HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7314
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7314)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/24/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Professorville
Historic District Design Guidelines. The Project is Exempt From the
Provisions of CEQA per Class 8 Categorical Exemption (Actions Taken by
Regulatory Agencies to Protect the Environment) (Continued From
September 12, 2016)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to adopt the
Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines (Guidelines) in Attachment C with the list of
corrections and edits provided in Attachment B, and finding the action exempt from review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308 (Actions By
Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment).
Executive Summary:
The proposed Guidelines will provide a tool for the community to evaluate the compatibility of
proposed development with the historic character of Professorville. The development of this
tool was in response to Council direction on March 14, 2011 to develop design guidelines for all
projects in Professorville, including compatibility criteria for new construction, additions, and
remodels in the district. The Council’s action minutes are included as Attachment D.
The Council reviewed the proposed Guidelines on September 12, 2016, and continued the
hearing to a date uncertain, asking for clarity on corrections and clarifications presented at the
time. The Council staff report from the September 12 hearing is viewable at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53710. For the September 12th
hearing, staff provided Council with approved HRB meeting minutes (Attachment F) and at-
places memorandums, including a matrix of proposed revisions. Staff has since revised the
matrix as a table of proposed revisions (see Attachment B), incorporating the Council’s
direction on September 12 to focus on non-substantive clarifications and corrections.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Guidelines are accessible on the City’s Professorville Design Guidelines webpage at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/professorville.asp.
Background & Discussion:
The September 12, 2016 staff report (link provided above) provided background information
regarding the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines project, including:
The community input and public review process,
The Certified Local Government (CLG) grant of federal funds from OHP, and
The applicability and intended use of the Guidelines.
The September 12 staff report also noted key issues including:
Relationship of the Guidelines to code and application review,
Guidelines vs. Standards,
Traditional vs. Contemporary in New Construction,
Variations in District Development Patterns,
Feasibility and Practicality, and
Contributors and Non-contributors.
Six members of the public spoke to Council during the hearing; two were members of the
Historic Resources Board and four were residents of homes within Professorville. The Council
also received correspondence prior to the meeting, some of it urging the Council to set aside
the Guidelines and take more direct action to protect historic resources in the historic district.
Some of this correspondence is provided again in Attachment E.
Staff’s presentation clarified that adoption of the proposed Guidelines would not preclude –
and in fact would complement – any future changes to the Municipal Code and the Individual
Review (IR) Guidelines to enhance regulations that apply to the Professorville District.
Before continuing the hearing to a date uncertain, several Council members provided
comments on the Guidelines and on proposed revisions provided in a handout at the meeting.
It became clear that there was not agreement on the list of revisions, since some were
clarifying only and some were substantive. As a result, the Council continued the meeting to a
date uncertain and requested that staff refine the list of revisions to include non-substantive
clarifications and corrections only.
The list of proposed revisions (Attachment C) shows the changes that are currently proposed
for the final version of the Guidelines. Briefly, the changes:
Clarify that the later period of development in the district begins in the 1940s (not the
1930s), consistent with the description in the text.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Move the Secretary of Interior’s Standards forward to the first section in the document,
and added an introductory paragraph explaining the background of the Standards and
relationship to the Guidelines.
Change “the Guidelines may be used by the HRB” to “the Guidelines will be used by the
HRB”.
Remove the second instance of “non-binding” recommendation for clarity.
Change “desired” to “proposed” regarding setback of additions, for clarity.
Change “is necessary to meet the needs of current occupants” to “is proposed…” for
clarity regarding the height of additions.
Add emphases, “Do Not Remove Characteristic Features or Volumes in Order to
Facilitate New Construction, and “avoid significant impacts to the building’s historic
character.”
Add stronger emphasis and clarity regarding garage placement.
Add reference to design compatibility recommendations.
Add clarification regarding preservation along with land subdivision.
In addition, staff recommends inserting on page 5 language required by the Office of Equal
Opportunity under the terms of the CLG grant agreement for publications that result from
activities that are financed in part with Federal funds.
Timeline:
The following table summarizes the project timeline.
Activity Date
Project “kick-off” postcard notices mailed to
Professorville property owners and residents*
December 15, 2015
Community Workshop #1 February 23, 2016
Draft guidelines posted on the City’s website
for review and comment by the general public
May 2, 2016
Community Workshop #2 May 26, 2016
HRB Public Hearing – Review and Comment June 9, 2016
HRB Public Hearing – Recommend Adoption July 28, 2016
City Council Hearing – Continued September 12, 2016
Submittal of Guidelines to OHP by September September 29, 2016
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Activity Date
30, 2016, in accordance with CLG Grant
Agreement
Submittal of Request for Reimbursement to
OHP by October 10, 2016, in accordance with
CLG Grant Agreement
October 3, 2016
Council Consideration of Guidelines and
Proposed Revisions
October 24, 2016
*Additional separate postcard notices were mailed to all Professorville property owners and
residents prior to each outreach event.
Policy Implications:
No new or updated policies are proposed. Similarly, no changes in existing application review
procedures or review standards are proposed. The Guidelines will be used as a design tool for
interpreting and applying the currently adopted Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, which the Guidelines are based upon (as described above), and the existing
Standards of Review in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which mandate that alterations
should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics, nor the historical,
architectural or aesthetic value of buildings and sites in districts, nor the relationships of
buildings, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with surroundings and neighborhood
structures.1
The Guidelines are consistent with and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49), as
described in the attached Resolution (Attachment A).
Resource Impact:
No additional City resources will be needed to conduct application review or to provide pre-
application consultations using the Guidelines. The Guidelines are not anticipated to result in
any increase in the frequency or quantity of development applications submitted for review, or
to result in any increase in the time required for the HRB and/or City staff to review and process
applications. Currently, the HRB and City staff review development applications involving
historic properties for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and the Standards of Review in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as
applicable. Also, City staff currently provides consultation on historic preservation matters to
the general public on a regular basis. These current activities would continue to occur, and
would be facilitated and possibly expedited by adoption and implementation of the Guidelines.
1 Muncipal Code Section 16.49.050 (b).
City of Palo Alto Page 5
According to the CLG Grant agreement between the City and OHP, $37,000 in CLG Grant funds
are reimbursable to the City upon OHP’s receipt of the final work product by September 30,
2016. On September 28, 2016, staff submitted the current draft of the Guidelines and a
request for reimbursement to OHP. Staff has not yet received a response from OHP and
intends to submit additional material reflecting the Council’s action.
Environmental Review:
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically,
the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15308, Class 8 Categorical
Exemption, which applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or
local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the
environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the
environment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Adopting Professorville Design Guidelines (PDF)
Attachment B: List of Proposed Revisions (PDF)
Attachment C: Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines (PDF)
Attachment D: Council Minutes of March 14, 2011 (PDF)
Attachment E: Correspondence Received Prior to the September 12, 2016 Meeting
(PDF)
Attachment F: 07-28-16 HRB transcript (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
160822 jb 0131545 1
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting
The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines
R E C I T A L S
A. On March 14, 2011, the City Council directed planning staff to work with the Historic
Resources Board, Professorville residents, and other interested community members to develop
design guidelines for all projects in Professorville, including compatibility criteria for new
construction, additions, and remodels in the district.
B. On August 17, 2015, the City Council accepted a $37,000 Grant from the California
Office of Historic Preservation and adopted a related Budget Amendment Ordinance for completion
of the Guidelines.
C. On July 28, 2016, the Historic Resources Board reviewed the draft Guidelines, heard
public testimony, provided comments to staff, and recommended the City Council adopt the final
revised Guidelines.
D. Upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing on
September 12, 2016, the Council reviewed the Guidelines and made the following findings:
1. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan, including:
POLICY L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.
POLICY L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and public spaces.
PROGRAM L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design
new development to maintain and support the existing character.
POLICY L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have
historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory.
PROGRAM L-58: For proposed exterior alterations or additions to designated Historic
Landmarks, require design review findings that the proposed changes are in compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
POLICY L-58: Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings.
2. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with the purpose of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49), including: Designate, preserve, protect,
NOT YET APPROVED
160822 jb 0131545 2
enhance and perpetuate those historic structures, districts and neighborhoods which contribute to the
cultural and aesthetic heritage of Palo Alto; Stablize and improve the economic value of certain historic
structures, districts and neighborhoods; Develop and maintain appropriate settings for such
structures.
3. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with the Standards of Review contained
in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49), including: In historic districts,
the proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the
historical, architectural or aesthetic value of the building and its site; or the relationship of the
building, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighborhood
structures.
4. The Guidelines are consistent and compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation, as follows:
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.
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.
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.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
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.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old
NOT YET APPROVED
160822 jb 0131545 3
and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
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.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Professorville Historic District Design
Guidelines, which are attached as Exhibit A with the changes noted in Exhibit B. Staff is authorized to
reprint the Guidelines to incorporate the changes in Exhibit B.
SECTION 3. CEQA. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the
project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Class 8 Categorical Exemption, which applies to
actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the
maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory
process involves procedures for protection of the environment.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines
Proposed Revisions
The following is a list of corrections and clarifications recommended for incorporation into the final
Guidelines. Deletions are shown struck through, and additions are underlined. Where changes are
proposed to the organization of the guidelines or maps, these are briefly described.
Page 5
Insert language required by the Office of Equal Opportunity under the terms of the CLG grant agreement
for publications that result from activities that are financed in part with Federal funds.
Table of Contents & Chapter 3
“GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, RESTORING AND REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS”
Table of Contents & Chapter 5
“Later Periods of Development (1930s1940s-Present)”
Introduction, p. 9
“In addition, alterations may be desired in order to adapt the neighborhood’s early homes to
contemporary tastes and lifestyles.”
Introduction, p. 15
“…new construction should strive to retain the existing property's character-defining features.”
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, p. 23
No change to text. Move forward to the first section in the document. Add introductory paragraph
explaining the background of the Standards and relationship to the Guidelines.
FAQ, p. 24
“…the guidelines may will be used by the HRB…”
“…the HRB may will use the guidelines as a reference document when making non-binding
recommendations to homeowners.”
Maps, pp. 31 & 38
No change to text. Update the maps for parcel at APN 120-18-048 457, which currently shows a single
construction period and style/influence, to show two separate construction periods and
styles/influences for 457 Kingsley Ave. (1910-1919; Tudor Revival) and 1140 Cowper St (1940-1979;
Modern). Use colors with greater differentiation in map on p. 31.
4.1.1, 2nd bullet
“If a side addition is desiredproposed, design the addition so that it is set back clearly from the primary
volume of the residence.”
4.1.2, 2nd bullet
“If a taller addition is necessary to meet the needs of current occupantsproposed, such as in the case of
an existing one-story cottage, explore strategies to minimize the visual and physical impacts of the
addition.”
10/13/16 Page 1 of 2
Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines
Proposed Revisions
4.5
“Demolition ofDo Not Remove Significant Historic Features and Volumes on an Early Residence Should
Be AvoidedIn Order to Facilitate New Construction.
“Selective demolition in order to accommodate new additionsNew Work should be planned carefully to
avoid significant impacts to the building’s historic integrity. Whenever possible, elect instead to make
alterations and additions in areas where change has already occurred (see 4.1.3).”
Drawing, upper, p. 89
No change to text. Revise the drawing to shorten the new side addition to better demonstrate massing
compatibility with the historic structure.
5.2.1, 3rd bullet
“If planning to build an attached garage space, consider the overall visual impact. Avoid a new attached
garage that is visible at the front of a residenceNew garages for later homes should be detached and
placed at the rear of the lot whenever possible, which would not be in keeping with Professorville's
historic pattern of detached garages located at the backs of lots. An If a new attached garage is
proposed for a later home, would preferablyit should be side-facing and set behind the primary volume
of the house so that it is not visible at the front of the residence (see 7.3.2).”
6.1.2, 2nd bullet
“Later residences that are not compatible with the character of the district may be candidates for
demolition and replacement, provided that the new construction is compatible with the district. (See
6.2- 6.5 for design compatibility recommendations.)”
6.1.3, 1st and 2nd bullets
“Seek out opportunities to subdivide existing large lots into new developable lotsSubdivision of large
lots is an acceptable way to preserve existing homes and to create a new developable lot(s) provided the
resulting new construction can be accomplished without significantly disrupting important
characteristics of the setting and environment of the district and existing residences.”
“Take advantage of opportunities toIf constructing a detached secondary dwelling units on an existing
lots, avoid disrupting the setting and environment of existing buildings.”
Appendix B: Professorville Property Data
Add listing for 1156 Ramona Street (currently omitted).
10/13/16 Page 2 of 2
Professorville Historic District
Design Guidelines
Palo Alto, California
August 2016
Revised Public Review Draft
Prepared by:
3
Professorville Historic District
Design Guidelines
Palo Alto, California
August 2016
Revised Public Review Draft
Prepared by:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
The activity which is the subject of this design guidelines document has been financed in
part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through
the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California
Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the
California Office of Historic Preservation.
This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of
historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S.
Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, disability, or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been
discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you
desire further information, please write to:
Office of Equal Opportunity
National Park Service
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Acknowledgments
City Council
Patrick Burt, Mayor
Gregory Scharff, Vice Mayor
Marc Berman
Tom DuBois
Eric Filseth
Karen Holman
Liz Kniss
Greg Schmid
Cory Wolbach
Historic Resources Board
Martin Bernstein
David Bower
Beth Bunnenberg
Patricia Di Cicco
Roger Kohler
Michael Makinen
Margaret Wimmer
City Sta Advisory Panel
Martin Bernstein, Historic Resources
Board/Architect
David Bower, Historic Resources Board/
Builder (retired)
Laura Jones, Director of Heritage
Services, Stanford University
Lee Lippert, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage/
Architect
Steve Pierce, Silicon Valley Association of
Realtors
City Sta
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Matthew Weintraub, Planner
Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist
Special Acknowledgments to:
Professorville Homeowners and Residents
Dennis Backlund, City of Palo Alto Planner
(retired)
Prepared by
Page & Turnbull, Inc.
417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, California 94101
www.page-turnbull.com
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 11
Project Background 11
The Professorville Historic District 12
Purpose of the Design Guidelines 15
How to Use the Guidelines 18
Methodology for Developing the Guidelines 21
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 23
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 25
2. PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER 31
Brief History of Professorville 31
General Description of Current Conditions 35
3. GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS 55
4. GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT (C. 1890-1930S) 73
5. GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT (1930S-PRESENT) 89
6. GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES 99
7. GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: DETACHED SECOND UNITS, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPE,
AND STREETSCAPE 115
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS 133
APPENDIX B: PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA 137
INDEX 159
Introduction
11INTRODUCTION
The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines have been prepared to serve as
a planning tool for residents and property owners in the Professorville Historic District,
which is listed to the National Register of Historic Places and the City of Palo Alto’s
Historic Inventory. Among the earliest areas to develop in Palo Alto, Professorville is a
residential neighborhood with a clear historic character, distinguished by its particular
mixture of turn-of-the-twentieth-century architectural styles, consistent streetscape
patterns, and verdant tree canopy.
Yet, Professorville remains a living piece of Palo Alto’s urban fabric. Older residences
require periodic maintenance to remain comfortable and in good condition. In addition,
alterations may be desired in order to adapt the neighborhood’s early homes to
contemporary tastes and lifestyles. In some cases, new residences have been constructed
next to earlier buildings, and others may be in the future. All livable neighborhoods
change over time, and Professorville is no exception.
Project Background
In 2011, the Palo Alto City Council directed the City’s Historic Resources Board
and planning staff to work with the community to develop design guidelines for the
Professorville Historic District, including guidance for new construction. Between 2011
1. Introduction
12 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
and 2013, Board members and staff conducted community workshops and meetings,
during which design principles and approaches were discussed and preliminary
guidelines were drafted. In 2015, the City Council accepted a Certified Local Government
grant from the California Office of Historic Preservation to complete a bound volume
of illustrated architectural guidelines incorporating the community’s design principles,
input by homeowners, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
(listed at the end of this chapter). The City selected the firm of Page & Turnbull as the
consultant to develop and produce the final guidelines.
e Professorville Historic District
The Professorville Historic District is located across approximately 65 acres and several
residential suburban city blocks southeast of downtown Palo Alto. Most of the homes
within the district face onto one of ten city streets that form a regular grid pattern: Emerson
Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Addison Avenue,
Lincoln Avenue, Kingsley Avenue, Melville Avenue, and Embarcadero Road. The majority
of residences within the district date to the first wave of the city’s development, which
took place between c. 1893 and the 1930s. The western half of the district contains
many of the neighborhood’s oldest homes and is characterized by tightly spaced lots.
The eastern half of the district contains several large, early homes located on expansive
properties, but also a number of more recent residences that were constructed after the
lots were subdivided. Additional information about the district’s historic development
and architectural character is found in Chapter 2.
Professorville contains a mixture of house sizes, styles, and forms. This variety is one of the neighborhood’s defining characteristics.
13INTRODUCTION
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chan
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hig
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chu
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Tas
s
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Kello
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lan
e
B
E
a
s
t
Lan
e
B
W
e
s
t
Kipl
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sc
o
t
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
0 125 250 375 500
Feet
LEGEND
Local Historic District
National Register Historic District
Professorville Boundaries
Palo Alto
Professorville
The locally designated
Professorville Historic
District expanded the
boundaries of the earlier
National Register district.
See Appendix B for a map
that includes individual
property addresses.
14 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Professorville Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places
in 1979. Administered by the National Park Service, the National Register is the nation’s
comprehensive inventory of historic resources. A primary benefit of Professorville’s
National Register designation is the formal recognition that the neighborhood is one
of the most significant places in the context of Palo Alto’s historic development. The
Professorville Historic District’s nomination to the National Register identified the
district as bounded roughly by Emerson Street, Addison Avenue, Cowper Street, and
Embarcadero Road. One hundred and five residences were found to be contributing
properties to the National Register district, based on construction dates between the
1890s and 1929. As such, they convey the initial wave of construction that filled out
much of the neighborhood with stately homes. According to the National Register
district nomination, Professorville “reflects the unique background of the area’s origins
and its early ties to the founding of both the University and Palo Alto itself. As such, the
Professorville Historic District creates a strong sense of place and time expressive of
Palo Alto’s intrinsic character and heritage.”1
Chapter 16.49 of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code allows the City to designate local historic
districts. The City of Palo Alto adopted the Professorville Historic District to the City’s
Historic Inventory in 1979. In 1993, the locally designated district’s boundaries were
expanded east to Embarcadero Road, beyond the earlier identified district, encompassing
additional properties that contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. The
City’s expanded district contains nearly 200 residential properties. These guidelines are
applicable to all properties located within the City’s expanded local district, which is
inclusive of the National Register district.
1 Professorville Historic District National Register Nomination, 1979, page 8-2.
15INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Design Guidelines
The design guidelines are a tool so that members of the community can evaluate the
compatibility of proposed development with the historic character of Professorville. For
homeowners, the guidelines provide advice on everything from ordinary maintenance
and repair of existing buildings to major new construction. Similarly, the guidelines
provide architects and designers with advice early in the design development process
regarding the community’s expectations of district compatibility, which can reduce the
“guesswork” that can be involved in designing architecturally compatible improvements,
additions, and new construction. The guidelines also give the general public a basis
for understanding how decisions are made regarding the appropriate treatment of
properties in the Professorville Historic District. In cases where proposed work is subject
to City review and approval, the guidelines provide staff and the City of Palo Alto Historic
Resources Board with specific criteria for evaluating design compatibility.
The purpose of these guidelines is not to prevent change from happening in Professorville.
Rather, the guidelines are meant to manage change while preserving the qualities
that are most important to the district’s historic character. These qualities include how
homes stand on their own as examples of distinguished architecture, and also how the
residences relate to one another within the context of a wider, multifaceted residential
neighborhood.
16 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
The guidelines take into account the following important characteristics of
Professorville:
• Lot layout and pattern;
• Massing and form of buildings and structures;
• Material palette;
• Architectural styles and character-defining features;
• Landscape and streetscape.
Recognizing that the district’s historic character is conveyed by physical elements,
natural features, and spatial relationships, this document identifies important principles
that should inform future change. These principles were developed from prevalent
philosophies in the historic preservation field—particularly distilled in the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties—as well as from community
and City staff input. These principles have led to design guidelines that should be
consulted to inform any substantial changes that are proposed for properties within
Professorville in the future. The ultimate goal of this document is to ensure that individual
residences and the Professorville Historic District as a whole continue to express their
significant and identifiable character within the neighborhood’s evolving setting in the
City of Palo Alto.
The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines address individual homes, as well as the neighborhood’s overall landscape character.
17INTRODUCTION
The following broad principles are incorporated into the design guidelines:
• Property improvements and new construction are encouraged in
Professorville, in ways that are compatible with the character of the district.
• The character-defining features of existing historic buildings should
be retained and rehabilitated whenever possible, with an emphasis on
elements that can be seen from the public right-of-way. If deterioration
requires replacement, then replacement features should match the originals
as closely as possible.
• A historic building should not be demolished unless its rehabilitation is
infeasible due to its poor physical condition. If removal of an existing historic
building is necessary, then new construction should strive to retain the
existing property's character-defining features, which could include salvage
and reuse of materials and features.
• New additions to existing historic buildings should be subordinate to the
historic buildings in location, scale, and detailing.
• New residences should be designed and constructed so that they are not
more prominent in the district than properties built during the historic period.
• The architecture of new residences should be compatible with traditional
styles, materials, and building forms that characterize historic development
in the district.
• The massing and placement of new construction should respect the historic
streetscape of Professorville.
Guidelines are provided for homes dating to Professorville’s early and later periods of development.
18 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
How to Use the Guidelines
The guidelines are arranged according to the age of a building and the scope of a
proposed project:
• Chapter 3: Maintaining, Repairing, and Replacing Historic Materials
• Chapter 4: Altering or Adding to Residences From Early Periods of
Development (c. 1890-1930s)
• Chapter 5: Altering or Adding to Residences From Later Periods of
Development (1930s-present)
• Chapter 6: Designing and Building New Residences
• Chapter 7: Site Improvements: Landscape, Accessory Buildings, and the
Streetscape
While developing their projects, Professorville residents should focus their attention on
the chapter(s) appropriate to their specific goals. Each chapter introduces a number of
broad historic preservation concepts, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation, that should inform the thought process behind project development.
These concepts are organized by feature or project scope, and are broken down into
specific guidelines that will shape design decisions. Each guideline is followed by
additional and clarifying points that are organized in a bulleted list. The guidelines
cannot anticipate every specific case that will arise. Nevertheless, the guidelines
provide design objectives that can be applied to many different situations and result in
a compatible project that is integrated into its historic context.
Photographs included in this document
were chosen for the purposes of
illustrating particular guidelines. Please
note that the property represented in
any one photograph may not fulfill all
of the Professorville Historic District
Design Guidelines.
19INTRODUCTION
It should also be noted that the design
guidelines primarily offer principles
regarding character and compatibility,
rather than specific design solutions.
Where applicable, this document includes
references to additional resources that
will help explain the technical aspects of
preservation, which design teams can
explore while developing their projects in
order to meet the overall objectives of the
guidelines. It is therefore wise to select a
project team that has previous experience
working in historic contexts and has
encountered issues similar to what may be
expected in Professorville.
Components of a Design Guideline
1.1 Repairs and Alterations
to Historic Buildings
Historic exterior materials, whether used
for cladding or decorative purposes,
are critical components of a building’s
architectural style and finely grained
visual character.
1.1.1 Maintain original windows
wherever possible. e original
window type, including shape,
size, and material, should be
retained.
• Always consider repairing
original windows before
replacing. If replacement is
necessary, replacing in-kind
and matching the original
window is the preferred
treatment.
OVERARCHING CONCEPT, TYPE OF
PROJECT, OR FEATURE OF THE BUILDING
STATEMENT EXPLAINING DESIGN OBJECTIVE OR GENERAL APPROACHES
THAT APPLY TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES
DESIGN GUIDELINE ILLUSTRATING A PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE. OCCASIONALLY,
ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN PRIORITIES FOLLOWS THE GUIDELINE
BULLETED LIST WITH SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
AND FURTHER INFORMATION
WHEN APPLICABLE, LINKS TO ADDITIONAL PUBLISHED INFORMATION ARE INCLUDED
For more information:
Preservation Brief 9: "The
Repair of Historic Wooden
Windows,” (NPS), https://www.
nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/
briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm
20 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Selecting an Architect and Contractor
Given that developing a project in the Professorville Historic District should be
undertaken with the design guidelines in mind, selecting a project team with the
right background is a helpful first step. One consideration in selecting architects and
contractors should be whether they have experience dealing with historic properties,
or with properties located within historic districts. It is strongly recommended that
Professorville residents interview potential firms regarding their qualifications at the
onset of their projects. Possible questions include:
• Is the firm familiar with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties?
• Does the firm have experience designing projects that are located in
and compatible with historic districts?
• Is the firm knowledgeable about applying the State Historical Building
Code to residential projects?
The California Historical Resources Information System Consultants List compiles a
number of professional architects with demonstrated expertise in historic preservation,
organized by county: http://www.chrisinfo.org. This list is not exhaustive, and many
additional architects in the Palo Alto area likely have backgrounds working with
historic buildings.
21INTRODUCTION
Methodology for Developing the Guidelines
The process of developing these guidelines was a continuation of previous work
conducted prior to 2015 by the community and the Historic Resources Board, which
established design principles and approaches to development that encouraged the
preservation of historic neighborhood character. Continuity between previous efforts
and the current project was evident by the participation of community members who had
taken part in the previous workshops and meetings, as well as from new participants
including homeowners and members of the general public.
The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines were developed following extensive
research and fieldwork, as well as solicitation of community input. Research included
review of the National Register nomination form and other literature relating to the historic
architecture and landscaping of Professorville.
The existing conditions of the neighborhood were surveyed in the field, and local
historians provided walking tours and knowledge about history and architecture. To
engage the community, a public workshop was held on February 23, 2016, at which the
participants (including individuals who took part in previous workshops held between
2011 and 2013) provided additional input on community design principles and the
preferred approaches to historic preservation.
Preparation of the design guidelines involved field survey to document neighborhood character, as well as community workshops to solicit input from neighborhood residents.
22 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Following the workshop, the consultant began work on the first draft of the guidelines,
which was submitted to the City for review in March 2016. City staff, in consultation with
an advisory panel that included architects, historians, and real estate professionals,
reviewed the administrative draft and provided comments. The consultant incorporated
staff’s comments into a public review draft, which was submitted to the City in April 2016.
The City posted online the draft guidelines for public review and comment on May 2,
2016. During the public review phase, a public workshop to present information and
discuss the draft guidelines was conducted on May 26, 2016, and an informational
presentation was given and testimony received at a Historic Resources Board hearing
on June 9, 2016. City staff reviewed and responded to the public comments that were
received, and the consultant incorporated applicable comments into the final design
guidelines to the extent feasible. The adoption process for the final guidelines involved
public hearings at the Historic Resources Board on July 28, 2016, and City Council on
____.
All photographs in this document were taken by Page & Turnbull except where otherwise
noted.
23INTRODUCTION
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
The Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines provide recommendations
that are closely based on, and are consistent with, the National Park Service’s
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a treatment
that allows "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 The National Park Service has developed the applicable
Standards, listed on the following page, to help property owners, architects,
municipalities, and others to understand the fundamental concepts that would
accommodate changes and new uses of buildings, districts, and landscapes
while preserving historic character. Property owners in Professorville are strongly
encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Standards prior to developing their
projects.
2 "Standards for Rehabilitation," National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/
treatment-rehabilitation.htm.
24 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to
its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive
materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided.
Rehabilitation Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties,
will not be undertaken.
Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and
preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a property will be preserved.
Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measure will be undertaken.
Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall 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 environment.
Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that,
if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Additional information is available at the National Park Service's website: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
25INTRODUCTION
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Question: What is the difference between
guidelines and standards?
Answer: Guidelines are suggestions that
allow for case-by-case interpretation and
decision making based on several factors,
including but not limited to preservation
issues. Guidelines are a starting point for a
conversation about historically compatible
development. They do not provide
answers in and of themselves. Standards
are generally more prescriptive and literal,
and they are less flexible in allowing
interpretation and individual decision
making. Guidelines are proposed for
Professorville instead of standards in order
to allow for interpretation and flexibility
in decision making, based on specific
circumstances.
Question: How do the guidelines treat
diversity of architectural styles?
Answer: The guidelines acknowledge that
the existing character of Professorville
includes a variety of architectural styles
that developed during the district’s historic
period of development, approximately
1890s-1930s, as well as other architectural
styles that developed more recently.
However, the existing architectural
diversity does not necessarily mean
that Professorville can accommodate
additional contemporary architectural
styles without having an adverse effect
upon its character and its relationship to
the historic period. Newer architectural
styles should be introduced carefully and
with great forethought as to how they relate
to the historic architectural character of the
district.
Question: Do the guidelines differentiate
between contributors and non-
contributors?
Answer: The guidelines are meant to
apply equally to all properties in the
district; therefore, they do not include
radically different treatments for
contributors and non-contributors. The
guidelines encourage the preservation
of historic contributors, the rehabilitation
and restoration of altered historic non-
contributors, and the general compatibility
of properties constructed after the historic
period. The guidelines do distinguish
between properties constructed during
the historic period and those constructed
later, because architectural styles and
construction types changed substantially
after the 1930s.
26 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Question: How do the guidelines relate
to City codes and review procedures?
How will the guidelines be used in project
reviews?
Answer: The guidelines do not propose
any changes to existing City codes or
review procedures; nor do the guidelines
preclude making changes to City codes
or review procedures in the future, if
so desired. The guidelines are meant
to be used in concert with the existing
codes and review procedures, or with
updated codes and procedures that may
be adopted in the future. Under existing
codes and procedures, in cases where a
development application is subject to a
discretionary approval (e.g. Single Family
Individual Review), the guidelines may be
used by the HRB and staff to interpret and
clarify the existing Standards of Review in
the Municipal Code and the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
When proposed exterior work requiring
building permits is subject to HRB review
and non-binding recommendation under
the current code, the HRB may use the
guidelines as a reference document when
making non-binding recommendations to
homeowners. Prior to filing a development
application, homeowners, architects, and
builders can use the guidelines as a design
tool early in the design development
process in order to inform preliminary
designs.
Professorville History and Character
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
31PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Brief History of Professorville
Professorville belongs to the historic core of Palo Alto. Neither the neighborhood nor the
city at large existed prior to the opening of Stanford University, which Leland and Jane
Stanford established on land belonging to their large horse farm in northwestern Santa
Clara County. By the time Stanford University opened its doors in 1891, over 700 acres
of land east of the new campus had been set aside for a townsite that could house
those affiliated with the university. A number of freshly arrived faculty members wished
to purchase land and build homes for their families in this new college town, known as
Palo Alto. They chose the fledgling neighborhood that lay near the eastern boundary
of the campus, across the Southern Pacific rail line. For its early academic residents,
the neighborhood received the name Professorville. Its large lots and close proximity to
the university were attractive features for early residents, and homes were steadily built
there during the 1890s and first decades of the twentieth century.
Professorville’s academic atmosphere fostered an appreciation for fashionable
architectural styles. When faculty residents arrived in California, they imported elements
of residential architecture from the areas where they had previously lived: the Eastern
and Midwestern United States. Many new residences showed the influence of the
Shingle, Arts and Crafts, and Colonial Revival styles, reflecting a San Francisco Bay Area
2. Professorville History and Character
When Professorville was constructed, it conveyed a rustic feeling that is still experienced today. Cowper Street is seen above. Source: Stanford University Historical Photograph Collection
32 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
regional interpretation known as the First Bay Tradition. These residences frequently
were clad in wood shingles and had asymmetric façades, which created a naturalistic
impression throughout the neighborhood. Bernard Maybeck, one of the pioneers of the
First Bay Tradition at the turn of the twentieth century, was commissioned to build a home
for Emma Kellogg at the corner of Lincoln Avenue and Bryant Street. After this house
burned, Maybeck designed its distinctive replacement, now commonly known as the
Sunbonnet House. Other newly built residences in the early twentieth century showed
the influence of Revival styles, such as Tudor and Spanish Colonial. Yet all exhibited
a high quality of craftsmanship and design—truly notable for the somewhat isolated
outpost of Palo Alto at this time. While primarily filled with residences, Professorville
was also the location of the notable Castilleja Hall on Bryant Street, which housed a
girls’ preparatory school during the first decade of the twentieth century and was later
converted to housing.
By the 1920s, much of Professorville had been largely built out with single-family homes.
Most had detached automobile garages by this time, which were typically placed at the
rear of the lot. The development pattern of the neighborhood, particularly in its western
half, was characterized by a regular rhythm of handsome residences, each surrounded
by a well-appointed lawn. The eastern half of the neighborhood, on the other hand,
retained grander homes on expansive lots that resembled small estates. One element
that linked both halves of Professorville was an impressive tree canopy, created in part
by the immense redwood and live oak trees that predated the development of Palo Alto
and were left standing in private yards as well as in public roadways.
Many large trees were originally left standing within Professorville’s roadways. Source: Stanford University Historical Photograph Collection
33PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chan
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hig
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chu
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Tas
s
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Kello
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lan
e
B
E
a
s
t
La
n
e
B
W
e
s
t
Kip
l
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
Sc
o
t
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
0 125 250 375 500
Feet
LEGEND
Professorville Historic District
Year Built:
1890 - 1899
1900 - 1909
1910 - 1919
1920 - 1929
1930 - 1939
1940 - 1979
1980 - 2013
Professorville's residences have been constructed over the course of more than a century. Many of the oldest homes are located in the district's west half.
34 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Over time, several of Professorville’s larger lots were subdivided, and any parcels that
remained empty were filled in the postwar period. Kingsley Court, a cluster of 10 cottages
designed by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge Clark, was constructed in 1940. In the
following decades, a handful of Modernist style houses were added to the neighborhood,
as well as two new religious complexes: St. Ann’s Chapel (established by playwright
and diplomat Clare Boothe Luce to memorialize her deceased daughter) and the First
Presbyterian Church. Professorville’s residents also shifted away from the faculty who
had originally built homes there, as many of the large residences were converted to
student housing by mid-century. In the 1970s and 1980s interest in historic preservation
increased, and over time many of the homes in the neighborhood were rehabilitated and
returned to single-family residential use.1
1 The narrative in this section is informed by the following sources: Historic Environment Consultants,
Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto: Inventory and Report, prepared for the City
of Palo Alto, 1979; Professorville National Register Nomination; Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide
to America’s Historic Neighborhoods and Museum Houses: The Western States (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
2008).
35PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
General Description of Current Conditions
Overall Visual Character
As a result of its historic development, Professorville contains an outstanding variety of
residential architecture set within a verdant landscape of towering trees and well-kept
yards. Dating to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the majority of the
neighborhood’s houses vary in style and scale—some modest cottages, others large and
stately mansions. Yet, they share certain materials and decorative elements that create
the compelling architectural aesthetic that defines Professorville’s historic character.
One of the most apparent of these is the pervasive use of wood shingle siding, which
relates to the lushly planted yards and streetscape and gives the neighborhood a rustic
feel. At the same time, the homes feature many formal details derived from the Classical
architectural vocabulary, such as columns, dentils, and cornices. The result of these
repeated elements is that buildings throughout Professorville have visual similarities in
spite of their differences in plan, massing, and roof forms.
Most homes in Professorville face the street, creating a handsome visual impression.
36 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Site Development Patterns
The homes and accessory structures that make up Professorville are physically arranged
in a discernible pattern that contributes to its cohesive visual character.
• Many lots are 50’-75’ in width in the most tightly spaced portions of
Professorville’s west half; larger lots are typically located north and east of
Waverley Street.
• Early residences are set back from the street between 25’-40’, so that they
have ample front yards with narrow side yards.
• Most homes have one-and-one-half, two, or two-and-one-half stories.
• Most garages are detached from early residences and placed at the rear of
their lots, typically along the property line.
• Where rear alleys are present in the western half of the neighborhood,
garages and carriage houses open directly onto the alley.
• Kingsley Court, the loop of cottages located alongside Kingsley Avenue,
was constructed as infill development in 1940; its pattern of smaller homes
with compact yards is visibly distinct from the overall siting patterns of
the historic neighborhood. The complex of the First Presbyterian Church
on Cowper Street is a further example of infill that presents a contrasting
development pattern.
37PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Streetscape and Landscape Patterns
The idyllic character of Professorville owes much to the pattern of yards, trees, and
plantings that line the neighborhood’s sidewalks and face toward the public streets. The
visual impression a visitor encounters while passing through Professorville is greatly
influenced by the following features and spatial relationships:
• Examples of large, mature trees date prior to the neighborhood’s construction
and have been left in place. These include coast live oak and valley oak.
• Other mature trees and hedges appear to have been planted in the first
decades of the neighborhood’s development. These include coast redwood,
date palm, Southern magnolia, persimmon, camphor, Carolina laurel hedge,
loquat, English yew, and hawthorne:
• The front yards of many residences include edge features, such as low wood
picket fences and/or hedgerows, lining the public sidewalk.
• Fences and hedgerows vary in their visual permeability, i.e. some allow front
yards to be totally visible from the public right-of-way while others do not.
• Front yards are typically graded flat. Many are planted with grass, yet others
feature eclectic planting schemes of shrubs and other low plantings.
• Approach walks lead through front yards to reach front entrances; many are
narrow and are perpendicular to the public sidewalk. Common materials for
approach walks are brick or concrete edged in brick.
• Where approach walks meet the public sidewalk, fences often feature gates,
gateposts, or trellises.
• Curvilinear walks paved in stone appear to be more recent alterations.
• Some more recent residences (c. 1970-present) have extensive concrete or
gravel paving throughout the front yard.
Many front yards in Professorville are edged in low fences, which communicates a progression from public to private space.
A number of early trees in Professorville have been left standing, defining the neighborhood’s landscape character.
38 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
• Historic driveways are generally wide enough for only one car and are
located along one edge of the parcel.
• Expansive driveways that lead in front of their respective house are generally
signs of later intervention.
• Parking strips have varied planting schemes but generally contain evenly
spaced street trees of numerous species.
• Street lights are non-historic and are mounted onto the neighborhood’s utility
poles.
• Older curb cuts at driveways have a tight radius.
Historic Developments in Residential Landscapes
Virginia and Lee McAlester's reference book A Field Guide to America’s Historic
Neighborhoods and Museum Houses: The Western States identifies several broad
characteristics of residential landscapes that were employed during Professorville's
initial period of development in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In
the 1880s and 1890s, private yards were often surrounded by low ornamental fences,
possibly made of wood or cast iron. Foundation plantings were not commonly used
surrounding a residence, but instead homeowners inserted planting beds, shrubs,
and trees in the middle of their yards. Low wood fences were still used during the
1910s, and often included trellises or other features at pedestrian entrances. At that
time, it had become more common for residential yards to include profuse plantings
of shrubs and other vegetation than during the Victorian era. By the 1920s, foundation
plantings could be found alongside the foundation of a house; the front lawn was
often left open and uninterrupted apart from trees. Throughout these periods, paving
was typically limited to walkways and narrow driveways that reached detached
garages and carriage houses.
39PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Historic Architectural Styles in Professorville
The character of Professorville is crucially defined by its residences. This section presents
some of the most prevalent historic architectural styles found in the neighborhood and
describes features that are commonly found on homes that belong to those styles. The
following lists of features should not be understood to be comprehensive and complete.
Rather, they are meant to assist Professorville residents to understand the stylistic
qualities of their homes and to identify those elements that define their historic visual
character. Gaining such an understanding will be important when using the guidelines
included later in this document.
Note that some residences may not have a single style but instead combine elements
from more than one, so character-defining features may come from more than one list.
Those residences with a combination of styles should not be thought of as “impure”
examples. Instead, they should be recognized for adding to the architectural variety that
is one of Professorville’s hallmarks.
40 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Byr
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chan
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hig
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chu
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Tas
s
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Kello
g
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
nue
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lan
e
B
E
a
s
t
Lan
e
B
W
e
s
t
Sc
o
t
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
0 125 250 375 500
Feet
LEGEND
Professorville Historic District
Style / Influence:
Shingle Style; Colonial Revival; Queen Anne; Craftsman; Prairie
Spanish Colonial Revival; Mission Revival; Tudor Revival; French Eclectic
Bungalows; Modern; Ranch
Neoeclectic; Neotraditional; Contemporary
This map displays the
general distribution of
different architectural
styles, as explained in
the following pages.
Many homes exhibit the
characteristic features of
more than one style, so the
groupings above are kept
broad.
41PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
First Bay Tradition/Shingle Style
The influence of the First Bay Tradition, the Bay Area variant of the Shingle style, is
found throughout Professorville. The First Bay Tradition showcases the naturalistic,
almost rustic elements of the Shingle style, in particular wood shingle cladding and
asymmetrical arrangement of features and volumes. At the same time, homes built in this
style may have classically inspired features, such as columns or dentils, and gambrel
roofs that reflect the influence of the Colonial Revival style (see the following page). First
Bay Tradition residences are also defined by a high level of craftsmanship, which can be
seen in impressive carved wood and art glass.
Common features seen on First Bay Tradition/Shingle Style houses in Professorville
include:
• One-and-one-half or two stories tall
• Wood shingle and/or wood clapboard siding
• Low-pitched roof slopes
• Decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails underneath eaves
• Wood-sash windows, typically with divided lites and occasionally with
diamond muntin patterns
• Front porches or recessed entries
• Shed-roofed or hipped-roof dormers
• Asymmetrical arrangement of features at façades
• Cantilevered overhangs above the first story, in some instances flared
outward
• Angled or boxed bay windows
Homes influenced by the First Bay Tradition and Shingle Style include the Kellogg House, at top, designed by Bernard Maybeck. Wood shingle siding is an important feature of these homes.
42 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Colonial Revival residences are characterized by their symmetrically arranged façades and Classical architectural details.
Gambrel roofs are seen on homes throughout Professorville, reflecting the mixture of Colonial Revival and other influences.
Colonial Revival
Colonial Revival residences in Professorville reflect the renewed fascination with the
formal Georgian architecture of the United States’ colonial era. A craze for the Colonial
Revival followed the Centennial International Exposition of 1876, held in Philadelphia to
celebrate one hundred years of American independence from Great Britain. Many of
Professorville’s early faculty residents were recruited from the East and would have been
familiar with this style. A number of the Colonial Revival’s distinctive characteristics were
also employed in First Bay Tradition homes, as described on the previous page.
• Two stories tall
• Symmetrical arrangements of bays (often numbering five), with main
entrances located at center
• Side-gabled roofs (gambrel roofs indicate Dutch colonial influence)
• Front porticoes at the main entrances, supported by columns
• Wood-sash windows
• Sidelites and fanlites surrounding front doors
• Molded cornice element with dentil courses
• Shutters flanking windows
• Quarter-round windows flanking chimneys
43PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Queen Anne residences take different forms in Professorville.
Queen Anne
Perhaps the quintessential Victorian-era architectural style, Queen Anne was extremely
popular across the United States in the late nineteenth century. Homes built according
to this style are often characterized by highly ornate features and sprawling, irregular
footprints with trademark turrets or towers.
• Two stories tall
• Irregular floor plans and massing, with corner towers and/or angled bay
windows
• Complex, intersecting roof forms with steep pitches
• Often, a prominent front-facing gable
• Wood clapboard siding with areas of fishscale shingles
• Ground-level wrap-around porches with spindlework balusters and carved
brackets
• Decorative wood detailing located within gables
• Wood-sash windows
• Palladian windows and wood columns (in Free Classic Queen Anne sub-
type)
44 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Stucco cladding, tile roofs, and arched openings are characteristic of homes influenced by Spanish Colonial architecture.
The Mediterranean Revival style is characterized by symmetricality, whereas other related styles often have asymmetrical façades.
Spanish Colonial Revival, Mission Revival, Mediterranean Revival, and Spanish Eclectic
A number of homes in Professorville were designed using related styles reflecting the
influence of Spanish Colonial architecture in California. Unlike Professorville’s other
Revival styles, Spanish Colonial Revival was not imported from the Eastern United States
but instead first developed in California, in cities like San Diego and Santa Barbara.
These styles are instantly recognizable in their material palette, particularly stucco and
red clay tile roofs, that distinguish them as belonging to a regional vernacular.
• One or two stories tall
• Asymmetrical arrangements of features
• Smooth stucco cladding, painted white or beige
• Half-round clay roof tiles
• Shaped roof parapets (specific to the Mission Revival style)
• Wrought iron balconette railings
• Paired wood-sash casement windows
• Arched window and door openings
• Tile vents within gables
• Decorative chimney caps
• Stucco cartouches
45PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Prominent front gables are characteristic of the Craftsman style.
Craftsman
The Craftsman style, including the well-known bungalow sub-type, interpreted the cues
of the somewhat elite Arts and Crafts and First Bay Tradition in California for a wider
audience. Craftsman homes were meant to give the impression of high quality materials
and craftsmanship, but often came from mass-produced plans.
• One-and-one-half stories tall
• Low-sloped gabled roofs
• Decorative brackets and exposed rafter tails underneath overhanging eaves
• Porches, often full-width and supported by tapered piers
• Wood clapboard siding
• Prominent dormers (gabled or with shed roof) over front roof slopes
• Wood-sash windows
• Boxed bay windows
• In some instances, clipped gables
46 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Half timbering is a recognizable marker of the
Tudor Revival style.
Tudor Revival
The Tudor Revival is seen occasionally in Professorville. Another of the Revival styles
popular in the early twentieth century, Tudor looked to medieval England for inspiration
and is unmistakable through its use of half timbering, which imitates the appearance of
wattle and daub placed within structural wood frames. In Tudor Revival, such timbering
is decorative and has no actual structural purpose.
• Non-structural pattern of timbering filled by areas of stucco cladding
• Asymmetrical arrangements of features
• Steep roof slopes
• Wood-sash windows
• Often, prominent brick chimneys
• In some cases, curved eaves to emulate the shape of a thatched roof
47PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Strong horizontal massing and low-pitched roofs
indicate the influence of the Prairie School.
Prairie School
Prairie School architecture is most often associated with Frank Lloyd Wright and the
flat landscapes of the American Midwest. Its influence, however, is seen on residences
throughout Professorville. Here, these homes are usually two stories tall with a rectangular
plan—not as complexly designed as Wright’s, yet they emphasize their horizontal
dimensions through several design strategies and features.
• Two stories tall
• Broad front façade
• Rectangular plan
• Shallowly pitched hipped roofs with widely overhanging eaves
• Wood belt course located between the first and second stories
• Wood-sash windows
48 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Later Changes and Development
Even after the significant first wave of development in Professorville came to a close
in the 1930s, residences continued to be built in the neighborhood as larger lots were
subdivided. These homes were designed in the following general styles:
Modern
Many residences constructed in the United States after World War II reflected a
departure from the materials and decorative treatments that defined Revival styles
earlier in the century. Mid-century modern home designs took advantage of mass
produced materials and were more austere in their use of architectural features. Ranch
homes, a distinct sub-type of the modern style, are low-slung and characterized by their
rambling floorplans. While these homes do not date to the first waves of construction in
Professorville, many are muted in their design vocabulary and generally do not distract
from the neighborhood’s historic character. The neighborhood’s two churches, St. Ann’s
Chapel and the First Presbyterian Church, are also designed in this general style.
• Simple arrangement of features
• Flat façade planes with a variety of cladding materials: brick, wood, and/or
stucco
• Asymmetrical front façades
• Gabled roofs
• Attached garages incorporated into house volume
• Large fixed windows, possibly metal-sash, placed on façades for
compositional effectBuildings constructed in Professorville during the postwar period are visibly distinct from the neighborhood’s earliest homes.
49PROFESSORVILLE HISTORY AND CHARACTER
Neoeclectic residences reflect modern interpretations of older architectural styles.
Neoeclectic
Other new residential styles introduced to Professorville after the 1960s can be referred
to as “Neoeclectic.” These homes interpret earlier architectural styles, such as Colonial
or Tudor Revival. Some draw upon the relatively simple designs of Mid-Century
Modern, while others are more literal in their approximation of earlier styles. While these
residences may take cues from the same historic architectural styles as earlier homes
in Professorville, they can often be identified by their large size, loose interpretation of
historic styles, and attached garages. These types of homes can vary greatly, and they
may feature some of the following:
• Historicist features taken from earlier Revival styles (such as large entry
features, porches, and cornices)
• Irregular/asymmetrical arrangement of features
• Attached garages incorporated into the house volume
For more information:
“Preservation Brief 17: Architectural
Character—Identifying the Visual
Aspects of Historic Buildings as an
Aid to Preserving their Character,”
(NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-
to-preserve/briefs/17-architectural-
character.htm
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Guidelines for Maintaining, Repairing, and
Replacing Historic Materials
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
55GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS
3. Guidelines for Maintaining, Repairing, and Replacing
Historic Materials
The guidelines included in this chapter are intended to help Professorville residents
identify and retain the historic materials and craftsmanship that convey the character of
their homes and neighborhood. Historic exterior materials, whether used for cladding
or decorative purposes, are critical components of a building’s architectural style and
finely grained visual character. As Professorville’s residences are recognized for the high
quality of their materials and design, it is important that residents develop as sensitive an
approach as possible while dealing with the historic fabric of their homes.
The following guidelines offer recommendations to aid residents who wish to embark
on maintenance and preservation projects for their homes. With these guidelines,
projects can be developed in accordance with the general principle that existing historic
materials should be retained and repaired wherever possible, and replaced only where
necessary if severely deteriorated and/or damaged. If a historic feature or material
cannot be repaired, it should ideally be replaced “in kind”—meaning the replacement
should match in size/proportion, texture, and visual details to the extent feasible. When
conducting a rehabilitation of a historic building, it is understood that repair of existing
features and materials is not always feasible, and that exact replacement is not always
possible or practical, in which case some judgment must be exercised in determining
the appropriateness of replacement. The following guidelines offer broad principles
and best practices that should inform the early planning stages of a project. Additional
resources listed throughout the chapter should be consulted for specific technical
solutions that residents can use to meet the objectives of the guidelines.
56 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.1 Historic exterior materials should be maintained and repaired
whenever possible, and if deteriorated they should be replaced in
kind.
The materials that make up Professorville’s early residences contribute both
visually and functionally to the neighborhood’s historic qualities. Repairing the
existing materials is always the first approach that should be explored before
a project is undertaken. If repair is not possible, investigate in-kind materials
to match the old as closely as possible in order to retain the residence’s overall
visual character.
3.1.1 Historic exterior wall cladding should be maintained and repaired, in order to
keep it in good working condition. Deteriorated historic cladding should be
replaced in kind to match the existing as closely as possible.
• Retain existing wood shingle, wood clapboard, and stucco wall cladding
where these types existed historically. These are common character-defining
materials found throughout Professorville that often relate to particular
architectural styles.
• Where wall cladding has been painted or stained historically, continue to
apply the same treatments to offer protection against the elements.
• When cleaning or preparing to repaint historic cladding materials, do not
attempt to remove existing paint or debris in a way that causes damage
to the historic material. Sandblasting and other abrasive measures are not
appropriate.The interplay between cladding materials is important to the character of many homes within Professorville.
57GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS
• Avoid covering character-defining cladding with vinyl, aluminum, or other
synthetic siding materials. If these materials have already been installed,
their removal is encouraged in order to restore the historic character of a
residence.
• Maintain decorative stucco elements such as molded cartouches, as they
are characteristic of a residence’s architectural style.
• If stucco cladding is to be patched, match the existing stucco's composition
and surface texture, which are often characteristic features.
• Replace areas of wood shingle and clapboard siding only where they are
deteriorated. Do not remove a greater number of shingles or boards than is
required in order to make the repair and maintain visual consistency.
• Match the replacement wood siding to the historic siding as closely as
possible. Consider dimensions (size, shape), surface profile, and pattern of
historic siding.
• If historic shingles were manufactured using an identifiable and visually
distinctive species of tree—such as redwood—attempt to use the same
species for the replacement shingles.
Stucco cladding is an important feature of homes designed in Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean Revival styles and should be preserved where it already exists.
58 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
For additional information:
“Preservation Brief 1: Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic
Masonry Buildings” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/1-
cleaning-water-repellent.htm
“Preservation Brief 6: Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings” (NPS),
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/6-dangers-abrasive-cleaning.htm
“Preservation Brief 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork” (NPS),
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/10-paint-problems.htm
“Preservation Brief 14: The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building
Exteriors” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/14-exterior-
additions.htm
“Preservation Brief 22: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco” (NPS),
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/22-stucco.htm
59GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS
3.1.2 Historic roong materials should be maintained and repaired in place. Failing
roong materials should be replaced with the goal of matching the material
and appearance of the original as closely as possible.
• Maintain existing wood shingle and clay tile roofing materials where feasible,
as they often relate to a residence’s architectural style. When necessary,
attempt to replace in kind considering the color, shape, and size of the
historic materials.
• Inspect and repair roofing systems regularly. Water infiltration through the
roof can ultimately damage features throughout a residence.
• Property owners are encouraged to research the original roofing of their
homes, and to consider replacing non-compatible roofing materials with
historically compatible materials that match the visual character of the
original.
• Avoid installing standing-seam metal roofs in Professorville, as they were not
found in the neighborhood historically.
• Avoid covering exposed rafter tails and wood brackets with boxed-in eaves.
If rafter tails are deteriorated, attempt to replace them with new members
that maintain the historic profile of the original.
Roofing materials are important components of a residence’s architectural style.
60 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
For additional information:
“Preservation Brief 4: Roofing for Historic Buildings” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/
tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/4-roofing.htm
“Preservation Brief 19: The Repair and Replacement of Historic Wooden Shingle
Roofs” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/19-wooden-shingle-
roofs.htm
“Preservation Brief 30: The Preservation and Repair of Historic Clay Tile Roofs”
(NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/30-clay-tile-roofs.htm
61GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS
3.2 Repair Historic Windows and Doors Whenever Feasible, and
Replace in Kind Where Necessary.
Wood-sash windows and partially glazed doors are traditional types in Professorville,
and many are configured with muntins that divide the window sash into smaller lites.
Insensitive repair or replacement of wood windows and doors may have a greater
visual effect on the residence than intended. For this reason, residents should attempt
to maintain historic windows and doors as much as possible and, where necessary,
replace with windows and doors that closely replicate the appearance of the earlier
ones.
3.2.1 Historic windows are important character-dening features and should be
retained and repaired when feasible.
• Provide cyclical maintenance to historic windows in order to keep them in
operable condition and to prolong their lifespan.
• Where one component of a window is deteriorated or broken (such as a
muntin or a lite), attempt to repair or replace the individual element rather
than replacing the entire window unit. If a full window must be replaced
due to deterioration, match the new window to the original in dimensions,
operability (such as hung, fixed, or casement), and configuration of muntins.
Priority for this approach should be given to windows visible from the public
right-of-way.
• Where non-standard window types—for instance, windows with arched
shapes or diamond muntin patterns—are deteriorated and cannot be
repaired, investigate manufacturing new windows to match the appearance
of the originals.
Attention should be paid to the distinctive sizing, spacing, and configuration of windows on an older residence in Professorville.
62 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
• Attempt to replace specialty glass types, such as stained glass, with
materials that provide the same visual effect.
• Replace deteriorated window trim and other treatments to match the size
and profile of the original as closely as possible.
• Avoid installing new aluminum- and vinyl-sash windows, which are not
necessarily the most cost effective alternatives to new wood-sash windows.
Synthetic materials do not typically resemble wood, often do not closely
match the proportions of the original windows, and have much shorter
lifespans.
• Investigate measures that increase energy efficiency for historic wood-sash
windows while retaining their historic visual character. Possible solutions
include weather stripping and interior storm windows.
3.2.2 e appearance and location of historic doors should be maintained.
• Repair historic wood doors whenever feasible, rather than replace them.
Keep in mind that hardware and glazing patterns also contribute to the
historic character of a door.
• If exterior doors must be replaced, choose a new door type that is compatible
with the residence’s architectural style. Panel and/or partially-glazed
doors are recommended, as they are appropriate to the early period of
Professorville’s development. This is particularly important for street-facing
doors.
• Maintain historic door trim. If it is determined to be in need of replacement,
match the profile and material of the original as closely as possible.
• Maintain the historic location of a residence’s front entrance.
63GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS
For additional information:
“Preservation Brief 9: The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows,” (NPS), https://www.
nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/9-wooden-windows.htm
“Replacement Windows that Meet the Standards,” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/
standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/windows-replacement.htm
“Repair and Upgrade Windows and Doors,” (NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/
sustainability/energy-efficiency/weatherization/windows-doors.htm
“Saving Windows, Saving Money,” (Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for
Historic Preservation),
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/
green-lab/saving-windows-saving-money/
The Window Sash Bible: A Guide to Maintaining and Restoring Old Wood Windows,
Steve Jordan, http://painintheglass.info/pages/window-restoration-bible.php
64 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.3 Additional Character-Dening Features at Contribute to an
Early Residence’s Visual Appeal Should Be Preserved.
Numerous types of decorative and functional elements are found throughout
Professorville and help to create its richly detailed material fabric and visual
character. Such features, which are carefully arranged and organized on individual
residences according to the tenets of historical styles and periods, include wood
cornices, dentils, and belt courses; porches and other entry features with column
supports; wrought iron window grilles; wood porch railings and balusters; and
decorative wood half-timbering. Pay heed to these types of features and their
role in the overall appearance and personality of a residence.
3.3.1 Retain and repair character-dening decorative features wherever possible,
and if replacement is required match the new as closely as possible to the
original.
• Always attempt to repair historic decorative features as a first course of
action.
• If these features are damaged or deteriorated to the point of failure, select
replacement materials matching the dimensions and appearance of the
original as closely as possible.
• Where deteriorated brick masonry is found, replace damaged brick with
new that matches the original’s color, size, and surface texture. Additional
characteristics that should be considered include the bonding and
decorative patterns of the brick.
Historic homes throughout Professorville have distinctive decorative features that convey their character. They should be treated sensitively whenever possible.
65GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS
• If brick repointing is required, attempt to determine a compatible mortar
composition in order to avoid future damage to the brick.
• Prioritize in-kind repairs for features that are located near the front of a
residence and are visible from the public right-of-way.
3.3.2 Consider recreating missing historic features if adequate evidence exists to
determine original appearance and materials.
• Residents are encouraged to recreate historic features on a building where
they once existed on that building but were later removed. These projects,
however, should rely on evidence such as historic documentation or the
"ghosting" (physical imprint or outline) of lost features to guide an accurate
recreation.
• Look for historic photographs and original architectural drawings that could
provide the basis for replicating missing features.
3.3.3 Do not introduce new architectural elements to a residence where they did not
exist historically.
• Avoid placing new stylistic elements on a residence (such as brackets or
bay windows) based on conjecture rather than on research—i.e., if the chief
reason is that they simply feel period appropriate.
• A residence should not have new features added that represent a different
historic period or architectural style than the existing property.
• When selecting new features such as lighting fixtures, choose a style
that is compatible with the character of a home but that may also exhibit
contemporary character.
66 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.3.4 When planning to paint exterior walls and features, explore color schemes that
are compatible with a home's historic context.
• Aim to select paint colors for the exterior of a residence that are compatible
with the historic character and period of the residence. This effort can be
informed by research on period-appropriate schemes, as well as by careful
investigative testing that could reveal a home's historic paint colors.
• Muted colors are encouraged for the primary exterior walls, with contrasting
accent colors selected for decorative elements and trim.
• Avoid selecting colors or reflective sheens that contrast sharply with nearby
buildings.
For additional information:
“Preservation Brief 2: Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings”
(NPS), https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/2-repoint-mortar-joints.htm
“Preservation Brief 45: Preserving Historic Wood Porches” (NPS), https://www.nps.
gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/45-wooden-porches.htm
67GUIDELINES FOR MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, AND/OR REPLACING HISTORIC MATERIALS
Solar roof panels should be placed so that they have as minimal a visual impact as possible on the publicly visible areas of a home.
3.4 e Historic Character of Homes Should Be an Important
Consideration When Exploring Green Technology.
Sustainability is a critical principle that can be achieved with many building types,
including historic residences. “Green” building approaches and a home’s significant
historic qualities are not mutually exclusive and can work in tandem.
3.4.1 Solar panels and other energy savings devices should be placed to have as small
an impact on historic character as possible.
• Place solar panels and skylights on roof slopes that are less visible from
the public right-of-way whenever possible, as these types of features can
visually contrast with the historic forms, textures, and materials of the roof.
• Research new solar panel and energy capture products that attempt to
replicate the appearance of wood shingles; use them where they will have
the least visual and material impacts, such as away from the front of a
residence when feasible.
3.4.2 Sustainable materials should be considered while planning exterior alterations.
• Investigate post-consumer and salvaged materials with an eye towards
replicating the historic appearance of original features and materials.
• Keep in mind that repairing and retaining existing historic features where
possible is an inherently green approach because it saves energy and
materials.
68 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
For additional information:
“Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,” (NPS),
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/guidelines/index.htm
"Design Guidelines for Solar Installations," (National Trust for Historic Preservation),
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/
buildings/solar-panels/design-guidelines-for-solar.html
Guidelines for Altering or Adding to
Residences from Early Periods of
Development (c. 1890-1930s)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
73GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
4. Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from
Early Periods of Development (c. 1890-1930s)
It is anticipated that some projects proposed for residences in Professorville will exceed
the scope of maintaining, repairing, and preserving historic features. Constructing
additions and other major projects may result in obvious interventions that could distract
from the historic character of a residence or its surrounding streetscape if not conducted
sensitively. Such projects, however, can be planned and implemented to have a minimal
impact on the neighborhood, and in some cases to enhance the neighborhood's character
and visual qualities. The guidelines in this chapter are intended to give homeowners
and architects a set of principles that would accommodate change—yet would also
help safeguard a residence’s distinctive form, visual character, and relationship to its
neighbors.
These guidelines are tailored specifically for residences that date to Professorville’s
earliest period of development from the 1890s to the 1930s. Residences built during
these decades embody the historic district’s unique character, and most likely these are
the buildings that first come to mind when a Palo Alto resident thinks of Professorville. The
neighborhood’s homes from this era are stylistically varied—showcasing Arts and Crafts,
Colonial Revival, and Eclectic Revival influences—yet many have similarities in terms of
scale, materials, and placement on the lot. Stewardship of the distinctive character of
these residences while allowing and managing change is the most important goal of
historic preservation in Professorville.
74 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.1 New Additions to Early Residences Should Respect the Primacy
and Historic Features of the Original Building.
Professorville’s older residences are defined by their relatively uncomplicated
volumes, distinctive architectural features, and strong façade planes that face
the street, forming a repeated visual rhythm that is one of the neighborhood’s
most memorable qualities. New additions to these homes should be designed to
be subordinate to the existing buildings and support the overall appearance of
the historic streetscape.
4.1.1 Additions should be placed where they will not distract from the volume of the
historic residence.
• Locate new additions at the rear of the historic residence whenever possible.
This strategy maintains the historic view of the home as seen from its front,
as well as the overall streetscape pattern as experienced in the public realm.
• If a side addition is desired, design the addition so that it is set back
clearly from the primary volume of the residence. Such an approach retains
the primacy of the original building and continues a historic pattern of
constructing subordinate additions in the neighborhood.
• When designing an addition to a residence, consider where new construction
would have the least impact to existing character-defining features. An area
that has already experienced alterations, such as at a previously constructed
addition, may be the most appropriate location for new construction.
For additional information:
“Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings:
Preservation Concerns” (NPS), https://
www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/
briefs/14-exterior-additions.htm
This side addition to an early home in Professorville is visible from the street but is clearly set back from the original front façade.
75GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
• Constructing new attached garages on historic homes is strongly discouraged
in Professorville, as attached garages convey a later development pattern in
the neighborhood (see 7.3.2). If an attached garage is deemed necessary,
make every attempt to place it to the rear of the primary volume of a residence
in order to minimize its visual impact as seen from the street.
4.1.2 New additions should be sized appropriately to the scale of the historic
residence.
• Design an addition taking into account the size that is best suited for a
sensitive and compatible addition, rather than simply designing an addition
to maximize the square footage on a lot.
• Avoid constructing an addition that exceeds the height of the existing home,
in order to ensure that the form and scale of the historic residence remain
the prominent characteristics. If a taller addition is necessary to meet the
needs of current occupants, such as in the case of an existing one-story
cottage, explore strategies to minimize the visual and physical impacts of
the addition. These strategies may include setting the addition behind the
existing home, connecting the existing and new volumes with a hyphen, and
mitigating the visual bulk of the addition with sloped roofs.
Consider the effect of an addition's placement and height on the overall appearance of a home. A hyphen can be used to differentiate a new addition from the original house volume.
76 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
• Avoid building a rear addition that is wider than the original residence.
Ideally, a rear addition will not project beyond the sides of the existing house
volume. If the narrow width of an existing residence would result in a wider
rear addition in order to meet the needs of current occupants, pay special
heed to employing compatible massing and roof forms to minimize the visual
impact of the addition.
4.1.3 If a home already has a non-historic addition, consider placing a new addition
at the same location in order to alter historic character as little as possible.
• Portions of a home that have already experienced change can be considered
as areas of opportunity for new construction, where they pose the least risk
of affecting overall historic character.
• Where existing non-historic additions are incompatible with the character
of a historic home, consider employing selective demolition and/or new
construction to improve the form and massing of the addition and its
compatibility with the historic volume.
• Existing non-historic additions can generally be removed without affecting
the character of the property or the historic district. Note that an addition
from Professorville's early periods of development may contribute to a
residence's character (see 4.5.2).
77GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
These side additions were designed to share materials and decorative features with the original home.
4.2 e Architectural Character of a New Addition Should Be
Compatible with the Historic Residence.
The existing character of historic properties in Professorville—as evidenced by a
property's style (if any), its period of construction, its materials and ornamentation,
and its level of historic craftsmanship—should be referenced in the design of new
additions. The new work should not introduce new material types, new complex
roof shapes or volumes, or new types of detailing that are not already present on
the historic building. “Compatible but differentiated” is an achievable balance
that property owners should strive toward.
4.2.1 e massing and roof forms of an addition should draw on the architectural
cues of the existing residence.
• Design additions with a careful eye to the original massing of the residence.
• Plan the new roof forms of an addition to be similar to those of the existing
home. This includes both the shape of the roof (gabled or gambrel roof, for
instance) and the pitch of its slopes.
• If designing a first-story addition, consider a shed roof. This form is generally
compatible with a range of roof types and can extend an original roof slope
without a distracting visual impact.
78 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.2.2 e characteristic materials of a residence should inform the choice of
materials for a new addition.
• Respect the existing residence by using cladding and roofing materials that
are compatible with those that are historic.
• A new addition may continue the use of character-defining features found on
the residence, such as brackets and exposed rafter tails, in order to provide
visual continuity. However, slight variation and/or simplification in detailing
at the new addition is recommended in order to differentiate old and new
(see 4.2.4).
4.2.3 e fenestration pattern of an addition should generally match that of the
existing residence.
• Use a surface-to-void ratio of windows and wall space that continues the
pattern found on the original residence.
• Design a window pattern to match the residence’s existing hierarchy of
windows—considering the different sizes and heights that occur on different
levels.
• Construct new windows at an addition with materials (preferably wood)
and sash configurations that are compatible with, although not necessarily
identical to, those on the original residence.
79GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
4.2.4 An eort should be made to dierentiate an addition from the original
building.
• Differentiation is an important preservation principle that allows historic
fabric to be distinguished from new, in order to avoid creating a false sense
of historical development. New construction should not be radically different
in style or materials; however, minor differences can be used effectively to
distinguish new from old.
• Prioritize differentiating the architecture of an addition in some way, rather
than matching the original residence so closely in materials and style that
the addition could be mistaken as historic in its own right.
• Consider using siding materials and decorative features for an addition
that have a subtly different profile, dimensions, or spacing pattern than the
historic residence. A common technique for differentiation is to use similar,
but simplified, decorative details at the addition, which would allow the
addition to read as subordinate to the historic building.
• Where a new addition has the same number of stories as its attached
residence, consider placing the addition’s eave heights slightly lower to
indicate the beginning of new construction and to indicate the primacy of
the original residence.
• Keeping compatibility in mind, avoid designing an addition with an
architectural vocabulary that contrasts strongly to the primary residence for
the sake of differentiation.
• Do not attempt to differentiate an addition simply by using a contrasting
paint color scheme. New colors and accent schemes should be compatible
with those used on the original residence.
80 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.3 New Dormers and Second-Story Additions Should Be Designed
to Be Compatible with the Character of the Original Residence.
Roof dormers are commonly seen in Professorville and were originally designed
to allow light and additional room into upper levels that are located within the roof
form of a residence. New dormers would therefore be generally compatible with
the neighborhood’s historic qualities and should be designed to enhance the
historic scale and character of residences.
4.3.1 New dormers should be scaled so as to retain the predominance of the original
roof form and the overall character of the neighborhood.
• Scale new dormers appropriately so that they do not overwhelm the primacy
of the historic roof. The original roof form should be plainly visible after the
dormer is in place. New dormers would be inappropriately large if they span
from end to end of the original roof slope or if they reach from eave to ridge.
• Center a newly constructed dormer on its roof slope, reflecting the character
of Professorville’s early residences.
• It is acceptable to introduce more than one dormer on a single roof slope if
they are spaced evenly and do not visually crowd the roof.
Constructing an appropriately scaled roof dormer can be an effective strategy to create livable space within a roof form, in keeping with the neighborhood's historic character.
81GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
4.3.2 e architectural character of a residence should guide the design of a new
dormer.
• Choose a dormer’s roofing and cladding materials, as well as distinctive
features like exposed rafter tails, to reflect the character of the original home.
• It is not necessary to design new dormers with roof forms that match the
overall roof of the residence. A shed-roofed dormer is appropriate to a side-
gabled residence, for instance.
• Employ minor differences in materials and features to indicate that the new
dormer is not original to the residence.
4.4 A Residence Should Not Be Lifted or Moved on Its Lot Such
that Its Historic Spatial Relationships are Changed.
A historic building’s location on its lot and its spatial orientation and relationships to
other nearby properties are important aspects of a building's historic character and
the district as a whole. Lifting or moving a residence can change its overall scale and
visual impression, as well as its relationship to its neighbors, which can affect the entire
neighborhood.
4.4.1 Early residences in Professorville should remain at their historic elevations and
heights.
• If a new foundation must be constructed, attempt to construct it so that the
existing home remains at the same elevation. If the new foundation will be
visible, use exterior materials that are compatible with the character of the
building.
Raising a residence onto a substantially taller foundation may bring it visibly out of scale with its neighbors. Pay attention to the heights of surrounding floor levels and rooflines.
82 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
• If a historic residence is raised, avoid impacting its floor, eave, and roof
ridge heights such that they would be out of keeping with its character and
surrounding homes.
• If raising a home requires alterations to an existing entry or porch (i.e.,
replacing an existing landing or run of steps), retain historic materials
whenever possible, and take care to design alterations to be compatible
with the historic character of the home.
4.4.2 Early residences should remain in their historic locations unless practical
considerations necessitate relocation within their lots. If moved, a home’s
character-dening orientation and setting should be maintained.
• Avoid moving an early residence within its lot, as a building's original
location contributes to its integrity. Justification for moving a building should
be based on practical hardship rather than preference.
• If an early building is to be moved, it should not be moved to a different area
of its lot; rather it should be kept in the same general area (i.e. avoid moving
a building from the front to the back, or vice versa). Also, avoid moving a
building so that it would encroach upon characteristic landscape features
or other buildings.
• Avoid turning a residence on its lot so that its front façade is oriented in a
different direction than it was historically, as this breaks a property's historic
association to its neighbors and its streetscape.
• An early residence should remain on the lot upon which it was constructed.
83GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM EARLY PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
4.5 Demolition of Historic Features and Volumes on an Early
Residence Should Be Avoided.
Selective demolition in order to accommodate new additions should be planned carefully
to avoid significant impacts to the building’s historic integrity. Whenever possible, elect
instead to make alterations in areas where change has already occurred (see 4.1.3).
4.5.1 Selectively demolishing character-dening features and volumes diminishes
the overall historic character of a home and should be avoided.
• Avoid demolishing historic features that define the character of a residence,
in particular those located on the front and those that can be seen from the
street.
• Demolishing features located at the rear of a residence is generally less
impactful, and therefore a more acceptable option, than demolition at the
front or sides, which are typically visible from the public right-of-way.
4.5.2 Existing additions and alterations that occurred during Professorville’s early
period of development (through the 1930s) may contribute to a residence’s
historic character.
• Whenever possible, avoid demolishing additions that date to the
neighborhood’s historic period, as they can provide a physical record of
historic development patterns in the neighborhood.
• Not every older addition or alteration is character-defining. Consult with
preservation professionals regarding the relative importance of any particular
historic addition or alteration to an original residence.
The upper dormer on this home was an early intervention and should not be considered to detract from the overall historic character.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Guidelines for Altering or Adding to
Residences from Later Periods of
Development (1930s-Present)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
89GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
5. Guidelines for Altering or Adding to Residences from Later
Periods of Development (1930s-Present)
The first wave of development in Professorville came to a close during the 1930s, and
subsequent home construction in the neighborhood introduced new architectural styles
and materials. In certain ways, more recently constructed buildings contrast with the
earlier homes of the neighborhood: they were built with mass-produced and/or more
affordable materials, and they were designed when automobiles—and thus residential
garages—had become even more ingrained in the lives of many Americans. Although
constructed during Professorville’s later period of development, postwar residences also
contribute to the surrounding streetscape. Regardless of materials and architectural
style, most later residences bear a relationship to their older neighbors and respect their
defining scale and features. Whereas the guidelines contained in Chapter 4 focused
on strategies to maintain the integrity of the earliest properties—which are the most
important in conveying the district’s historic character—this chapter offers a parallel
set of guidelines that are more general in nature. Their purpose is to guide changes to
later residences while minimizing the impact of changes on the overall character of the
district.
90 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
5.1 Alterations to Existing Materials and Features Should Be
Planned So As Not to Detract from the Overall Aesthetic
Patterns of the Historic District.
Later residences located within the boundaries of Professorville are usually
visible as such: they have distinctive house forms and cladding materials that
easily distinguish them from the earlier residences around them. It is appropriate
to maintain the newer homes as they exist, but proposed alterations should be
planned so that they do not create a new visual impact on the district.
5.1.1 Modern materials and features should be compatible with, yet dierentiated
from, the historic character of the district.
• Retain types of roofing and wall cladding that relate to the materials and
textures found on earlier houses, as well as to the neighborhood’s rustic
feeling. These may include modern wood shingles and board-and-batten
siding. While stucco is historically present, it is not predominant in the district.
• Avoid new cladding or roofing materials that are not already used in
Professorville, such as stone veneer.
• Do not install synthetic cladding materials, such as vinyl or aluminum, on
any residence in Professorville.
• If doors and windows are replaced, select the new to have simple
arrangements. They should also be sized compatibly with the windows
found on surrounding residences.
Some newer residences are clad in wood shingles, reflecting Professorville's historic material palette. Retaining these shingles would help to relate homes from different eras within the district.
91GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
5.1.2 Modern-style buildings have their own distinctive types of materials and
features and should not be altered with period-inappropriate elements.
• Do not add decorative features to a newer residence simply because they
are characteristic of early homes elsewhere in the neighborhood, as this can
create a false sense of historical development in the district.
5.2 Additions to Later Buildings Should Have As Minimal a Visual
Impact As Possible and Should Respect Neighboring Residences.
While not historically significant within the context of Professorville, later residences
can still contribute to the district by conforming to the historic rhythms of the
streetscape. Any changes in massing and form should be planned so that they
continue to support the regular rhythm of houses that defines the neighborhood’s
visual character.
5.2.1 New additions should be placed on their lots and scaled to be as unobtrusive as
possible.
• Design and site a new addition that supports the surrounding streetscape
pattern; placement at the rear of the building rather than facing the street is
strongly encouraged.
• Design an addition that is of an appropriate scale and height to the residence
and its neighbors. The addition should not change the massing of the
residence so that it is incompatible with surrounding historic homes.
As with historic residences, additions to more recent homes should be recessed from the front façade to strengthen Professorville's overall streetscape pattern.
92 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
• If planning to build an attached garage space, consider the overall visual
impact. Avoid a new attached garage that is visible at the front of a residence,
which would not be in keeping with Professorville's historic pattern of
detached garages located at the backs of lots. An attached garage would
preferably be side-facing and set behind the primary volume of the house.
5.2.2 An addition should be designed with an architectural vocabulary that is both
appropriate to the main residence and relates to surrounding older homes.
• The roof form of an addition should resemble and/or continue the roof form
of the original residence.
• Explore cladding and roofing materials that are similar to those of the original
residence, but are differentiated slightly in size or profile. While differentiation
may be less important of a concern for more recent residences than for
older residences, this strategy is typically encouraged.
• Windows on an addition may be of the same material as windows on the
original residence, and should relate to the character of nearby older
residences in terms of scale and spacing.
• Consider constructing a front porch if a residence does not already have
one, in keeping with the style and period of the house. This type of feature
can relate newer buildings to Professorville’s earlier homes.
• Paint colors chosen for a new addition should relate to the original residence
and should be compatible with the appearance of surrounding historic
homes.
93GUIDELINES FOR ALTERING OR ADDING TO RESIDENCES FROM LATER PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT
5.2.3 A second-story addition will likely be visible from the street and could change
the appearance of a residence. Such an addition should be carefully designed to
enhance the historic qualities of the neighborhood.
• Design a second-story addition with the goal of minimizing its visual bulk.
Utilize sloping roofs and overhanging eaves to mitigate bulk.
• Avoid "stepping back" upper stories, which would result in a complex volume
that is not characteristic of homes in the neighborhood, which typically have
strong, unbroken façade planes.
5.3 Lifting or Moving a Later Building on Its Lot Should Not
Interrupt the Overall Streetscape Pattern of the Surrounding
Area.
Professorville’s more recent homes are visually related to their neighbors and should
not be substantially lifted or moved if this would affect the consistent character of the
streetscape. The original location of a later residence on its lot, however, is not necessarily
an important consideration to the district’s historic significance.
5.3.1 A later residence should not be raised above its existing height if this action
would change the height and perceptible scale of the building to be larger than
its neighbors.
• If considering whether to raise a house or alter the level of a foundation, pay
attention to the floor, eave, and roof ridge heights of neighboring homes.
Strive for compatibility with the surrounding streetscape.
94 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
5.3.2 A later residence may be moved on its lot if it supports or enhances the
district’s historic streetscape pattern.
• Relocate a residence so that its new location and orientation are consistent
with the setbacks, side-to-side spacing pattern, and street-facing orientation
that characterize the neighborhood.
5.4 Special Note: Potential for Individual Historic and Architectural
Signicance Outside of the District Context
It is possible that buildings in Professorville constructed during the later
development period could be determined to have individual historic or
architectural significance. Properties may become eligible for historic register
listing, if a good case for their significance exists. This means that later buildings in
Professorville—while not strictly contributing to the historic district’s significance—
could potentially be considered historic resources on the basis of their own
individual architectural designs or historical backgrounds. Residents who plan
to alter a later building that is found to have individual historic significance should
explore project options that would preserve architectural forms and features that
convey significance. These guidelines do not address design compatibility for
later properties that are architecturally or historically significant.
The modest cottages making up Kingsley
Court were constructed after the first wave of
development of Professorville, but they were
designed by Birge Clark, an important Palo Alto
architect. Keep in mind that later buildings in the
neighborhood may have their own grounds for
historic significance.
Guidelines for Designing and Building New
Residences
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
99GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES
6. Guidelines for Designing and Building New Residences
While most lots within Professorville are currently built out, construction of new residences
in Professorville may occur if and when larger lots are subdivided and further developed,
detached secondary dwelling units are built on existing lots, or an existing non-historic
home is replaced. As opportunities for new residential construction arise, it is critical
to design new buildings to be compatible with the neighborhood’s early residences,
yet also differentiated in some way in order to continue the physical record of historical
development in the district. The most important considerations for compatibility include
site placement, general form and massing, size and height, and fenestration patterns.
Designing a home that takes into consideration these aspects of the historic character of
surrounding homes would ensure that the overall appearance and feeling of Professorville
remain distinguishable.
100 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
6.1 New Construction Should Avoid Demolition of Existing
Buildings.
New construction is anticipated in Professorville. However, existing residences
should not be viewed as opportunities for demolition and new development.
Most existing residences are complementary to the character of the district, even
though not all residences in the district are historic contributors or date to its early
period of development. Demolishing and replacing an existing residence can be
disruptive to a historic, established streetscape.
6.1.1 Do not demolish an early residence.
• The early homes of Professorville, constructed between the 1890s and
1930s, are the critical components of the historic district. Demolishing an
early residence would adversely and permanently affect the district.
• In the case of an early residence that is heavily altered or damaged, attempt to
rehabilitate and/or repair it rather than pursuing demolition and replacement.
101GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES
6.1.2 Avoid demolishing later residences that are complementary to the district.
• While they are not necessarily important to the historic integrity of the
district, some properties constructed after the 1930s provide compatible
architectural background for the historic contributors. Be cognizant of how
existing later residences fit into and reinforce historic development patterns,
and retain wherever feasible.
• Later residences that are not compatible with the character of the district
may be candidates for demolition and replacement, provided that the new
construction is compatible with the district.
• Please note that even later buildings could potentially have individual
significance that is unrelated to the district (see 5.4).
6.1.3 Attempt to construct new residences without removing existing residences.
• Seek out opportunities to subdivide existing large lots into new developable
lots.
• Take advantage of opportunities to construct detached secondary dwelling
units on existing lots.
102 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
6.2 New Residences and Accessory Buildings Should Be Sited
Within eir Lots to Reect Professorville’s Historic
Development and Streetscape Patterns.
New residences in Professorville should support the broader visual character
and texture of the neighborhood. An important step is selecting a location on the
lot that continues the overall cadence of houses on the surrounding block.
6.2.1 A new residence should be placed on its lot with a similar location, setback,
and orientation as nearby residences in Professorville, which typically follow
historic patterns.
• Place a new residence within its lot (setback and side-to-side spacing) to
follow the general pattern of homes on its block, in order not to interrupt
the continuous streetscape pattern. A new home’s setback from the street
should be within the range used on surrounding residences.
• Always orient a new residence with its primary façade facing towards the
street.
When siting a new residence, pay attention to the setbacks of surrounding homes.
103GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES
6.3 Proposed Residences Should Be Designed to Match the Scale,
Massing, and General Form of Older Residences.
The earliest homes in Professorville are distinguished by their relatively simple
forms, controlled scale, and strong front façade planes. These characteristics
should guide future construction so that new homes are human-scaled and have
a visual presence that is appropriate to the neighborhood.
6.3.1 e size and height of a new residence should reect Professorville’s early
homes in order not to look out of place within the neighborhood.
• Generally speaking, design a home that is similar in scale to surrounding
early residences. Attempting to maximize the allowable floor area on a lot
may not result in a house size that is most compatible with Professorville’s
historic character.
• Set the heights of the foundation, floor levels, eaves, and upper roofline on a
new residence to be similar to the heights of those features on neighboring
houses.
104 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
6.3.2 e massing and form of a new residence should be carefully planned to avoid
perceived bulk that is incompatible with the neighborhood streetscape.
• Design a new residence that is solidly massed with simple volumes, reflecting
the forms of Professorville’s earlier homes. Rather than using unconventional
massing, explore other strategies to provide visual interest.
• Maintain a strong sense of the front façade plane, and do not include volumes
projecting forward from it. Front porches are one important exception.
• Consider designing the upper story of a residence to be contained within
the roof form (i.e., a one-and-one-half-story residence), where this pattern is
seen on surrounding historic residences.
• Consider accommodating additional interior space through a rear wing that
is not immediately visible from the street. This strategy would manage the
perceived bulk and visual impact of a new residence while meeting the
needs of occupants.
When designing a new residence, strive to match the massing of immediately surrounding homes. While the neighborhood contains a mixture of house types and scales, compatibility will be best achieved when cues are taken from neighboring residences. Visual bulk could be managed by placing an upper story within the roof form, where neighboring residences use a similar strategy.
105GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES
Simple roof forms that have precedence within Professorville are better suited to the neighborhood than roofs with many intersecting slopes.
6.3.3 A new residence should have a relatively simple roof form that references
the forms found elsewhere in the neighborhood. e roof should be sized to
complement the building’s proportions, not complicate them.
• Select roof forms that are relatively simple and have precedence within
Professorville. Do not design roofs that have many intersecting slopes, are
flat, or have a form that is not found elsewhere in the neighborhood.
• Consider including dormers in the roof design for a new home. Gabled,
hipped, and shed-roof dormers are all appropriate to Professorville.
• If a two-story residence is planned, design the roof with a low pitch to reduce
overall height and visual bulk.
• Break up an expansive, blank roof slope, particularly those facing the street,
with dormers that complement the appearance of Professorville's early
homes.
106 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
6.4 e Architectural Style of a New Residence Should Be
Compatible with the Character of Early Houses in Professorville.
The architectural style of a residence connects the various aspects of its
visual character, including roof form, materials, and decorative features. The
textured visual character of Professorville is supported in part by differences in
architectural style, so no particular styles are mandated for new construction.
A degree of variation is highly encouraged. At the same time, new residences
should relate to the influence of surrounding residences. As with new additions
to early residences, “compatible yet differentiated” is an important principle that
should guide architectural designs.
6.4.1 New residences should be compatible with historic architectural inuences
that are already found in the neighborhood.
• Consider historic style precedents within Professorville when planning a new
residence. Common styles in the neighborhood—such as First Bay Tradition/
Shingle Style, Colonial Revival, Prairie School, and various Eclectic Revival
styles—are appropriate influences for new construction. No one particular
style is mandated.
• If a contemporary house design is desired, strive to blend it in with the
neighborhood’s existing aesthetic patterns and residential forms/massing.
New residences within Professorville can relate to the district's historic homes using compatible architectural styles. Contemporary architectural styles can also be used successfully, keeping in mind the general form and materials of earlier homes.
107GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES
• Do not design a residence in a generally historicist style that does not have
precedents in the neighborhood.
• Consider using wood shingles or clapboard siding, as well as elements like
bay windows, belt courses, and eave brackets, as a way to relate a new
residence to the character of Professorville’s early homes and styles.
• Choose stucco for exterior walls if a Spanish Colonial or Mediterranean
influence is desired. In these instances, rounded clay tiles would be the
appropriate roof covering.
• Explore using materials that repeat the texture and visual impression of those
found on historic Professorville homes. Brick and stone are seldom found on
older homes in Professorville.Avoid designing a new residence with a contemporary architectural style that involves massing, roof forms, materials, and window patterns that are not compatible with the historic character of Professorville's early homes.
108 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
6.4.2 Choose strategies that dierentiate new construction from the neighborhood’s
early residences.
• Differentiate a new residence from its older neighbors, even when drawing
on Professorville’s historic styles. Subtle differentiation strategies are
encouraged.
• More noticeable differentiation with modern materials may be possible if the
scale, roof forms, and perceived massing of a proposed residence still reflect
the basic character of surrounding homes. The balance of “compatible yet
differentiated” should be achieved.
• If a new residence is constructed on a lot that has been subdivided from a
larger lot, take heed to retain the primacy of the original house on the lot.
This can be accomplished through a modest scale and more restrained use
of architectural features.
6.4.3 Paint and stain colors for the exteriors of new homes should generally be
compatible with historic homes in Professorville.
• Aim to select colors for the exterior of a residence that are compatible with
the historic character of the district.
• Muted colors are encouraged for the primary exterior walls, with contrasting
accent colors selected for decorative elements and trim.
• Avoid selecting colors or reflective sheens that contrast sharply with nearby
buildings.
109GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING AND BUILDING NEW RESIDENCES
6.5 e Entrances and Fenestration Patterns of New Residences
Should Be Designed to Connect a New Residence to the
Established Visual Character of the Neighborhood.
Doors and windows are key elements that establish the human scale of a
residence. The traditional patterns of window and door openings in Professorville
should remain important influences while a new residence is being designed.
6.5.1 Doors and porches should relate directly to the public realm and support the
historic character of the streetscape.
• Always place the primary entrance on the front façade, facing the street.
• Select door types that are compatible with the house style and overall
character of the neighborhood.
• Consider incorporating a first-story porch into a new house design, reflecting
the majority of early homes in Professorville. These features are welcoming,
and they allow an understandable progression from the public realm of the
neighborhood into the private space of the home.
• If a porch design is being developed, select a roof form that relates to the
roof of the overall residence. Porches can also be recessed behind the front
façade plane, if appropriate to the new house design.
• Include additional stylistic elements, such as exposed rafter tails, in a porch
if they relate to the architectural style of the residence.New residences in Professorville can use front porches effectively to reflect the character of historic homes in the neighborhood.
110 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
New residences should not be designed with surface-to-void ratios that contrast strongly with their historic neighbors within Professorville.
• Avoid double-height entrance features that accentuate the height of the
residence and are out of scale with the entrances found on surrounding
houses.
• Avoid two-story porches in new residential designs, as they did not exist in
Professorville in the past.
6.5.2 Window types and arrangements on new construction should reect
traditional patterns within Professorville.
• Arrange windows so that a new residence has a surface-to-void ratio (i.e.,
amount of glazing in relation to walls) similar to that of early homes in the
neighborhood.
• When feasible, select wood-sash windows with lite configurations that are
compatible with windows found elsewhere in Professorville.
• Design the fenestration pattern so that there is an understandable hierarchy
of window sizes and/or types from the base of the house to the top. Avoid
window types, sizes, and locations that appear randomly assigned.
• Avoid oversized windows that are out of character with the house and the
neighborhood.
Guidelines for Site Improvements:
Landscape, Accessory Buildings, and the
Streetscape
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
115GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE
7. Guidelines for Site Improvements: Detached Second Units,
Accessory Buildings, Landscape, and Streetscape
The guidelines in this chapter address the historic qualities of the Professorville Historic
District's landscape, streetscape, and accessory buildings, which complement the
architecture and character of the neighborhood's historic residences. Those who live
in and travel through Professorville recognize that the neighborhood is not simply a
collection of private homes: its distinctive historic and aesthetic characteristics are also
supported by a generous tree canopy and plant life, fences and other yard features,
walks and drives, and accessory buildings like carriage houses and garages. All of
these elements contribute to the textured and shaded impression that distinguishes the
neighborhood. The landscape of Professorville is part of the public realm, and it can
be experienced and enjoyed by all who enter the neighborhood. For this reason, the
guidelines in this chapter focus on the overall character of the neighborhood that can be
seen from public areas, specifically its streetscape and pattern of front yards.
The aim of this chapter is to provide guidance to property owners, as well as to the City
of Palo Alto, regarding the landscape features and materials that are located among
Professorville’s houses and alongside the neighborhood’s roadways. While the quality of
the streetscape is addressed in earlier chapters (for instance, the appropriate placement
of houses within their lots), this chapter provides recommendations specifically for site
features, plant materials, and circulation patterns. Property owners should refer to
these guidelines when they consider making substantial changes to their yards, trees,
116 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
accessory buildings, and paved areas, to ensure that their proposed plans enforce the
neighborhood’s historic character. Guidance is also provided for the City of Palo Alto,
so that potential changes to Professorville's public infrastructure can be developed with
the historic character of the neighborhood in mind. The ultimate goal of these guidelines
is to preserve and enhance Professorville’s experience and overall historic character
for the neighborhood’s residents, pedestrians, and bicyclists who experience it on a
recurring basis.
117GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE
The open, planted quality of many front yards in Professorville is an appropriate model for new landscaping.
7.1 Professorville’s Historic Pattern of Yards and Plantings is a
Critical Component of the Neighborhood’s Visual Character and
Should Be Maintained.
Natural features are found in every corner of Professorville. Yards and parking
strips are the visible open spaces of the neighborhood, acting as connective tissue
between the residences. The varied yet consistent character of the landscape
includes diverse yard types, plantings, and tree species that contribute to the
historic feeling of the district as much as its individual buildings. Large native
trees visible to the street are considered to be of high value.
7.1.1 Lot grades and ground cover should generally be consistent with the
neighborhood’s historic character.
• Maintain a generally flat grade in front yards. Do not introduce berms or
other distracting features that can be seen from public areas.
• Preserve predominant areas of openness in front yards to reflect the historic
character of the neighborhood’s landscape.
• To prepare for possible drought conditions, explore xeriscaping options that
use low, water efficient plants to convey a lush character.
• Avoid installing synthetic ground coverings in residential yards, as they do
not sufficiently replicate the appearance of natural turf. Instead, consider
using permeable surfaces comprised of natural materials (i.e., stone, gravel,
pavers) in order to reduce water usage.
118 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
7.1.2 Fences, hedges, and other boundary features should be appropriately designed
and scaled to convey a visual progression from public to private space and to
preserve Professorville’s historic landscaping patterns.
• Recognize that yards in Professorville have historically supported a visual
progression from public to private space. In addition to delineating private
property lines, fences and hedges have historically allowed a visual
relationship between private residences and the public sidewalk and street.
• Attempt to retain wood fences and hedges that follow the boundaries of front
and side yards, including along the public sidewalk. These features mark
the boundaries of private property and support the neighborhood’s idyllic
character.
• Where a new fence or hedge is required, choose a configuration and materials
that are compatible with the style of the property and the neighborhood’s
historic precedents. Low and visually permeable boundary features, such
as wood picket fences, are strongly recommended alongside the public
sidewalk.
• Avoid tall and visually impenetrable fences and hedges surrounding front
yards, which can limit visual access to the architecture of the district.
• Do not install fences made of metal chain link, plastic, or other materials that
are incompatible with the neighborhood’s historic character.
• Stucco-clad walls may be appropriate if chosen to match a residence that
has stucco cladding, but these walls should remain low. Fences or hedges
with a more permeable visual character, however, are preferred.
Low fences and hedges are both good strategies to delineate front yards while allowing a visual relationship to public areas.
119GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE
For additional information:
City of Palo Alto Tree Technical
Manual (City of Palo Alto), http://www.
cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/
documents/6436
“Urban Canopy” (City of Palo Alto),
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/
sustainability/trees.asp
“City Tree Regulations” (Canopy),
http://canopy.org/about-trees/trees-in-
palo-alto/city-tree-regulations/
Professorville's historic leafy character should be preserved through sensitive treatment of trees.Source: Stanford University Historical Photograph Collection
• Gates of pedestrian scale may be incorporated into the front fence at
walkways, but avoid elaborate gate or trellis designs that may visually
compete with the residence, including at vehicle entrances.
• If it is determined appropriate for residences alongside Embarcadero Road
to have taller and/or solid fences, in order to reduce the visual and audible
impacts from automobile traffic, use materials and construction techniques
that are consistent with the character of the district.
7.1.3 Trees should be maintained to convey the neighborhood’s existing leafy setting
whenever possible.
• Attempt to retain mature trees where they occur in private yards, unless
proven to be unhealthy, as they contribute to Professorville’s overall tree
canopy. The oldest trees, including native live oaks and redwoods, have
been retained for over a century during the growth of Professorville.
• When a new building addition, accessory building, or residence is planned,
take into account the location of mature trees on the lot during project
planning. Avoid removing these trees when feasible.
• Where front and rear yards lack trees, consider introducing new trees to
reinforce the urban forest. Use native and regionally appropriate species.
• Consult with City staff with questions regarding tree health, appropriate tree
species, safety issues, and protected tree regulations.
120 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
7.1.4 Planting beds along house foundations are common features in Professorville
and should be retained when possible.
• Introduce shrubs and other ornamental plantings within beds lining house
foundations, and retain where they already exist. This strategy supports the
neighborhood’s rustic character and enforces the existing pattern of edges
and spacing between homes.
7.1.5 New site improvements that could aect historic landscape patterns should be
placed so as to be minimally visible from the public right-of-way.
• Place air conditioning units, generators, and features that require excavation
(such as window wells and basement stair wells) within a lot where they
are not immediately visible from the public sidewalk and street. The best
location for these features is at the back of a residence.
• If located at a side façade, place excavated features and mechanical
equipment at the rear half of the residence, away from the front of the
property. Investigate planting schemes that screen these elements from
public view.
7.1.6 Residents of older properties in Professorville are encouraged to research
historic landscaping patterns that are period appropriate to their homes.
• Where interest exists, conduct research on planting schemes, species, and
circulation patterns that were used for residences in the Palo Alto area during
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This research can inform
future landscaping plans at historic residences, if desired, that enhance the
historic character of Professorville. See Chapter 2 for additional information
on historic residential landscape design.
Side yards are typically visible from public areas and contribute to the character of Professorville. The visual impact of mechanical equipment and other distracting elements in these locations should be minimized.
121GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE
Ribbon driveways offer an effective way to provide automobile circulation within a property while minimizing visual impact.
7.2 Driveways, Walkways, and Other Paved Elements Should Have
As Little Visual Impact on the Overall Landscape As Possible.
Paving is often viewed as a functional circulation feature, but it may affect a
property’s landscape character and relationship between house and street. As
modest walkways and one-car-width driveways are historic features within the
neighborhood, new paving should ideally have a similar, minimal visual impact.
If a paved surface is too expansive, the neighborhood’s pedestrian-centered
experience will be diminished.
7.2.1 e location, size, and materials of a driveway should be carefully selected in
order to preserve the broader visual patterns of the neighborhood.
• Retain existing one-car driveways (approximately 8’ or 10’ wide) where they
currently exist.
• Where a new driveway is required, attempt to locate it alongside one edge
of the lot. It should preferably be of single-car width until it approaches a
detached garage or other designated parking space, where it may widen
out.
• Consider driveway materials and configurations that decrease surface runoff
and minimize visual impact. Ribbon or “Hollywood” driveways (two strips of
concrete), permeable brick paving patterns, and turf blocks are all effective
options that are already found in Professorville.
122 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
• Explore alternatives to monotonous patterns of paving such as poured
concrete. Choose materials that promote a degree of visual variety, and
consider options that offer differences in paver coloration and size. Brick is
particularly encouraged.
• Be mindful of the visual impact of semicircular approach drives or other
additional areas of paving. Introducing such an element would be appropriate
if proven to reflect a property's historic conditions.
7.2.2 In Professorville, private walkways have often been located at the center of
front yards to allow direct access between a residence’s front entrance and the
sidewalk. Walkways of this type support the visual progression between public
and private spaces and should be maintained.
• Attempt to maintain existing walkways that have a low visual impact on the
front yard.
• In cases of new residential construction or landscape design, plan a new
walkway that directly connects the public sidewalk and the front entrance.
Straight walkways that are perpendicular to the public sidewalk are preferred,
in keeping with historic precedents.
• Consider paving materials that are found elsewhere in the neighborhood
and provide a degree of visual variation, such as brick or flagstone.
• Use connecting or secondary walkways located along the front façade of a
residence to provide access between the front entrance and the driveway,
garage, or other parking area.
Narrow brick walkways provide visual interest to front yards without creating a monotonous paved surface.
123GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE
7.2.3 Ramps or lifts, where required, should be designed to be compatible with the
historic character of a residence, to the degree that is feasible.
• When planning to add an access ramp or lift, consider issues like visual
impact, removability in the future, and whether character-defining features
are affected.
7.2.4 Patios placed within a front yard are discouraged, as they often involve paving
and other features that interrupt the historic character that is desired for front
yards in Professorville.
• Attempt to place patios to the side or rear of a residence where possible,
to support the open character of Professorville's front yards and the visual
progression of landscape to streetscape.
• If a patio is placed to the front of a residence, strive to use permeable pavers
or other materials that reduce the visual impact of the patio surface. Avoid
enclosing front yard patios with low walls or fences.
124 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
7.3 e Rehabilitation and Construction of Garages and Other
Accessory Buildings Should Be Planned in Order to Enhance the
Historic Character of Professorville.
Accessory buildings such as carriage houses and automobile garages have
existed throughout Professorville since the neighborhood's earliest years.
Whether historic or recent, these types of buildings are important components
of their properties: they contribute to the neighborhood's pattern of site layouts,
and they convey the neighborhood’s historic development. They also provide
opportunities for growth and development in Professorville. Existing accessory
buildings can be converted for other purposes while retaining historic character.
New secondary dwellings are also encouraged in locations where they support
the neighborhood's overall streetscape pattern. Secondary dwellings warrant
sensitive planning.
7.3.1 Historic accessory buildings such as garages and carriage houses are important
components of early properties and should be preserved whenever possible.
• Always make an effort to retain historic accessory buildings and to rehabilitate
them sensitively if a new use is desired.
• When a rehabilitation project is pursued, retain the building’s original form,
materials, and character-defining features to the highest degree feasible.
These historic elements will help relate the building to its associated
residence. (Refer to Chapter 3 for appropriate guidance on treating the
features and materials of a historic accessory building.)
Historic garages and carriage houses are important elements of their properties and should remain in use where possible.
125GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE
• If possible, retain the existing automobile or carriage door to allow the
building to convey its original purpose.
• Avoid moving an original garage or carriage house within the lot such
that it would alter its spatial and functional relationship with its associated
residence. However, moving a historic building is always preferable to
demolishing it or making incompatible alterations.
7.3.2 New accessory buildings and secondary dwelling units within Professorville
should be placed at the rear of lots so as not to distract from the existing
pattern of homes in the neighborhood.
• New livable buildings such as detached offices and secondary dwelling
units should be placed towards the rear of a lot, preferably in a location that
is not directly visible from the public-right-of-way.
• New garages should be detached and placed at the rear of the lot
whenever possible. This is an important development pattern and defining
characteristic of Professorville, as early homes in the neighborhood were
typically constructed with detached garages at the backs of lots. (If a
new attached garage is considered necessary, see 4.1.1 and 5.2.1 for
appropriate guidance on the placement of new attached garages on early
and later homes, respectively.)
• If an alley is present along the rear boundary of a lot (found within the western
half of Professorville), place the new garage directly adjacent to the alley.
The alley should serve as the primary access route to the garage, as this
was its traditional purpose within the block. Avoid using driveways where
alleys exist.
Detached garages at the backs of lots are preferred for new residences in Professorville, as this pattern was used historically.
126 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
7.3.3 New garages and other accessory buildings should be designed so that they
respect and are compatible with the main residence.
• Design a new secondary dwelling or accessory building to be compatible
with the general architectural character (massing, roof form, materials,
and features) of its residence. Keep in mind that a historic characteristic of
Professorville is the vernacular appearance and architectural simplicity of its
accessory buildings in comparison to the more elaborately styled houses.
• A new secondary dwelling or accessory building should have basic forms,
be one story in height, and be otherwise visibly subordinate to its associated
residence. An accessory building should be scaled so that it cannot be
seen over the roof of the primary residence.New detached garages can be designed with materials and doors that relate to historic residences in Professorville.
127GUIDELINES FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS: LANDSCAPE, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, AND THE STREETSCAPE
7.4 Take Into Account Professorville’s Historic Character When
Making Changes to the Neighborhood’s Streetscape and
Infrastructure.
Public infrastructure is closely tied to the quality of Professorville’s streetscape
and public realm. Future changes to Professorville’s infrastructure should attempt
to support the qualities that distinguish the district.
7.4.1 Professorville’s sidewalks, parking strips, and street trees should be maintained
in a manner that enhances the historic district’s streetscape and sense of place.
• Maintain the existing pattern of public sidewalks running parallel to the
neighborhood’s streets, with planter strips located in between. Minimize new
paving in parking strips as much as possible.
• Retain existing street trees that stand in parking strips whenever feasible. If
street trees are removed for any reason, replace them with similar species
and continue the overall spacing pattern seen in the neighborhood.
• Attempt to preserve historic trees that currently encroach into roadways, a
pattern that occurred in Palo Alto around the turn of the twentieth century.
This phenomenon strongly conveys the city’s early development.
• Plan new landscape design to screen utilities elements, such as required
backflow units, using appropriate shrubs or tall clump grass.
Mature native trees have been accommodated throughout Professorville's historic development.
128 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Identification signage has been used in many
historic districts to enhance a sense of arrival and
neighborhood identity.
This curb cut with a tight radius reflects an earlier era of Professorville and could serve as a template for future improvements.
7.4.2 Upgrades to Professorville’s utilities and roadway infrastructure should be
developed with the neighborhood’s historic character in mind.
• Investigate sensitively moving utilities infrastructure, such as power lines,
underground to remove visually distracting poles and wires. Yet, also
consider the potential effects that ground disturbance could have on the
landscape of the neighborhood.
• Design new curb cuts at driveways to repeat the tighter radius of older curb
cuts found in Professorville.
• Plan upgrades to public roadways in a manner that respects the historic
streetscape of the neighborhood as much as possible. Avoid adding new
roadway features that did not exist historically and that may be considered
visually distracting.
• Conduct research in order to identify types of streetlights that may have
existed in Professorville during the early twentieth century, with the possible
goal of replacing the existing streetlights with historically appropriate fixtures.
7.4.3 Public place-making and education strategies should be considered to enhance
the neighborhood’s identity as an important historic district in Palo Alto.
• Consider designing and installing signage in appropriate locations near
district boundaries that announces the Professorville Historic District.
• Investigate a new design for street signs located in Professorville that is
distinguished from the City's Standard street signs, and that would augment
the district's unique sense of place.
Appendices
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
133APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Cartouche: A decorative relief located
on a façade, often of molded stucco and
representing a shield or crest.
Casement window: A window with the
sash hinged on the jamb (vertical side
member).
Clapboard siding: A siding material
consisting of narrow wood boards
applied horizontally, with the lower edge
overlapping the board below.
Clipped gable: A gable that features a
partial roof slope (hip) that meets the ridge;
also known as a jerkinhead.
Cornice: The common name for the
decorative projecting element at the top
of a façade; commonly bracketed and
located above a frieze.
Dentils: Small tooth-like blocks set in rows
(dentil courses) used in Classical cornices.
Dormer: A minor projection on a pitched
roof, usually bearing a window on its front
face. Dormers can have a variety of roof
forms.
Eave: The lower edge of a roof slope that
intersects with the exterior wall.
Façade: An exterior building face.
Façade plane: The predominant plane at
which the physical features of a façade are
arranged.
Fanlight: A semi-circular or round arched
window located above a door, often with
radiating muntin patterns.
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Asphalt composition shingles: Shingles
made from roofing felt coated with asphalt
and mineral granules.
Baluster: Small turned or cut out posts
that form a railing.
Bay window: The common term for a
minor projection containing a window that
extends beyond the surrounding façade
plane.
Belt course: A projecting horizontal
member across a façade or around a
building.
Bracket: A feature that supports, or
appears to support, a projecting element
such as cornice, eave, or window hood.
134 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Fenestration: The physical arrangement
of windows on a building’s exterior walls.
Fixed window: A window sash that does
not move or open.
Gable: The upper area of an exterior wall
that is located between the roof slopes.
Gambrel roof: A roof form characterized
by two roof slopes: one shallower near the
ridge, the other steeper near the eaves.
Half-timbering: Exposed wood framing
infilled with contrasting materials, such as
plaster or masonry. In the Tudor Revival
style, false half-timbering is used for
aesthetic rather than structural purposes.
Hipped roof: A roof form where all sides
slope between the roof ridge and eaves.
Historicist architecture: Architecture that
is heavily influenced by past movements,
sometimes freely interpreted.
Hung sash window: A window in which
one or more sashes move vertically.
Hyphen: A minor volume that connects
two larger volumes.
Infill: New construction located within an
existing, historic setting.
Landscape: The physical and aesthetic
setting of a place, typically defined by
natural features but also incorporating
spatial relationships, views, furnishings,
and circulation routes.
Lite: A piece of glass located within a
window.
Massing: The distribution of a building’s
volume through space.
Muntin: A narrow member that separates
the lites within a window sash.
Palladian window: A window in the form
of a round arch flanked on either side by
narrower rectangular windows.
Parapet: The area of a building’s exterior
walls where they extend above a roof; it
can be flat or stepped/shaped.
Parking strip: The narrow area containing
grass, plantings, or paving that is located
between a roadway and its parallel
sidewalk.
Porch: A component of a building that
shelters a building entrance and contains
occupiable space.
Portico: An exterior structure that shelters
a building entrance; it is differentiated
by a porch because it covers only the
entrance and stoop and does not contain
occupiable space.
Rafter tail: The exterior expression of
a roof structure below the eaves. Rafter
tails are sometimes applied decorative
elements and commonly have shaped or
scrolled ends.
135APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Setback: The distance between a property
line and a building, especially at the front
of a lot.
Shed roof: A roof form characterized by a
single slope.
Sidelight: Any window that flanks a door;
typically a tall narrow window that spans
the full height or partial height of the door.
Streetscape: The visual character of a
roadway’s setting, including paving, plant
life, and adjacent buildings and structures.
Stucco: An exterior finish composed of
some combination of portland cement,
lime and sand, which are mixed with water
and applied to a wall in a wet coating and
allowed to dry.
Surface-to-void ratio: The proportional
relationship between solid wall areas and
window/door openings.
Window sash: The overall frame that
contains the glazing and possibly muntins
of a window.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
137APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
Appendix B: Professorville Property Data
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-28-062 271 Addison Avenue 1896 Vernacular Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-28-061 281 Addison Avenue 1904 Colonial Revival/ Classical Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-17-085 301 Addison Avenue 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-002 310 Addison Avenue 1938 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-17-084 319 Addison Avenue 1902 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-18-003 326 Addison Avenue 1907 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-17-083 327 Addison Avenue 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-004 342-352 Addison Avenue 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
138 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-18-005 354-362 Addison Avenue 1896 Queen Anne Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-006 370 Addison Avenue 1904 Prairie School/ Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-007 376 Addison Avenue 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-28-059 940 Bryant Street 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-17-087 943 Bryant Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-28-060 944 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-17-086 951 Bryant Street 1898 Colonial Revival/ Shingle Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-28-061 960 Bryant Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-18-001 1001-1005 Bryant Street 1892 Colonial Revival/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Frank Angell House
120-29-002 1008 Bryant Street 2001 Neotraditional Professorville Professorville - Non-
contributing
120-29-003 1010 Bryant Street 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-040 1017-1023 Bryant
Street
1893 Colonial Revival/
Shingle
Professorville - Category
3
Professorville - Contributing Augustus Murray
House
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
139APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-29-004 1020 Bryant Street 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-039 1027 Bryant Street 1898 Colonial Revival/ Queen Anne/ Craftsman
Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-005 1028 Bryant Street 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-18-038 1033-1037 Bryant Street 1901 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-006 1036 Bryant Street 1920 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-007 1044 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing Varian House
120-29-008 1052 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-037 1061 Bryant Street 1899 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Sun-Bonnet House by Bernard Maybeck
120-29-009 1100 Bryant Street 1903 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Kimball Residence
120-29-010 1106 Bryant Street 1997 Neotraditional Professorville*Professorville -
Contributing*
*Contributing property
replaced by new
construction
120-29-011 1116 Bryant Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
140 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-18-062 1121 Bryant Street 1892 Colonial Revival/ Classical Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing Castilleja Hall; Nardyne Apartments
120-29-012 1130 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman Chalet Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-061 1135 Bryant Street 1910 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-013 1140 Bryant Street 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-18-060 1143 Bryant Street 1912 Prairie School Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-014 1148 Bryant Street 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-015 1160 Bryant Street 1910 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-20-009 1200 Bryant Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-20-008 1201 Bryant Street 1966 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-007 1225 Bryant Street 1966 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local
listing only
120-20-010 1250 Bryant Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Historic address 281 Embarcadero Road
120-06-021 1055 Cowper Street 1910 Mission Revival Professorville - Category
2
Not applicable - Local
listing only
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
141APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-06-078 1107 Cowper Street 1997 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-048 1140 Cowper Street 1955 Modern Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Non-contributing
120-07-044 1211 Cowper Street 1963 Ranch (multi-story) Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-07-043 1225 Cowper Street 1948 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-005 1236 Cowper Street 1920 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-006 1238 Cowper Street 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-07-101 1247 Cowper Street 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 1 Individual property listing Norris House
120-19-008 1300 Cowper Street 1958 Contemporary Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-009 1312 Cowper Street 1910 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-07-094 1325 Cowper Street 1915 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local
listing only
120-19-010 1330 Cowper Street 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
142 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-07-093 1335 Cowper Street 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-011 1336 Cowper Street 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 1 Individual property listing Pettigrew House
120-07-092 1345 Cowper Street 1908 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-07-091 1357 Cowper Street 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-012 1390 Cowper Street 1937 Tudor Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-013 1400 Cowper Street 1924 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-08-001 1401 Cowper Street 1901 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-08-058 1415 Cowper Street 1927 French Eclectic Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-08-057 1425 Cowper Street 1903 Tudor Revival Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-013 223 Embarcadero
Road
1923 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing Also addressed as 222
Kingsley Avenue
120-20-012 235 Embarcadero Road 1906 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
143APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-20-011 251 Embarcadero Road 1906 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-20-025 359 Embarcadero Road 1900 Prairie School Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-016 425 Embarcadero Road 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-015 427 Embarcadero Road 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-014 473 Embarcadero Road 1988 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-29-044 1101-1103 Emerson Street 1906 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-30-009 1102 Emerson Street 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-043 1111 Emerson Street 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-30-010 1118 Emerson Street 1914 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman/ Prairie School
Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-042 1121 Emerson Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-30-011 1128 Emerson Street 1907 Colonial Revival/ English Cottage Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
144 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-29-041 1129 Emerson Street 1908 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-055 1133 Emerson Street 1976 Contemporary Shingle Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-30-012 1134 Emerson Street 1903 Prairie School/ Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Elmore Residence
120-29-054 1135 Emerson Street 1975 Contemporary Shingle Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-30-051 1174 Emerson Street 1980 Neotraditional Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-30-052 1176 Emerson Street 1925 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-20-014 200 Kingsley Avenue 1906 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-056 221 Kingsley Avenue 1901 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Fowler Residence
120-20-013 222 Kingsley Avenue 1906 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing Also addressed as 223 Embarcadero Road
120-20-015 252 Kingsley Avenue 1908 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-016 257 Kingsley Avenue 1904 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-20-016 262 Kingsley Avenue 1908 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
145APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-18-059 303 Kingsley Avenue 1963 Ranch Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-18-058 319 Kingsley Avenue 1908 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-69-006* 325-365 Kingsley Avenue 1940 Bungalows Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-006 334 Kingsley Avenue 1904 Classical Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing
120-20-005 356 Kingsley Avenue 1893 Vernacular Professorville - Category 1 Professorville - Contributing
120-20-004 360 Kingsley Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-20-003 364 Kingsley Avenue 2008 Neotraditional Professorville Contributing (does Not apply to new construction)
120-20-002 374 Kingsley Avenue 1905 Craftsman Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-050 405 Kingsley Avenue 1929 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-18-064 425 Kingsley Avenue 1975 Contemporary Professorville Professorville - Non-
contributing
120-19-002 430 Kingsley Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-063 433 Kingsley Avenue 1899 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category
2
Professorville - Contributing Hutchinson House
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
146 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-19-003 450 Kingsley Avenue 1895 Colonial Revival/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Sanford House
120-18-048 457-459 Kingsley Avenue 1914 Tudor Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing
120-19-004 490 Kingsley Avenue 1923 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing Blake Wilbur Residence
120-07-001 500 Kingsley Avenue 2000 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Also addressed as 1201 Cowper Street
120-06-075 501-505 Kingsley Avenue 1897 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Fleugel Residence
120-29-045 225 Lincoln Avenue 2013 Neotraditional Professorville - Category 3*Professorville - Contributing**Contributing property replaced by new construction
120-29-034 251 Lincoln Avenue 1904 Colonial Revival/ Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing Charles House
120-18-041 308 Lincoln Avenue 1903 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-042 318 Lincoln Avenue 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-036 329 Lincoln Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival
(altered)
Professorville Professorville - Non-
contributing
120-18-035 331 Lincoln Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
147APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-18-043 332-334 Lincoln Avenue 1896 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-034 333-345 Lincoln Avenue 1890 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-044 356 Lincoln Avenue 1896 Craftsman Professorville - Category 1 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-032 365 Lincoln Avenue 1896 Craftsman/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing Hoskins-Thomas Residence
120-18-070 381 Lincoln Avenue 1890 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-025 405 Lincoln Avenue 2012 Neoeclectic Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-18-024 409 Lincoln Avenue 1922 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-023 427 Lincoln Avenue 1926 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-047 436 Lincoln Avenue 1920 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-022 439 Lincoln Avenue 1929 French Eclectic Professorville Not applicable - Local
listing only
120-18-021 451 Lincoln Avenue 1924 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
148 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-18-020 467 Lincoln Avenue 1926 Tudor Revival Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-06-080 510 Lincoln Avenue 1930 French Eclectic Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-017 305 Melville Avenue 1901 Queen Anne Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only Also addressed as 1251 Bryant Street
120-20-018 311-315 Melville Avenue 1903 Queen Anne Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-019 321 Melville Avenue 1902 Queen Anne/ Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-029 325 Melville Avenue 1961 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-027 330 Melville Avenue 1900 Vernacular Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only Historic address 345 Embarcadero Road
120-20-028 335 Melville Avenue 1958 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-026 340 Melville Avenue 1987 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-021 353 Melville Avenue 1900 Colonial Revival/
Vernacular
Professorville - Category
3
Not applicable - Local
listing only
120-20-022 363 Melville Avenue 1904 Queen Anne Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
149APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-19-028 409 Melville Avenue 1901 Queen Anne Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-027 433 Melville Avenue 1894 Queen Anne/ Shingle Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-021 440 Melville Avenue 1926 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-022 450-458 Melville Avenue 1983 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-035 465 Melville Avenue 1898 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-024 467-469 Melville Avenue 1910 Craftsman (altered) Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-007 475 Melville Avenue 1911 Craftsman Professorville - Category 2 Not applicable - Local listing only Huff House
120-19-023 480 Melville Avenue 1958 Contemporary Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-07-045 500 Melville Avenue 1906 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Not applicable - Local listing only Stark Residence
120-07-102 541 Melville Avenue 1951 Modern Professorville Not applicable - Local
listing only
120-29-028 1000 Ramona Street 1905 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
150 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-29-001 1001 Ramona Street 1907 Craftsman Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-028 1004-1006 Ramona Street 1905 Vernacular Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-027 1013 Ramona Street 1908 Vernacular (altered) Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-29-029 1020 Ramona Street 1907 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-026 1021 Ramona Street 1907 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-030 1024 Ramona Street 1914 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-025 1029 Ramona Street 1907 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-031 1030-1032 Ramona Street 2012 Neotraditional Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-29-024 1037 Ramona Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-032 1040 Ramona Street 1914 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-023 1047 Ramona Street 1907 Classical Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-033 1048 Ramona Street 1900 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category
4
Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
151APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-29-022 1057 Ramona Street 1906 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-035 1102 Ramona Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-021 1103 Ramona Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-036 1106 Ramona Street 1905 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-037 1112 Ramona Street 1905 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-020 1115 Ramona Street 1908 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 2 Professorville - Contributing
120-29-038 1116 Ramona Street 1902 Craftsman/ Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-019 1125 Ramona Street 1902 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-057 1132-1156 Ramona Street 1910 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-018 1139 Ramona Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category
2
Professorville - Contributing
120-29-017 1147 Ramona Street 1906 Craftsman Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-29-016 1155 Ramona Street 1904 Vernacular/
Craftsman
Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-18-008 1010 Waverley Street 1922 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
152 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-18-030 1020 Waverley Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-031 1022 Waverley Street 1905 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-18-071 1050 Waverley Street 1926 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Non-contributing
120-18-046 1101 Waverley Street 1922 Colonial Revival/ Period Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-18-045 1110 Waverley Street 1993 Neotraditional Professorville*Professorville - Contributing**Contributing property replaced by new construction
120-18-054 1130 Waverley Street 1900 Vernacular/ Rustic Bungalow Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-18-053 1135 Waverley Street 1926 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-055 1136 Waverley Street 1893 Colonial Revival Professorville - Category 3 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-056 1146 Waverley Street 1893 Queen Anne Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-18-052 1155 Waverley
Street
1927 Spanish Colonial
Revival
Professorville - Category
4
Professorville - Contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
153APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-18-051 1177 Waverley Street 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-19-033 1207 Waverley Street 1904 Colonial Revival (altered)Professorville Professorville - Contributing Historic address 1221 Waverley Street
120-20-001 1220-1224 Waverley Street 1898 Craftsman Professorville - Category 4 Professorville - Contributing
120-19-034 1221 Waverley Street 1993 Neoeclectic Professorville Professorville - Non-contributing
120-20-023 1240 Waverley Street 1905 Classical Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-19-029 1245 Waverley Street 1902 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-024 1248 Waverley Street 1904 Colonial Revival Professorville Professorville - Contributing
120-19-020 1303 Waverley Street 1912 Mission Revival Professorville - Category 4 Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-032 1321 Waverley Street 1916 Colonial Revival Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-19-030 1327 Waverley
Street
1988 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local
listing only
120-19-031 1329 Waverley Street 1988 Neotraditional Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
154 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
APN ADDRESS YEAR BUILT STYLE / INFLUENCE CITY INVENTORY LISTING NATIONAL REGISTER LISTING NOTES
120-19-017 1331 Waverley Street 1950 Ranch Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-020 334 Whitman Court 1904 Craftsman Professorville Not applicable - Local listing only
120-20-002 373-375 Whitman Court 1905 Craftsman Category 4 Professorville - Non-contributing
Note: In addition to being located in the local historic district, properties may be listed in the City’s Historic Inventory with one of
the following Historic Category designations: Category 1 (“Exceptional building”); Category 2 (“Major building”); Category 3 or
4 (“Contributing building”). Not all contributing buildings in the district are individually designated with a Historic Category in the
City’s Historic Inventory. For more information about Historic Categories, see the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49.
155APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Co
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
King
s
l
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
We
bst
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cha
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Chu
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Tas
s
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
La
n
e
B
E
a
s
t
Sc
o
t
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
1140
4903
6
5
433
1247
11
0
7
433
450
35
6
45
0
46
5
359
1336
34
5
221
43
9
425
33
4
33
4
51
0
35
3
40
9
427
430
44
0
34
2
467
501
1201
36
3
54
1
111
0
1250252
12
0
0
35
8
473
10
6
1
110
1
105
5
500
301
40
9
43
6
1327
33
1
42
5
32
6
318
132
1
303
235
40
5
122
5
30
8
120
7
500
140
0
112
1
251
1118
11
4
6
251
134
5
101
7
222
1329
405
122
1
34
01225
1176
1052
115
5
26
2
111
5
1125
1136
334
47
5
121
1
257
113
5
1335
1325
116
0
28
1
26
9
124
0
12
4
8
1057
1047
113
0
1000
1020
32
7
48
0
117
7
115
6
1121
1330
141
5
11
3
5
112
9
1091
113
3
31
9
1357
117
4
130
0
114
7
124
5
1116
427
451
330315
356
374364
321
360
200
1027
1220
1251
329
1425
335325
1135 13031143
1020
1033
1022943951
1005
381
376370
319
469
1312
1331
1130
1401
1112
1102
1101
1102
1134
1106
1128
11161111
944940
1029
1139
1100
1037
1040
1008
1106
1103
1028
1148
1021
1030
1010
1036
1048
10131001
10241020
1010
1236310
1390
1140
1044
1238
1050
353
335
333
363
355345
325
343 365
327
0 90 180 270 360
Feet°
The adjacent map shows the addresses associated with properties located within the boundaries of the Professorville Historic District.
156 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980-Present1940-19791930-19391920-19291910-19191900-19091890-1899
The graph on this page displays the number of buildings in Professorville, organized by period of construction. Green bars represent those periods considered to be the early periods of development, while the gray bars represent later periods of development.
157APPENDIX B - PROFESSORVILLE PROPERTY DATA
Colonial Revival; Classical Revival; Craftsman; Queen Anne; Vernacular (1890-1938)
Spanish Colonial Revival; Mission Revival; Prairie; French Eclectic; Tudor Revival (1893-1937)
Bungalows; Ranch; Contemporary; Modern (1940-1976)
Neotraditional; Neoeclectic (1980-2013)
Colonial Revival; Classical Revival; Craftsman; Queen Anne; Vernacular (1890-1938)
Spanish Colonial Revival; Mission Revival; Prairie; French Eclectic; Tudor Revival (1893-1937)
Bungalows; Ranch; Contemporary; Modern (1940-1976)
Neotraditional; Neoeclectic (1980-2013)
This graph displays the distribution of architectural styles and influences in Professorville, organized according to broad groupings of related styles.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
159
Accessory buildings (new)
Design, form, and scale 7.3.3
Placement 7.3.2
Additions (historic) 4.5.2
Additions (new) to early residences
Differentiation from original residences 4.2.4
In place of existing non-historic additions 4.1.3
Lot placement 4.1.1
Massing 4.2.1
Materials (cladding, roofing) 4.2.2
Roof form 4.2.1
Size and scale 4.1.2
Windows 4.2.3
Additions (new) to later residences
Lot placement 5.2.1
Materials (cladding, roofing) 5.2.2
Roof form 5.2.2
Size and scale 5.2.1
Windows 5.2.2
Air conditioning units and generators 7.1.5
Brick masonry
Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.3.1
Cladding materials
Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.1.1
Repairing/replacing on later residences 5.1.1
Decorative features
New features on early residences 3.3.3
Reconstructing where missing 3.3.2
Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.3.1
Demolition
Historic buildings 6.1.1
Historic additions and features 4.5.1
Later residences 6.1.2
Disability access ramps 7.2.3
Doors
Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.2.2
Repairing/replacing on later residences 5.1.1
Location on early residences 3.2.2
Index
160 PROFESSORVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES
Dormers (new) on early residences
Location 4.3.1
Materials 4.3.2
Size and scale 4.3.1
Driveways 7.2.1
Garages (historic) 7.3.1
Garages (new)
Attached to historic residences 4.1.1
Attached to later residences 5.2.1
Lot placement for new detached 7.3.2
Fences 7.1.2
Hedges 7.1.2
Lifting residences
Early residences 4.4.1
Later residences 5.3.1
Modern-style homes, alterations to 5.1.2
Moving and turning residences
Early residences 4.4.2
Later residences 5.3.2
New residential construction
Architectural style 6.4.1
Differentiation from early residences 6.4.2
Doors and porches 6.5.1
Lot placement and orientation 6.2.1
Massing 6.3.2
Materials 6.4.1
Roof form 6.3.3
Size/scale 6.3.1
Windows 6.5.2
Painting
Color schemes for historic homes 3.3.4
Color schemes for new residences 6.4.3
Color schemes for additions to
later residences 5.2.2
Historic cladding 3.1.1
Patios 7.2.4
Planting beds 7.1.4
Porches
Historic 3.3.1
New, on later residences 5.2.2
Post-consumer products 3.4.2
Roof materials
Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.1.2
Repairing/replacing on later residences 5.1.1
Sandblasting 3.1.1
Sidewalks (public) 7.4.1
Skylights 3.4.1
Solar panels 3.4.1
Stucco 3.1.1
161
Synthetic siding
On early residences 3.1.1
On later residences 5.1.1
Trees
In planting strips 7.4.1
In private yards 7.1.3
Walkways 7.2.2
Windows
Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.2.1
Replacing on later residences 5.1.1
Window wells 7.1.5
Wood shingles
Repairing/replacing on early residences 3.1.1
Roofing on early residences 3.1.2
Yards
Grade 7.1.1
Ground cover and plantings 7.1.1
Historic landscaping schemes 7.1.6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
03/14/2011
.
Special Meeting
March 14, 2011
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Conference Room at 6:03 p.m.
Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd,
Yeh
Absent:
ACTION
1. Acceptance of Long Range Financial Forecast.
The City Council discussed the updated Long Range Financial Forecast as
amended by the Finance Committee. The forecast reflected deficits for the
next 10 years starting with Fiscal Year 2012 which has a projected deficit of
$2.3 million. The discussion focused on the drivers of the deficit. These
being the downturn in key revenues and increasing employee benefit costs
along with their impacts to future budgets specifically pension and health
care premiums. Other topics of discussion were the over $500 million
infrastructure needs and backlog and the need to have a plan in place to
address the need. The various assumptions on rate increases for revenues
and costs were discussed as well.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member
Burt to accept the Long Range Financial Forecast as the base model to
include; 1) Health Care Costs Increase 10 % per year; 2) Eliminate assumed
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from Ming’s Hotel; 3) Assume California
Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) discount rate decreases to
7.5 %; and 4) Assume CalPERS rates increase 3% per year from 2015-2021.
Council Member Schmid said the four additional items regarding the CalPERS
and health benefits were derived from the Service Efforts and
Accomplishments (SEA) Report as having structural issues in benefits. He
2 03/14/2011
said total monies paid from 2003 to 2013 grew one percent per year in
salaries and ten percent per year in benefits. He said the structural issues
between cost and benefits should be dealt with prior to discussions on fees,
revenues and cutting services. They had uncertainties with the City’s
relationship to the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPers)
and should be considered in the 2012 plans.
Council Member Burt said he concurred with most of Council Member
Schmid’s comments. He said structural changes in benefits would not
impact the near-term and only minimally impact the medium-term. The
changes were for medium and long-term impacts, unless fundamental
changes were made in the law. Benefits for retired or vested employees
were not affected. He said there would be on-going issues even with the
structural changes made in the past two years.
Mayor Espinosa said the report was realistic but was on the conservative
side. He asked how the issues were being shared with City employees and
the Unions to promote understanding of the challenges and decisions that
needed to be made prior to negotiations.
City Manager James Keene said all issues were being shared with the labor
groups and employees. The trend information, implications, and long-term
choices would be revisited with employees, labor groups, and the community
in April and May 2011. He said the 2012 deficit had been reduced but the
City would be back in the same situation beyond 2012. It was important for
people to realize that although the current situation was not as difficult as
recent years, the trend would change and difficult times were not over. He
said information would continue to be shared through conversation,
outreach, and website postings.
Mayor Espinosa asked what the structure was for reviewing cuts not
recommended by department head’s. He asked about reviewing tradeoffs
where certain departments could no longer take cuts versus areas where
necessary cuts could be made to balance the budget.
Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez said prior to moving forward
in determining cuts and tradeoffs, a fee study would be done on the current
fiscal year budget, and restructuring the Administrative Services Division
(ASD), with more emphasis on the financial aspects. A strategic plan would
be formulated for the entire organization and Staff would bring back to the
Council a proposal resulting from the plan.
3 03/14/2011
Mayor Espinosa asked Mr. Perez to explain Staff’s reaction to the 10 percent
infrastructure backlog.
Mr. Perez said he was working with the Public Works Department and the
Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) to update the numbers and
define the backlog in operational and capital maintenance. The dollar figure
was driven from the Kitchell Report which indicated that $160 million should
be spent. The first 5-year budget was $60 million. He said a review would
be made in getting closer to the $150 million mark.
Council Member Holman asked why changes No. 5 and 6 were not
incorporated into the Base Model scenario.
Council Member Schmid said he did not include No. 5 which was the $10
million per year because of IBRC’s work and being sensitive to the fact that
it was treated as a policy decision separate from the operating cost.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to include all units with 3-year salary freeze (one-
year deferral of PD increase).
Council Member Scharff said the $10 million for backlog should be a
placeholder and was necessary to help the IBRC know what was needed to
fund the infrastructure.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member XXXX to include in the FY 2012-2014 a placeholder of $10 million
for the infrastructure backlog.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
Council Member Burt did not accept the Amendment because the Finance
Committee had came forward with a step increase. He said there would be a
$10 million step increase in a year whether the increase was in FY2012 or
FY2013.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct the Finance Committee to return with a
strategic plan to build in maintenance of the infrastructure backlog at its
current level through ongoing revenues.
4 03/14/2011
Mr. Keene asked if the Motion would compromise the totality of the charge
that was given to the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee (IBRC).
Council Member Burt said it would be outside the charge because the IBRC
was about catching up on the backlog. The Motion was about not falling
further behind on the backlog.
Vice Mayor Yeh said he supported the original Motion. He raised concerns
because his understanding was that the $10 million was projected in a
previous analysis. He saw the different financing options being presented to
the IBRC regarding the $10 million and did not know if that was a service for
a Bond issuance and could go against ongoing revenues.
Council Member Burt said the Amendment was not for an exact dollar
amount. It was for the Finance Committee to come back with a plan for
ongoing revenues and to not have an increase in backlog. It would enable
Staff to fold the IBRC’s work into the plan that comes back to the full
Council.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change “ongoing” in the incorporation to
“necessary”.
Council Member Scharff said he would work with the IBRC in reviewing the
issues and to provide quarterly updates to the Finance Committee.
Council Member Klein arrived at 7:20 p.m.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Klein not participating
2. Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission.
Members of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) briefed the
Council on the progress on the Commission’s work. The Commission was
formed to develop recommendations on eliminating the backlog of Capital
Improvement Projects (CIPs) for City facilities, parks and streets. It had
been meeting since November 2010 with a plan to bring its final
recommendations to the Council in December 2011. The Commission had
formed three Committees: Above Ground, Surface, and Finance. The Above
Ground Committee will make recommendations for City buildings and the
Surface Committee would do the same for streets and parks. The Finance
Committee will explore methods of funding the needed improvements and
5 03/14/2011
make recommendations on obtaining the funds to take care of deferred and
future maintenance. A number of Council Members asked the Commission
to explore new City facilities which may be needed and to plan for the next
25 years.
At 8:42 p.m., the City Council continued the meeting in the Council
Chambers.
3. Presentation of Proclamation for the Student Exchange Group of
Tsuchiura and Introduction of Tim Wong who will be representing Palo
Alto in a marathon in Tsuchiura.
Mayor Espinosa acknowledged the devastation in Tsuchiura, Japan and said
thoughts and prayers go out to all caught in the tragedy. He said the
Proclamation was in recognition of the anticipated arrival and presence of
the exchange students and the long-term partnership between Palo Alto and
Sister City Tsuchiura. The City was pursuing ways to help the devastated
city.
Vice Mayor Yeh said the intent was to read the Proclamation in the presence
of the exchange students and would proceed to read the Proclamation in
anticipation of their future arrival. The trip for Palo Alto students to go to
Tsuchiura was still planned.
Vice Mayor Yeh read the Proclamation into the record.
Keiko Nakajima said she was the Vice President of the Neighbors Abroad
Program and in charge of all activities between the City and Tsuchiura,
Japan. She spoke of the 9.0 earthquake that devastated Japan during the
past week. She and her students expected to host 16 Japanese exchange
students and 3 chaperons that were supposed to arrive on March 12, 2011.
She said she had gotten word that 117 homes had been damaged in
Tsuchiura City, one person was critically injured, 2,950 were evacuated and
224 people were in shelters. Gas and electricity that was disrupted for a few
days was restored, but the water supply was still affected in certain areas.
Catherine Carter said her son, John Carter was an 8th grade student at
Jordan Middle School and learned about the Neighbors Abroad Program.
She expressed her concerns regarding the exchange students’ situation and
anticipated their arrival in the near future. She said an earthquake relief
fund was established through the efforts of the Palo Alto students, parents,
co-presidents Joe and Barbara Evans and the Neighbors Abroad Program.
6 03/14/2011
John Carter spoke regarding Kenjiro Kodaira, an exchange student who
informed him via electronic mail (e-mail) that his family was safe and living
in the family’s car, and looked forward to making the trip at a later date. He
said the community was raising money to help their friends in Japan and
appreciated the City’s support.
Council Member Shepherd expressed her appreciation for the Neighbors
Abroad Program’s quick response in setting up a relief fund. She confirmed
contributions should be made payable to Neighbors Abroad and mailed to
P.O. Box 52004, Palo Alto, CA.
Ms. Nakajima spoke regarding Palo Alto resident Tim Wong representing Palo
Alto in the International Marathon in Tsuchiura, Japan scheduled for April
2011.
Tim Wong expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to represent Palo
Alto in the marathon and looked forward to participating in the future event.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
City Manager, James Keene spoke regarding 1) a Bicycle/pedestrian
Transportation Plan Community Workshop to be held at 655 Arastradero
Road, on Thursday, March 24th, at 6:30 p.m., 2) the California Climate
Action Registry annually reviewed the performance of California cities on
green house gas emissions. Palo Alto achieved the standards of the registry
and a climate action leader for the 5th consecutive year, 3) the
Commonwealth Club had arranged various speakers to come to the area to
speak that included Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), scheduled for April 14th @ 6:15 p.m., at
the Computer History Museum, 1401 North Shoreline Boulevard, Mountain
View. Wendy Kopp, CEO of Teach for America, scheduled for April 21st @ 8
p.m., at the Schultz Cultural Hall, Oshman Family Jewish Community Center
(JCC) at Fabian Way, Palo Alto.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mark Petersen-Perez spoke regarding a public records request that he had
submitted and addressed the issue of sending useless attachments to the
City Attorney.
7 03/14/2011
Scott Smithwick spoke regarding California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the issuance of demolition permits for historic structures. He
urged Council to clearly state in the Ordinance that all demolition permits for
historic structures was a discretionary action and that CEQA applied.
Elaine Meyer addressed the issue regarding the installation of AT&T cell
towers. She said in the interest of open government, the City should explain
if it was in financial negotiations with AT&T, what stages the negotiation was
in, and payments the City would be receiving.
Anneica Dempsey spoke regarding the intrusive parking in the Professorville
neighborhood and how it had reduced the quality of life. She urged the
Council to provide good customer service in addressing the issue.
Betsy Gamburd spoke regarding Professorville’s parking problem due to the
lack of parking for downtown employees.
Lisa Sullivan spoke regarding Professorville’s parking problem and could no
longer park in front of their home due to the lack of downtown parking for
employees.
Linda Scott said Professorville was a National Register Historic District and
would lose its character if the parking problem was not resolved. She urged
the Council for an immediate solution.
Theresa Rowland said her family car had gotten damaged on several
occasions due to the parking issues in the Professorville neighborhood. She
asked for the Council’s help in resolving the problem.
Robert Gamburd said the downtown business parking had caused congestion
in the Professorville neighborhood. He said his firm had provided parking for
their employees and felt that all business owners should be compelled to do
the same and to encourage their employees to not park offsite.
Monica Yeung Arima said she was an advisor for the youth’s Organization of
Chinese Americans (OCA). The students were involved in a fundraiser and
were collecting monies for the American Red Cross to help tsunami victims in
Japan. She spoke of the escalating parking issues in Professorville and how
she no longer could provide guests parking in front of her home. She asked
for the Council’s help in resolving the problem.
8 03/14/2011
Ron Laurie said the parking issue in Professorville had become intolerable
with virtually no street parking between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. during the
weekdays and had the appearance of a Caltrain parking lot.
Sandy Peters spoke of Professorville’s parking problem and urged the
Council to move the parking issues back to the Downtown Business District
where they belonged.
Jeff Traum said the Professorville parking issue was destroying the comfort
and livability of the neighborhood. He asked for the Council’s help in
resolving the problem.
Alice Winderhall said her car was damaged numerous times due to
Professorville’s parking problems and harassed by those parking in front of
her home.
Victoria Curtis said the parking problem in front of her Professorville home
came about when the City enforced a 2-hour limit parking two-blocks away.
She said her family had no on-street parking except on Sundays. She said
downtown employees need to park downtown where they belong.
Kevin Curry said the Professorville parking problem could be resolved
through better use of the existing downtown parking and by applying
permanent resident fees and time limits on parking. He said the correction
could be revenue positive for the City and through public-private efforts
could be completed in months and not years.
Carole Weber said Bryant Street in Professorville was designated as a bicycle
boulevard and raised concerns of a fatality happening due to the aggressive
nature of downtown employees parking and trying to get to work on time.
Ken Alsman said he would provide a photo essay to the City Clerk to show
what the Professorville neighborhood looked like during a holiday and the
following day, and the empty government and general City parking
structures. He said the Professorville community wanted to get involved in
whatever the City would be doing to help resolved the parking problem.
Mayor Espinosa announced it was a violation of state law for the Council to
discuss issues raised during Oral Communications. These issues were not
agendized.
9 03/14/2011
City Manager, James Keene said he would work with the Professorville
community to address the parking issue.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Price to
approve the Minutes of February 14, 2011.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. The Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff recommend that
Council approve the revised Park and Open Space Rules and
Regulations.
MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to
approve Agenda Item Number 4.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ACTION ITEMS
5. Recommendations and Direction for Modifying Historic Review of
Contributing Structures Proposed for Demolition in the Professorville
Historic District.
Chief Planning and Transportation Official, Julie Caporgno said the item
stemmed from a demolition request for a structure located at 405 Lincoln
Avenue. The proposal was reviewed by the Council in late October 2010.
The structure was listed as a contributing structure in the Professorville
National Register Historic District. The presentation focused on the material
outlined in Staff Report ID# 1346.
Natalie Louikianoff said she was Vice-chair of the Historic Resources Board
and speaking as an individual. She disagreed with the first recommendation
for an individual Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She said the National
Park Service defined a district as being “a district possessing a significant
concentration linkage or continuity of sites, building structures, or objects
united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A
district derives its importance from being a unified entity even though it is
often composed of a wide variety of resources” and said that was the exact
description of Professorville. There were 191 structures on the
10 03/14/2011
Professorville’s historic inventory and 115 were considered contributing
structures. She felt the recommendations lead towards the potential
takedown of each structure in the district leaving less than one-half of the
existing district to comprise Professorville. She asked that Staff not continue
to look at the structures as individual units and to view Professorville as a
whole. She urged the Council and Staff to use the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, the California Preservation Foundation, and Historic Resources
Board (HRB). She said they were good resources and had the expertise to
create ordinances and policies in moving through the process to protect
Professorville.
Beth Bunnenburg, HRB Member said she was speaking as an individual. She
said Staff Report ID#1346 did not provide a clear statement of what the
character defining features were for Professorville. She said the Garavaglia
firm was provided in the documents for 405 Lincoln Avenue and should be
included in the study. She said Study Sessions provided community forum
and outreach and should be scheduled early with the HRB when demolition
was about to be proposed. She urged the Council to review
recommendations from Professorville residents who have lived there for
many years and who had spent money to maintain the integrity of their
houses.
Scott Smithwick said he did not object to Staff’s recommendations but
objected to the basic principle and background provided in the Staff Report.
He felt Staff did not adequately study or address the items and made
reference to the allowance for demolition on contributing structures in the
district. He said the Environmental Review (ER) was limited to the 405
Lincoln Avenue and the Juana Briones House. The California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) applied to all historic resources whether they were
contributing, significant, or independent. The integrity of the district would
be lost if contributing structures were demolished on a single case-by-case
basis. He felt the compatibility criteria based on the Secretary of Standards
for Rehabilitation of Existing Structures for one project was an error and the
guidelines needed to be reviewed from a district-wide approach. He said the
$15,000 consultant’s fee was inadequate and should be increased to
$30,000. He encouraged City Staff to use the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, the California Preservation Foundation and local resources for
references.
Martin Bernstein said he was speaking as an individual and not as a member
of any Board. He said he supported Staff’s proposal. He said an EIR was
not required for renovations, remodel, upgrades, or additions to listed or
11 03/14/2011
contributing properties that met the Secretary of Standards. He was in favor
of a no fee HRB Study Session and should be made mandatory on historic
districts. He did not have a problem in demolishing a non-contributing
structure in Professorville if the replacement met the Secretary of Standards.
He said the compatibility criteria referred to massing and scale proportions
and not style. The Council had seven HRB members who were fair judges to
determine design compatibility which was critical for the process to be
successful.
Council Member Klein raised concerns of not getting input from anyone who
might be in the same situation as the applicant, Mr. Akins, and asked if
consideration had been given to any other potential applicant.
Mr. Williams said he was not aware of anyone in the same situation. Staff
had discussions with Mr. Akins regarding concepts that would have helped
him, but the discussions took place late in the process and after Council’s
direction.
Council Member Klein asked if Mr. Akins had commented on what was being
proposed this evening.
Mr. Williams said Mr. Akins did not comment on the Staff Report but was
supportive of the concepts in moving forward. He felt the strongest point for
Mr. Akins was to have an early hearing to determine historic significance and
to identify the need for a mitigated negative declaration as opposed to an
EIR.
Council Member Klein said the conflict at 405 Lincoln Avenue was between
an applicant wanting to demolish a structure and people thinking that no
structure should be demolished in Professorville. He raised concerns
regarding the length of processing time.
Ms. Caporgno said the timeframe would have been reduced if an initial study
had taken place versus the EIR.
Council Member Klein said the applicant had spent a great deal of time with
the City’s hired consultant and asked if the problem had been resolved.
Mr. Williams said a set of guidelines would have been helpful. He said
guidelines had been developed by the consultant but were incomplete.
Staff’s thought was to take the guidelines and seek guidance from the HRB
regarding the project’s issues prior to the HRB reviewing the project.
12 03/14/2011
Council Member Klein said comments made by Ms. Louikianoff and Ms.
Bunnenburg had implications that demolition should not be allowed in
Professorville. He suggested to include a mechanism in the guidelines where
HRB members who opposed demolition in Professorville not participate in the
process.
Acting City Attorney, Don Larkin said bias conflicts could be raised by the
applicant and would need to be reviewed. The 405 Lincoln Avenue
complication was that the CEQA judge said the demolition delay was a
discretionary act and CEQA had to be completed before it was brought to the
HRB. Demolition was not discretionary and the ability to demolish was not
an issue that could be prohibited under the City’s code.
Council Member Holman asked who was notified of this item.
Ms. Caporgno said Professorville residents were notified and invited to have
conversations with Staff and a notification was published in the newspaper.
She said the card notification process would have been required if there was
a change in an Ordinance or an adoption of guidelines. She said Staff was
proposing a set of guidelines and needed the Council’s direction.
Council Member Holman said defining a district was a situation where the
whole was greater than the sum of the parts. She asked if Staff had
comments regarding the public’s concerns that Professorville would erode to
the point of losing a district if properties were reviewed on an individual
basis.
Ms. Caporgno said 405 Lincoln Avenue had been looked at as a property
itself and in the context of the district. The historic analysis concluded that
the structure was not significant nor was its loss going to impact the district.
The EIR was already in process when the report came back indicating a
mitigated negative declaration could have been done. She said the report
provided to the Council did not indicate that every contributing structure
would be considered less than significant and would be a loss to the district.
She clarified that Staff would look at a contributing structure to determine
whether it was significant or not. A structure would require an EIR if it was
determined to be significant to the district.
Council Member Holman said she was not speaking on behalf of the HRB or
members of the public. She said through her experience, and in talking with
Staff and members in the community, there were both non-contributing
13 03/14/2011
buildings and buildings that had lost their integrity in Professorville. The
intent was not to say there would never be a demolition in Professorville.
She asked Staff if that was a correct statement.
Ms. Caporgno said that was correct. She said a building with no historic
significance could go through the appropriate process and could be
demolished.
Council Member Holman asked Staff if Dames & Moore Consulting Group had
completed an inventory on Professorville.
Ms. Caporgno said that was correct.
Council Member Holman asked if the survey identified buildings that were
contributors and non-contributors in the district.
Ms. Caporgno said yes.
Council Member Holman asked if the Staff proposal intended that for CEQA
purposes all properties registered in the National California Register would
address the concerns of eroding the district on an individual basis.
Ms. Caporgno said the Council could change the criteria used for CEQA
purposes. She said the current criteria stated that a building would be
considered significant if it was registered or eligible for the National
California Register or listed in the local inventory. Contributing structures
would need to be reviewed to determine significance. Staff could say
contributing buildings in Professorville were considered significant if the
criteria were changed.
Council Member Holman needed clarification on Staff’s statement regarding
reviewing the buildings as individual buildings in the National Register
District to determine the impact demolition would have on the district.
Ms. Caporgno clarified that Staff looked at the buildings on an individual
basis to determine its significance within Professorville.
Council Member Holman said Staff would be looking at the process with a
cohesive approach if the criteria were changed to include contributing
structures as thresholds for CEQA purposes.
14 03/14/2011
Mr. Larkin said a contributing structure was not automatically considered as
an individual historic resource. Council had the discretion to declare it as an
historic resource and which would require the Council’s action to change the
definition.
Council Member Holman said when the zoning ordinance was updated a
followup was not done on the Comprehensive Plan that stated the City
recognized neighborhoods as having individual character. She said there
was a process that allowed neighborhoods to apply for single-story overlays
and that the Council was to provide the process for individual neighborhoods
wanting a conservation district. She asked if that had been considered for
Professorville.
Mr. Williams said that was discussed. Staff was looking at what to come
back with in addressing 405 Lincoln Avenue in an expeditious way and still
be fair and balanced in the process. Staff did not want to make it appear as
though they were trying to overhaul or establish an extensive process for
conservation districts.
Council Member Holman said there was a single-story overlay process that
could be put in place if Professorville wanted to develop criteria for an
overlay. Professorville could do it on their own and at their own expense.
She asked if it was feasible for Staff to use the single-story overlay
ordinance as a model and said it could be done with minimal effort from
Staff.
Mr. Williams said it would be an extensive process and would engender a lot
of discussion and concerns from the neighborhood. He said it could be a
worthwhile endeavor, but would not be an easy process.
Council Member Shepherd said there were two other historic districts in Palo
Alto and asked what was the difference between Professorville and the other
two districts and if the same process would apply.
Ms. Caporgno said Professorville was a National Historic District and listed on
the City’s inventory. Green Gables and Greenmeadow were National Historic
Districts but not on the City’s inventory. Professorville was on the inventory
which meant that every single property that had a planning change would be
required to go through the HRB.
Council Member Shepherd asked if structures in Green Gables and
Greenmeadow would need to go through CEQA process.
15 03/14/2011
Ms. Caporgno said they would not be affected with the Professorville
process. There could be properties in the two districts that were significant
Eichler representatives and would require an EIR process if structural
changes were to be made.
Council Member Shepherd said she looked forward to having the process
move quickly to the HRB and to have the structure either rehabilitated or
replaced.
Council Member Schmid raised concerns regarding the compatibility criteria
and heard Mr. Bernstein state that it would be subjective. He asked if Staff
was asking the Council to vote on a reform of the process to allow early
signals of compatibility prior to moving into the subjective step, and that a
consultant would be working with Staff and Professorville residents to find
compatibility criteria.
Ms. Caporgno said that was correct. The process would insure that
development was consistent with the Secretary of Standards and approved
by the HRB or by the Council.
Council Member Schmid raised concerns regarding the process. He said the
HRB came to a conclusion regarding the process and a few weeks later the
Council and Staff took a different position. He asked if everyone was
working towards a goal of understanding each other.
Mr. Williams said yes. The parameters would help narrow down a new
design.
Council Member Schmid needed confirmation that Staff was asking the
Council to vote on a reform of the process that would start immediately and
to prepare criteria that would come back to the Council for approval.
Mr. Williams said that was correct.
Council Member Burt asked what the reason was for including the $15,000
consultant’s fee in the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget and would it cause a
longer delay in starting the process.
Mr. Williams said if Council desired to move forward sooner, Staff and the
HRB could begin to define the consultant’s role and move forward with the
consultant and use department funds for the time being.
16 03/14/2011
Council Member Burt asked what the timeline would be for completion if the
consultant were hired sooner.
Ms. Caporgno said the consultant would need to be onboard towards the end
of the project to confirm that the work that had been done met the National
Registry standards. If Staff had a 3- to 4-month period to work with HRB
and the community, the consultant could come onboard at that time. It
would be the same in terms of getting the funding.
Council Member Scharff asked for clarification on Staff’s recommendations.
Mr. Williams said for 405 Lincoln Avenue, the contributing structure could
have been individually analyzed in the historic report. If the report showed
there was not a significant impact and the structure was not significant on
its own, it could have proceeded with a mitigated negative declaration or a
negative declaration as opposed to an EIR. An EIR would be required for
demolition if the structure was found to be a significant historic structure on
its own.
Council Member Scharff asked if the guidelines discussed at this evening’s
meeting were being developed or was Staff going to work with the HRB to
develop a plan to prohibit demolition on contributing structure.
Mr. Williams said Staff would move forward immediately with the first two
Staff recommendations and provide the information to HRB for adjustments.
The HRB would review the design and be involved in developing the
compatibility criteria.
Council Member Scharff asked if the third recommendation required working
with HRB and the Professorville community in preparing the compatibility
criteria.
Mr. Williams said yes.
Council Member Scharff said the Staff Report stated that it could include
criteria to restrict the development of specific styles to insure retention of a
more traditional look for Professorville.
Mr. Williams said Staff would try to get a sense from everyone involved
regarding that criteria.
17 03/14/2011
Council Member Scharff said it would entail a good amount of outreach.
Mr. Williams said yes.
Council Member Scharff asked if the process would be delayed if the $15,000
consultant fee was allocated in the 2011-12 fiscal year
Mr. Williams said that would not be a problem. Staff could work around the
issue to prevent delays in starting with the consultant.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein to direct Staff to work with the Historic Resources Board and residents
of Professorville to develop: 1) a written process for review of any future
proposed demolitions of Contributing Structures in Professorville, including
the CEQA process requirements; 2) early review of the design by the Historic
Resources Board and the public; and 3) preparation of compatibility criteria
for new construction in Professorville.
Council Member Scharff said he did not want to see a replay of what
happened to 405 Lincoln Avenue. He felt Staff had put a lot of thought and
effort into the process, had provided significant community outreach on the
design guidelines, and had streamlined the process to not have unnecessary
EIRs.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to add in Number 1 of the Motion, in the second
line after “Professorville”: “and other interested members of the public,
representing a variety of views”.
Council Member Klein said the Motion would prevent future applicants from
having to experience the process Mr. Akins had to endure.
Council Member Price supported the Motion. The Staff Report stated that
approved guidelines would be available to anyone interested in filing and
would provide a clear understanding of the process and criteria review. She
asked if the preliminary review was open to applicant’s post-filing or to
initiate conversation with Staff in using the design criteria.
Mr. Williams said it would be available either way and people interested in
going through the process were encouraged to do so as early as possible.
18 03/14/2011
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Yeh to investigate with the Historic Resources Board the establishment of
CEQA criteria of significance to include significant contributors to the district.
Council Member Holman reinforced the notion that a district is greater than
the whole of the sum of its parts and voiced concerns about how properties
were looked at on an individual basis.
Vice Mayor Yeh said the process should allow varying opinions from the
community and an opportunity to vet the solutions.
Council Member Burt asked the Maker to restate the Amendment and
explain how it differed from Staff recommendation No.1
Council Member Holman said the Amendment was to investigate establishing
CEQA criteria of significance to include contributors in the district. She said
it differed from Recommendation No.1 had been discussed during this
evening’s meeting. In the event the issue should reoccur, the City will look
at the property on an individual basis to determine if the loss of a
contributing structure would be an impact on the district. A district was
made up of individual historical significant properties and contributors.
Council Member Burt said Recommendation No.1 had indicated to review the
future process of a proposed demolition with contributing structures
including CEQA requirements. He said he wanted a clearer understanding
regarding the difference between the Amendment and what he had stated.
Mr. Larkin clarified that any review could involve an EIR if a structure was
automatically significant and the Statement of Overriding Considerations
would apply due to its significance. Demolition would then occur to a
significant resource.
Council Member Holman asked if she understood the City Attorney’s
comment correctly that the protection of a Historic District was the
satisfaction of the Secretary of Standards and an EIR or an initial study
would not be required.
Mr. Larkin said that was not entirely correct and clarified that an EIR would
be triggered if it was a remodel that met the Secretary of Standards. A
demolition that was considered to be an absolute loss and had been declared
a significant resource would require an EIR and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations would apply.
19 03/14/2011
Council Member Burt said he was still trying to understand the Amendment
versus Staff Recommendation No.1.
Mr. Williams said the word “investigate” referred to discussions with the
community to determine whether there was a desire to establish CEQA
criteria of significance which would include contributors to the district. He
said it would establish a presumption that every contributing structure was a
significant historic resource and the demolition of that structure
automatically triggered an EIR. He said there were some contributing
structures that a historic analysis determined not to be significant historic
resources which could be demolished without an EIR.
Council Member Klein said the issue was very clear and the argument about
405 Lincoln Avenue went to the heart of what Staff was proposing. Staff
was proposing that if there was a future 405 Lincoln Avenue, it would be an
easy process to get out of. There would not be any easy way out if the
Amendment was adopted. The applicant would be required to go through
the full CEQA process.
Council Member Scharff said 405 Lincoln Avenue would need to go through
the EIR process under the Amendment. He said the Amendment was to
have people who had a contributing structure without historical significant go
through an EIR process.
Council Member Price said she would support the original Motion and did not
feel the Amendment improved the process. The original Motion was clearer
and had direction for HRB and stakeholders to be engaged and was sufficient
in addressing the current issue.
Council Member Holman said part of the challenge was not having a clear
understanding of a Historic District. She said there was a belief that if HRB
members were opposed to demolishing contributors in the district that they
were not carrying out their charge. She suggested the opposite and said if
HRB Members were in favor of demolishing contributors in a historic district
they were carrying out their charge because their role was to help reinforce,
protect, and preserve historic properties, providing for appropriate
replacements when applicable. She said the Amendment provided better
clarity to Staff on what to explore going forward.
Vice Mayor Yeh said he commended Staff for wanting to reach out to
residents as well as the HRB on this issue. He said the HRB had a particular
20 03/14/2011
perspective and he was curious to know what the residents thoughts were
on the issue.
Council Member Schmid addressed the Staff Recommendation No.2 and said
issues noted by the HRB should be made public early in the process and
preferable to have an EIR on contributing structures.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-7 Holman, Yeh yes
Council Member Holman said there had been discussions in the community
about wanting to investigate an overlay process. She asked if Staff could
have that discussion with the public without a Motion.
Mr. Williams said it was something that may come up as part of the
discussions but currently was not part of the work program. Staff was not
planning on returning to the bigger issue of conservation overlays.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Yeh to direct Staff to investigate an overlay process with the Historic
Resources Board, the public, and property owners for the Professorville
district.
Council Member Holman said the neighbors with all their property
investments should be in charge of their community’s future and determine
its destiny.
AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-7 Holman, Yeh yes
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to change the beginning verbiage in Number 3 of
the Motion to “preparation of design guidelines including compatibility
criteria”.
Mayor Espinosa said he supported the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Council Member Holman spoke regarding Julie Caporgno’s retirement at the
end of March 2011.
6. Update Regarding Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and
Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
21 03/14/2011
City Manager, James Keene said the supplemental memo and attached
information were provided to the Council to help expand the presentation in
providing updates.
Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams said the
Staff Report provided an update on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) planning efforts and included information regarding: 1) the RHNA
Housing Methodology Committee, 2) Council Members meeting with the
(Association of Bay Area Governments) ABAG Executive Director, 3) the
status of preparing a subregional housing allocation, and 4) the anticipated
release of the Initial Vision Scenario by the regional agencies. He provided a
presentation as outlined in Staff Report ID#1348.
Mr. Keene reflected on the meeting with ABAG. The RHNA Housing process
was housing driven by job growth on a jurisdictional basis. Points made by
Palo Alto regarding the methodology for predicting job growth were
acknowledged and understood that changes needed to be made. He said
since the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) involved both the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG there could be
issues with the MTC saying that road network environment was constrained
in accommodating the population and that applications needed to be made
along transit corridors and certain locations to make the process work. He
said discussions needed to take place since there were implications from
Palo Alto and this was the first time for the two regional agencies to help
coordinate the process.
Robert Moss said the projected figures in the table were unrealistic. He said
the census that was released in the past week reflected a population
increase of 6.6 percent in the last 10 years in Santa Clara County. The table
projected a population increase of over 16 percent every decade for the next
2.5 decades. Santa Clara County lost 75,000 jobs since the year 2000. The
job prediction for Palo Alto for the next 25 years was fewer than in 2005. He
said Palo Alto was the fourth most expensive city in the Country for housing.
Land ranged from $3 to $4 million per acre. He said it would cost $700
million to purchase the land for the additional 12,000 units with a budget in
the negative by $45 million per year. He said finance, land, land use, and
impacts needed to be taken into account for the process.
Mayor Espinosa raised concerns regarding the figures and needed clarity on
the steps in moving forward. He said Palo Alto along with the Bay Area
would grow between now and 2035 and the idea of 12,000 new households
being accommodated in the community was unacceptable. He said the
22 03/14/2011
abundance of jobs and the transit corridor was leading to a certain
methodology and wanted to be clear where in the process would non-
compliance, legal action, and a challenging methodology fit into the
discussions in moving forward.
Mr. Williams said the numbers just came out and he could not provide a
complete answer at this time. He said there was a need to get a sense from
fellow communities if there were opportunities to create informational and
non-political responses. He did not think a legal response would be
appropriate until something was adopted. Staff needed to know when the
meetings would take place and to begin working on a strategy on how to
respond to the proposal.
Mr. Keene asked the Council to direct Staff to look at the details in the
methodology that resulted in the application.
Council Member Klein said he did not understand what the methodology was
on something that was unconstrained by reality. The housing numbers were
illogical. He asked where in the community 12,000 additional units could be
built, and for financial details. He raised concerns regarding the limitation of
jobs to 5,000 in the area. He did not want the report be a starting point for
discussion and advised deleting the figures and starting over.
Council Member Schmid said the numbers were not extrapolated and had no
connection to reality. The census data for the past 10 years showed that
Palo Alto’s population grew by 9.9 percent and was actively engaged in the
ABAG process. He questioned why Palo Alto was growing twice as fast as
the coastal and neighboring counties throughout California. He concurred
with Council Member Klein to review the Housing Element and to respond by
inputting the appropriate numbers provided by the census for the past
decade.
Council Member Shepherd raised concerns when SB375 addressed bringing
in more housing into Palo Alto. She said Palo Alto had a rail corridor that
could quickly, easily, and efficiently reduce greenhouse gases while bringing
workers to Palo Alto. She wanted to know what ABAG’s thinking was on this
issue and if they viewed Palo Alto as having extra space and the capability to
reduce acreage. She asked what approach would be taken to input housing
data for a city with a rail corridor that had best practices to not impact traffic
and streets when bringing workers into the area. She wanted to know how
this would be addressed in RHNA and ABAG numbers.
23 03/14/2011
Mr. Williams said that was a key question. He said the numbers were
unrealistic and he needed to get a better understanding of how the numbers
connected. He felt the SCS process used a formulated approach to the
numbers on the housing side and did not look at the employment side. He
hoped to get away from the formula and identify job centers in the Bay Area
for housing. He said there plans for high-density housing near train stations
in the area that were affordable and could accommodate people with jobs in
Palo Alto.
Council Member Shepherd concurred with Council Member Klein’s comment
about establishing the City’s own methodology. She said there would be no
reason to have High Speed Rail (HSR) here with these housing numbers.
Mr. Keene said he was in favor of pursuing the City’s own path.
Vice Mayor Yeh said this was an intellectual exercise. It was the first time
MTC and ABAG were working together to figure out what systems and
analysis they can do together. He did not think an intellectual exercise lent
itself to understanding the local impacts if it was formula driven. He
addressed the financial viability and concerns about the public transportation
systems. He advised taking a constructive approach in letting MTC know
there were long-term commitments in constrained cities through 2035 and
to look at taking advantage of housing combined with transportation at the
regional level. It would have potential for long-term visionary thinking.
Council Member Burt said ABAG Executive Director Rapport indicated they
would be revising their methodology and was going to advocate a revision to
the demographic projection. However, ABAG was not in a position to
stipulate revisions to the board or MTC. He asked if the demographic
projections reflected the new lower revisions or if they were the original
data.
Mr. Williams said it reflected a reduction of 750,000 jobs from in 2007.
Council Member Burt said the report not only indicated a higher growth rate
in the last decade, but there was no conversation about the three decades
prior to the last 10 years. He felt there was a trend of less percentage
growth per decade since the 1950’s and a sudden radical reversal was
projected. He asked how it would influence the RHNA allocation.
24 03/14/2011
Mr. Williams said the influence was undetermined. He discussed developing
a formula to determine the number of units the Housing Element should
cover.
Council Member Burt said the SCS plan projected the primary growth in the
California Avenue, University Avenue, and El Camino Corridors. It would not
benefit Palo Alto to continually say it was victimization of North Palo Alto
against South Palo Alto. The housing pattern in the south end of Palo Alto
during the last decade was a reversal of the prior decade and the prior
decade had the same comments regarding housing in the north end. It was
a Palo Alto concern as a whole and not a matter of the North versus the
South.
Council Member Scharff said he felt the projection was based on the location
of transit corridors. He recalled Mr. Rapport stating that the placement of
jobs next to transit corridors was a great way to reduce greenhouse gases
and was something he would advocate.
Council Member Burt said another issue to focus on politically was that the
plan was using greenhouse gas emissions as the primary driver for the
initiative. ABAG needed to give communities the latitude to achieve the
objective and not have them prescribe the methodology on how to do it.
Council Member Price said the subregional approach was critical. She asked
what options would be used in addressing the issues if the report was to be
redone and the resources used for a more defensible methodology. She
wanted to know if the debate could be made peninsula-wide through 2035
and asked if the Housing Element was updated every 7 years.
Mr. Williams said it was 7 years through 2014 and every 8 years thereafter
to coordinate with the transportation plan.
Council Member Holman said she found that several goals and conclusions
stated in the report were confusing. She said there was no evidence in Palo
Alto that more housing would reduce the housing cost for low-income
households. She said the goal for the initiative was to reduce greenhouse
gases and did not know how ABAG developed the conclusion that “new
residents ride transit, walked, or biked more than existing residents and
greenhouse gases per capita in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per capita go
down, but they still drive and the results total VMT goes up which increased
collision and auto emissions.” She said the scenario addressed increasing
transit capacity but there was no statement regarding state budget.
25 03/14/2011
Vice Mayor Yeh said in terms of the next steps, the Staff Report noted
outreach to cities and asked whether that included hosting meetings in
communities. He said it would be beneficial for ABAG and MTC members to
see the population during the daylight hours and suggested they take
commuter rail into Palo Alto to see the level of participation.
Mr. Keene said the City had several projects in the mix that needed
coordination even without the SB375 proposal, such as the climate action
plan, the corridor study, and the California Avenue plan. He did not know
what that would mean on the Staff’s side, but these were sustainability
issues.
Mayor Espinosa stated he recognized the tight timeline. Staff heard the
concerns and several ideas would be coming back to engage in a
conversation with a proposal in moving forward.
No action taken by Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Shepherd spoke on attending the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee. The discussion
centered around new concepts for bus/rail transit from Palo Alto to the HP
Pavilion in San Jose along El Camino Real.
Council Member Klein reported on his trip to Washington, D.C. where he met
with Congress lobby members to discuss High Speed Rail.
Council Member Scharff acknowledged that today is National Pi Day
(3.14159) and wanted Council to recognize the day as it falls inline with
Council’s Priority on Youth Well-Being.
Vice Mayor Yeh reported on several meetings that occurred this past
weekend that were related to the City’s low carbon measures and strategies.
Council Member Burt spoke regarding the low carbon cities collaboration. He
asked Staff to return with a report on the VTA bus rapid transit program.
Council Member Shepherd stated that there is a high likelihood that VTA will
be reducing the lanes along El Camino Real, but the final plan has not been
26 03/14/2011
decided upon. She stated that VTA representatives will be having meetings
in Palo Alto to discuss this with the public.
Mayor Espinosa thanked everyone for their hard work at the Eleanor Pardee
Park tree planting this past weekend, and spoke on the opening of the new
Elks Lodge.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned in honor of National Pi Day at
12:17 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Akin [mailto:akin@arden.org]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 9:12 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Professorville Design Guidelines
Hello, all. I've prepared my comments as a PDF file, attached, so that they could be more clearly
illustrated.
Best Regards,
Allen Akin
Background
This August marks the 9th year I've studied the Professorville Historic District and the rules for building
there. This is the third set of design guidelines for the District in which I've participated in some way. I
paid for the first, helped research and write the second, and now I'm offering advice on the third.
The design guidelines projects were motivated in part by the experience with my house at 405 Lincoln
Avenue during 2007-2010. Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff, Council Member Holman, and Council
Member Schmid will remember it. A court decision against the City in the Juana Briones House case,
the lack of a City process for CEQA review of single-family houses, and conflicts between the City's
reviewers wound up costing me over $500K and requiring 3.5 years. In the interim the property was in
limbo – unusable and unsellable. For the history of the project, see allenakin.com/405lincoln.html .
Part of that time and expense went into the development of the first set of design guidelines by
Garavaglia Architecture, the City's historical architecture consultant on the project. These guidelines
were abandoned during EIR development when it became clear that they failed to capture the defining
features of the District accurately enough to be used for a CEQA review.
In 2011, Julie Caporgno, Steve Turner, and Dennis Backlund of Planning responded to Council's
direction by taking measures to fix the problems faced during my project. One of their actions was to
create the Professorville Design Guidelines Committee to produce the second set of guidelines. Julie
recruited eight Committee members from the HRB, from Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, and from
Professorville's residents. She asked me to participate because of what I had learned concerning
preservation policies and related law during my project.
The group in Planning decided to combine design review for Professorville with the existing Single
Family Individual Review (IR) process. This had two major advantages. First, it made review
enforceable. (Compliance with HRB review is voluntary, but compliance with IR is mandatory. IR is
discretionary, so CEQA review is triggered when necessary.) Second, it consolidated the two existing
reviews into a single action. (Julie had seen on my project that a great deal of delay, expense, and mis-
design resulted from multiple uncoordinated reviews.)
The Committee was charged with listing the defining characteristics of Professorville and using them to
propose Professorville-specific requirements for the Individual Review guidelines. To understand why
this is a problem without a simple solution, see What Is Professorville?
For three years the Committee held open hearings, researched the defining characteristics of the
District, considered the review process, and discussed the balance between preservation and property
rights, among other things. In 2013 it produced a set of minimalist guidelines and recommendations for
small changes to the ordinance for IR. You can find my explanation of the Committee's work and
recommendations here: arden.org/professorville/index.html . The final draft of the Committee's
additions to IR can be found at DraftIrGuidelinesBooklet.Professorville.pdf . It's about ten pages long.
Julie and Dennis retired, Steve moved on to Redwood City, and as a consequence the Committee's
1 of 13
proposal was left in limbo.
In 2015 Matt Weintraub of Planning started a new guidelines project from scratch. I learned about it by
chance from an item on the Consent Calendar. There was no attempt to contact the Committee to
discuss its rationale or what it had learned from the community during its effort. Contrary to what you
may read in the new Guidelines, the entire Committee proposal, including the enforcement mechanism
chosen by Planning itself in 2011, was discarded. It's not surprising that the names of the Committee
members don't even appear on the new acknowledgements page.
A few “workshops” with “interactive activities” were held by Planning as part of this new project.
While these were fun (I attended all of them), they were pro-forma and sparsely attended. Only the
first took place before the new Guidelines had been drafted, and even that one occurred after Page &
Turnbull had already completed most of its field research. Although I raised many substantive issues in
letters to Matt and at the workshops and at an HRB hearing, only a few were addressed. Several
disclaimers were added, and some of the simple factual errors were corrected, but the approach and
outcome were foregone conclusions.
Evaluating the Proposed Guidelines
Design review involves interpreting rules that are in part subjective. There will never be universal
agreement about them. See The Craftsman Style Is Bad Taste and Waste
However, I believe we can agree on some objective goals. Review should incorporate the applicant's
needs; be based on the real, measurable District; be legally defensible; be fairly applied; and be
efficient. The newest Guidelines don't do well in those respects. I've provided some explanation in
Comments on the Proposed Guidelines
In brief: The proposed Guidelines do nothing to resolve the lack of a defensible definition for the
District, but add to the confusion by erasing the legally-important distinction between contributing
houses and non-contributors. They do nothing to simplify multiple conflicting review processes, and
even add complexity to them. They do nothing to close a legal loophole that subverts historic
preservation and imposes burdens on residents inconsistently. They provide a false sense of security to
residents who are concerned about preservation, because although they may appear to be requirements,
they are actually voluntary and unenforceable. And they discard the already-existing proposal from
Planning and the Committee that would have made progress on most of those issues.
For those of you who were on the Council in 2011: If it was your intent for Planning to clarify and
simplify the design review process, as Planning apparently understood at the time, then these proposed
Guidelines are not the solution you were looking for.
What We Should Do
In the short term, the right thing to do is table these Guidelines because they don't fix the problems that
actually need fixing. A cynic would say that they're a perfect example of the Palo Alto Process: Adding
2 of 13
more than a hundred pages of inconclusive criteria to a process that's already too slow and complicated.
In the long term, Council could direct Planning to start fixing the fundamental problems. (Perhaps for
the second time, if Planning recently misinterpreted what Council intended in 2011.) We've spent five
years on this already, so clearly it's not urgent; we can take the time to do things well.
•Compatibility with “the District” is not well-defined. We should strive for compatibility over
neighborhoods or block faces; areas that are neither too large nor too small, but are self-
consistent. Compatibility within the Professorville core could be stronger.
•Focus on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Existing City policy and the CEQA
Guidelines require these as the basis for determining whether a project is acceptable.
•Fix the lack of documentation for the houses in the District. This can be done a little at a time to
help manage the expense.
•Determine objective standards that can be used to assess significance and compatibility. Many
of these already exist, but are not being applied consistently or cannot be applied because of
lack of documentation.
•Using those, choose a definition and boundaries for the District that are legally defensible.
•Eliminate the known legal loopholes.
•Consolidate design review processes so that there is one enforceable review. This is necessary
for both efficiency and fairness. The proposed new Guidelines are not without value, and once
this improved process is in place, we may find them useful.
The final result would strengthen the preservation of genuinely historic houses and neighborhoods
while leaving owners throughout the District with enough flexibility to adapt to changes in their own
lives and in the environment. As we anticipate construction of taller buildings nearby, reduced water
supply, increased traffic, increased noise from rail, and so on, we will need it.
Thank you for your patience in working through a long letter on an esoteric subject (that has absorbed
far more of my life during the past nine years than I ever expected).
Best Regards,
Allen Akin
405 Lincoln Ave
3 of 13
What Is Professorville?
Professorville has a “core” where the vast majority of the early professors lived, nearly every house is
built in one of just a few architectural styles, most of the individually-significant houses are
concentrated, and about 80% of the houses were built in the two decades between 1891 and 1911. The
stone markers for Professorville were placed inside it in 1969. It's essentially the portion of the
National Register Historic District west of Waverley Street, shown in red here:
This is the area with the features most people have in mind when they imagine Professorville.
But the Local Historic District we have today is the result of expansions over the years to include areas
that are not so closely related. Often they were added for superficial reasons (we have good
documentation for this). Today's Local District lacks strong unifying architectural and historical
principles like the core has. Only about a quarter of the houses have a connection to the early Stanford
professors. Depending on how you count them, some 15 architectural styles (including Eichlers!) are
represented, and even within a given style there is major variation in overall design, detail, and size.
Today Professorville contains areas that are no longer distinct from nearby parts of University South or
even Community Center and Crescent Park slightly farther away.
4 of 13
Professorville west of Waverley Street is a collection of historic houses built in consistent architectural
styles with intrusions of non-historic houses in other styles. Professorville east of Waverley is a
collection of less- or non-historic structures (houses and others) built in more recent architectural styles
wrapped around a modest number of historic houses in a variety of styles. I doubt it's appropriate or
even workable to apply a single set of detailed guidelines to both sections.
The Dames and Moore study of Palo Alto historic resources in 1999 observed that the Professorville
National Register District defined in 1979 wouldn't meet modern standards: The documentation "does
not include the kind of information and the amount of detail that is required today and that is needed in
regulating a historic district, whether as a NRHP [National Register of Historic Places] district, or a city
district." It went on to note specific problems in defining significance, characterizing architecture,
applying the National Register Criteria, defining the period of significance, establishing a defensible
boundary, assessing integrity, documenting individual buildings, and completing original research.
This has practical implications in the real world. My project met its legal requirements in part because
the property had none of the defining characteristics listed for the National Register District.
The Local District of today has even less strength than the National Register District. In January, 2014,
Dennis Backlund explained:
"...while the National Register sector of the district was professionally designated, this was not the
case with the 1993 extended Professorville. In 1993 there was no historic CEQA review process in
the City and no historically trained staff members in the Planning Department. In a nutshell, the
extended District sector was an unprofessional and improper designation (due to nearly 50% non-
contributors in the extended sector at the time of designation) that is often problematical due to
today's historic CEQA review. In 1993 all historic review in the City whether discretionary or not
was entirely voluntary compliance (due to the absence of the mandatory historic CEQA review
which was not practiced by the City until 1994 --triggered by the 1994-95 Varsity Theater-Borders
project where the concerned public uncovered in consultation with the State Preservation Office the
requirement for historic CEQA review in the Planning Department). The extended District did not
raise issues at first because historic review was then harmless to property rights--nothing was
actually required of historic properties except zoning and the Building Code. The solution to the
extended Professorville problem would be a formal evaluation of the extended District which would
definitely require a professional reconfiguration of the extended District boundaries so as to include
a significant majority of contributors."
We have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done to put the definition of the District on a sound
foundation. The Dames and Moore study laid out the key requirements more than 15 years ago.
5 of 13
The Craftsman Style Is Bad Taste and Waste
A lesson in how there will never be universal agreement about design, using one of the defining styles
in Professorville.
6 of 13
Comments on the Proposed Guidelines
Applicant's Needs
When most people consider a building project, they begin with a functional need, and then ask what
they're allowed to do. For instance, “I want another bedroom so my parents can stay with us. Can I
expand my second floor?” Or “I suffer from seasonal affective disorder. Can I add skylights to bring in
more natural light?”
The proposed Guidelines are essentially about art; they have a lot to say about aesthetics without
considering the applicant's needs for function. They're disingenuous about their authority, as well;
aside from some half-hearted disclaimers they express their recommendations as if they were
requirements. Applicants should be forgiven for not understanding what is permitted and what isn't!
Under current law, a project is acceptable if it's consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation. Those Standards are more permissive than the proposed Guidelines. Interpreting the
Standards for each particular case, and including the needs of the applicant, is the essential purpose of a
review. The best way to meet an applicant's needs, therefore, is to make a professional-quality review
by architects easier, faster, and more conclusive, not to elaborate the existing process with more than a
hundred pages of non-binding advice.
7 of 13
Real-World Basis
To avoid overwhelming you with details, I'll cite just a few examples where the Guidelines get into
specifics that fail to respect the ground truth. I sent others to Planning a few months ago.
•On page 9 it's mentioned that Professorville is “distinguished by...its consistent streetscape
patterns...”. In fact, measurements show that Professorville is less consistent than the nearby
neighborhoods of Crescent Park and Community Center. This would be expected from the way
properties were subdivided. Good places to appreciate this are the 300 blocks of Lincoln,
Kingsley, and Melville (where the lots are large and irregularly-sized) and the 1000 and 1100
blocks of Bryant and Ramona nearby (where the lots are small and regularly-sized). Enforcing a
new consistency where it didn't exist historically would be a change to the character of the
District.
•Page 34 states “Early residences are set back from the street between 25’-40’...” A scale map of
Professorville plotted by the City's GIS suggests that very few of the small properties have
setbacks this large, and perhaps a little more than half of the large properties do. So this may be
incorrect. In practice, it's likely irrelevant and doesn't need to be in the Guidelines. Zoning
requirements (particularly the contextual setback) are going to override it, so it can't serve as
guidance to accept or reject a project.
•On page 123, “early homes in the neighborhood were typically constructed with detached
garages at the backs of lots.” Originally this read “all early homes in the neighborhood were
constructed with detached garages” [emphasis added], which was corrected after I pointed out
exceptions. But how common are other garage designs? Would you reject an application for a
new attached garage if only 5% of Professorville houses had them? How about 20%? What if
the percentages differed for houses on alleys as opposed to houses elsewhere? An historical
architecture consultant once told me that assertions about house features in historic districts
always need to be quantified, or you can't be sure how true they really are.
The last item above is one example of the ways the proposed Guidelines misrepresent the district by
oversimplifying and overgeneralizing it. Professorville includes traditional styles and Eichlers, cottages
and mansions. This variety is undeniably one of the defining characteristics of the District. As a result
the Guidelines' sweeping statements about particular features can be wrong for a good percentage of
the houses in the District. As was the case with the first set of Guidelines many years ago, this tends to
make the new Guidelines unhelpful for design reviews and for resolving CEQA questions, because you
can always find counterexamples to support a particular position.
8 of 13
Here's one of the four Category 1 (most significant) houses in the District:
It violates the new Guidelines in at least four areas: window design, main entrance placement,
streetscape patterns, and landscaping. And it's not alone. Other individually-significant houses in the
District violate one or more of the Guidelines, as do many non-significant houses.
If the proposed Guidelines don't accurately capture what's already in the District, how can you use
them to decide whether a new project is compatible with the District?
Keep in mind that the Secretary's Standards are already so restrictive that had they been in force from
the beginning, Professorville as we know it today could not have been built. This house is a good
example. Today we recognize it as one of the most significant in the City, but when it was built it was
incompatible with the core Professorville houses in massing and materials. That would have violated
the Standards.
It might be ideal to have definitive requirements, but for a District that doesn't have consistent
architecture or history, laundry-lists of guidelines are not the best substitute. The Committee's
recommendations depended on the review process to balance compatibility and change.
9 of 13
Another way the proposed Guidelines overgeneralize is by misleading readers about the amount of
similarity in the District. There's a good illustration of this on page 38: A map of the District where
areas are colored by architectural style.
I think that most people, seeing this, would get the impression that large areas of Professorville are very
similar architecturally. But is this true in reality?
Here are two houses that are both colored dark green on the map:
10 of 13
Here are two more, this time from the light-green areas:
If you built an addition to one house of each pair using the style of the other, would it be compatible? Is
it misleading to imply that they're the same style by portraying them the same way in the map?
The Guidelines supposedly describe the defining features of Professorville. Are they complete enough
to explain why a given house is appropriate for the District, and a neighbor across the District boundary
isn't? Here are two houses, adjacent to one another in the middle of their block. One is inside the
District and the other isn't:
Architecturally, neither one seems very different from other houses in the District, so it's not obvious
why they aren't both in the District. Perhaps one is “historic,” and the other isn't? But just down the
street, you'll find this house, which is also next to the District boundary but wasn't included in the
District:
11 of 13
In fact, most houses in the District aren't significant individually, and plenty of nearby houses that are
significant individually are not in the District. Many houses in the District are not obviously different
from houses outside it. Again, if the Guidelines aren't strong enough to show why existing houses
belong or don't belong in the District, how are they valid for showing why a new house or an addition
belongs or doesn't belong in the District?
Legal Defensibility
The new Guidelines have no legal force, so I doubt they have to be defensible per se. However, they
do nothing to help resolve the essential CEQA question of whether a project in Professorville presents
significant unmitigatable impacts on the historic resource that comprises the District. If the City cites
them among its reasons to block a project, it might be challenged on the basis of issues like those
described in this letter.
Age alone is not enough to confer significance; anything that simply survives eventually becomes old,
whether or not it's individually valuable or a meaningful part of a larger whole. That's why the
Department of the Interior requires historic districts to have unifying principles in addition to age. The
decision of the new Guidelines not to differentiate between contributing and non-contributing houses in
the District, and to use age alone, is a fundamental error. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it offers
another path to a legal challenge, perhaps to the District itself.
12 of 13
Fairness
The new Guidelines fail to address a major loophole: Today you can freely demolish an historic house
and build a one-story replacement of your choice. HRB recommendations are non-binding. Individual
Review doesn't apply to one-story houses, so there's no discretionary action involved, and CEQA
doesn't apply. Therefore the constraints are significantly more severe for two-story houses than one-
story houses. This loophole has been used; 225 Lincoln (a one-story spec house constructed in 2013;
ironically, pictured as a positive example in the new Guidelines) exists because a Category 3 historic
house was demolished in order to build it. The Committee's recommendations, on the other hand,
would have modified Individual Review to apply it to single-story houses in Professorville and thus
treated one- and two-story houses fairly.
Dennis Backlund documented that many of the properties added in the 1993 expansion don't contribute
to the District. The Guidelines before you impose the same constraints on those properties that they do
on the contributors. This is clearly unfair (and perhaps challengeable).
Efficiency
The new Guidelines offer no improvement in this respect. All the conflicts between City reviewers that
I dealt with in my project are still possible, and likely to happen again for someone else. The
Committee's approach would have consolidated multiple reviews, reducing the potential for
inconsistency, and streamlined the process.
An HRB member once told me that Guidelines should be brief and general. The more non-binding
specifics that are added, the greater the chance they will be misunderstood or misused. The proposed
new Guidelines definitely fail that test. Sometimes less is more.
13 of 13
From:Allen Akin
To:Gitelman, Hillary
Cc:Council, City; Weintraub, Matthew; French, Amy; Silver, Cara; Michelle Arden
Subject:Re: Comments on the Proposed Professorville Design Guidelines
Date:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:01:13 AM
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:41:10PM +0000, Gitelman, Hillary wrote:| Thanks for these detailed comments and for participating in this| long-running project. Staff will review your comments and prepare| a response to the issues you have raised in advance of the City| Council's meeting on September 12th.
Thanks for your followup!
I should emphasize that these issues aren't last-minute surprises. Iraised all of them (and others) in my emails to Planning over the pastyear, in discussions at the Design Guidelines Workshops, or at the firstHRB hearing for the Guidelines. Some are more than 15 years old.
Given that there's already been plenty of time and opportunity to takethe issues into account, I don't expect Planning to make any substantivechanges in the proposed Guidelines at this point. Clearly the directionfor the project was set in stone at least a year ago.
If Planning is working on new initiatives that aren't generally known,like a significant change in Individual Review or Historical Review, itwould be wonderful to hear about them. However, it wouldn't change myrequest that Council table the proposed Guidelines until we understandexactly how an improved review process would work and how any set ofGuidelines would be used in it. For example, I wouldn't want Council toapprove them only to learn a year from now that these voluntaryGuidelines with all their shortcomings suddenly will become mandatory.
| I really appreciate your attention to this issue, just as I| appreciate Matt Weintraub's efforts to bring a complex project| that he inherited to a conclusion.
The way you've phrased that puts the problem in a nutshell. The goalwasn't to bring a "project" to a "conclusion". The goal was to fix someof the fundamental issues with design review in Professorville. Atleast that's apparently how Planning understood it in 2011. Councilmight be able to clarify its intent.
For me, the touchstone is usually "Would this have prevented theproblems on my project?" With respect to the proposed Guidelines theanswer is pretty clearly "no". My first house design was based onrecommendations from Planning, but the City's historical architectureconsultant threw it out. (Recall that this was the same architect whosestaff developed the first Professorville Design Guidelines.) The housewas redesigned over the course of a year during which he had veto powerover everything, from the site plan to the paint. But after the designwas complete and the EIR had been drafted, he decided he wanted morechanges. When it was time for IR, the City's IR consultant alsodemanded redesign of significant parts of the house. When it was timefor historic review, the HRB was upset that Planning didn't give themthe opportunity to redesign it as well. We had reached the point wherethe changes made by some reviewers were the motivation for changes byother reviewers.
An illustrated list of common features in Professorville is not a fix
for that situation. A better-organized review process might be.
Best Regards,Allen
From:Allen Akin
To:Gitelman, Hillary
Cc:Council, City; Weintraub, Matthew; French, Amy; Silver, Cara
Subject:Re: Comments on the Proposed Professorville Design Guidelines
Date:Saturday, September 10, 2016 1:53:14 PM
Director Gitelman:
Thanks for your memo responding to my comments submitted to Council.
As for continuity: None of the conceptual approach (specified byPlanning in 2011), the text, or the illustrations from the Committee'sfinal draft survive in the current Guidelines. It certainly appearsthat the new Guidelines started from scratch.
You mentioned that the Committee effort "did not reach a successfulconclusion." The Committee completed its final draft and held its finalpublic review. To the best of my knowledge, Staff never submitted it tothe HRB for approval. As I noted in my email to Council, those of us onthe Committee understood that to be due to departures of key personnel,not to a deficiency in the draft.
I mentioned learning about the project from the Consent Calendar becausethat indicates the project strategy was set before there was any attemptto contact the previous participants. The item would have been placedon the Calendar only after Staff had decided to hire a consultant todevelop a new set of Guidelines. The Committee members had not beennotified that such a decision was being contemplated.
I did ask for a one-on-one with Mr. Weintraub after the notice appeared,but he deflected that request by stating that the public would haveopportunities for input. He also wrote (email of August 17, 2015): "AsHillary said, none of the previous work will be lost, and there will beopportunities for property owners and community members to provide inputthroughout the process. In addition, we will ask the advisory committeeto regroup and help lead us through the effort." This turned out notto be the case, but the choice to define the strategy without talkingto the Committee first was of more concern.
The activities in the workshops, and the criteria and examples usedto discuss the District, were not chosen by the participants.Those were designed by the consultants before the workshopstook place. For example, see the first workshop materials here:http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51405 .
I'm not aware of any issues raised during free discussion in the firstworkshop that materially affected the draft Guidelines. (Some issuesbecame disclaimers in sidebars and FAQ entries.) By the time the secondworkshop was held the draft was already completed.
Regarding what the Guidelines are, and are not: This paragraphillustrates several of the problems that concern me. At first, theGuidelines are described as just an educational tool; but by the end ofthe paragraph they're being described as a part of reviews based on theSecretary's Standards (e.g. CEQA reviews) and a possible foundation forMunicipal Code changes. Were they expressing general principles, orbased on a defensible definition of the District, I'd be less worried.But they're not. They're highly specific, based on a concept thatdoesn't distinguish between contributors and non-contributors, and a
period of significance that isn't backed up by research. As the Damesand Moore report noted, even the National Register District lacks
defensible definitions for those things. This had a direct impact on myproject, so I have a great deal of respect for the problem! The LocalDistrict is even worse, containing older houses that were determined tobe ineligible by the HRB, but were added anyway as part of boundaryregularization or extension to include individually-significant houses.The proposed Guidelines aren't a solid foundation, because they weren'tbased on the houses that contribute according to a principled definitionof a district.
Re contributors, from page 23 of the proposed Guidelines: "The guidelinesare meant to apply equally to all properties in the district; therefore,they do not include radically different treatments for contributors andnon-contributors." They should, though. Contributor status is probablythe single most important factor in determining whether demolition ispossible. Glossing over that fact is equivalent to ignoring an importantlegal distinction and surreptitiously eliminating a property right.
I defer to Council on the question of its intent when directing Planningin 2011. At the time, Planning obviously felt that changes in the reviewprocess and in the code were within its charter, and so they instructedthe Committee.
Your memo mentioned that the Committee's Guidelines included minimaldesign advice. That was intentional. The acceptability of a projectis always determined by a review, not by the Guidelines. Therefore,the Committee chose to encourage early, free, and frequent consultationwith the HRB rather than produce a laundry list of characteristics thatcould be misinterpreted or misused. I watched the HRB members at thesecond workshop carefully; based on how they approached the assignments,it's clear that even with the proposed new Guidelines, you'll still wantearly, free, and frequent consultation with the HRB.
The Committee's Guidelines followed Planning's direction to extend theIR Guidelines. As part of that, they proposed broadening theapplicability of IR in Professorville to include single-story houses,houses that were moved on their lots by more than a certain amount, andhouses that were expanded by more than a certain amount on any floor(not just the second). All of these suggestions were prompted by actualprojects in Professorville that had negative consequences forpreservation but avoided a binding review. Note that there areinteractions between IR issues and preservation issues; for example,privacy requirements interact with the preservation of historic patternsof fenestration.
I appreciate that the proposed Guidelines are consistent with theSecretary's Standards. However, it's those Standards, not theGuidelines, that ultimately determine whether a project is acceptableaccording to local and state policy. The Secretary's Standards are lessprescriptive than most people realize, and permit more than the proposednew Guidelines imply.
Concerning district characteristics: The original house on my property(which is inside the National Register District boundary) had none of thedefining characteristics listed on the National Register nomination form.Other houses in the District also have few or none. On the other hand,
there are houses outside the district boundary that meet most or allof them. As the Dames and Moore report observed, the district characteris not well-defined and the boundary is not defensible. You can't
work forward from a set of characteristics to determine the boundary,and you can't work backward from the boundary to infer the defining
characteristics. The Local District is weaker still.
Of course you can specify areas where the character is well-defined andthe boundaries defensible; they simply don't cover the whole District.I would support developing Guidelines on that basis, but that's not howthe proposed Guidelines work.
Best Regards,Allen Akin
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Huber [mailto:njh451@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 5:00 PM
To: Council, City
Cc: cityclerk@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Professorville Historic Design Guidelines
September 9, 2016
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing in regards to the Professorville Guidelines. I have had difficulty composing this letter due to
the fact that the premise has seemed wrong from the beginning. Instead of spending these years
deciding on the best way to build new houses in a historic district, it seemed best to developed new
rules and zoning to protect our historic district from taking houses down that fall within the historic time
period. If we don't consider this issue soon, we could easily lose our National designation.
That being said, the staff and community committee came up with some very good recommendations in
many areas of the guidelines along with some that should be changed.
There is a statement in the second paragraph of the introduction (pg. 9) that states, "...alterations may
be desired in order to adapt the neighborhoods early homes to contemporary tastes and lifestyles." This
is a very scary statement for any historic district, and in our District, these rules or guidelines only apply
to the exterior. The interiors can be changed as the owners wish.
One section on page 99 that really seems inappropriate is 6.1.3. The first bullet point. Many large lots
were subdivided years ago, with a few more recently in the ending decades of the 20th century. Today
most of the large lots left have a beautiful home sitting squarely in the middle of the lot. To recommend
subdividing lots in Professorville to then be able to build a new home seems contrary to the concept of
the historic district.
When a newer house is to be built to replace one that is not historic, I believe review should be
mandatory for every new home in the district. I am not sure there is a review for all new home in the
guidelines.
I apologize for my meandering thoughts, but I am sincere in the hope that the main goal of our city
should be to honor and protect this precious resource of our past.
Sincerely,
Nancy Huber
451 Lincoln Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent from my iPhone
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Corey [mailto:bcorey@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:06 AM
To: Council, City
Cc: Jennifer Rhoades
Subject: Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines
City Council:
My wife and I are unfortunately unable to attend the meeting on Monday the 12th, but we wanted to
provide my feedback on the proposed Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines.
We are residents of the Professorville district, and own a historic home here. We were involved in some
of the early meetings and discussions on the topic, and while we are behind having a set of standards or
guidelines for renovating historic homes, we are *not* supportive of the proposal in it’s current form.
We have had a lot of what I believe to be unnecessary teardowns and guttings of historic homes in the
neighborhood over the past several years. As such, I am very concerned when we put out guidelines,
and I want to make sure we have a good document for people to refer to.
In my mind, the purpose of having these guidelines, should be to direct people who would like to
renovate historic homes with direction and reflection on what we would like to preserve.
Unfortunately, much of the wording is vague, and leaves concepts open to interpretation. If we were
looking at a proposal for a standard, I would be much more amenable to having vagueness in the text, as
it allows for flexibility under various circumstances. However, when working on guidelines, which are
non-binding, it leaving an open invitation for homeowners and builders to get around historic
preservation rules. I would prefer to have *no* guidelines, rather than have guidelines that allow
builders “a way out” of preserving the integrity of the architecture.
Some examples:
Page 15, bullet 3:
“A historic building should not be demolished unless it’s rehabilitation is infeasible due to its poor
physical condition. If removal of an existing historic building is necessary, then new construction should
strive to retain the existing property’s character defining features…”
I own many properties and have done lots of building and renovation work in the past. Contractors
need to be more specialized in order to do quality rehabilitation work, versus just rebuilding, so most
contractors will always be in favor of replacement. Any contractor can declare a building rehabilitation
infeasible. The current wording leaves it open, and is something home owners or contractors can quote
in order to help push through a teardown.
Page 55, bullet 1:
“Avoid covering character-defining cladding with vinyl, aluminum, or other synthetic siding materials”
If you have a house built in 1900, having vinyl *anywhere* on the structure would make it look out of
place. Indicating that it’s character defining allows people an easy way out, if it isn’t integral to a piece
of facade that anyone can declare or not declare character-defining.
Page 55, bullet 5:
“Match the replacement wood siding to the historic siding as closely as possible...”
Why as closely as possible? Does someone believe that we are incapable of producing the type of
materials that we were able to produce in 1900?
Page 57, 3.1.2, bullet 1:
“Maintain existing wood shingle and clay tile roofing materials where feasible…"
Wood shingles and clay roofing are freely available from any roofer. How would using the same
material not be feasible?
There are many more examples like that throughout the document. Strangely enough, an early revision
I read was much more specific, and it looks like it’s been watered down through all of the revisions.
I am also concerned that there are very few references to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation. It’s almost a footnote in a 150 page document.
For these reasons, I would recommend that you reject this proposal in it’s current form. I think with
some additional work, which I’d be happy to contribute on, this could be a useful document, but in it’s
current form, it’s worse than having no guidelines at all.
Thank you,
Brandon Corey
308 Lincoln Ave
From: Margaret Feuer [mailto:portulaca24@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:23 PM To: Council, City Subject: Professorville Guidelines
Dear Mayor Burt and Members of the Council,
Please do not approve the Professorville Guidelines as presented to you
this evening. They are vague and inconsistent and do not clarify the issues
of preservration and homeowners' rights.
They make an already confusing situation more so. The National Register
Standards currently used by architects and the HRB do a far better job at setting
standards. The Professorville Guidelines need to be sent back to staff and to citizens
for more stringent review.
Sincerely,
Margaret R. Feuer
past President of PAST
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members Beth Bunnenberg, Patricia Di Cicco, Roger Kohler
Absent: Board Members David Bower and Michael Makinen
Oral Communications
None.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
None.
City Official Reports
1.Meeting Schedule and Attendance
Matthew Weintraub reported no items were scheduled for the August 11, 2016 meeting and one item was scheduled for the August 25, 2016 meeting.
Action Items
2.Draft Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines - Informational Presentation to the
Historic Resources Board. Board members and the public may provide comments on the draft
guidelines. Final guidelines will be proposed for adoption at a future hearing. For additional
information contact the planner, matthew.weintraub@cityofpaloalto.org.
Mr. Weintraub advised that staff and the consultant team incorporated comments from the HRB, staff
and the public into the Guidelines.
Jonathan Rusch, Page and Turnbull, reviewed objectives for revising the Guidelines. Generally revisions expressed preferences while acknowledging the need for flexibility on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Rusch provided the rationale for changes to text and illustrations.
Mr. Weintraub remarked regarding comments that were received but not necessarily addressed in the
Guidelines.
Board Member Bunnenberg requested Staff discuss cumulative effects and exemptions from CEQA. Mr.
Weintraub clarified that the Guidelines were recommendations to the property owner, architect, the
Board and staff on how to achieve compliance with Standards. Any project could comply with Standards
and still have a minimal effect or change. Tracking potential cumulative effects was beyond the scope of
the Guidelines. Board Member Bunnenberg inquired whether the Board could request monitoring of
projects. Mr. Weintraub replied yes. The Board could recommend conditions of approval that would
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES: July 28, 2016
City Hall/City Council Chambers 250
Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
involve monitoring. Board Member Bunnenberg commented that the Board's determination whether
moving a structure within a lot was needed or wanted was subjective. Mr. Weintraub noted the
Guidelines provided parameters for moving or lifting buildings as appropriate.
Board Member Di Cicco felt the Guidelines provided direction as well as flexibility for projects.
Vice Chair Wimmer suggested creating a companion document that highlighted salient points of the Guidelines. Mr. Weintraub explained that an index was added to the Guidelines to address this issue. The scope of the project did not include development of another document. Board Member Kohler noted the index was quite good in listing individual components and topics.
Chair Bernstein inquired whether a City ordinance required approval of plans for new construction prior to
demolition of an existing structure (Guidelines page 89, paragraph 6.1.3). Mr. Weintraub reported a
Development Center policy stated building permits for demolition should not be issued prior to approval
of new development plans.
Rob Steinberg felt the Guidelines were sensitive to Professorville, yet provided direction and flexibility. A
companion document was not necessary. He suggested Appendix B include explanations of categories
and the Guidelines discuss placing new ancillary buildings at locations other than the rear of the property.
Council Member Holman commented regarding paragraphs 7.1.5, 6.1 and 4.1.1; the drawing on page 91; and the omission of incentives. Mr. Weintraub explained that the Guidelines could not cover every possible situation with certainty. The City's Codes did not prohibit demolition. The Guidelines were designed as recommendations to the individuals making decisions. The Guidelines were not intended to promote preservation incentives.
Mr. Steinberg suggested the Board give additional thought to the impact of raising houses. He preferred
the Guidelines clearly state expectations for projects.
Board Member Bunnenberg believed the Guidelines would be helpful to the public. A handout regarding
historic fabric would be valuable for architects and construction workers.
Board Member Di Cicco remarked that prohibitions could require revisions to the Municipal Code, which
could be complicated.
Chair Bernstein questioned whether "subordination" or "subordinate" was used in the Guidelines. Mr. Weintraub answered yes. Chair Bernstein suggested including a photograph of more substantial landscaping on page 13. The selection of specialty glass was probably a subjective decision of the applicant and HRB. Additions to the rear of historic buildings could be approved if done sensitively.
Chair Bernstein concurred with including definitions of historic categories. Mr. Weintraub advised a
discussion of historic designations was contained at the beginning of the document. The Guidelines did
not distinguish between category buildings and non-category buildings. The categories were not the
point of the Guidelines.
The Board discussed raising historic structures, reasons for doing so, and prohibitions. Board Members
generally felt the Guidelines implied raising a historic structure was acceptable and discussed revisions to
the language of paragraph 4.4.1.
Mr. Weintraub noted the Council was scheduled to consider approval of the Guidelines on September 12,
2016. The Guidelines needed to be completed and adopted by September 30, 2016 in order to receive federal funding. The Board, staff and Council Member Holman discussed the effects on the timeline should the Board and/or the Council make revisions to the Guidelines.
Mr. Weintraub reviewed recommendations to (1) explain or define historic categories; (2) address
vehicular access, parking and equipment at the front of lots; (3) add language regarding demolition for
City of Palo Alto Page 3
redevelopment; (4) replace the photo of landscaping; (5) add page numbers to the index; (6) modify
paragraph 4.4.1; and (7) enlarge the type font used in the document.
MOTION:
Chair Bernstein moved, seconded by Board Member Bunnenberg, that the Historic Resources Board
recommend adoption of the proposed Professorville Historic Design Guidelines including the modifications to which the Board agreed. MOTION PASSED: 5-0, Bower and Makinen absent Mr. Weintraub reported the Board potentially could review and comment on the proposed revisions at the
August 11 or 25, 2016 meeting.
Study Session
None.
Approval of Minutes July 14, 2016
MOTION: Board Member Kohler moved, seconded by Board Member Bunnenberg, to approve the Minutes of July 14, 2016. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Di Cicco abstaining, Bower and Makinen absent
Subcommittee Items
None.
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
None.
Adjournment