Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-28 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Special Meeting Thursday, August 28, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Board member Christian Pease Remote Call In Location: 1702 Myrtle Street, Calistoga, CA 94515   Historic Resources Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas are available at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512) Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to hrb@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. 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. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions and Actions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to hrb@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.  1 Special Meeting August 28, 2025 CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL  PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 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 Meetings and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 1950 Cowper Street. (25PLN-00128) Request for Major Historic Resource Board Review for the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 1 Resource Including Removal of Non-Original Skylights, Roof Repair, Demolition of Exterior Walls of a Non-Historic Garage, Removal of Non-Original Fencing and Landings, New Exterior Windows and Doors, and Replacement of Wood Framed Exterior Doors and Windows in Select Locations. CEQA Status: Exempt From CEQA Per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zone District: R-1 (Single-Family). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 12, 2025 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of July 10, 2025 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).   ADJOURNMENT     2 Special Meeting August 28, 2025 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@PaloAlto.gov. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. 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: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. ◦You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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 Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512 Phone:1-669-900-6833 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@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  3 Special Meeting August 28, 2025 Item No. 1. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 28, 2025 Report #: 2508-5053 TITLE Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments 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 it be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.    No action is required by the HRB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 HRB Schedule & Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison1& Contact Information  Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner  (650) 329-2321  Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 4     Historic Resources Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 8 3 8 0 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 2/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/10/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/8/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 6/12/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/10/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Eagleston-Cieslewicz 8/14/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 8/28/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Special Eagleston-Cieslewicz 9/11/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/9/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Pease 11/13/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/11/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2025 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June WP Goal 1 (Suggested Ord. Updates) Eagleston-Cieslewicz WP Goal 2 (Education/User Resources) Pease WP Goal 3 (Inventory Updates) Rohman WP Goal 4 (Preservation Incentives) Pease & Ulinskas WP Goal 5 (Awards Program) Rohman & Willis WP Goal 5 (Awards Program) Eagleston-Cieslewicz & Ulinskas July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 HRB Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 8 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 28, 2025 Report #: 2507-4986 TITLE Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 1950 Cowper Street. (25PLN-00128) Request for Major Historic Resource Board Review for the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 1 Resource Including Removal of Non-Original Skylights, Roof Repair, Demolition of Exterior Walls of a Non-Historic Garage, Removal of Non-Original Fencing and Landings, New Exterior Windows and Doors, and Replacement of Wood Framed Exterior Doors and Windows in Select Locations. CEQA Status: Exempt From CEQA Per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zone District: R-1 (Single-Family). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action: 1. Recommend that the application is consistent with the standards of review contained in Municipal Code Section 16.49.050, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 19, 2025, a Major HRB Review request was submitted for the historic rehabilitation of an existing Category 1 resource on the City’s Inventory. PAMC Section 16.49.050 provides that the HRB shall review and provide non-binding recommendations on applications for alterations to single-family and duplex residences which are historic structures/sites. Staff requests that the HRB recommend that the application is consistent with the review procedures in PAMC 16.49 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation and Restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Major HRB Review for the rehabilitation and restoration of an existing Category 1 home including removal of non-original skylights, roof repair, demolition of exterior walls of a non- historic garage, removal of non-original fencing and landings, new exterior windows and doors, Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 8 and replacement of wood framed exterior doors and windows in select locations. See Attachment A (Project Plans). BACKGROUND Palo Alto Historic Inventory The property was identified through City survey efforts as part of the 1979 Beach & Boghosian Historic Survey & Inventory. This 1979 survey would later result in what is now the City’s local inventory. The property was evaluated in 1978 and was attributed a Category 1 “Exceptional building" that signifies it is a property of preeminent national or state importance. Category 1 resources are meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. Site Development The project site is located on a parcel that is approximately 143 feet wide and 247 feet deep within the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district. The property includes a one-story residence and two detached accessory buildings. The main residence was designed by Birge Clark in the Spanish Colonial Revival style and completed in 1932. Clark also designed the detached “Garden House” that was completed in 1942. The other detached accessory building “Guard House” has an unknown construction date. Well known Palo Alto resident Lucie Stern commissioned the residence for her daughter Ruth Stern. It was intended to compliment Lucie’s own residence directly to the east of the project site. The property underwent refinement to its original design until 1942 under the direction of Lucie Stern and completed by Birge Clark, the original architect. Records indicate that a rear cloister was added to the residence in 1935 and the detached rear “Garden House” constructed in 1942. Clark had a long-standing working relationship with Lucie Stern, and the alterations to the subject property, together with the work on the adjacent properties at 1928 and 1990 Cowper Street, illustrate the personal relationship between this architect and client. It’s important to note that alterations conducted since 1942 are not considered historic or significant to the property. Character Defining Features Character-defining features are the physical traits that commonly recur in property types and/or architectural styles. The character-defining features of 1950 Cowper Street, as identified in Attachment B, are assumed to be those architectural features and materials that date to the building’s period of significance (1932-1942). These features include, but are not limited to: One-story massing J-shape plan arranged around an outdoor living space Indoor and outdoor relationship along the interior courtyard Textured stucco cladding and clay tile roofing Stucco grilles Deep roof eaves with exposed carved rafter tails Curved entry vestibule with arched entrance and round-arched wood entry door Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 7     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 8 Wood posts with carved capitals Decorative metal features, including wrought iron box grilles and cast iron figurine fixture Original or historic windows, doors, and openings where extant, including where windows have been replaced in-kind Multi-lite steel-sash casement windows, replaced in-kind (primarily at locations visible to the public right-of-way) Original door openings at the rear of the building Tile vents on gable ends Stucco-clad chimneys (where remaining) Metal gutters and rain leaders and Cast spouts Original or historic brick driveway, walkways, and patios laid in a basketweave pattern as well as a basketweave pattern that utilizes standard bricks with small square brick accents Detached rear Garden House with board-and-batten cladding, with a cross-gabled roof clad in tile and Exposed rafter tails ANALYSIS PAMC 16.49.050 provides, in part, that in evaluating applications, the HRB shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. The prime concern should be the exterior appearance of the building site. The proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the building and its site. In 1987, the City Council adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation for use by the Historic Resources Board. The Standards for Rehabilitation promote historic preservation best practices that help to protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. Compliance of the property owner with the HRB recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory. The applicant submitted an SOIS memorandum prepared at their own expense by Page & Turnbull (Attachment B). When the City receives submitted reports from the applicant it is standard procedure to conduct a peer review to ensure that the analysis is accurate and conducted in a manner consistent with industry standards. The City’s Consultant, M-Group, prepared a peer review of the SOIS memorandum and concurred with the findings (Attachment C). The peer review also included the following two recommendations that can be incorporated into the project design: 1. Include a paving plan to identify any historic brick that remains and areas where the new brick will be placed. 2. Pre-Construction Meeting/Final Site Inspection Staff notes that these recommendations can be addressed at building permit stage and would not delay the planning approval. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 8     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 8 Compliance with SOIS The following two tables summarize the project’s compliance with the SOIS for the treatment of Historic Properties for rehabilitation. #STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 1 A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The existing property would continue to be used as a single-family residence, which is its historic purpose. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with 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. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The property is characterized by one-story massing, j-shape plan arranged around an outdoor living space, and textured stucco cladding and clay tile roofing. The property will retain those features that are original to the residence. The primary façade would only have the non-historic door replaced with a wooden panel door to closely match the original design. No changes to the spatial relationships of the existing buildings would occur. The removal of the non-historic wall along Cowper Street would return the open relationship of the building to the public. The non-historic attached garage would have some of its walls removed, returning more openness between the residence and the garden house. As designed, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 2. 3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: No conjectural features from other buildings are proposed to be installed. No other historic features from other buildings are planned to be installed. Further, the proposed project would not create a false sense of historical development. As designed, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 3. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 8 #STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The residence has undergone several alterations since its initial construction. Since the end of the property’s period of significance (1932-1942) no changes have acquired historical significance in their own right. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 4. 5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The proposed project would retain and preserve the historic character of the property as discussed in Standard 2. The building’s most significant features would be retained (Stucco cladding, clay tile roofing, massing, arched front entry, iron grilles) and preserved. No distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the historic property would be removed. Rather, the project would improve the historic character of the property by returning the wooden front door and openness at the rear with the non-historic garage. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 5. 6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: No deteriorated historic features have been identified so far. However, should features be identified with the proposed work their repair would be prioritized rather than replacement through soliciting the expertise of a historic preservation professional to determine that the deterioration is in fact severe enough for replacement. The existing clay tile at the roof would be carefully removed, stored, and reinstalled once the roof work is complete. There are areas where clay tile has previously been removed (existing skylights). These areas would need to be patched with new tile and selected to match the existing tile in size, shape, texture, and color. To help blend in Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 8 #STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS the new tile, it would be mixed with historic tile. The reinstallation of historic tile would be prioritized at the primary façade and at areas of the roof that are visible from the public right-of- way. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 6. 7 Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: No chemical or physical treatments are proposed at this time. Should treatments need to occur, they would follow the guidance of this Standard and be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. The proposed project would be consistent with Standard 7. 8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: While minor excavation work is needed for the removal of the brick pavers, it is unlikely that any previously undiscovered archeological resources would be disturbed. Standard discovery procedures would apply. If followed, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 8. 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: The non-historic garage constructed in 1973 would have some of its exterior walls removed and non-historic brick paving across the property would be removed. Since these changes are occurring to non- historic areas, they will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The roof repair would prioritize repair and only replace areas in-kind to match the old in design, color, texture, material, and other visual qualities. The resulting changes to the garage would be differentiated from the original design and not mistaken for an original feature of the residence. Overall, the proposed project is consistent with Standard 9. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 11     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 8 #STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ANALYSIS 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ☒ CONSISTENT ☐ NOT CONSISTENT ☐ N/A Explanation: As discussed in Standard 9, the proposed project would not construct any new additions. The proposed changes to the garage would occur in a non-historic addition. The roof repair would preserve the existing material and replace it in-kind where needed. The proposed project and related construction would be conducted 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. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 10. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten days in advance of the public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on August 15, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) because the scope of work is limited to minor exterior alterations of an existing building. Further, the applicant submitted an SOIS memorandum prepared at their own expense by Page & Turnbull that concluded the scope of work was compliant with the SOIS. The City’s Consultant, M-Group, prepared a peer review of the SOIS memorandum and concurred with the findings. The project is limited to the maintenance and rehabilitation of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommend action, the HRB may: 1. Continue the discussion of the application to a date certain with specific direction to staff or the applicant. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 8 2. Recommend that that the application is not consistent with the standards of review contained in the Municipal Code and the SOIS for Rehabilitation and Restoration. HRB should specify which standards are of concern and how the project does not comply. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum Attachment C: Peer Review Attachment D: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the HRB using the following email: HRB@PaloAlto.gov. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 14     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 July 7, 2025 PROJECT NO. 24282 TO The Redtail Trust c/o Brent Schroeder PROJECT 1950 Cowper Street, Palo Alto Consultation Services OF UrbanWorks San Francisco, CA FROM Barrett Reiter, Architectural Historian, Page & Turnbull CC Christina Dikas, Page & Turnbull Danielle De Young, Marmol Radziner VIA Email REGARDING 1950 Cowper Street, Palo Alto – SOI Standards Analysis Memorandum INTRODUCTION This Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards Analysis Memorandum has been prepared by Page & Turnbull at the request of the Redtail Trust (care of UrbanWorks) to analyze a proposed project at 1950 Cowper Street in Palo Alto. The one-story residence and freestanding ancillary building (named the “Garden House” in the original architectural drawings) were designed by prominent Palo Alto- based architect Birge Clark for well-known Palo Alto resident Lucie Stern. The residence was built to be the home of Lucie’s daughter Ruth and was intended as a complement to Lucie’s own residence directly to the east. It was designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style and completed in 1932.1 Two additional buildings are located on the existing parcel, the “Garden House,” which was completed in 1942 and designed by Clark for the Sterns, and another ancillary building (called the “Guard House”) constructed at an unknown date.2 The subject property is currently listed as a Category 1 (“Exceptional Building”) on Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. The memorandum describes the proposed project as it affects the historic resource and provides an analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards). 1 The term “California Colonial Revival style” was used by Birge Clark to describe his work in this style, but the style is more commonly known as the Spanish Colonial Revival style. 2 Clark’s plans for the “Garden House for Miss Ruth Lucie Stern” are dated December 14, 1941, so the building was presumably completed the following year. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 15     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 2 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Methodology Page & Turnbull prepared a Character-Defining Features Memorandum for the property in September 2024. At that time, the original drawings for the building by Birge Clark were reviewed to inform our understanding of the original design, subsequent alterations that have taken place at the property, and which original features remain today.3 The Character-Defining Features Memorandum was referenced by the project team during development of the proposed project. HISTORIC BACKGROUND Historic Significance As described in the Character-Defining Features Memorandum: 1950 Cowper Street was initially surveyed in 1978 and soon thereafter listed in Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 “Exceptional Building.”4 The period of significance for 1950 Cowper Street has not been previously established, but as the building has been identified as significant for its architecture, its period of significance spans from 1932 to 1942. This range begins with the construction of the residence and continues through the final alterations that were designed by Clark for Lucie Stern. All work undertaken within this period was completed as refinements to the original design, was completed by the original architect, and at the direction of the original client. In addition, Birge Clark had a long-standing working relationship with Lucie Stern, and the alterations to this property (along with the work completed at the adjacent properties at 1928 and 1990 Cowper Street) illustrate the rich and personal relationship between this particular architect and client. Alterations that have taken place since 1942 are not considered historic or significant to the property.5 3 “Mrs. Louis Stern (residence), 1950, 1990 Cowper St., Palo Alto, California, 1932”, Birge M. Clark architectural drawings, 1909- 1954 (Stanford University. Libraries. Department of Special Collections and University Archives). 4 Carolyn George, “Historic Resources Inventory: Ruth Stern Residence,” Historic Resources Board, 1978. 5 Page & Turnbull, Character-Defining Features Memorandum, September 2024. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 16     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 3 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Figure 1: 1950 Cowper Street, 1993. Source: San Jose Mercury News. The following is a brief overview of the development and major alterations that have taken place at 1950 Cowper Street since its construction (refer to the supporting graphic at Figure 2).6 • 1932 – Residence constructed • 1935 – Rear cloister added to residence • 1941-1942 – Detached rear Garden House constructed • 1972 – “Covered patio and seating area” (Permit #A-31340) • 1972 – “Addition to create dressing room and bath at rear of residence. Construct open porch at rear of living room.” (Permit #A-31270) • 1972 – Installation of a fence (Permit #5570) • 1973 – “Addition of carport to existing garage” (Permit #A-32546) • 1973 – “Addition of bay window” (Permit #A-31556) • 1981 – “Adding closet, dressing area, and study” (Permit #B-81-912) • 1997 – “Remove [approximately 70 square-feet] existing tile [roofing], install new membrane and reinstall tile.” (Permit #97-1011R) • 2000 – “Build new pool and spa” (Permit #00-3493) • 2000 – “Remove [approximately 50 square-feet] existing tile [roofing], install membrane, replace tile.” Replacing six rafters due to dry rot. (Permit #00-3205) • Date Unknown – installation of skylights 6 Page & Turnbull, Character-Defining Features Memorandum, September 2024. This information is based on permits on file with the City of Palo Alto and may not be inclusive of all work performed or alterations made. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 17     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 4 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Date Unknown – enclosure of loggia along southeast façade of north wing7 • Date Unknown – alteration of openings along northwest façade and addition of projecting gable roof near center8 Figure 2: Existing site plan (not to scale) with major (but not all) alterations highlighted, including the cloister expansion (1935) in darker green, construction of the Garden House (1942) in yellow, south wing expansion (1972) in purple, installation of the covered patio and seating area (1972) in blue, north wing/garage expansion (1973) in red, addition of gable at north wing (unknown date) in light green, and pool installation (2000) in navy. The area of land outlined in dashed orange was not originally part of the subject property parcel (acquisition date unknown) and includes the Guard House (shaded orange). Source: Laplace. Edited by Page & Turnbull. 7 Page & Turnbull estimates this work may have coincided with the 1972 permit to construct an “open porch at rear of living room,” though the permit record does not outline this activity within its scope of work. 8 Page & Turnbull estimates this work may have coincided with the 1973 permit creating the rear garage addition on the north wing, though the permit record does not outline this activity within its scope of work. South Wing North Wing Garden House Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 18     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 5 of 15 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, state, or local designation under one or more of the criteria of significance, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character-defining features of 1950 Cowper Street include the original and historic features that date to the building’s period of significance (1932-1942).9 Those features include, but are not limited to: • Low/horizontal, one-story massing • J-shaped plan arranged around a designed outdoor living space • Relationship of indoor and outdoor spaces along the interior courtyards of the building • Overall sense of solidity and enclosure at the primary and secondary visible façades, allowing for private but open spaces at the rear • Textured stucco cladding and clay tile roofing o While the present exterior color may not be original, the light (white or off-white) color is typical of the style and of Clark’s work, and would be similar to the original color • Stucco grilles • Deeply overhanging roof eaves with exposed carved rafter tails • Curved entry vestibule with arched entrance and round-arched wood entry door (existing door is non-original and appears to have been replaced since ca. 2012)10 • Wood posts with carved capitals • Decorative metal features, including wrought iron box grilles and cast iron figurine fixture • Original or historic windows, doors, and openings where extant, including but not limited to areas where windows have been replaced in-kind • Multi-lite steel-sash casement windows, replaced in-kind (primarily at locations visible to the public right-of-way) o Original door openings at the rear of the building (Original doors would have been multi-lite steel-frame doors. These have largely been replaced with multi-lite wood- frame doors.) • Tile vents on gable ends 9 These features were identified in Page & Turnbull, Character-Defining Features Memorandum, September 2024. 10 Photographs taken ca. 2012 are available online via PAST Heritage, “1950 Cowper Street,” Accessed July 2, 2025, https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invC/Cowper1950.html; “Mrs. Louis Stern (residence), 1950, 1990 Cowper St., Palo Alto, California, 1932”, Birge M. Clark architectural drawings, 1909-1954 (Stanford University. Libraries. Department of Special Collections and University Archives). Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 19     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 6 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 • Stucco-clad chimneys (where remaining) • Metal gutters and rain leaders • Cast spouts • Original or historic brick driveway, walkways, and patios laid in a basketweave pattern as well as a basketweave pattern that utilizes standard bricks with small square brick accents • Detached rear Garden House with board-and-batten cladding, with a cross-gabled roof clad in tile o Exposed rafter tails Features that are not original to the property, do not date to the period of significance (1932–1942), and therefore are not character-defining features, include, but are not limited to: • Cross-gable additions • Fenestration opening configuration and associated components along the north wing’s northwest façade (with the exception of the northernmost window with box grille) • Replacement wood-frame doors and windows • Mass timber, L-shaped [garage] addition with clerestory windows and stucco chimney at the south end of north wing (Note that portions of the brick paving within the garage area may be original/historic) • Skylights • Exterior stucco and brick privacy fence, retaining walls, and raised/tiered planters • Exterior mechanical enclosure with a stucco screen with brick trim and paneled wood access gates • Swimming pool • Opening configuration and non-original doors and windows at the Garden House • Rectangular rear area containing tennis court • Guard House • All plantings at both front and rear gardens PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project description is based on a revised graphics package supplied to Page & Turnbull dated June 27, 2025. This is attached as an Appendix. The following project description is arranged with general treatments of the residence provided first, followed by changes specific to each façade. Alterations to the attached non-historic garage at the southwest end of the north wing are described separately, and general landscape and site changes are listed after that. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 20     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 7 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Primary Residence • Patching of the roof, including at areas where skylights would be infilled, would involve the careful removal of existing clay tile to be stored and reinstalled once work on roof membrane is completed. o If additional clay tiles are needed to patch areas of the roof, new tiles would match the historic tiles in look, size, color, and texture. Placement of historic tiles would be prioritized at the primary façade and elevations visible from the public right-of-way if significant amounts of replacement tile are necessary. • Exterior stucco cladding would be patched and repaired as needed in areas where window and door openings would be altered, or other alterations (such as removal of attached planters) would cause damage to the exterior cladding. Areas of patching and repair would match the existing cladding in material, texture, look, and color. • New windows and doors would consist of wood-frame windows and glazed, wood-frame doors to match the existing, non-historic windows and doors. PRIMARY FAÇADE • Existing non-historic front door would be replaced with a 16-panel wood door to match the design of the original front door. o Design of proposed wood door would match the original drawings and photographs of the former wood front door (believed to be original) that was present at the building in 2012, and featured sixteen inset panels with stopped chamfers within a round-arched frame.11 • Non-historic low concrete site wall with integrated planters along the Cowper Street frontage of the property would be removed. NORTHWEST FAÇADE (FACING DRIVEWAY) OF NORTH WING • One existing non-historic window opening would be expanded for a door. • One existing non-historic door with sidelight would be removed and replaced with French doors installed in existing opening. • Non-historic low planters would be removed. SOUTHWEST FAÇADE OF NORTH WING (WITHIN EXISTING GARAGE VOLUME) • Existing non-historic interior door between the residence and garage would be replaced with a wood-frame glazed door to match the existing, non-historic, exterior doors. 11 Photographs taken ca. 2012 are available online via PAST Heritage, “1950 Cowper Street,” Accessed July 2, 2025, https://www.pastheritage.org/inv/invC/Cowper1950.html; Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 21     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 8 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 COURTYARD-FACING FACADES Southeast Façade of North Wing • One existing non-historic window opening would be expanded to accommodate French doors. • All skylights along the roof would be removed and openings patched, with clay tile reinstalled. Southwest Façade (along rear cloister) • Non-historic outdoor grill and kitchen area would be removed. • Existing non-historic wood-frame bi-fold doors would be removed and replaced with no change to opening. New doors would consist of steel bi-fold doors. • All skylights along the roof would be removed and openings patched, with clay tile reinstalled. Northwest Façade of South Wing • New window opening would be added at the non-historic addition (constructed in 1972). • Existing non-original low brick wall with planting bed would be removed (low wall continues to the rear façade of the south wing). REAR (SOUTHWEST) FAÇADE OF SOUTH WING • Existing non-original low brick wall with planting bed would be removed (low wall also to be removed at northwest façade). • At the non-historic addition, an existing non-historic window would be removed, the opening reduced in height, and a smaller wood-frame window to be installed. The opening would be patched to match the existing stucco cladding. • At the non-historic addition, an existing non-historic window would be removed, and the opening infilled to match stucco cladding. ENCLOSED COURTYARD AT SOUTH WING • Elevated brick landings would be removed and replaced with brick that matches the look and finish of the remaining adjacent historic brick. Attached Non-Historic Garage • Alterations at the attached garage (non-historic, constructed 1973) would include: o Existing stucco walls and wood garage doors would be removed, and the existing wood framing of the garage would be exposed. o Existing clay tile roof would be carefully removed, plywood sheathing would be removed, and clay tile would be reinstalled without sheathing. o Existing brick flooring in the garage would be removed, floor would be regraded, and then the brick reinstalled. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 22     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 9 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Site and Landscape • All areas of newer brick paving within rear yard would be removed. Note: historic brick to remain including area of decorative basketweave patterned brick (with square and rectangular pieces) at the enclosed courtyard (southeast side of south wing). • Brick patios would be installed within portions of the interior courtyard and between the attached garage and the adjacent Garden House. Brick would match the historic brick in color and texture. • Flagstone pavers would be installed to create walkways between brick patios and exterior doors. • Non-historic pool would be removed and infilled; area would be planted. • Non-historic pool equipment enclosure would be removed. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties and are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources.12 Conformance with the Standards does not determine whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Preservation Covenant states that all work will be completed in accordance with the recommended approaches of the Standards in order to preserve the qualities that make the property eligible as a historic resource. The Secretary of the Interior offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four treatments are summarized as follows: Preservation: The Standards for Preservation “require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time.” Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation “acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” 12 Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 23     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 10 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Restoration: The Standards for Restoration “allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods.” Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction “establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.”13 Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. For the purposes of analyzing the proposed alterations at 1950 Cowper Street, the Standards for Rehabilitation are the appropriate Standards as the project proposes alterations that retain the existing single-family use of the building but would alter some character-defining features and spaces.14 Standards for Rehabilitation Analysis The following analysis applies the Standards for Rehabilitation to the proposed project. Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.15 Discussion: The proposed project would not alter the current use of the property as a single-family residence. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Discussion: The historic property is characterized by its horizontal, one-story massing with stucco cladding and clay tile roofing with a J-shaped footprint arranged around a rear courtyard. The building was designed to open out from the interior into the rear gardens and courtyards, while the street-facing façade features few windows and openings, establishing privacy for the building’s inhabitants. The proposed project would largely retain those features that are original to the residence. The proposed project would leave the primary façade largely unchanged with the exception of replacing the existing non-historic front door with a wood panel door that matches the 13 Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 14 Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 15 This and the following Standards are listed in Grimmer (2017) and National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services: Rehabilitation as a Treatment, accessed January 2024. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four- treatments/treatment-rehabilitation.htm. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 24     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 11 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 original design of the door based on both original drawings and c. 2012 photographs of the original door prior to its replacement. The decorative box grilles, steel sash windows, and original round- arched entry opening would be retained. Other features of the residence which reinforce its historic character include the presence of covered porches, wood posts and rafter tails, and the permeability between indoor and outdoor spaces at the rear. The spatial relationships of the property would also be retained as no significant changes to the organization of the site or new structures are proposed. The removal of the non-historic concrete wall along Cowper Street would improve the historic character of the residence by returning its historic open relationship to the public right-of-way. In addition, the existing non-historic attached garage structure (constructed in 1973) would have its exterior walls removed, bringing some of the openness back between the residence and the historic Garden House. As designed, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: No historic features from other properties are planned to be installed as part of the proposed project. Additionally, no conjectural features would be installed as currently proposed. As such, the proposed project would not create a false sense of historical development and would be consistent with Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: While several alterations and additions have been undertaken at the subject property since 1942, no changes to the property have occurred since the end of the period of significance that have acquired historic significance in their own right. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Discussion: As discussed under Standard 2, the proposed project would retain the character of the historic building. The building’s most significant features, including its cladding, clay tile roofing, massing, and decorative elements of its primary façade—with wrought-iron box grilles, steel sash Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 25     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 12 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 windows, and round-arched primary entry opening—would be preserved. No historic features, finishes, or examples of craftsmanship are proposed to be removed. Instead, the recreation of a wood paneled entry door to match the original design of the entry door would improve the historic character of the residence by returning a distinctive feature that demonstrates the building’s craftsmanship. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: Few features are known to be deteriorated, however, if deteriorated features are identified in the course of the proposed work, those features would be prioritized for repair rather than replacement. If replacement appears to be necessary, the project team would need to solicit the expertise of a historic preservation professional to determine that the deterioration is in fact severe enough for replacement. In the case of work proposed at the roof, it is known that the existing roof membrane is in need of repair. The existing clay tile at the roof would be carefully removed, stored, and reinstalled once the roof work is complete. As there are areas where clay tile has previously been removed (such as at existing skylights), the roof would need to be patched with new tile. The new tile would be selected to match the existing tile in size, shape, texture, and color and would be mixed with historic tile to ensure that areas of replacement tile are adequately blended with the rest of the roof. If, for any reason, significant replacement of tile must occur, the reinstallation of historic tile would be prioritized at the primary façade and at areas of the roof that are visible from the public right-of-way. Overall, the proposed project appears to be consistent with Standard 6, and as long as the standard approach of prioritizing repair over replacement is followed, the proposed project would continue to be consistent with Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Discussion: No chemical or physical treatments of historic materials are proposed at this time. If such treatments are undertaken, as long as they are of the gentlest means possible and follow the guidance of the Standards, the proposed project would remain consistent with Standard 7. Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 26     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 13 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Discussion: Minor below-grade excavation would be undertaken for the removal of the non-historic pool. While it is unlikely that any previously unidentified potential archaeological resources would be disturbed, as long as standard discovery procedures for the City of Palo Alto are followed, the proposed project would comply with Standard 8. Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Discussion: The proposed project would not construct any substantial additions and does not propose related new construction within the property. Instead, new construction is limited to the replacement of some features, such as alterations to nine non-historic door and window openings, and changes to the non-historic attached garage. The attached non-historic garage, which was built in 1973, would be altered with the removal of its existing walls to reveal its timber frame construction, the regrading of its brick flooring, and removal of the plywood sheathing beneath the existing clay tile roof. As this portion of the residence is a non-historic addition, these changes would not destroy or alter any historic materials or features. In fact, by opening the wall of this addition, a sense of additional openness between the residence’s north wing and the Garden House would be restored to some degree. The resulting design of the garage, which would be of timber framing with a clay tile roof, would be suitably differentiated from Clark’s original design such that it would not be mistaken as an original feature of the property. Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 9. Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Discussion: As discussed under Standard 9, the proposed project would not construct any substantial additions and does not propose related new construction within the property. If the proposed alterations were to be removed in the future the historic property would retain its essential form and integrity, and its environment would not be impaired. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Standard 10. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 27     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 14 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 Summary of Standards Compliance The proposed project is consistent with all ten of the Standards for Rehabilitation. The project, as proposed, appears to retain the historic character and features of the Category 1 property to a high degree, and in several areas would return lost historic features or spatial relationships to the building. 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, San Jose, and Sacramento, and staff includes planners, architectural historians, licensed architects, designers, and conservators. All of Page & Turnbull’s professional staff members meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. As an architectural historian and cultural resources planner within Page & Turnbull’s Cultural Resources Studio, Barrett Reiter meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History. She has extensive experience researching and evaluating historic properties, as well as analyzing proposed projects that impact historic resources using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 28     1950 Cowper Street – SOI Standards Analysis Memo [24282] Page 15 of 15 PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154 APPENDIX Graphics package with a selection of drawings and renderings for the proposed project at 1950 Cowper Street. Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 29     Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 30     Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 31     6 Reception wing Street wall Historic photo of the front garden before the wall, open to the sidewalk Keep the curved wall, or restore the garden to its original state? Current state with curved wall and pedestrian gate Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 32     8 Original drawing showing the former design of the door and steps Current state Reception wing Front door Keep the current pathway and just change the bricks or restore it to its original state? c. 2012 photograph of original front door prior to its removal (Source: PAST Heritage, "1950 Cowper Street") Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 33     FP A3.017 CARPORT Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 34     21 Ground floor Outdoor living Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 35     23 UPDATE CEILING Ground floor Outdoor living Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 36     24 Ground floor Outdoor living Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 37     13 Project Smaller window No window Current stateOriginal drawing Garden side facade - Primary wing Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 38     Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 39     Item 2 Attachment B - Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Memorandum     Packet Pg. 40     a new design on urban planning policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley MEMORANDUM Date: August 4, 2025 To: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner, City of Palo Alto From: Isabel Castellano, Historic Preservation Specialist Subject: 1950 Cowper Street, Peer Review Memorandum – Final 1. SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto retained M-Group to complete a Peer Review of the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards Analysis Memorandum (Memo), completed by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated July 7, 2025, for 1950 Cowper Street (subject property) in Palo Alto. M-Group Historic Preservation Specialist Isabel Castellano conducted the peer review. Isabel Castellano meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural Historian. This peer review finds the SOI Standards Analysis Memo of the subject property to have appropriate content along with supporting photographic documentation and analysis. In the following sections, this peer review includes a summary of the content, analysis, and recommendations. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property, 1950 Cowper Street (APN: 124-09-007) is associated with a one-story residence and a freestanding ancillary building circa 1932. The subject property is located on the south west side of Cowper street, in a residential block surrounded by Cowper Street, Santa Rita Avenue, Waverley Street, and Seale Avenue. Within Palo Alto’s zoning, the site falls under the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Single-Family (R-1). 3. METHODOLOGY The methodology used to complete the Peer Review included a review of the City’s Municipal Code, the SOI Standards, the SOI Standards Analysis Memo, dated July 7, 2025, and the proposed project’s architectural drawings, revision dated July 7, 2025. The peer review provides a summary of the analysis and recommendations. This peer review does not provide a fact-check of the research presented and does not call out technical editing issues, including minor spelling, grammar, and acronyms if present in the SOI Standards Analysis Memo. In addition, no site or archive visits were completed. Item 2 Attachment C - Peer Review     Packet Pg. 41     1950 Cowper Street, Peer Review Memorandum – Final August 4, 2025 m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley 4. SOI STANDARDS ANALYSIS MEMO PEER REVIEW An in-depth Peer Review of the SOI Standards Analysis Memo, completed by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated July 7, 2025, for 1950 Cowper Street (subject property) in Palo Alto is provided in the following subsections regarding content, project description, and adequacy in analysis with the SOI Standards. ▪ Content The SOI Standards Analysis Memo includes the appropriate content to evaluate the subject property with the proposed project and determine compliance with the SOI Standards. The memo’s overall content and structure is well organized to include individual sections for an introduction, historic background, proposed project description, SOI Standards, and qualifications. The memo identifies and references from a previous Character-Defining Features Memo, dated September 2024, and provides the subject property’s historic background content which includes historic significance and character-defining features. The description provided for the Spanish Colonial Revival Style is accurate and contains a concise summary of its influences, architectural details, and its significant and character- defining features. Reference to historic content and archived images are supported by formal citations within the organization of the memo. Information such as the site’s construction history, original owners, and former occupants, provides a comprehensive understating of the buildings’ usage over time. ▪ Project Description This peer review assessed the project’s architectural drawings, revision dated July 7, 2025, to confirm that the full scope of the project was discussed in the SOI Standards Analysis Memo. The project’s scope of work includes demolition of exterior non-structural walls at existing garage, select exterior doors, and select windows, brick-paved site paths, landings, interior non-structural walls, casework, plumbing fixtures, interior finishes, interior doors, selected existing site walls and planers, roof sheathing at garage. The project’s scope of work also includes removal of non-original skylights, roof repair, proposed wood-frames exterior doors and windows in select locations, replacement of damaged ceramic roof tiles, and new brick paves steps at new kitchen door. Proposed interior includes non-structural walls, casework, interior doors, interior finishes, and plumbing fixtures. For the project’s proposed scope of work, the SOI Standards Analysis Memo adequately describes the work, identifies the locations, and includes relevant drawing details. Item 2 Attachment C - Peer Review     Packet Pg. 42     1950 Cowper Street, Peer Review Memorandum – Final August 4, 2025 m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley ▪ SOI Standards Analysis The memo’s analysis for the SOI Standards is clear and concise as it summarizes the four SOI standard treatments, identifies the rehabilitation treatment as the appropriate treatment, includes a response for each of the 10 rehabilitation standards, and concludes with a final summary of the standards compliance. I concur with Page & Turnbull’s SOI Standards Analysis of the proposed project at 1950 Cowper Street, is (a) consistent with all ten of the Standards for Rehabilitation, (b) appears to retain the historic character and features of the Category 1 property, and (c) in several areas would return lost historic features or spatial relationships to the building. 5. FINDINGS After reviewing the SOI Standards Analysis Memo, this peer review finds that substantial information and analysis has been provided to demonstrate the proposed project complies with the SOI Standards. Furthermore, I concur with the context, property descriptions, and analysis notably as follows: • It was designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style and completed in 1932. (page 1) • The character-defining features of 1950 Cowper Street include the original and historic features that date to the building’s period of significance (1932-1942). (page 5) • The historic property is characterized by its horizontal, one-story massing with stucco cladding and clay tile roofing with a J-shaped footprint arranged around a rear courtyard. The building was designed to open out from the interior into the rear gardens and courtyards, while the street-facing façade features few windows and openings, establishing privacy for the building’s inhabitants. (page 10) • The spatial relationships of the property would also be retained as no significant changes to the organization of the site or new structures are proposed. The removal of the non-historic concrete wall along Cowper Street would improve the historic character of the residence by returning its historic open relationship to the public right-of-way. (page 11) 6. RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed projects at listed historic properties are reviewed with the SOI Standards to ensure that the proposed changes does not impact the historic property’s character, significance, and integrity. The SOI Standard for Rehabilitation is the appropriate standard for a project that repairs, alters, and adds to the property while preserving portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural value. The SOI Standards Analysis Memo provides a discussion for each of the ten Rehabilitation standards. The following items identified below are reflections of the Item 2 Attachment C - Peer Review     Packet Pg. 43     1950 Cowper Street, Peer Review Memorandum – Final August 4, 2025 m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley discussion items within the memo and are recommended as suitable planning conditions of approval to the proposed project to strengthen final review of the proposed project prior to project completion. • Site and Landscape: Include a paving plan to identify the historic brick to remain and the new brick to be placed within the construction documents of the project. • Pre-Construction Meeting and Final Site Inspection: Complete a pre-construction meeting with the project team, as identified in the architectural drawing notes, and complete a final site inspection prior to project completion for inspection of the approved project scope and materials. 7. CONCLUSION The peer review finds the SOI Standards Analysis Memo, completed by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated July 7, 2025, for 1950 Cowper Street (subject property) in Palo Alto, to be appropriate, concise, and well-organized. Therefore, I concur with Page & Turnbull’s SOI Standards Analysis of the proposed project at 1950 Cowper Street, is (a) consistent with all ten of the Standards for Rehabilitation, (b) appears to retain the historic character and features of the Category 1 property, and (c) in several areas would return lost historic features or spatial relationships to the building. In addition to the SOI Standards Analysis Memo, it is recommended that the City of Palo Alto planning staff incorporate the recommendations included in this peer review memo as planning conditions of approval to the proposed project to strengthen final review of the proposed project prior to project completion. Item 2 Attachment C - Peer Review     Packet Pg. 44     ATTACHMENT D Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1950 Cowper St” and open record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “C2_1950COW_Plan.pdf” and dated 07/07/2025 to review the plan set. Item 2 Attachment D - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 45     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 28, 2025 Report #: 2508-5054 TITLE Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 12, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and approve the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: June 12, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison1& Contact Information  Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner  (650) 329-2321  Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 46     City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: June 12, 2025 Council Chambers and Zoom 8:30 A.M. Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on June 12, 2025, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Board Member Christian Pease, Board Member Geddes Ulinskas, Board Member Caroline Willis Absent: Vice Chair Samantha Rohman Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions The Chair and Vice Chair Elections Item was removed and postponed to a future agenda. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer presented on the remaining 2025 meeting schedule. Planned absences include Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz for the July meeting and Board Member Pease for the October meeting. Mr. Switzer requested that any additional planned absences be shared. Mr. Switzer was a guest speaker at the May 2025 California Preservation Foundation Conference and discussed discretionary reviews for other jurisdictions. Mr. Switzer noted upcoming events, including the Fred Eyerly Tower Well Park dedication on June 18 at 4 p.m. Members were reminded to complete the required anti-harassment training by July 30. A follow-up email will be sent. The Chair and Vice Chair elections may be held at the August 14 meeting as bylaws require full Board attendance for a vote. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz highlighted login issues with the anti-harassment training. Board Member Willis suggested including subcommittee names along with workplan goals during assignments. Item 3 Attachment A - June 12, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 47     City of Palo Alto Page 2 Mr. Switzer acknowledged technical issues that HR was managing and referred members to the email for next steps. Mr. Switzer agreed to include the subcommittee names. Action Item 2. Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 411 Kipling Street [24PLN-00292]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. Mr. Switzer presented an overview of the property located in the Downtown North neighborhood, zoned Commercial Downtown with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. The structure was built in 1902 with additions made by 1925 and entryway modifications in 1989. No alterations have been documented since the 1980s. The property is listed as a Category 2 on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, upgraded from Category 4 by Council approval on September 9, 2024, following HRB’s recommendation. Mr. Switzer explained the property qualifies for a Bonus Floor Area under the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, applicable to qualifying rehabilitation projects of Category 1 and 2 historic properties in designated commercial areas. The applicant is requesting a 2,500 square foot bonus, the maximum allowed under the code. The application was initially submitted in October with revised plans received in April. A Standards Compliance Memorandum prepared by Page & Turnbull was submitted on May 12, 2025. The proposed rehabilitation includes accessibility upgrades such as a rear deck, wheelchair lift, and new handrails. Design plans were illustrated through slides showing existing conditions and proposed modifications. Staff supported the request and concurred with Page & Turnbull’s findings. The HRB was asked to recommend that the project conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects presented and was joined by client John Shenk of Thoits Brothers, designer Mason Hayes, and Jen Hembree of Page & Turnbull, who attended via Zoom to answer any questions related to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Mr. Hayes thanked Mr. Switzer for his support in preparing the application. Mr. Hayes provided background on the property, a 1902 square cottage located at 411 Kipling Street, originally built by G.W. Mosher, a prolific early 20th-century contractor in Palo Alto. The structure reflects elements of Colonial Revival and Queen Anne styles and retained significant character-defining features including the front porch, Tuscan columns, wood siding, windows, cornice, frieze, and dentil molding. Mr. Hayes described the proposed rehabilitation work, which includes replacing the non-historic front stairs and railings with new versions that feature cheek walls. An accessible path will be added from the sidewalk to a new rear entrance where a platform lift will be installed to preserve the front elevation. The existing non-historic rear deck will be replaced with a larger deck and stairs, and a gate on the east Item 3 Attachment A - June 12, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 48     City of Palo Alto Page 3 side will also be replaced. A non-historic rear door and three windows will be removed to accommodate a new accessible door and window arrangement. General restoration of exterior elements such as wood siding, trim, dentil molding, and window sashes will be conducted based on an assessment of existing conditions. Slides presented views of the rear entrance, proposed lift, and new deck, as well as the updated front porch design. All new materials, including shiplap siding, stained redwood, metal railings, and new windows, will be clearly differentiated from historic features to avoid confusion. The entire building will be repainted following restoration. Mr. Hayes noted that Page & Turnbull reviewed the project and found the proposed work to be in full compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Mr. Hayes requested the HRB’s recommendation to the Planning and Development Services Director. Board Member Ulinskas asked if the decision to go with casement and fixed on the new rear windows instead of matching the double-hung on the front was driven by a desire to look distinct from the original. Board Member Willis asked if some of the square footage under the TDR was being used and appreciated that the building was being kept up. Mr. Hayes confirmed the desire was to look more differentiated. Mr. Hayes said all the square footage would be available for transfer off-site. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved, seconded by Board Member Willis, to find the proposal at 411 Kipling Street to be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. VOTE: The motion carried 4-0 by voice vote. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 431 Kipling Street [24PLN-00290]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) - Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. Mr. Switzer presented on the property at 431 Kipling Street, located in a CD zoning district with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District in the Downtown North neighborhood. It was built in 1901 with modifications in 1919 which included an addition, a garage, and removing a rear outbuilding. The property was purchased in 1938 and was converted into a store that operated until the 1970s. In 1980, Thoits Bros took ownership and Vino Locale has operated a first-floor commercial unit since then. Item 3 Attachment A - June 12, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 49     City of Palo Alto Page 4 The property is a Category 2, upgraded from a Category 4 following the HRB’s recommendation on June 11, 2024, and Council approved on September 9, 2024. The property qualifies for the TDR program because it is a Category 2 rehabilitation project located in Commercial Downtown. The applicant is requesting 2,500 square feet. The initial proposal was submitted October 16, 2024, with revised plans submitted to the City on April 17, 2025. A Standards Compliance Memorandum prepared by Page & Turnbull was submitted on May 12, 2025, which is Attachment B of the packet. The proposal includes accessibility upgrades and rehabilitation work. A slide showed the existing site plan of property. Changes would include an accessible path to the rear, and accessible bathroom, a wheelchair lift, and stairs. Multiple slides showed the proposed changes on the front, sides, and rear, with 2 renderings shown. Staff concurred with the findings of the Page & Turnbull evaluation and supported the owner’s request for the project. The HRB is requested to recommend to the Director of Planning and Development Services that the project conforms with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Hayes explained that 431 Kipling Street is a 2-story cottage decorated with elements of Colonial Revival and Craftsman. The property has retained its original form, including the front porch, columns, rafter tails, shirtwaist belt course, flared wood shingles, tongue and groove siding, and multiple windows with checkered and mullion and Ogee lug detail. The work will include replacing non-historic front stairs, new railings with planters instead of cheek walls, a new accessible path through a gate to the backyard lift, new stairs with railings going to the backyard dining area, a new accessible toilet room, restoration to the openings, replacing the roof, repainting the exterior, and restoring wood siding and details after an inspection. Slides were shown with renderings. The next step is for the HRB to recommend approval of the plan to the Director. Board Member Willis appreciated that the building was being saved but expressed disappointment that the rear did not reflect the age of the building. Board Member Ulinskas noted the house was framed relatively high above grade and asked whether the option of raising grade at the back had been considered to reduce the accessibility challenge. Mr. Hayes explained that kind of site intervention had not been considered and mentioned the garage structure at the end of the driveway. Mr. Hayes highlighted the complexity of the building and the stairs. Mr. Hayes noted that raising grade could pose issues for site drainage. PUBLIC COMMENT John S., with Thoits Bros, briefly recapped the Thoits family history. John S. enjoyed the historic fabric of Downtown and wanted to take care of the historic properties. John S. thanked the HRB. MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved, seconded by Board Member Ulinskas, to find the proposal at 431 Kipling Street to be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. VOTE: The motion carried 4-0 by voice vote. Approval of Minutes Item 3 Attachment A - June 12, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 50     City of Palo Alto Page 5 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 10, 2025. MOTION: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz moved, seconded by Board Member Pease, to approve the Board Minutes from the April 10, 2025, meeting. VOTE: The motion carried 4-0 by voice vote. Announcements Board Member Willis wondered if there was guidance for someone who wanted to add their property to the Inventory and asked if it was something people should go to staff with. Mr. Switzer confirmed that people should come to staff and there is a recently updated Designation or Reclassification Process Guide available on the website. Adjournment Adjourned at 9:09 a.m. Item 3 Attachment A - June 12, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 51     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 28, 2025 Report #: 2508-5055 TITLE Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of July 10, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and approve the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: July 10, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: HRB Liaison1& Contact Information  Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner  (650) 329-2321  Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: HRB@Palo.Alto.gov Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 52     City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: JULY 10, 2025 Council Chambers and Hybrid 8:30 A.M. Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on July 10, 2025, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Vice Chair Rohman, Board Member Pease, Board Member Willis, Board Member Ulinskas Absent: Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz Public Comment There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes planned. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer showed a slide of the remaining scheduled meetings for the year with planned absences. Mr. Switzer will resend the link to the required anti-harassment training via email to be completed by July 30. Sunset Headquarters on 80 Willow Road was found eligible for listing on the National Register but will not be listed because the property owner objected. Board Member Willis will be gone for the August meeting and asked the best way to notify staff of a planned absence. Mr. Switzer will update the schedule. Staff could be notified verbally during the meeting or in writing. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Board Member Willis asked about rearranging subcommittees and had volunteered for Goals 1 and 3. Item 4 Attachment A - July 10, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 53     City of Palo Alto Page 2 Mr. Switzer said subcommittees could be formed at the discretion of the Chair for assignment of board members. Vice Chair Rohman was willing to have Board Member Willis join Goal 3. Action Item 2. Public Hearing / Quasi-Judicial. 271 University Avenue [24PLN-00289]: Request for a Floor Area Bonus Application to Grant 2,500 Square Feet of Bonus Floor Area for Accessibility Upgrades and the Rehabilitation of an Existing Category 2 Historic Resource. CEQA Status: Exempt from the Provisions of The California Environmental Quality Act Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Exiting Facilities). Zone District: CD-C (P) Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. Mr. Switzer presented on the 271 University Avenue property that was designed by Carl Warnecke and built in 1930. A fabric awning was added in 1946. An aluminum roll-up and swing storefront door system was added in 1965 and was replaced with glazed wood bi-folding swing doors in 1994. The property is currently home to the Local Union restaurant. The property was upgraded to a Category 2 after Council approved the HRB-recommended upgrade from a Category 3 on June 17, 2024. The property qualifies for the TDR program because it is a Category 2 rehabilitation project in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone. The applicant’s bonus floor area request is for 2,500 square feet. The initial request was submitted on October 16, 2024, with revised plans submitted April 17, 2025. Page & Turnbull prepared a SOI Standards Compliance Memorandum on May 12, 2025, which is Attachment B. The current plan set is under review to address a concern with drainage of the proposed canopy flowing over a public walking surface, which was a recent update to the California Building Code 3201.4 and was detailed in the staff report. The proposal includes accessibility upgrades and rehabilitation work, described in detail on packet page 7. A slide compared the existing storefront with the proposed design. Wiring and piping will be cleaned up in the rear of the building. Staff concurred with the evaluation findings of Page & Turnbull and supported the request of the property owners. The HRB is requested to recommend to the Director that the project conforms to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects said the 271 University Avenue property was constructed by George Peterson and was designed in an Art Deco Zigzag Moderne style. The façade has largely retained its original ornamentation, including the zigzag cornice and window detail, reeded plaster, medallions, and steel sash windows. The work on the rear of the building will include restoring windows, restoring damaged plaster and cornice details, cleaning up wires, and replacing downspouts. The storefront will be removed and recessed to provide additional seating and accessibility compliance. There will be a new steel and glass awning which will project out about 4 feet. It will have a gutter installed on the backside and a 2-inch downspout that will go under the sidewalk and out the curb. The front steel sash windows, plaster, and cornice will be restored. Item 4 Attachment A - July 10, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 54     City of Palo Alto Page 3 Page & Turnbull determined the front and rear were in compliance with the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation but had suggestions. The proposed minimal steel canopy would have reeded glass. Slides showed the storefront with and without horizontal mullions. Mr. Hayes preferred horizontal mullions, but Page & Turnbull left the decision up to the Board. Slides showed potential signage locations, either hanging from the sides of the awning or upright on top. The materials would include dark-painted metal for the steel windows and new steel slide fold doors. The plaster on the front and back would be painted to match the existing color. The medallions and cornice would be repainted in a matching color. The steel on the canopy would be painted black. The brick sidewalk would continue into the recessed opening. 2. John S. from Thoits Bros. was excited to see the Palo Alto History Museum gaining traction. John S. had 6 different applications for rehabilitations through the TDR program and said the TDRs help offset the expensive cost. John S. believed the community valued the TDR program. Board Member Ulinskas confirmed a seismic upgrade was not associated with this project. The notes regarding the storefront frame system and metal panels said they could be steel or aluminum. Board Member Ulinskas asked which it would be, opining the HRB preference would be steel. Board Member Ulinskas wondered about the note relating to an overhead electrical service being removed. Mr. Hayes said the preference was for steel windows because of the sightline, minimal muntin pattern, and the frame. Some aluminum systems had a nice sightline. Mr. Hayes was willing to review that with staff if it must be aluminum. The note referenced the removal of an extension cord for the parklet. The power on University Avenue is underground. Board Member Willis preferred the horizontal mullions and wanted to give a recommendation for them. Vice Chair Rohman supported the horizontal mullions for the balance it provides between a modern and historic look. Vice Chair Rohman clarified that property taxes do not increase with the square footage. Vice Chair Rohman asked if there needed to be a vote on the horizontal mullions and stated everyone supported using them. Mr. Switzer explained that the TDR program was designed to offer incentive for seismic and historic rehabilitation of buildings in the downtown area. The floor area can be used on-site or sold on the private market to eligible receiver sites. This property chose not to use the floor area on-site. It will be available for sale on the private market. The City bookmarks the awarding of floor area and the transfer to the other property but the sale is not monitored by the City. Mr. Switzer said the mullions were detailed on packet page 13-14, Standards for Rehabilitation Number 9. The plan presented at the meeting included the mullions. The packet cited the plan could be improved by removing them. The Board could include a modified recommendation to the Director citing use of the mullions. MOTION: Vice Chair Rohman moved, seconded by Board Member Pease, to recommend to the Director that the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and to move forward as shown today. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0-1 by voice vote, Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz absent. Item 4 Attachment A - July 10, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 55     City of Palo Alto Page 4 3. Review and Submit the Historic Resources Board (HRB) 2025-2026 Work Plan to the City Council for Approval Mr. Switzer showed the draft Work Plan, which is scheduled to go to Council for approval in September. Any recommendations or modifications would be made on the screen. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Vice Chair Rohman asked how much the goals had been amended from the 2024-2025 Work Plan and felt that the subcommittees were forwarding the goals and did not have any additions or deletions. Board Member Ulinskas wanted to clarify the explanation of the timeline for Project Goal 4. Mr. Switzer said the majority of goals carried over from the most recent Work Plan but some language and timelines had been changed. Some goals were carry-overs for the continuing work of the Board. Some work plans and project goals were added, most notably the awards. Mr. Switzer corrected the language of the timeline for Project Goal 4. MOTION: Vice Chair Rohman moved, seconded by Board Member Willis, to approve the 2025-2026 HRB Work Plan and forward to Council. VOTE: The motion passed 4-0-1, Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz absent. Announcements The Work Plan Goal 3 subcommittee had taken a current inventory through 2023 and created a Google Map with pins where inventory assets were noted. Vice Chair Rohman wanted a group of volunteers who could submit photos of historic inventory properties with notes on the property’s condition to a Google intake form. The HRB could then review the properties for removal, upgrading, or downgrading. The subcommittee will present to PAST next month. Board Member Willis welcomed suggestions of interested groups or individuals from Board Members and wanted clarification on whether that information must go through staff. Mr. Switzer asked that any correspondence go through staff and felt that the monthly meetings would be an appropriate time to discuss those items. Board Member Ulinskas identified a property as a case study for the different approaches for incentives and was hoping to have conversation with new owners to continue analysis of the residential property. Vice Chair Rohman said there were 5 plaques committed for the 1925 Plaque program. Vice Chair Rohman presented at the PAST Award Ceremony which was available on Vimeo and YouTube. Adjournment Adjourned at 9:18 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A - July 10, 2025 Draft HRB Minutes     Packet Pg. 56