Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-02-24 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Historic Resources Board Regular Meeting Agenda: February 24, 2022 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 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 through Channel 26 or 29 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. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 567 Hale Street [21BLD-02531]: Request for Historic Resources Board Review of a Building Permit Application for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Project Includes Exterior Modifications to a Local Historic Resource Category II. Zone District: R-1 (10,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections _______________________ 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. 15268 (Ministerial Projects). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. Historic Resources Board Discussion of 2021 Work Plan Results and Review of Draft 2022 Work Plan Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 28, 2021 5. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of December 9, 2021 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Historic Resources Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers are: Chair Caroline Willis Vice Chair Christian Pease Boardmember David Bower Boardmember Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz Boardmember Gogo Heinrich Boardmember Michael Makinen Boardmember Margaret Wimmer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26 or 29. 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. Please read the following instructions carefully. • 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. • You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. • When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click 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. • When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. • 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. 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. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 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 # 14009) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Schedule of Meeting & Assignments Title: Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate. Background Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. No action is required by the HRB for this item. Attachments: • 2022 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2022 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 01/27/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 02/10/2022 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled 02/24/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 03/10/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 03/24/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 04/14/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 04/28/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/12/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/26/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 06/09/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 06/23/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 07/14/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 07/28/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 08/11/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 08/25/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 09/08/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 09/22/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/13/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/27/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/10/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/24/2022 8:30 AM Cancelled Cancelled Thanksgiving Day 12/08/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/22/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2022 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 14036) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 567 Hale (Tobey House) Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 567 Hale Street [21BLD-02531]: Request for Historic Resources Board Review of a Building Permit Application for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Project Includes Exterior Modifications to a Local Historic Resource Category II. Zone District: R-1 (10,000). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15268 (Ministerial Projects). 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. Review the proposed exterior alterations and report prepared by the City’s qualified historic preservation consultant, and provide recommendations regarding the proposed alterations project, specific to its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Report Summary This report is to enable HRB input into the review process of exterior alterations to the local inventory Category 2 resource located at 567 Hale Street. The local historic inventory form, circa 1984, for this property is provided with this report (Attachment G). The proposed alterations include, generally: • Removal of non-historic French doors at the main entry on the front façade. • Removal and replacement of assorted windows on the left and right facades on both levels, to be replaced with exact replica windows in their original openings. • Remove existing non-historic leaded glass window from the first-floor front porch along the left façade—infill openings with two new fixed wood windows surrounded by solid walls that are recessed within the original openings. 2 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 • Remove small rectangular and square window and vent openings at the basement level—windows are to be infilled or modified to accommodate construction of required sheer walls at the interior. New windows of a generally similar size will be inserted along the base of the building. • Infill two non-historic casement windows on the second-floor rear façade. Windows at the rear east corner of the enclosed first floor porch will be replaced with replica double-glazed windows—with a new door to replace the center window. The rear façade’s symmetrical fenestration pattern will be altered at the first floor to accommodate a single, wide opening with glazed sliding doors. The patio extending off the rear façade will remove the rear deck, railings and parapet walls—to be redesigned with new contemporary, code-compliant guardrails, and will have new wider steps. A new rectangular skylight will be installed on the rear plane of the roof. • The existing French window located on the first floor of the right façade—center (door) section will be replaced with a new divided light window. The adjacent window located toward the rear of the home will be removed and replaced with two new divide light windows on the first floor. Above, the second story balconette’s balustrade will be replaced to match the new guardrail at the rear patio below. • Removal of stucco from each façade in contiguous and non-contiguous sections. The project description is stated in the C2 Plans and voluntary structural upgrade (Attachments C and E). The documents attached to this report also include: • A Bulletin (Attachment A) the HRB adopted for staff and community use in 2016 providing guidance regarding the review of historic resources • A report (Attachment B) describing the City’s historic preservation consultant’s evaluation of the proposed exterior alterations. • Project Plans reviewed in the Attachment B report (Attachment C) • A report (Attachment D) describing the City’s consultant’s evaluation of the proposed voluntary structural upgrades. • Project Plans reviewed in the Attachment D report (Attachment E) • The Character Defining Features (CDF) letter (Attachment F) prepared by the City’s historic preservation consultant Background PAMC 16.49 Section 16.49.050 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) contains regulations for ‘Exterior alteration of historic structures’; PAMC Section 16.49.050, item (B) directs the HRB to review building permit applications involving single family homes and duplexes that are historic structures/sites in the Downtown or significant buildings (category 1 and 2 resources) elsewhere. This item notes “Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory”. Item (C) of this section states: 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 “Planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant to guidelines which the HRB may adopt. Minor exterior alterations are those alterations which the Director of Planning and Development Services 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.” Guidelines for Staff Review of Exterior Modifications to Resources The ‘guidelines which the HRB may adopt’ is an open-ended phrase. In 2016 the HRB adopted the attached Bulletin (Attachment A) which describes aspects of the ‘Group A’ properties review process. The Bulletin is not very descriptive and does not provide a threshold extent of exterior alterations above which the Director would be guided to send to the HRB for category 1 and 2 resources outside the Downtown. Staff’s review process decisions for exterior changes to the historic resources noted in PAMC 16.49.050 item (B), which the Bulletin calls “Group A” resources, have been influenced by this Bulletin. However, the Bulletin became out of date once Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2017. Staff removed the Bulletin from the webpage to enable eventual updates to the bulletin for HRB review and adoption. Subject Project Review History A building permit has been submitted but not yet approved. The City’s historic preservation consultant reviewed the building permit plans for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards. The City’s consultant will be present for the HRB’s consideration of the project and can respond to HRB members’ questions regarding the attached reports (Attachments B and D). Staff began conversations with the applicant in July 2021. The City’s historic preservation consultant provided preliminary feedback regarding removal of the divided light windows on the front elevation. The city’s consultant prepared a character defining features (CDF) memo to help guide preliminary stages of design. In September, the applicant reached out to discuss submittal of a building permit and the next steps. Staff explained to the applicant that, once the plans had been reviewed for compliance with the SOI standards - and if the analysis indicated that the project scope complied with those standards - the building permit could potentially stay at a staff level-review or could be elevated to a board-level review, if staff felt the project required it. In October a building permit was submitted to the City and the plans were sent to the City’s consultant for review. Initially the City’s consultant concluded the project did not comply with Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 and provided recommendations to bring the project into full compliance. Staff noted the option to bring the project to the HRB for recommendation at this stage to enable the board to review the consultant’s SOI standards compliance evaluation and make recommendations based on the HRB’s expertise. The City’s consultant then reviewed revised plans submitted November 30th, 2021 (Attachment C) and found the revised project complied with all ten standards. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 The owners then explored a structural upgrade that would introduce new shear walls. Staff contacted the City’s consultant regarding the revised work and review. The consultant reviewed the plans submitted January 19th, 2022 (Attachment E) and recommends that installation of the shear walls from the interior, rather than the exterior, be considered for reasons outlined in the amended SOIS analysis (Attachment D). The consultant assessed how the project could maintain full compliance and avoid an impact to the building’s integrity. The consultant noted the following conditions would need to be met: • New stucco should match the old in color, texture, and depth along the façade plane • Any cracks in the stucco discovered after the new stucco cures should be repaired • Any exterior trim and detailing impacted by the installation of new stucco should modified to accommodate the increased depth, repaired, and installed in accordance with recommendations provided in the Rehabilitation Standards The next stage in the staff-level review process is for the City’s consultant to review any additional revised plans to ensure their recommendations to meet the SOI Standards are fully incorporated into the plans. Discussion The HRB is asked to provide feedback regarding the proposed exterior alterations, submitted as part of a building permit application; as well as the approach to be taken for the voluntary structural upgrade. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the City’s consultant found the project to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on February 11, 2022, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing is not required for ministerial project (exempt from CEQA per Class 15268, since only a building permit is required for this project). Next Steps To recuperate the staff costs for reviewing the building permit application, and document the recommendations of the HRB, staff will request the applicant submit an historic review application. Following the completion of the historic review, and any adjustment to plans to ensure compliance with the SOI Standards, the applicant may submit a building permit revision 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 to adjust the proposed exterior evaluations. Any recommendations of the HRB on other aspects of the project unrelated to SOI Standards compliance would be associated with voluntary compliance. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Danielle Condit Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2242 (650) 329-2336 danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Historic Resources Review Info Bulletin 10.13.16 (PDF) • Attachment B SOIS Recommendation and Memo (PDF) • Attachment C 567 Hale C2 Plans (PDF) • Attachment D SOIS Amended (PDF) • Attachment E 567 Hale Plans Voluntary Structural Upgrade (PDF) • Attachment F CDF Memo (PDF) • Attachment G 1984 Local Inventory Form DPR (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 11 Historic Resources & Permit Review Requirements What is a “Group A” Historic Resource? A “Group A” historic resource is an existing property that is listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, and which is subject to Historic Resources Board (HRB) review under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. A “Group A” resource may also be subject to CEQA review as explained on the reverse page. “Group A” resources include historic properties that are one or more of the following: • Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 1-2; or • Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located in the Downtown Area; or • Located in one of the City's locally designated historic districts, Professorville or Ramona Street. What is a “Group B” Historic Resource? A “Group B” historic resource is an existing property that was previously designated or formally evaluated, and which may be subject to CEQA review as explained on the reverse page. “Group B” resources are subject to HRB review if CEQA review indicates that a resource may be impacted. “Group B” resources include historic properties that are one or more of the following: • Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located outside of the Downtown Area and local historic districts; or • Listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CR); or • Listed in the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update (Dames & Moore, 1997-2000) as NR-eligible or CR-eligible; or • Previously determined CR-eligible through a development application review procedure. When Does a Property Require Evaluation as a Historic Resource? A property that has not yet been evaluated or designated may qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA review. In the case of a development application being filed for certain properties which have not yet been evaluated or designated, a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report to determine CR-eligibility may be required in order to complete a CEQA review. The City of Palo Alto may require an HRE report to be completed for an existing property if the property meets all of the following conditions: • A “discretionary” development application proposes demolition, new construction, new addition, or other substantial exterior alterations; and • The existing development on the property is more than 45 years old; and • The existing property is not a single-family residence in a Single-Family Residential zone. (A single-family residence in any non-Single Family Residential zone, or a non-single family residence in any zone, is subject.) See the reverse page for application review procedures. Historic resources enrich the quality of life in Palo Alto. They include buildings, structures, sites, and areas of historical, architectural, and cultural significance. The Planning Department groups historic resources according to the development application review procedures that apply. Some development projects involving historic resources are subject to review under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49) and/or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as explained further below and on the reverse page. For information on a specific property, please review a Parcel Report for the subject property, available at the City's website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/parcel.asp, or request a Parcel Report from City staff at: Development Services, 265 Hamilton Avenue; (650) 329-2496; planner@cityofpaloalto.org. 2.a Packet Pg. 12 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES AND PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (PAMC 16.49) REVIEW PROCEDURES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW PROCEDURES “GROUP A” HISTORIC RESOURCES See the reverse page for explanation of properties that qualify as “Group A” Historic Resources. Route any permit applications for exterior changes (including ministerial) to the Historic Resources Planner. The Planner reviews the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation* (“Standards”) and the Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the project is inconsistent with the Standards, or it exceeds the scope of a “minor exterior alteration” according to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Planner refers the application to the HRB. Route discretionary development applications** for exterior changes to the Historic Resources Planner. The Planner reviews the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation* and potential impacts to a historic resource per CEQA. If CEQA analysis indicates that there may be a potential impact to a historic resource, the Planner refers the application to the HRB. “GROUP B” HISTORIC RESOURCES See the reverse page for explanation of properties that qualify as “Group B” Historic Resources. Not subject to the review procedures in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. (Only “Group A” properties are subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. For more information, see PAMC 16.49.050.) Route discretionary development applications** for exterior changes to the Historic Resources Planner. The Planner reviews the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation* and potential impacts to a historic resource per CEQA. If CEQA analysis indicates that there may be a potential impact to a historic resource, the Planner refers the application to the HRB. PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE EVALUATION AS HISTORIC RESOURCES See the reverse page for explanation of when a property requires evaluation as a historic resource. Not subject to the review procedures in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. (Only “Group A” properties are subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. For more information, see PAMC 16.49.050.) Route discretionary development applications** for demolition, new construction, addition, or substantial exterior alterations to the Historic Resources Planner. The Planner determines if a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report is required in order to conduct and complete CEQA review. If a property is found to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Places, it is reviewed as a “Group B” historic resource. *The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are found on the National Park Service’s website at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm. **Discretionary development applications include: Architectural Review; Design Enhancement Exception; Home Improvement Exception; Neighborhood Preservation Exception; Single Family Individual Review; Site and Design Review; Variance. 2.a Packet Pg. 13 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology MEMORANDUM DATE November 2, 2021 PROJECT NUMBER 16252A.68 TO Danielle Condit, Associate Planner Danielle.Condit@CityofPaloAlto.org PROJECT 567 Hale, Palo Alto OF City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Dept. 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Fl Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Josh Bevan, AICP Cultural Resources Planner CC Amy French, Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org Ruth Todd, Page & Turnbull Christina Dikas, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto has requested this Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis for a proposed project located at 567 Hale Street (APN 120-07-048) in Palo Alto’s Crescent Park neighborhood. The residence and a detached garage were designed by the prominent San Francisco architecture firm Bliss & Faville and built by C.H. Lewis and H. Bruecker for Walter D. Tobey. The residence was completed in 1904 and was designed in the Classical Revival style.1 The property is listed on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Resources Inventory and is assigned a Category 2 rating.2 The purpose of this memorandum is to review the proposed exterior alterations to the single-family residence per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation. 1 “Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory: 567 Hale Street,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, Accessed August 9, 2021. https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invH/567Hale.html 2 Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.49.020. 2.b Packet Pg. 14 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 2 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Methodology Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit on August 13, 2021. The purpose of the site visit was to document existing conditions and to develop a list of character-defining features of the property to guide the analysis of the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Page & Turnbull reviewed plans titled “A Remodel for the: Sun-Pao Family” for 567 Hale Street” by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design (dated September 30, 2021). This analysis follows a previously prepared Character-Defining Features memo for 567 Hale Street that Page & Turnbull issued on August 27, 2021. HISTORIC STATUS 567 Hale Street was listed in Palo Alto's Historic Inventory (HRI) in 1979 as a Category 2 "Major Building."3 A Category 2 building is defined within the City of Palo Alto's Historic Preservation Ordinance as "any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained."4 Listing in the HRI qualifies the property as a historic resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Brief Architectural Description The L-shaped property at 567 Hale Street contains a two-story residence and a freestanding, two- story garage, both designed in the Classical Revival style by Bliss & Faville, Architects in 1905. The scope of the proposed project is limited to alterations of the residence. 567 Hale Street is a two- story-over-basement, Classical Revival style residence with a concrete foundation, wood frame, a hip roof with non-historic dormers added in 1990, and a stucco exterior. The building is generally rectangular, with a one-story enclosed porch at the rear east corner set back from the northeast façade. Windows consist of original double-hung wood-sash with divided lites and original fixed wood windows, which are located at the primary façade and primarily along the first story at secondary façades. Non-original fixed and operable divided-lite windows set in original openings with wood frames with molded wood sills are concentrated in the second story. Typical wood windows, doors, and vents are surrounded by molded wood frames. Windows are equally spaced across the southwest (front), southeast, and northeast façades, creating a balanced fenestration pattern along each façade. Each façade is capped with a decorative cornice with a plain wood frieze board with dentils, molded banding, circular vents at the soffit, and modillions at the eaves. 3 Paula Boghosian and John Beach, “Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto,” Historic Environment Consultants, February 1979. 4 Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.49.020. 2.b Packet Pg. 15 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 3 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 1: Aerial photograph of 567 Hale Street, with the approximate parcel boundary shown in dashed red line. Source: Google Maps, 2021. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Character-Defining Features For a property to be eligible for listing in a local historic register, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. Page & Turnbull developed the following list of character-defining features for 567 Hale Street for a previously prepared Character-Defining Features memorandum on file with the City of Palo Alto and dated August 27, 2021. The character- defining features of 567 Hale Street date to its period of significance of 1904, contribute to the Classical Revival style of the residence, and include, but are not limited to: General: • Spatial relationship of main residence to garage (former barn) Residence: • Two-story, generally rectangular massing • Classical Revival style • Stucco cladding • Flat-top hipped roof • Two brick chimneys • Decorative cornice with dentils and modillions at the eaves • Exposed decorative joists and roof detailing at enclosed east corner porch • Original fenestration, including: o Multi-lite wood fixed and double-hung windows in wood frames o Window arrangements at enclosed the east corner porch 2.b Packet Pg. 16 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 4 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 o Multi-lite casement window arrangement at center southeast facade o Amber glass stair windows at northwest façade • Window box planters with decorative corbels • Wood vents at ground level around the house • Entry portico framed by shaped jam-shaft pilasters with molded bases Features that are not original to the building, do not date to the period of significance, and therefore are not character-defining features, include, but are not limited to: Residence: • Landscaping and driveway • Lion sculptures at entry stairs • Shaped entry stairs • Leaded glass window and blind recess at enclosed side openings to entry porch on the northwest façade (these areas were originally open) • Replacement windows at the second story • Dormer windows • Composition roofing materials 2.b Packet Pg. 17 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 5 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Based upon the scope of work illustrated in the drawing set titled “A Remodel for the: Sun-Pao Family” for 567 Hale Street” by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design (dated September 30, 2021) the proposed project includes the following work at the exterior. PRIMARY (SOUTHWEST) FAÇADE At the primary façade, non-historic French doors located on the porch’s inset wall will be replaced with a new glazed wood door, sidelites, and transom windows. NORTHWEST FAÇADE At the basement level, small rectangular and square window and vent openings will be infilled or modified to accommodate construction of required sheer walls at the interior. New windows of a generally similar size will be inserted along the base of the building. A side entrance door will be placed into a wider opening with a new adjacent sidelite and a new rectangular transom window above. At the first story, the previously altered openings of the front porch, one with leaded glass and the other a blind wall, will be infilled with new fixed wood windows surrounded by solid walls that are recessed within the original openings. The three-window group at the center of the first story will be replaced by the aforementioned transom above the new side entrance and a single-lite window to the right of the transom. The two rearmost wood windows with divided lites will be replaced with slightly taller, single-lite casement windows with similar spacing. At the second story, all windows, excepting the six-over-six window closest to the front of the façade and the large amber glass stair window, will be replaced with new windows in new locations with varying dimensions. The non- historic attic dormer’s divided-lite windows will be replaced with two-lite windows. NORTHEAST (REAR) FAÇADE At the northeast (rear) façade, the façade’s symmetrical fenesration pattern will be altered to accommodate a single, wide opening with glazed sliding doors at the first story and two new casement windows at the second story. The patio extending off the rear façade will be redesigned with new contemporary, code-compliant guardrails, and will have new wider steps. The historic corner porch at the east side of the façade will receive replica double-glazed windows in place of the exising single-pane windows, and a new glazed entrance door, but will otherwise retain its design. Windows at the second story will be single-lite or two-lite, replacing existing divided-lite wood windows; small wood casement windows at the second story will be infilled. Patio guardrails will be 2.b Packet Pg. 18 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 6 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 replaced with contemporary code-compliant guardrails. A new rectangular skylight will be installed on the rear plane of the roof. SOUTHEAST FAÇADE At the southeast façade, windows within the southernmost bay closest to the front of the building will be retained. A French window (formerly used as doors to a non-extant balcony) with sidelites and transom will be replaced by a three-window group, which will include a relocated divided-lite window from the bay to the immediate north at center. Directly above at the second story, the existing six-over-six window will be retained, while one-over-one sash flanking the window will be replaced with single-lite, double-glazed windows. Further toward the rear of the building, existing window openings at the first and second story will be infilled and two new openings with single-lite windows will be inserted into each story. The northernmost bay of the first story will retain the enclosed porch, with replica double-glazed windows. Above, the second story balconette’s door, sidelite, and balustrade will be replaced. The door and window will feature a single pane of glass each and the balustrade will be designed to match the new guardrail at the patio below. The non- historic attic dormer’s divided-lite windows will be replaced with two-lite windows. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 7 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 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.”5 Projects that are not considered minor exterior alterations are subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historic Resources Board review.6 The following discussion considers the proposed project’s potential effects on the historic status of, and compatibility with, the house at 567 Hale Street, and provides comments on whether the project appears to adhere to the ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. The proposed project would continue the single-family residential use of the property. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 1. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The proposed project would retain and preserve the building’s character-defining height and massing, stucco cladding, flat-top hipped roof, brick chimneys, decorative cornice with dentils and modillions, exposed decorative joists and detailing at the east corner porch, window box planters, and the entry portico. All of the windows at the primary façade, windows within the second-story bays closest to the front of the building along the side façades, and the amber glass stair window would also be preserved. Windows at the rear east corner porch would be replaced with replica double-glazed windows. The proposed project includes the replacement of several historic wood divided-lite windows with new single-lite casement windows, and in many cases, new windows would be inserted at new rather than existing locations. On the northwest façade, all window and door openings excepting the second story divided-lite window closest to the front of the building and the amber glass stair window would be altered. Historic windows at the center and rear of the first story would be replaced with a larger entrance and new single-lite windows. At the rear façade, the existing 5 Section 16.49.050(C), Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 Historic Preservation. 6 City of Palo Alto, “Historic Resource Project Review FAQ,” https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64188. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 8 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 symmetrical arrangement of windows and rear entrance would be redesigned. A larger set of sliding glass doors would be placed in the first story, and new single- and two-lite windows would be inserted into the second story in new openings. The rear east corner porch’s windows would be replicated with double-pane replacements and a new door would be installed. At the southwest façade, the character-defining French windows near the center of the first story would be removed, and a window from the rear of the first story would be relocated to that location; two new sidelites would be installed also, creating a larger opening at center. The divided lite window with sidelites at the second story would be altered with new sidelites, and a smaller two-lite rectangular window would be replaced with a single lite window. New single-lite windows would be inserted into the first and second story, closer to the rear of the building, each in new locations. Although windows at the second story are apparently not original, the openings that windows are set within are original, and are typically arranged to provide vertical alignment between the first- and second-story openings and a very balanced composition from façade to façade. Fenestration with a balanced, generally even spacing, and with divided-lite glazing was a common aspect of Classical Revival style residences of the early twentieth century, and in the case of the Tobey House, a key aspect of Bliss & Faville’s design of the residence. The proposed window alterations would result in a shift away from the building’s formal fenestration, as it would introduce windows in new openings that are not consistently vertically aligned between stories and are of varying dimensions and glazing patterns that do not harmonize with the building’s historic character. The enlargement of the rear patio entrance to fit glazed doors would on its own not significantly impact the balanced fenestration of the rear façade. However, combined with proposed second-story window alterations, these changes affect the historic character of the facade. Changes to the rear patio (decking, railings, steps) and rear balcony would minimally impact the historic features of the property. The proposed new skylight would be placed on the rear side of the roof, and would not impact the historic form of the roof. Overall, the project does not appear to comply with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Please see the following section for additional recommendations for treatment of the historic building. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. No conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings would be added to the original building. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 9 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. The period of significance for 567 Hale Street is 1904. No previous changes or additions have occurred that have acquired historic significance in their own right. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. As described in Standard 2, the proposed project would retain and preserve the building’s stucco cladding, brick chimneys, decorative cornice with dentils and modillions, exposed decorative joists and detailing at the east corner porch, window box planters, and the entry portico. Changes to the rear patio (deck, railing, stairs) and rear balcony would minimally impact the historic features of the property. Windows at the primary façade, the second-story bays closest to the front of the building, and the amber glass stair window would be preserved. Windows at the rear east corner porch would be replaced with replica double-glazed windows. The project otherwise proposes the replacement of existing wood windows with single-lite wood casement windows, many of which would be located in new locations and have varied dimensions, rather than in the existing openings. The historic windows to be replaced represent distinctive features and craftsmanship that support the property’s significance. Therefore, the project does not appear to comply with Rehabilitation Standard 5 due to the degree of replacement and alteration of windows and fenestration openings that is proposed. Please see the following section for additional recommendations for treatment of the historic building. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. The SOI Standards prioritize repair over replacement. As such, replacement of historic wood windows should be supported by evidence that the windows to be replaced are beyond reasonable repair. It does not appear that a conditions analysis has been produced to demonstrate this. Thus, the project as currently designed is not in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Please see the following section for additional recommendations for treatment of the historic building. 2.b Packet Pg. 22 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 10 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. The project does not include any physical or chemical treatments to clean or remove historic materials or finishes. Thus, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Excavation may be required for the foundation of the proposed rear patio. In the case of discovery of archaeological materials, provided that standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project would adhere to Rehabilitation Standard 8. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. As described under Standard 2 and 5, the proposed project would retain and preserve a number of the building’s character-defining features. Changes to the rear patio and rear balcony would minimally impact the historic features of the property. Additionally, the proposed alterations to small square windows and vents along the basement level exterior do not significantly impact the historic character of the property. The proposed new skylight would be placed on the rear side of the roof, and would not impact the historic form of the roof. However, as previously described, the project proposes replacement, infill, relocation, and insertion of window openings to provide new windows with single- or two-lite glazing. These exterior alterations as a whole diminish the building’s ability to convey its significance as a Category 2 building designed in the Classical Revival style by Bliss & Faville. The proposed project would leave only the windows at the primary façade, two windows at the front (southernmost) end of the side façades, and one window at the rear façade intact. Thus, fenestration patterns that characterize the residence would be altered heavily on three of the four façades. New windows would be clearly differentiated from the old, given their obvious differences in number of lites per sash, and in some locations new windows would be oriented with a horizontal rather than a vertical emphasis. Although differentiated, the new windows would not be very compatible, as their positions and relationship to historic windows retained elsewhere would not result in a similar balanced fenestration pattern along each façade. The contrast of the single-lite windows to the divided-lite windows would also be too strong to comply with Standard 9. The existing divided-lite windows, although not original, provide a more compatible alternative. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 11 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Additionally, relocation of one window on the southeast façade and introduction of new windows of varying sizes with single lites would work against the building’s expression of style and workmanship. Therefore, as currently proposed, the project does not appear to comply with Standard 9. Please see the following section for additional recommendations for treatment of the historic building. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The proposed project would introduce new windows on each side façade, relocate one window on the southeast façade, and would redesign the rear façade. Review of project plans indicates that new wall sections would be built to accommodate infilling and relocation of windows. Although a future project could attempt to reverse such changes, it is likely that doing so would result in further loss of historic materials, and historic windows previously removed would (unless salvaged and stored) be unable to be reintroduced. Although the project would preserve the building’s massing, height, footprint, and materiality, its integrity would nonetheless be diminished to the extent that it could not be regained. Overall, the project does not comply with Rehabilitation Standard 10. Please see the following section for additional recommendations for treatment of the historic building. Summary of Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis As the above analysis demonstrates, the project as currently designed appears to comply with six of the ten the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation but is not in compliance with Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Therefore, Page & Turnbull has provided several recommendations for improved compliance with the Rehabilitation Standards in the following section. 2.b Packet Pg. 24 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 12 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 RECOMMENDATIONS This section includes recommendations to better comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, in particular, Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Recommendation #1 (Standards 2, 5, 6, 9): Revise the proposed design to retain more of the historic window openings (size, shape, and location) and avoid removal of historic windows that contribute to the character of the property. Prioritize retention of historic wood windows at the first story of each façade that have divided-lite glazing. Retention of a greater number of historic wood windows and a greater number of existing window locations would result in less substantial alteration of the building’s historic fenestration and support its Classical Revival style character that dates to the 1904 period of significance. Recommendation #2 (Standard 10): Consider locating some of the new single-lite windows at the second story in existing openings and using a divided-lite windows, which would support future reversibility more than locating new windows in new openings and provide a more compatible glazing pattern to the house’s historic windows with divided lites. Slightly different muntin profiles and lite dimensions are acceptable and aid in differentiating new windows from old. Recommendation #3 (Standards 2,5, and 9): Retain the French window at the center of the first story of the southwest façade in lieu of removing the window and replacing it with a relocated historic window that is located in the adjacent first story bay. Retention of at least one of these windows in their existing location would enable the southwest façade to retain a greater degree of its historic character and offset the proposed insertion of additional new window openings on the same façade. Recommendation #4 (Standard 9): Considering using a divided-lite window to fill the front porch’s previously infilled side walls. This recommendation is provided to support compatibility of new construction, but is focused on an area of previous alteration. Thus, this recommendation can be considered a lower priority than those above. CONCLUSION The proposed project, as currently designed, does not comply with Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 and cannot be said to be in overall compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Page & Turnbull has provided recommendations that, if implemented, would bring the project into full compliance. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 13 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 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 and cultural resources planner within Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Planning Studio, Josh Bevan, AICP meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History. He is experienced in surveying, researching, and evaluating historic properties, as well as analyzing proposed projects for potential impacts on historic resources. 2.b Packet Pg. 26 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis [16252A.68] Page 14 of 14 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 APPENDIX I – PROPOSED PROJECT DRAWING SET 2.b Packet Pg. 27 170 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 14, 2021 PROJECT NUMBER 16252A.68 TO Danielle Condit, Associate Planner Danielle.Condit@CityofPaloAlto.com PROJECT 567 Hale Street SOI Compliance Analysis OF City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Josh Bevan, AICP Cultural Resources Planner Page & Turnbull bevan@page-turnbull.com CC Amy French, Chief Planning Official Ruth Todd, Principal, Page & Turnbull Christina Dikas, Associate Principal VIA Email REGARDING Update to Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis The City of Palo Alto has requested Page & Turnbull’s review of revised plans for a proposed project at 567 Hale Street in Palo Alto’s Crescent Park neighborhood. On November 2, 2021, Page & Turnbull delivered a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis (SOI Compliance Analysis) to the City of Palo Alto, which found that the proposed design prepared by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design did not meet SOI Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Page & Turnbull provided recommendations in the SOI Compliance Analysis to enable the proposed project to comply with the Standards, which would avoid a significant adverse impact to the historic resource. In November 2021, Page & Turnbull received an Individual Review Response Letter and a revised set of project plans titled “A Remodel for the Sun-Pao Family 567 Hale Street [Page & Turnbull Second Review],” delivered on November 30, 2021, prepared by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design (referred to hereafter as the Revised Plan Set). Per the City’s request, Page & Turnbull has reviewed the Revised Plan Set to determine if the revised project design meets the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Please see the following table that lists each recommendation to achieve SOI Standards compliance and identifies the revisions to the project that have been made to address each recommendation. 2.b Packet Pg. 28 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – SOI Compliance – Update Memorandum Page 2 of 4 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Recommendation Design Revision Revision Meets SOI Standards (Yes/No) Recommendation #1 (addresses SOI Standards 2, 5, 6, 9) Revise the proposed design to retain more of the historic window openings (size, shape, and location) and avoid removal of historic windows that contribute to the character of the property. Prioritize retention of historic wood windows at the first story of each façade that have divided-lite glazing. Retention of a greater number of historic wood windows and a greater number of existing window locations would result in less substantial alteration of the building’s historic fenestration and support its Classical Revival style character that dates to the 1904 period of significance. As revised, the proposed project retains most existing window locations and the dimensions of such openings. Although all of the remaining original single-glazed wood windows will be replaced, plans note that such windows will be replaced with replica double- glazed windows with identical glazing patterns. These changes result in the continued use of divided-lite windows, and support the house’s Classical Revival styling, which relies on a balanced and somewhat formal fenestration pattern. Yes Recommendation #2 (addresses SOI Standard 10): Consider locating some of the new single-lite windows at the second story in existing openings and using divided-lite windows, which would support future reversibility more than locating new windows in new openings and provide a more compatible glazing pattern to the house’s historic windows with divided lites. Slightly different muntin profiles and lite dimensions are acceptable and aid in differentiating new windows from old. The revised design follows this recommendation. as a greater number of original openings will be retained. The new windows replacing single-glazed windows will feature identical glazing patterns. Overall, the retention of original window openings supports reversibility and compatibility of historic and new construction. Therefore, the project follows this recommendation. Yes 2.b Packet Pg. 29 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – SOI Compliance – Update Memorandum Page 3 of 4 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Recommendation Design Revision Revision Meets SOI Standards (Yes/No) Recommendation #3 (addresses SOI Standards 2,5, and 9): Retain the French window at the center of the first story of the southwest façade in lieu of removing the window and replacing it with a relocated historic window that is located in the adjacent first story bay. Retention of at least one of these windows in their existing location would enable the southwest façade to retain a greater degree of its historic character and offset the proposed insertion of additional new window openings on the same façade. The revised project will replace the center (door) section of the French window at the center of the first story of the southwest façade, but will not relocate an adjacent window to the French window location. This center section of the French window will be replaced with a new divided light window frame since the door at that location no longer serves as a side entrance. The proposed window appears to be compatible in scale and profile with the existing window arrangement. Overall, this revised approach results in less alteration of the façade and does so without potentially resulting in a conjectural falsely historic appearance. Therefore, the project follows this recommendation. Y Recommendation #4 (addresses SOI Standard 9): Consider using a divided-lite window to fill the front porch’s previously infilled side walls. This recommendation is provided to support compatibility of new construction, but is focused on an area of previous alteration. Thus, this recommendation can be considered a lower priority than those above. The revised project calls for wood windows with six lites beneath a two-lite transom to fill each opening in the porch. This specification follows the recommendation and provides a compatible window type for the porch. Y 2.b Packet Pg. 30 170 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 14, 2021 PROJECT NUMBER 16252A.68 TO Danielle Condit, Associate Planner Danielle.Condit@CityofPaloAlto.com PROJECT 567 Hale Street SOI Compliance Analysis OF City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Josh Bevan, AICP Cultural Resources Planner Page & Turnbull bevan@page-turnbull.com CC Amy French, Chief Planning Official Ruth Todd, Principal, Page & Turnbull Christina Dikas, Associate Principal VIA Email REGARDING Update to Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis The City of Palo Alto has requested Page & Turnbull’s review of revised plans for a proposed project at 567 Hale Street in Palo Alto’s Crescent Park neighborhood. On November 2, 2021, Page & Turnbull delivered a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis (SOI Compliance Analysis) to the City of Palo Alto, which found that the proposed design prepared by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design did not meet SOI Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Page & Turnbull provided recommendations in the SOI Compliance Analysis to enable the proposed project to comply with the Standards, which would avoid a significant adverse impact to the historic resource. In November 2021, Page & Turnbull received an Individual Review Response Letter and a revised set of project plans titled “A Remodel for the Sun-Pao Family 567 Hale Street [Page & Turnbull Second Review],” delivered on November 30, 2021, prepared by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design (referred to hereafter as the Revised Plan Set). Per the City’s request, Page & Turnbull has reviewed the Revised Plan Set to determine if the revised project design meets the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Please see the following table that lists each recommendation to achieve SOI Standards compliance and identifies the revisions to the project that have been made to address each recommendation. 2.b Packet Pg. 31 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – SOI Compliance – Update Memorandum Page 2 of 4 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Recommendation Design Revision Revision Meets SOI Standards (Yes/No) Recommendation #1 (addresses SOI Standards 2, 5, 6, 9) Revise the proposed design to retain more of the historic window openings (size, shape, and location) and avoid removal of historic windows that contribute to the character of the property. Prioritize retention of historic wood windows at the first story of each façade that have divided-lite glazing. Retention of a greater number of historic wood windows and a greater number of existing window locations would result in less substantial alteration of the building’s historic fenestration and support its Classical Revival style character that dates to the 1904 period of significance. As revised, the proposed project retains most existing window locations and the dimensions of such openings. Although all of the remaining original single-glazed wood windows will be replaced, plans note that such windows will be replaced with replica double- glazed windows with identical glazing patterns. These changes result in the continued use of divided-lite windows, and support the house’s Classical Revival styling, which relies on a balanced and somewhat formal fenestration pattern. Yes Recommendation #2 (addresses SOI Standard 10): Consider locating some of the new single-lite windows at the second story in existing openings and using divided-lite windows, which would support future reversibility more than locating new windows in new openings and provide a more compatible glazing pattern to the house’s historic windows with divided lites. Slightly different muntin profiles and lite dimensions are acceptable and aid in differentiating new windows from old. The revised design follows this recommendation. as a greater number of original openings will be retained. The new windows replacing single-glazed windows will feature identical glazing patterns. Overall, the retention of original window openings supports reversibility and compatibility of historic and new construction. Therefore, the project follows this recommendation. Yes 2.b Packet Pg. 32 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – SOI Compliance – Update Memorandum Page 3 of 4 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Recommendation Design Revision Revision Meets SOI Standards (Yes/No) Recommendation #3 (addresses SOI Standards 2,5, and 9): Retain the French window at the center of the first story of the southwest façade in lieu of removing the window and replacing it with a relocated historic window that is located in the adjacent first story bay. Retention of at least one of these windows in their existing location would enable the southwest façade to retain a greater degree of its historic character and offset the proposed insertion of additional new window openings on the same façade. The revised project will replace the center (door) section of the French window at the center of the first story of the southwest façade, but will not relocate an adjacent window to the French window location. This center section of the French window will be replaced with a new divided light window frame since the door at that location no longer serves as a side entrance. The proposed window appears to be compatible in scale and profile with the existing window arrangement. Overall, this revised approach results in less alteration of the façade and does so without potentially resulting in a conjectural falsely historic appearance. Therefore, the project follows this recommendation. Y Recommendation #4 (addresses SOI Standard 9): Consider using a divided-lite window to fill the front porch’s previously infilled side walls. This recommendation is provided to support compatibility of new construction, but is focused on an area of previous alteration. Thus, this recommendation can be considered a lower priority than those above. The revised project calls for wood windows with six lites beneath a two-lite transom to fill each opening in the porch. This specification follows the recommendation and provides a compatible window type for the porch. Y 2.b Packet Pg. 33 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – SOI Compliance – Update Memorandum Page 4 of 4 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Page & Turnbull finds that the revised proposed design enables the project to meet each of the 10 Standards for Rehabilitation. The four recommendations provided in the SOI Compliance Analysis of November 2, 2021 were concerned with lessening the degree of alteration of original window openings, limiting alteration of original windows, and avoiding a sense of false historicism. In addition to SOI Rehabilitation Standards 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8, the revised design meets SOI Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Therefore, the proposed project does not appear to cause a significant impact to an identified CEQA historic resource. 2.b Packet Pg. 34 17'-71 4" 14 ' - 6 " 5'-1114"712" 5'- 3 " 714" 2'-0" x 2'-0" SINGLE GLAZED WOOD CASEMENT TO BE REMOVED 2'- 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D WO O D C A S E M E N T TO B E R E P L A C E D 2'-10" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED 3'- 8 1 2" 75 GALLON WATER HEATER TO BE RELOCATED STORAGE ROOM concrete floor 8' ceiling height CRAWLSPACE CRAWLSPACE CRAWLSPACE REMOVE WINE STORAGE UNDER STAIR 2'- 8 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D ST A I R U P (2) SUBPANELS TO REMAIN 10'-912" 15 ' - 0 14" 2'- 8 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2'-10" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED 15'-0" SUMP PUMP FURNACE ON 26 x 51 PLATFORM TO BE RELOCATED BRICK FOUNDATION STORAGE ROOM concrete floor 8' ceiling height DEMO STORAGE ROOM concrete floor 8' ceiling height 4'-034"4'-712"4'-712"20'-512"9'-8"6'-5"4'-10" REMOVE THIS ACCESS ACCESS AC C E S S AC C E S S 5'-834" REMOVE (E) STRUCTURAL POSTS REMOVE (E) STRUCTURAL POSTS PORCH ABOVE 2'- 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D WO O D C A S E M E N T TO B E R E M O V E D T O AL L O W F O R S H E A R W A L L 2'- 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D WO O D C A S E M E N T TO B E R E P L A C E D 2'- 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D WO O D C A S E M E N T TO B E R E P L A C E D 3' - 6 3 4" MOVE DROPPED BEAM INTO THE FLOOR/CEILING CAVITY MOVE DROPPED BEAM INTO THE FLOOR/CEILING CAVITY (FLUSH BEAM) 2'- 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D WO O D C A S E M E N T TO B E R E M O V E D T O AL L O W F O R S H E A R W A L L 2'- 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D WO O D C A S E M E N T TO B E R E M O V E D T O AL L O W F O R S H E A R W A L L MOVE DROPPED BEAM INTO THE FLOOR/CEILING CAVITY (FLUSH BEAM) REMOVE (E) STRUCTURAL POST DEMO LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED PLUMBING FIXTURES AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED FRONT PORCH STEPS AND LANDING ABOVE A-3.0 EX I S T I N G BA S E M E N T P L A N ~ DE M O P L A N EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN ~ DEMO PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 PAGE AND TURNBULL SECOND REVIEW Summary of alterations per CDF Memo and 11/2/2021 SOI Analysis Letter: All existing double glazed windows (that were replaced during a previous remodel) are to remain as existing. Only the original single glazed wood windows are to be replaced with double glazed (or laminated glass) exact replica windows. This is for better insulation and sound protection. Areas that client feels strongly about changing: Replace the existing non-historic french door that accesses the existing front entry porch with a new contemporary glass window with sidelights and transom. Remove window in the current dining room and replace with 2 new windows that accommodate the current kitchen design. Install new 16'-0" wide X 9'-0" high Retractable doors at rear family room. Raise the floor level of the rear patio to be flush with the interior floor. Enlarge the rear patio and install contemporary railings. Replace the sunroom windows with new replica windows and replace the center rear facing fixed window with a single french door to access the rear patio. 2.c Packet Pg. 35 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR DEMO PLAN LIBRARY wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. LIVING ROOM wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. ENTRY FOYER slate floor 10''-3" clg.ht. 15'-1014" 15'-812"15'-1014" 20 ' - 0 " 2'- 6 " 12 ' - 2 " 4' - 8 34" 4' - 1 1 14" 1'- 1 0 " 3" 2'- 1 1 " 314" 1'- 1 0 " 2'- 1 0 12" 7'- 1 14" 2' - 2 14" 18'-2" 25 ' - 9 34" 4' - 0 " 1' - 0 14" 6'-1014"1'-0"4'-834"1'-0"4'-7" 3'- 6 " 2'- 5 14"4'- 6 14" 1'- 1 0 " 1'- 3 14" 1' - 5 " 534"2'-212"1'-112" 18'-0" 5'-812"6'-8"5'-912" 4' - 3 12" 7" 7'- 0 " 7'- 5 34" 14 ' - 8 14" 7'-1" 5'- 6 34" 4'- 2 14" (E ) O P E N I N G 3'- 0 " x 6 ' - 1 0 " SI D E E N T R Y TO B E R E P L A C E D 2'-6" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED 2'-6" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED DEMO KITCHEN wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. DEMO POWDER ROOM wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. HALL wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. RE M O V E ST A I R U P ST A I R D N . ST A I R D N . 2'- 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2' - 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2' - 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D REMOVE STACK WASHER /DRYER DINING ROOM wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. SUN ROOM conc. floor 10''-3" clg.ht. 3'-0" x 5'-0" SINGLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO BE REMOVED 3'- 0 " x 5 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H D O U B L E G L A Z E D EX A C T R E P L I C A 2'- 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2'- 4 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2'-8" x 6'-8" FRENCH ENTRY DOOR AND 1'-4" SIDELIGHT WITH TRANSOM ABOVE TO BE REMOVED 36 " S U B Z E R O RE F R I G . T O B E RE L O C A T E D 3'-6" x 6'-8" FRONT ENTRY DOOR TO BE REMOVED 6'-0" x 6 ' - 8 " FRE N C H D O O R TO B E r E M O V E D 5'-4" x 6'-8" FRENCH DOOR TO BE REMOVED (4 ) 4 ' - 1 0 " x 2 ' - 3 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D FI X E D L E A D E D G L A S S PA N E L S TO B E R E M O V E D 4'-7" x 5'-7" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT WITH 4'-7" x 2'-3" TRANSOM ABOVE TO REMAIN 4'-7" x 5'-7" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT WITH 4'-7" x 2'-3" TRANSOM ABOVE TO REMAIN 4' - 7 " x 5 ' - 7 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T WI T H 4' - 7 " x 2 ' - 3 " TR A N S O M A B O V E TO R E M A I N 14 ' - 6 " 6'- 5 12" 9'-814" SUNROOM WINDOWS SINGLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO BE REPLACE WITH EXACT REPLICA WITH A NEW DOOR SU N R O O M W I N D O W S SI N G L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H E X A C T R E P L I C A REMOVE BOOKSHELVES REMOVE BOOKSHELVES RETAIN ALL EXISTING KITCHEN APPLIANCES, CABINETRY AND SINKS FOR FUTURE USE IN BUTLER'S KITCHEN 36" THERMADOR GAS RANGE & HOOD TO BE RELOCATED 30 " T H E R M A D O R ST E A M O V E N T O BE R E L O C A T E D 18" WINE COOLER 9' - 7 " REMOVE MASONRY FIREPLACES AND MASONRY CHIMNEY THRU ROOF BLIND DOOR TO BE REMOVED 4'-6" x 6'-8" DOUBLE DOOR TO BE REMOVED 54'-2" 74'-914" 23 ' - 4 34" 13 ' - 3 14" 36 ' - 8 " 20'-712" 74'-91 2" 37 ' - 0 " 5'-214" DEMO LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED PLUMBING FIXTURES AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED 6'-712" EXISTING PORCH OPENING 6'-634" EXISTING PORCH OPENING 4'-2"9'-312"12'-1114"3'-934"3'-1114"8'-712"3'-412" 3' - 3 " 9' - 2 " 7'- 9 34" 3'- 2 " 18'-2" 9' - 7 12" 8'-4" NEW OPENING 15'-2" EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING MASONRY FIREPLACE TO REMAIN 15'-134"13'-612" 6' - 4 14" 6'- 1 1 14" 2'- 5 12" EXISTING 200 AMP ELECTRICAL METER REMOVE SUNROOM CEILING BEAMS REMOVE UPPER WALL ABOVE DOOR AND WINDOWS REMOVE STAIR LANDING ABOVE REMOVE STAIR REMOVE BOOKSHELVES REMOVE BOOKSHELVES REMOVE BANQUETTE REMOVE CABINET 1' - 8 " x 2 ' - 8 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T WI T H V E N T A B O V E TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H E X A C T R E P L I C A 1' - 8 " x 5 ' - 1 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H E X A C T R E P L I C (3) STAIR WINDOWS WITH MOTTLED AMBER GLASS (SEE SECOND FLOOR PLAN FOR IDENTIFICATION) TO REMAIN 13'-514" (E) REAR PORCH 5'-1134" 9'-134" REMOVE RAILINGS AND PARAPET WALLS 11'-512" (E) REAR PORCH DEMO PARTIAL WALL FOR WIDER OPENING 16 ' - 4 " REMOVE ALL STAIR RAILINGS (E) UNDERFLOOR STORAGE CLOSET 3'- 0 " x 5 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H D O U B L E G L A Z E D EX A C T R E P L I C A 3'-0" x 5'-0" SINGLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO BE REMOVED 4' - 7 " x 5 ' - 7 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D DI V I D E D L I G H T WI T H 4' - 7 " x 2 ' - 3 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D TR A N S O M TO B E R E M O V E D 3'- 9 " x 7 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D FR E N C H D O O R WI T H 3 ' - 9 " x 1 ' - 6 " T R A N S O M AN D 1 ' - 0 " S I D E L I G H T S WI T H 1 ' - 0 " x 1 ' - 6 " T R A N S O M S TO B E R E P L A C E D 18'-1112"21'-314"13'-814" DEMO PARTIAL WALL FOR NEW WINDOW DEMO PARTIAL WALL FOR NEW WINDOW A-3.1 EX I S T I N G F I R S T F L O O R P L A N ~ DE M O P L A N EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN ~ DEMO PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 36 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR DEMO PLAN FAMILY ROOM wood floor ceiling height 10'-3" ceiling ht. 2'-6" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED PRIMARY BEDROOM carpet floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. DEMO DRESSING ROOM/ STUDY wood floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. DEMO BATH tile floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. 16'-014" 20 ' - 3 " 15'-114" 13'-1" 16 ' - 2 " 2'- 8 " CA S E D OP E N I N G 13'-1" 19 ' - 2 34" 5'-0" 2' - 6 " 6' - 1 12" 6'-312"6'-0"6'-1"2'-8" 3'-634" 1'-6" 19 ' - 7 34" 8'-034" 9' - 3 34" 3'-4" 6'-1" 7'-3" 3'- 3 " 1' - 1 " 5' - 0 34" 1'-0"4'-412"5'- 1 1 12" 13'-9" 7' - 2 12" 3' - 1 14" 5'-6" 10 ' - 2 " 17'-614"2'-0"7'-111 4"7'-1" BEDROOM 3 carpet floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. BEDROOM 2 carpet floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. 612" 1' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D WO O D C A S E M E N T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H D O U B L E G L A Z E D EX A C T R E P L I C A 2'-6" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED 3'-0" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED DEMO CLOSET 2'- 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2'- 8 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2'- 4 " x 6 ' - 8 " PO C K E T D O O R TO B E R E M O V E D 2'-6" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED 2'- 6 " DEMO CLOSETMAIN STAIR REMOVE SECONDARY STAIR DEMO BATH tile floor 10'-2" clg.ht. 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN 5'- 2 12" 10 ' - 9 34" 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAINWI N D O W B O X WI N D O W B O X WI N D O W B O X 1'- 8 " x 4 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H D O U B L E G L A Z E D EX A C T R E P L I C A 3'- 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 2'-6" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED 2'- 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 3' - 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 3'-0" x 6'-8" TO BE REMOVED 2'- 8 " x 6 ' - 8 " T O B E REMOVED 3'- 0 " x 6 ' - 8 " T O B E R E M O V E D 2'- 1 0 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E R E M O V E D DE M O C L O S E T 3'- 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN 2'- 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " PO C K E T D O O R TO B E R E M O V E D 8'- 8 34" 2'- 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D 2'- 8 " x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E RE M O V E D RE M O V E CA B I N E T 3'-0" x 6'-8" POCKET DOOR TO BE REMOVED 2'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN 2'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN 1'-6" x 3'-0" DOUBLE GLAZED CASEMENT DIVIDED LIGHT TO BE REMOVED 1'-6" x 3'-0" DOUBLE GLAZED CASEMENT DIVIDED LIGHT TO BE REMOVED 2'-6" x 6 ' - 8 " TO B E REM O V E D 4'- 8 " x 6 ' - 8 " T O B E R E M O V E D 4'- 8 " x 6 ' - 8 " T O B E R E M O V E D DE M O L O S E T REMOVE ALL COVE CEILINGS 1' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H D O U B L E G L A Z E D E X A C T R E P L I C A DEMO BATHROOM RE M O V E CA B I N E T DEMO LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED PLUMBING FIXTURES AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED 512" 3'- 9 " x 6 ' - 2 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D / D I V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 1'- 7 " x 5 ' - 6 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H E X A C T R E P L I C A 3' - 2 14" 6'- 2 3 4" 3'- 2 14" 23 ' - 4 34" 4' - 6 3 4" 6' - 2 3 4" 9'-312"12'-1114"8'-434"3'-412"3'-412"8'-814"6'-914"9'-10"4'-0" 74'-912" 4'-2"3'-1134" 58'-6" 9'-812"8'-912"3'-51 2"3'-7"7'-23 4"8'-71 2"17'-11 4" 6'- 5 14" 14 ' - 5 34" FLAT ROOF OVER SUNROOM 2'- 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DI V I D E D L I G H T FR E N C H D O O R TO R E M A I N 16'-312" 2'-01 4"9'-71 2"4'-73 4" 1' - 4 " x 6 ' - 8 " DI V I D E D L I G H T SID E L I G H T TO R E M A I N 2'-812"7'-612" REMOVE MASONRY FIREPLACE AND CHIMNEY THRU ROOF 36 ' - 1 1 14" RE M O V E ST A I R U P RE M O V E ST A I R D O W N (N ) 2 ' - 1 0 " x 8 ' - 8 " FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 2 ' - 1 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " FI X E D T R A N S O M AM B E R G L A S S DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (N ) 2 ' - 1 0 " x 6 ' - 8 " FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 2 ' - 1 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " FI X E D T R A N S O M AM B E R G L A S S DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (E ) 2 ' - 1 0 " x 4 ' - 8 " FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 2 ' - 1 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " FI X E D T R A N S O M AM B E R G L A S S DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N WINDOW BOX WINDOW BOX STAIR RAILING 6'-0" x 6'-8" DOUBLE POCKET DOOR TO BE REMOVED DEMO ALL 6'-8" HEADERS REMOVE ALL COVE CEILINGS REMOVE ALL COVE CEILINGS REMOVE ALL COVE CEILINGS REMOVE ALL COVE CEILINGS 74'-912" 6' - 7 1 4" 6'- 4 3 4" 36 ' - 4 34" 13 ' - 0 " 1'- 7 " x 5 ' - 6 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H E X A C T R E P L I C A 1' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H D O U B L E G L A Z E D E X A C T R E P L I C A 1' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T TO B E R E P L A C E D WI T H D O U B L E G L A Z E D E X A C T R E P L I C A 2'- 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 2'-3" 3'-9"1'-7"912"1'-7"912" 3'- 1 1 " 3'-11"3'-11" 3'- 1 1 " 3'- 1 1 " 3'- 1 1 " 3'-11" 6'-112" 2'- 1 1 " 2'- 1 1 " 2'-11"2'-11" A-3.2 EX I S T I N G SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N ~ DE M O P L A N EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN ~ DEMO PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 37 EXISTING THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1'-10" x 5'-9" REMOVE SECONDARY STAIR STAIR DOWN TO FAMILY ROOM RE M O V E 3'- 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T RE M O V E 3'- 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T 3'-0" 4'- 8 " RE M O V E 3'- 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T RE M O V E 3'- 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T 19 ' - 9 " 37 ' - 0 " 58'-534" EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN REMOVE CHIMNEY FLUE 4'-7" PLATE HEIGHT 2'-6" x 6'-8" POCKET DOOR 4'-10.5" PLATE HEIGHT CA B I N E T DEMO SHOWER CABINET SUB PANEL 32'-512" REMOVE 24"REF. HA L F W A L L ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS 1' - 1 0 " x 4 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T CLOSET DEMO LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED PLUMBING FIXTURES AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN RE M O V E ST A I R D O W N +42" HIGH LOW WALLS REC. ROOM carpet floor 8'-0" clg.ht. DEMO BATH tile floor 8'-0" clg.ht. A-3.3 EX I S T I N G TH I R D F L O O R P L A N ~ DE M O P L A N EXISTING THIRD FLOOR PLAN ~ DEMO PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 38 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 19'-1114" 14 ' - 6 14" (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D TE M P E R E D G L A S S AW N I N G W I N D O W (N) 3'-0" x 7'-0" (N) HOME GYM vinyl tile floor 8' ceiling height (E) CRAWLSPACE (E) CRAWLSPACE (E ) S T A I R U P 9 R I S E R S (2) SUBPANELS BEHIND (N) FLUSH PANEL TO CONCEAL 6'-812" (N) 3'-0" x 7'-0" 18'-2" SUMP PUMP RELOCATED FURNACE ON 26 x 51 PLATFORM BRICK FOUNDATION NEW HOME THEATRE neoprene carpet floor 8' ceiling height (N) MECHANICAL ROOM concrete floor 8' ceiling height 4'-034"9'-3"19'-114"11'-014"6'-5"4'-10" AC C E S S BIG SCREEN TV BY AV CONSULTANT 21 ' - 1 0 12" OPENING HERE FOR CONTINUED CRAWL SPACE ACCESS (N ) 2 ' - 8 " x 7 ' - 0 " (N) BATH 1 vinyl tile floor 8' cht. OPEN RAILING (N ) 2 ' - 6 " x 7 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " S H W R 2'-612" SHWR FULL HT. STORAGE 5'- 0 " x 7 ' - 0 " T E M P E R E D GL A S S D O O R 8'-714" WINE STORAGE UNDER-STAIR STORAGE 5/8" TYPE 'X' SHEET ROCK (N ) 2 ' - 6 " x 7 ' - 0 " 6' - 1 14" WI D E R H A L L 3'-414" WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW INTERIOR WALL W/ 2x6 STUDS @ 16" o.c. AND 5/8" SHEET ROCK 512" (N) WINE STORAGE vinyl tile floor 8' ceiling height PORCH ABOVE CO A T C L O S E T AB O V E / S T O R A G E BE L O W FURR OUT NEW WALLS AT EXPOSED CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS (TYPICAL) W/ 2x4 PT STUDS WITH (N) R-15 INSULATION (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D TE M P E R E D G L A S S FA C T O R Y F I X E D PE R W G W R E Q U I R E M E N T (N ) 2 ' - 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D TE M P E R E D G L A S S C A S E M E N T (N ) 2 ' - 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D TE M P E R E D G L A S S C A S E M E N T FILL IN (E) WINDOW RELOCATED 75 GALLON WATER HEATER OR AS REQUIRED FOR RADIANT HEAT HALL vinyl tile floor 8' ceiling height (E) CRAWLSPACE FILL IN (E) ACCESS OPENING REQUIRED NEW SHEARWALL ABOVE REQUIRED NEW SHEARWALL ABOVE REQUIRED NEW SHEARWALL ABOVE REQUIRED NEW SHEARWALL ABOVE (N ) 2 ' - 0 " x 2 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D TE M P E R E D G L A S S C A S E M E N T EXISTING GAS METER 4' - 1 " VA N T I Y 1' - 1 1 34" (1 5 " M I N . ) 2'- 0 " (1 5 " M I N . ) 4'-10" 2'-8" FILL IN (E) WINDOW FOR (N) SHEARWALL PROVIDE ACCESS DOORS UNDER FLOOR OF CLOSET ABOVE FOR STORAGE 5'- 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " SL I D E R AC C E S S D O O R TEMPERED GLASS WINE ENCLOSURE (E) ACCESS POINT FOR DECK CRAWLSPACE ACCESS STEAM SHOWER MINIMUM 24" x 24" REQUIRED IN FRONT OF WC STRUCTURAL DROPPED BEAM IDENTIFIED CDF: WOOD VENTS AT GROUND LEVEL WITH DECORATIVE METAL GRILLE PROVIDE MECHANICAL EXHAUST FAN FOR CONTINUOUS AIR CIRCULATION TO ENCOURAGE CONSTANT AIR VENTILATION TO REDUCE PRESENCE OF MOISTURE AND MOLD. POSITION FAN AT EXISTING DECORATIVE VENTS SO THAT AIR MOVES OUT THRU THE VENTS. NO ALTERATION OF THE VENTS ARE PROPOSED. PROVIDE MECHANICAL EXHAUST FAN FOR CONTINUOUS AIR CIRCULATION TO ENCOURAGE CONSTANT AIR VENTILATION TO REDUCE PRESENCE OF MOISTURE AND MOLD. POSITION FAN AT EXISTING DECORATIVE VENTS SO THAT AIR MOVES OUT THRU THE VENTS. NO ALTERATION OF THE VENTS ARE PROPOSED. 1 A7.0 1 A7.0 3 A7.1 3 A7.1 2 A7.0 2 A7.0 WINE RACKS THRU-WALLVENT FOR COMBUSTION AIR SUPPLY CEILING MOUNTED PROJECTION EQUIPMENT(N) R-15 INSULATION IN (E) CRIPPLE WALLS (N) R-15 INSULATION IN (E) CRIPPLE WALLS 74'-914" 36 ' - 6 34" 74'-912" 37 ' - 0 " FRONT PORCH STEPS AND LANDING ABOVE A-4.0 PR O P O S E D BA S E M E N T P L A N MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 VOLUNTARY WATER RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION NOTE: THIS STRUCTURE IS IN A FLOOD ZONE, HOWEVER, DUE TO ITS HISTORIC STATUS, IT IS EXEMPT FROM ANY FEMA OR FLOOD ZONE REQUIREMENTS. WHEN POSSIBLE, ANY CONSTRUCTION OR FINISH MATERIALS BEING USED IN THE BASEMENT SHALL BE SELECTED WITH CONSIDERATION TO POSSIBLE WATER INTRUSION. ALL NEW STUDS SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED. ALL FLOORING SHALL BE RESILIENT TO WATER DAMAGE. ALL TRIM MATERIAL SHALL BE PVC OR OTHER NON WATER ABSORBENT MATERIAL. ALL SHEET ROCK SHALL BE NOT WATER ABSORBENT AN ADDITIONAL EXHAUST FAN SHALL BE ADDED TO THE CRAWLSPACE TO ENCOURAGE CONSTANT AIR VENTILATION TO REDUCE PRESENCE OF MOISTURE AND MOLD. CRC-R322.1.3 Flood-resistant construction. Buildings and structures erected in areas prone to flooding shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. 2.c Packet Pg. 39 FORMAL LIVING ROOM wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. ENTRY FOYER marble floor 10''-3" clg.ht. 18'-0" 7'-1" (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 6 ' - 1 0 " HA L F L I T E DU T C H D O O R RE P L A C E M E N T DO O R NEW FAMILY ROOM wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. NEW BUTLER'S KITCHEN tile floor 10''-3" clg.ht. (E ) S T A I R D N . 5 R I S E R S SUNROOM/ FAMILY DINING wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. (E) 4'-7" x 5'-7" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT W/ 4'-7" x 2'-3" TRANSOM ABOVE TO REMAIN 14 ' - 6 " 6'- 5 12" 9'-814" (N) 3'-6" x 7'-0" FRONT ENTRY DOOR W/ 3'-6" x 2'-0" TRANSOM 7'-0" NEW CASED OPENING 15'-2" FORMAL DINING AREA wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. 8'- 0 " WI D E N S T A I R AN D C E N T E R O N N E W D O O R S ENLARGED PATIO 7'-914" 22 ' - 2 " 17'-0" (N) OPEN RAILINGS 24 " D W 18'-2" 36 " RE L O C A T E D RE F R I G . 7.7 5 " M A X . S T E P D O W N TO ( E ) L A N D I N G (N) 3'-0" x 6'-8" OUTSWING FRENCH DOOR 6' - 0 " NE W O P E N I N G (N) POWDER ROOM 18 " D E E P C U B B I E S F O R SH O E S , B A C K P A C K S , G E A R (N ) C O A T C L O S E T B E L O W AN D T E C H C L O S E T A B O V E (N) FULL HEIGHT BOOKSHELVES 6'-0"6'-0" (3) STAIR WINDOWS WITH MOTTLED AMBER GLASS (SEE SECOND FLOOR PLAN FOR IDENTIFICATION) TO REMAIN SHAPE OF STAIR TREADS ABOVE 26 ' - 2 1 2" 2'-814"4'-534" 54'-2" 3'-934"13'-634"5'-514"9'-414" 15 ' - 2 12" 3'-0" x 8'-0" CASED OPENING 36 " S I N K C A B . 30 " RE L O C A T E D ST E A M O V E N RE L O C A T E D 36 " R A N G E & H O O D 18 " T R A S H STRUCTURAL POST WITH FLUSH BEAMS IN CEILING 7'- 1 1 " 74'-914" 2'-714" 23 ' - 4 34" 13 ' - 2 " 36 ' - 6 34" 20'-712" 74'-912" 5'-1134" 37 ' - 0 " 7'- 0 " 5'-8" WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW INTERIOR WALL W/ 2x6 STUDS @ 16" o.c. AND 5/8" SHEET ROCK 512" (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 5 ' - 7 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 3 ' - 0 " x 2 ' - 3 " FI X E D T R A N S O M WI N D O W A B O V E 6'-0" 5' - 0 " (N) 2'-6" x 8'-0" 7'- 0 " EX I S T I N G O P E N I N G CE N T E R E D O N F I R E P L A C E 4'- 2 14" 6'-7" EXISTING PORCH OPENING 6'-63 4" EXISTING PORCH OPENING (N ) 2 ' - 6 " x 8 ' - 0 " PO C K E T D O O R 2'-114" 5'-9"9'-312"4'-2" 12 ' - 2 " 612" 2'-612"8'-014"1'-712" (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 5 ' - 7 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D TE M P E R E D FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 3 ' - 0 " x 2 ' - 3 " FI X E D T R A N S O M WI N D O W A B O V E 2'-912" 8'-1114"3'-412" FILL IN (E) DOOR 5'-6"5'-6" EXISTING GAS METER 2'-7"2'-7" ( N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 5 ' - 1 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D W I N D O W W / 3' - 0 " x 2 ' - 4 " T R A N S O M RE P L I C A W I N D O W ( N ) 1 ' - 1 0 " x 5 ' - 1 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D W I N D O W W / 1'- 1 0 " x 2 ' - 4 " T R A N S O M RE P L I C A W I N D O W ( N ) 1 ' - 1 0 " x 5 ' - 1 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D W I N D O W W / 1'- 1 0 " x 2 ' - 4 " T R A N S O M RE P L I C A W I N D O W FILL IN (E) DOOR FILL IN (E) OPENING (N) FULL HEIGHT BOOKSHELVES (N) 1'-6" x 7'-0" FIXED SIDELIGHT W/ 1'-6" x 2'-0" TRANSOM (N) 1'-6" x 7'-0" FIXED SIDELIGHT W/ 1'-6" x 2'-0" TRANSOM 8' - 4 34" (E ) S T A I R D N . 9 R I S E R S EXISTING 200 AMP ELECTRICAL METER (E) 4'-7" x 5'-7" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT W/ 4'-7" x 2'-3" TRANSOM ABOVE TO REMAIN (E ) 4 ' - 7 " x 5 ' - 8 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T W/ 4 ' - 7 " x 2 ' - 3 " TR A N S O M A B O V E TO R E M A I N (N) 1'-10" x 5'-10" DOUBLE GLAZED FIXED WINDOW W/ 1'-10" x 2'-4" TRANSOM REPLICA WINDOW (N) 1'-10" x 5'-10" DOUBLE GLAZED FIXED WINDOW W/ 1'-10" x 2'-4" TRANSOM REPLICA WINDOW 3'- 0 " 2'- 7 " 2' - 9 " 3'-0" x 8'-0" CASED OPENING 1'- 8 " 3'-0" VANTIY 1'-6" WC (15" MIN) 1'-6" WC (15" MIN) REPLACE PATIO GUARDRAILS WITH CONTEMPORARY CODE-COMPLIANT GUARDRAILS AT +42" HIGH 13'-51 4" (E) REAR PORCH 20 ' - 6 12" RE A R P O R C H 7' - 4 12" RE A R P O R C H 4" 4" 11'-512" REAR PORCH (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " FL U S H D O O R 17'-514" REAR PORCH 4'-0" PORCH ADDITION 23 ' - 5 34" (E ) R E A R P O R C H 13 ' - 1 " PO R C H A D D I T I O N 51 SQ.FT. REAR PORCH ADDITION (N) +42" HIGH CONTEMPORARY PORCH RAILINGS AND STAIR HANDRAILS 8 RISERS (7.75" MAX.) 7 TREADS @ 11" (10" MIN.) (N) PORCH FLOOR TO BE FLUSH WITH DOOR THRESHOLD 1'-0"712" 13 ' - 7 14" 3'- 0 " LA N D I N G 1 A7.0 1 A7.0 3 A7.1 3 A7.1 2 A7.0 2 A7.0 (N) CODE COMPLIANT STAIR RAILINGS HOSE BIBB HOSE BIBB HOSE BIBB HOSE BIBB HOSE BIBB 5' - 0 " AC C E S S D O O R S AB O V E (E) UNDERFLOOR STORAGE CLOSET (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 5 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T EX A C T R E P L I C A (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 5 ' - 0 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FA C T O R Y F I X E D DI V I D E D L I G H T PE R W G W R E Q U I R E M E N T EX A C T R E P L I C A (N ) 1 ' - 8 " x 2 ' - 8 " WI T H V E N T A B O V E DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G EX A C T R E P L I C A (N ) 1 ' - 8 " x 5 ' - 1 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G EX A C T R E P L I C A 3'-1114" 16 ' - 0 " X 9 ' - 0 " NE W 4 - P A N E L R E T R A C T A B L E D O O R S Y S T E M 3'- 8 12" 3' - 8 12" NEW KITCHEN wood floor 10''-3" clg.ht. 10'-0" ISLAND 5'- 0 " IS L A N D 4' - 0 " 4'-0" 1'-0" TRASH DRAWERS 4'-0" 2'- 6 " RE F R I G E R A T O R 1'- 6 " FR E E Z E R 4'-0"GAS RANGE AND 54" HOOD 3'-0"DRAWERS 3'-0"BASE CABINET 44.5" GALLEY SINK 2'-0" DISHWASHER 2 3'-0"DRAWERS3'-6"BASE CABINET 2'- 9 34" FILL IN (E) WINDOW PR E P SI N K 8'-10"7'-212"16'-4" (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 5 ' - 6 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T @ 9 ' - 0 " H E A D E R (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 5 ' - 6 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T @ 9 ' - 0 " H E A D E R 24" DW 1'-0" TRAYS 2'- 0 " 5"PLUMBING WALL 1'- 4 " ST O R A G E 1'- 3 " KN E E SP A C E 3'- 0 " LA Z Y S U S A N 3'-612" 24 " M I C R O DR A W E R 24 " R E F . DR A W E R 2'- 0 " WIN E 2'-0" VERIFY POT FILLER (N ) 3 ' - 9 " x 7 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D D I V I D E D L I G H T WI T H 3 ' - 9 " x 1 ' - 6 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D T R A N S O M AN D 1 ' - 0 " S I D E L I G H T S WI T H 1 ' - 0 " x 1 ' - 6 " T R A N S O M S 18'-1112" EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS HOWEVER, CENTER 4'-0" ORIGINAL DOORS ARE NOW A FIXED WINDOW FOR SAFETY REASONS REPLACE PATIO GUARDRAILS WITH CONTEMPORARY CODE-COMPLIANT GUARDRAILS AT +42" HIGH A-4.1 PR O P O S E D FI R S T F L O O R P L A N MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 40 2'-0"VANITYDEPTH DEN wood floor 10'-3" ceiling ht PRIMARY BEDROOM wood floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. 17'-614" NEW DIMENSION 20 ' - 3 " 15'-114"13'-1" (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " CA S E D OP E N I N G 13'-1" 18 ' - 0 " NE W D I M E N S I O N 19 ' - 7 34" 8'-034"9' - 3 34" BEDROOM 3 carpet floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. BEDROOM 2 carpet floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. (E) 3'-0" x 8'-0" (E ) 2 ' - 8 " x 8 ' - 0 " (N ) 2 ' - 6 " x 8 ' - 0 " PO C K E T D O O R EXISTING FLAT ROOF OVER SUNROOM MAIN STAIR REMODELED BATH 3 tile floor 10'-3" clg.ht. (E) 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DESIGNATED EGRESS 5'- 2 12" 10 ' - 9 34" (E) 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG TO REMAIN (E) 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DESIGNATED EGRESS(E ) W I N D O W B O X (E ) W I N D O W B O X (E ) W I N D O W B O X (E ) 3 ' - 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G TO R E M A I N (E ) 2 ' - 6 " x 6 ' - 8 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FR E N C H D O O R (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " (N) BATH 2 tile floor 10'-3" cht. 60"x84" QUEEN BED (N) 6'-4" CLOSET NEW LAUNDRY tile floor 10'-3" cht. 72"x84" CAL KING 60"x84" QUEEN BED FU L L H E I G H T LI N E N S T O R A G E LA U N D R Y SIN K I N 36 " S I N K C A B I N E T (N) 32" x 60" SHOWER FULL HT. LINENS (N ) 4 8 " x 2 0 " x 2 0 " D GA S F I R E P L A C E (N ) B O O K S H E L V E S (N ) B O O K S H E L V E S (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " TV WALL 10'-4" 7'- 0 " VA N I T Y W I D T H 7'- 0 " VA N I T Y W I D T H 11'-6" 5'-0" ISLAND 6' - 0 " IS L A N D CLOSET ISLAND 13'-214" 14 ' - 7 14" NEW PRIMARY CLOSET wood floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. 7'- 3 14" SH O W E R (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " PO C K E T D O O R 7'- 2 12" 4'- 6 " 4'-114" NE W B U I L T - I N LI N E N C A B I N E T (E ) 2 ' - 1 0 " x 8 ' - 8 " FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 2 ' - 1 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " FI X E D T R A N S O M AM B E R G L A S S DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (E ) 2 ' - 1 0 " x 6 ' - 8 " FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 2 ' - 1 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " FI X E D T R A N S O M AM B E R G L A S S DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (E ) 2 ' - 1 0 " x 4 ' - 8 " FI X E D W I N D O W W/ 2 ' - 1 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " FI X E D T R A N S O M AM B E R G L A S S DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 58'-6" 9'-9"8'-9"3'-512"3'-512"7'-414"17'-2"8'-634" NI C H E 12'-111 4"8'-71 2"3'-41 2"3'-41 2"8'-81 4"6'-914"9'-10" (N ) 2 ' - 8 " x 8 ' - 0 " PO C K E T D O O R (N) PLAY CUBBY UNDER STAIR (N ) 2 ' - 6 " x 8 ' - 0 " PO C K E T D O O R WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW INTERIOR WALL W/ 2x6 STUDS @ 16" o.c. AND 5/8" SHEET ROCK 512" 3'-91 4" 6'- 5 1 4" 14 ' - 5 34" 3' - 2 14" 17 ' - 0 14" 3' - 2 14" 23 ' - 4 34" 74'-912" 24x48 DESK 13 ' - 0 " 6'- 9 14" 6'- 2 34" 36 ' - 4 34" 16'-312" 2'-014"9'-712"4'-734" (E ) 1 ' - 4 " x 6 ' - 8 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D S I D E L I G H T 9'-31 2" (N) VELUX #VSE-S01 VENTED DECK MOUNTED SKYLIGHT 74'-912" 36 ' - 1 1 14" 612" (E ) 3 ' - 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (E) WINDOW BOX (E) WINDOW BOX (E ) 3 ' - 9 " x 6 ' - 2 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D FI X E D / D I V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N 2'-0"VANITYDEPTH 2x 4 S T U D W A L L A N D S H E A R W A L L 6'- 4 12" 6' - 4 12" MONTIGO PRODIGY GAS FIREPLACE 3'- 3 " STAIR RAILING DR Y E R WA S H E R CO U N T E R A B O V E DRYER VENT 4'-114" 24" TEMP. GLASS DOOR (N) 6'-4" CLOSET (N ) 5 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " CL O S E T D O O R S W/ M I R R O R E D PA N E L 14 ' - 1 1 12" NE W D I M E N S I O N 2'- 1 1 " (N) BOOKS LOW CABINETRY DOORS ME D . C A B . 2'- 0 " 1'- 2 " 2'-0"BASE CAB.DEPTH. (N ) 5 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " CL O S E T D O O R S W/ M I R R O R E D PA N E L (N) 6'-0" x 8'-0" DOUBLE POCKET DOOR RAISE ALL HEADERS TO 8'-0" PRIMARY BATH 4 tile floor 10'-3" ceiling ht. 1'-4" WC(15" MIN)1'-5" WC(15" MIN) 1'- 6 " W C (1 5 " M I N ) 1'- 6 " W C (1 5 " M I N ) 3'- 0 " VA N I T Y 2'- 8 " TU B 5'-0" (N) 32" x 60" TUB SHOWER s 34" VANITY 4'- 1 0 " AP P L I A N C E S 4'- 9 14" 39 " U P P E R 39 " U P P E R (N) +42" HIGH CONTEMPORARY GUARDRAIL TO MATCH PORCH RAILINGS SO U N D W A L L 1 A7.0 1 A7.0 3 A7.1 3 A7.1 2 A7.0 2 A7.0 1'- 0 " 1'- 0 " (N) CODE COMPLIANT STAIR RAILINGS 24 " T E M P . GL A S S D O O R 2'- 8 " A A7.1 4'- 0 " F I R E P L A C E (E ) 3 ' - 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (E) 3'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN (N ) 1 ' - 7 " x 5 ' - 6 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T EX A C T R E P L I C A (N ) 1 ' - 7 " x 5 ' - 6 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T EX A C T R E P L I C A (E) WINDOW BOX (N ) 1 ' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T EX A C T R E P L I C A (N ) 1 ' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T E X A C T R E P L I C A 3'-113 4"4'-2" (E ) 2 ' - 1 1 " x 5 ' - 5 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (E ) 2 ' - 1 1 " x 5 ' - 4 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D DO U B L E H U N G DI V I D E D L I G H T TO R E M A I N (E) 2'-11" x 5'-5" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN (E) 2'-11" x 5'-4" DOUBLE GLAZED DOUBLE HUNG DIVIDED LIGHT TO REMAIN (N ) 1 ' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T E X A C T R E P L I C A (N ) 1 ' - 8 " x 3 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T E X A C T R E P L I C A (N ) 1 ' - 8 " x 4 ' - 0 " DO U B L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T EX A C T R E P L I C A 4'-0" SHOWER 6'-6" (N ) 3 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " 3'-0"3'-6" 3'-9"1'-7"912"1'-7"912"3'-11" 3'- 1 1 " 3'- 1 1 " 3'- 1 1 " 3'-11" 3'- 1 1 " 3'-11"6'-112" FILL IN (E) NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS (TYPICAL OF 2) 4'-6" x 8'-0" (N) CASED OPENING 3'-8" MAKE-UP 33 . 5 " x 6 6 " FR E E S T A N D I N G SO A K I N G T U B WALL MOUNTED TOTO TOILET 2'- 1 1 " 2'- 1 1 " 2'-11"2'-11" A-4.2 PR O P O S E D SE C O N D F L O O R P L A N MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 41 PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1'-10" x 5'-9" STAIR DOWN TO FAMILY ROOM (N ) 3 ' - 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T (N ) 3 ' - 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T (N ) 3 ' - 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T (N ) 3 ' - 5 " W I D E TR I A N G U L A R DO U B L E C A S E M E N T 19 ' - 9 " 37 ' - 0 " 58'-534" EXISTING SKYLIGHT 4'-7" PLATE HEIGHT 2'-6" x 6'-8" POCKET DOOR 4'-10.5" PLATE HEIGHT CA B I N E T EXISTING SKYLIGHT (E) SHOWER STORAGE CUBBY SUB PANEL 32'-512" 24 " R E F . DR A W E R S ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS 1'- 1 0 " x 4 ' - 0 " SI N G L E G L A Z E D CA S E M E N T DI V I D E D L I G H T INTERNET TECH EQUIPMENT LOCATION (VERIFY WITH CONSULTANTS) 19 ' - 9 " REMODELED BATH 5 tile floor 8'-0" clg.ht. WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW INTERIOR WALL W/ 2x6 STUDS @ 16" o.c. AND 5/8" SHEET ROCK 512" REC. ROOM carpet floor 8'-0" clg.ht. 11 ' - 6 " FL A T C E I L I N G 8'-1134" 2'-612"3'-1012"2'-634" 8'-1134" 2'-612"3'-101 2"2'-634" VA U L T E D CE I L I N G (E) CLOSET DUCT FROM FIREPLACE BELOW 11 ' - 0 " NE W W E T B A R C A B I N E T R Y 18 " TR A S H 30 " DR W R S 24 " DR W R S (N ) 5 ' - 0 " x 3 ' - 0 " AC C E S S D O O R (N) STORAGE CUBBY 1 A7.0 1 A7.0 3 A7.1 3 A7.1 2 A7.0 2 A7.0 VA U L T E D CE I L I N G VA U L T E D CE I L I N G VAULTED CEILING (E ) A C C E S S DO O R (N) +42" OPEN RAILINGS A-4.3 PR O P O S E D TH I R D F L O O R P L A N PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 42 (N) VELUX #VSE-S01 VENTED DECK MOUNTED SKYLIGHT (E) 8:12 ROOF SLOPE (E) 8:12 ROOF SLOPE (E ) 8 : 1 2 RO O F S L O P E (E) CURB MOUNTED SKYLIGHTS TO REMAIN (E ) 8 : 1 2 RO O F S L O P E (E ) 8 : 1 2 RO O F S L O P E (E ) 8 : 1 2 RO O F S L O P E (E) 8:12 ROOF SLOPE (E) MASONRY AND STUCCO CHIMNEY (E ) F L A T RO O F S L O P E EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN 1 A7.0 1 A7.0 3 A7.1 3 A7.1 2 A7.0 2 A7.0 REPAIR ROOF AS NEEDED AT CHIMNEY FLUE REMOVAL (E) MASONRY AND STUCCO CHIMNEY A-5.0 PR O P O S E D RO O F P L A N PROPOSED ROOF PLAN scale: 1/4"-1'-0" MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 43 567 10 ' - 3 " FI R S T F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 1'- 2 12" 10 ' - 3 " SE C O N F F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 9'- 1 " FI R S T F L O O R HE A D E R H E I G H T 6' - 8 " SE C O N D F L O O R HE A D E R H E I G H T WINDOW BOX (E) 5'-4" x 6'-8" SINGLE GLAZED PAINT GRADE WOOD NON-HISTORIC FRENCH DOORS TO FRONT PORCH ENCLOSURE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH NEW FRONT DOOR AND SIDELIGHTS IDENTIFIED CDF: DECORATIVE CORNICE WITH DENTILS AND MODILLIONS AT THE EAVES IDENTIFIED CDF: MULIT-LITE WOOD FIXED AND DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS IN WOOD FRAMES IDENTIFIED CDF: WINDOW BOX PLANTERS WITH DECORATIVE CORBELS IDENTIFIED CDF: ENTRY PORTICO FRAMED BY SHAPED JAM-SHAFT PILASTERS WITH MOLDED BASES IDENTIFIED CDF: WOOD VENTS AT GROUND LEVEL WITH DECORATIVE METAL GRILLE (E) ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS 3'-11" 5'- 5 " 4'-7" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " 4'-7" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " WINDOW BOX 3'-11" 5'- 5 " WINDOW BOX 3'-11" 5'- 5 " 567 10 ' - 3 " FI R S T F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 1'- 2 12" 10 ' - 3 " SE C O N F F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 9'- 1 " FI R S T F L O O R HE A D E R H E I G H T 6'- 8 " SE C O N D F L O O R HE A D E R H E I G H T 3'-6" 7'- 0 " (E)(E)(E) (E)(E) REPLACE (E) NON-HISTORIC ENTRY DOOR TO FRONT PORCH ENCLOSURE WITH (N) GLASS DOOR, SIDELIGHTS AND TRANSOM WINDOWS (E) SIDE FACING ATTIC DORMERS (E) GRADE 8'-0" SIDE SETBACK 8'-0" SIDE SETBACK PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K L I N E 10 ' - 0 " r ' $ < / , * + 7 3 / $ 1 ( PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K L I N E WINDOW/DOOR LEGEND (E) = EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN (R) = REPLACE WITH EXACT REPLICA WINDOW (N) = NEW WINDOW (N) 4'-7" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " 4'-7" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " WINDOW BOX 3'-11" 5'- 5 " WINDOW BOX 3'-11" 5'- 5 " WINDOW BOX 3'-11" 5'- 5 " 2' - 0 " 3'-6"1'-6"1'-6" 6'-10" 8'-4" OVERALL WIDTH 312" 7' - 0 " 3'-6" 7' - 0 " 2" 3'-6"1'-6"1'-6" TRANSOM WINDOWS ABOVE NEW GLASS FRONT DOOR AND SIDELIGHTS 10 ' - 2 2" OV E R A L L H E I G H T DOOR BELL RING OR CALL BOX (ON PERPENDICULAR WALL) A-6.0 FR O N T EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION REFERENCE PHOTOGRAPH A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 FRONT DOOR INSET scale: 1/2"-1'-0" CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES: Two-Story, Generally rectangular Massing Colonial Revival Style Stucco Cladding Flat-Top Hipped Roof Two Brick Chimneys Decorative Cornice with Dentils and Modillions at the Eaves Exposed Decorative Joists and Roof Detailing at Enclosed East Corner Porch (Rear Left Sun porch) Original Fenistration, Including: Multi-lite Wood Fixed and Double Hung Windows in Wood Frames Window arrangements at enclosed East Corner Porch Mulit-Lite Casement Window Arrancement ad Center Southeast Facade Amber Glass Stair Windows at Northwest Facade Window Box Planters with Decorative Corbels Wood Vents at Ground Level around the House Entry Portico Framed by Shaped Jam-Shaft Pilasters with Molded Bases ONLY ALTERATION TO THE FRONT FACADE IS TO REPLACE THE NON- HISTORIC ENTRY DOORS IN THE PORCH INSET WALL ONLY ALTERATION TO THE FRONT FACADE IS TO REPLACE THE NON- HISTORIC ENTRY DOORS IN THE PORCH INSET WALL 2.c Packet Pg. 44 EXISTING GAS METER 10 ' - 5 1 2" 4'- 3 12" (E) NON-HISTORIC ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS 10 ' - 3 " 11 ' - 5 12" LOCATION OF INTERIOR WALL WITH FRONT DOOR WINDOW BOX IDENTIFIED CDF: AMBER GLASS STAIR WINDOWS IDENTIFIED CDF: ENTRY PORTICO FRAMED BY SHAPED JAM-SHAFT PILASTERS WITH MOLDED BASES REMOVE THIS BASEMENT WINDOW TO ALLOW FOR REQUIRED SHEARWALL HERE REMOVE THIS BASEMENT WINDOW TO ALLOW FOR REQUIRED SHEARWALL HERE REMOVE RAILINGS AND PARAPET WALLS REMOVE (E) NON-HISTORIC LEADED GLASS WINDOW REPLACE WITH EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS REPLACE WITH EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS 3'-0" 5'- 0 " 5'- 5 " 2'-11" 5'- 5 " 3'-11" 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 2'-11" 5'- 5 " 3'-0" 5'- 0 " 6'- 1 0 " 1'-8" 5'- 1 " 1'-8" 5'- 1 " 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 1'-8" 3'- 0 " REPLACE SINGLE GLAZED WITH REPLICA WINDOW EXISTING GAS METER 6'-7" EXISTING PORCH OPENING 6'-7" EXISTING PORCH OPENING LOCATION OF INTERIOR WALL WITH FRONT DOOR (N) (N)(N)(N) (N) SKYLIGHT IN PRIMARY BATH (E) WINDOW BOX (E) (E) (E) REQUIRED NEWSHEARWALL REQUIRED NEW SHEARWALL REQUIRED NEWSHEARWALL REQUIRED NEW SHEARWALL FILL IN (E) WINDOWS (N) (N) DRYER VENT (LOCATE 36" MIN AWAY FROM ANY WALL OPENING) DOOR BELL RING OR CALL BOX 11'-414" EXISTING REAR PORCH 3' - 6 " (N) +42" HIGH CONTEMPORARY PORCH RAILINGS AND STAIR HANDRAILS HOSE BIBB HOSE BIBB RAISE HEIGHT OF PATIO FLOOR TO BE FLUSH WITH INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR (E) GRADE (R)(R) (E)(E) (R)(R)(R) (R) (R) (R) (E) ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS THESE WINDOWS NEED TO BE FACTORY FIXED PER GAS METER ADJACENT WGW REQUIREMENTS (N) (3) EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS (R) WINDOW/DOOR LEGEND (E) = EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN (R) = REPLACE WITH EXACT REPLICA WINDOW (N) = NEW WINDOW (3) EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS 5'- 5 " 3'-11" 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 3'-0" 5'- 0 " 3'-0" 5'- 0 " 6'- 1 0 " 1'-8" 5'- 1 " 1'-8"1'-8" 5'- 1 " 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 1'-8" 3'- 0 " 3'- 0 " 2'- 3 " 3'-0" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " 3'-0" 5'- 7 " 5'- 5 " 2'-11"2'-11" 5'- 5 " (2) EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS EXACT REPLICA WINDOW A-6.1 D R I V E W A Y S I D E NO R T H W E S T EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 EXISTING INTERIOR SIDE (NORTH WEST) ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" PROPOSED INTERIOR SIDE (NORTH WEST) ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" 2.c Packet Pg. 45 9'- 0 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 6' - 8 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 10 ' - 3 " FI R S T F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 1' - 2 12" 10 ' - 3 " SE C O N F F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T (E) ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS 16'-0" NEW 4-PANEL RETRACTABLE DOOR SYSTEM (N) +42" HIGH CONTEMPORARY PORCH RAILINGS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY OF EXTERIOR FACADE (N) 9'- 0 " (N) SKYLIGHT IN PRIMARY BATH (E) SINGLE GLAZED WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED WITH DOUBLE GLAZED REPLICA WINDOWS WITH NEW ENTRY DOOR TO ACCESS KITCHEN FILL IN (E) WINDOW OPENINGS WITH (N) EXTERIOR STUCCO CLADDING (TYPICAL) (N) WIDER STAIRWAY HOSE BIBB RAISE HEIGHT OF PATIO FLOOR TO BE FLUSH WITH INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR (E) GRADE (E)(E)(E) FILL IN EXISTING WINDOWS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE NEW DOOR (N) 2'-11" 5'- 5 " 2'-11" 5'- 5 " 3'-11" 5'- 5 " (N) +42" HIGH CONTEMPORARY PORCH RAILINGS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY OF EXTERIOR FACADE 714" 8'-0" 9'- 0 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 6' - 8 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 10 ' - 3 " FI R S T F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 1'- 2 12" 10 ' - 3 " SE C O N F F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T (E) ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS IDENTIFIED CDF: EXPOSED DECORATIVE JOISTS AND ROOF DETAILING AT ENCLOSED EAST CORNER PORCH IDENTIFIED CDF: WINDOW ARRANGEMENT AT ENCLOSED EAST CORNER PORCH REMOVE RAILINGS AND PARAPET WALLS (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY OF REAR ELEVATION REMOVE (E) LIGHT REMOVE (E) STAIRS REMOVE (2) NON-HISTORIC WINDOWS REMOVE (E) DOOR AND WINDOWS 3'-0" 5'- 0 " 1'-6" 3'- 0 " 3'-11" 5'- 5 " REMOVE (E) SINGLE GLAZED WINDOWS AND REPLACE WITH REPLICA WINDOWS AND REMOVE CENTER WINDOW FOR NEW DOOR 512" (E)(E) 2'-11" 5'- 5 " 2'-11" 5'- 5 " 3'-0" 5'- 0 " A-6.2 RE A R EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: EXISTING REAR ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 REAR ELEVATION REFERENCE PHOTOGRAPH PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" 2.c Packet Pg. 46 4'- 3 12" 812" (E) 200 AMP ELECTRICAL METER AND MAIN PANEL 9' - 0 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 6'- 8 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 10 ' - 3 " FI R S T F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 1' - 2 12" 10 ' - 3 " SE C O N F F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T REMOVE FLUE PIPE (E) AC COMPRESSOR WINDOW BOX IDENTIFIED CDF: MULTI-LITE CASEMENT WINDOW ARRANGEMENT AT CENTER SOUTHEAST FACADE WINDOW BOX IDENTIFIED CDF: WINDOW ARRANGEMENT AT ENCLOSED EAST CORNER PORCH IDENTIFIED CDF: EXPOSED DECORATIVE JOISTS AND ROOF DETAILING AT ENCLOSED EAST CORNER PORCH 13'-514" EXISTING REAR PORCH REMOVE REAR DECK RAILINGS AND PARAPET WALLS REPLACE (E) LIGHT (R) = REMOVED 10'-111 2" EXISTING REAR PORCH AND STAIR (BEYOND) (E) NON-HISTORIC ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS REPLACE SINGLE GLAZED WITH REPLICA WINDOW 3'-11" 5'- 5 " 1'-8" 4'- 0 " 4'-7" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " 3'-9" 7'- 0 " 1'- 6 " (R)(R) 3'-9"1'-7"912"1'-7"912" 5'- 6 " 6'- 2 " 3'-11" 5'- 5 " 4'-7" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " REMOVE (E) WINDOW (E) ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS 4'- 3 12" 812" (E) 200 AMP ELECTRICAL METER AND MAIN PANEL 9' - 0 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 6'- 8 " DO O R W I N D O W H E A D E R 10 ' - 3 " FI R S T F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T 1' - 2 1 2" 10 ' - 3 " SE C O N F F L O O R C E I L I N G H E I G H T (E) AC COMPRESSOR (N) SKYLIGHT IN PRIMARY BATH 4'-0" EXTEND REAR PORCH 13'-514" EXISTING REAR PORCH (E) CRAWLSPACE ACCESS (E) WINDOW BOX (E) (E) SINGLE GLAZED WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED WITH DOUBLE GLAZED EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS 3'- 6 " (N) +42" HIGH CONTEMPORARY PORCH RAILINGS AND STAIR HANDRAILS (N) +42" HIGH CONTEMPORARY GUARDRAIL TO MATCH PORCH RAILINGS HOSE BIBB RAISE HEIGHT OF PATIO FLOOR TO BE FLUSH WITH INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR (E) GRADE EXACT REPLICA WINDOW EXACT REPLICA WINDOWS (E) (E) ATTIC DORMER AND WINDOWS (R) (R)(R) (R) WINDOW/DOOR LEGEND (E) = EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN (R) = REPLACE WITH EXACT REPLICA WINDOW (N) = NEW WINDOW (N)(N) (N) HOOD EXHAUST VENT 3'- 6 " 5'- 6 " 3'-0" FILL IN EXISTING WINDOWSEXACT REPLICA WINDOWS HOWEVER, CENTER 4'-0" ORIGINAL DOORS ARE NOW A FIXED WINDOW FOR SAFETY REASONS (N) 1'-8" 4'- 0 " 3'-11" 5'- 5 " 4'-7" 5'- 7 " 2'- 3 " 3'-9" 7'- 0 " 1'- 6 " 3'-9"1'-7"912"1'-7"912" 5'- 6 " 6'- 2 " WINDOW BOX 3'-11" 5'- 5 " 3'-0" 9'- 0 " HE A D E R H E I G H T A-6.3 SO U T H E A S T S I D E EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: EXISTING INTERIOR SIDE (SOUTH EAST) ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" PROPOSED INTERIOR SIDE (SOUTH EAST) ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 2.c Packet Pg. 47 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology MEMORANDUM DATE February 4, 2022 PROJECT NUMBER 16252A.68 TO Danielle Condit, Associate Planner Danielle.Condit@CityofPaloAlto.com PROJECT 567 Hale Street SOI Compliance Analysis (Voluntary Structural Upgrade) OF City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FROM Josh Bevan, AICP Cultural Resources Planner Page & Turnbull bevan@page-turnbull.com CC Amy French, Chief Planning Official Ruth Todd, Principal, Page & Turnbull Christina Dikas, Associate Principal VIA Email REGARDING Update to Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis The City of Palo Alto has requested Page & Turnbull’s review of revised plans relating to a voluntary seismic upgrade of the residence at 567 Hale Street in Palo Alto’s Crescent Park neighborhood. On November 2, 2021, Page & Turnbull delivered a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Compliance Analysis (SOI Compliance Analysis) to the City of Palo Alto, which found that the proposed design prepared by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design did not meet SOI Rehabilitation Standards 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Page & Turnbull provided recommendations in the SOI Compliance Analysis to enable the proposed project to comply with the Standards, which would avoid a significant adverse impact to the historic resource. Page & Turnbull received an Individual Review Response Letter and a revised set of project plans titled “A Remodel for the Sun-Pao Family 567 Hale Street [Page & Turnbull Second Review],” delivered on November 30, 2021, prepared by Margaret Wimmer Residential Design (referred to hereafter as the Revised Plan Set). Per the City’s request, Page & Turnbull reviewed the Revised Plan Set to determine if the revised project design meets the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. On December 14, 2021, Page & Turnbull delivered a memorandum that confirmed that the project, as revised, complied with all 10 of the Rehabilitation Standards. 2.d Packet Pg. 48 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – SOI Compliance – Update Memorandum Page 2 of 3 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 This memorandum has been prepared to provide an analysis of proposed alterations that were not included in previously submitted and reviewed plans that relate to installation of shear walls, which as proposed, would require removal and replacement of exterior stucco, which is a character- defining feature of the residence. The proposed method of installation of shear walls for structural upgrade will be to “replace stucco to match (as needed), 3 coats minimum, over metal lath, over building paper, over structural sheathing, over existing stud framing, with new R-15 insulation,” which is noted on elevation drawing sheets. Stucco would be removed from each façade in contiguous and non-contiguous sections. Regarding installation of new stucco, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties recommends “repairing stucco by removing the damaged material and patching with new stucco that duplicates the old in strength, composition, color, and texture.”1 Page & Turnbull recommends that installation of the shear walls from the interior, rather than the exterior be considered for reasons that are outlined below. Stucco Cracking and Filling In general, stucco can be patched, but matching the new type to the historic will be important. Small cracks between the historic stucco and the new stucco are likely as the new stucco cures. Cracks would need to be filled once the stucco has cured. The existing historic stucco has a discernable texture, and a contractor in charge of construction should prepare mockups for matching the texture. Stucco matching would be based on testing of the material and the stucco’s aggregate gradation. Depth of Stucco and Façade Plane Following Shear Wall Installation The proposed plans call for at least three coats of stucco on top of the shear wall. Working from the exterior inward may result in an increased depth of the stucco that is not consistent with the historic exterior depth and appearance, which would be particularly visible at window openings and cause new and old stucco to be out of plane. Installation of shear walls from the interior would likely reduce the potential for increased stucco depth at the exterior. In some cases, installation from the exterior also manifests the deepening of door and window jambs, which would require modifications to the trim to preserve the historic relationship between the finish face of the stucco and the finish face of the exterior trim. 1 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 34. 2.d Packet Pg. 49 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto – SOI Compliance – Update Memorandum Page 3 of 3 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 If the exterior installation method is the only feasible approach, Page & Turnbull recommends carefully blending and matching the new stucco with the old; however, the nature of installation may result in a greater degree of stucco replacement – potentially full replacement – which should be considered in finalizing the project scope. SOI Standards Compliance The proposed project was previously determined to comply with all 10 of the Rehabilitation Standards prior to the review of the proposed shear wall installation and stucco replacement. In order to maintain full compliance and to avoid an impact to the building’s integrity, the following conditions should be met: • New stucco should match the old in color, texture, and depth along the façade plane • Any cracks in the stucco discovered after the new stucco cures should be repaired • Any exterior trim and detailing impacted by the installation of new stucco should modified to accommodate the increased depth, repaired, and installed in accordance with recommendations provided in the Rehabilitation Standards Details regarding the above conditions should be provided to the Palo Alto Planning and Community Development Department for review by Page & Turnbull, in order to confirm that the approach and final outcome will comply with the SOI Standards. 2.d Packet Pg. 50 3'-8" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 4'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 4'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 4'-6" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR 2'-0" SIMPSON STRONG WALL 2'-0" SIMPSON STRONG WALL 3'-9" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR 3'-9" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR 11'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR STSW SH E A R W A L L L O C A T I O N S EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: SHEAR WALL LOCATIONS FRONT ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 REMOVE EXISTING STUCCO SIDING AND INSTALL STRUCTURAL SHEAR WALLS AS REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL UPGRADE REPLACE STUCCO TO MATCH (AS NEEDED) 3 COATS MINIMUM, OVER METAL LATH OVER BUILDING PAPER OVER STRUCTURAL SHEATHING OVER EXISTING STUD FRAMING, WITH NEW R-15 INSULATION SHEAR WALL LOCATIONS REAR ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" EXTERIOR SIDING NOTES [CBC 1403.2] Exterior walls shall provide the building with a WEATHER -RESISTANT exterior wall envelope. [CBC 1404.2] [CRC-R703.2] WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER (FOR SIDING)- A minimum of One layer of No.15 Asphalt Felt, Free from holes and breaks, complying with ASTM D226 for Type 1 Felt shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exterior walls. 6XFKIHOWRUPDWHULDOVKDOOEHDSSOLHGKRUL]RQWDOO\ZLWKWKHXSSHUOD\HUODSSHGRYHUWKHORZHUOD\HUQRWOHVVWKDQÖLQFKHV:KHUH MRLQWVRFFXUIHOWVKDOOEHODSSHGQRWOHVVWKDQÖLQFKHV7KHIHOWRURWKHUDSSURYHGPDWHULDOVKDOOEHFRQWLQXRXVWRWKHWRSRIZDOOV and terminated at penetrations and building appendages in a manner to meet the requirements of the exterior wall envelope. [CBC 1405.4] FLASHING shall be installed to prevent moisture from entering the wall or to redirect that moisture to the exterior. Flashing shall be installed at the perimeters of exterior door and window assemblies, penetration and terminations of wall assemblies, intersections with roofs, chimneys, porches, decks, balconies et. EXTERIOR STUCCO NOTES [CRC-R703.7.1] ALL LATH and Lath attachments shall be of corrosion-resistant materials. Expanded metal or woven wire lath shall be attached with 1-1/2" inch-long nails, spaced at no more than 6 inches. [CBC 2512.1] [CRC-R703.7.2] EXTERIOR STUCCO - Plastering with portland cement plaster shall be not less than three coats where applied over metal lath or wire lath and shall be not less than two coats where applied over masonry, concrete, pressure-preservative treated wood or decay-resistant wood as specified in Section R317.1 or gypsum backing. If the plaster surface is completely covered by veneer or other facing material or is completely concealed, plaster application need be only two coats, provided the total thickness is as set forth in Table R702.1(1). On wood-frame construction with an on-grade floor slab system, exterior plaster shall be applied to cover, but not extend below, lath, paper and screed. [CBC 2512.1.2] [CRC-R703.7.2.1] WEEP SCREEDS - A minimum 26 gage corrosion-resistant weep screed or plastic weep screed, ZLWKDPLQLPXPYHUWLFDODWWDFKPHQWIODQJHRIÖLQFKHVVKDOOEHSURYLGHGDWRUEHORZWKHIRXQGDWLRQSODWHOLQHRQH[WHULRUVWXG ZDOOV7KHZHHSVFUHHGVKDOOEHSODFHGDPLQLPXPRIÖLQFKHVDERYHWKHHDUWKRUÖLQFKHVDERYHSDYHGDUHDVDQGVKDOOEHRID type that will allow trapped water to drain to the exterior of the building. On wood-frame construction with an on-grade floor slab system, exterior plaster shall be applied to cover, but not extend below, lath, paper and screed. The weather-resistant barrier shall lap the attachment flange. The exterior lath shall cover and terminate on the attachment flange of the weep screed. [CRC-R703.2] WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER - One layer of No. 15 asphalt felt, free from holes and breaks, complying with ASTM D226 for Type 1 felt or other approved water-resistive barrier shall be applied over studs or sheathing of all exterior walls. Such felt RUPDWHULDOVKDOOEHDSSOLHGKRUL]RQWDOO\ZLWKWKHXSSHUOD\HUODSSHGRYHUWKHORZHUOD\HUQRWOHVVWKDQÖLQFKHV:KHUHMRLQWVRFFXU IHOWVKDOOEHODSSHGQRWOHVVWKDQÖLQFKHV7KHIHOWRURWKHUDSSURYHGPDWHULDOVKDOOEHFRQWLQXRXVWRWKHWRSRIZDOOVDQGWHUPLQDWHG at penetrations and building appendages in a manner to meet the requirements of the exterior wall envelope as described in Section R703.1. The water-resistive barrier is not required for detached accessory buildings. [CRC-R703.4] FLASHING - Approved corrosion-resistant flashing shall be applied shingle-fashion in a manner to prevent entry of water into the wall cavity or penetration of water to the building structural framing components. Self-adhered membranes used as flashing shall comply with AAMA 711. Fluid-applied membranes used as flashing in exterior walls shall comply with AAMA 714. The flashing shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish. Approved corrosion-resistant flashings shall be installed at the following locations: 1.Exterior window and door openings. 2.At the intersection of chimneys or other masonry construction with frame or stucco walls, with projecting lips on both sides under stucco copings. 3.Under and at the ends of masonry, wood or metal copings and sills. 4.Continuously above all projecting wood trim. 5.Where exterior porches, decks or stairs attach to a wall or floor assembly of wood-frame construction. 6.At wall and roof intersections. 7.At built-in gutters. REMOVE EXISTING STUCCO SIDING AND INSTALL STRUCTURAL SHEAR WALLS AS REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL UPGRADE REPLACE STUCCO TO MATCH (AS NEEDED) 3 COATS MINIMUM, OVER METAL LATH OVER BUILDING PAPER OVER STRUCTURAL SHEATHING OVER EXISTING STUD FRAMING, WITH NEW R-15 INSULATION 2.e Packet Pg. 51 10'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 7'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 8'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 5'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 2'-6" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 4'-6" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR 5'-6" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR 5'-6" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 5'-9" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 5'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL 2'-0" SIMPSON STRONG WALL 2'-0" SIMPSON STRONG WALL 3'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR 6'-6" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL AT SECOND FLOOR4'-0" STRUCTURAL SHEARWALL STSW SH E A R W A L L L O C A T I O N S EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S MW 9/30/2021 AS SHOWN Sheet No. Scale: Date: Drawn By: REVISIONS no.date: A R e m o d e l F o r T h e : SU N ~ P A O F A M I L Y 56 7 H A L E S T R E E T PA L O A L T O , C A 9 4 3 0 1 SHEARWALL LOCATIONS INTERIOR SIDE (SOUTH EAST) ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" SHEARWALL LOCATIONS DRIVEA SIDE (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION scale: 1/4"-1'-0" REMOVE EXISTING STUCCO SIDING AND INSTALL STRUCTURAL SHEAR WALLS AS REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL UPGRADE REPLACE STUCCO TO MATCH (AS NEEDED) 3 COATS MINIMUM, OVER METAL LATH OVER BUILDING PAPER OVER STRUCTURAL SHEATHING OVER EXISTING STUD FRAMING, WITH NEW R-15 INSULATION REMOVE EXISTING STUCCO SIDING AND INSTALL STRUCTURAL SHEAR WALLS AS REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL UPGRADE REPLACE STUCCO TO MATCH (AS NEEDED) 3 COATS MINIMUM, OVER METAL LATH OVER BUILDING PAPER OVER STRUCTURAL SHEATHING OVER EXISTING STUD FRAMING, WITH NEW R-15 INSULATION 2.e Packet Pg. 52 A 521343.1 4.2 B NOTE: ALL EXISTING STRUCTURAL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS IS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. ENGINEER IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. FOR PLAN NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET S1.3 Project Title: A Remodel For The: Sun~Pao Family Project Address: Stamp: 567 Hale Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Revisions: BKG Project No.: 21136 Scale: AS NOTED Drawn By: ECE / TG Issue Date: 09/30/21 Sheet Title: No.Date Description a California corporation 1600 El Camino Real, Unit C San Carlos, CA 94070 650.489.9224 Basement Plan S2.0BASEMENT PLAN SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 4x4 HDU5 4x4HDU5 4x 4 HD U 5 2 10'-6" 2 8'-6" 4x 4 HD U 5 4x4 HDU5 4x8 PO S T 6x 6 POS T 6x 6 PO S T 2 17'-6" 4x 4 HD U 5 4x4 HDU5 4x 4 HD U 4 30" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG (F7), SEE SECT 24" SQ. PAD FTG (F8) 24" SQ. PAD FTG (F9), SEE SECT TYP 24" x 18" PAD FTG 36" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG (F1), SEE SECT TYP 6x6 H D U 2 PROVIDE SHEARWALL SHEATHING AT CRIPPLE WALLS AT GRIDLINE B w/ 2" EN & PROVIDE ANCHOR BOLTS @ 24"oc TYP 6x6 HDU11 6x 6 HDU 1 1 4x10 4x10 6x6 24" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG 4x4 HDU 2 4x4 6 x 6 6x 6 HD U 1 1 4x 6 HDU 5 24" SQ. PAD FTG 4x4 HDU2 24" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG 24" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG (E) RETAINING WALL ALONG GRIDLINE B, VIF 30" SQ PAD FTG 4x4 HDU 2 PROVIDE VENT HOLES AT (E) INTERIOR SHEAR PLYWOOD @ EXTERIOR WALLS FOR EACH JOIST BAY TYP (E) 4" SLAB O N G R A D E T Y P (E) 4" SLAB O N G R A D E T Y P EPOXY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR HOLDOWNS AT EXISTING FOUNDATION, SEE TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS ON SHEET S1.0 FOR OPTIONS (E) 12" MIN WIDE x 16" MIN DEEP SPREAD FTG TYP., VIF PROVIDE ANCHOR BOLTS PER SWS TYP @ NEW SHEARWALLS @ EXISTING FOOTINGS PROVIDE PIT AS REQ'D FOR SUMP PUMP, SEE DETAIL 4x 4 HDU 2 3 S3.0 2 S3.0 16" WIDE CONT. FTG TYP. @ INTERIOR, SEE DETAIL 1 S3.0 4 S3.0 6x8 HDU 1 1 4x8 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. PH: 650.591.5224 EARTHWORK, FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION, SUBSLAB DRAINAGE, SLAB SUBGRADE AND NON-EXPANSIVE FILL PREPARATION, UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL, AND SITE DRAINAGE SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC., DATED JULY 27, 2021. ROMIG ENGINEERS SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL OBSERVE AND TEST DURING EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. Date Signed: 09.29.21 2.e Packet Pg. 53 A 521343.1 4.2 B NOTE: ALL EXISTING STRUCTURAL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS IS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. ENGINEER IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. FOR PLAN NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET S1.3 Project Title: A Remodel For The: Sun~Pao Family Project Address: Stamp: 567 Hale Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Revisions: BKG Project No.: 21136 Scale: AS NOTED Drawn By: ECE / TG Issue Date: 09/30/21 Sheet Title: No.Date Description a California corporation 1600 El Camino Real, Unit C San Carlos, CA 94070 650.489.9224 Foundation / First Floor Framing Plan S2.1FOUNDATION / FIRST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 6 GI R D E R (E ) 6 x 6 GI R D E R ( E ) 6 x 6 G I R D E R ( E ) 6 x 6 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 2 x 8 F L O O R JO I S T S @ 1 6 " o c , V I F (E) 1x HORIZONTAL SHEATHING, VIF, TYP, UNO (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E) DOUBLE 2x8 JOIST (E) DOUBLE 2x8 JOIST (E ) D O U B L E 2x 8 J O I S T (E ) D O U B L E 2x 8 J O I S T (E) DOUBLE 2x8 JOIST (E) DOUBLE 2x8 JOIST (E) DOUBLE 2x8 JOIST (E) DOUBLE 2x8 JOIST (E ) D O U B L E 2x 8 J O I S T (E) 2x4 STUDS @ 16" oc, VIF (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R (E ) 6 x 8 G I R D E R 2x8 FLOOR JOISTS @ 16" oc (E ) ( 2 ) 2 x 1 0 D E C K JO I S T S @ 1 6 " o c , V I F W10x54 (B9) 3 17'-6" 3 14'-6" 3 8'-6" 3 12'-6" (E) ENTRY STAIRS TO REMAIN 2 5'-6" 4x6 HDU 5 4 x 4 H D U 5 4x4 HDU 8 4 x 4 H D U 8 4x4 HDU 5 4 x 4 H D U 2 4x4 HDU 4 4x4 HDU 4 6 x 6 H D U 1 1 4 x 4 H D U 4 6x6 (2)H D U 4 4x4 HDU 4 2 10'-0" ST 2 7'-0" 2 8'-0" 2 5'-0" 2 2'-6" 6 x 6 ( 2 ) H D U 4 STST 6x6 HDU 8 6 x 6 H D U 8 6 x 6 H D U 1 1 4x4 HDU 4 4 x 4 H D U 2 4 x 4 P O S T 4 x 4 P O S T 4 x 4 P O S T PSL 7 x 7 (B10) 4x4 POS T 4 x 4 P O S T 6x6 POS T 4 x 4 P O S T 4x4 POS T 4 x 4 H D U 4 4x4 HDU 4 4 x 4 H D U 4 4x4 HDU 2 4x4 HDU 4 4 x 4 H D U 2 6 x 6 P O S T 6 x 6 H D U 2 6x6 HDU 2 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE WSWH24 STRONG WALL, TRIMMED TO FIT 4'-2" 6'-0" SIMPSON STRONG-TIE WSWH24 STRONG WALL, TRIMMED TO FIT 4'-2" 6'-0" SIMPSON STRONG-TIE WSWH24 STRONG WALL, TRIMMED TO FIT SEE SECT. TYP @ WSWH 9 S3.0 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE WSWH18 STRONG WALL, TRIMMED TO FIT 4'-2" 6'-0" 4'-9" 3'-8" SI S T E R ( E ) 2 x 8 F L O O R JO I S T S w / ( N ) 2 x 8 ( J 1 ) FL O O R J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c 6 x 6 B C 6 0 P O S T B A S E w / M S T 4 8 S T R A P , H D U 4 @ F O U N D A T I O N (E) 12" MIN WIDE x 16" MIN DEEP SPREAD FTG TYP., VIF 4x4 POS T 24" SQ. PAD FTG (F5), SEE DETAIL 24" SQ. PAD FTG (F6) 4x4 HDU 5 PSL 3 12 x 7 (B17) PT D F 2 x 1 0 D E C K JO I S T S @ 1 6 " o c 16" WIDE CONT. FTG TYP. @ PATIO SEE DETAIL 16" WIDE CONT. FTG TYP. @ FOYER, SEE DETAIL 4x4 HDU 8 2 6'-6" 6x6 HDU 1 1 6 x 6 H D U 1 1 2 5'-0" 6x6 HD U 1 1 4 x 4 P O S T 4 x 4 P O S T PS L 3 12 x 7 ( B 1 6 ) PSL 3 12 x 7 4 x 4 P O S T 4x4 POS T 4x4 HDU 4 6x6 6 x 6 H D U 2 4 x 4 H D U 4 SIMPSON STRONG-TIE WSWH24 STRONG WALL, TRIMMED TO FIT 4'-2" 6'-0" DOUBLE PSL 5 1 4 x 9 1 2 PARTIALLY FLUSH GIRDER w/ 58" M.B. @ 16"oc STAGG (B19) SI S T E R ( E ) 2 x 8 F L O O R JO I S T S w / ( N ) 2 x 8 ( J 1 ) FL O O R J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c CONT. PSL 7 x 7 (B20) 4x10 HEADER 24" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG 24" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG 24" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG 24" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG, SEE DETAIL TYP @ UNDERPINNINGS PROVIDE SHEARWALL SHEATHING AT CRIPPLE WALLS BELOW AT GRIDLINE A w/ 2" EN & PROVIDE ANCHOR BOLTS @ 24"oc TYP PROVIDE VENT HOLES AT (E) INTERIOR SHEAR CRIPPLE WALL PLYWOOD @ EXTERIOR WALLS FOR EACH JOIST BAY TYP TRIPLE 2x8 JOIST TRIPLE 2x8 JOIST 16' CMSTC16 TOP STRAP o/ 4x4 BLOCKING 36" SQ. UNDERPINNING FTG (F2) EPOXY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR HOLDOWNS AT EXISTING FOUNDATION, SEE TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS ON SHEET S1.0 FOR OPTIONS 10 S3.0 5 S3.0 4 S4.0 TYP @ SHEARWALL ABOVE & BELOW 5 S4.0 6 S4.0 7 S3.0 2 S4.0 TYP @ SHEARWALL BELOW 3 S4.0 TYP @ SHEARWALL ABOVE 1 S4.0 TYP @ EXTERIOR WALLS 6x6 HDU 4 FLOOR SHEATHING w/ EN TYP @ HATCHED AREAS PT 2x LEDGER w/ (2) SDS25500 SCREWS @ 8"oc INTO (E) 2x RIM 6 S3.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. PH: 650.591.5224 EARTHWORK, FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION, SUBSLAB DRAINAGE, SLAB SUBGRADE AND NON-EXPANSIVE FILL PREPARATION, UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL, AND SITE DRAINAGE SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC., DATED JULY 27, 2021. ROMIG ENGINEERS SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL OBSERVE AND TEST DURING EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. ALL TIMBER EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS TO BE PRESSURE TREATED OR SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE. ALL HARDWARE EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS TO BE SIMPSON "Z-MAX" OR APPROVED EQUAL. ALL FASTENERS EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS TO BE HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS. 8 S3.0 (E) 6x8 GIRDER (2 ) L S 7 0 DO U B L E P T 2 x ST R I N G E R S @ 1 6 " o c SIMPSON STRONG-TIE WSWH24 STRONG WALL, TRIMMED TO FIT 4'-2" 6'-0" COORDINATE DOOR TRACK DEPRESSION w/ ARCH WHERE REQUIRED, NOTIFY ENGINEER IF FLOOR SHEATHING CONFLICTS w/ TRACK Date Signed: 09.29.21 2.e Packet Pg. 54 A 521343.1 4.2 B NOTE: ALL EXISTING STRUCTURAL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS IS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. ENGINEER IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. FOR PLAN NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET S1.3 Project Title: A Remodel For The: Sun~Pao Family Project Address: Stamp: 567 Hale Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Revisions: BKG Project No.: 21136 Scale: AS NOTED Drawn By: ECE / TG Issue Date: 09/30/21 Sheet Title: No.Date Description a California corporation 1600 El Camino Real, Unit C San Carlos, CA 94070 650.489.9224 Second Floor / Low Roof Framing Plan S2.2SECOND FLOOR / LOW ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" SI S T E R ( E ) 2 x 6 J O I S T S @ 1 6 " oc w / ( N ) 2 x 6 J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c (E) 2x1 4 J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c (E) DOUBLE 2x14 JOIST SISTER LVL 1 3 4 x 11 7 8 TO (E) DOUBLE 2x14 JOIST (E ) D O U B L E 2x 1 4 J O I S T (E ) 2 x 1 4 J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c (E) 2x14 FLOOR J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c (E) BEAM, VIF (E ) 2 x 1 4 J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c (E) 2x14 JOIST S @ 16" oc (E) DOUBLE 2x14 JOIST (E ) D O U B L E 2 x 1 4 J O I S T , V I F (E) DOUBLE 2x14 JOIST (E) 2x14 w/LVL 1 3 4 x 14 REINFORCEMENT (E ) 2 x 1 4 J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c (E ) 2 x 1 4 JO I S T S @ 16 " o c PSL 3 12 x 9 12 HEADER (H16) (E) 1x HORIZONTAL SHEATHING, VIF PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 2 HEADER (H14) PSL 5 14 x 11 78 (B7) PSL 3 1 2 x 11 7 8 (B6) CONT 23'+/- PSL 5 14 x 24 HEADER / RIM BEAM (B18) 4x10 HEADER (H10) 4x8 HEADER (H9) 6 11'-0" 2 3'-9" 2 3'-9" ST 2 5'-6" 2 6'-6"2 5'-0" 4 x 4 C M S T C 1 6 4x4 CMS T C 1 6 4 x 4 C M S T C 1 6 4x4 CMS T C 1 6 2 7'-0" 2 4'-6" ST 6 8'-6" 4 8'-0" 4 10'-6" 6 19'-0" PSL 3 1 2 x 11 7 8 (B4) 2 6'-6" ST 4x4 HDU 2 w / L A G SCR E W 4x4 CMS T C 1 6 4x 4 MS T C 6 6 B 3 4x8 HDU 2 4x8 HDU 2 4x4 HDU 2 4x4 HDU 2 4x4 HDU 2 4 x 4 H D U 2 4x4 MSTC6 6 B 3 4 x 4 M S T C 6 6 B 3 6 4'-0" 6 4'-6" 4 x 4 C M S T C 1 6 4x4 (2) C M S T C 1 6 4x4 CMSTC 1 6 4x 4 CM S T C 1 6 4x4 CMS T C 1 6 4x4 CMS T C 1 6 4 x 4 C M S T C 1 6 2 6'-6" 2 3'-0" ST ST 6 x 6 P O S T 6x6 PO S T 6x6 HDU 2 6 x 6 P O S T 4x4 POS T4x8 HEADER (H11) 4x8 HEADER (H12) PSL 7 x 13 14" (B8) CONT PSL 3 12 x 11 78 (B5) 4 x 4 P O S T 4 x 4 P O S T PSL 3 12 x 11 78 (B4) HDU 2 B M TO P O S T PSL 3 12 x 9 12 HEADER (H15) (2) H8 TWIST STRAPS FROM BM TO HDR PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 2 HEADER (H17) CONTRACTOR TO VIF 1ST & 2ND FLR WALLS STACK 4x4 POS T PSL 3 12 x 9 12 HEADER (H18) PSL 3 12 x 9 12 HEADER (H19) C C T Q INFILL 2x14 FLOOR JOISTS @ 16" oc IN F I L L 2 x 1 4 F L O O R JO I S T S @ 1 6 " o c 4 x 4 P O S T 4 x 4 P O S T 4 x 4 P O S T 4x8 HEADER PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 2 (H22) 4x4 POS T PSL 3 12 x 11 78 (B4a) 4 x 4 P O S T ECC Q ECC Q HDU 2 B M TO P O S T (2) H8 TWIST STRAPS FROM BM TO HDR ECC Q E C C Q PSL 3 12 x 11 78 PSL 3 12 x 11 78 PSL 3 1 2 x 11 7 8 PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 2 MIN HEADER DO U B L E 2 x 1 4 J O I S T PSL 3 12 x 11 78 4x4 HDU 2 w / L A G SCR E W ECC Q ECC Q PSL 5 14 x 11 78 E P C Z E P C Z H G U S (E) 2x14 w/LVL 1 34 x 14 REINFORCEMENT PS L 3 1 2 x 1 1 7 8 6' CMSTC16 TOP STRAP CO L D B L 2x 1 4 J O I S T 10' CMSTC16 TOP STRAP o/ 4x4 BLOCKING 16' CMSTC16 TOP STRAP o/ 4x4 BLOCKING FLOOR SHEATHING w/ EN TYP @ HATCHED AREAS 7 S4.0 1 S4.0 TYP @ EXTERIOR WALLS 4x4 CMS T C 1 6 2 6'-6" 4x4 CMS T C 1 6 2 S4.0 TYP @ SHEARWALL BELOW 3 S4.0 TYP @ SHEARWALL ABOVE 4 S4.0 SIM, TYP @ SHEARWALL ABOVE & BELOW 8 S4.0 PSL 3 12 x 11 78 PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 2 MIN HEADER AT FLUSH HEADERS, JOISTS TO HAVE HANGERS INSTALLED Date Signed: 09.29.21 2.e Packet Pg. 55 A 521343.1 4.2 B NOTE: ALL EXISTING STRUCTURAL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS IS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. ENGINEER IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. FOR PLAN NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET S1.3 Project Title: A Remodel For The: Sun~Pao Family Project Address: Stamp: 567 Hale Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Revisions: BKG Project No.: 21136 Scale: AS NOTED Drawn By: ECE / TG Issue Date: 09/30/21 Sheet Title: No.Date Description a California corporation 1600 El Camino Real, Unit C San Carlos, CA 94070 650.489.9224 Third Floor / Low Roof Framing Plan S2.3THIRD FLOOR / LOW ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (E) 6x10 (B3) (E ) 6 x 1 0 (E ) 6 x 1 0 (E) 4x10 (E) 6x10 (E) 6x10 (E ) 4 x 1 0 (E ) 6 x 1 0 (E) 6x10 (E ) 8 x 1 0 (E ) 8 x 1 0 (E) 6x10 (E ) 2 x 1 0 J O I S T S @ 1 6 " o c (E) 2x4 JOISTS o/2x6 CEILING JOISTS (E) 2x4 JOISTS o/2x6 CEILING JOISTS, VIF (E ) 2 x 4 J O I S T S o/ 2 x 6 C E I L I N G JO I S T S (E) 4x10 (E) 4x10 (E) 4x10 (E ) 6 x 1 0 (E ) 6 x 1 0 (E) 6x10 (B1) (E) 6x10 (E ) 2 x 1 0 @ 1 6 " o c (E ) 2 x C E I L I N G JO I S T S (E) 2x10 FLOOR JOISTS @ 16" oc (E) 2x CEILING JOISTS (E) 2x CEILING JOISTS (E ) 6 x 1 0 (E) 2x CEILING JOISTS PSL 5 14 x 16 HEADER (H7) PSL 3 12 x 9 14 (B2)4x10 HEADER (H4) 4x8 HEADER (H1) 4x8 HEADER (H5) 4x8 HEADER (H2) 4x8 HEADER (H3) PSL 5 1 4 x 16 HEADER (H8) 4x8 HEADER (H20) 4x8 HEADER PSL 3 12 x 9 14 (B12) w/ 2x STUD WALL ABOVE TYP PSL 3 12 x 11 78 (B14) PSL 3 12 x 9 14 (B15) 4x8 HEADER 4x8 HEADER (H21) (E) 6x10 (B11) PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 4 (B13) PSL 3 12 x 9 14 2x CEILING JOISTS ECC Q ECC Q ECC Q E C C Q 2x 1 0 F L O O R JO I S T S @ 1 6 " o c PSL 3 12 x 9 14 HEADER PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 4 HEADER PSL 3 1 2 x 9 1 4 HEADER 4x8 HEADER 4x8 HEADER 10 S4.0 TYP @ EXTERIOR WALLS 9 S4.0 12' CMSTC16 TOP STRAP o/ 4x4 BLOCKING 12' CMSTC16 TOP STRAP o/ 4x4 BLOCKING TYP @ SHEARWALL 2 S4.0 SIM, EXTEND SHEAR PLY TO 3RD FLOOR SHEATHING TYP PSL 3 12 x 9 14 HEADER Date Signed: 09.29.21 2.e Packet Pg. 56 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology MEMORANDUM DATE August 27, 2021 PROJECT NUMBER 16252A.68 TO Danielle Condit, Associate Planner PROJECT 567 Hale Street, Palo Alto OF City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services FROM Barrett Reiter, Architectural Historian, Page & Turnbull CC Christina Dikas, Associate Principal, Page & Turnbull VIA Email REGARDING 567 Hale Street – Character-Defining Features Memorandum INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto has requested a Character-Defining Features Memorandum for the two-story residence at 567 Hale Street (formerly, 1001 Hamilton Street) in Palo Alto's Crescent Park neighborhood. The residence and a detached garagewere designed by the prominent San Francisco architecture firm Bliss and Faville and built by C.H. Lewis and H. Bruecker for Walter D. Tobey. The residence was completed in 1904 and was designed in the Classical Revival style.1 METHODOLOGY On August 13, 2021, Page & Turnbull staff conducted a site visit to document the property's existing design and features. Limited historical research at the archives of the Palo Alto Historical Association was performed to supplement previous findings. City of Palo Alto staff provided Page & Turnbull with additional information, including: • State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory form for 567 Hale Street (1978, Updated in 1984) • Building permits for 567 Hale Street (1965-2016) • Planning application materials for 567 Hale Street (1990-1995) 1 “Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory: 567 Hale Street,” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, Accessed August 9, 2021. https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invH/567Hale.html 2.f Packet Pg. 57 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 2 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 HISTORIC STATUS 567 Hale Street was listed in Palo Alto's Historic Inventory in 1979 as a Category 2 "Major Building."2 A Category 2 building is defined within the City of Palo Alto's Historic Preservation Ordinance as "any building or group of buildings of major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained."3 The period of significance for 567 Hale Street has not been previously established. As the building has been identified as significant for its architecture, its period of significance is 1904, which corresponds to the period of the building's construction. Alterations that have taken place since the building's construction are not considered significant to the building. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION The L-shaped property at 567 Hale Street contains a two-story residence and a freestanding, two- story garage, both designed in the Classical Revival style (Figure 1). A paved driveway connects the garage to Hale Street. Figure 1: Aerial photograph of 567 Hale Street, with the approximate parcel boundary shown in dashed red line. Source: Google Maps, 2021. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 2 Paula Boghosian and John Beach, “Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto,” Historic Environment Consultants, February 1979. 3 Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.49.020. 2.f Packet Pg. 58 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 3 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 MAIN RESIDENCE The residence is set back from the street with a front lawn and landscaping, including a large hedge along Hale Street. A stone-paved driveway runs along the northwest property line, and a poured concrete pathway leads to the front entrance of the residence. The building is generally rectangular, with a one-story enclosed porch at the east corner set back from the northeast façade. The primary volume is capped with a flat top hipped roof. Windowsconsist of non-original fixed and operable divided-lite windows in wood frames with molded wood sills. Typical wood windows, doors, and vents are surrounded by molded wood frames. Windows are equally spaced across the southwest (front), southeast, and northeast façades. Each façade is capped with a decorative cornice with a plain wood frieze board with dentils, molded banding, circular vents at the soffit, and modillions at the eaves. At the perimeter of the roof is an ogee gutter that creates the outermost molded edge of the cornice. PRIMARY (SOUTHWEST) FAÇADE The primary façade of 567 Hale Street is asymmetrically designed with an entry portico at the left (west) corner of the first story and a chimney shaft to the right (south) of the center. On the first floor, two full height fixed wood, nine-pane windows flank the chimney shaft (Figure 2). These windows are set in molded frames with molded sills and include three-pane, divided-lite transoms above. Below each of these windows is a wooden vent with typically molded wood frames. The second story features three typical double-hung six-over-six windows set in decorative molded frames with molded sills. Below each of these windows is a wood window box planter with decorative corbels. The primary entrance sits within the portico at the west end of the primary façade; two shaped jam- shaft pilasters with molded bases frame the opening (Figure 3). The entry is accessed by a straight stair with curved treads, bullnose treads, electric riser-mounted step lights, and two metal lion sculptures on stuccoed bases. Two wall-mounted lanterns flank the portico, which contains a pair of wood French doors. 2.f Packet Pg. 59 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 4 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 2: Primary (southwest) façade of 567 Hale Street. Looking northeast. Figure 3: Detail of entry. Looking northeast. SOUTHEAST FAÇADE The southeast façade faces a small river stone walkway along the southeast property line and is separated from the rear garden of the residence by a small metal gate (Figure 4). At the first story, there are three windows. At the south (left) and east (right) sides are two fixed wood nine-pane windows with three-pane transoms above. Below each of these windows is a typical wood vent, like those described on the primary façade. At the center of the façade, there is a large window arrangement set in a typical wood sash with wood sills and mullions. This arrangement features a pair of multi-lite wood casement windows with pair of hinged screens and a two-lite transom above. Two divided-lite, three-pane sidelights flank this central window with a single pane transom above each sidelight. The window frame includes dentil detailing at the head (Figure 5). At the second story, on the south (left) and east (right), sides of the façade are two typical double- hung divided-lite six-over-six windows set in decorative molded frames with decorated molded sills. Below each of these windows is a wooden window box planter with decorative corbels. At the center of the second story of the southeast façade, there is a 12-pane fixed wood divided-lite window with typical molded wood sills and frames. Flanking this window are two double-hung two-over-two wood windows with wood screens. Two small two-lite operable windows with screens are to the left and right of this central window arrangement. 2.f Packet Pg. 60 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 5 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 4: View down the first story of the southeast façade, showing path. Looking southwest. Figure 5: Windows at the center of southeast façade. Looking northwest. EAST CORNER OF HOUSE The southeast façade features a one-story enclosed porch at the east corner (Figure 6 & Figure 7). A flat roof covers this porch with pergola-style exposed joists that have been decoratively cut at the ends. The roof includes an ogee gutter at the perimeter with decorative nailhead banding below, and is supported by a shaped cluster column at the freestanding corner and two engaged columns against the house at the southeast façade and at the southeast of the northeast façade. Figure 6: Enclosed porch at the east corner of the house. Looking southwest. Figure 7: Enclosed porch at the east corner of the house. Looking south. The porch is enclosed on the southwest and northwest sides by full-height wood window arrangements divided by wood mullions. Each arrangement has six windows, one center six-pane wood window flanked to the left and right by two three-pane windows. Above these three windows are three transom windows; the center transom is a three-pane fixed wood window, with two single- pane casement transoms to the left and right. 2.f Packet Pg. 61 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 6 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Above the enclosed porch are a window and door. On the northeast façade of the primary volume of the house, there is a six-over-six double-hung wood window. On the southeast façade of the rear (northeast) side of the house, there is a 12-pane divided-lite wood French door. The door opens to a balconette with a molded woodrailing and densely spaced wood posts. To the upper right (northeast) of the French door is a small wall-mounted lamp. There is a gable-roof dormer at the roof level. REAR (NORTHEAST) FAÇADE The northeast façade, to the right (north) of the enclosed porch, is symmetrically designed (Figure 8). At the center of the first story, there is an eight-lite glazed wood door and screen door. This door features an eight-pane sidelight to the left (east) of the door and a single-pane transom above. This rear entryway opens onto a deck and is illuminated by a single wall-mounted lantern to the upper right (north) (Figure 9). At the first story, there are two typical four-over-four wood windows. At the center of the second story, there is a pair of operable single-pane casement windows. There are also two typical six-over-six double-hung wood windows at the left (east) and right (north) sides of the façade (Figure 10). Figure 8: View of northeast façade. Looking south. Figure 9: View of the secondary entrance at northeast façade. Looking east. The rear deck spans the entire width of the rear (northeast) façade of the house. The deck features a molded handrail and densely spaced posts between stuccoed pony walls at the corners. On-axis with the rear entrance to the house, there is a small stair into the back yard and driveway (Figure 11). 2.f Packet Pg. 62 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 7 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 10: Second story of north corner or northeast façade. Looking south. Figure 11: Oblique view of northeast façade showing northwest façade and driveway. Looking south. NORTHWEST FAÇADE The northwest façade of 567 Hale Street has a variety of fenestration. A chimney is located approximately one-quarter from the left (north) side of the façade. To the left (north) of the chimney, on the first story, there are two typical four-over-four double-hung wood windows (Figure 12). To the right (west) of the chimney is a partially glazed typical wood entry door onto the driveway. Above this door is a two-pane fixed wood window. To the right (west) area fixed two-pane window with a ventilation grille above and a two-over-two double-hung wood window (Figure 13). Further to the right (west) is a group of three large stair windows with transoms above. These windows are set in typical frames and feature wood mullions and leaded amber glass panes in a grid arrangement (Figure 14). On the right (west) side of the façade, there are two recesses framed by shaped jam- shaft pilasters with molded bases that used to be openings on the side of the primary entrance portico but have since been infilled. The left (north) recess contains a full-height leaded glass window, and the right (west) recess is blind (Figure 15). Below the first story are seven typical wood vents, three to the left (north) of the chimney, two to the right (west) of the side entry door, and two below the large stair window. 2.f Packet Pg. 63 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 8 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 12: View of northwest façade, showing the windows at the north corner. Looking south. Figure 13: View of northwest façade, showing the windows at the center of the facade. Looking south. At the second story, from left (north) to the right (west), is a nine-pane fixed wood window, a six- over-six double-hung wood window, followed by the chimney. To the right of the chimney are three two-lite casement wood windows, followed by the large stair windows described previously. To the right (west) of the stairare a small two-pane typical casement window and a six-over-six double-hung window with a wood window box planter with decorative corbels. There is a gable-roof dormer at the roof level. Figure 14: Detail of amber windows at the center of the façade. Looking southeast. Figure 15: View of windows at the west corner of the house. Looking southeast. Garage The detached garage is located in the northernmost area of the property. It is a two-story wood- framed building clad in rounded double ogee wood siding with small, rounded wood profiles at the corners. The roof is hipped with open eaves, an ogee gutter at the perimeter, and gabled dormers at 2.f Packet Pg. 64 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 9 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 the southeast side and west corners. Typical windows are wood divided-lite set in a wood sash, wood sill, and surrounded by a molded wood frame. PRIMARY (SOUTHEAST) FAÇADE The primary façade of the garage is distinguished by a wood bifold door with exposed hardware at the first story, and a French door with a small wood handrail centered on a dormer at the second story. This gable-roof dormer features an exposed ridge beam at its center and anchors the returning eaves of the primary garage roof (Figure 16). NORTHEAST FAÇADE The northeast façade has a large portion at the left (east) side of the first story façade where the siding has been replaced in-kind but does not line up with the older siding. The superior and left (east) sutures of this portion of siding have been covered with a wood plank (Figure 17). Above this area, a retractable awning is mounted to the wall. From the left (east) to the right (north), there is a partially glazed wood door and two four-over-one double-hung wood windows set in wood sashes and sills. There are two small single-pane typical fixed frame windows and a security light to the right (north) of this fenestration. At the north corner of the building, a metal gate controls access to the northwest area of the lot. Figure 16: View of southeast façade of garage, with garage door and dormer. Looking northwest. Figure 17: Oblique view of northeast façade of garage. Looking west. NORTHWEST FAÇADE The first floor of the northwest façade has a doorway in the center which has been half-covered with plywood and half covered in plexiglass attached to the exterior. In front of the doorway, there is a wood-framed stair with a wood handrailing that ascends to a deck on the second floor (). This deck is supported by two wood columns and supports a small, gabled dormer that covers a portion of the 2.f Packet Pg. 65 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 10 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 north corner of the garage (). This dormer covers the entrance to the second floor. This entrance is marked by a fully glazed wood door and includes a vinyl screen (). From the bottom of the deck at the second story to the roof, beneath the gabled dormer, the double ogee wood siding is smaller than the rest of the garage siding (Figure 22). At the left (north) side of the second story, there is a six-pane divided-lite steel window set in a typical wood sash and frame. SOUTHWEST FAÇADE At the west corner of the garage, a metal gate controls access to the northwest area of the lot. From the left (west) to the right (south), the first level of the façade has a solid wood door surrounded by an flat wood frame and protected by a shed roof with wood brackets (). Beyond the door are three equally spaced six-pane fixed wood windows. At the second story, three windows align with the first story windows (Figure 23). The left (west) window is a single pane wood casement window. The two windows to the right (south) of the single pane window are six-pane wood casement windows. Figure 18: View of northwest façade of garage . Looking southeast. Figure 19: Oblique view of northwest façade of garage, stair and gabled entry at second story. Looking south. 2.f Packet Pg. 66 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 11 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 20: Oblique view of entry at second story of garage. Looking east. Figure 21: Oblique view of covered first floor entry at the west corner of the garage. Looking north. Figure 22: Detail of gabled roof over entry at the second story of the garage. Looking southeast. Figure 23: Secondary entrance at south end of west façade. Looking east. HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT According to the Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory, the subject property at 567 Hale Street was constructed in 1904 and designed by Bliss & Faville Architects and built by C.H. Lewis and H. Bruecker. Bliss and Faville was among the most established architectural firms in San Francisco in the first quarter of the 20th Century, a period when the city largely rebuilt itself in the aftermath of 2.f Packet Pg. 67 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 12 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 the 1906 Earthquake.4 The house was built for Walter D. Tobey, a wealthy Palo Altan, who made a fortune in the Nevada lumber industry.5 The Tobey family resided in the house until 1926. From 1930 to 1935, it was the home of George McKaig, a businessman whose son William was a very active supporter and fund-raiser for community and regional activities relating to outdoor life.6 The following is a brief overview of the development and major alterations that have taken place at the subject property since its construction. • 1904 – Construction of 597 Hale Street9 • 1929 – Permit for change of use of barn to garage and shop10 • 1966 – Plot Plan for subdivision of lot11 • 1974 – Permit for roofing12 • 1990 – Permit for addition of attic dormers, new attic bathroom and stairs13 • 1993 – Permit for remodeling of kitchen14 • 1995 – Permit for new stairs and deck at rear of garage15 • 2012 – Permit for new composition shingle roof16 • 2016 – Remodel of kitchen and bathrooms17 When completed in 1904, the Tobey estate contained the residence and a barn with a stable and four servants' quarters. A pair of photographs show the barn, a grape arbor extending from the northwest side of the house, and a tankhouse which is mentioned in the text of Palo Alto Historic Resources Survey as having "details [that] were not neglected by the architects" (Figure 24 and Figure 25).18 The tankhouse's location is also confirmed in a 1946 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map 4 Information compiled from San Francisco City Directories and available at San Francisco Heritage Archives, 2007 Franklin Street, San Francisco, California 94109-2996. 5 “Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory: Toney House, 567 Hale Street.” Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. 6 Ibid. 9 Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory, “567 Hale Street,” DPR 523 A forms, 1978. 10 “Planning Applications: 567 Hale Street,” Permit 1859E, March 5, 1929, owner listed as Mary D. Buckley, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. Plans for this alteration were not available. 11 “Plot Plan: 567 Hale Street,” File# 65-LD-31, approved June 20, 1966, drawings by Paul Wilson Bosholm Architect and Planner, on file at Palo Alto Development Services 12 “Building Permits: 567 Hale Street,” Permit 6961, April 4, 1974, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. Plans for this alteration were not available. 13 “Building Permits: 567 Hale Street,” Permit 90-HIE-9, approved May 30, 1990, owner listed as Paul and Jan Anker, drawings by Thomas Whitford Design, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 14 “Building Permits: 567 Hale Street,” Permit 93-1177, approved May 11, 1993, owner listed as Brad Anker, drawings by Nomad Construction Company, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 15 “Planning Applications: 567 Hale Street,” Application 95-HRB-9, approved February 27, 1995, owner listed as Brad and Jan Anker, drawings by Elizabeth Doermann Architect, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 16 “Building Permits: 567 Hale Street,” Permit 12-1356, June 18, 2012, C.J. Roofing Company, owner listed as Debbie Shepherd, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 17 “Building Permits: 567 Hale Street,” Permit 15-3083, approved March 10, 2016, owner listed as Debbie Shepherd, drawings by Rocky Lowell Construction and Structural Design Associates, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 2.f Packet Pg. 68 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 13 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 (Figure 26). In 1929, the barn was repurposed as an automobile garage. Between 1935 and 1966, the tankhouse and grape arbor were demolished, the entry porch was enclosed, entry steps were modified, and the lot was subdivided in a manner that created an L-shaped lot at the corner of Hale Street and Hamilton Avenue. The lot was subdivided again in 1966, eliminating access to Hamilton Avenue, further increasing the density of the infill development of the block. Figure 24: A 1905 photograph of a neighbor behind her home on University Avenue with the Tobey House at 567 Hale Street visible in the background. The auxiliary building which today is the garage is clearly visible. A red arrow highlights the tank house. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 2.f Packet Pg. 69 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 14 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 25: Undated Photograph of 567 Hale Street. The auxiliary building which today is the garage is clearly visible. A red arrow highlights the tankhouse. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Edited by Page & Turnbull. In 1990, a new series of modifications were made to the property. Owners Mr. and Mrs. Anker remodeled the attic of the primary residence by adding three dormers to the roof, two on the northwest and southeast eaves and one on the primary (southwest) eave (Figure 27 and Figure 28) (The dormer over the primary façade has since been removed). In 1995, the Ankers added the steps, gabled dormer roof and deck to the rear (northwest) façade of the garage (Figure 29). A site visit, in combination with a review of older photographs (Figure 24, Figure 25, and Figure 30), determined that many of the original windows on the first floor have been retained along the primary (southwest), northwest, and rear (northeast) façades. The amber-glass stair window also appears to be original. The multi-lite casement windows at the center of the southeast façade appear to be original. The glazed façades of the enclosed porch at the east corner of the house have been retained from the original designs. The garage also has original windows on the first floor, with the exception of the northeast façade, where a section of the exterior wall was replaced, and new windows were added. 2.f Packet Pg. 70 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 15 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 26: A 1947 Sanborn Map of 567 Hale Street. Current property line is shown in dashed red line. A red arrow shows the location of the tankhouse. Source: Fire Insurance Maps Online. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 27: 1990 Site plan for 597 Hale Street. Primary façade (facing Hale Street) at left. Source: Source: drawings by Thomas Whitford Design, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 2.f Packet Pg. 71 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 16 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 28: Southwest façade of 567 Hale Street, 1990. Source: Drawings by Thomas Whitford Design, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. 2.f Packet Pg. 72 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 17 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 29: Northwest façade of garage for construction of rear stairs, 1995. Source: Drawings by Nomad Design, on file at Palo Alto Development Services. Figure 30: Undated photo of 567 Hale Street. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 2.f Packet Pg. 73 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 18 of 19 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. The character-defining features of 567 Hale Street date to its period of significance of 1904 and contribute to the Colonial Revival style of the residence and garage. The lists includes, but is not be limited to: General: • Spatial relationship of main residence to garage (former barn) Residence: • Two-story, generally rectangular massing • Colonial Revival style • Stucco cladding • Flat-top hipped roof • Two brick chimneys • Decorative cornice with dentils and modillions at the eaves • Exposed decorative joists and roof detailing at enclosed east corner porch • Original fenestration, including: o Multi-lite wood fixed and double-hung windows in wood frames o Window arrangements at enclosed east corner porch o Multi-lite casement window arrangement at center southeast facade o Amber glass stair windows at northwest façade • Window box planters with decorative corbels • Wood vents at ground level around the house • Entry portico framed by shaped jam-shaft pilasters with molded bases Garage: • Two-story, rectangular massing • Rounded double ogee wood siding • Hipped roof 2.f Packet Pg. 74 567 Hale Street, Character-Defining Features Memorandum [16252A.68] Page 19 of 19 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Original fenestration, including fixed and double-hung multi-lite wood windows set in wood sashes and sills Features that are not original to the buildings, do not date to the period of significance, and therefore are not character-defining features, include, but are not limited to: Residence: • Landscaping and driveway • Lion sculptures at entry stairs • Shaped entry stairs • Leaded glass window and blind recess at enclosed side openings to entry porch on the northwest facade • Replacement windows at second story • Dormer windows • Composition roof Garage: • Replacement windows at second story • Composition shingle roof • Stairs, deck, entry door and gabled dormer roof over west corner • Door and two windows on the northeast façade 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 architectural historians and cultural resources planners within Page & Turnbull's Cultural Resources Studio, Barrett Reiter and Christina Dikas meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History. They have 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. 2.f Packet Pg. 75 State of California -The Rnaurma A,ptcv DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO REC~EATION --:TORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY IDENTIFICATION Cat.II 1. Common name: Ser ~ ------Sita _____ Mo. _ Yr. _ c: 0 I :, UTM-------0 ____ __.NR _ SHL_ ! Lat ______ Lon _____ Ere ___ Sig_ ii Adm_ T2 _T3_ C.t_HABS_HAER_Flld~ -----------------------------------2. Historic name, if known: __ T __ o __ b __ e..,.y ____ lio ___ u __ s_,e __________________________ _ 3. Street or rural address567 Ha.le St. (1001 Hamilton, ca. 1935-1966) Citv: _ .... P ... a .. 1 ... 0,.____Al,_.t ... o.__ _________ _ ZIP: ______ County: Santa CJ ara 4. Present owner, if known:_Ch_ar_._l_e_s_a.nd __ Adr __ i_ana __ W_ynn _____ Address: Same City: _________________ ZIP: _____ Ownership is: Public □ Private [iJ 5. Present Use: _--:Re.::..11s'--id~end.t.llt~i..,al ________ Original Use: __ ___.Re.-.s-.1.,· dlll,le.,n..,.t""1.w· a .. J.._ _______ _ Other past uses: ___________ ,,_. ______________________ _ DESCRIPTION 6. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: Thi5 restrained two-story Classical. Revival house represents an early use for Palo Alto of concrete for residential purposes. 1he house is unadorned except for a few touches or careful, classically-derived ornament. The entry porch has been partially enclosed. · 7. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads. and prominent landmarks): ~ NO~,:H !:iZ3 lRew. 7/75) 8. Approximate property size: Lot size (in feet) Frontage See sketch D.,...h It 11, . .. ,,,. ____ _ or approx. acreage ___ _ 9. Condition: (check one) · a. Excellent U b. Good D c. Fair 0 d. Deteriorated D e. No longer in existence D 10. Is the feature a. Altered? [ij b. Unaltered' D 11. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) a. Open land O b. Scattered buildings 0 c. o.,sely built-up O d. Residential [!] ~. Commercial O f. Industrial O ·. g. Other 0 __ '"T"" ________ _ 12. Threats to site: a. None known U b. Private development D c. Zoning O d. Public Wonts project 0 1. Vandalism O f. Other D 1978 2.g Packet Pg. 76 567 Hale NOTE: The following (lmns 14-19).,.,, for structutW only. 14. Primary exterior building ,,:,aterial; a. Stone O b. Brick O c. Stucco O d. Adobe O e. Wood 0 f. Other [] Concrete am wocxi 15. Is the structure: a. On its original site? [] b. Mowd7 0 c. Unknown7 0 18. Year of initial construction 1904 This date is: a. Facb.MII [!] b. Estimated 0 Bliss and Faville 17. Architect (if knownl: ----------------------------------- 18. Builder (if known): ·:....--C.:....H_.;;__Le_wi..;;·;;.;s....;;a;....n_d..:.· _H.;.•_· B...;ru;..;.;.e_c;..k;..e;.;;r_...;(~O...;;ak=l;.;;.;an=d"'-) ______________ _ 19. Related features: a. Barn O b. Carriage house O c. Outhouse O d. Shed(s) 0 e. Formal garden(s) 0 f. Windmill O g. Watertower/tankhouse 0 SIGNIFICANCE h. Other □-----------i. None [!] 20. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates, events, and persons associated with the site when known): This is a technically advanced structure (concrete over outsized beama), -which was the home of a locally :important figure, Walter D. Tobey. Built at a cost of $18,000, even by t.¢ay1 s standards it is a mansion. The barn alsne had four rooms for servants in addition to the loft and stable. Behind it was a tank house whose details were not neglected by the architect. A grape arbor used to extend from one s:ide of the house an:i a large verandah for entertaining from the other. The dentil and brackets under the eaves are an appropriately strong statement for a house of such substantial character. As l-lr. Tobey had accumulated a tor- tune in the Nevada lumber business, the interior displays a large amount o! wood in unu5ual vari~ty. The living room is trimmed in white cypreee, the magnificent reception hall in redwocxi. Pilasters line the. walls. Square colwnne frrone the massive staircase, and the three leaded win:iowe on the side of the house rise the steps.· When the sun shines through the amber glass, the reception hall is radiant. The Tobeys owned the house until 1926. From 1930-1935, it, was the 21. Main theme of the h1Storic resource: (Chec:k only one): a. Ardlitecture D b. Arts & Leisure 0 c. Economic/Industrial O d. Exploration/Settlement O •· Government O f. Military 0 g. Religion O h. Social/Education 0 22. Sources: L~t books, documents, surveys, personal interviews, and their dates: P.A. City Directories; P.A. 'l'irues 12/J0/04, 1/4/05, 5/24/lJ, 1/22/26, 5/11/36, 2/20/80; ,,.Gone Tomor:row?, p. 21 (the description above, item 20, is largely quoted from this source); interview 1984, .Mrs. Charles vJynn. 23. Date form prepared: 1978, 1984 Bv (name): _H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_R_e_s_o_ur_c_e_s_B_o_ard _____________ _ Address: 250 Hyjlton Ave City Palo .k.lto. Ca 94301 ZIP: Phone: __________ _ Organization: ______________________ _ (State IJse Only) liome of George H. McKaig, a b siness man whose son, William, was a very active supporter and fund-raiser for community and regional activities relating to outdoor life: the Girl Scout , purchase of parklands by the city an::i co1mty, and the like. He served on S a Clara County conmu.ssions for Parks arxi Recre- ation and r'ish and Game. For arly JO years (1936-tt1 -early 160s) the· house was owned by .Mrs. Eary Buckle, whose husband David died in the year the fam- ily moved to it.. The present owners acquired the house in 1971. 2.g Packet Pg. 77 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 14006) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Review of HRB Annual Work Plans Title: Historic Resources Board Discussion of 2021 Work Plan Results and Review of Draft 2022 Work Plan From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide comments regarding the results of the current 2021 HRB work plan 2. Review and provide comments on the draft 2022 HRB work plan 3. Discuss the Mills Act draft tailored program with respect to the 2022 HRB work plan Background On November 30, 2020, the City Council adopted a new City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook (can be found online).1 The Handbook included the need for a Work Plan that would be approved by the City Council, as described below. • The HRB is expected to prepare an annual work plan by the 2nd quarter each calendar year • The work plan should include information on equity in the work • City Council will review the work plan and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting • The work plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan, metrics of community involvement in meetings and activities included in the commission’s work • The Handbook has a template for work plan development • If new issues arise during the year, the work plan should be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval The approved 2021-22 Work Plan, Attachment A to this report, describes ongoing activities of the HRB. The HRB is invited to provide comments on the ‘results’, the ‘equity in the work’, 1 Handbook: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/palo-alto-boards-commissions-and- committees-handbook_final_adopted_november-2020.pdf 3 Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 community involvement, and activities. Any relevant comments could be provided with the 2022-23 work plan. The draft 2022-23 Work Plan is scheduled for Council review April 18, 2022. At the HRB annual retreat January 27, 2022, the HRB reviewed proposed topics for specific HRB meetings as part of the 2021-22 work plan items. Staff considers the first three ongoing goals of the 2021-22 plan to be successful activities, and these are included in the 2022-23 plan. The 2021-22 plan identified two activities for the second half of the current plan year: (1) ‘Improve outreach, review incentives, develop work program for FY 22-23. Review and recommend improvements to outreach materials regarding the program, including incentives for rehabilitation.’ Note that March 2022 is the target meeting to discuss outreach goals, and May is “historic preservation month” - the HRB may wish to discuss possibilities for the City of Palo Alto’s participation during historic preservation month. (2) ‘Consider implementing additional historic preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan’. Note that the January retreat included discussion regarding updating the inventory with eligible resources, which is implementation of Comprehensive Plan Policy L7.1.1. Staff forwarded maps showing the Category 1-4 inventory properties and ‘deemed eligible’ properties to the HRB Chair on February 11, to assist the Inventory Update and Mapping Ad Hoc Committees. The index of those newly created maps is attached (Attachment E); the maps will assist in the implementation of Policy L7.1.1. Also attached are two maps of Inventory properties and districts existing as of 2016: • Attachment C is a map of local inventory Category 3 and 4 properties outside of the Downtown (as of 2016) • Attachment D is a map of all local inventory Category 1-4 properties and historic districts on the local inventory. The “Tailored Mills Act Program discussion” item in the 2021-22 plan was to ‘Consider reconstituting an ad hoc committee for further discussion, research, and refinement of a draft’. Note that the chair targeted February 2022 for the Mills Act discussion. The September 2021 staff report2 included the draft tailored program outline. The Ad Hoc committee members may wish to relay any recent discussion on this topic at the February 24th HRB meeting. The HRB Chair had noted two topics for discussion in May and June/July: (1) Development of New Historic Districts (for discussion in May) and (2) System to store information on lost resources (for discussion in June or July). Staff has not added these topics to the 2022-23 work program, given the policy L7.1.1 launch item, which will require attention and resources. 2 Link to September 2021 staff report with Mills Act draft program outline https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources- board/2021/hrb-9.9-retreat.pdf 3 Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Discussion The draft 2022-23 work plan includes a table reflecting the ongoing activities from the 2021-2 plan, carried over due to their ongoing nature. Row three activity (Inventory upgrades and Nominations) of the table is unchanged; it relates more to case by case, property owner- initiated category upgrades and nominations. To the first two rows and the last two rows of the table, staff added bold text to indicate revisions from year 2021-22. For the first two rows, the target timeframe is April – July 2022: • Row 1, to Review Alterations to Historic Resources, staff added a second activity: “Update Bulletin adopted in 2016 to reflect 2017 Comprehensive Plan adoption” • Row 2, to Support Implementation of Comprehensive Plan Policies, staff added: “Launch implementation of Policy L7.1.1: Contingent upon funds to assist staff with qualified consultant to package and recommend eligible resources as Inventory Category 1 and 2 resources (major and significant resources) for nominations” For the final two rows of the table, staff’s additions have timeframe noted as the second half of the plan year and third quarter of the plan year. • Row 4, to Improve Outreach and Incentives and develop 2023-24 Work Program, staff added: “Consider implementing additional historic preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan, such as Policy L7.1.2: Reassess Historic Preservation Ordinance” • Row 5, to Tailored Mills Act Program Discussion, staff replaced the statement about reconstituting a subcommittee (which occurred in 2021) with: “Finalize outreach approach and bring forward program report to City Council.” Council acceptance of this work plan would lead to a kick-off for outreach and evaluation of previously determined National and California Register eligible properties for nomination to the City’s local inventory. Given Council’s December 2021 request for additional information about resources to begin this effort, staff provided content in two reports for Council’s March 21, 2022 agenda: (1) A report regarding lot splits under state legislation, SB9, containing a request for resources to begin to implement Comprehensive Plan Policy L7.1.1, to update the City’s inventory with properties previously deemed eligible for the National and California historic registers. Staff had provided the HRB with summaries of the fall 2021 state legislation and Council’s implementation of SB9 during the October and December HRB meetings. (2) An informational report regarding the annual reports describing the City’s progress toward implementing the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element. Policies L7.2, L.7.1.1, and L7.1.2 are noted in a chart, clipped below for this HRB report. 3 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Report Author & Contact Information HRB3 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB work program 2021 (PDF) • Attachment B: HRB April 2022-23 Draft Work Plan (DOCX) • Attachment C: Category 3 and 4 Properties Outside of Downtown and Historic Districts (PDF) • Attachment D: City Inventory Category 1 - 4 and Historic Districts (PDF) • Attachment E: HRB 2022 Index Map (PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 81 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Workplan 2021-2022 Staff Liaison Name and Contact Information: Amy French, Chief Planning Official 650-329-2336 Lead Department: Planning and Development Services General Purpose and/or Purview of Board/Commission: Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties, sets the HRB’s purview as follows: (a) Render advice and guidance to a property owner upon the owner's application for alteration of any historic single- family or duplex building in the downtown area and any such building designated as significant elsewhere in the city (b) Inform the ARB of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family structures in the downtown area and any such buildings designated as significant elsewhere in the City that are under review by the ARB. Submit recommendations to the ARB regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures (c) Recommend to the council the designation of additional buildings and districts as historic. Research available information and add historical information to the inventory sheets of historic structures/sites. This inventory is maintained in the department of planning and development services (d) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the HRB by the City Council Anticipated Item/Topic Description and/or Info Quarter (July 2021 – June 2022) Review Alterations to Historic Resources Review and provide recommendations on exterior alterations to historic resources (Inventory categories 1-4) in the Downtown (including SOFA) and on exterior alterations to Significant buildings (Inventory categories 1 and 2, and in Historic Districts) outside Downtown Ongoing Support Implementation of Comprehensive Plan policies Continue to support Policy L7.2 implementation (preparation of historic evaluations to determine eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources and associated tracking) Ongoing (since 1/2018) Inventory Upgrades and nominations Review and recommend applications for Inventory category upgrades and support nominations to the City’s local inventory Ongoing Improve outreach, review incentives, develop work program for FY 22-23 Review and recommend improvements to outreach materials regarding the program, including incentives for rehabilitation. Consider implementing additional historic preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan Second half of FY 21-22 following a retreat Tailored Mills Act Program discussion Consider reconstituting an ad hoc committee for further discussion, research, and refinement of a draft; consider outreach approach for FY22-23 Ongoing 3.a Packet Pg. 82 Work Program for Historic Resources Board April 2022-March 2023 Board Name: Historic Resources Board Staff Liaison Name and Contact Information: Amy French, Chief Planning Official 650.329.2336 Lead Department: Planning and Development Services General Purpose and/or Purview of Board/Commission: General Purpose and/or Purview of Board/Commission: Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27 Historic Resources Board, Section 2.27.040 Duties, sets the HRB’s purview as follows: (a) Render advice and guidance to a property owner upon the owner's application for alteration of any historic singlefamily or duplex building in the downtown area and any such building designated as significant elsewhere in the city (b) Inform the ARB of the historical and/or architectural significance of historic commercial and multiple-family structures in the downtown area and any such buildings designated as significant elsewhere in the City that are under review by the ARB. Submit recommendations to the ARB regarding proposed exterior alterations of such historic structures (c) Recommend to the council the designation of additional buildings and districts as historic. Research available information and add historical information to the inventory sheets of historic structures/sites. This inventory is maintained in the department of planning and development services. (d) Perform such other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the HRB by the City Council. Anticipated Item/Topic Description and/or Info Quarter Review alterations to historic resources 1. Review and provide recommendations on exterior alterations to historic resources in the Downtown (including SOFA) and on exterior alterations to Significant buildings (Inventory categories 1 and 2, and in Historic Districts) outside Downtown 2. Update Bulletin adopted in October 2016 1. Ongoing 2. First quarter of program year (April - July) Support implementation of Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. Continue to support Policy L7.2 implementation (preparation of historic evaluations to determine eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and associated tracking) 2. Launch implementation of Policy L7.1.1: Receive funds requested March 21, 2022 to assist staff with qualified consultant to package and recommend eligible resources as Inventory Category 1 and 2 resources (major and significant resources) for nominations 1. Ongoing since 1/2018 2. First quarter of program year (April – July) Inventory upgrades and nominations Review and recommend applications for Inventory category upgrades and support nominations to the City’s local inventory Ongoing Improve outreach, review incentives, develop work program for FY 23-24 1. Review and recommend improvements to outreach materials regarding the program, including incentives for rehabilitation. 2. Consider implementing additional historic preservation policies in the Comprehensive Plan, such as L7.1.2: Reassess Historic Preservation Ordinance 1. First half of program year 2. Second half of program year – prepare report on ordinance’s ineffectiveness Tailored Mills Act Program discussion Finalize outreach approach and bring forward program report to City Council Third quarter of program year (fall) 3.b Packet Pg. 83 E mb a r c a d e r o El C a m in o R e al U niversity Oregon Page Mill Alm a E Middlefield S a n d H ill San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek E m i S a n Matadero Creek Lagunita Lake Creek San F r a n c i s q u i t o Creek Francisquito Creek This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Historic Category 3 and 4 outside of Downtown and Professorville University Ave Downtown Commercial Center Professorville Historic Districts 0' 1600' Ca t e g o r y 3 a n d 4 Ou t s i d e o f Do w n t o w n a n d D i s t r i c t s CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2015-03-05 16:11:32Historic Cat 3 4 Outside Downtown Districts (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.c Packet Pg. 84 Professorville Ramona Street E mb a r c a de ro E l C a m in o R e al U niversity Oregon Page Mill Alm a E M Mid dlefiel d S a n d H ill San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito Creek E m i l y S a n tadero Creek LagunitaLake San F r a n c i s q u i t o Creek Francisquito Creek This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Historic Category 1-4 Professorville and Ramona Historic Districts 0'1600' Ci t y I n v e n t o r y P r o p e r t i e s an d Di s t r i c t s CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2015-03-05 14:07:46 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.d Packet Pg. 85 3.e Packet Pg. 86 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 14007) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes October 28, 2021 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 28, 2021 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): • October 28, 2021 Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes October 28, 2021 (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Caroline Willis, Vice Chair Christian Pease; Board Members, Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Christian Pease, Gogo Heinrich, and David Bower Absent: Oral Communications [None] Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Willis recommended that the approval of the minutes be moved to the beginning of meetings going forward. Motion by Chair Willis to move the approval of minutes to the beginning of the agenda of all future meetings. Seconded by Vice Chair Pease, the motion carried unanimously, by roll call vote. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 9, 2021. Motion by Vice Chair Pease to approve the minutes of September 9, 2021. Seconded by Board Member Bower, the motion carried unanimously, by voice vote. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Chair Willis requested that the schedule include both the January and December meetings. Ms. French advised that the Board Retreat will be held on December 9th and could be done in-person, which would be a hybrid meeting. She said the Council will hold their first in-person, hybrid meeting this coming week. She said that only the Chamber is currently set up to do hybrid meetings, so the retreat would have to be held at the Chambers, because it is a requirement that the meetings are recorded, and with a quorum of members. Hybrid meetings are not required until January. Ms. French explained that a hybrid meeting is when all of the Board Members are present in the Chambers, and the public may attend. Staff will be present remotely, and Zoom participation will also be available for the public. Chair Willis asked if they could meet in the staff area, around a table. Ms. French wasn’t sure since the meeting will be filmed. Chair Willis requested the Board meet in person for the December meeting. All Board Members agreed to this. Chair Willis hoped that they could meet at a table, face-to-face, as opposed to seated on the dais. Chair Willis advised that the meeting scheduled for December 23rd probably won’t happen. The January meetings would be scheduled for the 13th and 27th, and she hoped to hold both of them in order to get started working on goals set at the retreat. Board Member Bower advised he will not be available on the 13th, but could probably attend via Zoom. Ms. French said the options for HRB meetings are officially listed as the second and fourth Thursday of each month, although typically it is based on what is on the agenda. She commented that she would prefer to get staff reports out before the week of the 20th for meetings in December. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: October 28, 2021 Virtual Teleconference Meeting 8:30 A.M. 4.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Willis reiterated she would like to get back on a regular schedule, and she would like the Board to be more proactive than reactive. She would like to meet on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month through 2022 and suggested this be discussed at the retreat. 2. Review Potential Discussion Topics for December 2021 Retreat. Chair Willis asked for feedback from the Board Members on items for discussion at the retreat. Vice Chair Pease thought she had outlined the topics very well, although they have not yet discussed the teams the Chair wished to organize. Board Member Wimmer thought the teams were a wonderful idea and that they should perhaps go over each team and discuss their tasks, add or subtract from them, and learn the Chair’s thought process on each of them. Chair Willis began discussion on Team One. She said she felt mapping is important, because their historic districts are their strong suit, and if there are concentrations of other historic buildings, it would be good to have a visual awareness of them. She hoped there might be a City program that would make it easy to do this as an overlay. She suggested that a team of two take this on and come back at the December retreat and share how this might actually work. Board Member Bower asked for clarification on the term mapping and what activity would be involved in this. Chair Willis wasn’t sure but said she assumed the City has a mapping program used for various purposes, such as zoning districts, flood plains, et cetera. She thought they could take the map and outline Professorville and the downtown, as well as potential historic districts that Dames and Moore had identified. She thought they might be able to highlight the ones and twos in terms of historic properties, and the threes and fours. Board Member Bower asked Ms. French if there was such software. She replied there is a GIST system in Palo Alto which is used to create the parcel maps. She commented that, due to the shape of the city on a map, it may be difficult to look at this on one map. She said they do have maps of Professorville and the zoned districts online currently. Chair Willis asked if there was a map that could be pulled up showing the four historic districts on one map. Ms. French responded that there may be, and she will check on this. Vice Chair Pease thought this was a good idea and ideally, they could have a map with layers to reduce confusion. He said there was great data in the packet provided by staff, and ideally, those could be integrated. He wondered however, how realistic it was and how many resources it would take to do it. He thought it would be wonderful to have a site where residents and Board Members could go to look at the map and layer it with such things as what is in the inventory and what’s not, where the historic districts are, et cetera. Chair Willis said she is willing to start small, and if all they could do was take a map of Palo Alto and mark out the districts and properties with a marker it would be better than nothing. She hoped they could work towards something in which the historic districts are integrated with the rest of the information. Board Member Wimmer said she uses the parcel maps often to look up properties. She said people use them to look up their own properties, and a click of a button will bring up a summary of the property with certain details, including a historic rating. She thought they could possibly start there, by perhaps applying a special color for certain properties, since it is a map already in existence. She felt it would be easy to accentuate the existing map with that feature first, as a first step, and then pulling that information onto a special HRB map, or a historic planning map. Chair Willis asked Ms. French if someone on the staff could look at the parcel maps and figure out a way to identify things that are already designated historic. Ms. French thought they should engage Roland Rivera from the Planning Department, who would have the knowledge base for that. She suggested the first meeting of the Committee Number One might try to get Mr. Rivera to come to the meeting to answer these types of questions. Chair Willis asked if there were further comments and asked if anyone was interested in this committee. Board Member Heinrich was interested in participating. Board Member Bower thought the discussion on SB 9 and SB 478 might have some impact on this, because, as he understood the staff report, historic districts and historic properties on the Historic Register are exempt from the legislation, so this might be an incentive for owners of potentially historic properties or people living in potential historic districts to escape this subdivision of land that will be occurring. He looked forward to hearing more about those two bills and thought it might also have a bearing on how to move forward on this particular initiative. Chair Willis shared her thoughts on Team Two, stating she was curious why the properties that were identified 25 years ago as National Register eligible are not on their local inventory. She thought this might require some history and understanding of what has come before them. She said that updating their inventory is crucial and she hoped Team Two would take this on. Board Member Wimmer questioned how 4.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 3 to accomplish this, because the 1998 was called a “dashboard survey.” She wondered if this same format would be used this time and whether they would revisit all of the those that were considered eligible and also incorporate some new properties that are not currently on the list. Chair Willis said her thought was that there is the list of potentially National Register eligible, and California Register eligible. She thought this team could be tasked with deciding on a process for working through this. She advocated starting slowly, with National Register Eligible properties. There are DPR sheets on all of them that are fairly extensive. Generally, she hoped this team would organize how they move forward. She added that she hoped all four of the teams would come back from the retreat and share plans on how to get from their current point A, to point B, to point C. Board Member Bower asked how many DPR forms there are. Ms. French said she will be presenting on this later, but there were 165 properties deemed eligible for National Register as part of the 1998 to 2000 survey. Since the Comprehensive Plan in 2017, with Program 7.2, they have identified 10 additional properties that are California Register Eligible, and many that are not California Register Eligibles. These are more likely to be gone. She said the studies were done based on the “windshield survey” of potentially eligibles, which basically means unevaluated properties that dated before 1948. Chair Willis clarified that the windshield survey was more the California Register Eligible properties; however, on the 165, there is some substantial information out on those, so she assumed the work is already done. Ms. French said for all of the 165 that were sent to the State that are on the State record as eligible for National Register and California Register Eligible, those are the 165, and they have DPR forms for all of those. Also, she said they have DPR forms for the ineligibles, which are those in the 1998 to 2000 survey period that were found ineligible for National Register and also newer, since 2018, DPR forms for those determined eligible for California Register and those that are deemed not eligible for California Register. She said this is quite a few more DPR forms since the Comprehensive Plan adoption of the 7.2 Policy at the end of 2017. Chair Willis noted that as a Certified Local Government, they are required to have a system for adding to and maintaining their inventory. She thought this could be part of Team Two’s tasks. Board Member Bower thought they were also supposed to routinely do the survey, which they have not done for 20-some years. Board Member Wimmer asked about packet pages 38-40, the 3D, and wondered whether these were the 165 properties listed. Ms. French clarified on the survey from 2000 which pages showed the deemed eligible as one of the attachments. Ms. French said the sheet stating, “Evaluation Tables from 1998 to 200, Historic Inventory” are the ones that are deemed National Register eligible that are on file with the State as eligible for National and California listing. They are not on this list, so they are not protected in the event of a ministerial permit going through. They are only protected for CEQA purposes. Chair Willis said some of these were determined not to be National Register Eligible on the valuation tables from 1998 to 2000 Historic Survey. She believed there are DPR forms for all of the current. Ms. French said in addition to the 165 forms of those that were deemed eligible, they have many more DPR forms for the deemed ineligible from the survey in 2000. Vice Chair Pease said it is easier to follow all of this in the PDF. He thought staff did a good job of dividing these long lists and highlighting them by category. The orange highlighted list is the ones they were referring to which are qualified but not moved to their list. Board Member Wimmer asked if there was a way to get DPR forms other than from staff, or if there was a way to upload the information so that a homeowner could extract it from the internet. Ms. French said they need to request this from staff. She explained that she looks at the eligible and ineligible lists, because sometimes the ineligible DPR forms have nuggets that prompt her to have the consultant look further, statements about some reason why they couldn’t finish the study, and it is incomplete. She said it is a painstaking process for her, and what is shown online is whether it is deemed eligible or only potentially eligible, or a historic resource category 1-4. Chair Willis said that she thought they were also in the historic files, but filed by address. Ms. French added that the library has copy of all of them, as well as City Hall. They were scanned at one point. Chair Willis thought they needed to go back and look at the ones that were deemed ineligible. One of them is her own house, which had an addition in the 50’s. Chair Willis discussed Team Three, stating she wants the Mills Act situation to either be nailed or just not go there. She thought they should get ready to go to Council, hopefully in the first half of next week, with some proposal to at least have a trial period of four or five. Board Member Bower thought the work that Board Member Wimmer and Brandon Corey did moves them fairly far along. He thought the Council would probably adopt a Mills Act program, but whether or not they would spend the money was a different question; however he did think the Chair’s goals were within reach. 4.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Willis invited the Board Members to share their preference for which team. Board Member Bower volunteered for the Mills Act team since he has some knowledge of it. Board Member Pease indicated he would participate on Team One. Board Member Wimmer said she preferred to be on the Mills Act Team since she was previously on the preliminary committee. Board Member Makinen volunteered for Team One, along with Chair Willis. Regarding Team Two, Board Member Wimmer indicated she would help Chair Willis on this team as well. Chair Willis said she may also call on members for help on this team if needed. Ms. French announced that the HRB position that was vacated will need to be filled, and it is an active recruitment program. The deadline is imminent; however, the person does not need to live in a historic inventory property 1 or 2, or in Professorville or a historic district, because they have that person in Board Member Heinrich, who lives in Professorville. Chair Willis asked if there were any applicants, and Ms. French advised she has not received a list. She felt the date for closing of recruitment was this week. Action Items 3. Update on Recent State Housing Legislation and Housing Opportunity Sites Selection Process and HRB Discussion of Potential Amendments to the Historic Resources Board Work Plan Ms. French presented an update on housing legislation and topics related to that legislation. There were four notable bills in the legislative session. The most notable and impactful bill for unlisted historic resources is SB 9, which goes into effect in January. SB 9 will enable ministerial lot splits and duplex development in non-historic single residential zones, including those properties that are not listed on any register or inventory. Housing Legislation SB 8, 9, 10 and 478 impact Palo Alto’s policies on streamlining and housing production. Ms. French said she learned that HCD is adding enforcement staff for oversight of SB 9. However, there is some capacity for the City to develop objective standards and lay down some basic rules which implement State law in a way in which they can have some level of control. This will go to the Council on December 6th as an Urgency Ordinance. She said that the changes are unavoidable, so it is a good time for the HRB to learn about them and weigh in. Regarding historic resources, Ms. French read from the law’s description of exempt properties, which states, “A site located within a historic or landmark district or a site that has a historic property or landmark under state or local law as specified.” Regarding urban lot split requirements and duplex provisions, the Urgency Ordinance cannot call these “projects” under CEQA with a ministerial review. Historic resources individually listed on the local inventory and California and National Historic Registers, as well as Professorville, Greenmeadow and Green Gables are protected. Resources deemed eligible but not listed on any register or local inventory are not protected. The Urgency Ordinance will deal with a “deconstruction loophole” created in 2020 which has caused some problems for staff in trying to retain homes in a process of rehabilitation when they want to deconstruct the home. Board Member Bower clarified that this means demolition. Ms. French said it is no longer called demolition, but a mandatory deconstruction. She explained that because of the way Title 18 code is written, which was not amended when Chapter 5.24 was amended, it leaves them in a bind because previously an applicant had to get their building permit for a single story home before a demolition permit was issued. Now, because of the way the code is written, people are doing the demolition before they get an approved one-story home. Board Member Bower said it is a semantic difference but with the same result. It leaves staff without the ability to slow down the process in order to determine whether the property is California Register eligible. Regarding the 6th cycle of the Housing Element Update, Ms. French reported that the Housing Element Working Group is in the process of identifying sites which might support the development of up to 6,086 units. An appeal on this number was turned down by the ABAG group, so the City is in the process of trying to find sites to enable developers to come forward and develop housing units. This is proceeding through an Ad Hoc Committee involving Council Members who will meet on November 9th. The Planning Commission will be receiving an update on the site selection process on November 10th, and on November 4th there will be a Housing Element Working Group meeting. Regarding the HRB, she said when the lists are generated the age of a property does factor into putting it on the list, but not in a good way for preservation, but rather in the sense that it is older, possibly not well- maintained, making it subject to being redeveloped in the near future. The process involves trying to catch the ones that show up which are on the deemed eligible list and get them removed from the list of sites. 4.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 5 She said the unevaluated, potentially eligible from the parcel reports dating earlier than 1948 will be kept on the list of sites, because they have not been found eligible and are not on the inventory. Ms. French said the work plan submitted by the HRB back in June may need a request to Council to adjust it in order to implement the new Comprehensive Plan policy, L7.1.1 She said when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2017 the Council had noted this as a “routine” task, but it is not routine to nominate deemed-eligible properties to the local inventory. She felt the Ad Hoc committee could be helpful, along with their consultant, to recommend whether properties that are National Register Eligible and California Register Eligible are Category 1 or Category 2. Under Chapter 16.49 there is a process for the HRB to nominate and Council to review a package of nominated properties. Outreach to the property owners would be necessary, and they would then be subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. That outreach is not currently resourced, so the Ad Hoc Committee would be needed to help with this. Ms. French suggested talking about future work plans at the retreat. She said there is a medium-term priority of re-assessing the Historic Preservation Ordinance which is old and does not protect Category 3’s or 4’s outside of Professorville or downtown. There is also no section in the Ordinance which asks to remove resources from the inventory, and there is no recognition of properties deemed eligible. She said looking at what medium-term means, it would be five to ten years from the date of the Comprehensive Plan. Between 2022 and 2027 would the timeframe when the Council thought this would occur. Ms. French reiterated the question of “What is routine implementation?” She said updating the inventory to include resources that are eligible is a Comprehensive Plan program. Since it is identified as routine, they provide updates on their Comprehensive Plan implementation as an annual requirement of the State. The effort to update the inventory has not been started, but SB 9 necessitates that work begin on this program soon, though it is not routine work. Ms. French explained that Chapter 5.24, which changed in 2020, makes Category 3 and 4 resources more vulnerable, because the property owners say they are going to do deconstruction, and the loophole in the Code allows them to take out a demolition permit and not have an approved single family home. Currently, before 5.24 was changed, the only thing that had to happen for people to remove Category 3 or 4 outside of Professorville was to come in with a one-story home plan, building permit, which is not a discretionary process. Now with SB 9, they are faced with people coming in with ministerial permits for duplexes and lot splits. Again, in that case the Category 3’s and 4’s are protected because they are on the local inventory list. She shared that 345 Coleridge, a Category 3 property, will be coming down. Board Member Bower asked Ms. French in regard to lot splits and duplexes – two different activities – if the SB 9 ordinance would allow any lot to be split into two separate lots. Also, he wondered if this suggested that without splitting the lot, two different residences could be built. Ms. French responded that of the two aspects of SB, one is to allow lot splits into equal-sized frontages and lots in order to increase housing. The other is to develop duplexes on R-1 properties. All R-1 and RE properties in Palo Alto will be subject to the new law in January. Board Member Bower asked if any size lots, for example, a 3000-square foot lot – could be subdivided. Ms. French said there is a minimum lot size, but it is very small. Board Member Bower was curious what the threshold is. He thought the bill might be an incentive for a number of people who are uncomfortable about historic designations to rethink that, because it would help them preserve at least their property although, they would probably not develop their property, so it might be a moot point if what they really want is for the people next to them to protect their property so they don’t end up living next to a four- unit building or a duplex. Ms. French acknowledged it’s a little scary but there are some additional conditions that apply. One is that it prohibits demolition of more the 25 percent of exterior walls of an existing structure unless the local ordinance allows greater demolition, or if the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. So, there are things related to tenancy and ownership that do make a difference. Vice Chair Pease asked what the maximum number of units would be that could be built on a split lot, including ADUs and junior ADUs. Ms. French said her understanding was if the lot is split then a duplex can be built on each of those lots. Her understanding was that if a lot was split, there could be a duplex or an ADU, although the question is if there is a single family home and an ADU, if a junior ADU could be added, and she thought this was the case, with the caveat that she is not an expert on the subject and all the information on this. Vice Chair Pease acknowledged he has been trying to follow this, and it is difficult, but at minimum if a person was willing to tear down an existing home, the lot could be split into two, and four units – two duplexes – could be built. Ms. French felt this was correct. 4.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Wimmer thought there was a rule from years ago in which Palo Alto would no longer allow flag lots. So this would create all sorts of flag lots by dividing one property into two, because of need for access to the back house by a ten-foot driveway. She asked if there was any way to increase the need for parking so that those trying to divide 150-foot-deep lot by 50, with setbacks of 20 feet, along with the lot depth, she figured the buildable area depth for each property would be 35 feet, making tiny houses if they have to have parking and access to the back one. Ms. French said new flag lots are not allowed in the R1 zone, so SB 9 would call for equal frontage lots, so not forcing them to have flag lots. Board Member Wimmer said then two 25-foot lots would result, of which there are many in College Terrace – a nightmare for designing suitable housing, resulting in units that look like trailers. Ms. French said item 12 of SB 9 – in the Planning Commission staff report for October 13th – specifies that both newly-created parcels must be at least 1,200 square feet unless the City adopts a small minimum lot size by ordinance. Board Member Wimmer thought one thing they had going for them was that maybe dividing these lots up would render them very challenging to design and maybe that is when their IR process kicks in. “Just say no to single wides.” Ms. French replied that the IR process is a discretionary process, and they are not allowed to have a discretionary process with an SB 9 project. This is why part of the extreme effort right now is to figure out how to make objective standards that are basically zoning development standards that do not require discretionary review. Board Member Wimmer wondered about increasing the ability for neighbors to comment, as there is always a neighbor in the neighborhood who objects to a project. She admitted this idea may not make sense, but she advocated finding some way to avoid these units. Ms. French responded that the lot splits under SB 9 are not allowed to be discretionary or CEQA processes. So the requirement for neighbor notification would have to be a local requirement and it would not be part of a discretionary review process. Notification certainly, and people could object, but she didn’t know what effect that would have because it’s not an appealable discretionary process. She reiterated it is a very complex situation that couldn’t be solved there. She just wanted them to be aware and that the HRB could consider putting this request onto the work plan and having Council see the readiness of the HRB to at least try to protect these deemed-eligible properties and see what they are trying to create for objective standards. Board Member Bower asked if his understanding was correct that with this complex bill, the HRB could recommend to the Council, at least initially, to capture Category 3 and 4 buildings into the ordinance, which is what she was recommending. Ms. French replied that, ironically, SB 9 projects are not allowed on any property listed, so since Category 3’s and 4’s are listed on their inventory, they are protected from SB 9 projects. What they are not protected from is new single family, single story homes that wish to demolish the Category 3 or 4 buildings. Board Member Bower responded that in that sense, that is not changed. It has always been the case. Ms. French replied to it has always been the case, but it has become more apparent because of the deconstruction loophole that does not allow time to evaluate them. Board Member Bower said then that is what the HRB could recommend to the Council, Ms. French said this is the rationale for asking Council to amend the HRB work plan to have an Ad Hoc Committee working to come back to the HRB with all deemed-eligible properties and assign them a Category 1 or 2 inventory status, which would go to Council as a package, so the Council could decide whether to put them on the inventory or not. This is why she would like to see the HRB make this a priority on their work plan. Chair Willis thought people would start doing some educational programs, and she asked if those come by Ms. French, that she would alert the HRB so they could become more educated on what this all might mean. Ms. French reported that there is now something called Planning Collaborative, which is like San Mateo County’s 21 Elements, a firm that is analyzing the bills and will be issuing some documents which will help cities. The Urgency Ordinance will be followed by a more in-depth ordinance for which they can take some time to work with other Boards and Commissions. Currently, the Urgency Ordinance is on a path to go straight to the Council because of the timeline. Vice Chair Pease asked if anyone knows if SB 9 addresses protected species of trees or the recent decision of the Council to protect some of the canopy on lots, based on the size of the trees. His understanding was they cannot just remove some of these from properties. Ms. French said she watched that Council meeting, and that is not yet a law, but rather an indication by Council of what they want to do. The ordinance will be coming back in the spring of next year. Vice Chair Pease thought native trees were currently protected. Ms. French said only Redwoods, Coast Live Oaks and Valley Oaks are protected over a certain size. Vice Chair Pease asked if that would be nullified by the new law. Ms. French was not sure on this. She did not remember seeing anything about trees. She reiterated that they all have a lot of unanswered questions. 4.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Attorneys would be working on the ordinance and they have been focusing free time on trying to understand and develop ways to help the City with this. Chair Willis invited further comments and questions on the presentation. Hearing none, she closed the item. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Willis said she hoped all of the committees would take their tasks seriously and come to the retreat with concrete knowledge when they get together, and can move forward next year. Board Member Wimmer asked if Vice Chair Pease wanted to talk about his part on the agenda. Vice Chair Pease said his one comment would be to urge people to consider virtual preservation. Based on these laws, he thought they may be looking at a stochastic level of change in the community over the next decade, and it would be nice to document that. He remembered as a child being driven to the Western Addition in what was the Fillmore District in Japantown in San Francisco, where they tore down block after block of some of the most interesting Victorian buildings for what was then redevelopment, and none of that was captured. The said there are many good things that they need resources for that they don’t have. He felt that if a couple thousand places were to be torn down over the next decade that it would be nice to not just entirely lose what was there in terms of the history. Board Member Wimmer suggested maybe implementing a requirement to photo document and/or do an architectural drawing of existing buildings. Vice Chair Pease said for all he knew that was illegal under these bills if it imposes a cost upon the owner or developer. He thought it was an incredible opportunity to document a huge change for the historic record and to not lose everything because some of the blocks in these areas may look entirely different a decade from now. He would like to find a practical, low-cost and consistent way to do that. Board Member Bower shared that when he came on the Board in 2007, that was a discussion that the Board had and did not move forward with, partly because one of the members who had relationships with the developers, said one had commented that all he had to do was document the building, and then he could tear it down. It was seen by some members as an incentive or a facilitator to developers who wanted to get rid of properties so they could develop them. He thought Vice Chair Pease had a good idea but he wondered whether it might in some way have that perverse impact. Vice Chair Pease felt that that logic flies in the face of what they are hearing, and have been hearing, about these bills, because there is not going to be any choice. Board Member Bower agreed but was wondering how it would be done. Vice Chair Pease said that is the question he was trying to address. He referenced the old Secretary of the Interior’s standard for this type of documentation, which was too complicated and expensive and overkill for what he was trying to describe. He thought that, since that conversation took place, the logic has completely turned on its head now by this new reality, and it is another reason to look at this potential process. Chair Willis wondered if they could go to the Historic Association and see if they could form a team that might help them develop the idea further and help with the project. Ms. French added it would be nice for someone with more than an iPhone which is what she uses to take photos. Vice Chair Pease said the trick would be finding a reasonable standard, bigger than an iPhone – although in a decade an iPhone may take a very good photo. He advocated coming up with something simple and consistent in which people could be certified easily with an information sheet, before the historic properties are all gone and they’re left with archives of Google street views as the only record of what those neighborhoods looked like prior to these changes taking place. He said if there is time at the retreat, he would like to discuss this further. Chair Willis thought as they went through the three elements, they could see how this would fit in. Adjournment Vice Chair Pease moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried, 6-0, by voice vote. 4.a Packet Pg. 94 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 14008) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 2/24/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Minutes December 9, 2021 Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of December 9, 2021 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): • December 9, 2021 Attachments: • Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes December 9, 2021 (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Caroline Willis, Vice Chair Christian Pease; Board Members, Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Gogo Heinrich, and David Bower Absent: Oral Communications 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic Resources Board During COVID-19 State of Emergency. Ms. French explained that citywide boards and commissions are adopting resolutions so that they can continue meeting remotely. Since there is still a threat from the pandemic, the Council had directed the resolutions be adopted to be consistent with State law; therefore, a motion and approval of the Resolution shown in the packet would be needed. Motion by Vice Chair Pease to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Board Member Bower, the motion carried, 6-0, by roll call vote. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions The minutes of the October 28, 2021 minutes will be available for approval at the next meeting. City Official Reports 2. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meeting and Assignments Chair Willis noted that the schedule is only published through the end of 2021, with this being the last meeting. There will be a retreat in January. The second meeting in January will be on the 27th. There will not be a meeting on the second Thursday in January; however, starting in February, the Board will meet twice monthly. She asked the Board members to put the meetings for 2022 on their calendars, and plan on accomplishing some things, although she added there may be a conflict with one of the meetings in December 2022. Board Member Heinrich advised that she has a conflict with the date of the retreat. She has a scheduled vacation planned from the 20th through the 31st. She asked if the Board is meeting on the 6th or the 13th for the retreat. Chair Willis was hesitant to deviate from the second and fourth Thursday but said she would keep in mind that Board Member Heinrich will be out of town. Ms. French said the first February meeting is February 10th. If they wanted to have a Zoom meeting on the 27th and then wait for an in-person retreat on February 10th, that would be acceptable to staff. She thought that in February it would be possible to meet in person; however, it was not certain. Board Member Bower had a conflict with February 10th and would not be able to join online as he will have no internet service. Chair Willis polled the Board on who was available on January 27th. Board Member Heinrich clarified that she could attend a Zoom meeting on the 27th. The Board decided upon a hybrid meeting on January 27th, which will be the only meeting in January. Chair Willis encouraged Board members to try to plan to be available for future HRB meetings. Chair Willis said the only meetings she knows of that they are cancelling in 2022 are the first and the last. 3. Update on SB 9 Urgency Ordinance and Discussion of Topics for 2022 Historic Resources Board Retreat. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: December 9, 2021 Virtual Teleconference Meeting 8:30 A.M. 5.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. French updated the Board on the Urgency Ordinance which the Council adopted on December 6th and which is now in effect, implementing SB 9, enabling ministerial lot splits and duplex development in non- historic single-family zones in Palo Alto. SB 9 does not affect Professorville or any other historic district. Ms. French said there was a loophole created in 2020 that allowed deconstruction of a home prior to issuance of a building permit. Requiring a building permit, plans and review in conjunction with demolition had previously allowed a process where they did not lose homes or housing units. The loophole was plugged with the Ordinance adoption. Ms. French shared the Council’s motions in this regard. Ms. French explained that SB 9 has an effect on historic resources, because it’s a ministerial process now on resources deemed eligible for National or California Register that are not actually listed. The Mayor’s comments on Monday as well as a motion requesting staff to return to Council with the information necessary to update the city’s inventory. Ms. French shared the motions. The interim ordinance will probably come back to Council in January to do a longer-range implementation. Within the motion was acknowledgment of the Eichler Guidelines as well as information necessary to update the Historic Registry. They will return to Council with a number of items. Staff put much effort into converting the individual review guidelines for two-story homes into objective design standards for SB 9 projects, so there are now some great standards in place that are objective, and not a discretionary review. She shared a link to the report. Board Member Bower asked about the statement that “homes may be demolished without evaluations” under “The Way it Will Be.” Ms. French said this deconstruction loophole had been fixed. The loophole was that people could come in and submit a demolition permit because it was called “deconstruction,” and they would miss the opportunity to review the replacement home. Typically, when people come through with a two-story home it is a discretionary review, subject to CEQA, so there is an opportunity to require an evaluation of the home to ensure that it is not a California Register-eligible home. When discretion is taken away under SB 9 there is not an opportunity to stop the demolition of an eligible resource. They do have the opportunity to stop the demolition of a listed resource, which includes everything on the inventory, or the State or National Register. Board Member Bower asked for clarification that a home that could potentially be registered, under this New Emergency Ordinance, could actually be demolished. Ms. French said yes, starting Monday. Vice Chair Pease asked what the “IR process” referred to. Ms. French responded that this is the Individual Review Guidelines and Individual Review Program. They call it a crosswalk in that there is a crosswalk from the IR Guidelines to the objective standards, and there are specific standards for Eichler tracts as well as non-Eichler tracts. Ms. French opened the discussion on retreat topics. Chair Willis felt it was of great importance to get the potentially eligible structures onto the inventory. She has looked at the DPR forms for them, and there is a huge variety. She suggested that the Board explore how to get those on the inventory the most quickly. She felt they should all be called Category 4 to start, and they should work on getting on the inventory, and then do any updates they want to do from there. Ms. French asked if she meant to refer to ones that are eligible based on study. She said ‘potentially eligibles’ are basically unevaluated properties dating back before 1948. Eligibles are identified by the Dames and Moore survey of 1998 to 2000 as National Register- eligible. The ones identified since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted at the end of 2017 as eligible for the California Register are also considered eligible. She said the “potentially eligible” are basically the windshield survey – the unevaluated resources that might be eligible but haven’t been studied further. Chair Willis asked about the ones determined to be eligible for the National Register in which the work is already done. She felt these would be the most expedient to act on, so at they are protected. She felt that at every meeting they should evaluate five to ten properties to see if they should be put on the inventory. For right now, she thought they should work on getting those that have been determined eligible onto the inventory. Since the work has been done, she didn’t understand why it would be a difficult process. Ms. French said in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 1649 there is a nomination process involving a recommendation from the HRB and Council. There would be outreach to the property owners, because being eligible is not the same thing as being subject to the Municipal Code, the ordinance that has some protection for at least Categories 1 and 2, and less for Categories 3 and 4, unless they are in Professorville or Downtown. Ms. French said they have reached out to their consultant and received an estimate for the work, which was estimated in the tens of thousands because of the multiple hearings with HRB and Council preparing the documentation. Some were evaluated in 1998 and need to be verified for integrity and other efforts. She said they’ve heard from the Mayor that there is interest, but they need to have information about it and technical direction on the work. She said the HRB could do some sort of straw poll or some kind of 5.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 3 message, because this is a Comprehensive Plan program that has not been started, to upgrade the eligibles to the actual inventory that is subject to the ordinance. She thought it would be something that Chair Willis could coordinate with perhaps a memo, a straw poll, and they could report back to the Council, and be authorized to commence the work. Board Member Wimmer said there is a new requirement that she recently experienced. She did a project in College Terrace which was deemed potentially eligible on the parcel report. She has had projects that have had that listing for years, and it did not trigger any extra work. They simply acknowledged it, but recently the City has been requiring an extra step. When there is a project deemed potentially eligible, it cannot just be bypassed. They had to hire a consultant, Page and Turnbull, to send someone out to look at and review the property to determine if it was truly eligible. In this case the existing house was deemed not to be historic or didn’t have anything to qualify it. She said the step is there as a safeguard. For all the houses that have been added to the list that was done in 1998, if anyone wants to alter them, they now have to go through the step to ensure that they’re altering something potentially historic. Even though it is an extra step and expense to the owner, at least that measure is in place now, which is helping. She said if a property on the list of potentially eligibles comes up where someone wants to alter it, the City does want them to take a closer look at it. Ms. French said Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.2 is the one that says if someone is looking to demolish a building, they have to first find out if it is California Register-eligible. This is what is different since January 2018. She reports on those to the Board each year and they are sent off to the State as actually eligible, rather than potentially, which is basically unevaluated. Vice Chair Pease asked if that still applies after January 1st or if the implementation of the new law changes that in any way. Ms. French said the new law has the ministerial process, whereas, prior to December 6th, there was a discretionary process for putting in these duplexes or buildings. Now it cannot be subject to CEQA, and that is why it is a fairly urgent matter to get the eligible resources for both State and National uploaded on an inventory of properties actually listed on a register, the easiest of which is the City’s Register, which is what they call their inventory, Categories 1 through 4. The Categories 3 and 4 are not really protected if it is not an SB 9, unless they are in Professorville or Downtown. She summarized that they do not necessarily have a great Historic Preservation Ordinance. There has been agreement on this for a number of years, and it needs to be re- looked at. Chair Willis asked if, under SB 9, because the 3’s and 4’s are on the inventory and are historic properties, they are exempt from SB 9. Ms. French said that was correct because they are listed. The SB 9 projects have protection from those in either historic districts or properties actually listed somewhere – local, state or national. If someone comes in with a single-story home, there’s no protection for the 3’s and 4’s Board Member Bower said, if under SB 9 a historic property is exempt, but the housing for the properties immediately adjacent to an historic property are not, in all HRB reviews of potential changes outside of historic districts, they consider context of any changes. So according to his understanding, someone could come right next to the Squire House and put in a four-unit apartment building, and not be touched by this. Ms. French responded that there is a variety of permutations and combinations of SB 9 but if what’s next door to the Squire House is not on a local, state or national register, it could be torn down and an SB 9 project could replace it. Chair Willis said this is one reason she is very interested in the mapping. Several potential historic districts were identified when they did the survey, and she felt they need to go back and evaluate those. A small historic property without much buffer zone will be impacted, so she is feeling pressure. Ms. French reiterated that the silver lining is the individual review guidelines for the SB 9 projects now have the crosswalk that basically allows them to do an individual review – including privacy, massing, streetscape and other items, so it’s not just a building permit without requirements and there is the option if people don’t meet the objective standards that they can go through the individual review process, so there is some manner of protection that looks at streetscape and massing and privacy. Board Member Bower commented that he was distressed to see that the Emergency Ordinance requires that garage doors basically match in style and materials the entry doors. He said this is a disaster in an Eichler zone, or any Eichler house, because Eichlers intentionally use siding across the garage doors to diminish their impact. He said since this is an interim Emergency Ordinance, there should be some language that allows Eichler buildings to be exempt from that. He said he didn’t know where that comes from and what the intent is, or why a garage door needs to look like an entry door. Ms. French agreed with this comment and said it was tricky to hustle to come up with the objective standards. With the discretionary 5.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 4 review there are conversations that happen during that process, and there is more flexibility, but trying to come up with objective standards, writing something that will help to not have very egregious garage doors was the attempt. She also stated that the Council did move to have them come back with guidelines related to the Eichler Design Guidelines to include in the objective standards in the next round. She said they can fix that issue for Eichler tracts and can tweak other ones that passed within the Urgency Ordinance. Chair Willis returned the discussion to the retreat, saying there are many things they need to approach, and she felt they need some logical system to do it. She felt it would be good to have a shared semi-private website with which to work on the inventory, not only the Board, but also volunteers. She mentioned outreach to property owners that is needed, and a standard for digital preservation. She said she did not find the DPR forms very reader-friendly. She suggested looking at something else and looking at getting the current inventory and soon-to-be-enlarged inventory on the web, so that the information is available to people. She thought being able to go online and read about houses in Palo Alto, whether your own or one you’re thinking of buying and its history would make it much easier for people coming into the community from outside to understand why this has value. She reiterated there are so many things, and so broad, she did not want to get bogged down and overwhelmed. She wondered if there was a way to make the work manageable. Ms. French responded that there may be potential issues with having a private full-Board sharing, although if there is a subcommittee that may be acceptable in view of the Brown Act. Chair Willis replied that the DPR she looked at is bulky to send around and it would be nice if they just had access to those on the web. If they recruited people to help with the research to see if they’re still standing or been significantly changed, it would be nice to have some sort of tracking tool, not necessarily a decision-making process. Ms. French said if they were to use the City’s website and have a place on the website for subcommittee efforts, they could upload things under that if they wanted to publish some things. She added in regard to the DPR forms, the reason they are used is because if someone wanted to send their own DPR to the State to get listed - so that they could get advantages of tax credits, for example – then it’s in the form that the State accepts and is the industry standard for those things. Chair Willis said she has high expectations for some future Historic Palo Alto webpage, and she would like to see much more photographic documentations. She would like to see the DPRs attached but would also like to see a two-page summary of sorts with one or two pictures that is a kind of entry, and if more information is needed, it would be great to have that as well. Board Member Bower said there is the PAST website that has a huge photographic component to it, and they have talked about the City linking that information to their website. Ms. French said the City website does have a link to PAST and constantly upon being asked they send out the DPRs, emailed, and also the link to the PAST website that has color photos. It is the same information as on the DPR forms. Chair Willis said she was aware of this but would like to see the HRB take ownership of that. Board Member Bower offered to go back and give an update on the Mills Act. He said he has discussed this with Board Member Wimmer and he thinks it is actually, with a few editorial changes, ready for the Board to consider. It is a complicated strategy to get something such as this articulated in a way that answers all the stakeholders’ questions, but he felt instead of waiting for the perfect document, they just need to move forward. The big hurdle will not be creating the document, because that is mostly done. It is, instead, getting the Council to believe that this is a worthwhile thing to adopt in the current environment of no money and no staff for historic resources. He said this could be a separate meeting topic, or a topic for the retreat, although he wasn’t sure there would be time to do it at the retreat, as his experience with retreats is they get about one-and-a-half subjects addressed and then the time is gone. The retreats tend to drift in terms of focus, although they haven’t had one in so long he wasn’t sure it would look like. Chair Willis said that was what she was trying to connect with some kind of enabler. She felt they the Board really needed to set priorities, for 2022 at least, and then perhaps beyond that. Someone who knew how to move through the process of the meeting would be very helpful. Board Member Bower likened it to a “herding cats” issue. He felt the Mills Act is a good topic for a regular Board meeting, with some tweaking by Ms. French, who has the original document, which could be distributed to the Board members to review before a meeting and move forward on it. Ms. French remarked that she thought she already distributed it to the entire Board electronically in a prior HRB packet, although it might be in the retreat staff report in the queue for January. Vice Chair Pease said she did send it and he remembered looking it over. He asked if she might consider re-sending it, and she was happy to. Board Member Bower added that the editing that 5.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 5 he and Board Member Wimmer discussed would be more valuable in a newer document, rather than taking the original and having to pencil it in. He said it’s not much but was defining the terms a little better. Ms. French advised that each subcommittee is welcome to reach out and contact her and provide if there is a way to email her something or have a Zoom call with her to walk through the version that she did send out and let her know what the Board is thinking. She said PDFs are editable so they could do that. Board Member Bower said he would scan this and share it with Chair Willis and confirm that the changes they are interested in pursuing, and then they could send it to her prior to scheduling a meeting. Chair Willis proposed scheduled the item for February 24th. Chair Willis asked about progress on the mapping process. Vice Chair Pease said he put together a “trial balloon” proposal, but it was dependent on having a meeting with Mr. Rivera to try to understand what is possible in terms of integrating some databases. They were not able to do that. Other ideas that came up included a poster and different ways of creating visual aids, short-term doable projects, things that could be completed in advance. He said he would still like to understand what is technically possible with all the sources that are out there, but they were not able to put this together yet. Board Member Makinen commented on his position on creating a poster. He felt it was beyond their capabilities as an HRB working group, and he recommended that they create a statement of work and go out to a professional organization like Page and Turnbull or Architectural Resources Group and have the poster made. He said he was involved in creating a poster at Moffett Field, and it is an enormous undertaking that needs to be done professionally. He felt it was unrealistic to try to do this as an HRB volunteer group. Vice Chair Pease said he didn’t mean to minimize the work. He felt the direction he was getting from the Chair was the idea of having an end goal and set of objectives and then trying to define a way to get started that was doable. There were other discussions relating to the idea of outreach and tools to enable them to better reach out to and educate the public about the value of historic resources. Board Member Makinen recommended on the poster project that they write the statement of work, but they are in no way equipped to do it as a volunteer group. Board Member Heinrich said she was waiting to see what they were going to come up with the City Council’s information. She thought if they could do an overlay of the Housing Element’s potential sites map with all of the historic sites, especially the Categories 1 and 2 and then having a special listing of ones they need to study right away, it would be an easy way to get started. Chair Willis said that they need to contact the person in the City who knows how to do the mapping. She asked Ms. French to help enable this. Ms. French replied that she has connected the Board to Roland Rivera in the past and can reach out to him again in this regard. She suggested having a meeting after the holidays. She added regarding the City’s processes, there are processes for allocating funds, going through Purchasing, contracting with consultants, which have to be factored into timelines, getting authorization to use resources, defining the scope, et cetera, for using consultant help. Chair Willis asked if learning how to use the map would require a consultant. Vice Chair Pease said they were not able within the timeframe to get everyone coordinated for a meeting with Mr. Roland. He thought this was the best path in the digital world, which was the direction he had understood the goal to be. Ms. French will let Mr. Roland know that they are still interested in meeting to talk through the technical side of creating the layers as discussed. Vice Chair Pease will send his ideas to Ms. French and Chair Willis again. Chair Willis suggested, since the mapping will not be available by the retreat to help focus in on how to move forward as an enabling tool, to look at where to pursue historic districts and focus on which of the properties have been determined to be potentially eligible for a register. Vice Chair Pease said they were dealing with the urgency around the new State law and responding to that, but it is useful to have a roadmap to know where they are going and what the objectives are, for him to understand what is possible and have a person who is an expert to answer questions, because it is hard to take a guess at it. He wondered how to work out something for the retreat where they can come to consensus on how to balance the urgency of the new laws with what might be low-hanging fruit to get started without having at least a basic idea of where they are trying to go over time. He said trying to keep from being overwhelmed doesn’t mean they have to cut off ideas, goals or plans by assuming there are no resources to support them before scoping out the resources. Chair Willis said her biggest ambition for the retreat would now be to develop a serious work plan and back it up with either the details of how to get there, or the long-range work plan. She felt it is clear that the inventory is where they need to start since they have made a commitment to maintain an inventory. Given 5.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 6 the fact that they have all this information that has been sitting in a file box for 20 years, she did not feel they had maintained an inventory, so for her that was their first priority. She suggested the goal of the retreat be to define their work program and discuss how to get the properties that have been determined to be eligible for the National Register on the inventory. Vice Chair Pease agreed with this goal. He felt it would tie into the other things, and he would like to figure out a way to get a simple-as-possible set of points that they all agree to that would help them organize their thoughts and begin to prioritize the next step might be. Chair Willis asked him to suggest the first point. Vice Chair Pease responded that looking at the inventory to define whether that means public outreach, standards, et cetera. The Mills Act provides a potential incentive if reaching out to homeowners. Board Member Wimmer agreed that many of the conceptual goals they want to accomplish require not only their time, staff time, and probably funds to pour into the project. She said it’s great to come up with the good ideas that they all want to achieve, but they have to pace themselves. She said that all the years she has been on the Board, they had made minor milestone steps toward their goals, but she didn’t know if they would be able to race to any finish line. She thought identifying and continuing to refine the goals they already have would be an achievement unto itself. Also, along with each goal, they would need to define what it means. For example, updating the inventory. It is one thing to add residents to a list and have an ongoing list of potentially eligible houses, but in order for them to graduate from a list to an actually eligible resources they would have to hire someone like Page and Turnbull, and there is a cost for them to go out and thoroughly look at the resources and do the research to determine if one house is something that can actually be a Category 1 – 4. Board Member Bower commented that Debbie Shepherd had pursued getting her house listed on a register. She contacted Page and Turnbull and they were happy to do it, but the fee would have been $15,000. He said it is a huge expenditure and for most people probably out of reach. He wondered if there was a way that the City could simplify the process to get houses listed as Category 1 – 4. Ms. French noted she had reached out to their consultant and gotten an estimate of somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 to simply look at the deemed eligible – not the potentially eligible. She clarified that there were 10 homes found eligible for the California Register that were formerly potentially eligible, or unevaluated, since 2018. There were many more found not eligible. Page and Turnbull had given an estimate and talked about the steps – how many HRB meetings, how many Council meetings, what kind of outreach, et cetera. Ms. French said she could see it being even higher, but any consultant’s efforts would include looking at the Department of Park and Recreation (DPRs) state forms that have already been prepared for all of those deemed eligible. They would visit each site, see if the house is still there and has integrity, and have a report on just those, the 165, and those that have been found eligible since the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. French said that is doable, with authorization to proceed with the project, to take staff resources, do an RFP if needed, et cetera. Board Member Bower commented that one thing the HRB could do is drive-by verification that the buildings are still there. PAST does this every year for their Centennial Awards where Board members go out, split up the city, the list of potential houses, and walk or drive by to see if they exist. He said half of them don’t exist. The other problem PAST has is that they are using census and permit data, which is not very reliable, and some of the addresses are actually different. The address of the original building sometimes doesn’t exist. He said it is complicated, but it is something, and if they just want to cross off the addresses that don’t have a property on them, it would be something they could do as a subcommittee. Vice Chair Pease said Google Street View is an alternative to actually physically going out and doing this. They are reasonably kept up in an area like this. He felt at the end of the day, their responsibility is to get something back to the Council so they can act on it and make a decision. The question is how to get there sooner rather than later, how much detail is required for them to do that and perhaps an expectation that it will be iterative with them as well. He suggested that something is fairly straightforward be presented to them first; they will respond to it; and then the Board would have guidance. The urgency is correct. They want to get something tangible done this year. If they could create a larger context and then reduce it to a very manageable document and request, go through the correct channels to get it in front of the Council, and get a result back from them, whatever it is, they will know a lot more about where they really stand. Chair Willis said this is one of her questions. She has become familiar with the 165 properties eligible for the National Register. A couple of them are owned by the City, and she wondered if that could be where they start. The notification process would be fairly expedient. She noted the Water Tower building and the 5.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Pumping Station as examples and advocated approaching the City as soon as possible with this type of low hanging fruit. Ms. French shared that the next time work plans would be due from Boards and Commissions would be April. She suggested this is an opportunity to work this out. If the Board did not modify this year’s work plan due to SB 9, she said April would be the next opportunity to move ahead with the Comprehensive Plan program. Chair Willis asked if Ms. French thought they should wait until April, and Ms. French replied there is simply an opportunity to adjust the current work plan, and/or to focus on getting the information as per Mayor Dubois’ note to find to what it would take to get the information about this project. If they need to look into submitting a grant to help with the project because it exceeds the initial output, there are all sorts of things related to that. Every May the Office of Historic Preservation has a grant program that they could potentially look into for some of this. She thought defining the scope and elevating this on the work plan ahead of other things would be something for the Board to consider, either at the retreat or in some other manner. Chair Willis wondered if they asked Council to put the properties that have been deemed eligible for the National Register onto their inventory as Category 4’s what kind of outreach would be necessary to property owners. Ms. French said that would be part of what they would have to look at. Just following the Chapter 16.49 about the nominations process as per the Code, it doesn’t specify how the outreach occurs. There may be some skittish property owners, who knowing what they are doing is causing a property to be subject to the Municipal Code where previously it was not, they would need to have thorough conversations with, probably best done on a one-to-one basis with each property owner. Board Member Bower said when they were developing the Professorville Design Guidelines and particularly the Eichler Guidelines there was a substantial group of people in the Eichler areas that pushed back very hard on any designation of historic notoriety, which astounded him. They continued as a Board at the time to encourage people to recognize the advantages of being considered an historic property. One resident in particular wrote him many times, telling him how wrong he was about historic designation, with examples from New York City that were 20 years old. He said it is a very, very touchy subject with some residents and he didn’t know how to overcome that. He anticipated, if they were to ask somebody to be listed or designated in any way, it could trigger some unpleasant experiences. Vice Chair Pease said there is a historic district which is all Eichler, so they were able to accomplish this. He agreed the outreach process is dicey. Board Member Bower added that the process was pretty simple and would have benefitted the Eichler tracts, of which there are many in Palo Alto. He was dumbfounded by the pushback, even to recognize Eichlers as an architectural style. Ms. French agreed with this and said she was very much involved in that. They have gotten awards for their Eichler Guidelines, yet there was pushback. People didn’t even want to have them attached to the individual review program for two-story homes and didn’t even want that to be a mandatory use of those Guidelines. She said in Palo Alto everything is voluntary when it comes to historic. Chair Willis asked how onerous it is to be on the inventory at this point. If the Council decided to put the 165 properties on the Palo Alto historic inventory, as Category 4’s, how onerous would that be for any property owner? Board Member Bower said he has had a direct experience with one property owner who said, “If you put my property on any historic register, I’ll sue the City.” He said it was irrational and sad. They weren’t even considering it, but because he was Chair, they found him and were very adamant about it, and it was a big deal to them. Ms. French said somebody who might want to do an SB 9 project would not want to have their house on the inventory, because the act of being on a register of any kind – local, state or national – they are not able to pursue an SB 9 project. Chair Willis said at this early stage it seemed unlikely that anybody would actually own a property that they specifically bought to do an SB 9 on. She thought from that point of view they would be better doing it sooner rather than later, because later people might have actually purchased properties assuming they could use SB 9. Board Member Bower thought they should move forward, do what they’re going to do, and if somebody pushes back then they would just pull them off the list. There is no advantage to butting heads with anybody who doesn’t want to be part of it. Ms. French said there is an advantage as far as if they are not doing an SB 9 project and they want to come forward with a two-story home. That is still a discretionary process. It becomes ministerial with multiple units. 5.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Wimmer thought there was a big component of property owners who see a historic listing of their property as inhibiting them from doing anything, and they see it as a negative thing. She thought it would be great to create some incentive for these people so that they would want to have a historic listing. The Mills Act was one thing. They would have to come up with a big campaign to say how great it is to have a historic house in Palo Alto and how it is a badge of honor. She felt it is a psychological thing that people see it as a deterrent and not as asset, although she doesn’t know where this attitude comes from. She thought it was because if they ever want to do anything they have to jump through so many more hoops and pay so much more money, and they see it as an obstacle or a hinderance. She wished they could reprogram them, or say, “Hey, this is something you should take pride in,” but said the only way she could see doing it is to incentivize it somehow. She wished peoples’ attitudes were different, because it is really the core of what Palo Alto is. Driving through Palo Alto now and seeing these beautiful old homes creates a historic fabric and creates a sense of place and preservation that what makes communities so desirable, and Palo Alto is one of the most desirable communities to be in. She wished that they could change the narrative for these people, and instead of them viewing it as a horrible thing, they should want to achieve that. They should want to have their house on a list. Board Member Wimmer felt the way to incentivize would be the Mills Act. The only other way was if they wanted to do anything, such as waive their fees. She said they have to create some incentive. Ms. French responded that they do have an incentive for Categories 1 through 4 for additional floor area above the maximum. There is an incentive that exists that allows subdivision of a property if they have an historic resource on one of the properties that would remain after the subdivision. With ADUs, folks can now put an 800-square-foot ADU above their maximum FAR on any kind of property, so that may be something that encourages retention of the existing home. She said she sees emails daily for people that want to buy properties in Palo Alto, and the first thing they ask is, “Can I tear it down?” because there are people that don’t want to move into somebody else’s old house. Vice Chair Pease said conventional wisdom for many folks is that their home is their largest asset, and they don’t want to have somebody control that asset in a way that they perceive is going to be detrimental to them in that regard. He observed that the Mayor has asked what it is going to take to get this done, and asked how the Board can respond to that and how to provide that back to the Council and see what they have to say, and at the same time move forward with something positive in the face of SB 9 to at least encourage the preservation of historic homes. Chair Willis said she thought she could round up ten properties on the list that want to be on the inventory. If she recruits ten property owners and they add a couple of City properties on that list and they go to Council with it and get the homeowners to make a request that they be added to the inventory, and maybe if other people see that happening, it would make their entrance easier. Vice Chair Pease wondered if she could ask them, or if she already knew why they are positive in that regard. Chair Willis said she got one herself, and she is positive. She said it is a great old house that she would hate to see torn down. She and her kids love it. Vice Chair Pease said until the law is in effect they don’t know how the prospect of somebody coming and offering to buy your house for even more than a house costs in Palo Alto now for development under the rights they have under this law will reveal itself over time. It would be nice to understand what would make folks favorable to having their property listed. If there were ten folks willing to talk with them, he would be interested in having those conversations. Board Member Wimmer thought it was a good idea to have a small group of people willing to be interviewed or have a conversation with them, perhaps a small group representing the greater community of people who do have potentially historic homes. She liked what Chair Willis was saying about finding a small sample group to start with and learn from. Vice Chair Pease added that they can begin to build a focus group that makes things more understandable to people who are more reactive. He said he is very interested to hear why someone would forego what many may consider to be a potential financial incentive in order to protect a property they own and live in. He thought that getting a group of first-movers together was a great idea. He advocated creating a success and deriving a way of answering the question of what it takes to get this done. Rather than doing it in a heated community meeting, do it quietly in a way that motivates people when they see both sides of the coin. Ms. French had an idea that, because they do have people that currently own listed Categories 1 through 4 properties, and there may be people that have already gained the bonus floor area, et cetera, that they may be willing to share why they like being on the City’s inventory. Chair Willis asked Ms. French to help her put together a list of such people that she could reach out to. 5.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Willis thought they would benefit from a strong organizational hand to help get some things done, so if anyone had ideas for her, to please let her know. Ms. French thought one thing that might be helpful was to look at the topics on the retreat list and winnow them down to perhaps two or three topics. Board Member Wimmer said it sounds like Chair Willis was hoping to have even more frequent meetings, and thought that having even one a month could be dedicated to one of the retreat items. For example, the first meeting of the month could be reserved for their topics of interest. A whole meeting could be dedicated to the Mills Act, for example. Instead of being overwhelmed with so many different talking points, they could pick just one topic for each meeting. She appreciated the open conversation they were currently having and felt the Board needs these to specifically talk about things like the inventory. She suggested that a retreat seems very official, and they could instead just pick one topic per meeting, throw out ideas, learn together about the topic and review where they are at with it. What progress has been made? What progress do they want to make? She said Board Member Bower and she spent a long time on the Mills Act, and they still need to re-evaluate what they have accomplished, where they are at, what they are trying to do. Since there are new people on the Board, she advocated focusing on one thing at each meeting. Board Member Heinrich like the idea of focusing each meeting on a special topic, so that they can all study what that topic is, as opposed to trying to hit everything at once and not getting anything done. Vice Chair Pease agreed and said many of the cancellations in the last year were because there were no properties to evaluate. He said they could be spending the time differently and he also found the conversation very useful. Board Member Wimmer added they can connect and educate themselves and bring the new Board members up to speed, but even for herself, she has to be reminded. She said maybe they could even have two meetings on one project. Board Member Bower also agreed with this notion. He wondered what the status was on finding a seventh Board member. Ms. French provided an update, reporting that Monday, the 13th, the Council was set to appoint someone to that seat. Vice Chair Pease thought they had found a couple things that could be done in the short term that could be very useful, such as interviewing people that Ms. French could connect them to who live in historic homes and on why they had them listed, as well as Chair Willis’ contacts that are open to this. He also thought they could also test some simple things, like whether Street View would be good enough to check on whether a structure is still there by each person taking perhaps five places on the list and going onto the maps and looking and then driving there to see if they are accurate. It would be spending a couple hours to get a flavor for whether its possible. If so, it makes parsing out the work much easier. Board Member Bower commented that PAST covered the entire city to find the 100-year centennial houses during the pandemic last year just by parsing it out to the board members, so it was a very good idea. He also thought Street View would be a great place to start. If there is no building to see, it would obviously require a visit, but most houses can easily be seen on it. Vice Chair Pease remarked that Chair Willis is correct in that they all want to get something done and build on what they do, not just react to someone occasionally coming in and requesting or who is being required to have a review. At the same time, he felt Board Member Wimmer’s comments about dialog might help them be much more productive. Chair Willis liked the idea of having meetings focused on specific topics, aside from projects bring to the Board. She said the History Museum has been on her mind lately. She thought it would be useful to have somebody from their Board come and talk to them. The Roth Building would benefit the HRB as well as the History Museum inasmuch as it could be a great symbol of preservation in Palo Alto if it wasn’t so decayed. She felt there were other topics like that, such as a meeting where ten homeowners come and talk to them about their experience. She said Los Altos History Museum did that with five properties, which she thought were all Mills Act properties. The owners did inspiring presentations. She said it might also get other people interested in their meetings and build interest in preservation in Palo Alto. Regarding the list of potential retreat topics, she asked to look at the list again and narrow down what they want to discuss at the retreat and what they would like to put on future agendas. Ms. French shared the list with the Board. Chair Willis advocated item 2, stated as “Develop a work program.” She said her priority has become developing a work plan for 2022, and she felt this item could be developed collectively. Vice Chair Pease suggested using number five, “Survey Update,” as the framework for the goals. In other words, all the goals were built around advancing the survey update, given the new laws and the urgency created 5.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 10 by them. Chair Willis added that they could incorporate the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to that. She said she would rather not get hung up on outreach but could be a topic they could have a special meeting on. Vice Chair Pease said with the new law and what the Council has said, all the other items orbit around it. Board Member Wimmer reiterated that the list is daunting, and they could spend a year on just one item, and focusing on one thing at a time would help. Chair Willis asked Ms. French to remove item number three to talk about at the second meeting in February. She said they could delay the item pertaining to virtual presentation. She advocated deleting HRB outreach. Board Member Wimmer suggested reviewing the Historic Preservation Ordinance Chapter 16.49, not trying to change it but re-familiarizing themselves with it. Not trying to revolutionize it but just re-familiarizeing themselves with it as a group and discussing it and maybe identifying areas that could potentially be improved upon. Also, there is the Historic Building Code which is something completely different, when a house is under construction there are some exemptions and things that are considered incentives, in that if you have a historic house and you are remodeling it, you are exempt from certain Code requirements. Becoming familiar with this code along with the Ordinance and become familiar with it would be great training for all of the Board members. Chair Willis suggested a presentation on the Historic Building Code at another meeting because it is a big topic and something they should be familiar with. Board Member Wimmer said it is a small chapter in the Building Code and she has an isolated PDF of it she could share. She didn’t think they all needed to be experts on it, but just know that it exists. [Board Member Bower left the meeting and Board Member Heinrich had technical difficulties barring further participation in the meeting] Vice Chair Pease thought that could be a component within the framework of the inventory issue. The urgency is around the inventory. If the goal is to get to the Council around how to do this, it might be one of the most effective avenues. Board Member Wimmer wondered if this, therefore, was to be their most important subject. Vice Chair Pease said if they came up with a plan around the inventory from the retreat, it seems productive to him. Chair Willis wanted to see them come up with a work plan very focused on not only updating the inventory with the properties they already have documented, but also a system for moving forward. When there are 50 years’ worth of properties, their inventory is more than 40 years old since being updated. There needs to be a system in place to add to it systematically. She advocated, first, doing a work plan, and second, coming up with steps towards updating the inventory. Board Member Wimmer agreed, and Board Member Makinen felt they were on the right track, getting the list thinned down to a more reasonable level. Vice Chair Pease said in the context of coming up with a way to do the inventory, it’s a better way to focus. If somebody were to present it to the Council, they want to be able to answer their questions and be able to know what they are speaking to. He still felt there should be one topic, the inventory, and everything else that fits under that, and this would be the context of the conversation and decision-making process at the retreat. Board Member Wimmer like the format. He said this is a step towards how to get this done. At the end of the day, the Council decides where the resources go, how the money is spent, what the priorities are, not them, so for the amount of effort they have to put in to have the best return. Chair Willis felt with planning they could get some things done. She was optimistic that they made progress through the discussion. Ms. French thought they had made strides. Vice Chair Pease asked her professional opinion on their thoughts on how to proceed. Ms. French definitely supports the HRB as one of the tasks of her job and she thought having the digestible one topic per meeting was good, but she felt like she has been asking the HRB to focus on the SB 9 and the fact that they already have a Comprehensive Plan program that they haven’t begun. HRB is appointed by the Council. Council gives direction and reviews the work plan. The work plan they have, and placement on the inventory of the eligible properties is not on their work plan. There is an opportunity in April to add it to the work plan and an opportunity before April to report back to the Mayor and Council what it takes, what the process is, the outreach, et cetera, so she thought it was worthy of elevating, because it has gotten noticed by the Mayor. Vice Chair Pease said clearly SB 9 and the response to it is a huge urgent issue for the City. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be people out there trying to identify potential properties for additional housing that could be built under the terms of this law, so even though it is not in the current work plan, if it’s urgent enough, he wondered if it called for them to rise to the occasion and do what is important. Ms. French said sure and the adoption and presentation to Council of the work plan back in June and July, so now the work plan can 5.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 11 be updated, so someone could craft something with her help and send it to Council. Since it has been requested having it go with information about what it takes, because that’s been requested of them. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcement Ms. French offered a reminder that oral communications is part of every meeting, although there were no members of the public who wished to speak at that time. Adjournment Vice Chair Pease moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Board Member Wimmer, the motion carried, 5-0, by voice vote. 5.a Packet Pg. 106