HomeMy WebLinkAbout564-University-CMR_ID-2849-30368
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2849)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 7/23/2012
July 23, 2012 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 2849)
Summary Title: 564 University ROLUA
Title: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for the Reconstruction of the
Historic Residence at 564 University Avenue
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and staff recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) determining that the proposed
reconstruction, rehabilitation and restoration project meets the required two-part finding
provided in Municipal Code Subsection 16.49.090(a)(4)(ii) of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance for rectifying the unauthorized deconstruction of the Historic Inventory Category 2
downtown house at 564 University Avenue.
Background
In 1980 the City Council approved the Historic Inventory, which comprised approximately 500
buildings as the most significant historic structures in Palo Alto. The house at 564 University
was included as a Category 4 building for its style and its high level of integrity.
Significance of 564 University Avenue
The 1904 Colonial Revival house has contributed a powerful presence on University Avenue
that dominated the surrounding commercial buildings. Features that contributed to this effect
were the broad, overhanging second floor that was dramatically enhanced by projecting square
end bays, the full-width front porch supported by regularly spaced classical columns, and the
large wide-eave dormer at the center of the pyramidal hipped roof. The house represents an
uncommon Bay Area variant of the Colonial Revival residential style. The Colonial Revival style
in general is significant because it is a transitional style that developed as a simplifying reaction
to the preceding ornate Queen Anne style and included classical design elements. The structure
was built as a rooming house and provided moderate and lower income residents with a
convenient location along the streetcar route on University Avenue; this type of housing for
short-term renters was important to the early social history of Palo Alto. The house is also
significant as the last residential building remaining in the commercial zone of University
Avenue.
July 23, 2012 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 2849)
The 2007 Designation Reclassification
In 2007, a previous owner submitted an application to reclassify the house as a Category 2
building on the Historic Inventory which would provide eligibility for a 2,500 square-foot
historic Floor Area Bonus to accommodate a prospective restaurant tenant.
In May 2007 the City Council, based on the recommendation of the HRB, reclassified the house
as a Category 2 “Major Building” which is defined in the Historic Preservation Ordinance as
follows:
“’Major building’ means any building or group of buildings of major regional importance,
meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architectural
style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building
may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.”
The 2008 Floor Area Bonus Project
In 2008 the previous owner submitted an application for a comprehensive rehabilitation of the
historic house, which was required for the granting of the Floor Area Bonus that would allow
construction of a new addition to the rear and conversion to a restaurant use. In June 2008 the
application was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on
the HRB recommendation. The building permit was issued in April 2009.
The 2009 Unauthorized Deconstruction of the House
During October 13-15, 2009, the contractor for the project, without informing the City and in
violation of approved plans, removed the roof and second floor of the house as well as part of
the first floor to facilitate installation of the approved steel structural system. The contractor
placed the deconstructed historic materials in a storage unit in San Jose.
Because of the historical importance of the Colonial Revival house to Palo Alto and the Bay
Area, staff invoked a provision in the “Enforcement” section of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance which allows unlawfully demolished or altered historic buildings in the downtown
zone to be reconstructed provided that the HRB and City Council could make the finding that
“the proposed work will effect adequate restoration and can be done with a substantial degree
of success.” In October 2009 the property owner stated the intention to reconstruct the house
to historic standards imposed by the City and requested the City to retain a historic consultant
at the owner’s expense to help develop the reconstruction plan and to guide its
implementation. The owner eventually sold the property to the current owners who have
agreed to reconstruct the house consistent with all previous approvals and applicable
regulations.
Project Description
The project proposes to use the deconstructed historic materials to accurately reconstruct the
house to its appearance before the unauthorized deconstruction, and to complete, in revised
form, the previously approved rear addition. The reconstruction plans and conditions of
July 23, 2012 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 2849)
approval required to fulfill the project description are complex and detailed; the reconstruction
plans were developed over a two-year period.
Discussion
The Historic Resources Board and staff have concluded that the proposed project will produce
an accurate reconstruction of the house. The two key elements that are expected to produce a
successful outcome are the participation of the City’s historic consultant as a member of the
construction team and the extensively detailed reconstruction plans that appear to resolve
every known issue involving the exterior features and dimensions of the house.
The City’s Historic Consultant
Staff was initially aware that City review of an accurate reconstruction of the house would
require a level of construction expertise beyond that possessed by Planning Department staff.
Consequently, staff retained Garavaglia Architecture, which had previously demonstrated
expert knowledge of construction methodology and details for historic structures. As
anticipated, the historic consultant has played a major advisory role in the development of
numerous components of the reconstruction plans, the final version of which concluded an
extensive dialogue between the consultant, the applicant team, and staff, which is available in
the public record project file as memoranda, e-mails, letters, and reports. The foundation of
the historic consultant’s approach to the project was presented in February 2010 in a formal
report entitled “564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report” which was
distributed to the HRB for its June 20, 2012 meeting (Attachment B). The report contains the
initial inventory of the deconstructed historic materials in storage, findings that the
reconstruction can be successfully carried out, and a detailed plan for monitoring on site the
process of reconstruction.
The Reconstruction Plans
Two types of information not typically included in project plans have been provided to assist in
the reconstruction of the building: (1) narrative plan sheets containing rehabilitation and
restoration methodologies and step-by-step treatment processes, and (2) numerous and
detailed keynotes on the plan elevations and other drawings that describe the reconstruction
methodology (Attachment C). The sheets of the reconstruction plans contain instructions to
contractors how materials are to be treated, for example, the “wood siding installation notes”
on the plan elevations. The extensive information on the rehabilitation plans is expected to
significantly reduce the likelihood that errors or insufficiencies will occur during the process of
reconstruction, as will the regular presence of the City’s historic consultant on site to monitor
the details of the reconstruction. In addition, the project team has been asked to provide
Requests for Information (RFIs) to the historic consultant when questions arise.
Historic Resources Board Recommendation
The Historic Resources Board (HRB), at its meeting on June 20, 2012, unanimously
recommended that City Council find that the reconstruction project meets the findings cited in
Municipal Code 16.49.090(a)(4)(ii) that the proposed work “will effect adequate restoration”
and “can be done with a substantial degree of success.” The HRB did not add any further
July 23, 2012 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 2849)
conditions of approval to the project. The June 20, 2012 staff report is contained in Attachment
D. The verbatim meeting minutes are contained in Attachment E.
HRB Discussion
Board Members commented that the applicant’s reconstruction plans appear to cover all the
reconstruction issues in extensive detail. The HRB clarified details regarding the reassembly
and installation of the siding and requested that the City provide the HRB with copies of the
historic consultant’s reports to staff regarding the construction observation site visits.
HRB Motion
The HRB unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council find that the proposed
reconstruction, rehabilitation and restoration project meets the required two-part finding in
Municipal Code Subsection 16.49.090(a)(4)(ii):
“Finding part 1: ‘the proposed work will effect adequate restoration’ because the City’s
historic consultant has determined that adequate exterior historic fabric salvaged from
the deconstruction is available in storage and has been systematically inventoried and,
when reassembled according to the proposed reconstruction plans, will restore the
historic house to a Category 2 level of integrity;
Finding part 2: [the proposed work] ‘can be done with a substantial degree of success’
because the applicant has submitted comprehensive and detailed reconstruction plans
developed in extensive consultation with staff and the City’s historic consultant. The
City’s historic consultant will regularly monitor the construction of the project on site for
consistency with the approved plans, for compliance with construction best-practices
and for compliance with the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings, subject to the project’s conditions of approval.”
Public Comment
No members of the public requested to speak at the June 20, 2012 HRB meeting and no
members of the public submitted letters or e-mails to the City for distribution to the HRB
regarding the project.
Resource Impact
The proposed improvements and enlargement of the former residential building as commercial
office space will result in increases in property tax revenues compared to the previous
residential use. Office employees will patronize downtown businesses and increase pedestrian
activity on University Avenue. As stated above, the City has retained Garavaglia Architecture as
the project consultant, at the expense of the applicant, and staff’s costs have been covered by
application review fees.
Policy Implications
July 23, 2012 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 2849)
The recommended project furthers the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs that
encourage the preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings.
Environmental Review
The project has been found consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and, therefore, is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15331.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: 564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report (PDF)
Attachment C: Hardcopy project plans to Councilmembers, Libraries and Development
Center only (TXT)
Attachment D: June 20, 2012 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment E: Verbatim Minutes of the HRB Meeting of June 20, 2012 (PDF)
Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
ACTION NO. 2012-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: HISTORIC REVIEW APPLICATION,
10PLN-00218,
(STEVE SCHLOSSARECK, APPLICANT)
On July 16, 2012, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved a request to reconstruct a property listed on the Palo
Alto Historic Inventory as a Category II historic resource that was
unlawfully deconstructed, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The Council of the City of Palo
Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On June 14, 2010, George Espinola, on behalf of Aida
Merrill, owner, applied for major Historic Review regarding a
proposed reconstruction of an unlawfully deconstructed Historic
Inventory Category 2 house at 564 University Avenue (the
“Project”). On September 21, 2011 a subsequent owner, Steve
Schlossareck, on behalf of RSR Capital, LLC, became the applicant
for the Project. B. The Project proposes to accurately
reconstruct, using original materials stored off site, the historic
house to its previous appearance before the unauthorized
deconstruction. The review process for the Project includes a two-
part finding cited in Municipal Code subsection 16.49.090 (a) (4)
(ii):
1. “The proposed work will effect adequate
restoration,” and
2. [The proposed work] “can be done with a
substantial degree of success.”
C. Following staff review, the Historic Resources Board
(HRB), at a duly noticed hearing on June 20, 2012, reviewed the
Project reconstruction plans and recommended approval based on the
Findings cited in Section 3 of this Record and subject to the
conditions cited in Section 4.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) Guidelines, per section 15331.
Attachment A
2
SECTION 3. Findings for Approval. Consistent with the
June 20, 2012 the Historic Resources Board recommendation for
approval, the City Council finds as follows:
1. “The proposed work will effect adequate restoration”
because the City’s historic consultant has determined
that adequate exterior historic fabric salvaged from
the deconstruction is available and has been
systematically inventoried and, when reassembled
according to the proposed reconstruction plans, will
restore the historic house to a Category 2 level of
integrity;” and
2. [The proposed work] “can be done with a substantial
degree of success” because the applicant has submitted
comprehensive and detailed reconstruction plans
developed in extensive consultation with staff and the
city’s historic consultant. The city’s historic
consultant will regularly monitor the construction of
the project on site for consistency with the approved
plans, for compliance with construction best practices
and for compliance with the Secretary’s Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, subject to the
Project’s conditions of approval.
SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. The historic windows of the project shall all be rehabilitated
according to the recommendations under the heading “Windows”
on Plan Sheet A-004, and according to the recommendations
under the headings “Window Restoration Process” and “Window,
Door, and Trim Restoration—Damaged Pieces Replacement” and
“Methods for Removing Paint” on Plan Sheet A-005, and
according to the recommendations under the heading “Windows”
on page 44 of the report “564 University Avenue:
Reconstruction Assessment Report” by Garavaglia Architecture,
February 26, 2010, with reference as needed to National Park
Service Preservation Brief 9, “The Repair of Historic Wooden
Windows,” and National Park Service Preservation Brief 10,
“Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork.”
2. The historic beveled lap siding shall be reassembled and
installed on the historic house according to the
recommendations under the heading “Wood siding installation
notes” on Plan Sheets A-106, A-107, and A-108, and with
reference to Plan Sheets A-112, A-113, and A-114 (“Historical
Materials Installations”), and according to the
recommendations under the heading “Siding” on pages 43-44 of
3
the report “564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment
Report” by Garavaglia Architecture, February 26, 2010, with
reference as needed to National Park Service Preservation
Brief 10, “Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork.”
3. The roof and three dormers of the historic house shall be
rebuilt and rehabilitated according to the recommendations
under the heading “Roof and Dormer” on Plan Sheet A-004, with
reference to Plan Sheets A-112, A-113, and A-114 (“Historical
Materials Installations”).
4. Trim shall be reinstalled and rehabilitated according to the
recommendations under the heading “Wood Elements” on Plan
Sheet A-004, and under the heading “Window, Door, and Trim
Restoration—Damaged Pieces Replacement” on Plan Sheet A-005,
and according to the recommendations under the heading
“Decorative features (columns, dentil molding, soffits, trim,
etc.)” on page 44 of the report “564 University Avenue:
Reconstruction Assessment Report” by Garavaglia Architecture,
February 26, 2010.
5. The structural system design shall maximize retention of and
be sensitive to the existing remaining fabric (including
stored materials) and allow the overall design and form of the
historic building to be reconstructed” as cited on page 41 of
the report “564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment
Report” by Garavaglia Architecture, February 26, 2010.
6. If the historic front entry door hardware is proposed for
replacement, the style, color, and finish of the proposed new
hardware shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Planner. Preservation of the historic hardware is
recommended.
7. The style, color, and finish of the handrails of the front
entry steps shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Planner.
8. The HRB and ARB subcommittees shall review a brush-out of the
approved yellow main wall color of the historic house in the
field prior to the application of paint to the house.
4
9. The Historic Preservation Planner shall review the fixture
designs and materials and bulb types of any exterior lighting
that may be proposed during the course of the project.
10. No demolition or permanent removal of significant historic
fabric that is not included in the project approval shall be
carried out in any amount for any reason except with written
permission by the Department of Planning and community
Environment.
11. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied
to all eligible aspects of the historic reconstruction of the
building exterior and interior when needed to preserve
character-defining features (correction by staff after HRB
meeting).
12. The Director of Planning’s project approval letter, including
the approved historic conditions, shall be printed on one of
the initial sheets of the building permit plan set (final
construction plans)
13. The ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation shall be printed on one of the initial sheets
of the building permit plan set (final construction plans).
14. The historical information on Sheets A-004 and A-005 of the
HRB “Historic House Reconstruction” plans shall be printed on
one of the initial sheets of the building permit plans.
15. The Historic Preservation Planner shall review the building
permit plan set for consistency with the Director of
Planning’s approval based on the recommendation of the
Historic Resources Board.
16. The Historic Preservation Planner shall participate in the
Planning Department’s final inspection of the completed
project and will use the final report of Garavaglia
Architecture acting as reconstruction observation agency as
part of the final inspection.
PASSED:
AYES:
5
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by Premier Design titled “Historic House
Reconstruction: 564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301,”
consisting of fifty-seven pages, dated May 1, 2012, and received
June 15, 2012.
564 University Avenue
Reconstruction Assessment Report
Prepared for:
The City of Palo Alto
Prepared by:
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.
26 February 2010
Innovating Tradition
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................7
CONDITIONS BEFORE DEMOLITION..............................................................................19
EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................................................................23
EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY...........................................................................................33
FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................35
RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................41
SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................45
APPENDIX A: DRAWINGS...............................................................................................A1
APPENDIX B: FIELD NOTES / INVENTORY.....................................................................B1
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
1
INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. is under contract by the City of Palo Alto to examine the current
state of the partially deconstructed historic building at 564 University Avenue. The proposed
project consists of a historic building and a new addition. An objective review is needed to
determine if the integrity of the historic building can be returned to a Palo Alto Historic
Category 2 status, and thus retain the benefits and exemptions that previously had been granted
to the project based on this status.
It is the objective of this report to determine specifically if 1) enough of the historic fabric of the
building can actually and technically be reassembled with the available removed and salvaged
materials and 2) if the Palo Alto Historic Category 2 status can be soundly returned to the
reassembled building.
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. reviewed City and Architect provided pictures, drawings, field
notes, inventory and correspondence and observed site conditions and the materials salvaged in
the storage unit. Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. staff then calculated the amount of exterior
cladding material needed to reconstruct the building from the drawings. These calculations
along with observed verifications are contained in Appendix B: Field Notes/Inventory.
Based on the amounts of materials present, the quality and detail of available documentation
including field measurements taken prior to deconstruction and the condition of the materials
available for reuse, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. finds that there is the potential to reassemble
the historic fabric of 564 University Avenue using original materials. If the building is carefully
reconstructed to its original configuration and appearance using existing materials, the
remaining structural framing and recommended treatment methods, the building will be able to
retain the integrity required to uphold its Historic Inventory Category 2 listing as a historic
resource.
The City of Palo Alto will be advised to provide conditions of approval based on the
recommendations in this report. It is advised that the City require a Reconstruction Plan
responding to these conditions. As a component of the Reconstruction Plan, review by an
objective, third-party reconstruction observation agency will be needed during the construction
process to ensure that the reconstruction project proceeds in a manner that will return the
building to the status of a Category 2 resource, and thus retain for the project the benefits and
exemptions that previously had been granted based on this status.
Elements of the proposed plan that were approved for removal and/or replacement as part of
the HRB staff review and conditions of approval of the proposed project (Historic Resources
Board Staff Report dated May 7, 2008) could be restored to original configurations to further
improve the historic integrity of the building if further, ongoing review processes determine
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
2
that the integrity level has been excessively compromised. Suggested improvements include the
reconstruction of the windows on the north wall that were approved for removal, and the
reconstruction of the brick chimney in lieu of a new window installation.
Following is a summary of the main recommendations:
• Any further demolition or destruction of historic material should absolutely be prohibited.
• Final determination that the recommendations and any resulting conditions have been met
should be reserved until the completion of the project.
• It is imperative that the contractor and other involved parties become familiar with the
recommendations and fully understand the resulting conditions.
• Because a substantial portion of the building must be reassembled from the framing to the
details, the procurement of as many field measurements, notes and observations as possible
should be pursued. These dimensions and sketches should be assembled into a working set
of architectural drawings (similar to that of a new building) and be fully coordinated with
the other disciplines.
• The structural drawings should be reconceived to coordinate with the current state of the
building. The structural system design shall maximize retention of and be sensitive to the
existing remaining fabric (including stored materials) and allow the overall design and form
of the historic building to be reconstructed.
• It is advised that the City provide conditions of approval and require a Reconstruction Plan
that includes documentation of how the conditions will be met, drawings and specifications
and a reconstruction observation plan.
• An objective, third-party reconstruction observation agency should assist the City of Palo
Alto in the reconstruction of the historic building with the objective of reassembling the
historic fabric.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
3
PROJECT BACKGROUND
564 University Avenue comprises a two-and-a-half story Colonial Revival house built in 1904
that is listed on the City's Historic Inventory as a Category 2 “Major Building” resource. In
early 2008 the Owner applied for Historic Resource Board (HRB) and Architectural Review
Board (ARB) review of a major rehabilitation and expansion of the property for use as the third
location in California of a distinguished restaurant currently in San Francisco and Beverly Hills
(Crustacean). HRB and ARB approvals of the project were in place in the summer of 2008. The
Owner then applied for the building permit on September 19, 2008 and the permit was issued
on April 22, 2009.
In October 2009, the project building team concluded that the second floor and attic of the house
would need steel framing to provide a structurally safe building for an intensive restaurant use.
The building team also concluded that the most cost effective and technically feasible method
for installing the steel framing was to completely deconstruct the second floor, attic and roof
and to catalogue and store the removed historic materials. However, the building team did not
notify the City of this deconstruction plan and did not obtain an approved revision to the
building permit to cover the work. Instead the building team carried out the deconstruction
without City approval on October 13-15, 2009. This action violated the conditions of the permit
which required adherence to approved construction plans that mandated the retention of the
roof and exterior walls of the house. Therefore, the City necessarily classified the
deconstruction as an unlawful alteration of a Downtown Category 2 historic property, and
issued a "Stop Work" notice on October 16, 2009.
On October 22, 2009 the property owner met at City Hall with the Chief Planning and
Transportation Official and the Historic Preservation Planner, and gave assurance that her goal
is to restore the historic house in its original form, dimensions, and materials, and to ensure that
the great majority of the building's exterior will be clad in original materials and features as
shown on the approved permit plans. This report is intended to establish whether this goal is
feasible given the amount and condition of the removed historic materials, and the level of
documentation available to inform a reconstruction of the building.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Original Project Description
The following description is quoted from the March 13, 2008 project submission to the Palo Alto
Planning Department, Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board, which
included a request for a historic Floor Area Bonus based on rehabilitation of a Category 2
building. This submission was made by Architect Ann Hawkinson, on behalf of the building’s
owner.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
4
Scope of Work
Project includes the historic rehabilitation of a Colonial Revival residential building that
is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory [as a] Category 2 [resource] and is located in the
downtown CD-C(P) zone district. The proposed project also includes relocating the
existing building forward on the site, construction of a new rear addition, and a new
comprehensive landscape plan with a courtyard. The building will be seismically
upgraded and converted to a full service restaurant.
In addition, there will also be work on the City sidewalk to remove an existing curb cut
and replace it with a new curb and gutter per City standards. Any sidewalks that are
broken or damaged will be replaced as required by the City of Palo Alto. At the rear of
the site, work will be done on the City Right-of-Way to increase the width of the existing
dumpster path adjacent to the Protected Redwood Trees. New planting will be added to
the planter at the Right-of-Way below the trees. A bike rack is also proposed on the
sidewalk at the front of the site to match the existing bike racks on University Avenue.
Moving the Building Forward
We initially proposed to move the building forward on the site. The proposed relocated
building is positioned to continue to maintain the feeling of the front yard of the
residential structure. It will also allow enough space for an addition to be added on the
back of the historic structure and farther away from the “Protected” Redwood tress on
the City easement at the rear of the site. This is necessary to prevent damage to the trees.
The building will be closer to University Avenue and therefore more engaged with the
City’s pedestrian activities. The historic building will also be a more visible part of the
University Avenue streetscape when looking down University Avenue… We also plan
to move the historic building farther away from the north (left) side of the property line
so that the project will meet present day building setback and fire safety requirements…
Current Description of the Building
As of February 2010, the building remains deconstructed and the rear nine feet of the building
has been demolished. According to the City of Palo Alto, a work permit has been issued by the
City to continue working on the new addition. The historic building has been covered with
tarps to protect against the elements.
Following is a description of the site observed on the December 2nd, 2009 site visit by Garavaglia
Architecture, Inc.:
• A new foundation has been poured and the historic building has been moved forward on
the site and placed on the foundation
• The remains of the historic building on site include the first floor framing, first and second
floor subfloor and exterior lap siding on the west (facing University Avenue) elevation
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
5
• The new addition at the rear of the property is currently under construction
• All porch elements are completely removed
• First floor framing is intact except for approximately 9’-0” that has been removed from the
rear of the house, including six (6) first and second floor window openings
• Exterior siding remains on the first floor west facade and partially on the south bay window
• Several built-ins and stairway still remain on the first floor
• Subfloor of second level serving as “roof” and used for storage of materials
• Materials stored under tarps, collecting water (second level framing and some finish
flooring being stored)
• All windows and exterior doors removed
METHODOLOGY
The following is a general outline of process and methodology performed by Garavaglia
Architecture, Inc. to achieve the objectives of this report:
• Pictures, drawings, field notes, inventory and correspondence provided by the City and
Architect was reviewed
• A site visit was conducted on December 2, 2009 to verify and document current state and
conditions, conditions noted on drawings, field notes and digital photography
• A site visit was conducted to storage unit on December 2nd afterwards to verify types of
materials salvaged, how materials were stored, cataloged, extent of materials stored, and
general conditions of materials
• An inventory of salvaged materials was received (as provided by Owner); calculations
utilizing the working drawings (as provided by the City) determined the amounts of
exterior materials needed; then a comparison was made of recorded amounts of salvaged
materials with anticipated pre-demolition amounts based on calculations derived from
drawings; this document can be found in Appendix B: Field Notes/Inventory
• Drawings sets reviewed include:
- Planning Submittal dated April 21, 2008
- Building Permit Submittal approved March 30, 2009
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
6
• Analysis of any differences in contractor’s inventory and calculated numbers
• Review of historic resource and project requirements
• Determination of findings with recommendations
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
7
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions of approval were recommended for the project on May 7, 2008 by the
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board and approved by the Planning Division. The findings and
recommendations in this report do not intend to add to, subtract from or modify the original
conditions.
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans dated April 21,
2008 which are on file in the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, except as modified by
the conditions below.
2. The State Historical Building Code shall be applied to the rehabilitation of the historic
building when needed to preserve character-defining features.
3. The rehabilitation, restoration, and new construction at 564 University Avenue shall be
based on the recommendations on pages 23-26 of the submitted “Focused Historic
Structure Report,” authored by Architectural Resources Group, Inc., and dated February
2008 (except that compliance with the “Recommendations for Interior Materials and
Finishes Treatment” shall be voluntary), and also the recommendations of “Preservation
Briefs” #9 and #10 that are attached to the “Focused Historic Structure Report.”
4. Subsequent to relocating the historic building forward on the site, the front porch entry
stairs shall be reconstructed to include five risers if feasible, as determined by an HRB
subcommittee of three Board members, and shall not include fewer than four risers.
5. Project materials and colors revised subsequent to the HRB review and recommendation
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for review by the Historic
Preservation Planner and by an HRB subcommittee of three Board members.
6. The final designs and bulb types for project exterior lighting shall be submitted to the
Historic Preservation Planner for review.
7. The Planning Department’s letters of project approval, including the approved
conditions, shall be printed on the construction Plan Set.
8. The final construction Plan Set shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Planner
and an HRB subcommittee of three Board members for review for consistency with the
recommendation of the Historic Resources Board.
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Zoning Ordinance: Historic Floor Area Bonus
The project application for 564 University Avenue incorporates one of the City’s major historic
preservation incentives, a 2,500 square-foot Floor Area Bonus which is not counted toward the
maximum floor area allowed on the site, and which is exempt from normal parking
requirements for floor area increases. In order to obtain a historic Floor Area Bonus a building
must be located in the Downtown Commercial Zone District and must be designated to the
Historic Inventory in Category 1 or 2 (which signify major historic resources). In addition, the
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
8
City must approve a Historic Rehabilitation Plan for the building based on a qualified Historic
Structure Report and on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation. In order for a historic Floor Area Bonus to remain in effect during the
construction of the project, all ongoing project work must comply with the Secretary’s
Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and the building must maintain the historic
characteristics on which the Category 1 or 2 designation is based.
Chapter 18.18 of the Municipal Code (Downtown Commercial CD District Regulations)
provides in Section 18.18.070 the procedures and standards required for obtaining a historic
Floor Area Bonus. Several subsections of 18.18.070 apply to this project.
Ordinance Subsection 18.18.070(a)(3): Historic Rehabilitation Bonus
A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation, but is
not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet
or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward
the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be
permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in
the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5).
Ordinance Subsection 18.18.070(b)(6): Restrictions on Floor Area Bonuses
For sites in Historic Category 1 or 2, historic rehabilitation shall conform to the Secretary of the
Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36
CFR §67,7).
Ordinance Subsection 18.18.070(d): Procedure for Granting Floor Area Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in subsection
(a)(1), shall be granted in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) An application for such floor area bonus(es) must be filed with the director of
planning and community environment in the form prescribed by the director, stating the
amount of such bonus(es) applied for, the basis therefor under this section, and the extent to
which such bonus(es) are proposed to be used on-site and/or for transfer. An application for
floor area bonus for rehabilitation of a Category 1 or 2 historic building shall include a historic
structure report, prepared by a qualified expert, retained by the city, at the applicant's expense,
in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the California State Office of Historic
Preservation. It shall also include a plan for rehabilitation; if any part of the existing building is
proposed to be removed or replaced, the historic rehabilitation project plans submitted for
review shall clearly show and identify any and all material proposed for removal or
replacement.
(2) The city may retain an expert in historic rehabilitation or preservation, at the
applicant's expense, to provide the city with an independent evaluation of the project's
conformity with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation Historic Buildings."
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
9
(3) The historic resources board shall review the historic structure report, the historic
rehabilitation project plans, and, if required, the expert independent evaluation of the project,
and make a recommendation to the director of planning and community environment on the
project's conformity with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitation Historic Buildings."
(4) Upon completion of such an application, written determination of the sender site's
eligibility for bonus(es) shall be issued by the director of planning and community environment
or the director's designee, based upon the following:
(A) In the case of a floor area bonus for seismic rehabilitation, the chief building
official has made a determination that the project complies with or exceeds the analysis
standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code;
(B) In the case of the floor area bonus for historic rehabilitation of a building in
Historic Category 1 or 2, the director, taking into consideration the recommendations of the
historic resources board, has found that the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior's
"Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" (36 CFR
§67,7); and
(C) In the case of a bonus for both seismic and historic rehabilitation that is proposed
to be use on-site, the city council has made the findings set forth in subsection (b)(8) of this
section.
(e) Certification of FAR Bonuses
The floor area bonuses described in subsection (a), except the bonus described in subsection
(a)(1), may be used on the site of the proposed seismic and/or historic rehabilitation project and
a building permit issued therefor only upon satisfaction of all the requirements in subsection (d)
above. Upon determining that the project has been completed as approved, or in the case of
city-owned buildings upon completion of all of the requirements of Chapter 18.28, the director
or director's designee shall issue a written certification which shall state the total floor area
bonus utilized at the site (in the case of buildings in the CD-Commercial Downtown District),
and the amount (if any) of remaining floor area bonus which is eligible for transfer to another
site pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The certification shall be recorded in the office of
the county recorder and a copy shall be provided to the applicant.
As a condition precedent to being credited with a historic rehabilitation floor area bonus
whether for use on-site or for transfer, the owner of the site shall enter into an unsubordinated
protective covenant running with the land in favor of the city (or, if the city is the owner, in
favor of a qualified and disinterested third party if the property is to be rehabilitated after the
sale of the transfer of development rights), in a form satisfactory to the city attorney, to assure
that the property will be rehabilitated and maintained in accordance with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, together with the accompanying
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
10
interpretive Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, as they may be amended from time
to time. For city owned buildings subject to a long term lease of ten or more years where the
rehabilitation work is to be performed by the lessee, this protective covenant shall be in favor of
the city.
(Ord. 5038 § 1, 2009: Ord. 4964 § 15, 2007: Ord. 4923 § 4 (part), 2006)
All references to “historic rehabilitation” in Municipal Code Chapter 18.18 (Downtown
Commercial CD District Regulations) are referred to the definition of “historic rehabilitation”
found in Chapter Section 18.18.030. This definition applies to this project.
Ordinance Section 18.18.030: Definitions
(b) As used in this chapter, "historic rehabilitation" means returning a property to a state of
utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while
preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic,
architectural, and cultural values. "Historic rehabilitation" shall remedy all the known
rehabilitation needs of the building, and shall not be confined to routine repair and
maintenance as determined by the director of planning and community environment.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
Chapter 16.49 of the Municipal Code (Historic Preservation Ordinance) provides procedures for
the designation and treatment of historic resources in Palo Alto. Within this chapter, several
sections are most relevant to this project.
Ordinance Section 16.49.050: Exterior alteration of historic structures.
(a) Review Process. All applications for a building permit for exterior alteration to any
historic structure/site in the downtown area or a significant building elsewhere in the
city, new construction on a parcel where there is currently a historic structure in the
downtown area or a significant building elsewhere in the city, or such application for
construction within a historic district shall be reviewed as follows:
(1) Review Bodies.
(A) Architectural review approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and
Approvals) is required for any historic structure/site in the downtown area and
any significant structure/site elsewhere in the city, other than single-family and
duplex residences. The architectural review board shall refer applications to the
historic resources board for a recommendation on the proposed alteration of the
structure.
(B) The historic resources board shall review applications involving single-family
and duplex residences which are historic structures/sites in the downtown area
or which are significant buildings elsewhere in the city. Compliance of the
property owner with the recommendations shall be voluntary, not mandatory.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
11
(C) The planning staff may review and approve minor exterior alterations pursuant
to guidelines which the historic resources board may adopt. Minor exterior
alterations are those alterations which the director of planning and community
environment or his/her designee determines will not adversely affect the
exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or aesthetic value of the
historic structure, its site or surroundings.
(2) Time Limit. Recommendations of the historic resources board on alterations to a
historic single-family or duplex residence shall be rendered within thirty days of the
date of referral by the architectural review board or the chief building official.
Failure to provide a recommendation within the time limit shall cause an application
for a commercial or multiple-family use to be returned to the architectural review
board, and a single-family or duplex application to be forwarded to the chief
building official for consideration of issuance of a building permit.
(b) Standards of Review. In evaluating applications, the review bodies 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.
(1) On buildings not in a historical district, the proposed alterations should not
adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical or
aesthetic value of the building and its site.
(2) In historic districts, the proposed alterations should not adversely affect:
(A) The exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical, architectural or
aesthetic value of the building and its site; or
(B) The relationship of the building, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with
its surroundings, including neighborhood structures;
(C) Appeals. Any interested party may appeal to the city council the decision of the
architectural review board not to recommend approval of an application for a
building permit to alter the exterior of any historic structure in the downtown
area, or a significant structure elsewhere in the city or in a historic district. Such
appeal shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.78 (Appeals).
(Ord. 4826 §§ 22, 23, 2004: Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
Ordinance Section 16.49.060: Demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area.
(a) Permit and Findings. No permit shall be issued to demolish or cause to be demolished
all or any part of a significant building in the downtown area unless:
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
12
(1) The city council determines that under the historic designation, taking into account
the current market value, the value of transferable development rights, and the costs
of rehabilitation to meet the requirements of the building code or other city, state or
federal laws, the property retains no reasonable economic use; or
(2) The chief building official or the fire chief, after consultation, to the extent feasible,
with the department of planning and community environment, determines that an
imminent safety hazard exists and that demolition of the building is the only feasible
means to secure the public safety; or
(3) The city council determines that demolition of the building will not have a
significant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this chapter.
(b) Application for a Permit to Demolish. An application for a permit to demolish any
significant building in the downtown area shall comply with Chapter 16.04 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. In addition to the contents specified under Chapter 16.04, any
application for a permit to demolish a significant building in the downtown area, on the
grounds specified in Section 16.49.060(a)(1), shall contain any appropriate and relevant
economic information which will enable the council to make the necessary
determination.
(c) Review of Application.
(1) Historic Resources Board. Applications which are accepted as complete for a permit
to demolish a significant building in the downtown area on the grounds specified in
Section 16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) shall be placed on the agenda of the historic resources
board for hearing and recommendation. If the historic resources board does not act
on the application within thirty days of referral to it, the city council may proceed
without a recommendation from the historic resources board.
(2) City Council Hearing and Decision. Any application for permit to demolish a
significant building in the downtown area on the grounds specified in Section
16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) shall be heard by the city council. Notice shall be given by
mailed notice to all owners of property immediately adjacent to the property that is
the subject of the application, and by publication at least once in a local newspaper of
general circulation. The applicant shall have the burden of establishing that the
criteria set forth in Section 16.49.060(a)(1) or (3) has been met. The council may
approve, disapprove or approve the application with conditions, and shall make
findings relating its decision to the standards set forth in Section 16.49.060(a). The
decision of the council shall be rendered within thirty days from the date of the
conclusion of the hearing.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
13
(d) Permit to Move a Significant Building in the Downtown Area or in a Historic District. In
reviewing an application for a permit to demolish a significant building in the
downtown area or in a historic district on the grounds specified in Section
16.49.060(a)(1) or (3), the historic resources board may decide that the building may be
moved without destroying its historic or architectural integrity and importance, and
may recommend to the city council that the demolition permit be denied, but that a
permit to relocate be processed, pursuant to Chapter 16.32 of this code. In that case, the
time limits and notice requirements of Section 16.49.070(c) shall also be applicable.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
Ordinance Section 16.49.090: Enforcement.
(a) Unlawful Alteration or Demolition.
(1) Violation - Penalties. It is unlawful for a person or entity to demolish or cause to be
demolished any significant building or portion thereof in the downtown area in
violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person or entity violating
these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction of any such
violation, such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and
imprisonment.
(2) Civil Penalty. Any person or entity who demolishes a building or causes a
demolition in violation of the provisions of this chapter may be liable civilly in a sum
equal to the replacement value of the building or an amount in the court's discretion,
not to exceed ten thousand dollars.
(3) Injunctive Relief. The city attorney may maintain an action for injunctive relief to
restrain a violation or cause, where possible, the complete or partial restoration,
reconstruction, or replacement in kind of any building or site demolished, altered or
partially demolished in violation of this chapter.
(4) Restriction on Development. Alteration or demolition of a historic structure in
violation of this chapter shall eliminate the eligibility of the structure's lot for any
transfer of development rights, pursuant to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and
such lot, if it is the site of an unlawfully demolished historic structure from which
development rights have been transferred, shall not be developed in excess of the
floor area ratio of the demolished structure for a period of twenty years from the
unlawful demolition. A person or entity may be relieved of the penalties provided in
this section if:
(i) the unlawful alteration or demolition did not constitute a major alteration, as
determined by the chief building official, or
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
14
(ii) as to an unlawful alteration, the person or entity restores the original
distinguishing qualities and character of the building destroyed or altered. Such
restoration must be undertaken pursuant to a valid building permit issued after
a recommendation by the historic resources board and a finding by the city
council that the proposed work will effect adequate restoration and can be done
with a substantial degree of success.[emphasis added]
(b) Failure to Abide by Maintenance Regulations.
(1) Abatement. The procedures set forth in Chapter 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code governing unsafe, dangerous or substandard buildings, whether in
commercial or residential use, shall be applicable to any violations of Section
16.49.080.
(2) Misdemeanor. It is unlawful for any person or entity to fail to maintain any building
in the downtown area designated as significant or contributory in violation of
Section 16.49.080. Any such violation constitutes a misdemeanor punishable as set
forth in Section 16.49.090(a)(1) above. Each day of violation constitutes a separate
offense and may be separately punished. The chief building official and ordinance
compliance inspector are authorized to exercise the authority in California Penal
Code Section 836.5 and to issue citations for violation of Section 16.49.080.
(3) Civil Penalty. Any person or entity who fails to maintain any building in the
downtown area designated as significant or contributory in violation of Section
16.49.080 may be liable civilly in a sum not to exceed one thousand dollars. Each day
of violation constitutes a separate offense for which a penalty may be assessed.
(c) Remedies not Exclusive. The remedies provided by this section are not exclusive.
(Ord. 3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY CATEGORIZATION/QUALIFICATIONS
The City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important
individual designers and architectural eras and traditions, as well as structures whose
background is associated with important events or trends in the history of the city, state, or
nation. The City has adopted specific definitions for the categorization of properties on the
Inventory. These definitions are used to classify buildings that are found to be significant at the
local level. The Inventory is organized under the following four Categories (Municipal
Code 16.49.020(b)):
• Category 1 (Exceptional Building): "Exceptional building" means any building or group of
buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best architects
or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
15
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.
• Category 2 (Major Building): "Major building" means any building or group of buildings of
major regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding
example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or
region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is
retained.
• Category 3 or 4 (Contributing Building): "Contributing building” means any building or
group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to
the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A
contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original
design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or
wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
The Secretary of the Interior has developed a series of Treatments and Guidelines for dealing
with historic properties. There are four types of treatments, each with their own very specific
definitions, standards and guidelines for implementation: Preservation, Rehabilitation,
Restoration and Reconstruction. Because the application for 564 University Avenue includes
use of the historic Floor Area Bonus described in Municipal Code 18.18.070, the project
rehabilitation plan is required by the Municipal Code to comply with the Secretary’s Standards
and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. In addition, because the majority of the building has been
illegally deconstructed and the rear portion demolished, retention of the Floor Area Bonus on
which the project depends will require application of the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines
for Rehabilitation, in conjunction with periodic reviews by a reconstruction observation agency,
to ensure reconstruction of the building to its former status as a Category 2 (“Major Building”)
resource on the City’s Historic Inventory.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is defined by the Secretary of the Interior as “the act or process of making
possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while
preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural
values.” This is the most widely used treatment as it allows for new uses in historical buildings
with some alterations to accommodate those uses. It provides the most flexibility of the four
treatments, however with this additional freedom of interpretation comes greater potential for
damage. Careful consideration of all new uses and their impacts must be made, and
consultation with a qualified historic preservation professional is always recommended.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
16
There are ten standards to govern the implementation of Rehabilitation treatments.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new
work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.
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.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
17
REVIEW PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The project has been determined to be an unauthorized deconstruction and demolition of a
Category 2 historic resource. In compliance with the provisions of Ordinance Section
16.49.090(a)(4), this report has been commissioned by the Owner under the City’s supervision.
The findings presented herein are intended to inform decisions relating to the reassembly of the
building using salvaged historic fabric. This report, along with the Reconstruction Plan
recommended by this report, will be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) as well as
Planning staff as the first step in the City’s review and approval process for the reconstruction
project. This review will require a recommendation from the HRB that the two findings for
restoration of the original historic character of the building that are cited in Municipal Code
Subsection 16.49.090(a)(4) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance have been met:
1. The proposed work will effect adequate restoration;
2. The proposed work can be done with a substantial degree of success.
As this is a previously approved Floor Area Bonus project, the HRB must also recommend that
the reconstructed building would satisfy the provisions for designation of historic resources in
Category 2 set forth in Historic Preservation Ordinance Sections 16.49.020 and 16.49.040, and
would be consistent with the original Conditions of Approval for the project.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
18
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
19
CONDITIONS BEFORE DEMOLITION
PRE-DEMOLITION PHOTOGRAPHS
Following are pictures of the historic building as it is being prepared for construction:
1 - West Elevation before Demolition facing University Avenue
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
20
2 - South Elevation before Demolition, Note 3 - North Elevation before Demolition
Partial Existing Chimney and Bay Window
4 - East (Rear) Elevation before Demolition 5 - Front Door before Demolition
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
21
6 - Column Brackets and Column Capital before Demolition
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
22
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
23
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE
The site is located along University Avenue in Palo Alto, California between Webster and
Cowper Street. The site is located in a CD Downtown Commercial district along University
Avenue, which is a frequently busy commercial thoroughfare for both vehicles and pedestrians.
The site is a construction zone with chain link fencing along University Avenue to prohibit
trespass. The new concrete foundation has been poured and the house has been moved forward
towards University Avenue to its new location. Various materials are located on site including
some salvaged material under tarps and new building materials. The construction of the new
addition is underway at the rear of the site. A temporary walkway has been constructed in
place of the removed porch and along the north side of the site to permit access to the historic
building. There are various pieces of equipment located on the site including a construction
crane.
7 - Bird's Eye View of Historic Building after Demolition - Oct. 17, 2009
BUILDING
The historic house exists in a partially deconstructed state. The remains of the historic building
on site include the first floor framing, first and second floor subfloor and exterior lap siding on
the west (facing University Avenue) elevation. All of the porch and front stairway elements are
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
24
completely removed including framing, finish and details. Exterior wood lap siding, along with
a mailbox next to the front door, remains on the west elevation and partially on the south bay
window(damaged). Approximately nine feet have been removed from the rear of the historic
building. This removal includes six (6) first and second floor window openings. Several built-
ins and the stairway still remain on the first floor. Some plumbing piping is still intact as well
as a tub on the second floor. The chimney has been completely removed. All windows and
framing has been completely removed. All of the doors have been removed, although some of
the door frames with partial trim remain. Up to eight feet of the north side of the historic
building has been sheathed with OSB board. New and salvaged materials are stacked inside the
historic house in the basement and on the first and second floors. Salvaged materials on site
include structural framing, finish flooring, sections of exterior siding over framing and doors.
The new addition at the rear of the property is under construction. Although there is a new
foundation under the addition, the foundation between the historic building and the new
addition does not appear to have been poured.
8 - West Elevation after Demolition; Note Removal of Porch
and Window Frames, New Material Stored Under Tarps
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
25
9 - Exterior Wood Lap Siding; 10 - Porch Ceiling after Demolition
Approximately Seven Inches Tall Exposed with Existing Framing and Second Floor
Subfloor Above
11 - Door Opening at West Elevation 12 - North Elevation after Demolition:
with Partially Intact Frame Note OSB board attached to framing
and material stored onsite
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
26
13 - Southwest Corner of Historic Building 14 - South Bay Window after Demolition;
After Demolition; Note removed Porch, Partial Exterior Wood Siding and Dentil
Fireplace and Chimney Detail Remains but is Damaged
15 - South Bay Window Partially Remaining Dentil 16 - Boxed Corner at Second Floor after Demolition:
after Demolition Note Removed Porch Details and Ceiling
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
27
17 - Rear Elevation of the Historic Building After 18 - Original Rear Entry Door Stored on
Demolition; Remaining Face of Framing is First Floor
Approximately Nine Feet from Original Face
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
28
STORAGE MATERIALS
Items salvaged from the historic building are stored in two different units at an offsite location
in Santa Clara, California. See the attached matrix in Appendix B: Field Notes/Inventory for a
listing of these items. In general, the items appear to have been removed carefully and with
little damage. Representatives from Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. visited the storage units on
December 2, 2009 to assess the amount and condition of the stored material. Because of the
method of storing the items, amounts of square (sqft) and lineal feet (lft) of material were not
able to be verified. This would require complete disassembly of material bundles and a large
area to layout each individual piece for inspection and measurement. As an alternative,
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. assessed the general condition of visible materials, types of
materials stored, their storage locations and any notations made concerning the original
locations of materials. Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. was able to verify retained features such as
windows, doors, dormers and brackets which were readily identifiable. Based on existing
drawings, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. calculated the amount of materials present on the
original building and compared these to the numbers provided by the contractor as part of their
storage documentation. The Inventory is a hybrid document with the unmodified contractor’s
salvaged material counts and these calculations along with field notes and observations. More
specific material types and locations where added by Garavaglia are denoted with yellow
shading. Where differences occur, discussions on the reasons for the discrepancy are included
in the Findings Chapter of this report.
Exterior Siding
Description of material: Exterior siding consists of wood lap siding with three beveled reveals
Amount of material noted on Contractor Inventory: 2420 sqft
Amount of material anticipated from construction drawings: 2034 sqft
Condition of salvaged material: generally in good, useable condition; some end cracking has
occurred, but is the result of natural processes rather than method of removal
Description of how material is stored: material is bundled with similar lengths, wrapped in tape
and stacked on shelving inside storage units
Roof and Dormers
Description of material: There is no roofing material or gutters or downspouts that have been
salvaged. The dormers have two openings each for windows (listed separately). The location of
the exterior wood shingle siding that covers three (3) sides of each dormer is unknown.
Amount of dormers noted on Contractor Inventory: three (3)
Amount of material anticipated from construction drawings and photographs: three (3)
Condition of salvaged material: generally in fair to good, useable condition
Description of how material is stored: dormers are in the storage unit on wood shims
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
29
19 - Exterior Wood Lap Siding in 20 - Dormer Frame in Storage Unit P9
Storage Unit P9
Windows
Description of material: The window frames vary in size, shape and type. Operable sashes have
been removed and are also in storage unit. Doors are stacked against the wall of the storage
unit. The rear door to the building is stored onsite inside an intact frame. Location of front door
is unknown.
See Appendix B: Field Notes/Inventory for windows in Contractor Inventory, amount of
windows anticipated from construction drawings and photographs and verified window frame
and sash counts.
Condition of salvaged material: generally in fair condition; some window frames have received
minor repairs; there are some panes of broken glass; in general the hardware remains but will
need complete rehabilitation
Description of how material is stored: window frames and sashes in the storage unit on wood
shims
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
30
21 - Window Frames and Exterior Lap 22 - Columns, Doors and Window Frames
Siding in Storage Unit P9 in Storage Unit P6
23 - Window Frames in Storage Unit P6 24 - Window Sashes in Storage Unit P9
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
31
Porch
Description of material: Porch items consist of tongue and groove flooring, tongue and groove
ceiling, four (4) columns, stairway to grade, cheek walls flanking stairway, and four (4) low
walls at perimeter of porch.
See Appendix B: Field Notes/Inventory for porch feature material in Contractor Inventory,
amount of material anticipated from construction drawings and photographs and verified
counts.
Condition of salvaged material: generally in good, useable condition; location of low walls is
unknown (may have been completely disassembled)
Description of how material is stored: tongue and groove flooring and ceiling boards are
bundled and stacked on shelves; other items are in the storage unit on wood shims
25 - Porch Low Walls in Storage Unit P6 26 - Twelve (12) Wood Brackets in Storage Unit P9
Trim
Description of material: Trim consists of cornice molding, fascia molding, door and window
trim, watertable trim and cornerboards
Amount of material noted on Contractor Inventory: 896 sqft
Amount of material anticipated from construction drawings: 598 sqft
See Appendix B: Field Notes/Inventory for breakout amounts of specific types of trim
including fascia, cornice trim, corner trim and water table trim.
Condition of salvaged material: generally in fair to good, useable condition; location of low
walls is unknown (may have been completely disassembled); location of stairway is unknown
Description of how material is stored: material is typically bundled with other similar material,
wrapped with tape and stored on shelving
Decorative Features
Description of material: The decorative features consist of brackets at the underside of the
second story boxed corners and dentil molding that ran along the eaves of four sides of the
house and at the top of the bay window.
Amount of brackets noted on Contractor Inventory: 12
Amount of brackets anticipated from construction drawings and photographs: 12
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
32
Amount of dentil molding noted on Contractor Inventory: 150 lft
Amount of dentil molding anticipated from construction drawings and photographs: 169.5 lft
Condition of salvaged material: brackets are in good, useable condition; condition of the dentils
was unable to be verified due to location in the storage unit
Description of how material is stored: brackets and dentil molding are on shelving inside
storage units
27 - Exterior Trim in Storage Unit P9 28 - Dentils in Storage Unit P9
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
33
EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY
Integrity is the measure by which properties are evaluated. To retain integrity a property must
retain most of the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the National Register of Historic
Places Criteria for Evaluation. The seven aspects of integrity are quoted as follows:
• Location - Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place
where the historic event occurred.
• Design - Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure,
and style of a property.
• Setting - Setting is the physical environment of the historic property.
• Materials - Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration form a historic
property.
• Workmanship - Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling - Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
• Association – Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person
and a historic property.
According to the Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Series Bulletin #6:
Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced
by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of
significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register
must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough
of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources
and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that historical
resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the
National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California
Register.1
1 Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. California Register and National Register: A
Comparison. Technical Assistance Series No. 6.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
34
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
35
FINDINGS
OVERVIEW
Prior to deconstruction, the residential building at 564 University Avenue was found to retain a
high degree of integrity of location, design, materials, association and workmanship. A full
discussion of the building in relation to the seven aspects of integrity can be found in the 2008
Focused HSR report completed by Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG). Using the
information provided in that document, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. concurs with that finding.
564 University Avenue is considered a historic resource and is classified as a Category 2 historic
resource on the local inventory. According to section 16.49.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
“Category 2: ‘Major building’ means any building…of major regional importance…[and/or] an
outstanding example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the
state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original
character is retained.”2
According to the Focused Historic Structure Report completed by ARG in March 2008, the
building is significant as the last residential structure in University Avenue’s commercial
district and as an intact representation of an early 20th century Colonial Revival style residence.
The deconstruction of the building in October 2009 dramatically altered the building’s
appearance and significantly diminished its historic integrity, thus jeopardizing the Category 2
status of the building. However, a considerable amount of historic material was retained from
the demolition and has been placed in an off-site storage area. The following evaluation intends
to determine - through existing documentation, physical evidence and a general analysis of
remaining materials - whether sufficient material integrity is present to support a reconstruction
of the building and the retention of its Category 2 status.
This evaluation of physical integrity examines the amount of extant material left on site and in
storage to determine whether sufficient original material remains to feasibly restore the
building’s historic appearance. An assessment of interior material integrity is not included as
part of this discussion since item three (3) in the Conditions of Approval for the project stated
that, “compliance with the ‘Recommendations for Interior Materials and Finishes Treatment’ (as
outlined in the Focused HSR) [were] voluntary.” While a thorough review of the interior
portions of the historic building is outside the scope of this report, it should be noted that this
condition is accepted only as a pre-existing condition. According to ARG’s Focused HSR, the list
of interior character defining features is extensive, and their recommendations are to “retain as
much original interior moldings, built-ins and interior features as possible.” An evaluation of
the integrity of each exterior element important to the reconstruction of the historic resource is
provided. The evaluation discusses these elements in terms of the character-defining features
identified in the Focused HSR. The following documents were used to inform this discussion:
2 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 HISTORIC PRESERVATION*, Section 16.49.020 Definitions.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
36
• Palo Alto Municipal Code
• Data provided by the contractor regarding the amount of historic material currently in
storage
• Photographs of the building before and after deconstruction
• Focused Historic Structure Report for 564 University Avenue completed by ARG in March
2008
• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
• Planning Submittal set drawings dated April 21, 2008
• Building Permit set drawings approved March 30, 2009
• Estimates of extant historic material (completed using information contained in Appendix B:
Field Notes / Inventory)
• Field measurements and historic details by the project architect (sketches and field notes
property of Architect)
MATERIALS
Overall Building Form and Structure
The second floor structural wall framing, the roof framing and all framing (both wall and floor
sections) of the rear approximately nine feet of the building have been removed. It is unknown
whether this original material still exists onsite. Site visit observations by Garavaglia
Architecture, Inc. staff indicated that some framing materials may have been retained, but may
not have been stored with adequate protection from the elements. As such, for the purposes of
this review, we are assuming that the removed framing is not extant or reusable. Framing
components that are extant include the first and second story structural floor framing and the
first story exterior wall framing, less the rear nine feet of the building. Essentially, less than half
of the original framing currently exists in its original location and configuration.
As it relates to the Material aspect of integrity as defined above, the removal of the roof framing,
second story wall framing and rear nine feet of wall and floor framing constitutes a significant
impact to the integrity of this building component. The overall building form is no longer extant
and a majority of the original structural materials have been removed. As it currently stands,
the building massing exhibits a low degree of integrity of overall form and structure.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
37
Exterior Siding
For all four elevations of the historic building, the contractor has listed more exterior siding in
storage than calculations have shown can exist. A possibility for this discrepancy is that the
unexposed portions (the whole board) was used for storage counts, whereas the drawings will
only show exposed portions of siding. The overlapped (unexposed) portions could increase the
area count up to ten percent. It is not clear why there would be any additional material in
storage. According to the amount of existing material provided by the contractor and
calculations completed in-house by Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. staff, a sufficient quantity of
original exterior cladding material remains in storage to cover the exterior walls of the full two-
story building as represented in the approved plan set. Site visit observations and digital
photographs indicate that the majority of the material is in good condition. As such, there
appears to be an adequate level of integrity of siding material remaining to support
reconstruction and reuse of this building element.
Roof and Dormers
All roof framing, including that of the dormers, and roof cladding material has been removed
and is no longer extant. Because of the complete removal and apparent disposal of the
structural roof framing, the building retains no integrity of this building component. However,
the composition shingle roof cladding was not historic and its removal has no impact on the
historic integrity of the building.
All three dormers were removed as part of the deconstruction. The front wall frames, including
the rough window openings, of each dormer have been retained and are in storage. However,
the wood shingle cladding and side wall structural framing of each dormer have been removed
and are assumed to be no longer extant. The window frames, sashes and glazing appear to be
extant but are stored separately (see below for discussion of window integrity). The focused
HSR identifies the dormers, as well as their wood shingle cladding, as exterior character
defining features. Because the sidewall structural framing and wood shingle cladding are no
longer extant, this building component exhibits diminished material integrity. Retention of the
window frames, sashes, sills and glazing result in a moderate degree of overall integrity for the
dormers.
According to ARG’s Focused HSR, the original soffit boards at the underside of the eaves have
been replaced. Above the rear entry there is some board material at the soffit that may be
historic, but the date of the rear house modification is unknown. ARG’s Focused HSR
recommends that all gutters and downspouts be replaced. No original gutters and downspouts
remain. Aluminum “replacement” gutters are extant on the south bay window.
Windows & Doors
The bay window structural framing is intact onsite and includes the rough window openings,
roof structure and cladding, and segments of wood siding, dentil molding and fascia board. The
portions of siding left on the bay window frame are damaged. All first floor rough window
openings remain except for the six window openings that were located on the rear nine feet of
the building. (Note: of these, one window – the rear first story window on the north elevation -
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
38
had been approved for removal by the Planning Department). Since the second story wall
framing had been removed, no window openings remain on this level.
The methodology for documenting the salvaged windows in storage does not apparently relate
to the system used in the building permit drawings in the window schedule. The size of the
window listed in the window schedule differs from the method that was used to measure the
windows in storage. Because of these differing methodologies, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc.
staff was not able to specifically verify the existence of each window. Windows, frames and
sashes in storage were measured and counted. These counts were then compared with the
windows as shown in the building permit drawings. It should also be noted that most of the
sashes are stored separately from the window frames and that there are a number of double
hung window frames with an upper sash that has been fixed in place. While there were
numbers written on the frames, no system was apparent for matching the sash with the correct
frame.
The total amount of windows shown in the building permit set are thirty-two (32) excluding
removed windows. Thirty-five (35) window frames and thirty-three (33) sashes were verified.
Information relayed by the contractor, and site visit observations made by Garavaglia
Architecture, Inc. staff, indicate that nearly (stated as such because specific windows were
unable to be identified) all of the original window frames, sashes and glazing are extant and in
storage. Only a few panes of original glazing appear to have been broken, either previously or
in the removal process, and the extant sashes and frames appear to be in fair condition.
The original rear door was observed on site during the site visit though if left exposed to the
elements its current condition is questionable. It is unknown whether the original front door has
been retained. Overall, a sufficient degree of integrity of original window materials is extant to
recreate the historic appearance of this building component. The original front door is identified
as a character-defining feature in ARG’s Focused HSR. If this building component is no longer
extant it will constitute a loss of material integrity for this building component.
Porch
The tongue and groove cladding of the porch ceiling, the wood flooring, all four wood columns,
the entry stair cheek walls and one of the porch side walls remain extant and in storage. Only
one wall appears to retain its beveled coping board. Some additional coping board has been
identified in storage but that all of the coping has been salvaged cannot be confirmed. The wood
entry steps and most low porch wall framing appear to be no longer extant. Overall, however,
the porch elements appear to be generally intact and retain a sufficient amount of integrity for
reconstruction.
Trim
All fascia, door and window trim, corner boards, and water table trim appear to be extant and
are currently in storage. As such, there appears to be sufficient material integrity to reconstruct
these building components.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
39
Decorative Features
Most of the dentil molding and all twelve decorative wood brackets are extant and in storage.
As such, there appears to be sufficient material integrity to reconstruct these building
components.
SUMMARY
Based on the amounts of materials present, the quality and detail of available documentation
including field measurements taken prior to deconstruction and the condition of the materials
available for reuse, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. finds that there is the potential to reassemble
the historic fabric of 564 University Avenue using original materials. If the building is carefully
reconstructed to its original configuration and appearance using existing materials, the
remaining structural framing and recommended treatment methods, the building will be able to
retain the integrity required to uphold its Category 2 listing as a historic resource.
The methodology for reassembly should follow accepted preservation construction treatments
and technology to further protect the remaining materials and therefore historic integrity. This
may include a revision of structural upgrades as currently conceived. Elements of the proposed
plan that were approved for removal and/or replacement as part of the HRB review of the
proposed project (Historic Resources Board Staff Report dated May 7, 2008) could be restored to
original configurations to further improve the historic integrity of the building if further,
ongoing review processes determine that the integrity level has been excessively compromised.
Suggested improvements include the reconstruction of the brick chimney in lieu of a new
window installation.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
40
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
41
RECOMMENDATIONS
OVERVIEW
Conditions of approval should be formed by the City of Palo Alto based on these
recommendations. The findings presented have determined that there is the potential to
reassemble the historic fabric of the historic building. However, it is important to note that any
rehabilitation and reconstruction will be a process. Final determination that the
recommendations and any resulting conditions have been met should be reserved until the
completion of the project.
It is imperative that the contractor become familiar with the recommendations and fully
understand the resulting conditions. Any additional drawings provided as a result of these
recommendations should be reviewed by the contractor. Coordination items not fully vetted by
the drawings should be resolved before any construction activity takes place. Any further
demolition or destruction of historic material should absolutely be prohibited.
Additional information will be needed to reconstruct the historic building. As issued, the
Planning Submittal and Building Permit do not contain sufficient information to reconstruct the
building. On a typical drawing depicting existing conditions, graphic images are provided but
not dimensioned. Because reconstruction of a substantial portion of the building must be
reconstructed from the framing to the details, the procurement of as many field measurements,
notes and observations as possible should be pursued. These dimensions and sketches should
be assembled into a working set of architectural reconstruction drawings (similar to that of a
new building) and be fully coordinated with the other disciplines. Any photographs taken
before demolition should be used to supplement existing information.
The structural drawings should be reconceived to take into account the current state of the
building. It is not clear how the new structural system interacts with the extant framing and will
support second floor walls, openings and roof forms. New or modified structural drawings
should provide for reconstruction of the historic building and the removed rear nine feet of the
building. Because the rear nine feet will be reconstructed, it is not clear how a new foundation
will interact with the existing foundation and basement walls. The structural system design
shall maximize retention of and be sensitive to the existing remaining fabric (including stored
materials) and allow the overall design and form of the historic building to be reconstructed.
Historic Building (HB) specifications shall be provided to inform the contractor regarding the
proper treatment of the historic fabric and its reassembly. Technical preservation briefs and
other supporting documentation are available through the The National Park Service to guide
rehabilitation and reconstruction methods and applications. The preservation briefs can be
found online at http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/publications.htm.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
42
The reconstruction of the missing rear nine feet of the building will be necessary to restore the
overall building form and structure. It is our assumption that any structural framing elements
will need to be replaced. Framing should be reinstituted to allow the exterior form to be
replicated by careful investigation into the existing field dimensions and sketches. Windows can
be relocated in their original location and as many original details (trim, corner board, dentils,
etc.) should be reinstalled.
The City of Palo Alto will be advised to provide conditions of approval based on these
recommendations. It is advised that the City require a Reconstruction Plan that includes:
• Documentation of how “conditions of approval” will be met
• Drawings and specifications
• Reconstruction observation plan
An objective, third-party consultant can provide the expertise both in advising on or providing
a plan and determining at what level project conditions are met.
RECONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION GUIDELINES
Following are guidelines for an objective, third-party reconstruction observation agency to
assist the City of Palo Alto in the reconstruction of the historic building at 564 University
Avenue with the objective of reassembling the historic fabric to a Historic Inventory Category 2
level of integrity.
• Assumes issuance of a “Reconstruction Plan” by the City of Palo Alto (referred to hereafter
as the “City”)
• Reconstruction observation agency (or individual) will have verifiable construction
administration or construction management experience and verifiable experience with
historic preservation
• Shall apply primarily to reconstruction of historic building and shall only apply to new
addition where affecting reconstruction of historic building
• May include associated consultant(s), i.e., structural engineer, that is able to verify framing
• Reconstruction observation agency shall not be expected to perform normal duties (e.g.
submittals not related to the historic building, RFIs not related to the historic building,
applications for payment) of typical construction administration. Responsibility is
specifically targeted towards reassembling the historic fabric of the historic building.
Preconstruction Phase
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
43
1. Provide preliminary evaluation for City, Owner and Architect including analysis of
Report and examination of City Reconstruction Plan
2. Advise Architect and project team in an ongoing basis, as established by the
Reconstruction Plan, on:
A. Material treatment
B. Reconstruction drawings
C. Historic and reconstruction details
D. Historic Building (HB) specifications
E. Phasing
3. Ongoing consultation to the City and project team.
4. Establish necessary reconstruction submittals by contractor as well as review of
submittals
Construction Phase
1. Attend mandatory preconstruction meeting
2. Conduct a minimum of once a week site visits; may also require additional site visits as
necessary during critical phases and at milestones
3. Provide report(s) on reconstruction from site visits and observation of progress on the
Reconstruction Plan
4. Provide responses to Requests for Information (RFIs) from the Contractor specific to the
reconstruction of the historic building
5. Provide recommendations for replacement of damaged or missing materials.
6. Prepare final punchlist
7. Provide final report with assessment of whether or not reconstruction has
achieved project goals. Final determination as to the fulfillment of the Reconstruction
Plan shall be the City’s
HISTORIC MATERIALS
When historic materials are beyond repair replacement materials shall exactly match historic
configurations and, in the case of wood, the species. Salvaged material from the rear of the
building shall be used first. Additions shall use only new material. Note that original materials
should be placed as far to the front of the building as possible (concentrated on the west and
south elevations) and any new recreated materials should be placed towards the rear of the
building to limit exposure from the public realm. Following are general material specific
guidelines:
Siding
Because no siding elements were labeled with their exact locations, careful consideration of
placement for each siding board will be required. In general:
• No siding boards should be cut to fit. Boards should be reinstalled in appropriate locations
that do not require them to be cut to size. Once all portions of a given elevation have been
clad with available whole boards, any remaining siding from that elevation not being
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
44
reinstalled can be altered to fit the remaining gaps in siding. In general, the cutting of siding
boards should be avoided in an effort to reinstall boards in locations analogous to their
original placement.
• Install boards in a traditional manner, with fastenings in the appropriate locations. No
exposed face nailing should be allowed.
• Once siding is reinstalled, fill any voids in the material from prior damage (nail holes,
chipped edges, etc.) with an appropriate exterior-grade cellulose filler suitable for painting.
Windows
• All windows called out for reinstallation on the plans approved on March 30, 2009 should
be reinstalled in their original locations. Where storage notations differ from the window
schedule, the dimensions of the window should be used to determine the original location.
• Where window framing is no longer extant, openings should be created in the exact vertical
and horizontal locations relative to other building elements to maintain the historic
arrangement of features.
• All new framed openings should be carefully constructed to the appropriate dimensions of
each historic window. Relocation of windows of is not recommended.
• All window hardware and operating mechanisms should be repaired prior to installation.
• All window frame and sash repairs should be made prior to installation.
Decorative features (columns, dentil molding, soffits, trim, etc.)
• The cutting of trim elements is not recommended. Trim boards should be reinstalled in
appropriate locations that do not require them to be cut to size. Once all trim elements on a
given elevation have installed with available whole boards, any remaining trim from areas
not being recreated can be altered to fit the remaining gaps in siding. In general, the cutting
of siding boards should be avoided in an effort to reinstall boards in locations analogous to
their original placement.
• Install boards in a traditional manner, with fastenings in the appropriate locations. No
exposed face nailing should be allowed.
• Once trim is reinstalled, fill any voids in the material from prior damage (nail holes, chipped
edges, etc.) with an appropriate exterior-grade cellulose filler suitable for painting.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
45
SUMMARY
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. reviewed City and Owner provided pictures, drawings, field
notes, inventory and correspondence and observed site conditions and the materials salvaged in
the storage unit. Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. staff then calculated the amount of exterior
material needed to reconstruct the building from the drawings. These calculations, along with
observed verifications, are contained in Appendix B: Field Notes/Inventory.
Based on the amounts of materials present, the quality and detail of available documentation
including field measurements taken prior to deconstruction and the condition of the materials
available for reuse, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. finds that there is the potential to reassemble
the historic fabric of 564 University Avenue using original materials. If the building is carefully
reconstructed to its original configuration and appearance using existing materials, the
remaining structural framing and recommended treatment methods, the building will be able to
retain the integrity required to uphold its Category 2 listing as a historic resource.
The City of Palo Alto will be advised to provide conditions of approval based on the
recommendations in this report. It is advised that the City require a Reconstruction Plan
responding to the conditions. As a component of the Reconstruction Plan, review by an
objective, third-party reconstruction observation agency will will provide the expertise to
ensure that the reconstruction process will return the building to the level of historic integrity
required by the Municipal Code for a Historic Inventory Category 2 building, and thus retain
for the project the benefits and exemptions that previously had been granted based on this
status.
The methodology for reassembly should follow accepted preservation construction treatments
and technology to further protect the remaining materials and therefore historic integrity.
Following is a summary of the main recommendations:
• Any further demolition or destruction of historic material should absolutely be prohibited.
• Final determination that the recommendations and any resulting conditions have been met
should be reserved until the completion of the project.
• It is imperative that the contractor and other involved parties become familiar with the
recommendations and fully understand the resulting conditions.
• Because a substantial portion of the building must be reassembled from the framing to the
details, the procurement of as many field measurements, notes and observations as possible
should be pursued. These dimensions and sketches should be assembled into a working set
of architectural drawings (similar to that of a new building) and be fully coordinated with
the other disciplines.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
46
• The structural drawings should be reconceived to coordinate with the current state of the
building. The structural system design shall maximize retention of and be sensitive to the
existing remaining fabric (including stored materials) and allow the overall design and form
of the historic building to be reconstructed.
• It is advised that the City provide conditions of approval and require a Reconstruction Plan
that includes documentation of how the conditions will be met, drawings and specifications
and a reconstruction observation plan.
• An objective, third-party reconstruction observation agency should assist the City of Palo
Alto in the reconstruction of the historic building with the objective of reassembling the
historic fabric.
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
APPENDIX A: DRAWINGS
The following drawings were provided by the Architect, Ann Hawkinson. Snapshots of the
drawings approved for building permit on March 30, 2009 are unmodified in this report.
Drawing A1.2 - Site Plan
A1
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
Drawing A2.1 - Basement Floor Plan
A2
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
Drawing A2.2 - First Floor Plan
A3
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
Drawing A2.3 - Second Floor Plan
A4
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
Drawing A2.4 - Roof Plan
A5
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
Drawing A3.1 - North Elevation
A6
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
Drawing A3.2 - South Elevation
A7
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
Drawing A3.4 - West Elevation
A8
564 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
Reconstruction Assessment
APPENDIX B: FIELD NOTES / INVENTORY
The Inventory is a hybrid document with the contractor’s unmodified salvaged material counts
and calculations, condition assessment, field notes and observations by Garavaglia
Architecture, Inc. “Date Removed” and “Storage Unit #” information from the contractor has
been removed from this document for clarity. More specific material types and locations where
added by Garavaglia for listing calculations are denoted with yellow shading. For an in-depth
explanation of the inventory see the Storage Materials section in the Existing Conditions
Chapter.
B1
GA
R
A
V
A
G
L
I
A
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
,
I
N
C
.
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
:
FI
E
L
D
N
O
T
E
S
/
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
LO
C
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
IT
E
M
# O
F
ITE
M
S
CO
N
T
R
C
T
R
TO
T
A
L
CA
L
C
S
(G
A
)
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
(G
A
)
G
A
F
I
E
L
D
N
O
T
E
S
(
G
A
)
Ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
S
i
d
i
n
g
Ea
s
t
La
p
S
i
d
i
n
g
64
0
s
q
f
t
5
8
0
s
q
f
t
No
r
t
h
La
p
S
i
d
i
n
g
82
0
s
q
f
t
6
6
0
s
q
f
t
10
3
1
/
2
"
l
o
n
g
x
1
2
"
w
i
d
e
W
e
s
t
La
p
S
i
d
i
n
g
32
0
s
q
f
t
2
0
4
s
q
f
t
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2
3
0
s
q
f
t
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
flo
o
r
So
u
t
h
La
p
S
i
d
i
n
g
64
0
s
q
f
t
5
9
0
s
q
f
t
To
t
a
l
S
i
d
i
n
g
24
2
0
s
q
f
t
2
0
3
4
s
q
f
t
G
o
o
d
Ro
o
f
a
n
d
D
o
r
m
e
r
s
Do
r
m
e
r
s
W
i
n
d
o
w
f
r
a
m
e
s
3
3
F
a
i
r
t
o
G
o
o
d
W
h
o
l
e
u
n
i
t
s
w
i
t
h
t
w
o
(
2
)
w
i
n
d
o
w
op
e
n
i
n
g
s
e
a
.
Do
r
m
e
r
C
l
a
d
d
i
n
g
W
o
o
d
S
h
i
n
g
l
e
S
i
d
i
n
g
n/a
3
1
.
5
s
q
f
t
n
/
a
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
u
n
k
n
o
w
n
W
i
n
d
o
w
s
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
4
0
x
6
4
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
2
6
7
x
5
8
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
2
4
0
X
5
8
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
4
0
x
3
3
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
W
e
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
2
5
4
x
6
5
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
2
8
x
3
0
1
/
2
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
2
0
x
2
8
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
3
3
6
x
5
8
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
2
3
6
x
5
8
LO
C
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
IT
E
M
# O
F
ITE
M
S
CO
N
T
R
C
T
R
TO
T
A
L
CA
L
C
S
(G
A
)
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
(G
A
)
G
A
F
I
E
L
D
N
O
T
E
S
(
G
A
)
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
4
0
x
4
6
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
6
7
x
5
8
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
6
7
x
5
8
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
2
3
x
3
4
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
5
8
x
5
8
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
3
4
0
x
5
8
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
2
4
x
3
4
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
4
4
0
x
6
5
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
3
2
7
x
3
8
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
2
4
x
3
6
2n
d
F
l
o
o
r
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
3
0
x
5
3
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
1
8
x
3
0
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
3
0
x
4
2
1s
t
F
l
o
o
r
E
a
s
t
S
i
d
e
Sa
s
h
a
n
d
f
r
a
m
e
1
4
"
x
3
'
3
"
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
W
i
n
d
o
w
s
n/a
F
a
i
r
Th
i
r
t
y
-
f
i
v
e
(
3
5
)
w
i
n
d
o
w
f
r
a
m
e
s
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
;
Th
i
r
t
y
-
t
h
r
e
e
(
3
3
)
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
s
h
e
s
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
;
Mo
s
t
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
h
a
r
d
w
a
r
e
i
s
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
,
s
o
m
e
br
o
k
e
n
g
l
a
s
s
,
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
(ro
p
e
s
)
m
o
s
t
l
y
b
r
o
k
e
n
Po
r
c
h
Po
r
c
h
C
e
i
l
i
n
g
T&
G
C
e
i
l
i
n
g
35
6
s
q
f
t
Fa
i
r
t
o
G
o
o
d
Be
t
t
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
n
f
l
o
o
r
Po
r
c
h
F
l
o
o
r
T&
G
F
l
o
o
r
25
6
s
q
f
t
Fa
i
r
Cu
t
n
a
i
l
s
s
o
t
o
n
g
u
e
i
s
i
n
t
a
c
t
,
s
o
m
e
e
d
g
e
da
m
a
g
e
Po
r
c
h
Co
l
u
m
n
s
4
4
G
o
o
d
Po
r
c
h
Lo
w
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
w
a
l
l
s
4
Fa
i
r
t
o
G
o
o
d
Re
m
o
v
e
d
i
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
e
x
a
c
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
un
k
n
o
w
n
Po
r
c
h
S
t
a
i
r
s
St
a
i
r
l
o
w
w
a
l
l
s
2
2
F
a
i
r
Re
m
o
v
e
d
a
s
w
h
o
l
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
s
o
m
e
r
o
t
an
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
d
a
m
a
g
e
n
o
t
e
d
Po
r
c
h
Ra
i
l
i
n
g
/
c
o
p
i
n
g
b
o
a
r
d
48
l
f
t
Go
o
d
1x
1
8
b
o
a
r
d
s
u
s
e
d
a
s
c
o
p
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
o
r
c
h
wa
l
l
s
LO
C
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
IT
E
M
# O
F
ITE
M
S
CO
N
T
R
C
T
R
TO
T
A
L
CA
L
C
S
(G
A
)
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
(G
A
)
G
A
F
I
E
L
D
N
O
T
E
S
(
G
A
)
Mo
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
T
r
i
m
No
r
t
h
Fa
s
c
i
a
52
l
f
t
W
e
s
t
Fa
s
c
i
a
40
l
f
t
So
u
t
h
Fa
s
c
i
a
52
l
f
t
Ba
y
Fa
s
c
i
a
13
l
f
t
No
r
t
h
Co
r
n
i
c
e
T
r
i
m
48
l
f
t
No
r
t
h
P
o
r
c
h
Co
r
n
i
c
e
T
r
i
m
9 l
f
t
So
u
t
h
Co
r
n
i
c
e
T
r
i
m
48
l
f
t
So
u
t
h
P
o
r
c
h
Co
r
n
i
c
e
T
r
i
m
9 l
f
t
W
e
s
t
Co
r
n
i
c
e
T
r
i
m
35
l
f
t
No
r
t
h
P
o
r
c
h
Tr
i
m
18
l
f
t
So
u
t
h
P
o
r
c
h
Tr
i
m
18
l
f
t
Ba
y
Tr
i
m
13
l
f
t
So
u
t
h
W
a
t
e
r
T
a
b
l
e
W
a
t
e
r
T
a
b
l
e
T
r
i
m
48
l
f
t
No
r
t
h
W
a
t
e
r
T
a
b
l
e
W
a
t
e
r
T
a
b
l
e
T
r
i
m
48
l
f
t
So
u
t
h
Co
r
n
e
r
T
r
i
m
42
l
f
t
No
r
t
h
Co
r
n
e
r
T
r
i
m
42
l
f
t
W
e
s
t
P
o
r
c
h
N
o
r
t
h
S
i
d
e
33
l
f
t
W
e
s
t
P
o
r
c
h
S
o
u
t
h
S
i
d
e
30
l
f
t
no
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
t
r
i
m
Fa
i
r
Ve
r
y
n
a
r
r
o
w
,
9
0
-
d
e
g
r
e
e
t
r
i
m
p
i
e
c
e
s
,
am
o
u
n
t
s
u
n
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
no
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
Ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
W
i
n
d
o
w
T
r
i
m
"E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
T
r
i
m
W
i
n
d
o
w
C
a
s
i
n
g
,
"
1
x
6
pa
i
n
t
e
d
,
a
m
o
u
n
t
u
n
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
,
b
u
n
d
l
e
d
b
u
t
no
t
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
No
r
t
h
,
S
o
u
t
h
,
E
a
s
t
&
W
e
s
t
Ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
M
o
l
d
i
n
g
89
6
s
q
f
t
5
9
8
l
f
t
G
o
o
d
De
c
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
Po
r
c
h
Br
a
c
k
e
t
s
12
12
G
o
o
d
LO
C
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
IT
E
M
# O
F
ITE
M
S
CO
N
T
R
C
T
R
TO
T
A
L
CA
L
C
S
(G
A
)
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
(G
A
)
G
A
F
I
E
L
D
N
O
T
E
S
(
G
A
)
No
r
t
h
,
S
o
u
t
h
,
E
a
s
t
&
W
e
s
t
De
n
t
i
l
M
o
l
d
i
n
g
15
0
l
f
t
1
6
9
.
5
l
f
t
n
/
a
Do
e
s
n
o
t
a
p
p
e
a
r
t
o
b
e
c
u
t
,
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
a
n
d
am
o
u
n
t
s
a
r
e
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
,
o
n
u
p
p
e
r
s
h
e
l
f
,
no
t
l
a
b
e
l
e
d
Mi
s
c
.
Ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
Br
i
c
k
s
65
0
s
q
f
t
Fa
i
r
So
m
e
i
n
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
n
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
j
o
b
sit
e
;
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
l
i
s
t
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
"
o
f
f
i
c
e
ya
r
d
"
Ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
ve
n
t
f
r
a
m
e
s
/
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
4
2
F
a
i
r
Fo
r
s
c
r
e
e
n
e
d
v
e
n
t
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
s
Int
e
r
i
o
r
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
s
Fir
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
Ha
r
d
w
o
o
d
F
l
o
o
r
78
0
s
q
f
t
n
/
a
n
/
a
So
m
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
,
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
r
p
s
Se
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
Ha
r
d
w
o
o
d
F
l
o
o
r
14
8
0
s
q
f
t
n
/
a
n
/
a
So
m
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
,
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
r
p
s
5960.txt
Text only.
Page 1
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date: June 20~ 2012
To: Historic Resources Board
From: Dennis Backlund
Subject:
Historic Preservatio_n Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
-564 University Avenue [lOPLN-00218]: Request by Steve Schlossareck,
RSR Capital, LLC, owner, for Historic Resources Board revie~ of 8
proposed reconstruction, rehabilitation. and restoration of a deconstructed
1904 Colonial Revival building listed on the City's Historic Inventory in
Category 2, and review of design revisions to the previously approved new
reat addition. Zone District CD-C(P)
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation comprises the following three items:
1. Staff reconunends that the Historic Resources Board recommend to the City Council that
the proposed reconstruction and restoration project meets the two-part Council finding in
Subsection 16.49.090(a)(4)(ji) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance for rectifying the
unauthorized deconstruction of the Category 2 downtown historic house at 564 University
Avenue, as follows:
Finding part 1: "the proposed work will effect adequate restoration" because the
City's historic consultant has determined that adequate exterior historic fabric salvaged
from the deconstruction is available in storage and has been systematically inventoried
and, when reassembled according to the proposed reconstruction plans, will restore the
histonc hO\l!\e to a Category 2 level of integrity;
Finding part 2: [the proposed work] "can be done with a substantial degree of
success" because the applicant has submitted comprehensive and detailed
recons~tion plans developed in extensive consultation with staff and the City's
historic consultant, and the historic consultant will regularly monitor the construction
of the project on site for compliance with historic best construction practices and
compliance with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, and the Conditions of Approval in Attachment A.
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page I of9
2. Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment that the reconstruction and restoration proj ect will
maintain the previously approved Floor Area Bonus (a) by meeting the definition of
"historic rehabilitation" in Municipal Code 18.l8.030(b) which requires a project to
remedy "all the known rehabilitation needs of the building," (b) by meeting the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings which require preservation of the character-defining features of the building, and
(c) by achieving the level of historic integrity at which "the original character is retained"
as cited by the Historic Preservation Ordinance for a Category 2 building, subject to the
Conditions of Approval in Attachment A.
3. Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend to the Architectural
Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment that the
proposed design revisions to the previously approved rear addition to the historic building
comply with Standard 9 of the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation which requires an
addition to a historic building to be compatible with the historic building and adequately
differentiated from the historic building.
BACKGROUND
The Previously Approved Proj ect of 2008
In 2006 the previous owner of 564 University Avenue decided to redevelop the downtown
Category 4 historic house as a large restaurant for a prospective tenant which.would require
additional square footage beyond that normally allowed by the zoning ordinance. The owner
applied for a 2,500 square-foot Floor Area Bonus for a large addition to the building. As the
Bonus is reserved for downtown Category 1 and 2 buildings, the owner applied to reclassify the
building as a Category 2 structure in February 2007. The Historic Preservation Ordinance defines
"Category 2 (Major Building)" as follows: '''Major building' means any building or group of
buildings of major regional inlportance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding
example of an architectural style or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region.
A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained." In
May 2007 the City Council approved the reclassification based on the recommendation of the
Historic Resources Board (HRB). In March 2008 the owner submitted a project application based
on the Floor Area Bonus and a Variance that included a request for basement square footage in
excess of that provided by the Bonus. The application was conditionally approved by the HRB
and Architectural Review Board during May-June 2008, and on June 12, 2008 the Director of
Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved the application. In April 2009 the
City issued the building permit and construction commenced.
The Unauthorized Deconstruction of 2009
In October 2009 the contractor concluded that installation of the approved steel structural system,
intended to seismically upgrade the historic house for the new use, would be facilitated by
deconstructing the entire roof and second floor, and part of the first floor and transporting the
deconstructed elements off-site for storage. On October 13,2009 the contractor commenced
deconstruction without informing the City even though this action violated the approved plans and
conditions of the building permit which required retention of the roof and .exterior walls of the
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 2 of9
historic house throughout construction. Deconstruction was completed on October 15 and on
October 16 the City issued a "Stop Work" notice. On October 25 the Director of Planning
informed the City Council of the unpermitted deconstruction and summarized the plan to
reconstruct the historic house.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance Provision for Reconstruction
As staff reviewed the enforcement and penalties section of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to
determine next steps, staff concluded that because nluch of the deconstructed historic fabric had
been placed in storage the property was potentially eligible for a Historic Ordinance provision that
allows an unlawfully demolished or altered historic building in the downtown to be reconstructed
"after a recommendation by the historic resources board and a finding by the city council that the
proposed work will effect adequate restoration and can be done with a substantial degree of
success" (Attachment B).
The Project Historic Consultant
Because the City's evaluation of the 564 University Avenue reconstruction project has required
significant construction expertise beyond that typically possessed by Planning staff, the City's
qualified historic consultant, Garavaglia Architecture, which is expert in construction
methodology and details, has played a major advisory role in the development of the project plans.
In November 2009, at the request of the property owner, staff retained the historic consultant at
the owner's expense to survey the stored exterior fabric from the deconstructed house to
determine whether sufficient historic material was available to reconstruct the house to its
previous Category 2 level of integrity. With the owner's permission staff also requested that the
historic consultant develop a procedure to regularly monitor the reconstruction and restoration
process on site to ensure that the project will achieve its primary goal of accurately reconstructing
the character-defining features of the exterior. In February 2010 the historic consultant submitted
a report on the potential to reassemble the historic fabric of the house and the method of
monitoring the construction process up to the completion of the project: "564 University Avenue:
Reconstruction Assessment Report" (Attachment C) which stated the following conclusion on
page 39:
"Based on the amounts of materials present, the quality and detail of available documentation
including field nleasurements taken prior to deconstruction and the condition of the materials
available for reuse, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. finds that there is the potential to reassemble
the historic fabric of 564 University Avenue using original materials. If the building is
carefully reconstructed to its original configuration and appearance using existing materials,
the remaining structural framing, and recommended treatment methods, the building will be
able to retain the integrity required to uphold its Category 2 listing as a historic resource."
Regarding staffs request to the consultant to develop an on-site monitoring procedure to ensure
that the process of reconstruction and restoration will continually adhere to historic best practices
and to the City's Conditions of Approval, the Garavaglia Report provided the following summary
recommendation on page 45:
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 3 of9
"As a component of the Reconstruction Plan, review by an objective, third-party
reconstruction observation agency will provide the expertise to ensure that the reconstruction
process will return the building to the level of historic integrity required by the Municipal
Code for a Historic Inventory Category 2 building, and thus retain for the project the benefits
and exemptions that previously had been granted based on this status."
Following staffs favorable review of the Garavaglia Report the City requested that Garavaglia
Architecture perform the function of the third-party reconstruction observation agency, a
description of which is presented in the "Discussion" section below.
Features of the Historic House
This Colonial Revival house was initially constructed in 1904, and at the time of the unauthorized
deconstruction the house was still nearly unaltered. It is a symmetrical example of the style and
displays a classical influence in the columned porch. Because the original project of 2008
requested the granting of a Floor Area Bonus a Historic Structure Report HSR was required to
guide the historic rehabilitation project. The report, entitled "564 University Avenue, Palo Alto,
CA: Focused Historic Structure Report" was prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG)
and dated February 2008 (Attaclunent D). The report describes the architecture of the house and
historic persons associated with the property, and an illustrated list of the exterior character
defining features of the house is provided on pages 13-14 and 17. The report also evaluates the
condition of the building's historic fabric~ A project description of the treatment of the historic
house and the new rear addition is provided on pages 22-23 and as this project description is still
valid in the context of the current project staff recommends review of pages 22-23 in conjunction
with review of the current reconstruction plans. Finally, ARG provides recommendations for
treating historic fabric and the design of the new addition which are closely similar to the
recommendations of the Garavaglia Architecture "Reconstruction Assessment Report."
Current Proj ect Description for the Historic House
A complete project description for the Historic House includes the project description in the 2008
ARG Historic Structure Report part of which is already constructed (for example, the basement
foundation walls, part of the basement itself and part of the framing of the rear addition) and will
be finished by the current project. The current project is generally consistent with the previously
approved project, and the original Conditions of Approval will continue to be implemented
although they are supplemented by new Conditions of Approval necessary to define and guide the
reconstruction and restoration project (Attachment E). In brief, the 2008 Conditions of Approval
were Conditions on a construction project while the 2012 Conditions of Approval are Conditions
on a reconstruction proj ect.
The original focus of the historic house project was rehabilitation of the structure and its features
such as windows. The project included moving the house closer to University Avenue and a
seismic upgrade of the house. The focus of the current project is reconstruction of the
deconstructed house including reassembly of the siding, determining the location of the framing,
reconstruction of the front porch and entry stairs and the reconstruction of the dormers on the new
roof. All the historic windows will be rehabilitated including the window hardware to the extent
possible.
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 4 of9
Current Proj ect Description for the Rear Addition
The current project includes changes to the originally approved design of the rear addition,
changes which reflect the change of use of the building from the originally proposed restaurant
use to the currently proposed office use. Because office use is more compatible with traditional
residential design than a large restaurant use, with its many mechanical needs, the changes to the
rear addition for office use have resulted in a simpler more residential design .. The HRB can
verify this design benefit of the revised addition by referring to the previously approved addition
which is depicted in Garavaglia Architecture's "564 University Avenue: Reconstruction
Assessment Report" on pages A6 and A7 of "Appendix A: Drawings." Because the originally
approved design of the addition has changed Architectural Revi~w of the new design is required
and the Historic Resources Board is required by the Historic Ordinance to recommend to
Architectural Review whether the revised addition meets the Secretary's Standards, particularly
Standard 9 for compatibility with the historic house and adequate differentiation from the historic
house. Staff recommends that the revised design for the rear addition is compliant with the
Secretary's Standards as presented in Attachment F
The changes to the rear addition from the 2008 approved design include the following:
• South (Right) Elevation: The door at the rear has been replaced with a double-hung
window
• North (Left) Elevation: Four double-hung windows have been added at the first and
second floors
• East (Rear) Elevation: Four additional double-hung windows have been added at the first
floor on the previously blank wall
• West (Front) Elevation: The previous west-facing window at the second floor of the
projecting addition has been deleted
• Roof of the Addition: The flat roofed area surrounded with a parapet that was intended to
house mechanical equipment for the kitchen has been replaced with a continuation of
hipped roof of the addition
Staff recommends that the HRB recommend to the Director of Planning that these changes bring
the addition into closer harmony with the design elements of the historic house and that the
addition thereby achieves compatibility with the historic house. Staff recommends that the
revised addition is adequately differentiated from the historic house for the following five reasons:
• The roof of the addition is still lower than the roof of the historic house (as originally
approved);
• The entry to the addition on the south (right) elevation is still recessed as originally
approved (which clearly indicates where the historic house ends);
• The style of the fenestration at the entry to the addition is still in a contemporary style as
originally approved;
• The beveled lap siding is still wider (3") than the lap siding of the historic house (2") as
originally approved, and
• Modem manufacturing details of the addition's windows clarify their modernity
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 5 of9
DISCUSSION
The Reconstruction Plans
The plans for the reconstruction project were developed by the architect, Premier Design, based
on extensive consultation with the City's historic consultant, Garavaglia Architecture, and
Planning staff The resulting plans address not only the design of the project under the Secretary's
Standards for Rehabilitation, but they also contain much information in narrative plan sheets and
numerous keynotes that address the processes of restoration of character-defining features and the
reassembly of the deconstructed nlaterials of the house (Attachment G). If the HRB recommends
approval of the reconstruction plans then the narrative plan sheets and keynotes become binding
assurances that the reconstruction of the house will be successful because no essential details have
been overlooked. Furthermore, Garavaglia Architecture, acting as the reconstruction observation
agency, will confirm through regular site visits that the reconstruction and restoration processes
described and depicted in the plans are inlplemented.
Staff recommends that the HRB determine whether further descriptions of reconstruction and/or
restoration processes or further keynotes need to be added to the future building permit plans or if
the plans before the HRB at the June 20 meeting appear complete. Staff recommends that the
HRB carefully review three aspects of the reconstruction project which represent what a person
walking by the house on University Avenue would mainly see:
• The roof of the historic house and the three dormers;
• The beveled lap siding that will cover the walls of the historic house, and
• The windows of the historic house, the elements of which need to be carefully preserved
from damage and thoroughly rehabilitated.
Especially critical is the reassembly of the historic beveled lap siding which will be carefully
monitored by Garavaglia Architecture. It is important that the assembly of the siding be as
seamless as possible consistent with the appearance of the siding prior to the deconstruction. The
plan elevations of the house on Sheets A-I06, A-I07, and A-I08 each contain "Wood siding
installation notes" which describe methods provided by Garavaglia Architecture to avoid visible
seams. Such seams would constitute a failure of the project and must be avoided. The HRB may
have information and experience in avoiding visible seams when siding is installed and nlay wish
to make comments on this issue. As shown on plan Sheets A-112, A-113, and A-114 the
applicant very carefully assembled the stored siding and window locations as recommended by
Garavaglia Architecture. Garavaglia Architecture also made a number of recommendations on the
treatment of the historic siding which are contained on pages 43-44 of the 564 University Avenue:
Reconstruction Assessment Report (Attachment C). Finally, the HRB's evaluation of the
adequacy of the reconstruction and restoration plans may be assisted by reference to staffs
recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachnlent A which are based on the plans and on a
number of Garavaglia Architecture's recommendations for a successful proj ect.
The Reconstruction Observation Agency
The most important component of the reconstruction project for ensuring the final success of the
proj ect will be the periodic monitoring of the reconstruction on site by the City's historic
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 6 of9
consultant, Garavaglia Architecture, functioning as the reconstruction observation agency. In
February 2010 Garavaglia Architecture provided "Reconstruction Observation Guidelines" on
pages 42-43 of the "564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report." The Guidelines
. establish that during the preconstruction phase of the project the consultant will advise the City,
the property owner, and the project architect regarding "material treatment, reconstruction
drawings, historic and reconstruction details, historic building specifications, and phasing," and
will provide "ongoing consultation to the City and project team," and will "establish necessary
reconstruction submittals by contractor as well as review of submittals." The historic consultant
has performed these functions during the last two years. When construction is ready to begin the
historic consultant perform the following seven functions throughout the construction phase:
1. Attend mandatory preconstruction meeting;
2. Conduct a minimum of once a week site visits; may also require additional site visits as
necessary during critical phases and at milestones;
3. Provide report(s}on reconstruction from site visits and observation of progress on the
Reconstruction Plan;
4. Provide responses to Requests for Information (RFIs) from the Contractor specific to the
reconstruction of the historic building;
5. Provide recommendations for replacement of damaged or missing materials;
6. Prepare final punchlist, and
7. Provide final report with assessment of whether or not reconstruction has achieved project
goals. Final determination as to the fulfillment of the Reconstruction Plan shall be the
City's
Garavaglia Architecture provided an update on the functions of the reconstruction observation
agency in a Memorandum to the City, dated April 30, 2012:
"In our role as advisor to the City of Palo Alto, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. has agreed to
perform site visits for observation during the reconstruction of the historic house. The
contractor shall provide a schedule of construction so that site visits can be arranged. Other
site visits at critical nlilestones, such as completion of framing shall be performed and
contractor shall make every effort to inform the City and Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. of these
critical milestone dates and any schedule changes reasonably ahead of time so site visits can
be arranged. Minimum number of site visits will be once every two weeks until substantial
conlpletion of the reconstruction of the historic building. Maximum number of site visits shall
be seven (7). A final punchlist will be prepared and issued after the final visit. During the
construction phase, Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. will also respond to requests for information
(RFIs) issued by the contractor."
In the Reconstruction Observation Guidelines Garavaglia Architecture stated that the primary task
of the reconstruction observation agency is "to assist the City of Palo Alto in the reconstruction of
the historic building at 564 University Avenue with the objective of reassembling the historic
fabric to a Historic Inventory Category 2 level of integrity."
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 7of9
The Landscape Plan
The landscape plan for the reconstructed house and addition is presented on Sheet L 1 of the
reconstruction plans. As the historic house will be yellow with white trim, a classic Colonial
Revival color schenle, the flowers along the sidewalk will be yellow daylilies and white carpet
roses. The overall floral proposal includes dramatic flowers such as the Big Blue Lily and the
Yellow Hot Poker. At the June 20 meeting staff will hand out to the HRB color images of the
flowers, shrubs and vines proposed by the landscape plan. A traditional residential picket fence
is proposed along the University Avenue sidewalk.
Materials and Colors
A materials and color board will be presented to the HRB at the June 20 meeting. These will be
the materials and colors that were approved for the original 2008 rehabilitation project. These
colors for the house are also indicated under the heading "Exterior color theme"on the elevation
sheets of the reconstruction plans (Sheets A-106, A-107 and A-108). A note is appended stating
that the "Contractor must schedule time for the Architectural Review Board to review "brush
outs" of all paint colors on the building and obtain approval of such colors prior start of painting."
Staff will arrange for the HRB to view the brush outs as well.
Lighting Plan
The new lighting indicated on the reconstruction plans (on Sheet E-300) is located in the interior;
the exterior lighting and site lighting is indicated as existing and is utilitarian. The applicant
recently suggested to staff carriage style light fixtures for the historic house including three
fixtures at the front porch. The applicant may present examples of lighting fixtures at the June 20
HRB meeting. Staff recommends that the HRB clarify the dimensions of any light fixtures
presented so that fixtures that are too large will be avoided for this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA) the Project is
categorically exempt from CEQ A per Section 15331, Historic Resource
RestorationlRehabilitation.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment B: Excerpt from the Historic Preservation Ordinance: "Enforcement"
Attachment C: "564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report" by Garavaglia
Architecture, Inc., February 26,2010
Attachment D: "564 University Avenue: Focused Historic Structure Report," by Architectural
Resources Group, February 2008
Attachment E: Original Approved Conditions of Approval, 2008
Attachment F: Consistency of the Revised Addition with the Secretary's Standards
Attachment G: Reconstruction Project Plans (HRB Members only)
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 8 of9
COURTESY COPIES
Garavaglia Architecture
Steve Schlossareck, RSR Capital, LLC
Frederick Brave, Premier Design
PREPARED BY: b~tt~.Q2uO_
Dennis Backlund,
Historic Preservation Planner
REVIEWED BY:~ ( V-------
STEVEN TURNER
Advance Planning Manager
564 University Avenue Reconstruction and Restoration Page 9 of9
ATTACHMENT A
Recommended Historic Conditions of Approval
564 University Avenue
1 OPLN -00218
1. The historic windows of project shall all be rehabilitated according to the
recommendations under the heading "Windows" on Plan Sheet A-004, and
according to the recommendations under the headings "Window Restoration
Process" and "Window, Door, and Trim Restoration-Damaged Pieces
Replacement" and "Methods for Removing Paint" on Plan Sheet A-005, and
according to the recommendations under the heading "Windows" on page 44 of
the report "564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report" by
Garavaglia Architecture, February 26,'2010 (Attachment C), with reference as
needed to National Park Service Preservation Brief 9, "The Repair of Historic
Wooden Windows," and National Park Service Preservation Brief 10, "Exterior
Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork."
2. The historic beveled lap siding shall be reassembled and installed on the historic
house according to the recommendations under the heading "Wood siding
installation notes" on Plan Sheets A-106, A-107, and A-108, and with reference to
Plan Sheets A-112, A-113, and A-114 ("Historical Materials Installations), and
according to the recommendations under the heading "Siding" on pages 43-44 of
the report "564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report" by
Garavaglia Architecture, February 26,2010 (Attachment C), with reference as
needed to National Park Service Preservation Brief 10, "Exterior Paint Problenls
on Historic Woodwork."
3. The'roof and three dormers of the historic house shall be rebuilt and rehabilitated
according to the recommendations under the heading "Roof and Dormer" on Plan
Sheet A-004, with reference to Plan Sheets A-112, A-113, and A-114 ("Historical
Materials Installations).
4. Trim shall be reinstalled and rehabilitated according to the recommendations
under the heading "Wood Elements" on Plan Sheet A-004, and under the heading
"Window, Door, and Trim Restoration-Damaged Pieces Replacement" on Plan
Sheet A-005, and according to the recommendations under the heading
"Decorative features (columns, dentil molding, soffits, trim, etc.)" on page 44 of
the report "564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report" by
Garavaglia Architecture, February 26, 2010 (Attachment C).
5. "The structural system design shall maximize retention of and be sensitive to the
existing remaining fabric (including stored materials) and allow the overall design
and form of the historic building to be reconstructed" as cited on page 41 of the
report "564 University Avenue: Reconstruction Assessment Report" by
Garavaglia Architecture, February 26,2010 (Attachn1ent C).
6. If the historic front entry door hardware is proposed for replacement, the style,
color, and finish of the proposed new hardware shall be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Planner. Preservation of the historic hardware is recommended.
7. The style, color, and finish of the handrails of the front entry steps shall be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner.
8. The HRB and ARB subcommittees shall review a brush out of the approved
yellow main wall color of the historic house in the field prior to the application of
paint to the house.
9. The Historic Preservation Planner shall review the fixture designs and materials
and bulb types of any exterior lighting that may be proposed during the course of
the project.
10. No demolition or permanent removal of significant historic fabric that is not
included in the project approval shall be carried out in any amount for any reason
except with written permission by the Department of Planning and Comnlunity
Environment.
11. The 2007 California Historical Building Code shall be applied to all eligible
aspects of the historic rehabilitation of the building exterior and interior when
needed to preserve character-defining features.
12. The Director of Planning's project approval letter, including the approved historic
Conditions, shall be printed on one of the initial sheets of the Building Permit
Plan Set (final construction plans).
13. The ten Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation shall be printed on
one of the initial sheets of the Building Permit Plan Set (final construction plans).
14. The historical information on Sheets A-004 and A-005 of the HRB and ARB
"Historic House Reconstruction" Plans shall be printed on one of the initial sheets
of the Building Permit Plan Set (final construction plans).
15. The Historic Preservation Planner shall review the Building Permit Plan Set for
consistency with the Director of Planning's approval based on the
recommendation of the Historic Resources Board.
16. The Historic Preservation Planner shall participate in the Planning Department's
Final Inspection of the completed project and will use the final report of
Garavaglia Architecture acting as reconstruction observation agency as part of the
Final Inspection.
Attachment B
16.49.090 Enforcement.
(a) Unlawful Alteration or Demolition.
(1) Violation -Penalties. It is unlawful for a person or entity to denl0lish or cause to be demolished
any significant building or portion thereof in the downtown area in violation of any of the provisions of
this chapter. Any person or entity violating these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction of any such violation, such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and
imprisonment.
(2) Civil Penalty. Any person or entity who demolishes a building or causes a demolition in
violation of the provisions of this chapter may be liable civilly in a sum equal to the replacement value
of the building or an amount in the court's discretion, not to exceed ten thousand dollars.
(3) Injunctive Relief. The city attorney may maintain an action for injunctive relief to restrain a
violation or cause, where possible, the complete or partial restoration, reconstruction, or replacement in
kind of any building or site demolished, altered or partially demolished in violation of this chapter.
(4) Restriction on Development. Alteration or demolition of a historic structure in violation of this
chapter shall eliminate the eligibility of the structure's lot for any transfer of development rights,
pursuant to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and such lot, if it is the site of an unlawfully demolished
historic structure from which development rights have been transferred, shall not be developed in excess
of the floor area ratio of the demolished structure for a period of twenty years from the unlawful
demolition. A person or entity may be relieved of the penalties provided in this section if: (i) the
unlawful alteration or demolition did not constitute a maj or alteration, as determined by the chief
building official, or (ii) as to an unlawful alteration, the person.or entity restores the original
distinguishing qualities and character of the building destroyed or altered. Such restoration must be
undertaken pursuant to a valid building permit issued after a recommendation by the historic resources
board and a finding by the city council that the proposed work will effect adequate restoration and can
be done with a substantial degree of success.
(b) Failure to Abide by Maintenance Regulations.
(1) Abatement. The procedures set forth in Chapter 16.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
governing unsafe, dangerous or substandard buildings, whether in commercial or residential use, shall
be applicable to any violations of Section J 6.49.080.
(2) Misdemeanor. It is unlawful for any person or entity to fail to maintain any building in the
downtown area designated as significant or contributory in violation of Section 16.49.080. Any such
violation constitutes a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 16.49.090(a)(l) above. Each day
of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. The chief building official
and ordinance compliance inspector are authorized to exercise the authority in California Penal Code
Section 836.5 and to issue citations for violation of Section 16.49.080.
(3) Civil Penalty. Any person or entity who fails to maintain any building in the downtown area
designated as significant or contributory in violation of Section 16.49.080 may be liable civilly in a sum
not to exceed one thousand dollars. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense for which a
penalty nlay be assessed.
http://www.amlegal.comlnxt/ gateway .dlllCalifomialpaloalto _ caltitle 16buildingregulations... 6/14/2012
(c) Remedies not Exclusive. The remedies provided by this section are not exclusive.
(Ord.3721 § 1 (part), 1986)
Page 2 of2
http://www.amlegal.comlnxtlgateway .dll/California/paloalto _ ca/title 16buildingregulations... 6/14/2012
l Y
)
Attachment D
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
February 2008
Prepared by:
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
San Francisco, CA
)
\ Y
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Table of Contents
I. Executive Surrlmary ......................................... ~ ....................................................... 2
J I. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 3
III. Historical Overview and Contexts ............................................................................ .4
Neighborflood Context
The Builder
History of Use
IV. Building and Site Description ................................................................................... 7
V. Statement of Significance and Period of Significance .............................................. 9
VI. Evaluation of Integrity ............................................................................................. 10
VII. Building Chronology ............................................................................................... 12
VIII. Illustrated Character-Defining Features and Spaces .............................................. 13
IX. Conditions Assessment ........................................................................................... 20
X. Proposed Project ..................................................................................................... 22
XI. Recommendations .......................................................................... : ........................ 23
XII. Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 26
Endnotes ......................................................................................................................... 27
Appendices
Appendix A The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners fu' Conservators, Inc. 1
"'T1
CD
C"" .,
c:
OJ .,
co
o
o
N
"-
.c
IV
u..
)
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
2
I. Executive Summary
Architectural Resources Group (ARG) has prepared the following Focused Historic Structure
Report (HSR) at the request of the owner of 564 University Avenue. The HSR is being carried out
in order to inform the proposed project to convert the building for commercial IJse. The building
at 564 University Avenue is the last remaining residential building on this block of University
Avenue. The proposed rehabilitation project entails retaining the historic structure and moving the -to~
building to the front lot line, construction of a rear addition, and a number of structural upgrades
and improvements including installation of an elevator and sloping side walkway and ramp for ADA
accessi bility.
As the historic preservation consultant on this project, ARG has had a limited role in the design
process for the rehabilitation, and has provided design review and feedback with regard to the
use and treatment of historic fabric as the design has evolved. The project will remove materials
and elements that are considered to be character-defining features and thus conflicts with some
recommendations in this report. The proposed removal of historic materials is primarily limited to
the interior materials, and includes, interior stair and railing, interior partitions, built-in cabinetry,
wood trim and interior room layout.
Constructed in 1904 by one of Palo Alto's eal1y builders, A. N. Mills, this two-story-over-daylight
basement, Colonial Revival style building is the last remaining residential structure in the
commercial district of University Avenue. Since its commission by pioneer resident, Thomas
Forbes, the building remained under continuous ownership of the Forbes family until 2006.
Originally constnJcted as a rooming house, the building was conveniently sited on University
Avenue and in close proximity to the streetcar line, which began operation in 1906. Despite a
change in use from residential to commercial from 1952 and lasting until 1966, the building has had
little alteration, retaining its ol;ginal residential feeling and architectural integrity both on the exterior
and the interior of the building.
This report examines both exterior and interior conditions of the building and pays particular
attention to its character-defining features. The structure at 564 University Avenue is considered
a historic resource, falling under Category 2 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code's Historic
Preservation Ordinance.1 A Category 2 building is defined as a "Major Building" of regional
importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architttts, Planners &' Conservators, Inc.
)
/
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major
building may have some exterior modifications but the original character is retained. All future work
carried out to 564 University Avenue should be carried out in accordance with The Secretary of the
Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which describes the range of possible
treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. It has been determined
that rehabititation is the most appropriate treatment for 564 University Avenue. Rehabilitation is
defined as "the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair,
alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical,
cultural, or architectural values."2
II. Methodology
The methodological approach for this Focused Historic Structure Report on 564 University Avenue
was based on documentary research provided by the Department of Planning and Community
Environment at the City of Palo Alto,3 a site visit made by ARG on May 15,2007, and extensive
project and existing conditions information provided by the project sponsor's architect, Ann
Hawkinson. The basis of research provided by the Department of Planning included consultation
of Sanbom Fire Insurance maps (1904~1949), the Palo Alto Times, Palo Alto City Directories
(1904-1978), and the City's building permit database. The building's exterior, interior, site, and
neighborhood were photographed and surveyed during fieldwork. Finally, the building was
assessed for exterior and interior conditions.
I
I t
I I IQ
: t J"
i 1
l!~-j : EI~Cl1Lt
1" J
1;-~. '.-.'
• '" .. ~"' AJJStl31\Nn .. .. -.. -~ --.. '" ;z .. .. ~M':t ~ -.. -= .
Illustration: Building at 564 University Avenue in 1904.
(Source: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1904, sheet 3.)
Illustration: Building at 564 University Avenue in 1949.
(Source: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1949, sheet 22.)
ARCHITECTURAl. REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners &-Conservators, Inc. 3
."
I'D
C'" ..,
c
OJ ..,
I\J
o
o
00
)
co
o
o
N
....
.0
QJ
1I...
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
4
III. Historfcal Overview and Contexts
The following is a deSCription of the historical background of the building at 564 University Avenue,
provided by the City of Palo Alto's Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Illustration: View east. (Source: ARG Photograph, dated 2007.)
Neighborhood Context
During the early twentieth-century,
University Avenue was quickly recognized
as a primary thoroughfare, connecting
Stanford University to the downtown area
of Palo Alto. From the time the streetcar
line opened In 1906 until 1924, Sanborn
Fire Insurance maps indicate that the
neighborhood saw a significant Incre~se
in residential construction characterized
by two-story residences, and one-story
duplex buildings.~ Although 564 University
Avenue appears on Sanborn maps as a
two·story residence, City Directories show
that the building served as a moderate.cost rooming house for a variety of occupants as opposed
to a single-family house. By 1949, the residential character of this part of University Avenue began
to shift to a more commercial one, with the establishment of clinics and doctors' office buildings in
surrounding blocks.s
The Builder
No Information regarding the architect of 564 University Avenue was found through research.
According to a notlce In the Palo Alto Times on February 5, 1904, local contractor, A. N. Mills,
constructed the building at 564 University Avenue. "Thomas Forbes has given the contract to A. N.
Mills for the erection of a residence on Untversity Avenue between Cowper and Webster streets.
The building will cost $4000. It is rumored that Tom will install a bride there when the home is
completed." On January 4, 1905, the Palo Alto Times cited. "Thomas Forbes, 2-story residence,
University near Webster, $4100" as one of the bufldings erected In Palo Alto durIng 1904. A. N.
ARCHITECTURAL REsoURCES GROUP
A.rchirc.cts, Pl.:!oners & Carutrvators, lnc.
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Mills arrived in Palo Alto in 1903 during a building boom in the new city. Little is known so far of
his personal life except that he was a member of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, America's
largest 'fraternal society at the time. It appears that Mills was a friend of the builder John Dudfield,
of the well-known DUd'field Lu mber Company located at Forest Avenue and Alma Street, as Mills
died in 1917 at the age of 55 while staying for the weekend in Dud'field's cabin in Pescadero.
Mills likely inspired his son, Curtis, to follow him in the building profession; a permit citation in the
January 14, 1925 issue of the Palo Alto Times indicates that Curtis Mills built a house at 1175
Greenwood Avenue for Mary Mills (this citation along with the permit listing for 534 Forest strongly
suggests that Mary Mills was a member of the A. N. Mills family).6
According to City Planning surveys of more than 9000 permit citations in the Palo Alto Times, there
are only five buildings constructed by A. N. Mills in addition to 564 University (however, most permit
citations during the period of Mills' career do not indicate the builder or the architect). The five
buildings built by A. N. Mills include:
534 Forest Avenue: Mills built this two-story, Colonial Revival house in 1904 for Mary Mills,
possibly his wife or mother. Mills lived in this house from 1904 until around 1915: The
house is still standing and is mostly intact except that the walls have been coated in stucco
and there is some alteration to the front porch that occurred when the house became a
duplex at an unknown date.
• 175 Webster Street: Mills built this two-and-a-half~story, Colonial Revival house for J. W.
Brister in 1904. It survives essentially intact except for sensitive remodeling in the rear.
The house was recently restored and is a neighborhood landmark.
401 Webster Street: Mills built this large, two-story, Colonial Revival house for W. S. Slade,
a barber, in 1904. The house was asymmetrical with a complex pyramidal roof system that
is visible in historic aerial photographs. The house was demolished in the 1970s to make
way for the Webster House retirement community.
• 623 Alma Street: Mills built this Armory building in 1910. It was demolished by the 1940s or
earlier to make way for the large automobile businesses that located on this block.
• 1312 Cowper Street: Mills built this restrained, Classical-Revival bungalow for W. W.
Colquhoun in 1911. The house survives intact and is a contributor to the Professorville
Historic District.7
ARCHITECfURAl REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. 5
'T1
lD
0' ..,
c:
OJ ..,
tv
o
o
00
co
o
a
N
>
L.
..c
Q)
u...
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
History of Use
The Palo Alto City Directory listings show that Thomas Forbes was a long-time resident at 474
Everett Avenue and built the house at 564 University not for himself but for multi-family rental
housing located on the soon-to-be-completed streetcar line that ran down University Avenue to
Stanford University to the southwest. The streetcar line opened in 1906.
The building has had a long history of residential use. Originally it was intended to provide housing
to a number of short-term tenants throughout the first half of the twentieth-century. When Palo
Alto's downtown commercial district expanded eastward in the 1950s and 1960s,8 the building
changed in function from wholly residential to primarily commercial, and was leased to local
businesses. In the 1970s, Forbes family members moved into the house, resuming the building's
residential function until 2006.
The Owner of 564 Universiiy
Thomas Forbes (1869-1946) was the son of Richard Forbes (1821-1899), a native of Ireland,who
/ came to Palo Alto in 1899 to spend his last months in the home of his son, Thomas. Thomas was
born in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and came to Palo Alto in 1898. In approximately 1902 he
married Winifred Hughes (1879-1946), and they had four children, Theresa (1911-1978), Thomas
A., Joseph Henry, and James Richard. The Forbes were a closely knit family, and, in 1945 there
was an article in the Palo Alto Times entitled "Pioneer Forbes family holds reunion." Thomas
Forbes was a gardener and a construction worker, and he was a member of the Modem Woodmen
of America, the third largest fraternal society in America at the time. The Modem Woodmen
assisted its members in planning for financial security through providing life insurance and other
services. Thomas's daughter Winifred grew up to become a librarian at Stanford University
\ i:
/
6
from the late 1920s to 1941 when she took a position until 1946 at the library of the University of
California, Los Angeles. Thomas Forbes remained in the family home at 474 Everett until his death
in 1946.9
The Occupants of 564 University
The Palo Alto City Directories from 1904 to 1978 reveal that 564 University was built as a rooming
house. Many short-term, single tenants, as opposed to families, occupied the building. The
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners ~ Conservators, Inc.
)
\ J
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
house performed an essential service by provlding moderate-cost housing to professionals (e. g.
accountants and realtors), the retired, widows, and students. From 1950 to 1963 Theresa Forbes
lived at 564 University from time to time, the first member of the Forbes family to live in the house.
A signfficant change of use occurred between 1952 and 1966 when the house was rented to a
number of commercial businesses. The interior of the house was remodeled to accommodate
these commercial uses, and a number of features of this remodeling survive. The businesses
included The Sitter Service Agency (8 well-known child care service), National Distributors
Company, Kelley-Reeves Photographers, Food Packet Company, and Louise Thompson Real
Estate. After 1966 the commercial uses departed and the use reverted to residential for various
individuals including Theresa Forbes. Between 1971 and 1977, a period of decline in Palo Alto's
downtown, the house was often vacant. In 1977, Theresa Forbes and her brother Thomas A.
Forbes Jr. became the sole occupants of the house. For the'first time, the house built by the
Forbes family more than 70 years eanier became the Forbes family home. Theresa died in the
house in 1978, and Thomas A. Forbes apparently lived alone in the house until his recent death.
IV. Building and Site Description
Site
The two-story-over-basement, Colonial Revival style
building is located on the east side of University Avenue,
Illustration: View of south elevation, detail of bay window
and remnants of brick. chimney. (Source: ARG Photograph,
dated 2007.)
illustration: View of east elevation, detal(
of rear entrance. (Source: ARG Photo
graph, dated 2007.)
ARCH.JTEC1URAl REsOURCES GRoUP
An:hitc:.cts, Planners t9 Conservators. Inc. 7
....
..,
I'J
o
o
CO
)
CD
a
a
N
....
....
.0
IS)
LL
) y
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
8
which runs northeast to southwest, between Webster and Cowper Streets. Located along a
busy commercial strip of Palo Alto, the building is sited to the northeast of Stanford University.
The building's setback, approximately thirty feet from University Avenue. does not contain any
landscape features in the front of the property. A concrete
path leads from the sidewalk. to the porch entry steps of the
building and continues to wrap around the north side of the
building. The east and south portion of the parcel is paved
with gravel.
Exterior
The main (west) fac;ade Is symmetrically composed with
a full-widtt1, one-story porch supported by columns. The
second story extends over the porch and has projecting
comer bays with modillion supports. The building features
a brick foundation, "false bevel~ cladding, a type of drop
siding in which one wide board is milled to resemble three
separate, narrower boards. and wood, one-aver-one, double
hung windows with lamb's tongues. The hipped roof is clad in
asphalt shingles and contains a hipped roof dormer with wood
Illustration: Detail of brick basement
sleps. (Source: ARG Photograph, dated
2007.)
shingle siding. Dentil moldings wrap around the roof eaves. The front entrance, accessed via a
flight of wooden steps flanked by low cheek walls, features its original door with a glazed upper
portion and wood-paneled lower portlon.
The south elevation features a bay window at the first story. To the west of the bay are remnants
of a brick chimney. The entrance to the basement is located at the rear (east) elevation and is
accessed by brick steps. Adjacent to the basement entrance is a secondary entrance into the
building; the enclosed porch at the northeast comer is clad with wood vertical siding and plywood
at the lower walls. The alterations that occurred here appear to have been carried out at an early
date due to the similar type of siding and comer details on the exterior.
1919 Sanborn maps indicate that a one-story garage was erected at the southeast corner of the
parcel. Subsequent Sanborn maps up until 1949 confirm the presence of this structure. However,
there is no garage structure on the property today.
Aru:Hn:ECfURAI. REsOURCES GROUP
ArchiteCtS, Pbn.ners fg COD$ClV3.ton. 10c:.
')
)
,1
\ )
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Interior
The interior of the building is comprised of two floors over a daylight basement. Circulation on
the interior is not arranged around corridors; rather, rooms open out into other rooms. The first
floor contains the entry vestibule, kitchen, living and dining rooms, bathroom and storage room.
A staircase, located to the north of the entry vestibule, leads to a small, central corridor on the
second floor that accesses two large bedrooms at the west end, a bathroom, and three smaller
rooms at the east end. All rooms on the second floor have closets.
The interior layout of the rooms of the building has been retained since its construction. The
interior also retains most of its original decorative features including sliding pocket doors, built-in
wood cabinets, shelves, wood stairs and balustrade, and metal door hardware. Floors are made
of wood, and walls and ceilings are constructed of plaster on lath. Rooms feature decorative
elements such as chair and picture rails, baseboards, and wall comer moldings. The stairs to the
second floor feature a simple wood post and balustrade. Some of the most notable features of
the interior include an onginal built-in bench with a curved armrest and storage located at the foot
of the stairs, and a full-height, built-in, wood cabinetry unit on the north wall of the dining room
containing drawers at the bottom portion (missing hardware) and shelves in the upper portion of
the unit. A mirror in the center of the cabinetry unit appears to have been a later addition.
v. Statement of Significance and Period of Significance
The building represents an intact example of an early twentieth-century, Colonial Revival style
residence. Constructed by one of Palo Alto's 'first builders, A. N. Mills, for pioneer resident
Thomas Forbes, the building remained within the Forbes family from its construction in 1904 until
2006. In addition to its long period of ownership, the building is also significant for its extensive
residential history, extending from 1904 to 2006 in a location where many early twentieth-
century residences were converted for commercial use or demolished. According to Palo Alto's
Department of Planning, the building provided moderate-and low-:-income residents who could not
afford automobiles a convenient location along the streetcar route on University Avenue; this type
of rooming housing for short-term renters was important to the early social historyof Palo Alto.10
Once a typical residential rooming house structure in a primarily residential area of early twentieth
century Palo Alto, the building has more recently gained signi'Hcance as the last residential
structure in University Avenue's commercial district.
ARCHITECTIJRAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners f!r Conservators, Inc. 9
"T1
lD
C"
c:
w .,
tv
o
o
CD
)
co
o
o
N
L.
..0
OJ
LL.
)
\
;
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
10
Period of Significance
A building's period of significance is defined as the span of time in which a property attains the
significance for which it is deemed a historic resource. The period of significance for 564 University
Avenue begins in 1904, when the building was constructed, to 1952, when the building changed
from residential to commercial IJse.
As stated above, in the Statement of Significance, the building is significant for its length of
association with the original owner, the Forbes family, and for its function as a residential structure,
once typical in a now wholly commercial district. Although from 1952 to 1966, the building changed
in function from residential to commercial use, the building did not undergo significant alteration,
and the Forbes continued ownership of the property.
In the following sections, individual character-defining features are listed as a method for
understanding the relative importance of individual components. In general, original features and
alterations that date to the period of significance should be retained. Alterations that fall after the
period of significance could be modified.
VI. Evaluation of Integrity
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Integrity involves several
aspects including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
These aspects closely relate to the building's signi"ficance and must be primarily intact for eligibility.
Location
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event occurred. 564 University Avenue remains in its original footprint and has not been moved
'from the location in which it was constructed. Therefore, its integrity, with regard to this aspect, has
not been diminished.
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
ArchitectS, Planners t5 Conservators, Inc.
)
)
)
J
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Design
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, stnJcture, and style of a
property. Although historic photographs of the building were not located through research for this
report, the building appears to have retained its original architectural features, overall maSSing,
form, and Colonial Revival style detailing. Apart from a missing portion of the chimney on the south
elevation, the exterior has not been significantly altered. Interior partitions all appear to retain
original locations and it is possible to understand the original circulation, configuration and room
layout. Despite minor alterations in the 1950s and 1960s to accommodate commercial use, the
building strongly conveys its Original design intent on both the exterior and the interior.
Setting
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property, constituting topographic features,
vegetation, manmade features, and reJationships between buildings or open space. At the time
of the building's construction, this area of University Avenue was predominantly residential, with
564 University Avenue being one of the first residences built on its block. Today, the setting of the
building has changed completely, as 564 University Avenue remains the last residential structure
in a commercial district of downtown Palo Alto. The neighboring buildings are one-story, concrete
commercial buildings. With regard to the immediate setting, the front and rear yards retain very
little plant material. The rear garage structure has been demolished. As such; the building's setting
retains little to no integrity.
Materials
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period
of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Apart 'from replaced
soffit boards, the exterior of 564 University Avenue appears to retain almost all of its exterior
building materials.
Workmanship
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture, people, or artisan
during any given period in history or pre-history. The building retains a high level of workmanship
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners ~ Conservators, Inc. 11
"TI
I'D
0' .,
c
OJ .,
'" o
o
00
)
tD
o
o
N
>-
L.
Rl
:::J
L.
.0
OJ
\,L.
)
}
/
564· University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
12
associated with its Colonial Revival stylistic details on the exterior and the interior. While the
built-in cabinetry on the interior of the building is standard in nature, it is consistent with typical
constnJction techniques and decorative styles of the period.
Feeling
Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historical sense of a particular period of time.
The building retains its historical residential feeling and conveys this relationship to University
Avenue through its full-width porch and projecting bays at the second story. In addition to the
interior room arrangement, the building's overall residential feeling has been retained through its
hipped roof, dormers. projecting bays, 'full-width porch, and interior built-in cabinetry.
Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
564 University Avenue is associated with the early development of Palo Alto, as it provided short
term housing along the University Avenue thoroughfare. The building is also associated with the
Forbes family, having been commissioned by Thomas Forbes who arrived in Palo Alto in -1899.
The Forbes family remained owners of the building from its construction in 1904 until 2006. Its
historical associations with the Forbes family contribute to the building's overall integrity.
In summary, the building has retained the majority of its historic features since .it was first
constructed. The changes made to the building during a change in use from residential to
commercial resulted in interior modifications that have been fairly minor. No signi'ficant exterior
modi'fication has been made to the building since construction. Despite a significant chang~ in the
building's setting, volume, massing, materials and original design intent is intact. Considering all
aspects together, the building retains sufficient integrity.
VII. Building Chronology
This section. presents a chronology that includes important events related generally to the history of
the city of Palo Alto, as well as events related specifically to the history of 564 University Avenue.
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners &-Conservators, Inc.
)
\
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
1891
1894
1904
1906
1917
1946
1950
1952
1966
1977
1978
1995
2006
Stanford University opens11
Palo Alto becomes an incorporated city12
564 University Avenue constructed by A. N. Mills as a rooming house
University Avenue streetcar line opens connecting downtown Palo Alto to Stanford
University
Death of builder, A. N. Mills
Death of first owner, Thomas Forbes
Theresa Forbes is first member of Forbes family to live at 564 University Avenue
564 University Avenue rented to commercial businesses -alterations made on the interior to
accommodate the new use including new partition wall at foyer
Residential use of 564 University Avenue resumes
Theresa Forbes and Thomas A. Forbes, Jr. become sole occupants of 564 University
Avenue
Death of Theresa Forbes, Thomas A. Forbes, Jr. continues to live at 564 University Avenue
Steel post and wire fence installed at rear of property
Property sold to current owner, Aida L. Merrill
Building Alterations
In 1952 the building changed in function from residential to commercial. Alterations made to
accommodate this change in function most likely included insertion of a large s,ingle-pane window at
the interior partition wall between the kitchen and the foyer, the closing of the chimney, and removal
of the rear entry door (currently stored in basement). The porch enclosure at rear of the house may
have been an earlier alteration; no date for this modification has been located. These alterations,
however, do not compromise the overall architectural integrity of the building and the residential
character and feeling of the building remains intact.
VIII. Illustrated Character-Defining Features and Spaces
This section identifies the character-defining features of 564 University Avenue. A character
defining feature is an aspect of a building's design, construction, or detail that is representative
of the building's function, type, or architectural style. Generally, character-defining features
include specific building systems, architectural ornament, construction details, massing, materials,
craftsmanship, site characteristics, and landscaping within the period of significance. For a historic
ARa-llTECTIJRAL RESOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners t!r Conservators, Inc. 13
..,
c
w ..,
r-.J
o
o
en
)
00
o
o
N
1..
1..
..0
CIJ
u..
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
14
resource to retain its significance, its character-defining features must be retained to the greatest
extent possible. An understanding of a building's character-defining features is a crucial step in
developing and guiding a rehabilitation plan.
The building retains a remarkable number of its original exterior character-defining features.
Exterior Character.Defining Features
Overall proportion and massing
Boxy, rectilinear plan
Two-story, wood-frame structure
Full-width, one-story porch with wood flooring and bevel-sided closed rail
Unreinforced brick foundation13
HOrizontal, wood, false bevel drop siding at all elevations
Wood comer boards
Window openings
Variety of window types, predominantly wood, one-over-one, double-hung windows with
lamb's tongues, but also casement windows and an awning window
Hipped roof with dormers at west, north, and south elevations
Boxed soffit
Porch columns
Wood porch entry steps with cheek walls
Main entrance door, half-glazed upper and wood-paneled lower portion door
Wood shingle siding at dormer
Comer projecting bays at second story with modillion supports
Dentil molding at eaves
Decorative brackets
Bay window at south elevation
Landscaped garden (no longer extant)
Brick chimney (partially demolished)
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners &' Conservators, Inc.
)
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Full-width porch at first story, main
(west) elevation
False bevel, drop siding, wood boards
on all elevations
Hipped roof shape and dormers with
wood shingle siding
ARCHITEITlJRAl REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners f'1 Consel'V3ro~, Inc.
Brick foundation
Boxed soffit
15
."
CD
cr ...
...
r..>
o
o
CD
)
C()
o
o
N
..c
)
\
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Porch columns
Projecting bays
Decorative brackets
16
Front entry door with glazed upper por
tion and wood paneled lower portion
ARODTECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Plannen & Conservators, Inc.
Dentll molding at roof eaves
Bay window at south elevation
)
)
)
/
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Soffit boards (replaced)
One-story garage structure at southeast corner of parcel (no longer extant)
Interior Character-Defining Features
Interior finishes, wood and plaster
Interior layout and organization of rooms as an example of an early twentieth-century .
residential floor plan
• Wood flooring
Wood cabinetry in dining room (hardware missing)
Wood baseboards
Wood stairs, post and balustrade
Wood bench at base of stairs
• Wood picture rails
Wood chair rails
• Wall comer decorative moldings
Wood-paneled doors including half-glazed main entrance door
Wood pocket doors
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners &' Comervators, Inc. 17
" CD
C'" .,
c
OJ .,
I\J
o
o
co
)
to
o
o
N
....
D
Q)
u..
)
)
J
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Interior wood flooring Built-in wood cabinetry in dining room
18
I
Built-in wood bench with storage
Decorative wood picture rails
ARCHITECTURAl REsOURCES GROUP
Archiucts. Planners fi1 Conservators, Inc.
Built-in cabinetry in bathroom
--.,--.
Wood baseboards
)
Wood stairs and balustrade
~ j
Door hardware
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Decorative wall comer details
Wood-paneled doors
Wood surrounds at doors and windows
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Arcbitects, Pbnners &1 Consc.rvaton, Inc. 19
" (D
CT ..,
...,
IV
o
o
(J:)
a::l
o
o
N
>-
.0
Q)
u..
)
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
20
• Door hardware including porcelain
and glass knobs, metal plates
• Wood door and window surrounds
Non-contributing features are elements
or features, usually outside the penod of
significance that have been remodeled,
altered or added . They usually detract
from the building's overall integrity. In most
cases, removal of non-contributing featu res
can have a positive effect on the building's
overall integrity.
Non-contributing features
Illustration: Detail of window in partition wall between entry
vestibule and kitchen. Glazing in door also appears to be an
alteration dating to c. 1952. (Source: ARG Photograph, dated
2007.)
Linoleum over wood flooring in k.itchen and second floor bathroom
Large picture window In partition wall between entry vestibule and kitchen
Rear northeast comer, infilled porch
Panel wall and door to enclose second floor corridor
• Letterbox and mail slot at front elevation
IX. Conditions Assessment
The proposed project at 564 University
Avenue, for commercial use, entails
rehabilitation of the exterior envelope,
as well as rehabilitation of the interior
and the site. The follOWing section sets
forth conservation issues with associated
treatment recommendations outlined below.
illustration: DetaO of brlck basement walls with evidence of
rising damp and efflorescence. (Source: ARG PhOtograph,
dated 2007.)
A.RCH1TECTIJRAl REsoURCES GROUP
Architects. P6nnus & COJUCIVll[OC$, Inc.
)
564 University Ave n u e, Pa 10 A Ito, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Exterior
Foundation
Brick walls of the basement are in fair condition. Areas of rising damp and efflorescence are visible
on inside of basement, area corresponding to exterior ground level.
~
The building is wood-frame construction, with an all-wood and plaster interior, exterior beveled
siding on all four facades, and wood shingle siding at the dormer of the main (west) fa~de. All
exterior wood elements and features are in good condition with a few areas of loose boards and
chipping paint. Boards have been removed over the bay wIndow and in other limited locations.
Windows
All original windows are Intact and in good condition with their original wood sashes. Many original
glass panes remain.
Other Exlerior Wood Elements
All wood elements including dentil molding, modillions, window trim and sills, porch columns and
railings, entry steps, and wood flooring are In good condition. [t appears that all elements remain
intact. The wood planks enclosing the boxed soffit were missing and were replaced recently.
Interior
walls
walls are of lath and plaster construction
and have had very recent painting and
patching repairs throughout. Walls are in
fair condition with limited areas of staining.
Ceiling
Ceilings are of lath and plaster construction
and have had very recent painting and
patching repairs throughout. They are in
fair condition with some evidEmce of water Illustration; Detail of ceiling construction, miSSing plaster, and
peeling paint (SOlU"ce: ARG Photograph, dated 2007.)
ARcHITECTURAL REsOURCFS GROUP
Ardritcas. PIa.nntts & ConservlJton. Inc. 21
"'Tl
It)
a ...,
C
QI
....,
)
to
o
o
N
L..
L..
.D
OJ
LL.
)
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
22
intrusion, damage, and limited areas of staining.
Flooring
Original wood floors throughout the interior are in good condition with some sloping areas due to
settlement. .
Built-in elements
All built in wood cabinetry have been recently painted but remain in good condition .
Door hardware
Doors and wood cabinetry retain most of their original metal hardware and are in good condition.
There are areas of missing hardware, particularly those belonging to the cabinetry unit in the dining
room, as well as recent painting over door hardware.
x. Proposed Project
The proposed project includes rehabilitation of the building for commercial purposes. The
proposed use is as a restaurant. The proposed work entails the following:
Relocation of the existing building approximately 16 feet toward the front lot line and 18
inches to the south so that the University Avenue (main) fagade of building is closer to the
existing setbacks of adjacent buildings;
Seismically upgrade existing building;
Construct new concrete foundation;
Provide new seismic bracing at first floor interior wall;
Repair roof and shingles;
Replace gutters and downspouts;
Remove existing fireplace chimney at south fayade;
Remove (3) windows at north fayade; openings to be infilled with siding to match existing;
Install new windows in place of existing fireplace chimney at south fa<;ade;
Raise the 'front porch level to achieve compliant level change at main entrance west fayade;
Replace broken glazing in windows;
Sprinkler windows at the south fayade if required;
Repaint existing building exterior;
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.
)
) J
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
• Install ramp with 1: 12 slope with handrails at the south entrance door (right side fayade);
Plaster removed to install new structural supports, electrical and plumbing;
• Remove interior partitions at the 1 st and 2nd floors;
Remove existing panel doors and hardware;
Remove second floor ceiling jOists to increase ceiling height, install scissor roof trusses to
support existing roof;
Remove existing stair from 1 st to 2nd -Hoor including railing for replacement with new stair
construction in same location;
• Remove a portion of the second floor framing to accomplish an opening in the 2nd floor.
The proposed project also includes a rear addition to the existing building. This work will include
the following:
Construct a new two-story addition at rear of existing building; this addition will be larger
than the existing building and will be visible from the street; roof over new rear addition
will match existing building in pitch and material; walls of new addition will match height of
existing building;
Construct a new two-story connection between existing building and new addition; the
north and south facades of this smaller addition will be setback 'from the fa~de walls of the
existing and new buildings; this separation will establish a clear distinction between historic
and new building forms; this connection will contain entrances on the nprth and south
facades;
Construct an ADA ramp adjacent and parallel to the south fac;:ade that will provide new main
entrance to the building through the new connection in the middle of the building;
Create windows at the new additions that are similar in proportion to windows at existing
building; the new windows may contain mullions;
Rear northeast comer of addition will have nat roof for mechanical equipment.
Rear addition exterior will be paper and plywood sheathing.
XI. Recommendations
Based on the above preliminary project description, the following general recommendations with
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. 23
c:
OJ
'" o
o
en
)
00
o
o
N
L..
L..
D
(JJ
u..
)
\ )
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
24
regard to rehabilitation of the existing building.
The City of Palo Alto has designated the building as a Category 2 Historic Building. Built in 1904,
the Colonial Revival style building is in fair condition though shows signs of neglect in certain areas.
The proposed conversion from private to public use entails alterations, including code upgrades, to
the historical character-defining< features of the building.
This report contains recommendations based on 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). The Standards provide general information for
stewards of historic resources to determine appropriate treatments. They are designed to enhance
the understanding of basic preservation principles, and are neither technical nor prescriptive,
but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that ensure continued protection
of historic resources. Any alterations to the significant character-defining features should be
approached carefully and sensitively, following The Standards.
Generally, a project that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties is a project that will have minimal effect on the property. There are four
treatments under The Standards: restoration, rehabilitation, preservation and reconstruction. Initial
measures should focus on maintenance and repair of historic fabric to protect and stabilize the
building. The conversion of the structure from private to public will entail alterations to the original
fabric in order to comply with current building regulations. As such, rehabilitatipn of 564 University
Avenue is deemed the most appropriate treatment. Further, as a Category 2 historic building in
the City of Palo Alto, the California Historic Building Code (CHBC) should be applied to the project
to achieve greater flexibility in solving code issues as it is converted to commercial uses. Early
consultation with the Building Official is recommended with regard to use of the CHBC.
Recommendations for Roof Treatment
• Retain and preserve overall functional and decorative features of roof. Replace shingles
with new asphalt composition shingles in a configuration that matches the existing pattern;
shingle color should be in keeping with the City of Palo Alto's design guidelines. Replace
existing gutters with new gutters to be concealed behind the wood soffit to match existing
design.
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCB GROUP
Architec[s, Planners & Conservators, Inc.
)
)
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structu re Report
Recommendations for Site Work
Maintain current height of existing building if possible; if raising or lowering the building is
necessary, it is recommended that the height difference not be changed by more than one
foot. If it is not feasible to move building forward, design a landscaped foreyard that would
visually connect the house to sidewalk.
Recommendations for Exterior
Retain and preserve all exterior architectural features. Retain eXisting siding that is in good!
fair condition; if siding is in poor condition and irreparable, install new siding that matches
existing in style and material. Sheath new concrete foundation in brick veneer to match
existing brick foundation. Seismic bracing will be at the first floor interior wall.
Recommendations for Window Treatments
•. Wherever possible, repair existing windows rather than replace. If window replacement
is necessary, new windows should be similar to existing windows in type, size, materials,
placement and proportion. Fenestration at the main fayade should remain in place; it is
recommended that no new window openings be created at thisfa9Bde. Windows installed
in place of existing fireplace chimney at east fa9Bde of existing building should be of similar
style and size to the existing windows.
Recommendations for Interior Materials and Finishes Treatment
• Retain as much original interior moldings, built-ins, and interior features as possible. Retain
the existing intelior window trim, particularly on the front-facing fa~de and the west-facing
fac;ade. Repair existing interior wood floors rather than replace. Retain existing interior stair
if non-compliant conditions can be corrected with minimal impact to the historical features,
or replace stair with a stair of similar design and configuration. Existing pocket doors could
be fixed in the open position to satiSfy the Fire Marshall's comments, thereby allowing the
historic wood doors to remain within the building. (Note: al interior doors will be removed.)
Recommendations for Building System Repairs/Upgrades
ARCHITECWRAL RESOURCES GROUP
Architects, Panners &-Conservators, Inc. 25
"TI
CD
CT
C
QI
r-..J
o
o
CD
00
o
o
N
..0
Q)
u..
)
\ )
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
26
Install an ADA ramp instead of a wheelchair lift; if a wheelchair lift is necessary, it is
recommended that the lift be located in a small porch addition at south fac;ade.
Recommendations for Rear Addition
The transition element from the old to the new should be clearly modem in its materials
and should be set back 'From the building plane of the existing north and south walls. New
windows at new addition should be of similar proportion to existing windows and may
contain muntins. The addition should not overwhelm the historic building in scale, massing
or materials. The addition should not overwhelm the existing building. In order to maintain
scale, consideration should be given to a slightly smaller addition. Revisions to the roof
shape and design could improve the scale of the addition. New exterior elements should be
detailed in a manner that is in keeping with the historical character of the building, but cleal1y
modem.
XII. Bibliography
Gullard, Pamela and Nancy Lund. History of Palo Alto: The Early Years. San Francisco: Scottwall
Associates, 1989.
Memo, April 4, 2007, Dennis Backfund to Historic Resources Board, Department of Planning and
Community Environment of Palo Alto.
Memo, May 14,2007, City Manager to City Council, Department of Planning and Community
Environment of Palo Alto.
San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 17. City and County of San Francisco Planning
Department, January 2003.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Palo Alto, 1904-1949.
Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E.Grimmer. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
HistoriC Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects. Planners f!:r Conservators. Inc.
)
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
FoclJsed Historic Structure Report
Historic Buildings. Washington D. C., U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995.
Endnotes
-n
(D
0'"
c
OJ .,
"" o
1 Municipal Code Section 16.49.020(b). On May 14, 2007, the Historic Resources Board and staff 0
co recommended that the Palo Alto City Council reclassify the property at 564 University Avenue from
a contributory building under Category 4 of the Municipal Code of Historic Preservation.
2 Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings.
3 Historic Resources Board Staff Report, Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner, April 4,
2007.
4 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1904-1924.
5 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1949.
6 All information in this paragraph above was provided by the Department of Planning and
Community Environment of Palo Alto.
7 All information in this paragraph above was provided by the Department of Planning and
Community Environment of Palo Alto.
s May 14, 2007, Memo from Department of Planning and Community Environment to Honorable
City Council.
9 All information in this paragraph above was provided by the Department of Planning and
Community Environment of Palo Alto.
10 Ibid.
11 Gullard and Lund, pg. 167.
12 Ibid., pg. 165.
13 Ann Hawkinson Memo, April 27, 2007.
A ROllTECTURAl REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners &-Conservators, Inc. 27
)
J
)
564 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Focused Historic Structure Report
Appendix A: The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
ARCHITECTURAL REsOURCES GROUP
Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.
..,
c
Q,J
rv
o
o
00
ATTACHMENT E
2008 Original Conditions of Approval
.564 University Avenue
08PLN-00079
1. The proj ect shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans dated April
21, 2008 which are on file in the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, except as
modified by the conditions below.
2. The State Historical Building Code shall be applied to the rehabilitation of the
historic building when needed to preserve character-defining features.
3. The rehabilitation, restoration, and new construction at 564 University Avenue
shall be based on the recommendations on pages 23-26 of the submitted "Focused
Historic Structure Report," authored by Architectural Resources Group, Inc., and
dated February 2008 (except that compliance with the "Recommendations for
Interior Materials and Finishes Treatn1ent" shall be voluntary), and also the
recommendations of "Preservation Briefs" #9 and #10 that are attached to the
"F ocused Historic Structure Report."
4. Subsequent to relocating the historic building forward on the site, the front porch
entry stairs shall be reconstructed to include five risers if feasible, as determined
by an HRB subcommittee of three Board members, and shall not include fewer
than four risers.
5. Project materials and colors revised subsequent to the HRB review and
recommendation shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for review by
the Historic Preservation Planner or by a subcommittee of the Historic Resources
Board.
6. The final designs and bulb types for project exterior lighting shall be submitted to
the Historic Preservation Planner for review.
7. The final construction Plan Set shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation
Planner for review for consistency with the recommendation of the Historic
Resources Board.
8. The Planning Department's letters of project approval, including the approved
conditions, shall be printed on the construction Plan Set.
ATTACHMENT F
Recon1illended Findings for Consistency with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings
564 University Avenue: The Revised Rear Addition
10PLN-00218
There are 10 Standards for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. Each standard is listed below with evaluation
determinations and commentary. "The proposed project is rated relative to each standard
as:
• "compliant' (little or no impact on the resource);
• "marginally compliant" (the resource is impacted and modifications
recommended, but the level of impact is not sufficient to warrant re-evaluation),
and
• "not compliant" (the resource would be negatively impacted by the proposed
design as well as its eligibility for listing as an historic resource).
Overall compliance with the Secretary's Standards is not necessarily a direct sum of the
level of compliance for each standard; instead, overall compliance is the. final conclusion
on the overall impact of the project on both the design and historical significance of the
entire building."
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
S-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.
Evaluation Commentary: The revised rear addition to the historic house will be
placed in an office use that allowed a revised residential type of design for the
addition of enhanced compatibility with the historic house. The project,
therefore, is compliant with Standard 1.
S-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.
Evaluation Commentary: The revised rear addition did not remove any character
defining features or spaces of the historic house. The project, therefore, is
compliant with Standard 2.
S-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.
Evaluation Commentary: The revised rear addition is composed of modem
compatible fenestration and wood siding that is different from that of the historic
house. The project, therefore, is compliant with Standard 3.
S-4 Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Evaluation Commentary: The revised rear addition did not impact any features of
the historic house that have acquired historic significance in their own right. The
project, therefore, is compliant with Standard 4.
\
S-5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Evaluation Commentary: The revised rear addition did not impact any distinctive
features, finishes, construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize the historic house. The project, therefore, is compliant with
Standard 5.
S-6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of the 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.
Evaluation Commentary: The revised rear addition did not impact any character
defining features of the historic house The project, therefore, is compliant with
Standard 6.
S-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.
Evaluation Commentary: No chemicals or sandblasting will be used in
constructing the revised rear addition. The project, therefore, is compliant with
Standard 7.
S-8 Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
Evaluation Commentary: There are no known archeological finds at this location.
Therefore, Standard 8 does not apply to the project.
S-9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
the 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.
Evaluation Commentary: The revised rear addition was generally designed in a
traditional residential style which is compatible with the historic house. The
addition is differentiated from the historic house because its roof is lower, its 3"
beveled lap siding is wider than the 2" beveled lap siding of the historic house, the
entry to the addition is recessed which allows the form of the rear of the historic
house to be defined, the fenestration of the entry is designed in a compatible
contemporary style,and the more traditional fenestration of the rest of the
addition exhibits modem manufacturing techniques and materials. The project,
therefore, is compliant with Standard 9.
S-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
Evaluation Commentary: It would be possible to remove the recessed revised rear
addition and retain the original form of the historic house. The project,
therefore, is compliant with Standard 10.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
ATTACHMENT E 3
4
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 5
REGULAR MEETING – 8:00 AM 6
Council Chambers 7
Civic Center, 1st Floor 8
250 Hamilton Avenue 9
Palo Alto, California 94301 10
11
ROLL CALL: 12
13
Board Members: 14
Martin Bernstein, Chair Staff: 15
Roger Kohler, Vice-chair Diana Tamale, Admin. Associate 16
David Bower Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 17
Scott Smithwick Dennis Backlund, Historic Planner 18
Patricia DiCicco 19
Beth Bunnenberg 20
Michael Makinen 21
22
23
PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS 24
25
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as 26
follows: 27
Announce agenda item 28
Open public hearing 29
Staff recommendation 30
Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the 31
Board. 32
Historic Resources Board questions of the applicant/staff 33
Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three 34
(3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 35
Applicant closing comments – Three (3) minutes 36
Close public hearing 37
Motions/recommendations by the Board 38
Final vote 39
40
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
VERBATIM MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
NEW BUSINESS: 3
4
1. 564 University Avenue [10PLN-00218]: Request by Steve Schlossareck, RSR Capital, 5
LLC, owner, for Historic Resources Board review of a proposed reconstruction, 6
rehabilitation, and restoration of a deconstructed 1904 Colonial Revival building listed on 7
the City’s Historic Inventory in Category 2, and review of design revisions to the 8
previously approved new rear addition. Zone District: CD-C(P) 9
10
Chair Bernstein: Move to New Business, 564 University Avenue. Request by Steve 11
Schlossareck, I hope I pronounced that correctly. Yeah, perfect, thank you. RSR Capital, 12
LLC, owner, for Historic Resources Board review of a proposed reconstruction, 13
rehabilitation, and restoration of a deconstructed 1904 Colonial building, Revival 14
building, listed on the City’s Historic Inventory in Category 2, and review of design 15
revisions to the previously approved new rear addition. Zone District: CD-C(P). Staff, 16
so there’ll be a report. 17
18
Mr. Turner: Yes. Good morning Chair Bernstein, Steven Turner, Advance Planning 19
Manager. We’re happy to finally bring this project to you, 564 University Avenue. It’s 20
been a long time coming, but that doesn’t mean that not a lot of hard work has been 21
undertaken by both Staff and the Applicant and the Applicant’s architects to get to this 22
point. And so this represents a major milestone in the rehabilitation of this building. And 23
Dennis Backlund our Staff Historic Preservation Planner will be giving the Staff Report 24
followed by a presentation from the Project Architect. So with that I’ll hand it over to 25
Dennis. Thank you. 26
27
Dennis Backlund, Historic Planner: Thank you and good morning Members of the Board. 28
The project that we have today for the reconstruction of this Category 2 landmark is 29
unlike any other project that we have had before. It is the first use of a provision that 30
heretofore has been almost unknown, kind of hiding away at the very end of the Historic 31
Preservation Ordinance in a section that is called “Enforcement.” And it provides that a, 32
a house or building that was unlawfully altered or demolished or some other scenario 33
leaving the building compromised that that action would normally carry the penalties for 34
which purpose the Enforcement section mainly exists, but there is a provision that was 35
put in in about 1979 and was approved by the City Council when the Ordinance and the 36
new Historic Resources Board were approved in 1980, and that provides that such 37
unlawful alteration or demolition can be rectified without financial or other penalties if 38
the parties involved reconstruct the property according to a finding that is in the 39
Ordinance. 40
41
And that finding opens our recommendation and is the basis of all of the work that we 42
have done to try to make that finding come to life and to be fulfilled in the case of this 43
landmark in the prominent gateway to the Palo Alto downtown, to have an outcome that 44
would be stellar. And most of you know the, the story that you had approved a 45
rehabilitation project for this almost entirely intact house, almost no alteration since 1904. 46
And you approved the rehabilitation of the building and the new rear addition that would 47
generate a floor area bonus that would allow the rear addition to extend back nearly to the 48
City of Palo Alto Page 3
back property line. And the owner at the time regarded a building of that size, the house 1
plus the addition, as essential for the prospective tenants that they were talking to who 2
had expressed their space needs. So the Historic Resources Board approved that project 3
and the, the permit was issued and the construction began in early 2009. And so we 4
watched this construction proceed and by all appearances the review was over and we 5
were going to achieve this approved project. 6
7
And then according to the contractor that was involved, as was said at the time without 8
the owner’s knowledge, he was charged with putting a steel frame in the building, both 9
the historic house and the addition for seismic reasons. And he was having a dilemma 10
figuring out how they were gonna insert the steel beams into the historic house. And so 11
the conclusion he came to was that he would deconstruct the entire top part of the house 12
and part of the first floor, build the steel frame, and then bring back the pieces in storage 13
and build it around the steel frame. The dilemma was that the City was not informed of 14
this. The action was simply carried out and that led to the invoking of this Ordinance 15
provision for reconstruction. 16
17
The City, if at all possible, did not want to lose this resource and it was a very great deal 18
of work to put together a reconstruction plan. Part of the difficulty was if the City had 19
been informed there are state of the art procedures for deconstructing a house that are 20
quite different from the way that it was done. And it involves taking the house apart in 21
much larger pieces. There are, there are illustrated standards for this on the internet. And 22
we did a project just like that at the Water Tower at 345 Lincoln. That was done 23
according to standards and there was no trouble reassembling that. We did not need a 24
reconstruction plan at this level of detail. But because it was taken apart in much smaller 25
pieces, that led to the work that has occupied us for the last couple of years. The owner 26
decided not to continue the project, rather to sell the property to someone who would 27
continue the project and those are the current owners and their team will be speaking to 28
us this morning. And so that is, that’s the introduction to the project. 29
30
The plan itself is a plan set that is very different than what you have seen before because 31
it is about not strictly planning issues, except in the invoking of the Secretary Standards. 32
These are construction issues and yet the Ordinance mandates, I think very correctly, that 33
the Historic Resources Board must review those plans and make a recommendation to the 34
City Council if the plans show the two part finding Part 1, the proposed work will affect 35
adequate restoration and the finding Part 2, that the proposed work can be done with a 36
substantial degree of success. 37
38
And we wrote a recommendation a little different than has been presented to the Board 39
before because that two part finding is in language of long ago that only becomes clear in 40
a context. We provided the context why there will be adequate restoration we said 41
because of these factors that the Staff and consultants have done in inventorying, 42
cataloguing, properly storing all of these pieces, and determining that there is enough left 43
to reconstruct the house. That was quite a lot of work to go into storage and see all these 44
loose pieces and sort of put them together mentally to determine, yes there’s enough here; 45
when this is reassembled we are going to get a return of this house. 46
47
And then the second part needs a little further explanation. The work can be done with a 48
substantial degree of success. That’s the finding Part 2 that you need to recommend to 49
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the Council. What does success mean and how do we know that we’re going to get it? 1
But the Ordinance says this must be done. And so we gave reasons for that, and the 2
reasons focus on the Historic Consultant. We’ve seen many projects where a Historic 3
Consultant retained by the City at the expense of the Applicant was engaged to look over 4
a project and make advice, advisory statements to the City why it would comply or 5
perhaps as drawn currently might not meet the Secretary Standards. 6
7
The Historic Consultant in this project has played the largest role that has ever been done 8
for a historic project and the reason, as I mention in the Staff Report is that this vast array 9
of construction needs for the house involve a lot of technical knowledge about 10
construction that while known to the building Staff here is not necessarily known to those 11
who are engaged in Planning. That is zoning review, ordinance review, a zoning review, 12
things like that. And so we hired a firm who had already begun to help us on some 13
aspects of the project and they had extensive construction expertise. 14
15
So the plans that you see contain a massive construction information. We did not intend 16
or expect either the Board or the Staff to give formal approval to all of these because it’s 17
not what we usually review, but we did need plans that showed all the details of this 18
construction so that the plan set becomes a document that assures you, assures Staff and 19
the greater community that nothing has been overlooked. And how these plans came to 20
be is the result of a great effort on the behalf of the Applicant in dialogue with the 21
Historic Consultant and then also dialoguing with Staff. A three-way conversation on 22
how best to do this project that has extended over many months with a long series of 23
formal memorandums going back and forth raising issues, resolving issues until there 24
appeared to be no issues left. We have covered everything that could arise in the 25
construction of this house. 26
27
And all that mass of building detail, we have gone over all of that and accounted for it in 28
either of two ways. The issues are either in the conditions of approval, and you saw there 29
were 16 of those, or they are on the plans, or on critical items like the siding installation, 30
the rehabilitation of the windows, and the trim, and the rebuilding of the roof. Critical 31
items like that became both conditions and fully showed, shown on the plans. And then 32
we gave a number of directives of the information that is to appear on the building 33
permits, that’s so that every contractor involved knows what is expected. 34
35
And so that was the plan set that you see. Our great goal was to see if, as we 36
recommended, if the Board was assured that the information appears to be complete and 37
that the house constructed according to all of these details, the keynotes, and other 38
indicators in the plans would result in a proper rebuilding of this house. And that was a 39
finding made by our Historic Consultant after many, many months of review and 40
judgment on this property and staff has been fully involved in this. 41
42
So I do not recall any other project where there’s been a three-way united effort of the 43
Applicant, the City’s Historic Consultant, and several members of the Staff working for 44
month after month after month to produce the plan set that you see today. And we 45
reached at the end of that process the ability to make the recommendation that we did. 46
There’s enough material and the methodologies are in place to effect the adequate 47
restoration and reconstruction of this house and two that it’ll be done with a substantial 48
degree of success. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
That second finding to close my presentation, involves an action by our Historic 2
Consultant that also has never been done before. How do we really assure success? 3
Well, the party, namely the Historic Consultant, who’s been intimately involved in the 4
development of these plans will be in a series of visits to the site during the 5
reconstruction and then offering reports or meetings with the City how things are going 6
all the way through the reconstruction. That the reconstruction is proceeding according 7
to these very detailed plans, that the reconstruction is going according to the 16 8
conditions of approval, that the reconstruction is also in harmony with the original 9
conditions of approval which you saw in Attachment E, and finally that all of that is in 10
full compliance with the 10 Secretary Standards. 11
12
The house rehab was approved under the standards in 2008, but because we’re doing a 13
rebuild there will be ongoing monitoring under the Secretary Standards that make sure 14
that it conforms to the original approval that you recommended. And so those are, those 15
are some of the highlights of this and we’re looking forward to the Board’s comments on 16
the plans and questions about the Staff Report. 17
18
Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you Dennis. 19
20
Mr. Turner: Yes, and thanks Dennis. At this time I’d like to invite the Applicant to make 21
their presentation. 22
23
Chair Bernstein: And on that note just for members of the public who have not been 24
before so I’m just gonna also read the, our normal process. So, as Mr. Steve just 25
mentioned Applicant presentation, you’ve got, be 10 minute presentation. After that the 26
Historic Resources Board will be open for questions to either you or the staff, and then 27
public comment, and then Applicant closing comments if you like for three minutes, and 28
then we’ll close the public hearing, and then Motions and recommendations by the 29
Board, and then a final vote. So please, welcome. 30
31
Steve Schlossareck, Owner of RSR Capital, LLC: Thank you very much, and Dennis 32
thank you very much for that very nice summary. So this is a set of 10 or 15 slides to just 33
give you a little background. Yes? 34
35
Chair Bernstein: And also, because we’re being recorded, we’ll just need to hear your 36
name for the record please. 37
38
Mr. Schlossareck: Oh, Steven Schlossareck. 39
40
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, welcome. 41
42
Mr. Schlossareck: Thank you. So just as background we thought it would be important to 43
just take you through briefly who’s involved. The owner of the property is RSR Capital. 44
That’s actually a group of local investors, and then myself and Rick Bleszynski, right 45
here, manage the RSR Capital. Both of us have a background in the technology industry, 46
so we’ve been doing this in a very team oriented manner and we view everybody as a 47
part of the team. We know that previously a lot of the problems occurred because there 48
wasn’t good communication, it wasn’t really a team. So we have our own Construction 49
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Manager, which is Slava. He is not here, he had another appointment that he had to take 1
care of, but he actually works for RSR Capital. And then our General Contractor is 2
Vadeem, right there. He has got quite a bit of experience in both commercial and 3
residential projects. He’s also done historic projects in the past, so has quite a bit of 4
experience in old houses and how to recondition things. The Architects, Fred and Andre, 5
who are right there, have been working very hard on this and they as well have quite a bit 6
of experience doing historic buildings. And then of course you know about Garavaglia 7
and the City. We very much see them as a part of the extended team and as Dennis said, 8
you know, we really so far and all the way through the end of this project will be making 9
sure there’s very strong communication between everybody. 10
11
Our primary goals as you know is to accurately reconstruct the building and to 12
rehabilitate it. We want to return it to a condition that both the City and we and 13
everybody can be very proud of. Of course we want to retain the Category 2 standing 14
and improve the overall look of the downtown area in that area. A key part of this is 15
using as much of the materials as we can. We think that we’ll be able to use substantial 16
amount of it. And as I mentioned we’re gonna, we want to work in a team oriented 17
manner to make sure that this is done properly. And because RSR Capital will be doing 18
additional projects on the peninsula, it’s very important to us that we have a good 19
reputation for quality and trust. So we really do care how this turns out. And of course 20
the construction itself we want to make sure that there’s, it’s efficient and that there’s a 21
minimal impact on the neighbors and the City. We’ve already gone and talked with the 22
owners of the adjacent properties so they know who to talk to if there’s a problem. They 23
in essence are part of our eyes and ears, part of the team that are there more than we are. 24
And of course we want a long term quality tenant. 25
26
You probably know more of the background than we do, but the prior, and Dennis 27
certainly went through a lot of these details so I won’t spend a lot of time here, but the 28
prior owner was developing the property. They actually had a Crustacean restaurant as a 29
tenant and during the construction the second floor was removed. The architect and the 30
contractor, they are no longer involved, but we have had access to information that we 31
needed. 32
33
The construction was on hold for two years. We purchased the property almost a year 34
ago in September of 2011. Very quickly after that we cleaned up the site cause there 35
were a lot of safety issues which I’ll show you in a moment. And then we’ve been going 36
through the process that Dennis very, did a good job describing with Garavaglia and the 37
City to develop the plans and some of the pictures on the wall, some it might be easier to 38
see those cause they’re larger. Show those plans. 39
40
We think that we’ve got an improved plan to the plan that was approved before for the 41
restaurant. There’s quite a few structural improvements, the, we think that there are 42
safety improvements. For example there’s additional stairs, so that we think that people 43
will be able to, if there were an emergency such as an earthquake or something, be able to 44
get out of the building more easily and quickly. The grounds will be more consistent 45
with the building as it was in the early 1900’s. It won’t be structured as a restaurant, it’ll 46
be an office building. The plants are more consistent. There’ll be a picket fence. The 47
lighting fixtures are period appropriate. 48
49
City of Palo Alto Page 7
We will be spending a lot of time on the attention to details and I think Dennis referred to 1
this, details such as how the siding actually connects so that it looks proper and, you 2
know, a lot of attention to those details is important to do this right. We think that there 3
are improved aesthetics. The, the old plan actually had a lot of mechanical things on the 4
roof. We’ve moved a lot of that down into the basement, so just externally the building 5
will look much nicer. 6
7
The status of the property when we purchased it, there was, there was open to the 8
elements. There was easy public access. The fence could easily be moved aside. 9
Anybody could’ve walked in. And as you can see there, there’s essentially a hole in the 10
ground. Anybody could’ve fallen in very easily. It was very dangerous. There’s a lot of 11
trash on the property so when we took it over we immediately cleaned everything up. 12
We protected it from the weather, there’s now locked fencing so you can’t get in unless 13
you go through the effort of actually trying to climb the fence. We’ve taken safety 14
precautions as you can see there’s wood there so that nobody can fall into the hole. All 15
the trash has been removed, and we’ve put gravel down so that, you know, to reduce dust 16
and just impact on the surrounding area. 17
18
We went through an extensive process of inventorying all of the small pieces and 19
evaluating all of the small pieces. Pictures were taken of everything. Charts were 20
developed that go through each piece and describe its condition and what needs to be 21
done in order to recondition it. So it was a very extensive process and took quite a long 22
time. Part of that process was actually detailing out a plan of how to recondition each of 23
these pieces. Those pictures are representative, they are not actually pieces from the 24
building, but it shows for every possible scenario that the contractor could run into, 25
exactly what they’re supposed to do to recondition it and Vadeem has been though this 26
many times and what he’ll actually do if he runs into something, something where there’s 27
a question he’ll take a picture, he’ll contact the City or Garavaglia or both in order to 28
make sure that whatever steps he’s taking are the right steps and that everybody agrees 29
that they’re the right steps. 30
31
The team also went through a very extensive process of taking all of the pieces out of 32
storage and in the storage area actually putting them back together. And in the process 33
assuring that we had the materials that we needed to reconstruct, but also part of that 34
process was marking all the pieces, putting them back into storage. We actually had to 35
get more storage space to that it could be put back in in order so that when it’s taken out 36
it can be put back up properly. So, on the wall you can see there’s more pictures that are 37
actually in the plan. Every wall of the building was reconstructed and pictures taken. So 38
there’s a good record of everything as well. 39
40
From all of that then the plan was developed, which I think each of you have a copy of 41
the full plan so I won’t spend a lot of time on that, but we went through several rounds of 42
revisions with Garavaglia. And then after that we even went through more rounds with 43
the City’s Planning Department. And we very much appreciated that input too because 44
we believe that all of that input enabled us to have a much stronger and better plan. 45
46
The exterior details just a little bit about it, you can see the lighting that we’ll be using 47
which is consistent with the Colonel Revival period. We’re gonna stick with the same 48
color scheme that was approved previously. That color is probably not exactly accurate; 49
City of Palo Alto Page 8
it’s hard to get exact colors off the internet. The plants will be consistent with the color, 1
and will be different than what was, you know the prior plan when it was a restaurant. 2
So, you know, we’ll have white roses and yellow flowers, all it’ll all look very nice with 3
the building color. That’s, that picket fence there is very close to the picket fence that 4
we’ll be building. That fence is actually in Los Gatos and there’s a house that was 5
recently reconditioned there from the same period and so we thought that would be good 6
for you to see a picture of what will actually be there on the sidewalk. And this is a 7
rendering there’s another picture on the wall there, but a rendering of what the completed 8
building will look like along with the grounds. 9
10
And just to conclude, we think that we have a very strong team, a really good plan. 11
We’re grateful for your trust and the City’s trust in us to do this properly. And, you 12
know, we’re gonna continue working as a team with Garavaglia and the City. There’ll be 13
very strong communication. And we will achieve an accurate reconstruction of this 14
building and recondition it. 15
16
Chair Bernstein: Thank you and is it appropriate to say spasiba? Ok. That’s thank you. 17
Yes. Steven. 18
19
Mr. Turner: Perhaps before Board Member questions I might want to invite one other 20
person up to the microphone for a brief presentation, that’s the City’s consulting architect 21
group for this project, Garavaglia Architecture. And representing Garavaglia is Chris 22
Lutjen. And if he could come up and just give a brief overview about his firm’s 23
participation and his thoughts regarding this process and the outcome. So Chris, thank 24
you. 25
26
Chris Lutjen, Garavaglia Architecture: Thank you. 27
28
Chair Bernstein: And Chris, welcome. Yes. 29
30
Mr. Lutjen: Thank you, good morning. As Steven said, my name’s Chris Lutjen I’m 31
from Garavaglia Architecture. We’ve been involved with the project since 2009. We 32
were originally contacted after the unfortunate demolition, and we were charged with 33
determining whether or not the amount of material that had been salvaged from the 34
building could be reinstalled and reconstructed to restore the Category 2 nature or 35
Category 2 status of the building. 36
37
Now we were involved with the former owner and architect team in one round of 38
planning submittal, comment, and review, and we’ve been involved with the current 39
project team extensively. And I’d like to complement them on their, their work so far. 40
They’ve responded to about three rounds of comments and we would just like to 41
recommend that there is enough material available for the project to meet the Category 2 42
status and to achieve the conditions of approval as laid out by Dennis. 43
44
We will be involved with the next phase and the construction phase through the RFI 45
process. We’ll also, we’ve been contracted to do some site visits. We’ll be there every 46
two weeks to do site visits. We can, we will be able to issue memos on, after every site 47
visit and gather it with a report at the termination. And I’m available to answer any 48
questions. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
Chair Bernstein: Ok. All right, thank you. I’d like to open up the Board for questions for 2
the Applicant or the Architect, Consulting Architect, or staff. David. 3
4
Board Member Bower: Well I was gonna defer to Beth, but I didn’t see your hand. I guess I 5
have a question for staff really. I see this is now gonna be an entirely office oriented building, 6
and it seems like I think the City has a policy of trying to avoid having first floor, downtown 7
buildings just be offices in an effort to encourage retail. And I know that the only two things we 8
seem to have in Palo Alto now are restaurants and venture capital offices. So I’m wondering 9
where, you know, how that, how that particular issue fits in with this application. 10
11
Mr. Turner: We’re gonna bring Russ Reich, our Senior Planner in the current Planning Division 12
to assist us with that question. Thank you. 13
14
Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Hi and good morning. Thank you Board Member Bower. A few, a 15
while back the City amended the zoning to allow ground floor office in the CD. It used to be 16
that in the GF zone as well as the CD ground floor office was not permitted, but at the time that 17
the economy was going badly and we had a lot of vacancy in the downtown the City amended 18
the GF zone such that if the vacancy rate exceeded a certain point, it used to be that you could 19
put ground floor office and they amended it such that you can no longer do that. So no matter 20
what the vacancy rate is, you can’t put ground floor office in the GF. 21
22
In exchange for doing that the City amended the Ordinance to strike the prohibition of ground 23
floor office in the CD. So all the surrounding CD properties actually could become office on the 24
ground floor. And so this property is beyond the GF limitation and just in the CD and so the 25
zoning certainly does allow ground floor office in this location. 26
27
Board Member Bunnenberg: And just a quick comment on that, this building used to be a 28
babysitting agency when, when I had small children so that we have some precedence here. 29
30
Board Member Bower: Ok, thanks I appreciate your clarifying that. I have a question for Chris 31
in terms of their onsite, what the onsite presence will be. Obviously I think this will be one of 32
the more successful rehabilitation projects in the City of Palo Alto now that it’s had such a 33
horrible start it sounds like this crew is a lot more sensitive to historic issues than the earlier one 34
was. But, are you gonna have somebody on site to, like a full time, or just on irregular basis? 35
36
Mr. Lutjen: We won’t be providing supervision, like a daily supervision. It’ll be more of the 37
typical construction administration process where we do site visits. We will visit the site 38
approximately every two weeks to perform observation and to make sure that the, the project is 39
being built according to design intent. So we will be available for RFI’s if they have, if the 40
project team has any questions they can document their questions to them and we will respond 41
with sketches or you know, provide whatever, you know, whatever responses they need, but yes, 42
we will also be there for completion of framework and maybe other milestones during the 43
reconstruction process. 44
45
Board Member Bower: Yeah I was reading your recommendations about how to reapply siding 46
and trim and note that they, I think it’s on Page 42, you’ve got a, 44, there’s a note that says, 47
“trim and siding shouldn’t be cut” and then in other places “it should be reinstalled exactly as it 48
came off the building.” I’m assuming that means that in these large sections of the building 49
City of Palo Alto Page 10
which remain, sort of intact, that those would go back up. But how do you, how do you provide 1
beveled, at another place it says, “bevel each piece of siding where it meets rather than butt joint 2
it.” How do you do that if you can’t cut the siding? I mean, I found these to be slightly at odds 3
with each other. 4
5
Mr. Lutjen: So that would be one of the challenges of the project team is to return the siding 6
without obvious, obvious marks or vertical separations. So the idea would be to, to stagger the, 7
the cuts if they need to be made. Like to use the original, you know, put the siding up exactly as 8
it was originally, but that, you know, that might happen for 95% of the siding, but it’s, it might, it 9
won’t necessarily, you know, be 100%. But the idea is to provide, you know, no vertical lines as 10
the siding is reinstalled and technically, you know, you could do that with the bevel cut and have 11
the, you know, have it, you know up. 12
13
Board Member Bower: So I’m just reading this and thinking, seeing one direction that says don’t 14
cut anything and another one that says cut them all at bevel. Those seem to conflict. The other 15
thing that I saw was no top nailing. Well that siding was applied with top nailing and of course 16
those of us who remember what that building looked like 10 years ago, before it was painted, 17
you could see all the nails. So, how do you attach, how do you attach bevel siding without top 18
nailing? What’s the, there’s no direction and I’m curious. 19
20
Mr. Lutjen: What they’re going to be able to contact us if they have questions, but the idea is to 21
give, give the contractor enough leeway to do their work with, you know, and provide the 22
technical backup for them. We’re not going to lay out the exact, I mean it’s going to depend on 23
project conditions, so we’re not gonna lay out, you know, all of the rules. It has to depend on 24
how the, how the siding fits back together. 25
26
Board Member Bower: Yeah, but I think they’re in a box. I mean how do you apply siding if 27
you can’t top nail? That’s the way that siding was intended to be installed and that’s the way 28
typically it was. I don’t, I don’t expect you to provide a piece by piece direction, but if you say 29
no top nailing, I’m wondering how that stuff gets back on that building and stays there. 30
31
Mr. Lutjen: Yeah, I don’t recall forbidding top nailing but… 32
33
Board Member Bower: “No exposed face nailing should be allowed.” It’s Page 44 under 34
decorative features, column trim, dental moldings. I’m not trying to pick apart this, this is a 35
really tough project, but I think that these are the guidelines that these people have to follow and 36
if, if those guidelines are so restrictive that they can’t do what they need to do to make this 37
building watertight then I think it might, there needs to be some leeway and I guess I’m 38
expecting staff could figure out a way to get this to happen. I think all of us want the same thing 39
here, we want this building to come back together the way it was supposed to be rebuilt in 2008. 40
41
Mr Lutjen: I think with our preconstruction meeting that that’s something that we could address 42
in a preconstruction meeting. And we could do that with the, the material, you know, present so 43
that we could discuss that more in detail. I understand, no, no, it’s a good question. 44
45
Board Member Bower: I don’t mean to be badgering, but I do think that, that the whole purpose 46
of this very impressive set of documents is to get the people who don’t have the sophistication 47
and the experience in historic buildings who are actually gonna be doing this stuff adequate 48
guidelines and so that’s my concern. Thanks. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
Mr. Lutjen: Thank you. 2
3
Chair Bernstein: I have a question for Chris too while you’re up here. Thank you Chris. It’s a 4
requirement to keep the Category 2 that any proposed work on this site meets the Secretary of 5
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and particularly the issue of compatibility and 6
differentiation. Can you explain how this proposed project meets the compatibility and 7
differentiation standards? 8
9
Mr. Lutjen: Yeah, there is a, at the rear of the building there is a, a slight hyphen where the 10
building kind of juts in. And the, the siding, the all the detailing, the selection of the windows, 11
the roofline is meant to be in proportion to the original building but not to override it or, you 12
know, to appear as it was part of the original building. The approved set of documents, and we 13
did a review, a cursory review of the design of the addition, but that, the addition was actually 14
part of the pre-approved, already been approved set. So we didn’t have a lot of leeway in 15
making any kind of judgments or anything like that. In my opinion, in our opinion the new 16
project is a better project for the addition than it was with the restaurant, specifically because of 17
the, or one of the things is because of the reduction of the roofline and the exterior fan curl units 18
and equipment that they didn’t need any more because of the office use. 19
20
Chair Bernstein: So say the, you have a change in siding sizes too, looks like. The mention of 21
the existing siding and the new siding looks like they’re different sizes too. 22
23
Mr. Lutjen: Yeah, just slightly differentiated. 24
25
Chair Bernstein: Great. And then also on the communications of your site visits and 26
coordination with the contractor and the building team, let’s see, are you proposing any 27
documentation of your meetings and memos and site visit notes to either the Historic Planner or 28
Planning Department or HRB? How would we see evidence of those meetings? 29
30
Mr. Lutjen: So we’re going to provide after each site visit we’ll, we will provide a memo listing 31
out what we have observed and at the completion of the process we are going to issue a report 32
that includes all those memos as appendices and an additional finding, or recommendation I 33
guess to the City. 34
35
Chair Bernstein: A possible condition that the HRB may discuss and may request and may vote 36
on is that the communications are visible to the City and we’ll figure out which City department 37
at certain regular intervals as appropriate to the construction and not just getting a report at the 38
end. So, that’ll be something that the HRB and the staff maybe can comment on. 39
40
Mr. Lutjen: Yeah, those will be available to the City through the Planning Department. 41
42
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, ok great. Ok, thank you Chris. Yes, go ahead Michael. 43
44
Board Member Makinen: Yeah thank you very much Chair Bernstein. I had a, just a couple 45
generic questions here. Is there any knowledge of other projects similar to this that were 46
deconstructed and then reconstructed and still maintained historic integrity? The only thing that 47
sort of comes to my mind, and I don’t even know if it was like that was Williamsburg, and I 48
don’t know if that was a complete reconstruction, a fabrication, or if it had original fabric on it. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 12
But do you have any knowledge of other projects that were in this type a state of deconstruction 1
that were put back together and maintained historic integrity? 2
3
Mr. Backlund: Well, Williamsburg is a case of a mixture of scenarios and there were heavy 4
restorations where a lot of material had been lost and then others that were fairly intact and then 5
a number of the larger official or government buildings were entirely reconstructed. But apart 6
from, from Williamsburg, as I mentioned earlier there are standards for deconstructing. We 7
experienced one of them, as I mentioned, with the, the water tower at 345 Lincoln. That was 8
deconstructed actually for the same reason that 564 University was with the difference that the 9
City was notified and we invoked professional standards. That’s when you’re going to insert the 10
steel framing and so there have been buildings, it’s more common in earthquake areas, but 11
otherwise back East there are buildings that have been moved. And so there has to be a some of 12
them have irregular massing and so they have to be cut up. A case that we had was the French 13
Laundry here that was cut up into a number of pieces but once again, the City’s Historic 14
Consultant laid out a deconstruction plan and a put-it-back-together plan that the City approved. 15
16
So yes there have been a number of cases where this has been successfully done. The unique 17
thing about this house is that our Ordinance allowed a reconstruction where the City did not 18
know how the building was taken apart and basically what the contractor did in ’08 was to take it 19
apart in much smaller pieces than state of the art deconstruction plans allow. And not everything 20
was catalogued in such a manner to make it clear where it came from and consequently months 21
and months of work in further inventorying by the Historic Consultant and by the Applicant team 22
to figure out in order to do what they did in those images where things had come from. And 23
eventually you can get it. They called it the jigsaw approach. When we get a big jigsaw puzzle 24
we don’t know where any of those pieces came from but eventually we find it out as we work on 25
the puzzle so we did the same thing here. 26
27
And I think the most directly answer your question Council Member Makinen, is to. Oh, did I 28
say? Sorry. That’s for the future. Board Member Makinen. The images on the wall are just one 29
example. 30
Chair Bernstein: It’s on the record. 31
32
Mr. Backlund: The applicant trying to piece all these, all these items together in a sort of jigsaw 33
puzzle approach and so our job is to try and figure out if this is successful whether there have 34
been precedents of things deconstructed without a state of the art plan and successfully 35
constructed, that I am not aware of. Our Ordinance provision is pretty unique in California in 36
allowing this, but it’s though procedures like they did on the wall has given us assurance that this 37
can be done because we can already see part of it coming together. And so they provided us with 38
that assurance on the recommendation of Garavaglia Architecture. 39
40
Chair Bernstein: Michael. 41
42
Board Member Makinen: Just, just a couple more questions I have. Are you required to have a 43
performance bond on doing these, this project, I’m speaking to the R, the owner, the owner. 44
Performance bond? I think that’s probably one of the problems that we might have had with the 45
previous project that we didn’t have any assurances through a performance bond that the thing 46
was gonna be completed. There’s no recourse. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Mr. Turner: I’m not aware of any requirement like that. The City’s not aware of any 1
requirements for a performance bond. 2
3
Board Member Makinen: Do you think it would be a good idea to have such? 4
5
Mr. Turner: My sense is that the work that staff and Garavaglia Architecture and the Applicant 6
have produced over the many months as Dennis went into, I think provide us with the assurance 7
along with the conditions of approval and the procedural steps that are outlined for the 8
reconstruction that if those take place that we will have a successful project. We, perhaps if we 9
did not have the strong relationship that we currently have between the Applicant and the, and 10
the City that we might request that, but I think over the months that there’s been a, have a mutual 11
level of trust that has been developed. 12
13
Board Member Makinen: Or perhaps with the previous project if you had such a performance 14
bond you wouldn’t be in this bind. 15
16
Mr. Turner: Perhaps that would be the case. 17
18
Board Member Makinen: The other, one other question I have is when I think I read the 19
documentation over you were, your arrangement with the City, Garavaglia’s arrangement with 20
the City was up to seven site visits as part of your observation agency agreement. Do you think 21
that’s really adequate? Just seven visits? 22
23
Mr. Lutjen: So I can’t comment on the full schedule, the construction schedule, but that was our 24
estimate, base estimate every two weeks. 25
Board Member Makinen: I just think that’s kind of. 26
27
Mr. Lutjen: Well this is just based on the historic building. We’re not doing construction 28
administration and observation on the addition. It’s, it’s to be clear it is the historic portion or 29
the historic building only. And we do have, we have left room for additional site visits if 30
necessary. 31
32
Board Member Makinen: Ok. Just one final question I guess, and this particular project if the, 33
the classification as a Category 2 building is not maintained the project is a no go? 34
35
Board Member Makinen: So, so that’s, the whole project hinges upon maintaining the Category 36
2 to get the, your bonus development rights. 37
38
Mr. Lutjen: That is, that’s key. Yes. 39
40
Board Member Makinen: Ok. Thank you. 41
42
Chair Bernstein: Any other Board Members? Beth. 43
44
Board Member Bunnenberg: I did have a question which I think probably is more for the 45
Applicant. My understanding was that the restaurant had such high occupancy on the second 46
floor that that weight load was part of what necessitated the steel reinforcements. Is there a 47
difference in the weight load you’re anticipating with this office use versus what the restaurant 48
had? 49
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
Fred Brave, RSR Capital, LLC: The occupant loading, the occupant loading would be less for the 2
office building. 3
4
Chair Bernstein: Just because we’re recording we’ll need to hear your name please. 5
6
Mr. Brave: Ok, I’m sorry. The occupant loading for the office building would be considerably 7
less than for the restaurant. So there would be less weight. Fred Brave. 8
9
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you so much. 10
11
Mr. Brave: I’m sorry. 12
13
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, thank you. I’m sorry, my words interrupted yours. Would you repeat 14
what you now said? 15
16
Mr. Brave: Yes, the occupant loading would be less for the office building. 17
18
Board Member Bunnenberg: And is it, but it’s still needed to put the steel supports in? 19
20
Mr. Brave: I’m not sure, but I think the structural engineer was using, reusing the steel that’s 21
there for the redesign and it was redesigned according to the 2010 building code. 22
23
Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you. Oh, I’m sorry there’s one more. Do we also include 24
the State Historic Building Code? 25
26
Mr. Brave: Yes. 27
28
Mr. Backlund: It’s a condition of approval on that list. Thank you. 29
30
Chair Bernstein: Ok, Scott. 31
32
Board Member Smithwick: So I just have more of a technical question which I’m going to ask 33
because it may end up affecting what we see. In my experience and I’ve done about 12 of these, 34
I’ve put elevators in old historic houses before and one of the problems that I’ve continually run 35
into is the overrun required on those elevators. Typically somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 36
to 14 feet over the whatever the highest floor level is. And so as I was looking at these plans it 37
wasn’t entirely clear if that had been looked at yet, but if it hasn’t I would recommend looking at 38
that. If it took worse case and went 14 feet above the second floor that gets me up to 26 feet and 39
I think that the peak of the roof is at 30 feet. The advantage is your elevator is located right in 40
the center of the house so you have the most height to work with for that roof, but that needs to 41
be looked at if it hasn’t already. 42
43
Mr. Schlossareck: That was a specific question that Garavaglia did ask and during the process I 44
know that that was paid attention to and so very good point, but Garavaglia had caught that. 45
46
Board Member Kohler: I guess I just have one last couple comments or questions, but by the way 47
this is a pretty amazing set of drawings with all the details of the existing pieces that are to be put 48
together, it’s quite an adventure out there. Just a modest follow up on the to nail or not to nail. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Just the, in Garavaglia it says “no exposed nailing shall be used,” the historic page of the 1
architect that says, “predrill prior to installation to avoid wood damage for the nails.” So there’s, 2
so the architect’s just saying you should predrill and use nails and somehow you’re gonna work 3
it out but I think David was correct, I mean they were all done with face nails so I don’t think it’d 4
be, it’s not terrible to use face nails again because that’s the way it was done originally. What do 5
you think Dennis? 6
Mr. Backlund: The provision for, for predrilling is very helpful. 7
8
Board Member Kohler: No, I’m just the Historic Report says you cannot do any face nailing. So 9
I just, I don’t want to drag on with this but what’s the (interrupted) 10
11
Mr. Backlund: One thing I could point out is that the initial Historic Report was done very early 12
in inventorying the materials. The recommendation there is one that is frequently seen but I 13
think on very great, greatly detailed further study of the materials that it was determined how this 14
house was put together, which would open the door to face nailing as long as it is done in a way 15
that does not damage historic materials. 16
17
Chair Bernstein: Any other comments by Board Members? Or questions? Ok let’s move on to 18
open up to the public comment. Members from the public may speak on this. I have no cards. 19
Any members of the public like to speak to us on this? Seeing none, moving it back to the 20
Board. The Applicant if you’d like to make any closing comments you may do that if you like. 21
22
Mr. Schlossareck: I don’t have a lot to say other than that it actually has been a pleasure to work 23
with both Garavaglia and the Planning Department. The process has been long, but I think it’s 24
yielded a strong end result in terms of the plans and, you know, we plan to continue working as 25
we have going forward and to do a good job here that we’ll all be very happy with. 26
27
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Right, like to bring it back to the Board for any Motions or 28
recommendations by the Board. Comments from, yes, you may, yeah, recommendations, 29
comments, or Motions. Yes. Sure. 30
31
Board Member Makinen: I guess my comment would be the proposed project in my eyes 32
certainly represents the best possible outcome for a very bad situation. I think that we’re in to 33
otherwise we’re gonna lose the building I’m sure at some point and time. So I’m not generally 34
in favor of doing reconstructions to this extent, but I think in this case this is, in my opinion, the 35
best possible outcome for a bad situation. 36
37
Chair Bernstein: Yes, Dennis. 38
39
Mr. Backlund: Thank you very, very much Board Member Bernstein and I just wanted to make 40
a comment about your, your Motion, the options that you have. You could make a Motion for 41
the entire recommendation, but I will point out that the recommendation is in three parts and you 42
will notice that the three parts are recommending to different agencies. The first part is a 43
recommendation to the City Council, the second is a recommendation to the Director of 44
Planning, and the third one on whether the addition is going to meet the Secretary’s Standards, 45
(we’ve provided the final attachment why staff thinks that it does), that recommendation is to the 46
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and so it may be… 47
48
Chair Bernstein: It’s a Page 1 and 2. 49
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
Mr. Backlund: Page 2 is the rest of the staff recommendation. Items two and three and because 2
the three parts are recommending to different agencies, you might like to consider making your 3
Motion in three parts and do a ruling, a vote separately on part one, separately on part two, 4
separately on part three, because we will be sending to the Council in an isolated fashion your 5
recommendation on part one, which is the only part that the City Council reviews. 6
7
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you that’s a good suggestion. All right, back to the Board. 8
Recommendations, Motions? Ok. Why don’t we start with the, as Mr. Backlund mentioned 9
we’ll take these in three different, if we do make Motions, three different Motions. Let’s start 10
with the first one of finding Part One about the proposed work, I’m sorry that the, I’m reading 11
the staff recommendation here, that meets the Historic Preservation Ordinance and keeping it in 12
Category 2. 13
14
Board Member Kohler: I’ll, I’ll second if that’s a Motion. Is that a Motion? 15
16
MOTION 17
18
Chair Bernstein: Ok, then let me put it in the words of Motions. I move that the Historic 19
Resources Board recommend to the City Council that the proposed reconstruction and restoration 20
project meets the two part Council finding per our Ordinance for rectifying unauthorized 21
deconstruction of a Category 2 and that includes two findings. One, that the proposed work as 22
presented to us today will affect adequate restoration. And finding number two, that the 23
proposed work can be done with a substantial degree of success because of the monitoring. 24
25
SECOND 26
27
Board Member Kohler: I’ll second. 28
29
Chair Bernstein: That needs to be recorded. You didn’t push your button. 30
31
Board Member Kohler: I thought I spoke loud enough, but I second. 32
33
VOTE 34
35
Chair Bernstein: Ok. That’s been moved and seconded, any discussion or Amendments to this 36
Motion? Ok. All those in favor signal by saying aye. (ayes) Ok, thank you that passes 37
unanimously with those present. 38
39
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Board Member DiCicco absent) 40
41
MOTION 42
43
Chair Bernstein: The second item about the staff recommendation that the HRB recommend to 44
the Director of Planning that the restoration and reconstruction project will maintain the 45
previously approved floor area bonus, meeting the definition of the historic rehabilitation per 46
Ordinance, and by meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and that the historic integrity 47
at which the original character’s retained will be effected. I make that into a Motion, yes. 48
49
City of Palo Alto Page 17
SECOND 1
2
Board Member Bower: I’ll second that. 3
4
Chair Bernstein: Ok, any discussion? 5
6
Board Member Bower: I’d like to make one statement about this. I think this project deserves to 7
have this bonus and it’s important for the economic viability of the project. I wouldn’t want this 8
action by the Board to be seen by our building community at large as a way of getting around 9
doing real, careful, historic reconstruction. So, I don’t want to set a precedent by allowing this 10
particular bonus to go forward and I just want that on the record because if this is a difficult 11
project, I want to see this building survive, and I think this group of people has done a really 12
tremendous job in putting together plans that will make this a successful project in the end. But I 13
don’t want developers to think, “Oh, we’ll just go deconstruct this building and then we’ll come 14
back because they did it at 564 University.” So, I’m supporting this particular application, but 15
not, not with the intent of making this a policy. 16
17
Chair Bernstein: Thank you David, Beth. 18
19
Board Member Bunnenberg: And as an addition to that, I think we would like to look at again at 20
our policies in terms of what goes on the plans that whether there are any further kind of 21
instructions that are needed. 22
23
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Included in my Motion is the, yeah, I’m sorry. Go ahead. Scott. 24
25
Board Member Smithwick: I just have a technical thing. As the Staff Report is written, there’s 26
two “B’s” in these four parts, so it should be revised “A, B, C, and D.” 27
28
Chair Bernstein: Alright, is staff clear on Scott’s comment? 29
30
Mr. Backlund: Board Member Smithwick, could you repeat that again and be sure we 31
understand? 32
33
Board Member Smithwick: Sure, so under two there is four, four comment for four parts within 34
that it’s as written “A, B, B, and C,” it should be (interrupted) 35
36
Mr. Backlund: Yes, those are the different ways that the project will maintain a (interrupted) 37
38
Board Member Smithwick: Right, but there’s two “B’s” so it should just be (interrupted) 39
40
Mr. Turner: Board Member Smithwick, I think the Municipal Code section there is actually 41
18.18.030 section (interrupted) 42
43
Board Member Smithwick: Gotcha, understood. 44
45
Chair Bernstein: Ok. 46
47
Board Member Kohler: To be or not to be. 48
49
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Board Member Smithwick: Would the Maker of the Motion care to incorporate any of Mr. 1
Bower’s comments on a? 2
3
Chair Bernstein: Let’s see and those comments I recall regarding the clarification of the 4
instructions between nailing/not nailing for example? 5
6
Board Member Smithwick: Not setting a precedent. 7
8
Board Member Bower: This is about, by allowing, by allowing the TDR here, we’re not setting a 9
precedent that would encourage developers to deconstruct buildings and then come back to us 10
later. 11
12
Chair Bernstein: Staff, can that be part of a Motion? 13
14
Mr. Turner: It can be, but I think it perhaps is more appropriate to be as a comment, that’s 15
something that we can certainly follow up with. 16
17
Chair Bernstein: I would agree with that, that that’s a comment outside probably the legal aspects 18
of a Motion, I think, because it’s hard to enforce that. 19
20
Board Member Bower: It’s on the record. It’s just from my position that I wouldn’t support this 21
across the board. 22
23
Chair Bernstein: Right. 24
25
Board Member Bower: I’m comfortable and happy to do it now, because I think it’s appropriate. 26
27
VOTE 28
29
Chair Bernstein: In my Motion I want to make it clear that Attachment A, the 16 conditions of 30
approval are included in the Motion that we’re voting on. I also do see condition of approval 31
number eight, where it says, “There will be an HRB and ARB subcommittee to review a brush 32
out of the approved yellow main wall color prior to the application of the paint.” So when we 33
finish, maybe when we finish these Motions we can assign a subcommittee for color consulting. 34
Ok. All right, any other comments before we vote on this Motion? Seeing none, all those in 35
favor say aye. (aye) Opposed? Passes unanimously by those present. 36
37
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Board Member DiCicco absent) 38
39
MOTION 40
41
Chair Bernstein: Next, staff recommends the Historic Resources Board recommend to the 42
Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning that the proposed design revisions to 43
the previously approved rear addition to the historic building comply with Standard 9 of the 44
Secretary Standards for Rehabilitation which requires an addition to historic buildings to be 45
compatible to the historic building and adequately differentiated from the historic building. 46
That’s my Motion. 47
48
SECOND 49
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
Board Member Bower: Second. 2
3
VOTE 4
5
Chair Bernstein: It’s been seconded. Any comment or discussion on this Motion? Seeing none, 6
please vote. All those signal by voting for say aye. (aye) Opposed? Passes unanimously by 7
those present. 8
9
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Board Member DiCicco absent) 10
11
Chair Bernstein: Staff do we need to take any other action on this Agenda Item? 12
13
Mr. Turner: None that we are aware of. 14
15
Chair Bernstein: Ok. All right, I think that now concludes then this Agenda Item. Gentlemen 16
thank you so much for your wonderful presentation and we look forward to moving forward. 17
Great, thank you. 18
19
Board Member Makinen: Just one final question here. 20
21
Chair Bernstein: Yes. 22
23
Board Member Makinen: Do we have a schedule for when this is all going to happen, subject to 24
further approval? 25
26
Mr. Turner: The schedule from here is that we are on the City Council agenda for July 16th. It 27
will be a consent item, the Council hopefully will be able to approve as part of their consent 28
calendar. And then from there the building permit review will continue and hopefully get 29
approved shortly. 30
31
Board Member Makinen: The construction phase will last for how long? 32
33
Mr. Turner: The Applicant might be able to discuss 34
35
Mr. Reich: No, the building permit has not yet been submitted we were waiting for a review and 36
approval by the HRB. But they do anticipate submitting the building permit now that they have 37
approval. Obviously that approval, the issuance of the building permit won’t take place until 38
after the Council action. 39
40
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Let’s go one Board Member at a time please. Go ahead. 41
42
Board Member Makinen: Oh, just asking, assuming everything would be approved and you get 43
into construction, how long of a construction period would you estimate? 44
45
Mr. Schlossareck: My understanding is that it’s 10 to 12 months. Is that correct Vadeem? 46
47
Chair Bernstein: Beth, you had a question? 48
49
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I was wondering about when does it go to the full 1
Architectural Review Board? 2
3
Mr. Reich: Since the project has already been approved by the Architecture Review Board it 4
won’t be actually going back to them. The reconstruction only has to be approved by Council 5
and so it will go to Council after this and that’ll be it. 6
7
8