912, and opened an office in Moose Jaw, a city in southern Saskatchewan, in 1913.41 Recent scholarship on Bertrand & Chamberlin, mostly completed by historian Jeffrey Karl Ochsner, has focused on Chamberlin, his time in Seattle, and the role of delineators in architectural publication at the turn of the twentieth century.42 It is unknown why Sylvester Strong chose Bertrand & Chamberlin to design his Palo Alto home. While there may have been a personal connection between Strong and the firm, it may also have been a matter of convenience for Strong to choose a familiar firm in Minneapolis instead of looking for an architect in the San Francisco Bay Area. 39 Ibid. 40 Jeffrey Karl Ochsner, Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects, second edition (Seattle: University of Washington Press and AIA Seattle, 2019), 427. 41 Robert G. Hill, ed. “Bertrand & Chamberlin,” Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada, 1800-1950, Accessed May 20, 2020, http://dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org/node/1110 42 See Ochsner, Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects, and Ochsner, "A. B. Chamberlin: The Illustration of Seattle Architecture, 1890-1896." The Pacific Northwest Quarterly. 3.c Packet Pg. 121 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -27- Page & Turnbull DESIGN OF 359 EMBARCADERO ROAD 359 Embarcadero Road was designed in the Prairie style, which is an unusual style for California residential architecture. The choice of the style, which is connected most closely to the Midwest and its prairie landscapes, illustrates both the midwestern origins of both the original owners and the architects. “Prairie Style” is a term coined to describe the residential architecture of the Midwest, primarily the early work of the architectural firm of Frank Lloyd Wright (Figure 39). Another Minneapolis firm, Purcell & Elmslie, became strongly associated with the Prairie Style and helped to increase its popularity (Figure 40). Dominant from the 1900s to the 1920s, the Prairie style has several identifiable features including low-pitched hipped roofs with widely overhanging eaves, a two-story massing with projecting one-story wings or porches, and a façade emphasizing horizontal lines, generally with massive, square porch supports. Oftentimes, the primary entrance of Prairie style buildings is inconspicuous and placed asymmetrically. Other features of Prairie style residences include wood sash and multi-lite windows, and emphasis is often placed on a central fireplace through the location and articulation of the chimney. The origins of the style are found primarily in Chicago during the 1900s, but it quickly became an early prototype for suburban houses in the Midwest, due to the vast amounts of land available during this time period and the horizontal emphasis of these homes, which was intended to complement the prairie landscape. As one of the only distinctly American building styles, the Prairie style quickly took hold in the development of the American home. Figure 39: Ward-Willits House, by Frank Lloyd Wright, built 1901. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Figure 40: Bradley Bungalow, by Purcell & Elmslie, built 1912. Source: Woods Hole Museum. 359 Embarcadero Road is unusual not only for its location in California, but also for its early date of construction in 1901. Frank Llyod Wright’s first “Prairie style” house was constructed in 1893, but the style did not become more widely recognized and adopted until circa 1900. Features of the subject building that illustrate the Prairie style include its central two-story height with projecting one-story volumes, its hipped roofline with wide eaves, its stucco cladding and generous wood door and window surrounds, its use of multi-lite wood sash windows, and its substantial front porch volume with an asymmetrically placed entrance. The Prairie style often relies on rectilinear volumes and massive geometry, and its treatment of the primary façade with its intersecting rooflines and centrally placed chimney establish the weight that is generally given to the primary façade by the Prairie style. 3.c Packet Pg. 122 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -28- 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. ƒ 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. ƒ Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. ƒ 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. ƒ 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 359 Embarcadero Road for individual listing in the California Register: Criterion 1 (Events) 359 Embarcadero Road does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events). Built in 1901 for the Strong family, the subject parcel was constructed along the eastern edge of the Professorville neighborhood during the neighborhood’s primary phase of development. The subject building, like many others in the eastern end of the neighborhood, was located on a large lot with a large lawn and garden. The subject building was neither the first nor the last building to be constructed with this development pattern in the Professorville neighborhood. 359 Embarcadero Road was designed for a Minneapolis businessman who was relocating to Palo Alto with his wife and adult daughter. Professorville attracted many residents from the East Coast and the Midwest who were relocating to California and found Palo Alto’s nearness to San Francisco and Stanford University to be appealing. The Strong family’s choice to live in Professorville supports the larger history of the neighborhood but is not a particularly significant example of this trend. Additionally, archival research did not uncover any significant events that were known to have taken place at the subject building. Therefore, 359 Embarcadero Road does not appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. 3.c Packet Pg. 123 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -29- Page & Turnbull Criterion 2 (Persons) 359 Embarcadero Road does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The subject property was constructed as the home of the Strong family, the building’s first owner- occupants. However, Sylvester Strong, a wheat merchant from Minnesota, and his wife Sarah L. Strong were divorced in 1906, only a few years after the building was constructed. Sylvester Strong went on to reside in Pacific Grove where he became involved in the real estate industry. Archival research uncovered little about the civil or personal achievements of Sarah Strong. Following the death of Sarah Strong in 1924, the property passed to her daughter Jennie (Strong) John and her husband Walter John. The subject remained in the John family until 2019. Multiple generations of the John family have resided at the subject property, most notably Gain John, who resided at the subject building from 1920 until his death in 2005. Gain John was active in local Palo Alto civic groups, including the Palo Alto Historical Association. However, archival research on the residents of the subject building did not identify significant individual contributions to the history and development of the city, state, or nation in association with 359 Embarcadero Road. Thus, 359 Embarcadero Road does not appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Architecture) 359 Embarcadero Road does appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Prairie style, which is unusual in California architecture. The building was constructed in 1901 and designed by the Minnesota architecture firm of Bertrand & Chamberlin. Features of the subject building that illustrate its use of the Prairie style include its central two-story height with projecting one-story volumes, its hipped roofline with wide eaves, its stucco cladding and generous molded wood door and window surrounds, its use of multi-lite wood sash windows, and its substantial front porch volume with an asymmetrically placed entrance. While the building is not a high-style example of the Prairie style, generally limited to examples designed by master architects like Frank Lloyd Wright or Purcell & Elmslie, it is a characteristic example of the adaptation of a popular residential style in the early years of the Prairie style’s popularity. Bertrand & Chamberlin were notable architects in Minnesota and the Midwest, their work was published in contemporary architecture journals, and they may well be considered master architects with further study. Their design for 359 Embarcadero Road illustrates both the Midwestern roots of the Prairie style and of their client, who built a residence in Palo Alto that reflected his origins. Alterations to the building include the construction of a detached garage and accessory dwelling on the property, as well as an addition of a sunroom, the addition of wood cladding, the replacement of windows, and changes to materials along stairs and porches. Despite these additions and alterations, the building continues to communicate its original design as a rare Prairie style residence in Palo Alto. Therefore, 359 Embarcadero Road does appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) 359 Embarcadero Road 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 3.c Packet Pg. 124 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -30- Page & Turnbull 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 359 Embarcadero Road is 1901, 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, 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 following character-defining features have been identified for 359 Embarcadero Road and convey the property’s significance as a Prairie style residence designed by Bertrand & Chamberlin and constructed in 1901: x Irregular massing consisting of a central two-story section with projecting one-story volumes x Stucco cladding x Hipped roof with wide eaves, exposed rafter tails, and wood paneled soffits x Open-air front porch with enclosed central room and asymmetrically placed primary entrance x Symmetry of front porch, front stairs, and two-story volume along the east façade, including the intersection of the hipped roof over the front porch with the second-story roofline and interior chimney x Partially glazed wood door at primary entrance with oversized decorative metal hardware x Additional enclosed angled porch on south façade x Original multi-lite windows, including asymmetrically divided double-hung windows and paired casement windows43 x Door and window enframements with wide molded wood surrounds For additional clarification, the following features of the residence are not original to the building, were added outside the period of significance (1901), and are not considered character-defining: x Attached sunroom, located between kitchen wing and bedroom wing x Metal railing along front entrance steps (east façade) x Horizontal wood siding along basement level x Replacement kitchen windows x Greenhouse window within enclosed side porch (south façade) x Rear entrance stairs and railing (west façade) x Stairs and landing to enclosed side porch (south façade) 43 The 25-lite fixed windows at the front porch are likely not original. Refer to above footnote 21 for further information. 3.c Packet Pg. 125 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -31- Page & Turnbull x Detached garage x Detached accessory dwelling unit x Entrance gate along Embarcadero Road x Concrete stairs and metal railing along west façade 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.”44 In order to evaluate whether 359 Embarcadero Road 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. 44 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.c Packet Pg. 126 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -32- Page & Turnbull Location 359 Embarcadero Road retains integrity of location, as the location of original construction has not changed. Setting 359 Embarcadero Road retains integrity of setting. The subject building’s lot is located in the residential neighborhood of Professorville, with a residential cul-de-sac on its west side (Melville Avenue). While the building’s primary façade faces Embarcadero Road – which was originally a wooded dirt road and today is a busy arterial road – the neighborhood remains almost entirely residential and has seen little change since its primary development period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While the subject parcel has been subdivided, additions have been made to the building, and additional structures have been erected on the property, the parcel retains its residential setting and maintains its connections to the surrounding neighborhood. Design 359 Embarcadero Road retains integrity of design. The subject property has seen minimal alteration since its construction in 1901. The building’s massing and overall form have remained unchanged along the primary façade, and the only addition to the building was added along the rear and is not visible from the primary façade. The features that express the building’s design as a Prairie style residence constructed in 1901, including its distinctive massing with a two-story volume with projecting one-story wings, its hipped roof, overhanging eaves, asymmetrically placed entrance, large front porch, and symmetrical primary façade elements, remain intact and demonstrate many of the significant design features of the style Materials 359 Embarcadero Road retains integrity of materials. The residence was originally designed with stucco cladding, multi-light wood casement and double-hung windows, and a hipped wood shake roof with wide eaves and exposed rafter tails. With the exception of the recladding of the roof in composite shingles, alterations to the building’s original materials are limited to the replacement and infill of the kitchen windows, the replacement of windows along the south façade’s enclosed porch, and the replacement of the front and rear stairs in brick and concrete. These changes have largely retained the design or material palette of the original features, and where openings were changed, such as along the west façade of the kitchen wing, the alterations were limited to rear façades, allowing the original expression of the design to remain intact. Original stucco has likely been patched at areas of alterations, or replaced in larger sections, but continues to read as part of the original design. Any replaced or patched sections have been finished in an identical style so as not to detract from the cohesive design of the original. The building retains the vast majority of its original windows, stucco, and wood detailing, including that of the eaves and rafter tails, and its decorative wood primary entrance door with oversized metal hardware. Workmanship 359 Embarcadero Road retains integrity of workmanship. Features providing evidence of period workmanship and construction methods include stucco cladding, original windows, original wood window and door surrounds, the primary entrance door and its decorative metal work, and the building’s wide eaves and the articulation of its rooflines. These features remain extant and demonstrate the building’s Prairie style. Feeling 359 Embarcadero Road retains integrity of feeling. The residence retains the feeling of a Prairie style residence designed in 1901 as its design, materiality, and workmanship remain highly representative of the Prairie style and the midwestern identity of the style. The residence retains its feeling as a 1901 3.c Packet Pg. 127 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -33- Page & Turnbull single-family residential home designed in the Prairie style, which was only just becoming popular at the time this building was constructed. Association 359 Embarcadero Road retains integrity of association. The residence is not significant for its association with a period of development, an event, or a past owner or occupant. Its association instead is with the Prairie style, and this association continues to be represented through its retention of its architectural characteristics. Therefore, 359 Embarcadero Road retains all seven aspects of integrity such that it conveys its significance under Criterion 3 (Architecture) of the California Register, with a period of significance of 1901. 3.c Packet Pg. 128 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -34- Page & Turnbull VII. CONCLUSION 359 Embarcadero Road appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as an unusual example of the Prairie style in Palo Alto and California. Constructed in 1901 for Sylvester and Sarah L. Strong, the building was designed by notable Minnesota architectural firm Bertrand & Chamberlin. The building expresses both the Midwest identity of its architects and the Midwest background of its owners in its use of the Prairie style, which was only just becoming popular by 1900. This unusual example of the Prairie style retains its integrity to a high degree and has seen minimal alteration over the last 120 years. While some windows have been replaced, and two additional structures have been added to the lot, the subject building remains a striking example of the Prairie style, with a central two-story volume with projecting one-story wings, a large front porch, an asymmetrically placed primary entrance, and a complex hipped roofline with overhanging eaves. 359 Embarcadero Road was constructed along the eastern edge of the Professorville neighborhood of Palo Alto during its primary period of development but does not appear to be particularly significant to the area’s development narrative. No significant events were known to have taken place at the subject property that would make it eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events). Archival research did not identify any professional or civic association with prior residents who were particularly notable that would rise to level of individual significance under Criterion 2 (Persons). The two-story residence at 359 Embarcadero Road appears to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) with a period of significance of 1901, as a property that embodies the distinct characteristics of the Prairie style as designed by Bertram & Chamberlin, a notable Minnesota firm who designed the building for Minnesota residents relocating to California. Therefore, 359 Embarcadero Road appears to be a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA review. 3.c Packet Pg. 129 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -35- Page & Turnbull VIII. REFERENCES CITED Published Works “Artistic Homes of Palo Alto.” Overland Monthly. Accessed via HathiTrust, May 20, 2020. Vol. 44, no. 3, 372. 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 20, 2020. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. Dames & Moore, Michael Corbett, and Denise Bradley. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, February 2001. “Gain John” [obituary]. Palo Alto Weekly Online. June 22, 2005. Accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2005/2005_06_22.obits22.shtml 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. “Local Items.” Palo Alto Press. March 26, 1902, 3. “Locals.” Palo Alto Times. March 21, 1902, 2. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. Revised Edition. New York: Knopf, 2015. “Mrs. Strong Granted Divorce for Cruelty.” San Francisco Examiner. December 13, 1906, 9. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl. "A. B. Chamberlin: The Illustration of Seattle Architecture, 1890-1896." The Pacific Northwest Quarterly. v. 81, no. 4 (1990): 130-44. Accessed May 20, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/40491148 Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl. Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects. Second edition. Seattle: University of Washington Press and AIA Seattle, 2019. “Pacific Grove Man Leaves Big Estate.” The Californian [Salinas, California]. August 16, 1923, 4. Page & Turnbull. Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines. Palo Alto, CA: April 2016. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 130 Historic Resource Evaluation - DRAFT 359 Embarcadero Road [16252A.38] Palo Alto, California June 15, 2020 -36- Page & Turnbull California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), Historic Property Data File for Santa Clara County, Updated 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/ National Register of Historic Places, Professorville Historic District, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, California, National Register #80000861. United States Federal Census (1900, 1920, 1930, 1940). www.Ancestry.com. U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current. www.Ancestry.com. Archival Records Bertrand and Chamberlin collection (N 168). Northwest Architectural Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries. Accessed May 20, 2020. https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/8/resources/2362 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 Map Company 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 Ancestry.com “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. 2020. Hill, Robert G. ed. “Bertrand & Chamberlin.” Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada, 1800-1950. Accessed May 20, 2020. http://dictionaryofarchitectsincanada.org/node/1110 Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, “359 Embarcadero Road,” https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invE/Embarcadero359.html 3.c Packet Pg. 131 3.d Packet Pg. 132 3.d Packet Pg. 133 120-19-032 120-19-020 120-19-021 120-20-005 120-20-004 120-20-003 120-20-002 120-20-001 120-19-033 120-18-064 120-18-051 120-18-050 120-18-052 20-18-053 120-18-056 120-07-046 120-07-086 120-07-093 120-07-094 120-07-045 120-19-016 120-19-008 120-19-023 120-19-009 120-19-010 120-19-022 120-19-011 120-1 120-19-015 120-19-029 120-19-034 120-19-002 120-19-003 120-19-024 120-19-006 120-19-027 120-19-028 120-19-007 120-20-023 120-20-024 120-20-022 120-19-030 120-19-005 124-12-034 120-20-006 120-20-007 120-69-010 124-16-018 124-07-014 124-07-013 124-07-049 124-07-052 124-07-053 124-12-037 124-12-011 124-12-010 124-12-009 124-12-008 124-12-007 124-12-006 124-12-025 124-12-023 124-12-036 120-20-017 120-20-018 120-20-019 120-20-029 120-20-028 120-20-020 120-20-021 120-20-027 120-20-026 120-20-025 124-12-024 124-07-015 124-07-016 124-07-044 124-07-043 124-12-029 124-12-002 124-12-005 124-12-004 124-12-003124-12-026 120-19-031 120-19-017 120-19-035 BRY ANTS RC HILL AVENUE W A VERLEY STREET KELL O G G A VEN UE BR Y A N TSTREET E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D W A VERLEY ST REET MELVILLE A VENUE M ELV M ELVILLE A VEN UE Y STREET CO W PERSTREET TRE ET KINGSLEY A V EN U E EY A VEN UE W HIT MA N CO U RT 1335 1330 1322 1322 1325 132 5 500 500 530 1300 1300 480 480 1312 1312 475 475 1238 123 8 1236 1236 433 433 430 430 450 450 490490A 467 467 469 469 465 465 425 425 3 1155 1155 1177 1177 405 405 1146 1146 360 360 365 365 50 22 235 255 255 1404 320 320 305 305 1310 1345 1345 333 333 305 305 343 343 339 339 1325 1325 1321 1321 1319 1319 1301 1301 374 374 1220 1220 1224 1224 364 364 356 356 334 334 334A 1201 1225 1225 305 305 315 315 321 321 334 334 325 325 335 335 353 353 363 363 1240 1240 1248 1248 330 330 359 359 340 340 1221 1221 1245 1245 409 409 340 340 330 330 320 320 350 350 355 355 354 354 1400 1400 345 345 1303 1303 440 440 1321 1321 1329 1329 1331 1331 425 425 427 427 473 47 1336 1336 1390 1330 1330 360 360 1450 1450 369 369 342 342 330 330 1445 1445 450 450 335 335 1207 1207 1327 1327 357 357 373 373 375 375 458 458 1251 1251 311 311 1407 1407 1300 1300 Parcel Report for APN: Net Lot Size: Max Floor Area : Max Lot Coverage : Zone Dist: Minimum Setbacks: Front: Rear: Interior Side(s): Street Side: Special Setbacks: Substandard: Flag Lot: Easements: Comp Plan Des: Parking District: Flood Zone: LOMA: Historic Status: ADU/JADU: Max Height to Ridge: Near Creek: Traffic Imp. Dist: FEMA Map Panel: Comments: HMP Request: SCCA* YR Built: SCCA* Eff. YR Built: Source of year built data is the Santa Clara County Assessor* Click for data details or navigate to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/current/parcel_reports.asp here Easements: Underlying Lot Lines: Trees: Sidewalks: Creek or Waterway: This map is a product of theCity of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 188' Li c e n s e d C h i l d C a r e Fa c i l i t i e s i n P a l o A l t o ( 1 9 9 8 ) CITY O F PALO A LTO IN C O RP ORAT E D CALIFORN IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f AP RIL 16 1 894 See Muni Code 18.42.040 120-20-025 23,620 sf 7,836 sf (note: maximum formain residence is 6,000 sf) If single story, 7,836 sfIf two story, 8,267 sf R-1 (10000) 24' along Embarcadero Rd SF none Xno If no special setback, 20', or,if avg. contextual setback > 30', the avg. contextual setback. 20' 8 If no special setback, 16' 35 9 E m b a r c a d e r o R d If roof slope < 12:12, 30'If roof slope >= 12:12, 33' Category 4; Professorville no no no no The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto none 0010H n/a no 1900 1900 nlaureo, 2020-09-03 11:57:32Assessor Parcels (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) 3.e Packet Pg. 134 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11630) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 9/24/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes May 14, 2020 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 14, 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): x May 14, 2020 Attachments: x Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes May 14, 2020 (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Bower, Vice Chair Shepherd, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Pease, Board Member Wimmer, Board Member Bernstein Absent: Board Member Kohler Chair Bower: Okay. To begin the meeting, I need to read this information into the record. So, pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order Number 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 locations. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV Channel 26 and live on the Midpen Media Center at midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate may do so by email, phone or computer. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on. For written communications, please send an email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Spoken comments via computer will be accepted through the zoom teleconferencing meeting. To address the Board, go to Zoom.us\join. The meeting ID number is 93521894451. 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. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click the raised hand at the bottom middle of your screen on Zoom. You will see by moving your cursor to the bottom middle of your screen, there will be a participant’s tab. If you click on that, you will then be able to see the raised hand tab. The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help track, keep track of your time. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom app onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID93521894451. Please follow the previous steps that I have just described. Spoken public comments using a phone call at 1-669-900-6833 and enter the Meeting ID 93521894451. 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. You can also find this information on the last page of our agenda for today’s meeting. To better facilitate public comments, at the beginning of the meeting our host Vinh will identify each person with a raised hand by name or the last four digits of your phone number and request that you state your name and agenda item you wish to speak on. If you wish to speak under any item not on the agenda, please state your intent to speak under oral communications, which will be up next. When it’s your time to speak during public comment, you will be identified and provided three minutes to speak. Any callers with blocked numbers will wait until the end of the speaker’s port. The host will unmute them one at a time, and all will be asked to speak. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: May 14, 2020 Virtual Teleconference Meeting 8:30 A.M. 4.a Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto Page 2 So, that’s the public announcement. A couple of Zoom tricks. One, as Jodie told us earlier before the meeting began, if you would leave your mics muted so that background noise wherever you are will be minimized, you can then just hit the space bar and hold it to speak and then let go of it and it will put you back on mute. You can also use your cursor. Oral Communications Chair Bower: So, let’s move to oral communications. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. There will be three minutes per speaker. Vinh, could you please explain the procedure you use again for us? Vinh Nguyen: Yes, we will go through the speakers one by one, people who have raised their hand or people who have previously been identified to have public comments. So, right now I do see a member of the public with a hand raised. It is a caller with the last four digits 1000. I will unmute you now, so you can identify which agenda item you want to speak on. Board Member Bernstein: Hello. Mr. Nguyen: Hi, we can hear you. Board Member Bernstein: Hello, Chair Bower. This is Martin Bernstein, Member of HRB and I’ve been present since 8:30. I pushed *9 when the meeting started. So, I am present. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, let me promote you to present. Chair Bower: Great. Nice to have you hear Martin. Board Member Bernstein: You’re welcome. Chair Bower: Vinh, do you see any other people that are asking to speak? Mr. Nguyen: We have no other public comments at this time, but Martin, it looks like I can’t promote you. It might be because… Board Member Bernstein: I’m on my iPhone. Mr. Nguyen: We’ll leave you as an attendee but I’ll keep you unmuted so you can still speak at any time. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, and with that Chair Bower, with no more public comments, we may proceed with the agenda. Chair Bower: Good. Thank you Vinh. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bower: Let’s move on to Agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions. I think we would like to make one change in the order of the Agenda. Amy, you and I talked about that. Amy French: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay. So, so we need to move the entire comment section up, or can we just have this one comment? 4.a Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. French: Well, if you would like to give a report now and delay the other reports till after item three, that would be acceptable. Chair Bower: Okay, I’d like to do that. [Meeting moved to Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements] City Official Reports Chair Bower: Our next item is City Official Reports, Agenda Item number one, which is HRB scheduled meetings. Amy, you probably can speak to that. Ms. French: Sure. So, this is our meeting for May. We have been limiting our meetings to once per month at most, just because the number of items that we get on the HRB are not as many as some other boards and commissions. So, looking at the schedule, the month of June, because of some absents, I’m targeting if we have an item, June 25. So far, we do not have an item. I’m looking at July, considering taking a break in July. It is summer and Council takes a break. For August, looking at the 13th as our one meeting. Again, we don’t have an item just yet. Then September 10th would be the September meeting. We have two options for October, the I think 8th or the 22nd. One date for November that would work, which is November 12th and one date for December which is December 10th, due to the obvious holidays in those months. Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. I think I’m going to be available for every single meeting this year because all of my trips have been cancelled, but I’ll survive. Okay. Thank you for that, and I’m sure you’ll let us know when the meetings are going to be scheduled. Study Session Chair Bower: Next up is Study Session. I don’t think we have a study session planned for today. Action Items 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 Guideline 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. Chair Bower: We can then move to Agenda item number two, which is… Wait a minute, 235 Hamilton, Cardinal Hotel. So, let me read the official description. This is a public hearing/quasi-judicial. The Cardinal Hotel at 235 Hamilton Avenue, which is 20PLN-00024. It is a 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: there is no project under California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines per Section 21065. The zoning district is CD-C (GF)(P) – Down Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Combined District. For more information you can contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Ms. French: Thank you David. Chair Bower: Let me start before you begin, Amy. Are there any disclosures from Board Members? I will start by saying that I have visited the hotel many times, but not recently. Anyone else have any disclosures? I’m not seeing anybody. Oh, Michael. 4.a Packet Pg. 138 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Makinen: We had a tour of the hotel by the project people sometime in March I think it was. We went through the hotel site. Excuse me, that was the other hotel. Cancel that. Chair Bower: Martin, I see your light. Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Thank you, Chair Bower. So, I’ve been in the hotel. I’ve been given a tour of the hotel and I personally have given tours of the hotel. That’s my disclosure. Thank you. Chair Bower: Alright. I’m seeing other people shaking their heads no. So, Amy, why don’t you begin with the Staff Report. Ms. French: Okay. Well today we are, it’s hotel day. We’ve got two hotels, the first being the Cardinal Hotel. This is Item Two. The hotel was built in 1924 and it is History Inventory Category 3 on our local inventory. It was put there is 1978 as a Category 3. Then in 1985 it was put as a Contributing Resource to the National District. That’s when the National District at Ramona was put into that category. The Cardinal Hotel is the first building that was built in the Ramona Street District and per the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull in the fall of 2019, it is eligible as an Individual Resource under Criterion 1 and Criterion 3. It is designed by William Weeks in the Italian Renaissance Revival Style. Birge Clark was the supervising architect and it has been largely unaltered since 1944. It is just, with its existing Category, eligible for using the California Historical Building Code and energy standards, as well as Historic Preservation incentives in the City’s Zoning Code. It is a Seismic Category II Building and alternations based on the seismic issues have been in discussion so far, but there is no application submitted. The Cardinal Hotel is in, and I’ll say what these are, Commercial Downtown Ground-Floor Pedestrian Zone. That enables a building such as this with a 283 FAR to apply for historic bonus for use on site up to the 3 to 1, but the applicant has not indicated interest so far, and that the applicant has indicated interest in potentially transferring bonus floor area off the site following rehabilitation. So, this is in our code, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.070 that allows the applicant to perform rehabilitation for both historic and seismic reasons and go through a process on that. But only the Council can approve on-site use of such bonuses, again, only up to the 3 to 1 FAR. The Cardinal Hotel, the reason it is eligible for California Register Individual Listing is for its role in Palo Alto’s commercial development and its distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction. These are considered significant. It also meets all seven of the aspects of integrity as noted. The Cardinal Hotel has some alterations to date. The ground floor commercial spaces, storefront doors and display windows, upper floor windows were replaced with original fenestration openings. The intact features include the ground floor bulkheads, windows and transoms, the window rhythms and all original decorative façade details. The hotel lobby is special. It has craftsmanship from the American Arts and Crafts Movement in the 1920s and you can see there are still the retained flooring, ceiling, fireplace and other items still intact. A stairway was clearly added at some point later, on the right there. So, we’re looking to make the findings for the upgrade inventory classification on the City’s inventory, the reasons being it’s the first commercial anchor for the Ramona Street Historic District. It’s meritorious work of the architect and his supervising architect. It retains many character-defining features, all sever integrity aspects and the original character is intact. Our consultant, Page & Turnbull, who is also a participant are watching the presentation today has determined that it exceeds the criterion set for Category 3 buildings, and more appropriately classified as a Local Inventory Category 2. So, this is tentatively on the Council agenda consent for June 22. I’ll leave that slide up and turn it over to the applicant, who has images to share. Abha, are you participating? Abha Nehru: Yeah. Good morning. Yes, I wanted to have the screen… Vinh you want to… Mr. Nguyen: I (not understood) Amy screen shared, so you can share your screen now. If you are unable to, I can also project it for you. Ms. Nehru: Okay, alright. Let me check and then I will start. I will keep my video off because my internet here can be spotty, so thanks for understanding. Good morning Chair Bower, Vice Chair Shepherd, good morning to all board Members. I am Abha Nehru and I work with Carrasco and Associates. I would like to 4.a Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Page 5 first thank Amy and the City staff for their research and work on this project. I would also like to thank the Board and staff for working through the pandemic and for organizing this on-line hearing. We all really appreciate that. To start with, I would like to introduce Stephanie Wansek. She is the general manager of the Cardinal Hotel and is representing the owners. Vinh, could you unmute her? She just has a few lines that she would like to say. Mr. Nguyen: Sure. Could you say, which name again? Ms. Nehru: Stephanie Wansek. Stephanie, could you raise your hand? Mr. Nguyen: Okay, I have unmuted you, but you have to unmute yourself as well. Stephanie Wansek: Yes, good morning. Are people able to hear me? Chair Bower: Yes. Ms. Wansek: Good morning everyone. Thank you for your time again to echo Abha. I just wanted to read a few words. It has been my pleasure to manage the Cardinal Hotel for the past twenty years. During its proud history since 1924 the Cardinal Hotel has listed countless visitors to downtown Palo Alto. We proudly know the Cardinal to be a significant historic node since it was built. It was built to bring commercial development to Hamilton Street. It also became the scene of local community gatherings and dance events. The Cardinal Hotel continues its 95-year-old tradition to offer travelers visiting Palo Alto on business or leisure an experience noteworthy of remembrance. Global and domestic travelers visiting Palo Alto, Stanford and the San Francisco Bay Area experience the 1920s Revival Period while at the same time being part of today’s Palo Alto. Guests who visit the Cardinal are constantly impressed with the thoughtful preservation of the hotel and the authentic experience of their stay. The Dahl Family has owned this historic hotel since 1944 and have through the generations continued to preserve and celebrate its history. We look forward to hearing your feedback today regarding our proposal. Thank you. Chair Bower: Abha, do you want to continue? Ms. Nehra: Yes, I can continue, thanks. So, on behalf of the Cardinal Hotel ownership we are requesting that the Cardinal Hotel be designated as a Category 2 building in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory listing. It is currently listed as a Category 3 building. So, it’s a visual landmark anchored on the corner of Hamilton and Ramona. It is currently part of the Ramona Street Architectural District. It was built in 1924, designed in an Italian Renaissance Revival style by the prolific California architect William H. Weeks in collaboration with Birge Clark. It was the first hotel of its kind and the builders spared no expense to make the Cardinal Hotel the last word in hotel buildings at that time. The image on the right shows how the Cardinal Hotel is anchoring the Ramona Street Architectural District at the corner of Hamilton and Ramona. I’ll just walk you through the existing and the 1924 plans to show that not much has been altered over the years. This is the basement plan. The basement they were primarily using it for storage, housekeeping, mechanical and utility rooms were there. At one time there was also a dance floor in the basement. Not much has changed since then except for the fact that there is no dancing happening there. We still have our utilities, server rooms and storage in the basement. This is the current basement plan from 2020. This slide shows the first-floor plan drawing from 1924. We just outlined the lobby and the main entrances from Ramona and Hamilton which was part of the main hotel reception and still is. Surrounding ground floor spaces are all retail and they were designed as retail earlier and they still are retail now. The shaded areas show the retail portions. We have an alley on the side, on the southwest side. The main entry being from Hamilton and the second entry is from Ramona side. The legend here shows a few changes that have happened over the years, and these primarily are glazing doors or windows that have been replaced or repaired over time. The second and third floor plans are the guest floors, and this is a u-shape on the second and third floors around the light well. The interior guest rooms get this light and air from this rectangular lightwell and it will be more clear on the next image. These rooms and these floors, both second and third floor have not been modified or altered over the years. There has not been much change except for upgrade to bathrooms, styles and plumbing. So, I’ll just 4.a Packet Pg. 140 City of Palo Alto Page 6 breeze past these slides. These were just to show you that the second and third floor plans have remained intact. This is a roof plan, not much change, same as before. This is an elevation drawing of Hamilton Avenue from 1924 and the next image would show how this building looks like today, 2020 elevation. The notations here show that along Hamilton the windows and glazing have been changed or repaired over time. There has been some added signage and fabric awnings, but the building primarily looks the same as it did in 1924. The next slide will show a Ramona drawing. Similarly, only the windows and glazing along this façade have changed over time. The windows on the second and third floors have been replaced, but within the opening fenestration. This is the Ramona Street elevation from 2020. We have noted what has changed. There has been the addition of a neon sign which wasn’t there in 1924, but we think it was still added around later in the 1920s because we see that in images from 1930 onwards. These are rare elevations. The only changes we see again are replacement windows which are noted here. This is the west alley elevation. Again, just the modification to windows, window replacement on the second and third guest floors and glazing replacement at the first-floor corner here where we have the Base Gallery right now. So, I just have a few more images to share with you. The hotel opened in December, but the formal opening of the hotel was on December 13. This was an article in San Jose Mercury (not understood) at the time announcing the grand opening of the hotel. This is how the building looked from the southeast corner from 1924 and if I take a black and white image now today, it would almost look the same. This is a view, southeast view from 2020. There has been some addition of a neon sign and the flag posts are not there any longer. The building looks the same. This is the Hamilton façade today. Here, this image shows the material palate of stucco, terra-cotta, wrought iron and we have clay tile at the top edge. There were shields designed in the spandrel panels between windows and this is typical along Hamilton and Ramona façade. Horizontal (not understood) reminiscent of those times was used to separate the first floor from the two upper levels. This is the main Hamilton entry. It has spiraled classical Corinthian columns at Hamilton entrance and a metal marquee over this entrance and it is similar at the Ramona entrance. You can also see the stained-glass transom window at the corner there next to the pilaster. The next image shows how the hotel lobby looked in 1924 and the hotel interior again has primarily stayed intact. If I were to take this image as a black and white image today, I probably would not be able to make out the difference, except that there was a stair added at some point, which goes to the mezzanine level. The last few images. This is the main stair; the left image shows the main stair from 1924 and we took the main stair image as a black and white for 2020. The difference being only that today’s picture is a little sharper. My last slide, I just want to conclude that the Cardinal Hotel was the first building constructed to attract commercial development on Hamilton and Ramona Streets. It was followed by other contributing buildings that became part of the Ramona Street Architectural District. The character-defining features of the building are substantially retained. It represents distinctive characteristics of style, period and workmanship. The collaboration of William Weeks and Birge Clark shaped the path for the other buildings that followed in this district. Lastly and most importantly, the owners wish to preserve this history for the future generations. Thank you for your time and I will mute myself now and answer any questions that you may have. Chair Bower: Okay. So, at this point thank you very much for that presentation. It’s a beautiful building and it is remarkable how much of the original historic fabric is still there. I’d like to take, at this point, to have Board Members ask questions, just questions. We’ll have a discussion after that. Any Board Members have questions? I’m going to start by calling on people, just to make it simpler. Christian, any questions? Board Member Pease: Not at this time. Chair Bower: Okay, Debbie? Vice Chair Shephard: No, thank you. Chair Bower: Okay. Mike? Board Member Makinen: No questions. 4.a Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Bower: Okay. Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, I don’t know if this is an appropriate question for this part of the meeting, but I’m just wondering why you, have you considered moving it to a Category 1? I just was, I think it’s great that you’re moving the category to a greater significance. I just was wondering why 2 and not go for a Category 1? Just out of curiosity. Ms. Nehra: I think we asked Page & Turnbull to review this building. At that time the methodology and the criteria they used, they thought it would fit the Category 2 instead of Category 1. That it would not meet the criteria set by the HRB Board. So, they made that call, and maybe Christina can address that. She is here attending the meeting. Chair Bower: Christina, can you respond if you want. Board Member Wimmer: I was just to interject. I mean, the difference between the Category 1 and Category 2, the Category 1 is an exceptional building, a Category 2 is a major building. I mean, because this building hasn’t had a lot of alterations, it’s largely intact, it keeps its character. I mean, for me it’s kind of an exceptional building, so I just, I’m just thinking since you’re going through this effort to move it up. Maybe just the Category 1 would obligate you to things that you don’t want to be obligated to. Because in that sense, you could become a national level recognized building, which I think, I mean I would be in support of that just because I think it’s such a landmark. Ms. French: So, Vinh, Christina is on the attendee side, so she needs to be unmuted. Christina (no last name): Hi, can you hear me? Chair Bower: Yes. Christina: I’m actually, so I wasn’t the author of the Historic Resource Evaluation and I did review it but I didn’t see that we opined about category level. We were evaluating for the California Register, so I’m not sure if this was a separate conversation that my colleague had perhaps with Amy. Amy might have more information about that, but I don’t actually have anything to contribute about this. I’m sorry. Chair Bower: Okay. Amy, you have a comment. Ms. French: Yeah. I didn’t recall a conversation suggesting that Category 2 is the appropriate category. I mean, we have our Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 that has, you know, the findings or the categories and, yes, exceptional building is one of them, Category 1. As a comparison, the President Hotel is also a Category 2, not a Category 1. We’re seeing that later today. I think because there are rehabilitation features that could happen on this building, then the question would be, after those happened is it then eligible for Category 1. That would be a kind of a question that I would have. You know, Category 1, how many Category 1 buildings do we have in Palo Alto. That’s a question I have and what differentiates them from the Category 2s and I don’t have an answer. Chair Bower: Okay. So, I’d like to suggest that for today, let’s just consider the change from Category 3 to Category 2, but I’m very interested in Margaret’s suggestion and it would be worth having another, looking at this issue at a different meeting. Not that the applicant needs to come, but we as a Board could look at the definitions, look at the list of buildings that are Category 1 and Category 2, and then maybe think about changing the designation at that meeting. But for today, let’s just focus on this change from 3 to 2. Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to say one last thing. The Board has discussed that at length before, but we’ve never made any changes to the Categories 1 through 4. We were considering saying historic, nonhistoric, just having one category. I mean, I still think that there is, having 4 categories is good and I think we should maybe have a workshop to take a look at the definitions. 4.a Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Bower: Okay, great. Thanks Margaret. Martin, do you have any questions? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Am I unmuted? Chair Bower: You are. Board Member Bernstein: My question would be to the owner or owner representative, has the owner or owner representative considered raising it to Category 1? Ms. Nehru: We had not considered it but we can look into it. We would have to talk with the owners. Chair Bower: Is that a no. Ms. Nehru: No, I’m, I haven’t talked to them and this didn’t come up at our meetings at all, so… Chair Bower: I understand. I’m not saying you are not interested in it. I’m just verifying that you hadn’t considered it. That’s all. So, everybody has spoken. I have a couple of questions about, just detail questions. Do you happen to know the age of that stair, when that stairway in the lobby was installed? Do you have any idea when that came? Ms. Nehru: No, off the top of my head I do not, but it has been there now for a long time. Maybe Stephanie, the manager of the hotel knows when it was put in. Chair Bower: I’m asking because if it’s over fifty years, it then becomes significant fabric. I think it’s over fifty years because I remember it there when I was in high school. So… Ms. Nehru: Let me meanwhile check with her if she knows this. Chair Bower: It’s just something to consider. It’s not really part of this. The next question I have is, I noticed that the building has extraordinary symmetry in its architecture and that the awnings for Osteria, a favorite restaurant of mine, really obscures those upper windows. I’m assuming those windows are still there. Is that the case? I think they are. Ms. Nehru: Yes, that’s correct. They are still there. We peeked inside to check. Chair Bower: So, I’m wondering if at some point in the future you might consider removing that awning which obscures that important symmetric design. It’s half of that Hamilton façade on the first floor, and that maybe there would be another opportunity for signage. Osteria has been there a very long time. It’s clearly recognizable and known in the community. I hope it remains there in this difficult time. But it’s something I’m just suggesting that at a further or future date might consider unmasking the windows. Ms. Nehru: Thanks for that comment and yes, we are looking at that. Chair Bower: Okay, great. Thank you. Those are all my questions. I guess if there are no further Board Member questions, I’ll bring this back to the Board for discussion. We will need to create a motion to move this forward and vote on it. So, what we’re being asked to do is to recommend that the building be reclassified from a Contributing Building Category 3 to a Major Building Category 2 resource on the History Inventory. So, comments or discussion by Board Members? Let’s see, I started with Christian last time. Let me start with Martin this time, since you were at the end. Martin, any discussion? Board Member Bernstein: Not at this point. Chair Bower: Okay. Let’s see, how do we go through, Margaret, I guess you are up next. Any discussion? 4.a Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Wimmer: Yes. I mean, I’m just going to go back to my original comment about I think this is an exceptional building. I think it’s the cornerstone of the Ramona Street District. I think that Palo Alto doesn’t have a lot of Category 1 buildings. I think this is an opportunity for us to have, it’s an exceptional building. And I don’t know strategically if Category 2 gives them more or Category 1 limits them what they can do in the future, but I mean, I’m in support of it being moved up. I would also be in support or encourage them to investigate becoming a Category 1. I mean, we, that could be a feather in Palo Alto’s cap, having more historic buildings. I think this is a perfect, it’s almost 100 years old, right. It was built in 1924. We’re four years away from it being a 100-year-old building. I think it’s time for Palo Alto to recognize that and to celebrate that and I think it’s an exceptional building. I would encourage the applicant to not settle for Category 2, because I clearly think it’s a candidate for a Category 1. Chair Bower: That’s a good point, Margaret. I think that for today’s consideration we need to stay with the move from 3 to 2, because I think, as I just mentioned, there is, I think there is further investigation before we do that. I’m in support of looking at that and doing that. Board Member Wimmer: But if we have a motion and we all agree to move it up to a 2, I mean, is this just lost then, or is there… Can we just, I guess when we craft our motion, we can encourage them to investigate a Category 1 in our motion, I guess. Chair Bower: Amy, do you have a comment on that? Ms. French: I would just say, you know, let’s stay the course as you suggested a Category 2. That gets them into the floor area bonus territory where they can, you know, hopefully get some benefit to make some additional improvements to the building that would bring it into further compliance at the storefront level, because they’re interested in doing some of those things. And then we can return with whatever they plan to do with the building, be it seismic or historic rehab at the storefront level, and have that discussion again. And if they want to delay going to Council with the upgrade to have those conversations, we can certainly do that. But I wouldn’t want to delay them because we do have a tentative date of June 22 for this category. Chair Bower: Sure. I think my feeling is that before we move up to Category 1, we would need to look at the awning and some other minor architectural changes that would make a difference. So, I think it’s up to the applicant if they want to postpone it, we can certainly figure out a way to put this back on our agenda to move it up to a Category 1. I don’t see that the action we take today will preclude another hearing to change the category again from 2 to 1. (crosstalk) Ms. French: David, can I just say before you take a vote that we need to make sure the public is invited to comment if there is anyone to comment on this item. Did we get any requests? Chair Bower: Oh, thank you. I had that on my list after the Board discussion. So, Vinh, you can look and see if anyone, any public member would like to speak, if they could use the raise your hand feature. After we have this discussion, we will have those comments. So, Debbie, do you have any comments or discussion? Vice Chair Shepherd: No, I don’t at this time. Chair Bower: Okay. Mike, how about you? Board Member Makinen: I pretty much agree with Margaret’s comments that we should look further at a Category 1. I think the motion should contain some wording that the Board strongly recommends further consideration for a higher upgrade or Category 1. I think that should be in the motion. Chair Bower: Okay. Christian, any discussion? Board Member Pease: I agree with Mike’s suggestion. 4.a Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Bower: Okay, I can’t see Martin, but Martin, do you have any further comments? Board Member Bernstein: No further comment. Chair Bower: Okay, Vinh, do we have any members of the public who would like to speak to us on this item? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we do. We have one raised hand from John. If there is anyone else who wants to speak on this item, please raise your hand now. The raise hand button is at the bottom of your Zoom screen. If you’re calling in from a phone, you can raise your hand by pressing *9. John, I will unmute you now so you can speak. John: Thank you Vinh. Can you hear me? Chair Bower: Yes. Welcome John. John: Thank you Chair Bower and HRB. Thank you, guys, for looking at this. I’m a big fan and a big supporter of the Cardinal Hotel. I’m so grateful that, like many other owners, but like the Thoits family, the Dahls have just been great caretakers of this asset for so many decades and I applaud and support their application today to move to a Category 2. I understand ya’lls interest and support of even going to a 1. It is a fantastic asset for the downtown. I just want to point out that these kinds of moves and such have lots of implications and issues and costs that the owners need to figure out and to not do anything that’s going to tie their hands, you know, especially in today’s economy and COVID-19 and they’re a hotel and all of these things. You know, I would hope, and I don’t know exactly what I’m speaking to. Amy would be the guru, but really, I would just hope ya’ll would approve this so it opens up their avenue for some financing vehicles to help them continue to maintain and analyze projects to enhance the building in the years to come. I just want to voice a very strong level of support. The Thoits family owns buildings across the street as well as throughout the downtown, and it was fun by the way, to see in the historic analysis some of the Thoits family members mentioned for their contributions and activities on neighboring buildings there on Ramona. Oh, I don’t know, 100 years ago. But anyway, I think it’s fantastic and I applaud Stephanie as their manager on the asset to undertake this and explore it, because it’s a great step toward preserving our downtown. I thank ya’ll there and hope you vote yes. Thanks. Chair Bower: Thank John for sharing and spending time with us today. Of we have no further public comments Vinh? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, that concludes the public comments for this item. Chair Bower: Okay, well, let’s move on to crafting a motion. I don’t think it has to be complicated. Anyone want to step up to that. Wow, don’t raise your hands all at once. MOTION Chair Bower: Well, I can start and then you can tell me, you can let me know if there are things I’m missing. I would say that I move that we recommend that the Council reclassify the building from a Category 3 to a Category 2 building on the Palo Alto Historic Resource Inventory and would encourage the building’s owners to consider a further request at a future date to change from a Category 2 to a Category 1, but that is not contingent on this particular approval. How’s that Amy? Do you think that’s clear? Ms. French: Yes, I think that works. Certainly, you know, I hear the motion and I think there is something we can do to take a look at the Ramona District and see, you know, how many of those 4.a Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Page 11 buildings are Category 1 versus Category 2 individually, and I can get a report back to the HRB to help the Board with their deliberation for next steps, if the applicant wishes to go with Category 1. Chair Bower: I want to be very clear for the minutes, in the minutes that it’s an encouragement to change from Category 2 to Category 1. It is not a requirement and is not, I don’t want the owners to feel like they are being pushed to do something they are uncomfortable with. Because as John just mentioned, there are many implications of changing categories. Okay. Do I have a second? Board Member Makinen: I’ll second it. Chair Bower: Okay, Mike, your second. Is there any further discussion or are we ready to vote? I don’t see any further discussion so I’ll just go right down the line and ask people to vote yes in favor or no, not in favor. Christian? Board Member Pease: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay. Mike? Board Member Makinen: Yes. Chair Bower: Debbie? Vice Chair Shepherd: Yes. Chair Bower: Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Chair Bower: Martin? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay, and I’m also a yes so that’s a unanimous six votes for changing this. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. Chair Bower: I want to thank all the people who have participated in this, staff and of course, the applicants and the applicant’s consultants. It was a very thorough review and when you see me looking down, I ‘m actually looking on my iPad at the very long 100-page reports. I’m not reading my phone. But it helps to be able to see that. I can’t do that on my computer. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you for all who have participated. 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. Hotel President, 488 University Avenue [19PLN-00038]: Review of Proposed Building Modifications for Compliance with Secretary of 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 Historic 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. Chair Bower: Let’s move on to Item number 3 and I will read, this is 488 University Avenue, the Hotel President. So, this is a public hearing/quasi-judicial. The Hotel President at 488 University Avenue [19PLN-00038]. It’s a review of proposed building modifications for compliance with Secretary of Interior 4.a Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Standards. It’s architectural review application to modify a Local 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 Historic Resources. Environmental assessment: California Environmental Quality Act 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 Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Let me just stop there. Amy, is that correct directions for people who want more information about the project? Ms. French: At this time we are transitioning from our consultants due to budget concerns, so I would just say if you have questions you can email them to me, amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Jodie and I are working with transitioning to another staff member. Chair Bower: Okay. Thanks for that clarification. I wanted to say at this juncture that the Historic Resources Board is only evaluating the changes to an historic property. This is a controversial project. We are not, our purview does not include the change from a residential structure to a commercial structure. That’s not what we’re here to talk about and I’d appreciate it if the public did not focus on that or discuss that. We’re here and willing and interested in listening to all public comments about the historic resources that this particular building possesses and the changes that are discussed. So, let’s start with disclosures. I will say I have toured the building with the project architect and the owner and the local project manager in, I don’t know, the last six months. Christian? Board Member Pease: I also had a tour, as you have, of the property. Chair Bower: Debbie? Vice Chair Shepherd: I also had a tour. Chair Bower: Okay, Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: No, sadly, I didn’t participate in the tour. But I did go to a presentation that was at the Ilfrinio (phonetic) Courtyard about a good year ago. Chair Bower: Okay, Martin, any disclosure? You’re muted. I presume Martin has no disclosures, since he’s not speaking up, and Mike is currently out of the room. I’ll circle back around and ask him afterwards. Alright, let’s just move on to the staff report. Amy or whomever? Ms. French: Yes, I’ll be giving the report. So, the President Hotel or Hotel President was built in 1930 as the largest and most modern hotel in Palo Alto at the time. It’s an existing Local Resource Inventory Category 2 as a major building in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Our consultant, Page & Turnbull has evaluated this and found it to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 (events) and Criterion 3, (architecture). Of course, the master architect for Palo Alto, Birge Clark designed this building and it was associated with President Hoover back then and it did extend University Avenue. It was an early mixed-use building at the time. Those are the reasons it’s eligible for California Register. As well the character-defining features conveying the historic identity are evident in the building today. We have some lovely older photos here showing the older cars, etc. So fun to see these photos. The lobby in the President Hotel back in the 1930s and 40s is showing in these images and the lobby is still there today. The noncompliant features are the height of the building exceeds the City’s fifty-foot maximum and the maximum for the zone, the CD-GFP, and the FAR, floor area ratio also exceed the maximum for the district at 50,540 square feet. That’s part of the project. The University Avenue area, the basement does protrude into the right-of-way on University Avenue below grade, below the sidewalk nine feet and the marquee entry also protrudes into that University Avenue right-of-way and as well, the sixth-floor balcony comes out just a bit at two feet seven inches. There’s a beautiful entrance details shown on the right that are still existent. The President Hotel plans to convert 75 dwelling units to 100 hotel rooms and it did start its life out as a hotel, but now we have a Council decision that would make that decision for reasons I could get into later if requested. The project does reduce the floor area ratio 4.a Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Page 13 from 5.42 to 5.36. The garage that’s proposed to handle some of the parking there would employ tandem spaces and would use a valet system. The elevator that’s proposed would reach a height of 90 feet to enable public use of the rooftop, which is currently there and was there back in the 40s as you can see on the image to the right. And then there are the interior and exterior renovations which are proposed. I list them here, but the applicant will probably, will be presenting more thoroughly on these. So, they’re a combination of preservation, rehabilitation and restoration. The code that is applicable to the exempt floor area which is proposed is 18.18.060(e) and I have that later after the presentation if anyone wants to see that in writing. The California Register eligibility for this is great because it allows use of the State Historic Building Code. I believe it has already been able to be used and this could come in handy. Packet Page 110 to 113 presents the Secretary of Interior Standards compliance analysis for this project that is proposed with the architectural review application and it describes why the property retains five of the seven aspects of integrity and I note them here, settings, materials and then conveying the significance under those period of significance features. So, just one note, there is a discussion in the Staff Report about the lobby. There are some openings proposed in the lobby wall which do not fully comply with Standards two and nine but because those are reversible, you know, opening a wall can be closed at some point it’s reversible and, therefore can be determined consistent with Standard ten. So that was one note. So, we come to the recommendation and next steps. The HRB is requested to confirm the building’s eligibility for Individual Resource listing on the California Register and we had a peer review to check, that reviewed Page & Turnbull’s work on that. Also, for the HRB to confirm the project’s consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation, also confirmed through our consultant. And we do believe that this project does not result in a CEQA impact to the Historic Resource. So, then the next steps would be Council would consider a waiver under this code section noted to convert the residential units over to nonresidential hotel rooms. The Council will also consider the HRB’s recommendation on the Architectural Review application and this is the downtown part of the code in Chapter 16.49 that has these projects going to the HRB for recommendation. And then the Council will also consider the conditional use permit for the elevator access for the public and then service of alcohol. I think that concludes the presentation. So, thank you and I know the applicant wishes to present their application. Chair Bower: Good, so that’s just what I was going to come to next. Vinh, can you facilitate the applicant’s access? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, so is it going to be Alex or a different person? Chair Bower: While we’re waiting, Mike, before I asked the Board if there were any disclosures and you weren’t available to answer. Board Member Makinen: Yes, I have a disclosure. I did receive a tour by the project applicant sometime in March, I can’t remember the exact date. They took us completely through the building at that time. Chair Bower: Right, thank you. Okay, Vinh do we have the applicant up? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, Alex you are unmuted. Alex Stanford: Yes, can you guys hear me? Chair Bower: Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Mr. Stanford: Okay, great. And Vinh I don’t know if you’re controlling the PDF but I’m going to speak to the first three slides and turn it over to Geno, who will finish the presentation. Jodie Gerhardt: So, this is Jodie and I will be controlling the slides. Can you see the first one now? Mr. Stanford: Yeah, thanks. Hey, good morning Jodie. Perfect. Can we go to slide two? Perfect, thank you. Good morning Chairman Bower and HRB Members. I’m Alex Stanford and on behalf of my 4.a Packet Pg. 148 City of Palo Alto Page 14 colleagues in A. J. Capital and project team joining today’s virtual hearing including Geno Yun, Principal at ELS Architecture, Christina Dikas, Associate Principal and Senior Architectural Historian at Page & Turnbull, and Steve Emslie, Partner at Lighthouse Public Affairs. We are excited to present our restoration rehabilitation plan for the Hotel President. Jodie, if you don’t mind just going to slide three. Great. As Amy mentioned, designed by the renowned Birge Clark, the iconic Spanish Colonial Revival Style building established the commercial corridor of University Avenue when it first opened to guests in 1930. Unfortunately, as many of you witnessed during tours earlier this year, the building has suffered from decades of deferred maintenance and is urgent need of restoration and upgrades to critical infrastructure, including a seismic retrofit, installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems and accessibility improvements. Our design team has worked to integrate the code-required life safety modernization without compromising the rehabilitation and preservation of the building’s character-defining features, which Geno will now highlight. Geno. Mr. Vinh: Please give me one second to put Geno on the line. Okay, Geno, if you could unmute yourself, you may speak. Geno Yun: Okay, I believe I’m unmuted. Can you hear me? Chair Bower: You are Geno. Please go ahead. Mr. Yun: Alright, thank you and good morning Board Members and staff. As Alex mentioned, there are three items of importance that are critical on the scope of the project that I need to sort of mention and elaborate on that are not necessarily historic, but nonetheless improves the accessibility and safety of the project, one being the voluntary seismic upgrade of the entire structure. That also enhances the historic asset lifetime and usability of the building, so that is a very important item to mention for this Historic Asset as well as the fully fire sprinkling of the building that would help prevent the spread of any sort of devastating fires in the building. So, that’s an improvement that the owners are voluntarily inserting into the project. The last being the accessible and gurney-sized elevator that we are installing in addition to preserving the historic elevators. So, this new elevator is going to provide access from the basement all the way up to the roof garden that is being preserved. Jodie, next slide please. So, there are a number of historic key character-defining features in the project and I’ll just kind of mention them here, but elaborate in the next few slides. Being a Birge Clark building, we are thrilled to be part of this project. It’s a classic example of a Birge Clark structure and design. The stucco building is a character-defining feature that we’re going to be preserving and enhancing with both façade improvements for repairs on the exterior as well as paint color scheme that will enhance the overall composition of the building. We’re preserving the wood gallery at the top floor, the sixth floor, which are actual functioning balconies that face University Avenue. A classic example of how to draw interest to the top of the building and yet enhance the proportions of the overall mass. All the steel sash windows we’re preserving, repairing and painting. The Juliette balconies that are on the second floor at the end of the buildings we’re preserving and repairing as necessary. The storefronts on the ground floor, there are a number of storefronts that are not historically correct, and so we are proposing to replace those to match the ones that are correct, and I’ll show you a little bit more on that later. On the inside of the building, there is what was formerly the Pluto’s restaurant and kitchen, that space is going to be converted into a registration lobby and connected to the main hall entrance that we will be preserving as well, and as mentioned earlier by Amy, the item of how we open up to that space I’ll touch on a little bit later. And then the kitchen of Pluto’s is the former lounge that was part of the lobby that was actually shown in the earlier image a couple of slides previous that is a beautiful space, wood beam ceilings, fireplace. We’re proposing to remove the kitchen and expose the wood beam ceilings which we have investigated as being still intact. Unfortunately, the fireplace is no longer there, but for the most part we will try to preserve the spirit of what that lounge used to be. And then finally, rehabilitate the rooftop garden, have access to it and preserve the ability to go up there for enjoying the views. Next slide please. So, this slide sort of goes into the details of what we’re proposing in terms of color scheme, keeping a light body, cream body color for the paint on the stucco, enhancing the wood features with the darker color that you see there. I cannot read that, but I think its blacktop is the name of the paint. And then anything steel we’re proposing to use a little bit lighter color called southern vine, and so the combination of the darker and 4.a Packet Pg. 149 City of Palo Alto Page 15 lighter colors helps enhance the definition of the features as well as bringing interest to the elements and enhancing the light body of the stucco building. Next slide please. So, here we get into a little bit more detail of the storefront improvements. You can see we have identified three bays of storefronts that are nonhistoric and being proposed to be removed and replaced with more historically correct storefronts, bulkheads, ceramic tile mosaics. We have identified the maker of the original tiles and so we’ll be looking to contact them. I think the company is Stone Light Tile in San Jose. So, we’ll be going to the original supplier for the tile. Based on this Birge Clark detail of the entrance doors, we’re proposing to rebuild the metalwork, the steel grates and scrollwork in the doors and sidelights and transom to then bring back the original intent of the entrance doors. Next slide please. So, this image here kind of highlights what we’re proposing to do with the storefronts. The image on the left, the existing nonconforming or nonhistoric storefronts to be replaced with something like the image on the right, the tile pony walls, the metal and wood storefront and clear glass. Next slide. So, in terms of the ground floor improvements, that hatched area A is the former Pluto’s kitchen area. We’re going to turn that into a lounge bar area, expose the ceiling, create some more historic enhancements that would be consistent with the character of the time and the design. Item B is the historic elevator which has some beautiful front door and cage elements that have been maintained superbly and work quite well today. And then the cab itself has some beautiful leather embossed paneling that will be cleaned and again, enhanced to continue its life. Behind it you can see the new elevator being proposed and that’s the larger gurney-sized accessible elevator that will go from the basement to the roof garden. And then Item C is a central stair currently connecting the ground floor lobby to the mezzanine to level two and then from level two up to the roof we’re proposing to open up the stair to bring back to life the central stair connecting capabilities from floor to floor. As mentioned earlier, the opening between the main entrance hall and the previous Pluto space, that wall will be opened up to allow for programmatically connecting the entrance to the registration lounge area, but we see the value in preserving the original nature of the hall entrance and the ceiling beam work that is currently existing there will be preserved and we will also highlight the individual nature of the two spaces, but we do want to be able to have that connectivity between once you enter and going to the registration desk. So, the wall itself will be opened up and as Amy mentioned earlier, if in the future it needed to be restored to an independent hall space, that could be closed up quite easily. Next slide. And then finally, up on the roof, the rooftop garden we’re enhancing the usability with pavers and plants and planters, adding some bathrooms and exit circulation and mechanical systems up there. So, again, preserving and bringing back to life the rooftop garden that was there originally. I think that concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Chair Bower: Thank you Geno. If you’ll hand on with us for a few minutes, I think I’d like to see if any of the public would like to comment on this project at this point. After that we can come back to the Board, the Board can ask questions of the applicant and then we can move forward with our deliberations. Vinh, any public members? Actually, let me just say any members of the public that would like to speak, please use the raise-your-hand feature down at the center bottom of your screen. Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, we don’t have any raised hands at the moment. Let’s give it maybe ten seconds to see if anyone wants to raise their hand. Chair Bower: Well, let’s do this. Let’s move on to Board questions for the applicant and then I’ll come back to the public comments after we finish that. Mr. Nguyen: Sure. Chair Bower: Okay, so Board Members, in any order, questions. Margaret, I see you raised your hand. Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, hi. I just wanted to ask about the historic tile, because the historic tile is certainly a character-defining feature of the project, both on the inside and the outside and in a past project where the Palo Alto toy store had tile there was a subcommittee that really studied and approved the historic tile that was just, there was just a small amount of it in comparison to this project. I just wanted to learn more from the applicant how, are you removing all of the tile? Because it’s on the interior floor, there’s shaped tile as baseboards throughout the project. I kind of wanted for you to speak 4.a Packet Pg. 150 City of Palo Alto Page 16 more about your intent on what, are you removing all of the tile, are you removing some of the tile? And I know that, I just looked up Stone Light and I think that’s a great manufacturer that can make replicate tiles, but I just wanted to understand better what your proposals are for how much are you removing and can you just speak a little bit more to that. Mr. Yun: Sure, I can answer that question. First of all, we’re not proposing to remove any tile. Anything that’s on the floor currently or on the walls, we’re proposing to leave. We’re still in the process of evaluating the impact of the structural upgrades and if there I a wall surface that needs structural enhancement that happens to have tile on it today, we would replace it with new tile once the structural enhancement is complete. But as of right now we don’t foresee that being necessary. The only tile that should be clear in our package that we’re proposing to add is where we are replacing the nonhistoric storefronts with ones to replicate the historic. So, that’s where I’m talking about installing new tile in a new storefront. Chair Bower: Okay. Thank you, Geno. Christian, do you have any questions? Board Member Pease: I do not. Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. Mike? Board Member Makinen: I have a question regarding the seismic rehab that you plan on doing. What are the impacts of the seismic rehab as far as intruding into the historic fabric of the building? At times these things end up being a lot of beam work that ends up being installed in some of these historic buildings that does tend to compromise some of the original historic fabric. So, could you comment on that please? Mr. Yun: Sure, and as I’m looking at the drawings that we had submitted, I’m afraid we were neglect in showing or fully representing where the impacts are for the seismic upgrades in the storefronts on the ground floor. So, I’ll try to describe them verbally for you. If you go to our drawings, the elevation of the entire building on the University Avenue, Amy or Jodie. Ms. French: Oh, Jodie is operating those. Mr. Yun: Can we bring up that elevation? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, it will take me a minute to pull those up. Mr. Yun: Okay. Basically, there’s going to be quite a bit of concrete work, both in the sheer wall that surrounds the new elevator core and then some overlay work on the existing concrete in the building. So, the entire perimeter envelope of the building is concrete, and so we’ll thicken up some of that concrete going up the building. On the ground floor though, in the storefronts we’re going to be inserting a couple of steel brace frames, so where you’ll see that is on the corner of Cowper Street and University, that elevation, that storefront bay you will see a couple of steel angle braces in the storefront, as well as in the western-most storefront, the existing tobacconist tenant will have a steel brace frame in their storefront as well. So, in those cases you will see a bit of structure behind the glass. Other than that, it shouldn’t be impacting the existing perimeter of the building as far as what you see from the outside. Board Member Makinen: I had just another question. You talked about sheer wall additions. Are you planning on using like shotcrete and then reinforcing rebar to get the sheer wall? Mr. Yun: That’ correct. For the perimeter of the building with the existing concrete we’ll be adding shotcrete with rebar. For the new elevator core, we’ll have a new concrete sheer wall. So, Jodie, if you go to A301. There you go. So, if you can zoom in on that top elevation there, you can see the angle braces that are dashed in the storefronts, both on the left bay and the right bay. Board Member Makinen: So, those are quite intrusive into the façade of the first floor then. 4.a Packet Pg. 151 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Mr. Yun: They’re behind the glass, so they’re not part of the façade, but they will be visible. Chair Bower: Any other questions, Mike? Board Member Makinen: Not at the present time, but I’m taking it all in and I’m thinking about it. Chair Bower: Okay, well we can come back. Debbie, how about you, questions? Vice Chair Shepherd: Is it appropriate to comment here or? Chair Bower: Let’s comment in our discussion. Vice Chair Shepherd: Thank you. Chair Bower: Okay, no questions then? Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: Are you calling on me? Chair Bower: Yes. Board member Wimmer: Yeah, I actually had a subsequent question. I wanted to, maybe it’s not a question but just a comment. I hope that you are taking into consideration all the HVAC requirements that a building like this will have. Like, a lot of times buildings have to have rooftop, you know, big steel boxes for chillers and coolers and compressors and things like that, and I just wanted to… I know that on the existing building in the corner restaurant space, and there’s a photo on the Page & Turnbull, packet page 128 that I’m looking at, and there seems to be two window style AC units that are up in the transom. I mean, I’m sure you’re going to remove those, but just the fact that I just wanted to point out, sometimes there are some consequences to having to introduce the HVAC system in these buildings. So, hopefully, you’re being mindful of where these necessary components occur and I’m sure you’re going to take those out of there. Mr. Yun: Yes. Chair Bower: Alright, let’ see, Martin I see you’re unmuted. Do you have any questions for the applicant? Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. First, I’d like to disclose that I was given a tour of the building from Alex Stanford and Pablo David. That was on February 21 and nothing was discussed with any decision making. It was just a tour of the existing. Geno, hello Geno, can you hear me? Mr. Yun: Yes, I can. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah, thank you Geno. Martin Bernstein, Member of Historic Resources Board. Have you considered reinstalling the Hotel President rooftop sign? Mr. Yun: Oh, wouldn’t that be great. We would love to. Board Member Bernstein: Yeah, so I would like to see that, if that’s a possibility to include in your project. Another question would be the, you mentioned the ground floor but then the floor plans call the ground floor first floor. Is the first floor the what is above the ground floor or is first floor ground floor? Because I heard you mention ground floor and then the building plans call it first floor. Mr. Yun: Sorry for any confusion. The first floor and ground floor are the same. It’s the same level as what you would enter off University Avenue. 4.a Packet Pg. 152 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Bernstein: Okay. Thank you for that. Because I know on City Hall ground floor is the ground floor and then up above is the first floor. Alright, thank you for that. The other question is, you mentioned the glass storefronts where there is existing nonhistoric windows there that would be reframed. My next question refers to Board Member Wimmer’s comment, we had several Birge Clark projects in downtown Palo Alto where there is new tile put into place. You may be familiar with the Secretary of Interior Standards that we need to review today’s project with about the idea of compatibility and differentiation so that someone knows what was original and what is not original. That will be coming up probably during our discussion about compatibility and differentiation of new tile that gets installed on a project. My other comment would be, on the I guess we’ll call it the sixth floor, the upper floor with the wood little balusters up there, that’s the sixth floor, is that right, yeah, sixth floor. Let’s see, I think those, the guards up there, the wood guards are below the current 42-inch high requirement. I didn’t see any details on the ELS plans to do some detail so that you meet the 42-inch high guard. I didn’t see that on the plans, so if that’s going to be modified to meet that safety issue, because you mentioned safety several times. I’m glad you’re saying that. So, that would be street facing façade, so the HRB would need to review that detail. I didn’t see it on the ELS drawings, so that would be something else to be discussed when we get into the discussion. Those are my comments for now. Thank you, Geno. Mr. Yun: Thank you. Chair Bower: Okay. Geno, I’ll pick this up with just a couple of additional questions. Remind me how the new elevator fits into the building. It doesn’t, it’s in some space that currently is not, doesn’t have significant historic fabric? Mr. Yun: That’s correct. It sits behind the existing historic elevator. It’s, I believe it’s going into what is currently Pluto’s space. Chair Bower: So, you can think about that. As it travels up, I just can’t remember, actually Jodie if you could get us to a floor plan. I don’t know what page in the drawings that would be. Actually, just wait right here. Let me talk about something, the storefronts, since we’re right at this page and then we can maybe look at that or not. My next question was on the storefronts, it looks like those wood spindles, I presume they are wood spindles that are in the, kind of covering the transom are all original. Is that your understanding? Mr. Yun: That’s what we believe as well. Chair Bower: Yeah, okay. Now the next issue about the recessed storefronts which we have as a Board reviewed a number of times, is that in the modernization of the downtown area, as you can see on this picture, it’s not, because this is a black and white picture in your plan, but on page 125 of the packet you can see pictures of the storefronts. In some places the concrete sidewalk moves right to the base of the tiled recesses and others, at the corner of Cowper and University Avenue they pulled that off a brick pattern which they put in in the 70s right up to the building. So, across the front of the building there are different materials that are actually part of the public sidewalk going into the private property of t his building. I’m just wondering, and so the reason I’m bringing this up is that when we reviewed the Palo Alto Sport and Toy World building on University Avenue, I’m sorry, Waverly Avenue, we actually asked them to put in a tile from the property line back to the recessed door front, so it would be quite clear that the City right-of-way ended at the face of the building, and then the tiled areas would be private, and when I walked the downtown area, the few buildings that are unchanged that Birge Clark designed had tile in those spaces, on the walking space between the property line and the recessed front. So, I’m sorry to be so long-winded about this, but I think at some point you might want to consider how you’re going to address that, especially if you have to take… I don’t know, do you have a basement underneath the sidewalk in this building? Mr. Yun: We do. 4.a Packet Pg. 153 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Bower: Yeah, I don’t know what Public Works will do with that. They generally don’t like it, but if you’re doing work, I think it would be appropriate to have that differentiated line between the public right-of-way and the private property. (crosstalk) I think from a picture in the packet on, yeah, it’s on packet page 129 it looks to me like the Pluto’s restaurant kitchen space has relatively large windows in that area that look to me, from your picture in the top right-had corner, page 129 of our packet, are original and I presume those would be retained or just refurbished as needed? Mr. Yun: Are you talking about windows on the alley side or on the University Avenue side? Chair Bower: No, on the alley side. Mr. Yun: Yeah, we’re not proposing to change anything on that side in terms of removal of any windows. We’re proposing to insert a door from the new bar lounge area into the alley and then access from the kitchen into alley, but we’re not proposing to take out any windows. Chair Bower: I think you’re converting the kitchen into public space in the hotel and that’s your proposal. The reason I’m bringing that up is you have natural light, even though it is alley light. There it is on the, I guess on the left-hand side of this page A304. It looks like there are windows there. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that. And then, I guess that’s it. That’s all of my questions. So, unless there are other Board Members have questions. Mike? Board Member Makinen: Chair Bower, this is Mike again. Can we go back to the slide A301? Okay, my comment and question relate to the structural work that’s being done on the two end storefronts. You can see one on the west side and one on the north side. My question and request would be, if your structural engineer can redesign those diagonal braces with moment frames so we do not see the structure from the window? Mr. Yun: Yeah, we’ve taken a very deep dive look into various options for supporting this building and because it is almost a top-heavy soft story condition where you can imagine this exterior wall is all cast- in-place concrete, so in the elevation there are punch windows at the guest room floor, but the ground floor is all glass with the exception of the columns. So, a moment frame would not work in this location. It does require something much beefier and stiffer, therefore the brace frames are the only thing that actually does work. Board Member Makinen: Well, then my other comment would be if it turns out the brace frames are the only way you can go, is there any way you can use to disguise those somewhat, so they’re not so aesthetically obvious? Mr. Yun: My approach was going to be that we were going to pain them dark in color so that what happens is it recedes into the depths of the space and the light colored body of the plaster is really what your eye notices with the openings of each of the bays storefront glass presumably would have a darker level of illumination, so you don’t really notice it as much. I think if it were a light color, it would really pop. So, that’s our approach is, you know, it’s not unusual to see steel braces in older buildings and some are more obvious than others and this is our attempt and best effort to diminish its impact on the overall building. Board Member Makinen: Okay, but you have done a detailed analysis and you believe the moment frame will not be sufficient? Mr. Yun: That’s correct. Board Member Makinen: Okay, thank you. Chair Bower: Okay, not seeing any other questions from Board Members, let’s go back to see if we have any public comments on this project. If you want to, if any member of the public would like to make a 4.a Packet Pg. 154 City of Palo Alto Page 20 comment, please use the Zoom raise-you-hand function, and that’s at the bottom of your screen, in the middle, it will way participants. Click on that and then there’s an opportunity to raise your hand. Vinh, do you see anyone? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, we still have no raised hands, so I think we can proceed with… Chair Bower: Okay. So, with that, I think we’ll close the public hearing and bring this back to the Board for discussion and creation of a motion. Martin, go ahead. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, another question for Geno. I see on sheets A201 and 401 the wall that’s being removed between the lobby and the adjacent space, that wall will include two new arches. Is that correct? Mr. Yun: It will include two new openings. We’re not quite sure what the exact shape is yet because that was shown as a place holder. We understand, you know, in terms of the existing historic personality of the building, both on the inside and the outside, there aren’t a lot of arches per se, so we need to study that further, but there will be two openings. Board Member Bernstein: Okay, the reason I mention that is on the Historic Resources report on standards for compatibility, it does mention that for Standard Number two it says the proposed improvement retains the dividing wall substantially, includes arched openings that are consistent with the architectural theme of the building. But as you just mentioned, there aren’t many arches. I guess the HRB will see what detail you propose to eventually build, correct? Mr. Yun: Yes. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you. Thank you, David. Chair Bower: Sure Martin. Any other comments before we close the public meeting? Board Member Makinen: One further comment. This is Mike again. Chair Bower: Go ahead. Board Member Makinen: What are your plans for the original elevator? Are you going to modernize the controls or the whole elevator? Can you elaborate on that? Mr. Yun: The current functioning elevator has been beautifully maintained, so there’s nothing mechanically wrong with it. Everything works. Specifically, I think we would just clean up things that needed to be cleaned or repaired, but as of right now we’re not proposing any changes. Board Member Makinen: Yeah, it’s got a nice historic ambiance when you get into it. You feel like you’re back in the 20s. Mr. Yun: Yes. Chair Bower: Debbie, did you have a question? Vice Chair Shepherd: I just had a comment. I just wanted to step back for a moment and just for the record say that I think we are so fortunate. This particular development and hotel management company is unique, I believe, in its emphasis on going into the University communities and restoring historic properties. They have a strong track record in doing this in the United States and I believe now also in England, and particularly in light of the downturn that we’re looking at. I think that this opportunity to showcase a building as important as this one, and to use it to generate street traffic to support retail, to support restaurants, to support gems, I think we are very fortunate. Thank you. 4.a Packet Pg. 155 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Bower: That’s a very good point. We’re not clear, I don’t think any of us are clear what we’re going to be looking at in the future as we try to climb out of this pandemic, but we hope, I mean this is a really significant effort by this company to not only preserve a building that is largely untouched. In need of renovations, certainly, but it has not been stripped like many buildings of its age have been. Thanks for that comment. Alright, I’m going to close public hearing how and let’s discuss as a Board how to craft a motion to move this project forward. Anyone want to lead off? Board Member Wimmer: I wanted to share something that when Martin was mentioning the rooftop sign, it reminded me that I have this, I bought this painting. I’m going to try to show it to you. Chair Bower: Oh yeah. Board Member Wimmer: This is a painting, a watercolor that I bought at like, I think it was like an estate sale or a garage sale, but it’s, sorry it’s reflecting, but it’s a picture of the President Hotel. I don’t know if you can see the rooftop sign. It says hotel and then it says PR. I mean there’s no absolute verification that this is, in fact, the President Hotel, but I just thought that was kind of a neat thing I had. I just wanted to share that. I don’t know how well you can see that. Chair Bower: Well, we can see part, the hotel in reverse and then you can see the PR on the other… Board Member Wimmer: Yeah. I just thought, I mean, I just thought that was a neat thing I wanted to share that. Sorry about all the reflections. Board Member Makinen: Very nice. Chair Bower: Yeah, thank you. Board Member Bernstein: Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Yeah, go ahead Martin. Board Member Bernstein: So, Amy, will this project come back to the HRB as the project moves ahead? Ms. French: This is the formal hearing before the HRB, so it would not unless there is a condition that, you know, unless the Council refers this back to the HRB for further study or there is a condition that’s placed to return such as we did with the toy and sport world to look at the paving tiles or such, to have a subcommittee or come back to the HRB for something like that. Board Member Bernstein: Okay, Chair Bower, I’m ready to make a motion, unless you want to have other HRB Members give comments first. Chair Bower: Debbie has a comment, and then I’ll call on you again, Martin. Debbie? Board Member Shepherd: I just wanted to follow on that because I would very much like to see this come back to the HRB around the issue of the tile on the façade and on the sidewalk. Chair Bower: Okay. I was going to suggest we form a subcommittee for those recessed spaces in the tile, both on the façade and the sidewalk just so we could look at it. That can be a subcommittee, I think, like Amy said, like we did at the sport and toy world. I can’t remember the address, sorry. But that will allow the project to move forward and then they can just check back with the subcommittee. And we can put into that subcommittee anything that the Board Member feel we should be looking at in the future. I think we ought to be looking at what that arch or opening is and the form of it in the entrance. We could add that to this so we could see it. So, I think we would want to look at the tile in the recessed entries and maybe that. Anything else somebody thinks we should be looking at? 4.a Packet Pg. 156 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Wimmer: Do you think maybe just taking a glance at the colors. I know they are suggesting colors, but maybe do a brush out and have the Board be able to look at colors? And colors will also need to be in consideration of the tile, because that’s all exterior color palate. Chair Bower: Sure, we could do that. I think that color tends to be a less important issue for us, but it could easily I think, and quickly be done all together. I just don’t want to add a lot of things to this so that the project can’t more forward should this meet other hurdles that they have to overcome. So, I’m open to that if the Board feels that is appropriate. So, let’s go back to Martin. Martin, would you like to make a motion? Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Bower, if I may. Chair Bower: Hold on Martin. Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have a raised hand on the attendee’s side. Chair Bower: Oh, okay. Then Vinh if you can make, connect that person for us, it’s a public comment I presume. Ms. French: I think you closed the hearing the public comment portion, so you would have to reopen that maybe. Chair Bower: Okay, so yeah. I’ll reopen it so we can hear the comment. Mr. Nguyen: Pablo I see you actually lowered your hand, but I want to unmute you anyway to see if you had any public comments. Chair Bower: Pablo. Pablo (no last name): Can you hear me? Chair Bower: Yes. Pablo: It was more a point of information. I’m part of the applicant group and so this wouldn’t preclude us from moving forward, correct, this subcommittee? Chair Bower: No, it wouldn’t, although you would not be able to move forward on the actual finishes that the subcommittee would look at. You would certainly be able to move the project forward. The way that the subcommittee has worked in the past is, it looks at when you get ready to do like color brush outs, you would present those on the building. We would look at them and say yeah this looks okay, this is consistent, whatever. Tiles the same way. This is differentiated but compatible. So, it’s way into the project. You could do it earlier, but typically it’s actually during construction. Pablo: Understood. Thank you so much for the clarification Chairman. Chair Bower: Vinh, are there any other comments? Mr. Nguyen: There are no more comments for this item. Chair Bower: Okay, closing the public hearing, bringing it back to Martin, if you want to make a motion. MOTION 4.a Packet Pg. 157 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Bernstein: Yes, thank you Chair Bower. I’d like to move that the HRB confirms that the project as presented is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation and that the HRB form a subcommittee that when it’s appropriate for the project, to present to HRB subcommittee the proposed new tile that gets installed on the University Avenue façade. That the HRB also be presented with any proposed changes or modifications to the sixth-floor guard to comply with the safety issue of the 42-inch high guard rail. And that the HRB also be presented with any color pain brush outs and then also to encourage the applicant to consider reinstalling are replica of the Hotel President sign. That would be my motion as I’m thinking about it right now. Chair Bower: Okay, thank you Martin. Amy, do you have all those subcommittee items written down? Ms. French: I do, but I wanted to take the opportunity to say there were two things, another that you mentioned about if we could have the arch opening penetrations in that lobby wall as part of some sort of look. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, I would like to include that in also a subcommittee to look at that detail, yes. Thank you, Amy. Ms. French: You’re welcome. And then the final opportunity I would say is to, after this piece of it is to confirm, concur if you will as a Board with the California Register eligible piece of this, because that would be nice to note. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, as part of my motion is that HRB agrees it meets the California Register requirement. Chair Bower: Okay, good. Do I have a second? (crosstalk) Okay, so Mike and Debbie both offered. I’ll let Debbie give second because Mike you have already done the second. Board Member Makinen: Okay. Chair Bower: So, Debbie has seconded this. Is there any discussion, further discussion the Board wants to have about this particular motion? So, I would like to say that I am very pleased that we are able to review a project like this, which will rehabilitate and give a significant extension of the life of this building and the public access to this building at a really difficult time in this country economically. So, I hope this project moves forward and I hope we have been helpful as a Board in encouraging the Council to move this forward from the Historic Resources perspective. Okay, so let’s go around, I’ll just go around the screen and ask for those if you agree and support this it’s a yes, if you don’t it’s a no. Let’s start with Christian, you’re first. Board Member Pease: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay, Christian says yes. Mike? Board Member Makinen: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay. Debbie? Vice Chair Shephard: Yes. Chair Bower: Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Chair Bower: Martin? 4.a Packet Pg. 158 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay, and I also am a yes, so that is a unanimous Board and I wish the applicants well in moving this forward and hope it still works for them financially. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0. Study Session Approval of Minutes Chair Bower: Okay, we now move to the end of the meeting. I think we can do this relatively quickly. Next item up is approval of minutes, so Amy? Ms. French: Oh, sure. Just, I know we already dealt with the reports from officials. I wanted to have a note about training opportunities maybe after the minutes. Chair Bower: Yeah, I have something to say in the Announcements and Comments Section about that. Ms. French: Great, thank you. Chair Bower: Okay, so approval of minutes. There I an opportunity for the public to comment on this. Vinh, any member of the public would like to comment on the approval of the minutes, please us the raise-your-hand part of the Zoom application. Vinh, do you see anyone. Mr. Nguyen: We have no speakers for this item. Chair Bower: Okay, let’s move on. Any changes or additions or deletions to the minutes for what is it, what’s the date Amy, on the minutes? I’m sorry, I don’t have them in front of me. Ms. French: April 9 Chair Bower: Oh, that’s right, April 9 meeting. Any changes or deletions or additions? Seeing none, do I have a motion to approve? MOTION Board Member Makinen: I’ll make a motion we approve the minutes as so stated. Chair Bower: Okay, Mike has moved to approve them. Second? Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second that. Chair Bower: Okay, Margaret seconds. I don’t think there’s any other comment. We do the same routine again, Christian, yes approve, no? Board Member Pease: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay. Mike? Board Member Makinen: yes, Chair Bower: Debbie? 4.a Packet Pg. 159 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Vice Chair Shepherd: Yes. Chair Bower: Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Chair Bower: And Martin? Martin, are you there? He’s muted right now. I’ll vote yes as well while we’re waiting. Martin? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Chair Bower: Okay, yes. Alright so it’s unanimous. MOTION PASSED WIT A VOTE OF 6-0. Subcommittee Items Chair Bower: Okay, let’s move on to the next item. There are no subcommittee items, so I’ll move to Announcements and Comments. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bower: What I’d like to do is recognize a very important Historic Preservationist in Palo Alto’s history and Debbie, can you talk a little bit about Millie Mario? Vice Chair Shepherd: Yes. So, we just wanted acknowledge the passing of Millie Mario. She died in Florida on April 17. She served as Chair of the HRB for eight years in the 1990s. I learned in the Palo Alto Weekly, because I didn’t have the pleasure of knowing her, that she came here with her husband Ernie in 1993 and they are probably most widely known because they purchased the John Adams Squire House, which would become Millie’s most ambitious and successful restoration project. A 1904 Classical Revival landmark once owned by the City, and the subject of fierce political battles for decades. The house avoided the wrecking ball more than twice. Millie’s award-winning transformation of that supposed white elephant into one of the City’s most beautiful private residences led to her appointment to the HRB. She also served on the Board of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage and Palo Alto Historical Association. Most interestingly, she joined the Board of the California Preservation Foundation. That’s the statewide historic preservation advocacy and educational organization and she eventually served as its president. Anyway, I hope this acknowledgement gets to many in the community who remember her, and also to her family. Thank you. Chair Bower: And we extend our sympathies to the family and just wanted to recognize how important Millie was to the historic preservation in Palo Alto. So, now we’ll go back to our Agenda. [Meeting returned to City Official Reports] Chair Bower: I would like to congratulate Debbie, who has been appointed as one of nine members of the Community Stakeholder Group for the San Juan Residential District Historic Survey and Development Standard Study. The committee is going to review the residential properties on Stanford Campus. There are only nine members and I’m pleased that Debbie is going to be on that committee representing all of Santa Clara County with the other eight members. I wanted to also point out that next week, well, let me start by saying May is Historic Preservation Month, and when I googled that I saw a number of really interesting opportunities to celebrate historic preservation across the country on line because of the pandemic stay-at-home orders. It is a wonderful opportunity, if you have the time and you’re staying at home to enjoy the many, many examples of historic preservation in the country. Along that line, next week the California Preservation Foundation will conduct its annual conference entirely on line. It is, there is a reduced rate of $150 for the whole program for any member. As I think all of know, there are lots of 4.a Packet Pg. 160 City of Palo Alto Page 26 opportunities to hear from experts on historic preservation, so I would encourage you to take advantage of that reduced price and no travel. Amy, do you want to add something to that? M. French: Just, I will see you there. Nicole Loriella (phonetic) who is training up to help us on the historic program, she and I are both attending, and I know a couple of other Board Members are already signed up for that. You do have to register, but it is a good deal and as you said, no hotel stay is required. Chair Bower: No travel. So, anyone who wants information about the annual conference you go to Californiapreservation.org. You get to their website and then just follow their tabs for registration. So, any Board Members have anything else they would like to add? Debbie? Board Member Shepherd: Yeah. I just wanted to add a little detail about the Community Stakeholder Group. I thought it might be helpful to let you know who else is participating in it. So, I’m being joined by College Terrace resident Pria Graves, who serves on the Stanford Community Resources Group already. And then the additional members are, there is one from Stanford, the Director of Architecture Sapna Marfatia and then all of the others come from the neighborhoods themselves, from San Juan, Pine Hill and Frenchman Hill. The neighbors have been notified. The group will hold their meetings virtually starting in about three weeks and there will also be a series of public meetings and neighbors will be notified well in advance of that. Thank you. Chair Bower: Good. Congratulations to all those people. It’s a really important survey, I think, for the Stanford Campus. I spent a lot of time in my youth over there in those housing units. There are three very distinct development eras in the San Juan Hill and the Pine Hill one and two. Okay, anybody else have a comment? I’m not seeing any, so I will with that, thank all of you for spending the time this morning. It’ pretty hard to do this remotely. I mean it’s much more difficult than it is when we’re in the Council Chambers, but thank you very much for your participation and all the hard work. Stay safe. See you at the next meeting. Board Member Makinen: David, I want to that you for your leadership too. Chair Bower: You’re welcome. I’m pleased to be able to do this at this tough time. Alright. Nice to see all of you. Thank you, staff, all the staff that’s in the background. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 10:32 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 161