The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-02-25 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: February 25, 2021 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 948 5515 7693 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 2. Official Report: Black History Month Awareness and Opportunities Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 819 Ramona Street [21PLN-00015]: Request for Historic Resources Board Review of a Minor Architectural Review Application for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Project Includes the Installation of a New Ridge Skylight and Four New Windows at the Rear Elevation at the AME Zion Church, Classified as a Local Historic Resource Category III, and listed on the California Register of Historical Resources and deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Zone District: AMF (MUO). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 (Historical Resource Rehabilitation). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Review and Discussion of Annual Reports Including Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report and Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Report Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 24, 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: 948 5515 7693 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 # 12018) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/25/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Black History Month Awareness and Opportunities Title: Official Report: Black History Month Awareness and Opportunities From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate. This report is to acknowledge and celebrate February as Black History Month. This report highlights two recent community events and other online opportunities: x This month the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) embarked on the 21-day Racial Equity Habit-Building Challenge, open to all: https://www.paequitychallenge.com/ PAUSD community partners in launching this Challenge include the City of Palo Alto, Youth Community Service and the Palo Alto PTA Council. The webpage states this: “We cannot achieve equity and justice for all Palo Alto residents, students and employees without challenging our belief systems about the origins of the concept of race, how it influences us as individuals and as an organization, and how it functions to preserve inequity in our education, laws, institutions and systems. This is a powerful opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of how inequity and racism affect our lives and our community.” x Last month the Human Relations Committee provided a report "Black & Brown Palo Alto - History and Current Experience" to City Council (on January 19, 2021) and solicited feedback and direction on their Action Plan to Address Equity and Inclusion. Link to report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/79809 x The HRB members may wish to note a series of webinars is underway, offered by the National Trust for Historic Preservation about the landmark Brown case. The first 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 webinar was presented February 18: Brown v. Board: Cheryl Brown Henderson and the Legacy of the 1954 Supreme Court. The webinars are presented under the auspices of the NTHP African American cultural Heritage Action Fund. As the HRB considers which webinars to attend, these webinars can be utilized. x The California Preservation Foundation also has a free online form advocating for African American and Black Heritage; CPF’s programs qualify for professional continuing education https://californiapreservation.org/events/adv-af-am/ See ‘Free Recordings from the CPF Vault’ such as ‘It takes a community – the importance of community driven historic context statements’, and ‘It’s important to remember what started it’. Equity leaders may have information about other historic architectural treasures and neighborhoods related to the Black community in Palo Alto. Notable landmarks include the 1947 Lawrence Tract (named in honor of the first African American Stanford Professor) that provided housing for African Americans who had served during WWII, among other persons. Staff look forward to hearing from community members and HRB members regarding the contributions of Black Palo Altans to our city in the past and present. Local Black History The former AME Zion Church at 819 Ramona is an historical resource listed on our City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California Register of Historical Resources. It is also considered on today’s HRB agenda. Current community members were invited to contribute to a community conversation about the importance of that historic resource. Community members are invited to share stories of our shared architectural history related to the Black experience in Palo Alto, as we celebrate and lean further in to advancing racial equity. 2 Packet Pg. 8 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 12015) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/25/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 819 Ramona Street (Zion Church) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 819 Ramona Street [21PLN-00015]: Request for Historic Resources Board Review of a Minor Architectural Review Application for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Project Includes the Installation of a New Ridge Skylight and Four New Windows at the Rear Elevation at the AME Zion Church, Classified as a Local Historic Resource Category III, and listed on the California Register of Historical Resources and deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Zone District: AMF (MUO). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 (Historical Resource Rehabilitation). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and review the proposed façade rehabilitation for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SISR) and applicable Architectural Review (AR) finding; 2. Provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services (PDS) on whether the proposed building modifications should be approved. Report Summary This report is to support the HRB’s discussion of the installation of a new ridge skylight and four new windows at the rear elevation of the former University AME Zion Church located at 819 3 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Ramona Street. The proposed improvements are contingent upon consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation that safeguard retention of the building’s integrity, and the building’s consistency with the definition of a Category 3 building in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.020(b). The HRB’s duties, set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.27.040, include: x Informing staff (acting on behalf of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for minor projects) of the historical and/or architectural significance of buildings designated as significant outside of Downtown, and x Providing recommendations regarding proposed exterior alterations of significant historic structures. Staff has summarized the project’s compliance with SISR. The standards analysis has been prepared and submitted by the historic consultant group Page and Turnbull (Attachment A) who is both the project architect and the preservation consultant for the proposed project. Staff requests the HRB’s review of the standards analysis for compliance with the SISR. This minor project will be reviewed by staff for compliance with the Architectural Review findings (Attachment F) and action following HRB review. Background According to the description on the inventory form (Attachment C), 819 Ramona Street was added to the local inventory as a Category 3 historic resource. The site was also determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A (Events) (Attachment D) and is listed on the California Register. The project scope for Architectural Review is considered a minor project. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.050 (C) allows staff to review and process minor exterior alternations. Minor exterior alterations are those alterations “which the director … determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings”. Staff can make reasonable architectural review findings per the proposed project scope; however, staff is not considered qualified in historic preservation to fully assess the proposed improvements for compatibility with the SISR. The project applicant provided staff with a Character Defining Features memo (Attachment B) and building drawings with existing and proposed conditions (Attachment E). Exterior work includes a new aluminum ridge skylight at the middle of the existing roof. The work also includes reframing of the rear elevation for new window openings, and new stucco plaster on the rear elevation to match the existing stucco plaster. The current application does not include a proposal for changes to the existing floor plan. Due to its listing on the local inventory and located outside the Downtown Area, the property would be considered a “Group B” resource and would be subject to historic review at staff- level. However, since the City does not currently have a historic planner on staff, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is requested to provide a recommendation. 3 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Discussion The building at 819 Ramona Street was built in 1925 and was the first Black church in Palo Alto. The congregation operated in this location for 40 years and was known as the A.M.E. Zion (African Methodist Episcopal) church. The AME Zion Church relocated in 1965 when the congregation sold the building and constructed a new church at 3549 Middlefield Road. 819 Ramona was constructed by a local builder named W.S. Couter. The architect of this freestanding, single-story church with steeply pitched gable roof is not known. The historic building inventory on file with the Palo Alto Historical Association describes the building as Classical Revival in style that has undergone few architectural changes since its construction. The building represents the history of Black Palo Altans in the early twentieth century and signifies the all-embracing values deep-rooted in the community of the City. The Character Defining Features memo (Attachment B), performed by Barrett Reiter of Page and Turnbull, describes the timeline of known alterations to the building. Alterations primarily took place during the 260 Homer Avenue development project that included the rehabilitation of this building, completed in 2009. Per the CDF memo provided, alterations that are known to have occurred during this rehabilitation include: “the replacement of the building’s stucco; the repair of original windows and the replacement of damaged amber glass; changes to the bell tower including the replacement of an original window with a louvered vent; the addition of handrails along the primary façade; the installation of a door (replacing an original window) at the west façade to allow for the installation of a lift and an accessible entrance; the installation of a new foundation; and the general reconfiguration of the main interior volume. In the interior, the mezzanine space located along south of the building (directly behind the triangular leaded glass window) was removed and partitions were erected in the main room. Until recently both the basement and first floor were used as an exercise studio”. The National Park Service identifies four distinct approaches to the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction. For this project, the most appropriate treatment would be rehabilitation which “acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character”. In this case, this means an alteration to the existing gable roof for a new aluminum ridge skylight. As noted in standard six of the SOI analysis the roof materials removed are not historic and the character-defining feature of the gable form and massing will not be impacted. The rear elevation is proposed to be reframed to include four new window openings where no window or door openings existed prior. As described in standards 2, 5 and 10 the new window openings will not be visible from the public right-of-way, does not propose to remove or relocate any of the original or restored character-defining leaded glass windows with amber glass, and if in the future the new windows and skylight are removed the building would retain its essential form and historic character. The proposed improvements seem to be appropriate alterations when considering the roof and rear façade rehabilitation for the propose to allow more natural light into the building. 3 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 819 Ramona Street was added to the local inventory as a Category 3 resource. A Category 3 resource is defined as a "Contributing building" which means “any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.” (PAMC 16.49.020). The new skylight and new fenestration on the buildings rear elevation, has been indicated to meet the ten standards for rehabilitation in the analysis below and not diminish the buildings original character. The new skylight and window openings would still allow the building to remain as a Category 3 structure, based on definitions found in PAMC 16.49.020. Any future signage or development at the subject site would be subject to future Architectural Review and Historic Review applications. The site is located within the South of Forest Area I Coordinated Area Plan. The Building Department has approved the project with conditions contingent upon the procurement of a valid ICC ESR report for installation of the new skylight and submittal of T24 at the time of building permit for new fenestration for the new window openings (Attachment G). Additional information and study is needed to ensure the improvements are compliant with the California Building Code. Analysis Staff refers to the HRB for recommendation and guidance for the installation of a new ridge skylight and four new windows at the rear elevation and its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see below). The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. ☒CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: Building will continue to be used as a retail/ retail “like” use, which is the last recorded use on the site and supported by the land use table and protected by the retail preservation ordinance. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The proposed project retains the historic primary façade in its entirety and does not propose changes to the features or historic materials of the building. From the public right-of-way, the building will retain its historic character as the rear windows will not be visible, and the new roof ridge 3 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis skylight will only be partially visible from an oblique view and will not alter the massing or character of the building’s gable roofline. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: As currently proposed, the project does not add historic features from other properties or add conjectural features that would create a false sense of historical development. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The 2009 rehabilitation of the building made minimal changes to the building’s exterior, including the construction of exterior access stairs to the building’s basement along both north and south facades and the installation of an elevator at the west corner of the north façade to provide access to the main floor. None of these exterior features will be altered by the proposed project. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The proposed project will retain all its character-defining features, which characterize the historic significance and craftsmanship of the property. The roof, whose massing and form is a character-defining feature, will be retained to a high degree, as only a small portion of the ridgeline will be altered with an approximately 9”-inch height increase to accommodate the skylight. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The project does not propose to repair or replace any features due to deterioration. Its scope is limited to areas that do not contain historic materials and character-defining features. Although the gable form and massing of the roof is a character-defining feature, its materials are not historic and the proposed change will not impact the form or massing. 3 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The proposed project does not propose the use of any chemical or physical treatments on historic materials. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: No subsurface work is proposed. However, if archaeological resources are encountered, the project shall be required to comply with applicable federal and State regulations regarding the discovery and disposition of archeological resources, which may include protection, preservation, and/or other mitigation measures as appropriate 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: The proposed project does not propose any work that would destroy or alter the character- defining features of 819 Ramona Street. The rear windows are designed to be a different dimension, material, and finish to clearly differentiate them from the building’s original leaded amber glass windows. The roof ridge skylight is recognizable as a contemporary design and will be finished in contemporary materials. The design will be sensitive and compatible with the building’s roof design as it follows the pitch and form of the gable roof, and has a relatively low profile that is set back from the primary façade to remain unobtrusive. In addition, the skylight has been sized and placed to remain referential to the historic resource and not to overtake the design and form of the existing roofline. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ NA Explanation: If the proposed exterior alterations – the rear windows and ridge skylight – were removed in the future, the building would retain its essential form and integrity. The proposed project will not remove any character-defining features of the 3 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 The SOI Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis would be unimpaired. building, and while the roof will be altered to install a skylight, its form and massing will remain intact. Architectural Review Findings The Architectural Review Findings in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 are provided as Attachment F. The HRB may wish to provide comments with respect to Architectural Review Finding 2b, which has a focus on historic resources: “The project has a unified and coherent design…that preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant.” Environmental Review A rehabilitation project is subject to assessment 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. A rehabilitation project is Exempt from CEQA Section 15331, Historical Resource Rehabilitation. A minor alteration, if proposed, may be exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 12, 2021, which is 7 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 11, 2021, which is 10 days in advance of the HRB meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Table the discussion to a later date. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Danielle Condit, Associate Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2242 (650) 329-2336 danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: SOIS Memo (PDF) x Attachment B: CDF Memo (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 x Attachment C: Local Inventory DPR Form for 819 Ramona St (PDF) x Attachment D: University AME Zion_NR nomination (PDF) x Attachment E: C1 Plan (PDF) x Attachment F: Architectural Review Findings (PDF) x Attachment G: C1 Plan Building COAs (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 16 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology MEMORANDUM DATE December , 2020 PROJECT NUMBER 20170 TO Danielle Condit, Associate Planner PROJECT 819 Ramona Street, Palo Alto OF City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services FROM Barrett Reiter, Architectural Historian, Page & Turnbull CC Elisa Skaggs, Page & Turnbull Carolyn Kiernat, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 819 Ramona Street – Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Analysis INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto has requested this Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis for a proposed project located at 819 Ramona Street in Palo Alto’s University South neighborhood. 819 Ramona Street was the former University African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church from 1925 until 1965. It was constructed as a freestanding, one-story church building with a rectangular footprint, a gable roof with bell tower, and simple classical detailing with amber glass windows. The church was constructed by local builder W.S. Couter and was completed in 1925. In September 2020, Page & Turnbull prepared a Character-Defining Features Memorandum (memorandum attached, see below) for the property owner to identify the historic building’s significant features and to guide Page & Turnbull’s design for the proposed project, as the property was found eligible via nomination for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A (Events) but was not formally listed, was listed on the California Register, and is a Category 3 (or Contributing) building on Palo Alto’s Historic Resource Inventory.1 A preliminary conversation was held between Page & Turnbull staff and Palo Alto Planning & Development Services staff to discuss the proposed project and provide early feedback on its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation. 1 California Office of Historic Preservation, Built Environment Resources Database, Santa Clara County, updated March 2020; City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, Revised July 2012. 3.a Packet Pg. 17 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 2 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 The purpose of this memorandum is to review a proposal for an exterior alteration project at 819 Ramona Street with respect to the Standards for Rehabilitation. Page & Turnbull is both the project architect and the preservation consultant for the proposed project. This memorandum includes a list of character-defining features that were outlined in the 2020 Character-Defining Features Memorandum prepared by Page & Turnbull, a description of the proposed project, and a discussion of Standards for Rehabilitation compliance. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE The former University African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church, located at 819 Ramona Street in Palo Alto’s University South neighborhood was completed in 1925. The church was the first purpose-built African American church in Palo Alto and within the larger area of the San Francisco Bay Area mid-peninsula, stretching from San Mateo to San Jose. As an early location of the AME Zion church in Palo Alto (founded in 1918), the building represents the history of African American Palo Altans in the early twentieth century.2 The building served as the home of the University AME Zion church from its completion in 1925 through its sale in 1965, when University AME Zion constructed a larger church at a new location. After several years of vandalism and deferred maintenance, the building underwent a rehabilitation by the current owner as part of the larger 260 Homer Avenue development.3 Today, 819 Ramona Street remains a significant historic resource for its connection to the area’s early African American families and its role as the spiritual and social center of the black community not only in Palo Alto, but also in the larger region, including Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and San Mateo County. As described in Herbert G. Ruffin’s Uninvited Neighbors: African Americans in Silicon Valley, the church also served a broader role in the community: In the 1920s and 30s, the church played a crucial role in promoting dialogues among African Americans, European Americans, Chinese Americans, and Japanese Americans as racial progressives supported the church financially and morally [particularly during the hardships of the Great Depression]. These supporters included the Palo Alto Ministerial Association, Japanese American Methodists, the Chinese American community, Stanford University professors, the American Legion, the Shriners, the Kiwanis Club, the Rotary Club, the Palo Alto Times, and the local business and financial community. Their support relieved many working-poor blacks 2 National Register of Historic Places. University African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. National Register #96000297_R. 3 Ibid. 3.a Packet Pg. 18 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 3 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 from having to fully shoulder the burden of financing the church […]. Ultimately, the coalition played a huge role in the African American community.4 Figure 1: University AME Zion Church in 1964. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. The building’s period of significance from 1922 to 1965 dates from the early fundraising for the building to its sale in 1965 (Figure 1).5 Architecturally, the building retains nearly all its character- defining features, allowing it to continue to express its significance as a 1925 purpose-built AME Zion church building. 4 Herbert G. Ruffin, Uninvited Neighbors: African Americans in Silicon Valley, 1769-1990, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014). 5 National Register of Historic Places. University African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, National Register #96000297_R. While the period of significance is listed within the National Register nomination as dating from 1922 when fundraising for the building was started, the period of significance for the building more clearly begins in 1925 as that is the date the building was completed. 3.a Packet Pg. 19 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 4 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Character-Defining Features For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character- defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. Figure 2: Primary (west) façade of the subject building. Looking east. The character-defining features of 819 Ramona Street were established by Page & Turnbull in a memorandum to the project applicant dated September 2020 that was based on the documentation of the building that was assembled for the National Register nomination. The character-defining features include, but are not limited to: Exterior features: x Freestanding, symmetrical one-and-a-half-story volume (Figure 2) 3.a Packet Pg. 20 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 5 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 x Symmetrical massing of the primary (west) façade6 x Stucco cladding x Steeply pitched gable front roof x Triangular leaded glass window within the front gable x Segmental arched openings along primary (west) façade including open entrance portal at left (north) and leaded amber glass window at the right (south) x Simple molded fascia along roofline with cornice return x Asymmetrically placed bell tower on north-facing side of gable roof x Steeply pitched hipped roof on bell tower x Open front porch x Original and restored leaded glass windows with amber glass x Concrete steps to entry portal PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following description of the proposed project is based on the drawing set prepared by Page & Turnbull, dated December 10, 2020. Orthogonal directions used for this description follow plan north as shown in the drawing set, where the primary façade is the west elevation, etc.7 The proposed project includes interior and exterior alterations to 819 Ramona Street. However, only exterior work, which is under the purview of City of Palo Alto Historic Resources Board review, will be described. Project Description The proposed project will install four windows along the rear (east) façade, which will not be visible from the public right-of-way. The project also proposes to install a skylight, approximately 7’-6” by 11’-2 ½”, along a central portion of the building’s roof ridge. The proposed project will not alter the primary street-facing façade of the building, does not propose removing any character-defining features along any façades, and while the roof will be altered to install a skylight, it will retain its form and massing as the skylight will be minimally visible from the public right-of-way due to its relatively low profile and placement at the midpoint of the roof, set back from the primary façade. 6 Orthogonal directions used in the Character-Defining Features Memorandum of September 2020 referred to the primary façade as the south façade. These references have been updated for consistency with plan north in the proposed project drawings. 7 Ibid. See previous footnote. 3.a Packet Pg. 21 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 6 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Rear Façade Windows The four windows that are proposed to be installed at the east façade will be approximately 2’-6” wide and 7’-0” high and will be arranged in pairs along the rear wall of the building (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Unlike the existing historic windows, the proposed windows will be fixed sash with clear glass to allow more light into the building and to differentiate the new windows from the historic leaded amber glass windows. As stated earlier, the proposed new windows are located along a rear façade, facing an adjacent building over a paved areaway, and will not be visible from the public right-of-way. Figure 3: Proposed east (rear) elevation. Figure 4: Proposed project, transverse section, looking east at interior of east façade. Roof Ridge Skylight The roof ridge skylight, sized at approximately 7’-6” by 11’-2 ½”, will be located just east of the centerline of the roof in order to align with the internal roof bay structure and allow for a setback from the primary façade (Figure 5 and Figure 6). While the cladding material of the roof is not original, the form, massing, and pitch of the roof is a character-defining feature of the building. The proposed skylight will retain these features to a high degree as it follows the form and massing of the roofline, and it will not change its overall design, form, or pitch. The skylight itself will cause a height increase of approximately 9” to accommodate its framing and waterproofing. This feature will be visible from the public right-of-way when viewed from a strong oblique angle. Due to the presence of an adjacent building to the north (along Ramona Street), and due to the 3.a Packet Pg. 22 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 7 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 relatively narrow width of Ramona Street, the skylight is only partially visible when seen from the north, and somewhat more visible when seen from the south (looking away from Channing Avenue). Figure 5: Proposed west elevation (primary façade). Figure 6: Proposed north elevation. DISCUSSION OF SOI STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION COMPLIANCE Under Palo Alto’s historic preservation ordinance, planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Historic Resources Board. Minor exterior alterations are “those alterations which the director of planning and community environment or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the historic structure, its site or surroundings.”8 Projects that are not considered minor exterior alterations are subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and also go to the Historic Resources Board for review.9 The following discussion considers the proposed project’s potential effects on, and compatibility with, the historic resource at 819 Ramona Street, and provides comments on whether the project appears to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.10 8 Section 16.49.050(C), Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. 9 City of Palo Alto, “Historic Resource Project Review FAQ,” https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64188 10 Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.: 2017), accessed July 23, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment- guidelines-2017.pdf. 3.a Packet Pg. 23 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 8 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 The Standards for Rehabilitation are:11 Rehabilitation 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. Discussion: The subject building was constructed as a religious property in 1925 and retained that use until 1965 when it was used for storage. Since the 2009 rehabilitation of the building, it has served as an office and most recently as an exercise studio. The proposed project does not anticipate an additional change in use since that approved in 2009 that would precipitate changes to its historic materials or features. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Standard 1. Rehabilitation 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. Discussion: The proposed project retains the historic primary façade in its entirety and does not propose changes to the features or historic materials of the building. From the public right-of-way, the building will retain its historic character as the rear windows will not be visible, and the new roof ridge skylight will only be partially visible from an oblique view and will not alter the massing or character of the building’s gable roofline. Therefore, the proposed project is in consistent with Standard 2. Rehabilitation 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. Discussion: As currently proposed, the project does not add historic features from other properties or add conjectural features that would create a false sense of historical development. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 11 This and the following Standards are listed in Grimmer (2007) and also at National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Technical Preservation Services: Rehabilitation as a Treatment,” accessed July 23, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm. 3.a Packet Pg. 24 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 9 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Discussion: The historic resource’s period of significance is 1922-1965, dating to the period that the property was developed and used by the University AME Zion Church. Alterations that have taken place since the building’s construction – namely the rehabilitation of the building in 2009 – have not gained significance in their own right, are not considered historically significant, and therefore do not need to be retained or preserved. The 2009 rehabilitation of the building made minimal changes to the building’s exterior, including the construction of exterior access stairs to the building’s basement along both north and south facades and the installation of an elevator at the west corner of the north façade to provide access to the main floor. None of these exterior features will be altered by the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: The proposed project will retain all of its character-defining features, which characterize the historic significance and craftsmanship of the property. The roof, whose massing and form is a character-defining feature, will be retained to a high degree, as only a small portion of the ridgeline will be altered with an approximately 9”-inch height increase to accommodate the skylight. As all character-defining features will be retained, the proposed project is consistent with Standard 5. Rehabilitation 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. Discussion: As designed, the proposed project does not specify removal or replacement of deteriorated historic features, as its scope is limited to areas that do not contain historic materials and character-defining features. Although the gable form and massing of the roof is a character- defining feature, its materials are not historic and the proposed change will not impact the form or massing. In the event that any deteriorated features are encountered during the course of the project, the Standards for Rehabilitation recommends 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. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard 6. Rehabilitation 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. Discussion: The proposed project does not propose the use of any chemical or physical treatments on historic materials. The material of the roof has been replaced and is not historic. If any 3.a Packet Pg. 25 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 10 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 treatments become necessary, as long as they are undertaken using the gentlest means possible and follow the guidance of the Standards and the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Briefs, the project will be consistent with Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project will not involve excavation. If in the unlikely event that any archaeological material is discovered during construction, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project will be consistent with Standard 8. Rehabilitation 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. Discussion: The proposed project does not propose any work that would destroy or alter the character-defining features of 819 Ramona Street. In areas where work is undertaken – to install new windows at the east façade and a roof ridge skylight – the alterations are differentiated in design, finish, and materials from the historic resource. The rear windows are designed to be a different dimension, material, and finish to clearly differentiate them from the building’s original leaded amber glass windows. The roof ridge skylight is recognizable as a contemporary design and will be finished in contemporary materials. The design will be sensitive and compatible with the building’s roof design as it follows the pitch and form of the gable roof, and has a relatively low profile that is set back from the primary façade to remain unobtrusive. In addition, the skylight has been sized and placed to remain referential to the historic resource and not to overtake the design and form of the existing roofline. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard 9. Rehabilitation 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 and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: If the proposed exterior alterations – the rear windows and ridge skylight – were removed in the future, the building would retain its essential form and integrity. The proposed project will not remove any character-defining features of the building, and while the roof will be 3.a Packet Pg. 26 819 Ramona Street, SOI Compliance Memorandum [20170] Page 11 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 altered to install a skylight, its form and massing will remain intact. The proposed project retains all character-defining features of the building, and while the roof is altered its form and massing is retained to a high degree. Therefore, the building will to continue to express its historic significance. Therefore, the project is consistent with Standard 10. FINDING The proposed project is consistent with all ten of the Standards. Therefore, the project is compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. QUALIFICATIONS Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation and is among the longest practicing such firms in the country. Offices are located in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, and staff includes planners, architectural historians, licensed architects, designers, and conservators. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. As an architectural historian and cultural resources planner within Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Studio, Barrett Reiter meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History. She has extensive experience researching and evaluating historic properties, as well as analyzing proposed projects that impact historic resources using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. ATTACHMENTS Page & Turnbull, 819 Ramona Street: Character-Defining Features Memorandum, September 2020. 3.a Packet Pg. 27 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology MEMORANDUM DATE September 1, 2020 PROJECT NUMBER 20170 TO Jane Vaughan, Partner C. Michael Johnston, Senior Portfolio Manager PROJECT 260 Homer Avenue (819 Ramona Street, former University AME Zion Church) OF Menlo Equities FROM Barrett Reiter, Architectural Historian, Page & Turnbull CC Carolyn Kiernat, Principal, Page & Turnbull Elisa Hernandez Skaggs, Project Manager, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 819 Ramona Street – Character-Defining Feature Memorandum The following Character-Defining Feature Memorandum has been assembled to guide a future project at the former church building at 819 Ramona Street in Palo Alto. Methodology On July 15, 2020, Page & Turnbull staff conducted a site visit to document the subject building’s existing design and extant features. A review of relevant material was undertaken, including review of the building’s National Register of Historic Places nomination from 1995, the historic building inventory file at the Palo Alto Historical Association, relevant publications on the history of Palo Alto and African American history in Santa Clara County, and various online sources including Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Photographs of the building prior to its rehabilitation in 2009 were supplied by the property owner. Historic Status and Significance The former University African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, located at 819 Ramona Street in Palo Alto was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A (Events), was listed on the California Register, and is a Category 3 (or Contributing) building on Palo Alto’s Historic Resource Inventory.1 The building, which was constructed in 1925, was the first purpose-built African American church in Palo Alto and within the larger area of the San 1 California Office of Historic Preservation, Built Environment Resources Database, Santa Clara County, updated March 2020; City of Palo Alto, Master List of Structures on the Historic Inventory, Revised July 2012. 3.b Packet Pg. 28 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 2 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Francisco Bay Area mid-peninsula, stretching from San Mateo to San Jose. As an early location of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion church in Palo Alto (founded in 1918), the building represents the history of African American Palo Altans in the early twentieth century.2 The building served as the home of the University AME Zion church from its completion in 1925 through its sale in 1965, when University AME Zion constructed a larger church at a new location. The building was used for medical equipment storage by Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation and then largely left vacant until it underwent a rehabilitation by the current owner as part of the larger 260 Homer Avenue development.3 The building remains a significant historic resource for its connection to the area’s early African American families and its role as the spiritual and social center of the black community not only in Palo Alto, but also in the larger region, including Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and San Mateo County. As described in Herbert G. Ruffin’s Uninvited Neighbors: African Americans in Silicon Valley, the church also served a broader role in the community: In the 1920s and 30s, the church played a crucial role in promoting dialogues among African Americans, European Americans, Chinese Americans, and Japanese Americans as racial progressives supported the church financially and morally [particularly during the hardships of the Great Depression]. These supporters included the Palo Alto Ministerial Association, Japanese American Methodists, the Chinese American community, Stanford University professors, the American Legion, the Shriners, the Kiwanis Club, the Rotary Club, the Palo Alto Times, and the local business and financial community. Their support relieved many working-poor blacks from having to fully shoulder the burden of financing the church […]. Ultimately, the coalition played a huge role in the African American community.4 The building’s period of significance from 1922 to 1965, dates to the early fundraising for the building to its sale in 1965.5 Architecturally, the building retains nearly all its character-defining features, allowing it to continue to express its significance as a 1925 purpose-built AME Zion church building. 2 National Register of Historic Places. University African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. National Register #96000297_R. 3 Ibid. 4 Herbert G. Ruffin, Uninvited Neighbors: African Americans in Silicon Valley, 1769-1990, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014). 5 National Register of Historic Places. University African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, National Register #96000297_R. While the period of significance is listed within the National Register nomination as dating from 1922 when fundraising for the building was started, the period of significance for the building more clearly begins in 1925 as that is the date the building was completed. 3.b Packet Pg. 29 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 3 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Brief Building Description The subject building is a freestanding, one-story-over-basement, wood frame building with stucco cladding and features a gable roof clad in composite shingles. It is located along Ramona Street between Homer and Channing avenues in the University South neighborhood of Palo Alto (Figure 1). The building is rectangular in plan and it presents a largely symmetrical design apart from a small bell tower with a hipped roof on the west-facing side of the gable roof. Typical windows for the building consist of leaded glass windows with amber glass, both in a fixed configuration, as on the primary façade, or as double-hung windows on the side façades. Figure 1: Subject building with approximate building footprint in red. North is up. Source: Google Maps, 2020. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 3.b Packet Pg. 30 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 4 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Primary Façade The primary (south) façade, facing Ramona Street, features a smooth stucco façade, a slightly projecting molded cornice with a cornice return, and symmetrically placed openings that include a triangle-shaped, fixed, leaded glass window within the gable peak, a segmental arched window with multi-lite fixed leaded glass at the east side of the first floor, and a segmental arched entrance at the west side of the first floor.6 This entrance leads to an open porch with double doors leading to the interior space. The entrance is reached by a series of low concrete steps with metal handrails. A metal plaque containing information about the building’s history is located to the west of the entrance. Figure 2: Primary façade of the subject building. Looking north. 6 The subject building is not aligned exactly on a north-south axis, however, for clarity within this report the primary façade is listed as the south façade, the rear façade is the north façade, etc. 3.b Packet Pg. 31 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 5 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 East Façade The east façade features four double-hung leaded glass windows. A small typical window is located on the south side of the façade (towards Ramona Street), while the other three typical windows are larger in size (Figure 3 and Figure 4). A flight of concrete stairs with metal handrails leads to a below-grade basement entrance with a single-leaf fully glazed door with transom and a fixed window (Figure 5). Figure 3: East façade of the subject building. Looking west. 3.b Packet Pg. 32 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 6 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 4: Detail of east façade. Looking northwest. Figure 5: Detail of below-grade basement along east façade. Looking northwest. West Façade The west façade features a single, non-original entrance door at the south side of the façade (towards Ramona Street), three double-hung leaded glass typical windows, and a flight of concrete stairs with metal handrails that lead to the below-grade basement entrance with a single-leaf fully glazed door with transom and a fixed window. The non-original entrance provides barrier-free access to the main floor of the building. The bell tower is visible from the west façade and along its west-facing wall the tower features a large fixed louvered vent at its base (where it meets the roofline) and an additional small louvered vent under its hipped roof (Figure 8). Figure 6: West façade, looking northeast. Figure 7: Detail of below-grade basement along west façade. Looking northeast. 3.b Packet Pg. 33 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 7 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 8: Oblique view of primary and west façades, showing bell tower. Looking northeast. Figure 9: Rear (north) façade of the subject building. Looking southeast. Rear (South) Façade The rear (south) façade of the subject building consists of a plain stucco wall with no openings and several utility boxes and utility connections, including air conditioning, are located along this façade (Figure 9). 3.b Packet Pg. 34 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 8 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Historic Development The following is a brief overview of the construction chronology of the subject building. The subject building was constructed by a local builder, W.S. Couter, and was completed in 1925.7 The building remained the home of the University AME Zion church until the congregation constructed a new church and sold this building in 1965. Photographs of the building in 1964, during its time as the University AME Zion church show that few changes have been made to the building since its erection (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Figure 10: University AME Zion Church in 1964. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. From 1965 until its rehabilitation in 2009, the building was used as a storage facility for the Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation and then largely left vacant, leading to damage through vandalism and neglect. In 1995, the National Register nomination was written and submitted to the California 7 Information on file at the Palo Alto Historical Association, Historic Building Inventory files. No architect is known. 3.b Packet Pg. 35 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 9 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Office of Historic Preservation as a means of raising awareness of the importance of this building to Palo Alto’s history and to help prevent the demolition of the building.8 The completed development project at 260 Homer Avenue included the rehabilitation of this building in 2009. Figure 11: Oblique view of west and primary façade of church, 1964. Source: Palo Alto Times. Alterations that are known to have occurred during this rehabilitation include: the replacement of the building’s stucco;9 the repair of original windows and the replacement of damaged amber glass; changes to the bell tower including the replacement of an original window with a louvered vent; the 8 National Register of Historic Places. University African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. National Register #96000297_R. 9 Of note is the removal of the slightly projecting stucco surround around the primary entrance opening and first-floor window along the primary façade. 3.b Packet Pg. 36 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 10 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 addition of handrails along the primary façade; the installation of a door (replacing an original window) at the west façade to allow for the installation of a lift and an accessible entrance; the installation of a new foundation; and the general reconfiguration of the main interior volume. In the interior, the mezzanine space located along south of the building (directly behind the triangular leaded glass window) was removed and partitions were erected in the main room. Until recently both the basement and first floor were used as an exercise studio. Character-Defining Features For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under criteria related to type, period, or method of construction, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. These distinctive character- defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The features of the building that date to its period of significance and convey the historic character of the building include: Exterior features: x Freestanding, symmetrical one-and-a-half-story volume x Symmetrical massing of the primary (south) façade x Stucco cladding x Steeply pitched gable front roof x Triangular leaded glass window within the front gable x Segmental arched openings along primary (south) façade including open entrance portal at left (west) and leaded amber glass window at the right (east) x Simple molded fascia along roofline with cornice return x Asymmetrically placed bell tower on west-facing side of gable roof x Steeply pitched hipped roof on bell tower x Open front porch x Original and restored leaded glass windows with amber glass x Concrete steps to entry portal 3.b Packet Pg. 37 Character-Defining Feature Memorandum – 819 Ramona Street [20170] Page 11 of 11 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Qualifications Page & Turnbull was established in 1973 as Charles Hall Page & Associates to provide architectural and conservation services for historic buildings, resources, and civic areas. The company was one of the first architecture firms in California to dedicate its practice to historic preservation and is among the longest practicing such firms in the country. Offices are located in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco, and staff includes licensed architects, designers, architectural historians, conservators, and planners. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards. As an architectural historian within Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Planning Studio, Barrett Reiter meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. She is experienced in surveying, researching, and evaluating historic properties, as well as analyzing proposed projects for potential impacts to historic resources. 3.b Packet Pg. 38 3.c Packet Pg. 39 3.c Packet Pg. 40 3.d Packet Pg. 41 3.d Packet Pg. 42 3.d Packet Pg. 43 3.d Packet Pg. 44 3.d Packet Pg. 45 3.d Packet Pg. 46 3.d Packet Pg. 47 3.d Packet Pg. 48 3.d Packet Pg. 49 3.d Packet Pg. 50 3.d Packet Pg. 51 3.d Packet Pg. 52 3.d Packet Pg. 53 3.d Packet Pg. 54 3.d Packet Pg. 55 3.d Packet Pg. 56 3.d Packet Pg. 57 Attachment E Project Plans During the ongoing Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1.Go to: http://bit.ly/819RamonaAME 2.On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information 3.e Packet Pg. 58 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 11977) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/25/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Review and Discussion of Annual Reports Title: Review and Discussion of Annual Reports Including Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report and Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Report From:Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive a presentation about the draft Certified Local Government (CLG) Annual Report for the period October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020. Staff will also provide an update regarding the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Annual Report, with particular attention to the City’s historic preservation programs. Background 2019-20 Annual CLG Report Staff is preparing the CLG Annual Report for 2019-2020. The attached documents provide information on the deadline and the State’s template for the annual report. The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) collects information related to how the CLG program is working. The National Parks Service (NPS) collects “products” information such as the number of properties designated. OHP sends these CLG reports to the NPS on behalf of the CLGs. Filing of the CLG Annual Report allows local governments to qualify for OHP grants. To qualify for a 2021-2022 OHP grant, CLGs must file documentation for the reporting period by the deadline. Last year’s deadline to file was April 17, 2020, which staff met. Because staff met the filing deadline, the City qualified for and submitted a grant request to OHP in the fall of 2020. The OHP determined which jurisdictions qualified to distribute the remaining $103,000 grant funding; staff has not received word as to whether a portion of the funding is available to Palo Alto. 4 Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 OHP has not yet identified the 2021 deadline for filing the CLG annual report. Staff will provide the HRB with a completed report and cover letter at the HRB’s March 25th meeting. The cover letter typically characterizes Palo Alto’s program as primarily an incentive-based historic preservation and public outreach program, assisted by a qualified historic preservation consultant(s). The cover letter typically highlights actions related to historic preservation during the reporting period. Last year, staff included a mention of: x Awards received for the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. x Implementation of Comprehensive Plan policies supporting historic preservation. During the review period October 2019 through September 2020, the HRB held five public hearings. During the period, staff continued with Comprehensive Plan program L7.2 (which is cited later in this report). A total of five properties were found individually eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, and 17 properties were found ineligible for the California Register of Historic Places. Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in December 2017, 15 properties have been found eligible for listing on the California Register and approximately 43 properties were determined ineligible for California Register listing. Prior CLG Reports Last year, on April 9, 2020 staff presented the annual CLG to the HRB. The annual report included links to the April 9th video1 and staff report2 and minutes to all nine of the HRB meetings held during the review period. Prior CLG reports had discussed a draft OHP Grant proposal staff had written for the preparation of a Modern Era Context Statement. There will be an opportunity to submit the proposal in 2021. Discussion Comprehensive Plan Implementation Update The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) was scheduled to receive a report regarding progress on the Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Housing Element on February 24, 2021. The PTC staff report that covers the 2020 year will be viewable from this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. Staff will provide a brief presentation to the HRB members regarding the status of Comprehensive Plan Policy implementation, focusing on historic preservation policies. Last year 1 HRB video April 2020 https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-492020/ 2 HRB staff report April 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76070 4 Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 the PTC reviewed the annual report in February 20203 and forwarded their recommendations to the City Council in March 2020. The report covering the 2020 reporting period indicates a status for five of seven policies under Goal L-7: ‘Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, sites, and districts.’ x L7.1.1 Update and maintain the City’s Historic Resource Inventory to include historic resources that are eligible for local, State, or federal listing. Historic resources may consist of a single building or structure or a district. o The report noted the Historic Resource Inventory has not been updated to list the eligible State and National eligible resources. This would require Council action. However, the GIST system shows eligible resources. When properties are found California Register Eligible and ineligible via ongoing individual evaluations, the staff systematically updates the City’s GIS system. x L7.2 Program: “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.” o The report noted that Implementation of Policy 7.2 commenced in January 2018. A report to the HRB presented a summary of properties for which historic resource evaluations had been prepared since January 2018, to consider potentially historic buildings – particularly, homes constructed prior to 1948 identified as potentially eligible for California Register of Historic Resources, when owners are considering or have submitted proposals for major alterations or demolition. Staff also considers non-residential and other properties for eligibility, when Architectural Review or other discretionary applications are submitted. x L7.8.1 Promote and expand available incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones and revise existing zoning and permit regulations to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse. o The report noted code changes implemented in 2019: (1) Incentives available previously only to Inventory Categories 1 and 2 homes were expanded to allow 3 PTC report 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75222 4 Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 use for Inventory Category 3 and 4 homes, and (2) subdivision incentive for historic preservation was adjusted to allow the historic property on the front lot of a propose subdivision and allow the subdivision even when only one existing home is on the property to be subdivided. x L7.8.2 Create incentives to encourage salvage and reuse of discarded historic building materials. o The report noted the Public Works Department implemented a deconstruction ordinance for approved demolitions; it became effective in June 2020. x L7.8.3 Seek additional innovative ways to apply current codes and ordinances to older buildings. Use the State Historical Building Code for designated historic buildings. o The report noted the study session with the HRB on the HBC in early 2019. Two policies/programs under Goal 7 had the status ‘not yet commenced’: x L7.1.2 Reassess the Historic Preservation Ordinance to ensure its effectiveness in the maintenance and preservation of historic resources, particularly in the University Avenue/Downtown area x L7.12.1 Review parking exceptions for historic buildings in the Zoning Code to determine if there is an effective balance between historic preservation and meeting parking needs. Other goals relevant to HRB’s interests are Goals L-2, L-4, and L-6: o Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. o Goal L-4: Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s residential neighborhoods and employment districts. o Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Under these goals, four programs are of interest: x L2.4.6 Explore changing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinances for both buildings of historic significance and for seismic retrofits so that transferred development rights may only be used for residential capacity. (NO STATUS 2020) x L4.8.1 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown. 4 Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 o The report noted: PDA Downtown established in January 2020. o Note for 2021: A letter of interest was submitted to ABAG grant program in February 2021 to assist in starting this project. x L4.10.2 Create regulations for the California Avenue area that encourage the retention or rehabilitation of smaller buildings to provide spaces for existing retail, particularly local, small businesses. o The report noted: Historic preservation program needs influx of grant funds and personnel before this program is embarked upon. City Council direction required to commence work. x L6.1.1 Promote awards programs and other forms of public recognition for projects of architectural merit that contribute positively to the community. o The report noted: ARB awards occur every five years per ARB bylaws. The next ARB awards is 2020. Historic preservation awards are under consideration. If HRB members have input for the CLG annual report, such as additional trainings attended during the reporting period, staff asks that the input be submitted by March 25, 2021. The trainings HRB members can report are those completed during the reporting period (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020). The City assists HRB members to attend historic preservation training sessions, by covering the cost of registration. Report Author & Contact Information HRB4 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 4 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 68 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 12029) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 2/25/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes September 24, 2020 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 24, 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 September 24, 2020 Attachments: x Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes September 24, 2020 (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair David Bower, Vice Chair Deborah Shepherd, Board Members Martin Bernstein, Michael Makinen, Christian Pease, Margaret Wimmer, Roger Kohler Absent: Oral Communications Chair Bower: We will begin the meeting. We have a public comment section. Anyone who wishes to speak on any item not on our agenda, please raise your hand and Vinh will allow you to speak. I could also suggest that while, when you’re not speaking to please mute your computers or your phones, so we don’t get cross talk and background talk. Okay, Vinh, anybody there for oral communications? Vinh Nguyen: Chair Bower, we do not have any raised hands for oral communications. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bower: Okay, if you’ll bear with me for a moment, I need to call up on my computer our agenda. There are no agenda changes, additions or deletions that I’m aware of. Amy? Amy French: That’s correct. (crosstalk). I was just going to say, make sure you know how to use your mute button, so if you do receive a call and, hopefully, that’s on mute, you can mute your call. You don’t want us to hear your call. Board Member Bernstein: We need disclosures. Chair Bower: Right. Let’s wait for the items, Martin, if that’s appropriate, unless there is a disclosure you have on the general meeting. Board Member Bernstein: I talked to the Director of the school in person, and so I just need to disclose that. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments. Chair Bower: Okay. Well. Let’s wait for one moment while we get through Official City Reports. That’s our discussion of meetings and assignments. I noticed on the meeting schedule there is a meeting tentatively scheduled for December 24th and one a week later. I don’t think those two meetings will occur. Is that correct, Amy? HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: September 24, 2020 Virtual Teleconference Meeting 8:30 A.M. 5.a Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. French: Yes, those will be canceled as well as anywhere near Thanksgiving, that would be cancelled too. Chair Bower: Exactly. I’m sorry, right. It was Thanksgiving and the December one. Any sense of what our meeting schedule will be from here on out, since we will only have October, November and some December? Ms. French: So far, we don’t have any other items for October as of yet. Action Items 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 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 Chair Bower: Okay. So let’s move to Action Items, and this takes us to Item Number Two on the Agenda, which is a public hearing of 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street. It’s an Historic Resources Board Review of the Castilleja School’s Architectural Review Application; Project Alternative (Final EIR Alternative #4) and it retains Castilleja’s two Emerson Street homes with reduced garage and dispersed circulation. Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal associated with a Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and a Variance for Gross Floor Area Replacement. It is Zoned District R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A final Environmental Impact Report was published on July 29, 2020. So, now that we’ve got the official word on that, Amy, would you like to present a staff report? Ms. French: Yes, thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. You’ll have to bear with me for a moment, while I go to share screen. Board Member Kohler: Hello? Ms. French: Hello. Board Member Kohler: Can you hear me? Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to disclose that a couple of years ago my daughter, Heather, was over doing work on, in that site we’re talking about. She was doing something there, I don’t remember now. But, anyway, so I walked in all that area then, a couple of years ago, so, just to let you know. Chair Bower: Thanks Roger. I forgot to ask if there were any other disclosures from other Board Members before Amy gets started. I would like to disclose that Roger and I have worked on the Lockey House, Lockey I guess, back in 1986 when a former client of ours owned the building, we did some modest remodeling inside, bathroom, and then those clients exchanged that house with the house across the street at 1310 Emerson and Roger designed and I built the house across the street from this. So, we have a slight or small history with the area, but not specifically with Castilleja. Anyone else? Okay, Amy. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, my disclosure please. Chair Bower: Yeah, also Martin, assuming your disclosure earlier is now in the record. Board Member Bernstein: Okay, thank you. 5.a Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Bower: Good, thanks, thanks for the reminder. Amy? Ms. French: Yes, we’ll make sure Martin’s disclosure is reflected in any excerpt minutes for this item. Okay, and we are back. We saw each other, the HRB met in September of 2019 to get a glimpse of the draft EIR and provide some comments on that. We are back with a different set of circumstances. I’m going to minimize, I think. We don’t want to see ourselves. There we go, better. It’s a little awkward seeing oneself. Today’s hearing on the Castilleja Project, we are going to hear the applicant presentation. They have their architects here to show the alternative four that has come through the EIR process and we are going to enable public testimony as well. We are seeking comments on the Gunn Building alternations in somewhat of an official capacity with the draft Architectural Review Finding 2B that reflects historic preservation as a part of that review. So, we do have that draft bullet points to get feedback from the HRB. And then, of course, if you are seeking to have, as you mentioned during the September 2019 meeting, seeking to have some input on details that come forward closer to the time of any modification to that building, then certainly having either a subcommittee or board look at those details is a condition that you might wish to suggest. We can review the Final EIR responses to comments. Hopefully, you’ve had a chance to do that, read the report that I have prepared, because this will eventually go to the City Council for them to certify the Final EIR. You can see here just a nice little image of the Gunn Building back in the day with its façade on this side, which will be receiving some modifications once the Rhodes Building is separated. So, let’s see, why is this not forwarding. Okay, oh goodness. Something was wrong with my mouse for a moment. The Final EIR as noted, we provided page references in the HRB staff report for this segment that the HRB might wish to review. There was discussion about the Lockey House. There was discussion about the potential for historic district and those were in response to the HRB’s comments in September 2019. There were some Master Responses and responses to the comments made by the public during the meeting. And then just, I thought I would note, because I was looking at this drawing from 1934, of course, it is an illustration, but I noticed that there is a one-story building apparently added to the Gunn Administration Building back in 1934. So, that was interesting to me. My mouse is being winkey. Time to replace my battery, I guess. There it goes. Okay. The Gunn Building is a Category 3 building. It is a contributing building. There is no historic district currently, but it is considered a contributing building, and contributing buildings may have had extensive or permanent changes to the original design, and still retain their status as a Category 3 building. These are the alterations that Castilleja proposes once the Rhodes Building is separated from this façade. The EIR determined there would be no adverse effects to this building, as far as historic significance and integrity. The HRB is actually not required to review Category 3 alterations when they are outside of the downtown or historic districts, but here we are, we are in a CEQA process related to this discretionary Architectural Review, and so the finding 2B is out there as a potential for HRB comments to assist the ARB process. We did present this last September. These were the materials that were shown for the changes to this façade, with the painted metal railings, the brick seat walls, and the proposed doors here would be consistent with the window openings and enable egress from the building. This is, again, a little snippet of that illustration from 1910. Here, again, is a floor plan showing where the egress from the building is and that proposed staircase to enable the egress down to the ground floor. And here is the proposed academic building with that separation that is pretty significant. Here is the masonry. I think there was an error that I did in the staff report that looked at a possible change here, but this is unchanged from when you saw it in September, this proposed connecting fence with brick at the base. You can see here an image where the Gunn Building is compared to the academic building here and it continues over here with a connective lobby/gathering space and porch area that the applicant has recently brought forward to respond to the ARB comments. Here is a floor plan showing this new academic building with the connector area. This shows that they have removed a portion of the second floor here on the Kellogg side, again in response to the ARB comments from August, and then this just shows their revision here, again breaking up the mass of the building, the roofline, the plate height and providing a connective piece with some proposed revised materials for the ARB to review. This is the Architectural Review finding 2B, and so this has, I prepared this based on the review from the EIR for feedback from the HRB. So, we can come back to this later, if you would like to consider word smithing or what have you. Just a couple more images. This one showing, again, the Lockey House next to the other house that Castilleja owns. In the Alternative Four, which is moving forward in the process, both of 5.a Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 4 these homes are retained. There are seven points here about the Lockey House and why it’s not really retaining sufficient integrity to be designated as an Historic Resource. So, we can come back to that, as well, if you’d like. Again, this is just a slide showing what the EIR said regarding the campus as far as, you know, whether it’s an historic district itself, and it does lack sufficient integrity to be considered an historic district. So, then here we have the last slide on my end, which is to say that the ARB is scheduled to talk about this next Thursday with the revisions and the approach that the applicant has embarked upon in response to the ARB comments, and then the Planning and Transportation commission did continue their discussion of this project to October 14, which will enable public testimony and review of draft findings and conditions that are being prepared. That’s it for me. I’m going to stop my sharing, so we can see everyone’s faces. Chair Bower: Great. Do we have anybody from the architect team that wants to speak to us today, Amy? Ms. French: Yes, I think we have a presentation that they can provide. I gave a brief presentation. They may want to enhance that or just be available for questions. Let us know. Chair Bower: Yeah, if it’s acceptable to other Board Members, I think maybe we could hear from the architect and then come back to questions for either the architect’s team and to Amy, if you have any. Is that acceptable? Nanci Kauffman, Head of School: Am I unmuted? Can you hear me now? Yeah, this is Nanci Kauffman. I’m the Head of School. I have a little introduction, and then I was going to turn it over to Adam Woltag, our architect. Is that all right? Chair Bower: Perfect, go ahead. Please begin. Ms. Kauffman: Excellent. So, thank you for your time and for the care that you’re putting in to reviewing this project. As a history teacher and a life-long history student myself, I too am invested in the historic preservation of our city, our neighborhood and our campus. For 23 years, I have owned a Craftsman style home just one block from Castilleja It was built in 1903. My home, not unlike Castilleja, is almost as old as Palo Alto itself. My home and the school predate the zoning codes and I can imagine a time when nothing stood between the two. Over the past 113 years, Castilleja and the City have grown up together and are inextricably linked through a shared past, present and future. In keeping with the great educational opportunities available in Palo Alto, Castilleja has educated girls and young women for over 100 years, to fulfill their promises as leaders. The insight and conviction of these women is needed now more than ever. We are gratified that the EIR found our proposal to be 100 percent compliant with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, the City’s primary tool for preservation and development. We are proud of the historic architecture of our campus. We have, and we will continue to carefully maintain it. Gustav Laumeister’s Gunn Administration Building was the original structure, and has always been the main entrance to the school. Its doors have welcomed thousands of students as they begin their Castilleja journey. On the walls of the Gunn Building our students can see the history of the school from the beginning through sepia-toned oval portraits of each student dating back to the earliest days. Our Chapel Theatre designed by Burge Clark and built in 1935 is the primary gathering space where our students and faculty meet as a community to celebrate and mark important milestones. In that space, generations of twelfth graders have delivered their senior speeches, a reflection before they graduate. Young women have built confidence as leaders, activists, singers, dancers, actors and debaters on that stage. As we reimagine our classrooms, we have preserved the circle, recognizing it as the (interference) of important school traditions throughout Castilleja’s long history. Our circle is a shared open space where friendships are forged and memories are made. All those connected to Castilleja from any era know the circle as the heart of the campus. We are pleased to have arrived at this moment, as we week to replace the nonhistorical, outdated structures on campus with a sustainable ADA compliant building designed to sit more comfortably and compatibly in the surrounding neighborhood, while furthering our mission to prepare young women to become compassionate leaders who affect meaningful change in this world. In both design and purpose, the new building will reflect Castilleja’s place in Palo Alto’s history as an important part of an excellent educational system and as an icon in this historic city. Our plans will 5.a Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Page 5 restore the Gunn Administration Building by separating it from Rhone’s Hall along Bryant Street. The new silhouette will echo the building’s earliest days. Our architects have worked to find ways to use materials that reflect our historic buildings and to use them in our Twenty-First Century sustainable learning places as we look toward the future. They have also taken a cue from the surrounding homes, selecting external materials that mirror and blend gently with the fabric of the neighborhood. Even as an Historic City, Palo Alto is known for its innovative spirit. Silicon Valley stands as a symbolic bridge to the future. Likewise, the new campus design allows Castilleja’s students and teachers to join all the other schools in Palo Alto that have been updated in recent years, while at the same time, preserving and honoring the deep history of the school. Thank you for your careful and thoughtful review of this project that honors the school and the City, and positions them to thrive together for another century. With that, I would like to turn it over to Adam Woltag, who is with WRNS, our architectural firm and I am very excited for you to hear from him about our plans. Thank you. Mr. Nguyen: Hi. Adam, before you begin, I just want to add that as part of the applicant’s team, you will have ten minutes for your presentation. Thank you. Adam Woltag: Good morning everybody. I am Adam Woltag, design partner with WRNS Studio. I am going to go ahead and start to share my screen. This is always the most terrifying part of a Zoom meeting, so let’s see if we can get this to work perfectly here. Can everybody see the title slide? Thank you, Board Members. We really appreciate your time and we’re looking forward to your questions and comments. We have a presentation, we’ll try to keep it to ten minutes here, but we thought it would be important to update you a little bit on some of the changes to the site plan that have happened since we met over a year ago, and then we will kind of end on basically what we want to focus on today, which are the updates to the Gunn Building. So, I’ll start with a site plan, and this is a site plan of the existing campus as it stands today. The area highlighted is the Gunn Administration Building and the Hughes Chapel Building. Before we discuss the proposed changes to the Gunn Building, we would like to update you on the development of the site plan. On the left is the original proposed campus plan that was presented to this Committee over a year ago and on the right is the Alternative #4 Campus Plan, and I would like to take a few moments to point out the five main changes that respond to primarily, you can see in blue the reduced below-grade garage footprint. The original is shown in in a dashed line in orange. But the key thing to note is the reduced structure, the reduced below-grade parking structure has been shrunk by almost 13,000 square feet. Now the smaller garage footprint has allowed us to preserve the two houses along Emerson, both owned by the school, as well as reduce the impact to existing on-site trees. So, eleven fewer trees will need to be removed, and five fewer will need to be relocated. With some subtle shifts in the massing of the proposed buildings, and some interior replanning and the introduction of an additional campus pedestrian entry along Kellogg has allowed us to keep the existing Kellogg drop-off. It supports an overall distributed drop-off and pickup strategy. It is really important to note this approach mitigates the traffic impacts that have been identified in the DEIR. So, in summary, this approach, with its reduced below-grade parking structure, distributed drop-off strategy has opened up the opportunity to preserve the trees, the houses along Emerson and reduce the impact of surface parking along the perimeter edges of the campus. Now, let’s revisit the proposed designs of the Gunn Building along the Bryant Street entry. These are images of the Gunn and Hughes Chapel Buildings as they look today. And from the air on the left, the existing condition with the concrete Rhode’s Hall classroom building appended to the side of the Gunn Building. And on the right, the proposed design showing the new wood-clad campus library and arts building located across a new pedestrian campus entry, and the liberated east façade of the Gunn Building. So, the Gunn Family Administration Building was built in 1910 and is listed as a Category 3 building on the City’s Historic Inventory. It’s a Craftsman style clad in wood shingles and pebble dash stucco, and the photo on the right is a view looking at that original eastern elevation. That little red triangle you see indicates where the original entry to the Gunn Building used to be. The Chapel Theatre building joined the campus in 1926 and is also listed as a Category building on the City’s Historic Inventory, and like the Gunn, it too is designed in the Craftsman style. Originally designed as a stand-alone structure, the buildings were joined together in 2000. In 1967 Rhode’s Hall the two-story cast-in-place concrete classroom building was added to the campus and was built right next to the Gunn Building, covering up that eastern façade. In 2000 campus renovations included the reconfiguration of the interiors of both the Gunn and Chapel Theatre buildings and the 5.a Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Page 6 addition of basement spaces and a redefined connection between the Gunn and Chapel buildings that comprises the new entry. The proposed design demolishes the Rhode’s Building and establishes a new pedestrian gated campus entry facing Bryant Street and locates a code-required exist from the newly liberated eastern façade of the Gunn Building. This slide shows the proposed design, and note the Bryant Street elevation on the upper right and the eastern campus elevated on the lower left. Zooming in a little bit closer to the Bryant Street elevation and the new pedestrian campus gateway design that continues the language of the existing campus fencing with brick pilasters and painted metal pickets. So, there were two options presented to this Body over a year ago. On the left, option one, and on the right, option two. Key to note the following intentions, option one takes a light and clearly contrasting stance to the existing Gunn Building, and option two takes a more robust and referential interpretive stance. So, looking at that easter façade of the Gunn Building, the red indicates the extent of the demolition along that façade in order to get this option to work. The intent is that it would extend the same cladding material, the stucco as well as the shingle, as well as the color. But the design of the stair is really intended to create a contrast to the building’s historic nature We think this design is light and also picks up and compliments the campus overall. It also references some of the newer designs around campus, so it is really a nice blend, we fee, of the new and the old. This is a view from the interior of the campus looking towards Bryant. You can start to see how the landscape planners engaged that stair. And this is a view over the campus entrance at Bryant, looking at the façade. So, option two takes a different stance, and the red indicates the extent of that demolition along that façade to get this option to work. Like option one, it extends the same materials around the eastern side of the building, but the design overall is more robust and a little bit more architecturally referential. It is a little heavier and makes a much larger statement to this ancillary entrance to the building. Again, a view from the interior of the campus looking towards the Bryant gateway looking towards the eastern side of the Gunn Building. I would like to end here on the material pallet. It’s a very simple, natural, robust pallet we think, that compliments the campus overall. We’re looking at cedar shingle siding to match, obviously, the same siding that comprises the Gunn Building. We’re looking at brick that matches the campus brick as well as painted metal for those details. It’s a dark, kind of rich green which we want to extend to the newer portions of the design and then where we have new windows, we are going to be using insulated glass unit, which has very superior qualities in terms of solar heat gain and insulation. So, with that, looking forward to hear your questions and comments. I’ll stop sharing. Chair Bower: Thank you Adam. I guess what I’d like to do is circle back with Board Members, any questions for Amy or Adam about either of those presentations? Martin, I see your box lit up. Do you have a comment or question? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Thank you, Chair Bower. This is for the architect, Adam. Hello. Chair Bower: Go ahead, he’s here. Board Member Bernstein: Can you hear me, Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Yes. Board Member Bernstein: This is a question for Adam, the architect. Chair Bower: Go ahead. Board Member Bernstein: Adam, hello. Thank you for your presentation. I’m looking at the photo of the new proposed stair on the Gunn Building, the exterior stair, have you looked at any designs where the seven or nine posts are not as massive. The reason I’m asking that is, the Craftsman detail, there are some fine little details that show up on a typical Craftsman. You mentioned you’re looking to have a contrast. My question is, have you thought about some of the detailing so it’s not as contrasting, because those posts look, in my opinion from your presentation, very massive, and there are seven or nine of them. And I think it distracts from the fine detailing of the Gunn Building. Have you thought about detailing those massive posts so that they don’t feel as massive? 5.a Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Woltag: Martin, you’re referring to option two, I think, right? Which is a little bit more of the historic and referential option as opposed to option one? Board Member Bernstein: Let’s see. Let me go back on my screen and look at that photo. Let me open this up here. I gook a photo of that. I’m going back here. Let’s see, I’m looking at the photo I took of that screen shot. Let me open that up and see if that says, let’s see. On my screen I took a photo of that shot. Let’s see, option two, yes. Mr. Woltag: Martin, I completely agree with you. Those posts are very robust and we didn’t look at lighter ones. You know, there is an actual stair at the, I guess it’s the south side, I’m sorry, it’s the west side of the Hughes Chapel Building and there’s an entry there, and it’s a small stair, but you know, we were basing this design in reference to that stair. And there are some very robust, you know, basically columns and rails that kind of define that stair. So, this is where we took our inspiration from for this. But if the question is, did we consider something lighter, and a little less robust, yes, we could definitely look at something that would be a little bit less than that. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Adam. Chair Bower: So, Adam, let me follow up on that and then I’ll ask other Board Members if they have questions. There are two options you presented. One was the lighter version, number one, and then the second version you were just speaking to with Martin. Are those both proposals, or do you, does the architecture team have a preference for which of those two you feel works best with the Gunn Building? Mr. Woltag: They were both proposals that we presented a year ago to get, you know, your feedback and comment on it to help us kind of set a direction. I think a year ago we felt, and I thought we had heard that the Board was leaning towards option one, is what I recall. That was going to be the preferred approach. We like both approaches. We would never put something forward that, you know, we felt either one, depending on where it went, would be a bad idea or inappropriate. But we agree with the Board’s initial kind of intent that option one, which was a lighter stair, presented a little more contrast, as well as it was a quiet move to a pretty subtle entry to the building, you know. This is not a main entry to the Gunn Building. In fact, it’s really, to be quite frank, it’s a code-required exit. And so, we thought something a little more demure and light and a little bit more referencing the new building right across the gateway felt appropriate. So, the light steel, a little more quiet just felt right to us, and I think the Board was feeling the same way a year ago. Chair Bower: I’m sorry, pandemic brain that I’m suffering from, a year ago seems like a decade ago. In our email this morning, the Board Members received a request by a resident of Palo Alto that that stairway not be on the outside, so that prompted me to think about and look at the floor plans of the interior of the building. I’m assuming that, if I remember correctly, the second floor of that building was added in the 60s. Is that correct? It’s an addition, it’s not part of the original building, is that right? Mr. Woltag: The second floor was added? Chair Bower: No, to that’s not the case. So, that’s fine. Is the interior of the Gunn Building largely remodeled in its existence, or does it remain close to what it was when it was built? Mr. Woltag: It’s been remodeled over time, so it does not reflect the original layout. Chair Bower: Okay I just wanted to explore that. I think that the best solution to this required exit is, in fact, on the outside of the building. I appreciate the sentiments that were included in that email sent to us this morning, and I would think that your option number one, which is lighter in feeling, because it doesn’t have those very heavy corner elements probably minimizes it as much as you can. It has to be there. So, other Board Members, any comments or question for Adam or Amy on the staff report? I don’t see any raised hands. 5.a Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Page 8 (audio interference) Board Member Wimmer: David, so are we giving our opinions at this point, or is this what we’re doing right now? Chair Bower: I thought we’d have questions. If there are no questions for Adam or Amy, then we could move on to just a Board discussion. Ms. French: There’s also public testimony, don’t forget that piece of it. Chair Bower: Oh, absolutely. So, let’s, if there are no questions at this point, let’s open up the microphone to anyone who wants to speak on this. Vinh, can you tell me how many people are anxious to speak. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, a number of hands have been going up in the last couple of seconds. So far, we have five hands raised, but there might be some more in the next minute or so. In the meantime, Kaylen, can we please get the speaker timer displayed. Chair Bower: Okay, so let’s start with three minutes maximum for speakers, because we don’t want to be here for a prolonged period of time, but we want to give everyone an opportunity to speak and if more people do raise their hands to speak, I may reduce the time to two minutes. But let’s start with three and see how that goes. So, Vinh, go ahead and open up the microphone to the first person on your list. Mr. Nguyen: Sure thing. We still just have five speakers and they will be called in the following order. We will start with Tricia followed by Joseph followed by Nelson followed by Andy and then Rob Lapinsky will be our final speaker if there are no more raised hands. If you want to speak and I did not call your hand, I mean if I did not call you name, please raise your hand now. Okay, so our first speaker will be Tricia. Tricia, if you’re there can you please unmute yourself on your computer and you may speak. Chair Bower: Vinh, before you start the meter, let me just make one other comment. We are here to review, as the Historic Resources Board does, the historic character of this particular, the Gunn Building and we don’t really focus on the new buildings that are going to be added to this, except as the affect the Gunn Building. So, there are many different issues the community has discussed, but our focus here today is on Historic Resources and the appropriate relative impacts. So, please limit comments just to the historic part of this project. Thank you. Go ahead, Vinh. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, Lauren, if you’re still there, please share us your comments. I mean, Tricia, if you’re there please share your comments. Tricia Suvari: Good morning and thank you for your time this morning. My name is Tricia Suvari. I live in Palo Alto and I want to add my voice in favor of Castilleja’s proposal. As the body of people who are devoted to preserving and protecting the history of Palo Alto’s architecture, you may understand even more than I do the important role that Castilleja has played in the history of Palo Alto. The school is only a few years younger than the City and they have grown up together, and have only become more important to each other over the past 113 years. I realize the preserving residential property is a goal in Palo Alto, and Castilleja’s project alternative number four does that. Even though the home known as Lockey House did not qualify to be admitted to the Registry for Historic Homes, this plan now preserves Lockey House and the other house the school owns on Emerson. I’m so happy that the school responded to neighbor concerns and your comments from the first hearing. Palo Alto as a city is a graceful and vibrant balance of old and new. The City values the importance of its past while always recognizing the promise of the future. Castilleja’s plans mirror this, with preservation of the two homes and the historic buildings, including the Chapel Theatre and the Gunn Administration Building. In fact, the Gunn Building will be restored to its original façade, which will reverse time and bring down the scale of the buildings on Bryant to preserve the neighborhood feeling. I appreciate the care Castilleja has devoted to maintaining history while modernizing the campus. I hope you’ll also be able to appreciate the hard work that 5.a Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Castilleja has put into responding to questions and making updates to the plans accordingly. This project removes the buildings that have outlived their lives and replaces them with structures that nod toward the past, while improving the environment for the future. At the same time, the homes and historical buildings on campus will be preserved and restored. Thank you again for your time that you devote to the past and to the future of Palo Alto. Chair Bower: Thank you Mr. Nguyen: Thank you, Patricia. Our next speaker will be Joseph. Joseph, if you are there, can you please unmute yourself and you may speak. Joseph Haletky: Good morning and thank you. My name is Joseph Haletky and I’ve lived in Palo Alto for 46 years, and I am pleased to speak in favor of the proposal. In 1974 my wife and I were asked by the school’s headmaster to live on the Castilleja campus as a resident family, along with our toddler son at the time, in the dorms. For two years we lived on the ground floor of the building in an area that is now the school’s library. I have wonderful memories of the girls, acting as counselor and as activities planner for the boarding students. I am still friends with quite a few of my former students who are now seemingly pushing 60. In later years I visited Castilleja often as an alumni interviewer for Brown University, my college alma mater. I have been impressed by the high quality and maturity, both academic and social of all the students that I have met. I am still pleased to come full circle now and speak about the school’s future. I fully support the school’s plans to modernize the campus. I understand that classes are now taught in the rooms that I knew as dorm rooms, and that learning spaces have not been modernized since the 1960’s. It’s time for Castilleja to update their campus, just like all of the public schools in our City have done, including Palo Alto High School nearby. But I also appreciate that the school holds an important place in Palo Alto history that the school’s plans preserve the historic buildings, the chapel Theatre. The beautiful Burge Clark structure will be beautifully preserved during construction, and the Gunn Administration Building will be separated from the adjacent building on Bryant Street, making it a stand-alone building, just as it was originally designed. I very much appreciate the attention to preservation, even while modernizing the campus for the 21st Century. The Castilleja project is an important and amazing merging of old and new. The new is necessary to the school’s survival, new flexible learning spaces and sustainable architecture, and the old in the Gunn Administration Building is being carefully restored so that the school’s heritage is preserved. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Chair Bower: Thank you Joseph. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, our next speaker will be Nelson. Nelson, can you please unmute yourself. Nelson: Hi. I’m actually using my husband’s iPad, so this is Kimberly Wong. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, Kimberly. I believe you have a presentation for us, so I’ll give you a second to put that up. Ms. Wong: Hi. My name is Kimberly Wong and I was raised in Palo Alto. In fact, my grandfather moved here in 1900 to live and raise seven children in an historic Queen Ann Victorian house. He owned the first Chinese run restaurant in Palo Alto. This home with a deep-seeded past was moved to Palo Alto in the 80’s and lovingly restored. So, I am relieved, after four years of debate, Castilleja finally decided to retain the Lockey House, also 100 plus years old. Thank you HRB for asked for further evaluation on the home last year, and encouraging Castilleja to save it. In an August 18 Palo Alto Weekly article, ARB Board Chair, Peter Baltay was quoted “it’s not enough our new campus to simply be superior to the dormitory buildings of the 60’s, the City”, he said, “should hold Castilleja to a higher standard. I think that the HRB should ask for a more compatible design.” The newest design seems to be, the newest design of the building, the Kellogg side building and the Gunn Building stairs seem still to be a bit overbearing. The exterior staircase of the Gunn Building, I feel clashes with the classic structure and destroys its visual integrity. I have not seen this kind of external staircase on the Craftsman style building before. It seems 5.a Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Page 10 more suitable for an industrial building, such as the Park Sherman garage in the Cal-Ave area as shown. Is there a way to bring this into the interior of the campus so that it is not visible from the street? Photo two please. I thank you for reviewing the plans and making suggestions to Castilleja on how they could achieve proper massing and style within an R-1 neighborhood, without jeopardizing the campus that Gustav Laumeister envisioned more than 100 years ago for Ms. Mary Lockey. Chair Bower: Thank you for those comments and those photos. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, our next speaker will be Andy Reed. Andy, can you please unmute yourself. Andie Reed: (phonetic) Yes, thank you. My name is Andie Reed and I live near Castilleja School. We appreciate the Historic Resources Board thoughtful review and consideration the last time we met, and that the two houses, including the 100-year-old Lockey House are off the chopping block today. Although for the last four years, neighbors had asked the school to retain the houses on our residential street, the EIR has mandated it, and determined the significant and unavoidable impacts it had caused demolishing the houses with the underground garage exit there, will be reduced by the alternative four. However, the traffic doesn’t decrease, it merely gets dispersed. This meeting is one of the six Board and Commission meetings squeezed into eight weeks in order to push through a project based on an EIR that represents the applicant’s highest aspiration for growth in student enrollment, as well as in build out. Surrounding residents have, since these plans were made public in June of 2016, protested the scope and extravagance of the increases, however, we totally support the school rebuilding, modernizing their school and upgrading their campus. The project you are reviewing represents the school’s insistence on a 30 percent enrollment increase, 95 annual events per school year and a 40 percent increase in functional total gross square footage in a small residential neighborhood surrounded by narrow streets, and Embarcadero Road. Any requests for reducing this profile to be compatible with the older homes surrounding the school and lessen the impacts on the residents have had no hearing. An underground garage and a sprawling modern building are not the warm intimate vision Mary Lockey created over 100 years ago, when she founded Castilleja. The City of Palo Alto has not determined that they should amend the school’s conditions of approval so they can achieve their new business model, to allow for 1477 car trips and increased enrollment that will not just bring 125 additional students to the school, but also parents, staff, volunteers, teachers, dramatically increasing the activity in a six-acre site, and impacting Palo Alto’s main arterials, Embarcadero, and Alma and backups into El Camino. The project being presented for your review today offers a very limited array of choices, only those that satisfy the school’s extreme new growth goals for this small site. Thank you for this opportunity. Chair Bower: Thank you for joining us today. Next. Mr. Nguyen: Our next and also our last speaker will be Rob. Rob if you are there can you please unmute yourself on your computer? Rob Levitsky: Hello. This is Rob Levitsky. I have a house at 1215 Emerson, which is the corner house. The only part of the block that Castilleja doesn’t own. I want to start off by saying that Amy French said the architects are there, but if you look at the drawings you’ll see that many of the drawings having to do with the garage are done by an architect by the name of Archie Render, and Archie Render has never showed up at any of our meetings in four and one-half years They have been completely unavailable and the pretense that WRNS designed the garage or has anything to do with it is mistaken and is wrong. You guys talk about sustainable building. Well, how about the 900 kilograms ofCO2 released for every ton of cement. And if we’re talking about the facing above the building, what color cement are we going to use, and how are we going to texture it? And how is this going to affect the value of my home, which is on the Historic Resources List at 1215 Emerson, to have an underground parking garage right next to it? Another question I’d like to point out is that the EIR has been certified by the PTC, but it is in serious conflict now with the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance, because there are several Oak trees which have no basis for being removed based on the Tree Ordinance, and only because Castilleja wants to put a new building there. So, here we are dumping CO2s-laden materials on the neighborhood and the City, which is supposedly trying to be green, and at the same time killing trees and badly damaging, probably, the 5.a Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Page 11 redwoods. And all this time that the neighbors have been fighting this project for four and one-half years, the Planning Department has just been cheerleaders for this project, and it’s only because the neighbors have spent four and one-half years trying to save the houses and trying to save the trees, that we’ve even gotten to this alternative chosen, alternative four. Also, the underground parking garage, how many spaces do you really need? And the number of spaces you need is based on the number of students you are going to be enrolling, and that hasn’t been determined yet, so you don’t really even know that you need an underground garage, because we’ve had 450 students there before without an underground garage, without serious neighbor problems. So, the Historic Resources Board should probably just say that the underground garage is not appropriate for this neighborhood. It will diminish the value of the historic nature of this neighborhood, and should be (interference) understood and looked at again. Thank you much. Chair Bower: Great. Thank you, Rob, for that comment, those comments. Vinh, any other raised hands? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, that was our last public commenter, so that concludes public comments for this item. Chair Bower: Great, thank you. Amy, you have a comment? Ms. French: Yes. I wondered if you are interested in hearing, there were some statements made and if you would like staff to respond to some statements, I’m happy to do so. Chair Bower: Sure, if you would like to respond, that would be perfectly appropriate. Ms. French: Okay. So, one thing I thought I would mention is, and thanks Ms. Reed for your comments today. We did receive your letter that went to the Planning and Transportation Commission, which did cite the 1,477 daily trips, which we are aware of, but just again to make sure everyone understands, there are 279 new daily trips and that’s added to the existing trips to make that 1,477 daily trips. The project does not add all of those 1000 trips. In fact, with the mitigation measure 7A, this results in a net increase of daily trips to 114. So, this is not the peak hour trips, this is the daily trips we’re talking about. One thing also I’d like to state is, with Levitsky, and thank you for your comments today, is that you noted that the Planning and Transportation Commission certified the EIR. That is the job of the City Council. The Planning and Transportation Commission weighed in on the adequacy of the EIR and recommended the Council, you know, also see the EIR as adequate to meet the rules. We are going back to the Planning and Transportation Commission, as I noted, on October 14, where the public can make those comments to the Planning Commission as well. And then the final thing I wanted to comment on was a misstatement that the number of parking spaces is based on the number of students. That is incorrect. The number of spaces is based on the number of classrooms, or teaching stations, as per the City’s Municipal Code. Thank you. Chair Bower: Thanks Amy for those comments. I’d like to, excuse me, make one other comment about something that Mr. Levitsky said. It’s my experience in building residential projects we often have several different companies that contribute to the overall design. The architects are the overall managers of those subcontractors, and that despite the fact that apparently the designer of the underground parking garage has not been at the meetings, I don’t know if that is accurate or not. It is not relevant to me, or I think to this Board, but what is relevant is that the architectural firm that’s managing this proposal is there, is answering questions and can relay them. I want to dispel the idea or the notion that because a subcontractor of the architectural team doesn’t show up, that somehow that’s a failure on the part of the architect. I wanted to open up the, to the Board the discussion of the project, but I had a question that I wanted to go back to Adam with. On packet page 14 of our, and I’m doing this on my iPad, of our materials, there is a wall type and a gate type, and the wall type is solid. It is wall type one, and the gate type is C, it’s open. And I’m confused because the renderings that we’ve seen, Adam, shows something different and I just wanted to know which of the two is the accurate proposal, is going to be submitted with the proposal? So, can you find that on page, it’s page eight of the City Planning and Development Services Department. 5.a Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Woltag: David, I’m trying to find that document. Is it possible that someone has that and can share that, so we can look at that and I can speak to that? Chair Bower: Amy, you in our premeeting review, you actually showed this page to us. So, it’s, I don’t know if you can see this, but – no it doesn’t work. I can’t show you what it looks like. So, it’s on page 14 of packet page 14 of the Castilleja review. And what it shows is a solid wall with 1 x 4 horizontal boards with a steel frame, reclaimed cedar with half-inch spacing, solid concrete wall behind and the gate is double, is the double pedestrian gate. Yes, that’s it. Thank you. Mr. Woltag: Yes, this is actually not accurate to what we’re talking about at that moment in the Bryant Street entry. This is actually showing a different portion of the site. So, I apologize for that. What we’re proposing at the Bryant Street entry is what I showed a little bit earlier in our presentation, which is the brick pilasters and the steel rails and pickets. Ms. French: My apologies. I think I mentioned in my presentation that I had made an error in the staff report. I had confused this wall type with, I had originally thought when I wrote this report, there had been a change, but there hadn’t. Chair Bower: No problem. I just wanted to be clear about what this particular illustration represents. I actually like the, if the visuals that you provided that we saw with the stair addition to the Gunn Building are accurate, that seemed to me (interference). I don’t mean to take all the time up for the Board, but the other question I had was, is brick a material that was used with the original Gunn Building back in the early 1900’s? Mr. Woltag: That’s a great question. I might want to all up one of our consultants who has been really working on the historic nature of the Gunn Building, if that’s okay? She might be able to address that. Chair Bower: Yeah, and let me just say my question comes from my experience that brick was added to early 1900 buildings in Palo Alto buildings often if the 1960’s. We did a lot of really inappropriate, in my opinion, inappropriate architectural additions to 50-year-old buildings in the 1960’s and adding brick to everything was one of them, whether they were columns or they were steps or patios. So, please. Mr. Woltag: I think you’re right. You know, the brick that is on the campus today, if you look at it closely, it really is comprised of the perimeter fencing that faces the Embarcadero and wraps around to Bryant, so you see brick there. You do see brick in some of the newer buildings, the gymnasium building, but it is a different type of brick. So, I think you’re probably right. I don’t know the extent of brick use in the original Gunn and the Hughes Building, but maybe if I could call on – is that something you would be able to address? Kim: I’m Kim Butt with TreanorH. We’ve done some consulting and review of these projects. To my knowledge, I don’t think there was any brick on the Gunn Building. I think it’s always been shingle style or just clad in shingle Craftsman. Ishon (phonetic) is double checking that for me right now, but it certainly doesn’t go with the style of the building as it was constructed. Chair Bower: So, your use of that motif or that particular design element material is basically a follow on to the, what was it, 90’s you know playing field expansion where they bordered the field with that brick and iron fence? Mr. Woltag: Yeah, we decided that we wanted to carry on the same nature only in the fencing. No use brick on the building itself. And so, if you look at the proposed design, it’s not a part of the architecture of the building itself, but what it does is abut it and it forms kind of the base of the planters as well, so we kind of carried that material into the gateways and, again, into the planters, but not on the façade of the building. We tried to keep the façade with really the two primary materials, which is the pebble dash finish and the plaster stucco and the shingles. 5.a Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Bower: Okay, I’ve been sort of filibustering here. I don’t mean to. I can’t see Martin, but I can see all the other Board Members. Any other Board Members would like to comment at this time? I’m seeing a lot of nos. Martin, do you have any comments you’d like to make? Board Member Bernstein: None. Chair Bower: Okay, that said, do we want to, as a Board, suggest a preference for the stair design? We’ve done that a year ago. Is that something Board wants to either reiterate or just leave standing? Anyone? Yeah, Margaret, to ahead. And then Debbie next. Board Member Wimmer: It sounds like what we’re trying to do today is just to address the one elevation that’s been presented before us with the option one and option two. So, is this what we need to be commenting on right now? Chair Bower: That and anything else that you – this I presume will be our last opportunity to make comments on the project, because it’s going to move forward, I think, to the Council soon. Board Member Wimmer: Well, I’m ready to offer my comments, if this is the appropriate time. Chari Bower: It is. Please do. Board Member Wimmer: Okay, so I know that the stair option one had been presented to us last year in that meeting and I appreciate the stair option two that was presented to us today. In my opinion, I feel like stair option two, the more roust stair, door entry, I think is a much more architecturally pleasing presentation of that elevation. I mean, option one that was given to us before, I think it was, maybe it’s probably closer to what’s existing, but I do feel like that elevation is still a significant and important elevation. The option one makes it feel like it’s unimportant, and it doesn’t really address the symmetry of the Craftsman style of the building. And it looks more like an elevation that you would see maybe to a back alley, that just has a single door and a fire escape. So, I think this option two is really much more attractive. I think it gives more balance. It is more robust. I do agree with Martin’s earlier comment that the stair looks a little too heavy. I like it being heavier than option one because option one makes it look like it’s a fire escape stair that’s just tacked onto the side of the building, which is, I think, not appropriate in this application. So, giving the stair a little bit more robustness, more prominence I think makes it feel like it has more integrity and it doesn’t look like a fire escape. But I do think that maybe the detailing of it in the currently presented option two is a little too heavy. So, I vote for option two, but to lighten the stair, that’s all, the heaviness of the stair posts. Chair Bower: Great, thank you. Debbie, you had a comment. Vice Chair Shepherd: I’m sorry that we can’t see what that might look like, Margaret, because it could make all the difference. To me, as the architect acknowledged, it’s really just there for egress, and so I still, you know, given the two that we can see today, I still prefer option one because it doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is. And I find that it kind of disappears visually and doesn’t – I like that it is more contemporary, more contrasting. I think that’s more appropriate to the integrity that everybody is trying so hard to recapture for this structure. Thanks. Board Member Wimmer: Is there any way that we can put on the screen option one next to option two? I think that would be great during this discussion, so we can visually see it. But I think, can you Adam, clarify, is this strictly for egress? Like is this only going to be used if the fire alarm goes off and all the students are going to exit that way? I would imagine that they would enter the building. I mean, it’s an integral part of that circulation of that building. I would think that they would use it just to access the building, not just for emergency escape. Is that correct? Mr. Woltag: It is going to be primarily an egress stair. I don’t think the intent of the school was to have it as a primary entry or exit to the building. That’s actually located a little bit farther inboard. There is a 5.a Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Page 14 beautiful oak tree right about yards past that stair into the campus, around a beautiful little small courtyard. That is really the main entry and exit through the Gunn Building. So, this is really to, I think, primarily address egress. Can it be used throughout the day if staff want to access that part of the site? Absolutely, but the intent was, it’s not a primary access. Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, it would be helpful if we could, oh perfect. Mr. Woltag: I’m sharing my screen and see – I think this one is pretty good here to show that. Chair Bower: So, my – I’m not seeing anybody else raising their hand, but I’m sort of halfway between Margaret and Debbie. I’m inclined to think that this ought to be lighter and it ought to be less significant, so option two, because it has very heavy vertical elements actually seems overwhelming to me, overwhelms the building and so it doesn’t appeal as much. I think it takes too prominent a role, plays too prominent a role on that façade. Also, I notice in option two, there’s a much bigger opening in the Gunn Building than option one and I don’t know if that’s intended to be part of the stair design, but it does sort of add to the, how I feel it overwhelms the building. So, I would be inclined to want to see something that was less massive, I guess that’s the phrase I see. I think what we might need to do here, Board, is to create a subcommittee to look at this design down the line, when it’s finalized so that it resolves these issues, because I don’t see how we’re going to resolve this today, unless the Board feels we should just make a decision. Because I think Adam has suggested that this option two could be modified, then we ought to take him up on that modification offer and then look at it later. Martin, I can’t see you. If you’d like to make a comment, please do. Margaret, since your hand was up first, then Debbie. Board Member Wimmer: Okay, sure. Going back to Adam, an additional question. Adam, is there an elevation of the option two, a two-dimensional straight elevation that we can see the fenestration of the door? And then, can you offer some further explanation as to, obviously there is a door, but to the left of the door it looks like you’re suggesting windows, but the windows look like they are painted in the same color green. Are those truly windows, or is that just some kind of a paneling detail? Mr. Woltag: That’s a great question. You hit it spot on. The idea here was that that doorway lines up with the hallway. You know, it’s kind of centered in the hallway with the right accessibility issues around it, so it’s off centered from the middle of the building slightly. In order to get a little more balance into the façade, we wanted to provide something that was more centered, and so we extended the thresholds, and widened them to kind of center that opening. Because we couldn’t center that door into that hallway, just because the hallway itself is not aligned. And so those would be like a painted wood panel, it would be almost like the broken lights of a doorway. The fine lights of a doorway, but those would be painted wood panels. So, it was about trying to capture an overall, a balanced entry that also worked with the egress requirements that we’re trying to achieve. Board Member Wimmer: I see. Chair Bower: Well, that brings me back to my feeling that that begins to overwhelm the façade of that building, and that’s a whole new design element that I don’t think we were anticipating seeing today as a Board. Kimberly, did you want to make a comment? Hold on, Martin. Ms. Butt: Yeah, I was just going to speak to the two designs. We did review them both for the applicant in terms of compliance to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In our opinion, the design option number one really is the preferred option in terms of respecting the preservation aspects of the building. Our concerns with option two are that it contains details and somewhat mimics historic details in a way that might confuse people in the future as to whether that was original or not, whereas with the option one, it is clearly contemporary and separate from the historic building and kind of a lighter touch to it. So, in terms of compliance to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards we really would recommend option one in going with the wider posts and not including any conjectural features, such as the faux windows. I mean, we can see from historic documentation how the original windows were, at least from some fuzzy photos, and they were more balanced to look like punch windows on either side, and so there is clearly 5.a Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Page 15 no attempt to, this isn’t a lot of reconstruction. It just wants to be very, it’s preferred to be very clear about what is new and what is historic. So, certainly if you’re looking at a hybrid, I would definitely encourage you to go with lighter posts and just to attempt not to mimic any of the historic details. Chair Bower: Great, thank you. That’s helpful. Debbie, you had a comment and then Martin, I’ll call on you next. Vice Chair Shepherd: I just wanted to say that I agree with you David. I think it’s interesting, the door in option two is an interesting and clever solution under normal circumstances, but it goes in a whole new direction in terms of compromising the historic nature of that particular façade. So, I think it deserves more consideration. Maybe we could do that in a subcommittee. I’d actually also like to see, although I know it’s not in our purview, but I’m curious about how that works inside to make that kind of change. Board Member Bernstein: Okay. Martin, you had a comment. Board Member Bernstein: Hello, yeah. Can you hear me Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Yes, we can. Go ahead. Board Member Bernstein: I’d like to tag off of Board Member Wimmer’s comment about option two and then the mass and the detail, and then plus your suggestion of a subcommittee, which I would like to volunteer for if one gets formed. So, the Board has seen projects Craftsman style where, for example on stairways, it’s common that there is a massive newel post. So, if we look at the posts on this proposed option two, my suggestion that if it becomes a subcommittee discussion, is there might be some just fine little detail, for example maybe at the top of these, I’ll call them newel posts, just some little gesture towards the Craftsman detail. As we all know, for the standards we need compatibility and differentiation. I think with the genius of the architect or the architect’s team, and then in coordination with the subcommittee, there could be just some little fine detail on those newel posts so that it’s still differentiated from the 100-year-old structure, but some compatibility, just a fine little detail is all that’s necessary, and that way, again to Board Member Wimmer’s point, is that it’s just not a tertiary fire exit, but make it look something substantial. So, there will be an elegant solution and it can be something very simple that has the compatibility yet differentiation between old and new. So, I think as a subcommittee, again if a subcommittee gets formed, I think that could be a good discussion for that, just for the fine tuning. I think there is some simple, elegant solution I believe. Thank you. Board Member Pease: This is Christian speaking. I’ve been trying to use the raised hand function, but I guess that’s not working. Chair Bower: Oh, I did see – go ahead Christian. Board Member Pease: I just don’t think this is something that will be settled today. I agree with your idea there should be a subcommittee. Chair Bower: Good. I think so too. Michael, any comments? There you go. Yeah, Mike, we hear you Board Member Makinen: Yes, there were some interesting comments there. The differentiation and the compatibility are the two critical issues right here. I tend to agree with both those issues and I think that we need a, the second alternative is much more robust and what I would characterize as California park- like, that you would see in some of the National Parks. It may not differentiate sufficiently which would favor option number one, but I think maybe a hybrid between the two was what I would recommend. Chair Bower: I actually feel the same way. Board Member Makinen: Further, a subcommittee might be able to refine this down to a hybrid between the two. 5.a Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Bower: All right. Roger, I see you want, Roger you need to unmute. Board Member Kohler: Am I unmuted? Chair Bower: You are unmuted. Go ahead. Board Member Kohler: Okay. No, I’m just saying somewhere in between the two of those is a program to work. I mean, the first one is kind of too simple in a way and the other one is too heavy, but an in betweener I think will work out fine. It’s just it’s big, thick, kind of overwhelming. The other one is too plain, so somewhere in between could be an easy thing to do. Chair Bower: I think we’ve now basically expressed our, the entire Board has expressed the desire to see the final design of this again, but it can be done with a subcommittee, that’s three people and it could be done quickly and I think, doesn’t need to block the project moving forward with other boards and the Council. So, just so we can have a numeric, I guess a vote, really, I would ask if there are any Board Members that object to a subcommittee to deal with the final design? Board Member Wimmer: David, sorry to interrupt. Can I just ask another quick question? So, when we’re saying we like something in between one and two, are we talking about just the railings or are we talking about the door fenestration. And Adam, can you go back to the two-dimensional view of, sorry. Okay. So, I guess upon better understanding of what, that those are paneling, those are panels and not windows, they certainly look like windows to me, but because those wouldn’t be, because they are just a false panel, I’m now retracting. I think the option number one is better. I’m just kind of confused as when we say something in between the two, because there’s kind of two issues here. There’s the door and the fenestration is different between option one and two, and the railings are different between options one and two. Chair Bower: Excellent, excellent observation. I had been assuming that after Kimberly recommended option one and not adding another, adding the rest of that design feature to center, to create a better centered approach to the doors, that that had gone away. I would not support any part of that larger building modification in design number two. Board Member Wimmer: I just want to clarify that. So, the doors of option one is what we’re leaning towards? Chair Bower: I think that, yeah. My opinion is that those doors are there. Well, they’re needed for a code requirement, and that they shouldn’t, you know, be expanded to alter the exterior elevation of the building any more than they need to be. So, my thought and my request that the Board verify is that the subcommittee will work with the architect team, the team of architects to provide a modified version of these two stair approaches to the building, and not deal with anything more than that. And if that’s agreeable to the Board, then I think we’ll take a quick vote on that. So, all in favor of that approach raise your hand. Roger (unintelligible). And Christian? Board Member Pease: I agree. Chair Bower: Okay. Martin? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Chair Bower: You agree? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. 5.a Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Bower: Okay, good. I think we are unanimous in asking that this project come back to a subcommittee of the Board just for this particular design element, the stairs, the access egress stairs on the end of the Gunn Building. Amy. Ms. French: Hi. Yes, I’m going to suggest, I’m going to share my screen, oh, I can’t. If we’re done, I’m going to share my screen because I would like to capture your vote, which let’s see, is anyone able to see this? Chair Bower: Yeah, I can see it. Ms. French: Okay. So, I have been typing here with, you know, the action today. I have two requests with respect to the Architecture Review finding 2B, which I would then share with the Architectural Review Board next Thursday that there are bullets here that can be incorporated or some of them, into a finding that references the Gunn Building as part of the project, you know. And then (crosstalk) text there to reflect what was happening right now with this conversation. So, maybe you could… Chair Bower: I think that captures what, yeah, I think that captures the discussion we just had. So, we want the building, thank you for actually highlighting the exterior finishes which we were talking about but not specifically focusing on. Anyway, Board Members, does that fairly summarize our discussion? I think it does. Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, I just want to add that I think someone should make a formal motion. Ms. French: Yes. I just wanted to have the motion, if we’re going to talk about the project in totality, I understand this is a subcommittee formation right now for this particular detail, but I also want to make sure that we’re going to return to a more complete motion on other things. Chair Bower: Okay, so I think we’ve just basically voted to create a subcommittee. Mr. Nguyen: Well, there wasn’t a formal motion or a second, so we would have to do that. And I just want to add that Board Member Pease has his hand raised. Chair Bower: Christian, I can’t see you, but go ahead and speak. Ms. French: I’m going to stop sharing. There we go. Chair Bower: Christian, do you want to make a comment? There you go. Christian, a comment? You’re muted again. Love Zoom. Ms. French: Unmuted. Chair Bower: Christian. Board Member Pease: That was an error that I raised my hand. (crosstalk) MOTION Chair Bower: Okay, stay tuned. So, I’m going to move that we create a subcommittee to review the design details of the egress stairway. Is there a second? Board Member Makinen: I’ll second it. Chair Bower: Okay. Just to be clear, the previous discussion that we’ve had, this is a very brief summary of our previous discussion, and I presume, Amy, that’s adequate to document what we intend to do with 5.a Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Page 18 the subcommittee? All right, shaking your head. Any other comments? I don’t see any. Let’s vote on this. All in favor of creating a subcommittee, please raise your hand, either physically or… Mr. Nguyen: For the record we should take a vocal vote, and I can do that. Chair Bower: Fine, please do. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, going down the list, Board Member Bernstein? Board Member Bernstein: Yeah. Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Kohler? Board Member Kohler: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Makinen? Board Member Makinen: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Pease? Board Member Pease: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Vice Chair Shepherd? Vice Chair Shepherd: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Wimmer? Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: The motion carries 7-0. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0. Chair Bower: Okay, Amy, if you can pull that back up and share your screen with us, let’s consider a motion to um, I guess, adopt those bullet points. Is that the… Ms. French: Yes, my preference would be if you see something here that you don’t agree with, that you voice your objections. If you have some wordsmithing that you think would be better than this, I welcome you to send those to me. You know, this is in the formation of findings to share with the Architectural Review in the packet that goes out this week. Chair Bower: Okay, there is one item that I saw in an earlier, as part of the earlier discussion, and that is the stucco finish on the existing building, I think Adam described as a pebble dash finish which I’m familiar with. Is that the finish that would be applied to the new buildings? Mr. Woltag: To answer the question, no. The new buildings actually don’t incorporate stucco. They do have the shingles, wood shingles, wood siding, but no stucco. 5.a Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Bower: Okay, so I just want to be clear about that because I wouldn’t want new stucco to be identical to the old, but since that’s not an issue, that’s great. Anyone else see anything in this particular, in these one, two, three, four, five bullet points that we would like to expand upon? Any other Board Members have comments about that? I don’t see or hear any comments. So, I’d entertain a motion to adopt these, this description. Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower, I just want to add that I think Mindy Romanowsky has a rebuttal to deliver if you would like to allow her. Chair Bower: Of course. Mr. Nguyen: Mindy, if you’re there, go ahead. Mindie Romanowsky: Yeah, I’m here. Can you hear me? I’m trying to turn on my video. Here we go. Hi, good morning Members of the HRB. My name is Mindie Romanowsky and I am a land use attorney assisting Castilleja with this application. I actually don’t have a rebuttal. I just really wanted to thank you for your service and your time and appreciate you for the thoughtful comments you’ve made today on option one and option two. We are very amenable to your feedback and respect it. I do think that our historic architects (unintelligible) who commented on the merits of option one in following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards really are worthy of thought and thank you for taking it under consideration with your subcommittee to determine how best to treat the stair rail. We welcome that feedback and I guess, I just want to understand, you know, a bit of how that feedback will be delivered. If you could give us a bit more direction today on what it is you would like to see so we can be responsive and be responsive in short order, so that we don’t, you know, you hear from us soon and you’re able to respond accordingly. We would like to be able to bring it to the ARB as well, based upon your sound recommendations. So, you know, the more direction you are able to provide in short order, we would greatly appreciate. So, thank you. Chair Bower: Sure. Typically, a subcommittee formed for this type of consideration, it actually looks at something after the building is under construction, and it’s not intended, the whole subcommittee approach is intended to allow the project to move forward. In this case, because this particular aspect of the design is specific to the historic portion of this project, the ARB would have no purview over that. They don’t have training, they don’t have the experience to make a decision about that, and so the HRB’s subcommittee would be dealing with this compatibility differentiation thing, and it’s really going to, as I imagine it, going to be a mix of those two designs, and I think Adam, or whoever is going to carry this forward, would be able to make a couple of suggestions and then it will happen very quickly. We’ve done this on a number of projects. And again, it’s happened during construction, not, we don’t mean to hold up, we don’t want to hold up construction, but the point of this is to keep the project moving. So, I think the major portions of our discussion today were not to have that new element added to the end of the building, try to get a less heavy or massive stair on the side, and I just have a feeling that, again Adam will be able to, you know, present something that the Board, the subcommittee would be able to move through quickly. Isn’t that the case, Amy? This doesn’t have to happen before it goes to the ARB, as far as I’m concerned? Ms. French: Correct. Yes, that’s correct. Again, the expertise of the HRB is certainly this differentiation and compatibility equation, and you know, we’re used to making conditions of approval requiring return to a subcommittee. That would not then have to go to the ARB afterwards. But certainly, if the applicant is interested in coming up with something, you know, before this gets to Council, we’re happy to convene the subcommittee to have a look. Chair Bower: Right. I just don’t see this as being a make or break deal for the Council. I think the Council has been able to accept this kind of condition in the past with comfort. So, I’m only saying this so you don’t feel like this is another bump in the road, because I don’t think any of us on the HRB feel that at all. Does that answer your question, Mindie? 5.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Ms. Romanowsky: Yes, thank you. That’s very helpful and again we welcome the feedback, you know, when it comes. Chair Bower: Adam? Mr. Woltag: And really quickly, I just want to thank everyone for the comments and just so we’re really clear, what we heard today was a lighter approach, I think, than option two, abiding to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is important. We don’t want to mimic, we don’t want to copy, you know, we don’t want to degrade that façade. It’s an important façade, even though it’s a campus façade, it doesn’t face the street, this Committee is saying, no this is an important façade, so think about the details. That’s what I’ve heard. I don’t think I’ve heard a strong direction either or, I’ve heard a hybrid, and so I think what I’m going to take away from this is, we’re going to meet with our team, we’re going to look at details, because I think that’s what you’re asking for, is how does it feel when you’re holding the handrail, how does it look. Right now, we’re showing some pretty, you know, conceptual ideas, and I think what the Committee is saying, the Board is saying, we want to understand that even though you may go with a contrasting approach, it’s beautiful, it’s appropriate and its’ something that’s going to compliment this really important building. And so that’s what I’m taking away from this meeting. Chair Bower: That’s what we do on the HRB. It’s almost always about compatibility and differentiation. Those are almost exact opposites, so it’s, it’s kind of a fine line to walk. Anyway, let’s go back. Vinh, we want you on motions for, to accept this – do we need to make a statement, Amy, about conditioning the acceptance based on the subcommittee approval? Ms. French: I’ve heard that this is a condition and I have it in a draft, you know, in that yellow text that I was showing that I can put into the draft conditions of approval that I would show to the Planning and Transportation Commission on October 14, unless something happens in the meantime to resolve this with the subcommittee, that’s the plan. I would like two things. I would like the HRB to, again, look at that finding 2B so I can share that with the ARB next week and make sure I’ve got that right, as far as verbiage, if possible. The other thing is that you did review the Draft EIR in September. The Final EIR has been out since July 29 and 30. You’ve had the opportunity, I’ve provided page numbers, etc. If anybody on the HRB thinks that there is something inadequate about the Final EIR as far as providing that additional information that you requested, I mean, these are comments the HRB made that our CEQA consultant responded to and we published. So, I would like to hear from the HRB of the adequacy of the Final EIR would be helpful as well. So, those two things. I can put the screen back up to show those finding bullets, if you’d like. Chair Bower: Yeah, that probably is appropriate. Martin, did you want to make a comment? I saw your… Board Member Bernstein: No, I was just getting myself unmuted, but no comment at this point. Chair Bower: Okay. So, Michael, go ahead. Board Member Makinen: Thank you Chair. Yeah, I had just one quick comment relating back to the potential for historic district combination. There was a master response 2.9.2 and I’m not sure if they looked at any of the people that have been to Castilleja that were, have historic significance in their careers that might qualify that area as being an historic district based upon personas. Chair Bower: Kimberly, are you still on? Ms. Butt: Yes, I’m still here. Again, we did review and speak to the Historic Resource evaluation. We did not prepare it. But in this situation, I do know that there was not a district found, that there was not a finding for any significant persons to lead to an historic finding. Typically, when something is based on that criterion B, that it is, the building is significant due to its relation to a person. It has to be significantly tied to that person. Either they discovered something important within that building or they lived within that building, though most of the time, if it’s just kind of a tertiary relationship, that they 5.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 21 were in the building for a brief period of time or at school there, it typically does not provide a substantial, enough substantial significance unless there was a substantial tie to the building. But there was nothing, there was no historically significant person found in the HRE to substantiate a district. Board Member Makinen: Okay, so you did do that study on the personas? Ms. Butt: We peer reviewed the study and we did a bit more extra research and background into it, and we did not find anything additional. Board Member Makinen: Okay. Thank you. Chair Bower: Debbie, you have some comment? Mute, you’re muted. Vice Chair Shepherd: Kimberly, I might have missed something you said there in terms of all of things you might take into consideration. Could there not have been consideration for a theme rather than a person, a theme about the education of women and the relationship between the school and Stanford, because I think it was really a complex and important relationship historically that continues today. Ms. Butt: Yes, I think that would be another contextual theme that would be a different historical context. It would be different from looking at an association between one specific person. Again, we peer reviewed it. We did not do the initial study, so I am seeing if Ishom (phonetic) recalls any, my colleague, any additional context within that. And are we, we are talking about the school itself, or the larger historic district? I mean not historic district, potential. Vice Chair Shepherd: As we’d all said before, we don’t want to slow this down. I really just want to go on the record as saying I think the community around the school, I mean, even as we heard from the Director who lives close by, those houses were all occupied by families who came to Stanford, in many cases, to educate their daughters, which was, you know, really an extraordinary thing, and that’s how the school came to be, and a lot of those women actually ended up going to Stanford, even though James Stanford ultimately put a cap on how many women could go there. But, and the you know, faculty were there and, anyway, I don’t know. I think it’s an important theme and I’m sure the school will be interpreting it and I hope that we find other ways in Palo Alto to tell that story about that neighborhood. Ms. Butt: Yeah, that’s very interesting. I know that specifically in the study when they, looking at the campus itself as an historic district, there was a lack of integrity and sufficient amount of buildings. And then my understanding was then looking out to the larger neighborhood, it really got beyond the purview of the scope of work, and that is something, an interesting theme that I think, you know, perhaps you all as a Board could encourage the City to perhaps get an historic context done or reviewed in the future. I think it’s a very interesting topic. Vice Chair Shepherd: Thank you. Chair Bower: Okay. Other comments? Thank you, Kimberly. I think we can now, Amy, go back to the, if you can share that bullet point screen, I’d like to craft a motion that will adopt or support this particular set of statements, which as I read them are accurate and represent our consideration. Do you want to add onto this, Amy, something about the Final EIR, let’s see, alterations? They’re not alterations, but they are amendments. Is that the correct way to describe? Ms. French: Oh, the Final EIR incorporates a revised or updated Draft EIR that included all that additional information that was responsive to the HRB’s request. So, you know, we have a separate kind of resolution that relates to the Council’s certification of the EIR that’s being prepared that will reflect the HRB’s statements about the EIR, if you choose to make statements about its adequacy in dealing with the cultural resources on the site. 5.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Bower: If it’s helpful to the Council, we can do that. I think that those comments we made a year ago in our hearing are more for information and since those questions were followed up and didn’t result in any, how do I say this, they didn’t result in the discovery, for instance, of an historic district or did not provide verification that the Lockey House was historic, then I don’t know that we need to make a statement about that. I’m pleased that modified project has maintained those two houses on Emerson and does, in fact, maintain a more residential character on that, on Emerson. So, I think that’s basically all the HRB would be able to add to the conversation. Since we haven’t found anything else that represents a, I don’t know, an historic resource that we need to preserve or highlight. I’m sorry to be so – I’m trying to think of ways that I can incorporate all of the things that we have considered even thought some of them are not, you know, they didn’t result in a finding that we would need to act on. Ms. French: Right. So, basically your questions from last year about the Draft EIR and including the one that said “we know this is not part of the project or the applicant’s request or the school’s request, is there something about an historic district?” The Draft EIR was then updated in the Final EIR process to discuss that whole concept of an historic district. Again, you know, I would say that that’s an adequate response to the comments and requests for information, so that continues to the Council with that improvement to the EIR with those responses. Chair Bower: Okay, I think that’s exactly the kind of response we asked for and we received. We weren’t asking for the creation of an historic district, we were asking for the investigation of the potential for an historic district. The same with the Lockey House. All right, I’m sensitive about how much time we’ve now spent. MOTION Chair Bower: We’ve been here two hours, and we’re still on Item one, so I think we are ready to move forward with a motion to adopt the statements that Amy has shown us. It’s Architectural Review finding 2B and I’m not going to review the whole thing because it’s on our screen. So, I would move that we adopt this as a Board and will look for a second. (crosstalk) Chair Bower: Martin, was that you or Michael? Board Member Pease: It was Christian. I second it. Chair Bower: Oh, Christian, thank you. Sorry, the screen is a little weird right now. All right, so there is a motion and a second to adopt this as, at this meeting. If there’s no further conversation, anybody want to make a comment? No comments. Okay, all in favor of this, let’s see, Vinh, you need to poll the Board, correct? Yes, let’s do a voice vote for the record. So, now starting with Board Member Bernstein? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Chair Bower? Chair Bower: I support this. Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Kohler? Board Member Kohler: Yes, I support. Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Makinen? Board Member Makinen: Yes. 5.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Pease? Board Member Pease: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Vice Chair Shepherd? Vice Chair Shepherd: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: And Board Member Wimmer? Chair Bower: Margaret? Mr. Nguyen: Board Member Wimmer? Chair Bower: You’re muted. Board Member Wimmer: Sorry, I lost you for a minute. Yes. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, the motion carries 7-0, and before we proceed, I just want to let you guys know that I have to leave now for a medical appointment, but we have our very lovely Veronica Dao here who will take over for me. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 7-0. Chair Bower: Welcome Veronica. So, I think that takes, finishes Item Two. Thank you, Adam and Kimberly and all the other people who have come to see us, today. We appreciate all of your input. It makes us possible for us to reach a more comprehensive decision about how to move forward. Good luck with this and we will create the subcommittee quickly. We will do it today, and then Amy will be in touch with you to move this along. Thanks again, all of you. All right, Board Members, before you go, I want to take a break, but before we take a break, let’s create the subcommittee. Martin, you requested to be on that subcommittee, is that correct? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Chair Bower: Other, anybody else, other people interested in participating? We need two more. Board Member Pease: I would be interested. This is Christian. Chair Bower: Okay, Christian, fine. Anyone else? Vice Chair Shepherd: I’m happy to do it if no one else does. Chair Bower: Okay. I’m not going to offer to do it because I’m actually busy, oddly enough. Okay, so it’s going to be Debbie and Christian and Martin. Board Member Makinen: I’d like to nominate Margaret for that committee. Ms. French: We can only have three. Chair Bower: We’re at three. Ms. French: So, it’s not a quorum. Board Member Pease: I would give up my spot for Margaret. This is Christian. 5.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Vice Chair Shepherd: Yeah, I would too. Board Member Wimmer: Oh, I’m happy to participate, sure. Chair Bower: I guess you don’t have a choice, Margaret. Vice Chair Shepherd: Okay, so I withdraw. Chair Bower: Okay, well, yeah that’s actually – thanks Debbie for doing that. It’s nice to have Christian in a subcommittee. He’s a new member, and this will help him actually participate in something we don’t normally do as a group. So, Christian, Martin and Margaret will do that. Okay, let’s take a break, so we can get up and stretch. Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: David, so I have a flight at noon, so I might not be able to last for the second item. I think I need to wrap up by 11 to pull myself together and get to airport. So, I’m sorry if that’s a conflict, but yeah. Chair Bower: Well, we could make it a five-minute break. I understand. Board Member Wimmer: I mean, I’ll last as long as I can, but I might not last until the end, so – but you still have a quorum. Chair Bower: Yeah, we have a quorum, so that’s true. Board Member Wimmer: Okay, thanks. Chair Bower: Let’s take a brief five-minute break. I’m going to find my other things, and then we’ll be right back. 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 359 Embarcadero [209PLN-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. Chair Bower: So, let’s move on to Item Three. We’ll resume the meeting. This is a public hearing on 359 Embarcadero. It’s a review of proposed renovations to an existing single-family residence in the Professorville District. Environment Assessment is Exempt. Zoning District is R-1. Single-family residence. For more information, Project Planner Nicole Laureola is available at the City of Palo Alto Planning Department. So, Amy, take it away. Ms. French: Thanks. I would like to introduce Nicole. She will be presenting the project staff presentation. We also have with us our historic consultant, Barrett and of course, the applicants are here to present after Nicole is finished. If you have questions, let us know. And then we would want to make sure we have public testimony as needed. Thank you. Chair Bower: Of course. Welcome Nicole. I apologize if I mispronounced your name, which I’m sure I did, your last name. Nicole Laureola: You did fine. So, anyway, Nicole Laureola, Associate Planner with the City. Bear with me while I share my screen. All right, so the project that we’re looking at now is a proposed renovation to an existing single-family home in the Professorville District. It’s addressed currently as 359 Embarcadero Road. Built in the year 1900. Some historic characteristics of this property, as you can see, it’s early Prairie school design which is unique in the Professorville District, as well as throughout Palo Alto. Some of the unusual composition elements of it include the octagonal wrap-around porch in this photo, or lanai and some of the intersecting cubic forms that are also interesting on the building. It is reminiscent of the 5.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 25 early work of Frank Lloyd Wright and as you may or may not know, it is a three-frontage property. It has frontage on Waverly, Melville and Embarcadero and has previously been addressed as both 374 Melville and 370 Embarcadero. As you can see on this slide, the property is denoted by the small red star on the map. It is within the local historic district of Professorville, but not within the National Register’s Historic District, which is delineated by the dotted green line. It’s also not listed on the California Register of Historic Resources, but it is on our local inventory as a Category 4 or contributing structure and is, therefore, considered significant in terms of the Historic Resources Board purview in reviewing any modifications to it. The proposal we have in front of us today that Fergus Garber Architects is here to present include some interior renovations and the demolition of what is considered a non-historic garage. It was built in 1989. That detached structure, once cleared, will provide room for a ground-floor addition as you can see on the proposed plan on the right. There will also be the construction of a new detached garage and the proposal of a Melville-facing front porch. This will ultimately reconfigure the property so that what is now the primary façade of Embarcadero will be the rear and the primary façade or front- facing façade will then by Melville. Some policies of note that are applicable to this project that we should know about are the Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.1 in regard to preserving resources that have historic merit within our City, as well as our Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is Municipal Code Section 16, Chapter 49 that gives the Historic Resources Board jurisdiction over the review of single-family resident’s applications on what is considered a significant site like this one, because of its inclusion in Professorville. Of course, that means that Professorville guidelines are also applicable here. Specifically, Sections 3 and 4 that are summarized in your packet on page 23. On Page 25, you’ll see the beginning of the analysis that was done by the City’s historic consultant, Page & Turnbull in regard to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation. Page and Turnbull also conducted an historic resource evaluation earlier this year that identified some character-defining features. The analysis that is provided shows that Page & Turnbull found the project to be consistent with all but one of the standards, that being Standard 5. It’s reiterated here and involves distinctive materials and finishes and examples of craftsmanship. As such, the HRB is today asked to review the proposed, these proposed provisions to character-defining features; specifically the alterations of the existing lanai, some of the alterations to the roof forms, and if you have any commentary that you can provide on a visual connection between the existing primary façade and what will be the proposed primary façade at Melville Avenue. We also, as Amy mentioned, have our presentation from Page & Turnbull here to answer any questions you might have about their analysis or identification of character-defining features. Thank you very much. Chair Bower: Thank you, Nicole. Very cogent and succinct summary. We have somebody from the client wants to speak. Board Member Bernstein: Should we need the disclosure, Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Thank you, Martin. Couldn’t do this without you. Anyone like to make any disclosures about the project? Martin. Board Member Bernstein: Yes, I do. Chair Bower: Go ahead. Board Member Bernstein: I have a, yes, so I met with the owners at the property and I toured the property and also had a tour of the inside of the house. And then no information in our packet is new compared to what I saw when I had a tour of the property and the house. Chair Bower: Great, thank you. Anyone else, any disclosure to make? Martin, Michael, sorry. Board Member Makinen: Yes, I disclose that I did walk around the property yesterday to get a better feel for it, for the facades. Chair Bower: Anyone else? Not hearing any. I’ve driven by the property, but I didn’t have time to walk by it. Christian, anything to add? 5.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Pease: No, sorry. Chair Bower: Okay, that’s all right. This, it’s the Zoom meeting, the dread Zoom meeting delays. Okay, Amy is there somebody from the owner’s who want to make a presentation? Jillian Kuehnis: Hi, my name’s Jillian. I’m with Fergus Garber Architects, to speak on behalf of our clients, I also have Katherine Garber here to chime in as she sees fit. I’m going to share my screen to give a presentation here. Chair Bower: Welcome. Ms. Kuehnis: Thank you. So as Nicole mentioned, we’re here to talk about our project at 359 Embarcadero Road. As an overview which she already got to, but our project is within the Historic Professorville District, but was not listed in the local Historic District of the National Register. A photo from 1901, you can see it, looks slightly different surroundings, and an existing photo. We’d like to note that the current state of the house, the previous owners had not completely up kept it, so there are lots of things worth upgrading for safety and bringing it to present day. Just electrical would be nice. A rough site plan of the existing massing, you’ll see that the existing main house is in this currently L-shaped form with a detached garage and an ADU. The ADU is out of scope for this project. Our proposed design you’ll see the new addition attached to the main residence which is in a similar location from the existing detached garage, a new front porch on the Melville side and a new detached garage which sits farther back from the historic façade, which is along Embarcadero Road. As a comparison, you’ll see that our new addition as mentioned sits fairly similarly to the existing detached garage and we’re removing this sun room porch from the back, which was not historic. And then there’s this inner portion of the covered patio on the historic façade as well. To look at that a little more closely, you’ll see the historic façade on the right-hand side we’ve got our new addition with the narrow dimension facing Embarcadero, our front porch, which is not visible from Embarcadero, and our detached garage which sits farther back on the site. Of the three structures that are largely getting removed, the non-historic detached garage was built in 1989, a non-historic addition was added in 1993, which we’re removing. And then there’s an inner lanai portion which is inbound of these exterior walls which we’re proposing to remove. Just another view, elevation-wise you’ll see that our new addition sits low in comparison to the main structure, and our detached garage sits back. With regards to the design objectives of the Professorville guidelines, Guideline 3.1 talks about historic exterior materials being maintained and preserved as much as possible. Our goal is to retain as much of the stucco as possible, but because at some areas it is 120 years old, it may need to be repaired in select locations. Most of the rafter tails wood paneling at the eaves we’re aiming to preserve as much as possible. And then additionally, the existing windows and the existing front door, many of those are being preserved along with the window (not understood). To dig into windows and doors more specifically, we worked with Page & Turnbull during our predesign meeting, and have decided to keep 28 of the 34 existing historic windows. You’ll see that all ten of the second story windows are going to be preserved. Thirteen of the sixteen first-floor windows we’re aiming to keep them, but relocate a few in some locations and five of the eight basement historic windows will be retained. Additionally, our historic front door on the Embarcadero side, after discussion, is going to be left where it is in its historic location and with its historic leaf. And Guideline 3.3, Additional Character- Defining Features that Contribute to an Early Residence’s Visual Appeal Should be Preserved. The symmetry of the two-story volume with the front porch is largely preserved. Our modification is to this enclosed central room which sits inbound of the exterior façade. The Prairie style massing with the two- story volume and single-story wings is largely preserved, and our hipped roofs, wide eaves, exposed rafter tails and wood panel soffits are going to be retained. Excuse me. To take a look at existing first- floor plan where areas have been altered and so shouldn’t be considered fully historic, I mentioned the detached garage that was built in 1989, the historic additional at the back end of the house in 1993. Additionally, the kitchen was remodeled at some point in 1969, which included changes to the windows and to the stucco. And also included in the historic (not understood) evaluation by Page & Turnbull was that these existing front steps to the covered patio were rebuilt in different materials at some point, and the windows at this octagonal bump-out area are not true to the original drawings that we have. In terms of the character-defining features being replaced or matched as closely as possible, our intent is to do 5.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 27 both, keep existing as much as possible and replace to match where necessary. You’ll see we’ve got these wide eaves with exposed rafter tails and entrance as well as wider window enframements, which will stay where we’re planning on keeping the windows. Recreating Historic Missing Features. We had noted that the windows you’ll see on the left-hand side here, on the next slide you’ll see that they didn’t match to existing drawings that we have from the historic inventories, so we’re proposing to replace them with double-hung windows more closely to match the original intent and additionally, the chimney is currently not in great condition and looks like it was clad in metal. The original drawings call for it to be a stucco chimney, so we plan to rebuild it and clad it in a material to go with the rest of the house. And these front steps off of the covered patio we rebuilt at some point in brick, and we’d like to return them to their original intended materials of stucco walls with wood steps. Here’s a drawing that we have of the historic intent and you’ll see these low stucco walls with steps going down, a plaster chimney and double- hung windows on the left. As for how the massing respects of primacy of the original building, after conversations with Page & Turnbull, we’ve pushed our (not understood) back and it now sits 9’ 4” back from the front-most façade on Embarcadero Road. With regards to the detached garage and the new front porch, they sit quite a bit farther back from the historic façade. Additionally, you’ll note that our new addition finished floor steps down about three and one-half feet and that helps to differentiate it from the main volume and it’s also located on the most historically compromised portion of the main house, which was that kitchen that I mentioned that was remodeled at some point. In total, we’re adding less than 700 square feet to the property relative to the original square footage that we started with. Here's another view where you’ll see our finished floor steps down from the existing finished floor. Additionally, our general volume with portions of the addition are compatible with the existing. We are matching roof pitches and details, but our depths of eaves projections will be shallower to help differentiate our finished floor steps down and our windows will compliment the existing, but not be exact matches. In terms of materials, our plan is to match the overall palate of the house. In summary, we think that our proposed project endeavored to preserve as much historic content as possible, repair and restore historic elements to their original intent. It does remove some non-historic structures, but replaces them with structures that are both complimentary and differentiated from the main historic volumes while removing secondary to the main home. We look forward to hearing your feedback. Chair Bower: Great. Thank you, Jillian. A very thorough presentation and it’s very helpful to see how this modification affects the original building. I share with you the desire that this building have adequate electrical systems so it doesn’t burn down. But that’s an easy add. So, let’s see, Vinh’s not here. Do we have any public comments? Ms. French: Veronica is our pinch hitter. Chair Bower: Oh yeah, Veronica, sorry, I can’t see you on my screen. Ms. Dao: That’s okay. Currently we have no raised hands. Chair Bower: Okay, so no public comment on this. Catharine, did you want to add anything, since you’re here? Catharine Garber: Thank you very much. Catharine Garber with Fergus Garber Architects. I have one additional comment to make. The client would very much like to get this project moved forward and is amenable to keeping the historic front door in its existing location, but I did want to note that it is currently hidden behind a wood screen door façade and not visible from the Embarcadero side, and she would very much like to reuse it as her new front door on the Melville side, if the Committee felt that was acceptable. Chair Bower: Thank you. I’m looking at the floor plan. I’m doing this on an iPad, so this is like looking at something through the wrong end of binoculars, but… Ms. Garber: Jillian can pull up a floor plan for you if you would like to have it on a bigger screen? 5.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Bower: I just wonder where the front door was on the existing plan. Ms. Kuehnis: So, bear with me for a minute Chair Bower: Oh, I see. It’s on the lanai on the left-hand side as you’re facing the… Ms. Kuehnis: So, if you can see my screen here, it sits behind a screen door. Chair Bower: Sure, okay Ms. Kuehnis: Which is the same view that you can see. Ms. Garber: Before you leave that screen, can you show them where the screen door sits? Ms. Kuehnis: Yeah, so the screen door sits here, kind of at one of the corners of that octagonal porch. Chair Bower: Yeah, right. Ms. Kuehnis: And you can see that it’s fully covered and behind the screen door in this photo because you can’t see it from the street. Chair Bower: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Let me ask a couple of questions, since you’re both here. What’s the existing stucco finish? How would you characterize it? Is it smooth, is it? Ms. Garber: It’s a, it doesn’t have a heavy sand texture. I’d call it basically smooth with some hand tooling. You can feel the hand rub. Chair Bower: Okay, but it’s, yeah, it’s not a heavy dash finish or anything? Ms. Garber: No. Chair Bower: Okay. And then I noticed that there is this odd handrail in the middle of the stairs in the picture you’re showing now. That presumably came with the stair modification? Okay, so it’s not really, it’s not really relevant. I didn’t see any handrails on the front of the building in the original photograph. I just wanted to make sure that’s not part of the fabric, although if it was put in I 1969 it is 50 years old. The, and just to be clear, and then I’m going to open this up to other Board Members, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard number 5, where it is not in compliance refers to the removal of that lanai wall, the glass wall that creates the little sitting room. Is that the primary place where you’re noncompliant? Ms. Garber: That is our understanding. Ms. French: And we can have Barrett is here at the meeting, if you would like to ask her questions about that evaluation. Chair Bower: Oh yeah. Barrett Reiter: This is Barrett Reiter with Page & Turnbull and completed the HRE and the Standard’s analysis. That is really the only kind of main character-defining feature that is getting removed, so it’s kind of the most critical point, since this is the primary façade and it was designed by a well-known architect actually out of Minneapolis that designed this building for a client who was based in Minneapolis moving out to Palo Alto. So, they designed the building and that’s part of why you have this really rare example of the Prairie style in Professorville. So, it’s really just kind of looking at this intersection of octagonal forms and these very dramatic refines that helped to define the Prairie style. So, that’s kind of the main component of what we’re looking for HRB comment on. Removing kind of this main character- 5.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 29 defining feature is not really compliant with Standard 5, but I know HRB can kind of comment on that and decide what you’re comfortable with as well. Chair Bower: So, before you go, it’s in kind of an odd juxtaposition of an exterior wall that’s well within kind of an interior space that’s not interior but exterior. Ms. Reiter: Exactly And it’s actually a pretty common Prairie feature There are other examples of this kind of not round, but octagonal or polygonal porch projections that originally were open air and had some sort of internal feature, and also the placement of the chimney is like very central to the Prairie style. The central hearth is important. So, kind of this combination of those features really develops that Prairie style element on this façade, which is why this is the primary façade and why it’s historically important. Chair Bower: Interesting. Okay, Board Members, any comments? I know Margaret, you’ve got to leave. Board Member Wimmer: Can I go first? Chair Bower: Absolutely. Board Member Wimmer: Sorry, I’m getting nervous about the time. So, I guess my impression is that I don’t really, oh, can you put that image back again? That was really helpful. Anyway, I just look at this project and I just don’t, I know it’s in Professorville, it says it’s a Category 4, but I just feel like there’s not a lot of character-defining, I guess I’m looking at the exterior materials, so I just wish there was more material, texture, something that would give it a little more of a nod to the historic Prairie style. I mean, the Prairie style had a lot of brick. Frank Lloyd Wright was from Illinois and a lot of brick is, that’s a common exterior façade material in that style of house. So, and I don’t think that removing the brick even on the stair is, really helps. I just feel like it’s making it look more pedestrian, the more stucco. It’s just starting to look like just a stucco, I don’t know, just a stucco box, I hate to say that. Although the octagonal front porch, I think that’s a character-defining element definitely. I just feel like it needs to, I just think that the exterior façade materials need to be considered in a way that it would give this Category 4 house a sense of historicism. I feel like just continuing the smooth stucco finish is detracting. It's taking away the sense of historicism. I just feel like the openings on this porch, there’s just no trim or molding around those raw openings on the porch, and that’s kind of like, I don’t know, that just feels like an unconsidered detail. I wish there was some, maybe a casing or something. I would even, I hate to say this, I would even consider shingling the building. I know that’s totally the wrong thing to say, but I feel like if it was covered with shingles, it would make it feel like it’s a Professorville home. I just, I guess my reaction, sorry I’m rambling, my reaction is I just encourage the applicant to consider options for the exterior façade materials, and have more of a nod to the fact that it’s placed in Professorville and more of a nod to maybe some of the historic materials that were used in Prairie style homes. Is that fair. Chair Bower: Sure, it’s a comment. Ms. Reiter: If I could interrupt? I guess more on the Prairie style, a lot of times there was stucco and then there would be some contrast of trim and there are pretty extensive wood surrounds on both windows and doors, which I know the applicant is planning on keeping, so it might be just in terms of adding more contrast with painted wood on those trims, so that might help. But this building historically did not have shingles, did not have brick, so adding those elements back would be… Board Member Wimmer: I guess my spirit is in, I just would love to see more texture and something with the exterior materials that makes it like, wow, that’s a beautiful house. Right now, it’s just stucco. It just feels like it’s a missed opportunity. Ms., Reiter: Yeah. And originally the roof probably also would have had wood shakes, so it would have been a little bit more textured. But, yeah, it is a one off in terms of the Professorville context. But that’s part of why it’s also special, because it is this rare Prairie style. 5.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Chair Bower: Also, Margaret, remember we’re seeing this prior to a substantial renovation and the house has really had no normal maintenance as far as, you can tell from the photos and what I saw when I drove by. Board Member Wimmer: But they have one image of their proposed, which is similar to this, but it has instead of the brick at the stairs, it’s all stucco. There’s another image of their proposed. Chair Bower: Right. The renovation is to bring it back to what it was when it was built, right. But even this… Board Member Wimmer: I just, to me it just feels, I would just walk by that house. I wouldn’t stop and look at it. I don’t know. I guess it’s too much stucco. I feel like it needs – or maybe just take that front porch and do something really cool with it. Like give it some texture, that’s all. Something, it needs something. Chair Bower: Well, I see it totally differently, but that’s – to me it’s the, in this rendering you now can see the windows because there’s contrasting color from – the existing building as we’re seeing it is all white, everything is painted out. So, it’s almost impossible to see any of the details, and my limited experience with Prairie style construction was when I walked around Frank Lloyd Wright’s developments outside of Chicago and this is familiar to me just from my memory of it. But more important, it’s the, you know, shape of the roof and the more substantia overhangs and in this building, we saw in the presentation, overhand material that’s actually part of the design. It’s very subtle because you can’t see it from the street, but. So, I think there is stuff there to see. Martin, you have a comment? Sorry, Margaret. Board Member Wimmer: And the handrail, I would do something, I know this is just concept, conceptual elevation, but again with the handrail, there’s just one sort of handrail that could be more integrated into the design or historic reference or something. I don’t know. Chair Bower: Yeah, I find a single handrail to be out of balance, but we can get to that later. Martin, did you have a comment? Board Member Bernstein: Yes, I do. Can you hear me? Chair Bower: Yes. Board Member Bernstein: So, tagging off the consultant’s names from Page & Turnbull, I forget, I didn’t write down your name. Chair Bower: It’s Barrett, I think you’re talking about. Board Member Bernstein: Barrett, yeah. Hi Barrett, thank you. So, I agree with your comment about the Standard Number 5, about the proposed removal of that inner wall, the octagonal. I’m also a student of Frank Lloyd Wright. I’ve seen probably about twenty of his homes in Oak Park, Illinois plus Taliesin West, and as you mentioned, the octagonal section, yeah, that’s certainly a character-defining feature and also a trademark and the fact that, again, that is the main street façade, that’s a very important feature. I also have in front of me the Professorville Design Guidelines that basically says don’t demolish that. So, those are my initial comments at this point. Thank you. Chair Bower: Okay. I’m just going to go down the list. Debbie, you have a comment? Vice Chair Shepherd: Maybe I missed something but shouldn’t we also be looking at the plans for the new façade on Melville in terms of the Professorville Design Guidelines? Chair Bower: Oh, I think absolutely. Let’s, since we’re focusing for the moment on this Embarcadero façade, can we come back to that Debbie? 5.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Vice Chair Shepherd: Of course. Chair Bower: So, Christian, I see your, your comments? Board Member Pease: I just would really like to have a look at this property. I think it’s very interesting and I went through the entire packet. It was pretty elaborate, lots of drawings. But for me actually going there and seeing it would be a precursor to having an informed conversation. Chair Bower: Okay. (crosstalk) Board Member Pease: I don’t know how to arrange that, but I would like to work that out. Chair Bower: Well, I think that can be arranged, but our evaluation today might preclude that happening before we move this forward in some way. Michael, did you have a comment? You’re muted. Board Member Makinen: Yeah, how’s that? Chair Bower: Good. Board Member Makinen: Sorry. Thank you, Chair Bower. I think the primary façade on Embarcadero is what is really important in this property. My personal background is a little bit unusual. I’m a former owner of a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Canton, Ohio, and a long-time member of the Frank Lloyd Wright conservancy, so I have had quite a bit of experience looking at Prairie School styles and what constitute Prairie School style house. I think the retention of that inner structure within the façade right there is really important that that not be eliminated. And what comes to my eye right here is most of the Prairie School houses are not as stark white as we see in this house. They’re more of a muted color and I think that really affects the whole presentation of the structure in total with the blank white. I can’t ever recall seeing a Prairie School house that was painted white. Maybe some of the other Board Members do, but I would strongly support retaining the façade facing Embarcadero, including the inner structure. I think that’s all the comments I have. Chair Bower: Thanks Michael. Hold that thought for a second. Roger, did you have any comments you would like to make? You need to unmute. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I’ve been looking at this and everything and I don’t see any big problems. I don’t know how everyone else is feeling about it, but yeah, I think. Well, anyway, generally it’s okay with me. I don’t see a big problem. Chair Bower: Okay. I guess I’d like to ask Jillian, as I look at the proposed changes which remove that wall that we’re talking about, I guess the idea is to turn that into an outdoor patio, covered patio. Is that the case. Ms. Kuehnis: That’s correct. Chair Bower: So, I think, as I remember just how horrible the traffic used to be on Embarcadero Road, as an outdoor space, it wouldn’t be very appealing because it would be so noisy. So, while I’m completely sympathetic to an owner modifying and renovating an historic house, and keeping the bulk of the building intact, I’m troubled by the removal of that wall, which seems to be one of the more unique characteristics of the building. And if it’s going to become a lanai on the noisiest side of the house when the house is being refocused onto the Melville side, I’m just wondering if that’s really necessary, when it’s the only part of this project that doesn’t comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. I know that’s a lot to ask of you, but you know. 5.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 32 Ms. Kuehnis: No, I appreciate your comments. To be honest with the original position of the house on the site, which we were aiming to retain, there are very big redwood trees on the Melville side. There’s an existing ADU that we’re not touching. So, the Embarcadero side of the building really is our opportunity for yard space. The landscape architect is aiming to add hedging and trees and a more robust wall along Embarcadero to try to help mitigate some noise, but there’s not really another place – we have a small patio off the kitchen right here, but in order to enjoy the yard and its large site, the Embarcadero side is what we have. We’re also retaining a large eucalyptus tree over here But on the Melville side, the yard space is minimal. It feels a lot more intimate entryway and it was our aim to reposition the entry to the Melville side in order to have that intimate approach from a neighborhood rather than a busy street like Embarcadero. Chair Bower: Sure. Ms. Garber: And the only other thing I would add to that is, again, I mean it’s somewhat obvious that having your driveway and entry off of Embarcadero is pretty tough and having it on the Melville side is easier for the pedestrian to come and go, which leaves then the Embarcadero side as the family side, the more private side and as Jillian said, hedged in. The only other thing I would add is the owner recognized that maybe having a water feature or something to try to break up the sound of the traffic will help some. Chair Bower: Sure. It’s a tough street to have a residential building face onto because it is effectively one of the major traffic arteries through the City. Anyway… Ms. Garber: I just want to add one other thing. It’s, you know, rather than spilling out into your front yard for entertaining, it’s you know, more natural in how we designed this that the kitchen and living space then spills out onto the Embarcadero side, which is (broken up). Chair Bower: Michael, do you want to make a comment? Board Member Makinen: I think the character-defining features are really that inner wall on the front porch if I would call it that, but I think that should be retained. And I would recommend generally a change in color although the original house appears to be white from the photo, but I just think it really detracts from the whole presentation of the house in the stark white. Chair Bower: Hold that thought for a moment. I would like to go back to Debbie’s comment about the rear of the house Debbie, can we focus on that or a moment? Vice Chair Shepherd: Well, actually before we move there, I just had a question for my own edification, because I’ve only been involved in one other Professorville property that came to us. Do we often approve additions, and what if there had never been a garage there and this came to us? Would we be thinking about this any differently? Chair Bower: Well, I would like Amy to add anything she wants to this, but I think the additions in this project are not, meet or satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for modifications because the rooflines are lower, they are less conspicuous, they don’t overwhelm the property, they are small. As far as I’m concerned, the garage issue definitely is not really a significant part of this project because garages are important in our City to keep cars off the street. So, and this small garage is totally separated, so it’s not, it’s not interfering with the original project. I mean… Vice Chair Shepherd: I didn’t mean that garage. The empty one they’re going to tear down, because there has been a structure there generally, you know, I think it makes it easier for us to say, yes, you can build an addition there. 5.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 33 Chair Bower: Yeah, I think that’s, because that garage was not part of the original project, I think that has less relevance for me, as I look at it. But that’s just my opinion. I’m not one to speak for the Board in that case. Martin, did you want to say something? (crosstalk) Ms. Reiter: I think you can tie it back to the period of significance. So, the garage was not within the period of significance for this home, which was the early 1900’s. Chair Bower: Okay, so… (crosstalk) Board Member Pease: Excuse me, excuse me, before we go to the Melville entrance, I have to ask, I’m sorry, I’m new to this. Is this the only shot we have to review this property? Is that correct? Chair Bower: Not necessarily. Board Member Pease: Okay, because I thought I heard that from you. Chair Bower: Well, there are circumstances where we could continue this if there is something we want, the Board feels hasn’t been addressed or that we’d like further clarification. That wouldn’t be, in this environment where it’s very difficult to have meetings because of the pandemic, that will delay the project, and if the Board feels that’s necessary, we can do that. But I’m sensitive to trying to keep projects moving and, you know, it costs money to have a project, a building to sit there. So, as we did with the Castilleja project, we do have mechanisms that can allow us to move the project forward and still review parts, smaller parts of renovation, if that’s, the Board feels that’s necessary. Board Member Pease: I understand your point. I guess that’s why, see, I also believe this lanai wall is the critical element here. I don’t have the experience that a lot of you have with this sort of thing, but that’s one of the reasons I wanted to look at this. And I would also point out, if I remember correctly in all the documents, it’s pretty extensive. I went through most of them yesterday. This discussion of front and back and private space and public entrance, there was a recommendation, I believe, to actually lower the barriers to view the old, the existing historic front entrance from Embarcadero Road. Did I read that correctly? That’s seems kind of at variance with turning this into the private and putting in all this landscaping. I thought I read that in the document. So, I guess that’s one of the reasons I wanted to actually have a look at this because this seems to be the most important part of the question before us is the traditional, the historic entrance, this lanai wall, and the facing to the historic facing to Embarcadero versus Melville. So, that’s just all I have to say. I didn’t realize that this was, probably for practical reasons which you have articulated clearly, perhaps the only review we’re going to do of this property. Chair Bower: So, let me go back to something you said. I’m going to pick just one of the things that you just highlighted. It’s my understanding, and Amy, you can help me with this or Barrett, either of you, that repurposing the front and back of the house for access in this case does not seem to me to alter the historic characteristics, the major form and shape of the building. The way in which an owner enters or exits the house seems to me, as long as they didn’t take off the original entrance, that doesn’t really compromise the historic features. Is that an accurate, Barrett, since you’re the person… Board Member Pease: That’s not the intent of what I was trying to say at all. Chair Bower: Oh, sorry. Board Member Pease: I’ll try to make this as clear as I can. I agree with the comments so far that the most important element to decide here is this interior wall, the lanai room. That seems to be the one thing that does not conform to the Guidelines. That’s all I’m trying to say. I was reacting to the discussion I heard about the entrance, the private space and what seemed to be comments that seemed counter to what I had read in the documents. 5.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 34 Chair Bower: Okay, sorry. Thank you for clarifying that. All right, so… Ms. Reiter: This is Barrett. I can provide some clarity. Within the Standards analysis, I didn’t actually include that it would be a recommendation to lower some portion of the Embarcadero Road fence line and hedging that is planned to go in because this property is very visible from Embarcadero Road and historically it was very visible and by changing the primary façade to a rear façade, you’re kind of removing the public’s ability to view the historic façade. And it is fairly typical, I’ve walked through Professorville quite a bit, and it’s fairly typical that people have gates and hedges, but they often will provide some view of the building, where you can like look over the gate and you can kind of see the historic façade. So, that was included as a recommendation. Not that it doesn’t make it Standards compliant, but that by retaining some view of this primary façade, it would help to really keep it as part of an active part of the community and the Professorville District. Board Member Pease: Thank you. Chair Bower: Thanks for that clarification. Okay, I’m worried we’re getting somewhat bogged down. What I’m hearing is that Board Members have a problem with removing that inner wall. I am a little uncomfortable about doing that because that is a relatively important characteristic of this particular building. But I’m also sensitive about the fact that while that space is exterior space, so I suppose I’m going to contradict myself and say that that is, in fact, removing an exterior wall, which has significance in terms of the architecture. So, let me just stop there. I think, I guess I’d like to hear from other Board Members about how we want to move forward with this. Board Member Bernstein: Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Yes, I hear you Martin. Go ahead. Board Member Bernstein: So, if you’re ready for more discussion, or are you prepared if you heard a motion now? Chair Bower: I am, well Debbie had raised the rear of the building and so maybe we ought to discuss that, and then I would be willing to hear motions. Vice Chair Shepherd: I was just wondering if we could see the images of the rear of the building as it exists and a rendering as it’s proposed. Thank you. Ms. Kuehnis: Can you see these images? Chair Bower: Yes. Ms. Kuehnis: Sorry, these renderings are not as finished as the ones on Embarcadero Road but we prepared them just in case. Vice Chair Shepherd: Well, that’s definitely better, right. Okay, and it seems in character. Ms. Kuehnis: We wanted to make it more approachable. As you can see, we had break in a few weeks ago as well. The goal was to engage this side of the site to a more peaceful residential street to have a more intimate entrance. Vice Chair Shepherd: Okay. Thank you very much. Somehow, I missed that. Great. Chair Bower: So, Jillian, is the, I’m looking at the plan now. Is that a new porch on the back? I guess it is. 5.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 35 Ms. Kuehnis: That’s correct. I’ll pull up the plan for you as well. Chair Bower: Yeah, I’m looking at the plan. Actually, if you can go back to the pictures, that would be more helpful. Sorry. Ms. Kuehnis: No, that’s fine. So, the new porch steps in from the existing building you’ll see at the corners at either side. So, we differentiated it there. Our roof volume drops down and inward, and the new porch sits, I believe about a 10-foot projection off of the existing building. Just enough to have a couple of chairs to sit out there on the quiet side. But because of the redwood trees that are out here we are pretty tight on doing much more out there. Chair Bower: Sure, okay. All right. Actually, I think that is, I like the fact that it is pulled in on the sides. That does differentiate it. Extending the roof out sort of captures it and so that might be. I’m not sure. I can’t really see what’s going on with the roof of the deck extension. Whether that actually is below the ridge of the house. Ms. Kuehnis: It is. I guess I could show you my model. But it sits downward quite a bit, but we kept the eave height the same, so that at least that would be continuous. Chair Bower: Okay. So, it’s clearly not, I mean those of us in the architectural and building trades could see that that’s differentiated, so it’s not just an extension of the original roof plan. Okay, any other questions about this. Let’s get back to the, I think the biggest question all Board Members, I’m hearing Board Members discuss is what to do about that interior, that exterior/interior wall, because that’s the only part of that project that does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and that’s what we’re supposed to be doing here is evaluating that. So, Martin, if you’re still there, I would entertain a motion at this point. MOTION Board Member Bernstein: Yes, Chair. So, I would like to move that the floor plans as presented for the alterations on the backside, those are meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards because the new alterations and renovations there seem to be subordinate to the main historic structure. And then I’d also like to include in the motion that the original inner porch wall that’s being proposed to be demolished, that that is not removed and that that is retained as the existing condition is, mainly because that is a street facing façade, a major street facing façade, and also that would be, if we did remove it, it would. I’ll speak to my motion after – my motion is to retain that inner porch wall and that the rear proposed changes are compatible because they are subordinate to the main structure. Chair Bower: Okay. All right, is there a second? Board Member Makinen: I’ll second it. Chair Bower: Okay. So, would you like to speak more, Martin, about your motion? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. The reason for this motion that has been seconded is that because of the, the very explicit wording in the Professorville Design Guidelines about not removing historic features, especially since this is on the primary front street facing façade, that is a major character. When I look at figures proposed in our packet, Figure 7 was showing it without it being removed and 8 with removing it. It clearly changes that character. So, that the basis of my motion, don’t change that very important façade feature. Thank you Chair Bower: Other comments? Well, while you’re gathering your thoughts Board Members, I’d like to say that I support Martin’s motion. I have, when I was reviewing this, I was wrestling with how to deal with that wall, and when I finally got to the understanding that is was actually an exterior wall, I imagined what we would do as a Board if somebody came to us and said, well, we want to take out this exterior 5.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 36 wall, which is part of the character-defining features of the building, and I don’t think we would have supported that design change. I want to say that I like the fact that the addition on the back and the kitchen conversion into rec room, I think those are very sensitive and they are well considered in terms of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the removing the garage is not an issue for me, because it was added in the 60’s and my opinion of most of what’s been added to Palo Alto in the 1960’s is not very high. So, I think this is an improvement getting rid of that. I’d like to make one other comment. Landscaping may, you know, landscaping comes and goes, even trees die and need to be replaced. So, I’m not terribly concerned about landscaping in front of the building. Everybody does that. There are many buildings in Professorville and in my neighborhood, where you can’t even see the building anymore because the landscaping has grown so tall, but that can be changed and it does change with ownership changes. So, I think this particular proposal that Martin is making helps, I hope, helps the architecture team to see our position, our understanding about the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and why we would not want that interior wall to be removed. Anyone else, comments? Debbie, go ahead. Vice Chair Shepherd: I’m struggling with this, because I think I have to say I identify with the homeowner. This is a lot of square footage in terms of living space that in terms of when the house was designed originally, it was used, and now because of changing traffic patterns, it is a useless space, so is there some compromise that could be considered short of tearing down the wall? Can windows be glassed in or screened in in a way that is not, you know, too dramatically different, so the space could be more functional? Chair Bower: That would be Jillian’s call. Ms. Garber: Debbie, this is Catharine speaking. Chair Bower: Or Catharine. Ms. Garber: Are you talking about the outer stucco wall or the inner lanai wall? Vice Chair Shepherd: I’m not real sure. I’m just, you know… Ms. Garber: Can you pull up the, showing the inner lanai in place. I think the issue with the, you know, once the inner lanai is kept, you know, there is no outdoor porch space. The inner lanai was interior space and that wrap-around porch. So, the goal was by removing the inner lanai, we had an outdoor patio to sit on. Vice Chair Shepherd: I see. I withdraw my comment. Ms. Garber: David, may I make one more comment before you all weigh in further, and that was in our working, we had a preliminary meeting with the Palo Alto Planning Staff and with Page & Turnbull and when through the homeowner’s desires for this remodel, and receiving feedback from Page & Turnbull, and a number of items that the owner wanted to do, which was a larger addition coming into the backyard we pulled back in. She wanted to replace the windows for noise purposes and just durability on Embarcadero, and they asked us if we could keep the historic windows, and so we conceded that. And then lastly, the stucco is in very poor condition and we were worried about waterproofing behind it. So, if in giving back this lanai, if the Committee would feel open to us improving some of the window conditions on the Embarcadero side and/or be allowed to removed the stucco to ensure better waterproofing on the exterior, on the façade, we would be very happy with those decisions. Chair Bower: So, thanks for adding that Catharine. I think we need to, so I’d like to address that in a separate motion, because we have a motion and I don’t want to capture that in, right now, into Martin’s motion, but I’m happy to address it in just a moment. So, anyone else want to comment on Martin’s motion? All right, so let’s vote on this. Nicole, let’s see. Ms. Dao: Veronica 5.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Bower: Veronica, I’m sorry. I can’t see. Anyway, Veronica, can you pull the Board on this motion? Ms. Dao: Yeah, we can do roll call votes. Board Member Bernstein? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Ms. Dao: Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Yes. Ms. Dao: Board Member Kohler? Board Member Kohler: Yes. Ms. Dao: Board Member Makinen? Board Member Makinen: Yes. Ms. Dao: Board Member Pease? Board Member Pease: Yes. Ms. Dao: Vice Chair Shepherd? Vice Chair Shepherd: Yes. Ms. Dao: And Board Member Wimmer? Absent, she left early? Chair Bower: Yes, she did. Ms. Dao: So, the motion carries 6-0. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0 Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. I think this is a tough decision, but I think that the Board actually made the best decision for following both the Professorville Guidelines, which we worked very hard four years ago to create, and also the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. So, Amy, on the things that Catharine has just bought up, should we address that as a subcommittee or should we try to address that now. Let me just say, I think it would be difficult for us to make a decision about windows without seeing what the replacement would be, and I think we come up against the same issue of removing original fabric, but I tend to be more open to that if the new windows look like the old windows, so I’m again filibustering and I apologize. Stucco is like shingles; it doesn’t last forever. If you took al the stucco off and put stucco back on with better waterproofing, that’s certainly acceptable in my view, and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Nothing lasts forever. So, the window issue is a little more nuance because I have a more, a broader view about windows and glass. I know that glass can be very important, so I don’t think we can really address this now. What’s your feeling? Sorry for the long… Ms. French: My feeling is, you know, we have of course a preapproved in-kind replacement of stucco. Obviously, as you said, materials wear out over time and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards envisions replacement in-kind of materials such as stucco. So, that’s fine. As far as the windows, I mean, I don’t have a, I wasn’t at those meetings so I don’t know how many of the windows. Perhaps the applicant can answer that. Is it all of the windows on that side or are there specific windows that are being requested such as second floor or first floor or is there something we should now about right now, about the extent of replacement? 5.a Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 38 Chair Bower: I’m sorry, Catharine, to interrupt. I don’t think we can actually answer that now, and I think that we could certainly address that in subcommittee. You know, I owned a building in the Liberty Hill Historic District in San Francisco. They have very strict requirements about façade changes. They look at windows, but they allowed us to put in insulated glass as long as they looked just exactly like the original windows, and I think that’s a reasonable standard that’s pretty stringent, but we certainly could look at that. But that should be subcommittee, I think. Ms. French: That’s fine, we can do subcommittee. Chair Bower: So, Catharine, would that be an acceptable way forward. Ms. Garber: I know that the owner is very anxious to move this project forward, so very happy to hear that it’s okay to replace in kind the stucco. I think that allows us to move forward with structural engineering. With regards to the windows, I know the owner would be, you know, willing I believe, to do replacement so they look exactly the same as best they can with just the insulated glazing matching profiles and look, happy to have them still be wood. She would not want the project to slow down if the committee needed to look at that for approval. But if the windows stay the same, I think, and the project could move forward, happy to have it go to the subcommittee. Otherwise, I think she would probably be willing to just keep the old windows if she can keep the project moving forward. Chair Bower: Okay, so I see a path here that can help everybody. We can approve, I mean, we can approve this as submitted with the provision that if the windows, during construction need to be revisited, we will do that with a subcommittee. Is that appropriate, Amy? Ms. French: I think prior to issuance of building permit is the typical that we would see. Something like, you know, if you want it as a subcommittee to see how they carry out the stucco replacement, like you know, go visit a patch they are doing and, you know, as a subcommittee if that was of interest, I would say that’s during construction. I’m not sure. I think we need to resolve it with the building permit set. Chair Bower: Well, you can resolve it by just submitting what’s here, and then coming back and they can submit a revision, which happens, and then the revision could then be reviewed. Ms. French: Yeah, I guess before building permit issuance is what I would like to say. Chair Bower: Well, you know. That kind of compresses the time to do this and I think, well, I don’t want to get involved in the process, but I can just foresee a way to do it without having to make that decision. It will make, if you do decided to move forward with insulated glass windows, that’s going to make your energy calculations, I would imagine, much easier. And I don’t know where you are in the process, so I guess that Amy, you and Jillian can work out the sequencing. Let us say that if the windows change, the Board would like to see that at the subcommittee level. I think that probably is enough. Ms. French: Yes. Ms. Kuehnis: Can I ask a question? Chair Bower: Go ahead Ms. Kuehnis: With regards to replacing the original stucco to match in-kind, does that need a subcommittee or are we okay to proceed with that assumption? Chair Bower: I think, you know, matching in-kind is typically when you got to the point of final coat, subcommittee would just go out and look at it. I mean, we’re not talking about any time at all. Something that I as a builder did with my clients, so it I don’t think it adds a step for you or your client. I think it’s relatively simple. 5.a Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 39 Ms. Kuehnis: But it’s not necessarily hinging approval today. I could just capture that with a note on the plans? Chair Bower: Exactly. I think that’s acceptable. Ms. Garber: And David, perhaps we proceed with our building calculations for energy code, assuming that we have the historic windows, and then if we get approval by you to replace them with (audio interference) that’s just more energy efficient. Chair Bower: I guess. You’re going to have to meet those codes one way or the other, so I don’t want to provide any kind of impediment. And you might find that replacing, if you want to really address all the windows and that issue, then it still needs to come back to the Board as a subcommittee, at the least a subcommittee. Unless the Board feels strongly that everybody should review it. I’m sorry. I’m sort of occupying all the time here and I’m sensitive to how long we’ve been here. So, I will – I think, Amy, we’ve made our statement about the project in Martin’s motion, and these other issues that we’re now discussing are just discussions and it’s up to the design team and the owner to bring it back to us as is necessary. Michael, do you want to say something? Board Member Makinen: No, I think you pretty well summarized it, Chair Bower. I think we’re ready to proceed with a motion. Chair Bower: Okay, Amy, do you think we need another motion? Ms. French: So, you have the motion on the floor, which is to retain the lanai inner wall and the expressed flexibility on the stucco in-kind replacement and the potential flexibility on the window replacement following further analysis. So, I think that’s enough as a motion that we can appropriately provide an action from today. Chair Bower: Okay, and the motion is actually approved 6 to 0. Ms. French: That’s true, it’s already been approved. Chair Bower: And if that’s adequate to move this forward as compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Professorville Guidelines, then I think we don’t need to do anymore. Ms. French: Okay. Ms. Garber: May I ask a question? I’m assuming with this approval, we do not need to present the plans again with the lanai. We just proceed into building permit, keeping the lanai, is that correct? Chair Bower: Well, yeah. Ms. Garber: So, we do not need another HRB meeting? Chair Bower: No. Okay. Listen I apologize that this has taken so long. We all need to go have lunch now because we spent the entire morning on this. Thank you, Catharine and Jillian, for your presentation and Barrett, thank you for your guidance. That makes it much easier for us Board Members to have your expertise here. Thank you, Amy, for your hard work on this. This is a lot of work to put together. So, I think we’re done with Item 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of May 14, 2020 5.a Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 40 Chair Bower: We have just one more item to do as a Board and that is approval of minutes, and I don’t have the minutes in front of me, but do you know the date, Amy, of the minutes: Ms. French: Well, they would have been whenever we met last. Sorry, I’m not looking at the agenda. Chair Bower: I can get it but I just have to go back to… Ms. French: I feel like it was, did we meet in June or May. Chair Bower: It was 2010, right? Ms. French: I can look that up. Chair Bower: Okay, May 14, 2020. Ms. French: Okay, that’s it. Chair Bower: All right. So, are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? Debbie? Vice Chair Shepherd: I just had two small corrections. In various places my name is misspelled, my last name. And in my comments about the hotel, the word I used was gym, and it is transcribed as gem. Thank you. Chair Bower: Well, just the miracles of modern computer technology. Right. Any other additions or corrections? Not hearing any, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? MOTION Board Member Pease: I make the motion to approve the minutes. This is Christian. Chair Bower: Okay, Christian has moved to approve them. Vice Chair Shepherd: I second it. Chair Bower: Debbie seconded it. Michael seconded it. So, roll call, all those in favor answer yes. Roll call. Wait. Ms. French: You have to wait till we say your name. Ms. Dao: Board Member Bernstein? Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Ms. Dao: Chair Bower? Chair Bower: Yes. Ms. Dao: Board Member Kohler? Board Member Kohler: Yes. Ms. Dao: Board Member Makinen? Board Member Makinen: Yes. 5.a Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 41 Ms. Dao: Board Member Pease? Board Member Pease: Yes. Ms. Dao: Vice Chair Shepherd? Vice Chair Shepherd: Yes. Ms. Dao: Board Member Wimmer is absent. Ms. Dao: The motion carries 6-0. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0 Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. Are there any Board Member questions, comments or announcements? Not seeing any – I would say go to, that the California Preservation Foundation continues to have excellent on-line seminars, so we can all get our seminar quotient in, and they are mostly free for members. And if there are not any other comments, we are adjourned. Thank you all. This has been one of the longest meetings we’ve had in years. Michael. Board Member Makinen: I want to compliment you on your lovely backyard there, Chair Bower. Chair Bower: Yeah, I’ve been growing that for years. Listen, thank you all for your patience and your attention. It makes a difference. Ms. French: Thank you everyone. Chair Bower: Thanks Amy. Adjournment 5.a Packet Pg. 110