Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-19 City Council (4)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: ¯HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER 9 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 CMR:356:01 539 ALMA STREET: DESIGNATION TO THE HISTORIC INVENTORY OF A SIGNIFICANT BUILDING IN CATEGORY 2 AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER, STEVEN L. FASANI, PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.49, SECTIONS 16.49.020 AND 16.49.040. RECOMMENDATION The Historic Resources Board and staff recommend that Council honor the owner’s request to designate the building located at 539 Alma Street to the Historic Inventory as a significant building in Category 2, based on the finding that the building meets the definition of a Category 2 building and all six criteria for historic designation as set forth in Chapter 16.49 of the Municipal Code. BACKGROUND The former Auto Electric Company building, located at the comer of Alma Street and Hamilton Avenue in downtown Palo Alto, was initially constructed in 1921 by A. B. Clark, and enlarged and completely re-designed by his son, Birge Clark, in 1928 (see Attachment A). The unusually intact building represents the transition between two important commercial styles in early 20th-century Palo Alto. The lower half of the building is a plain concrete commercial block with plate glass, steel framed windows typical of the period before 1925. The upper half of the building, which is decorated with Spanish Colonial Revival details-including a red clay tile roof, fanciful eave soffit, and tile scuppers, points to a architectural trend in retail buildings that flourished in downtown Palo Alto between 1925 and 1932 and was referred to at the time as the "art store" approach. "Art stores" in Palo Alto were designed in romanticized Spanish styles, and exhibited extensive detailing and finishes that went considerably beyond utilitarian needs. The leading "art store" architects were Pedro de Lemos and Birge Clark. In addition to its significant transitional character, the building at 539 Alma Street is further distinguished by an unusual recessed comer entry containing the original glass panel door and period hardware. CMR:356:01 Page 1 of 2 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW The HRB, at its meeting of June 20, 2001, reviewed the designation application for the building at 539 Alma Street (see Attachment B). In response to questions from the Board, the applicant, Steven L. Fasani, confirrned that he and his family were the owners of the building, and he clarified the evidence for the initial construction date of 1921. Board Member Mildred Mario observed that the substantial documentation on the building presented to the Board, and the involvement in the building of both Birge Clark and his father, demonstrated that 539 Alma Street unquestionably merited designation to the Historic Inventory in Category 2. She then moved the staff recommendation. Board Member Carol Murden, who seconded the motion, noted the importance of the applicant’s discovery of a building initially designed by A. B. Clark. Board Chair Susan Haviland commented that she had long admired the building and strongly supported the designation. The HRB unanimously voted (4-0-1-2, Martin Bernstein abstaining and Roger Kohler and Beth Bunnenberg absent) to recommend the designation of 539 Alma Street to the Historic Inventory as a significant building in Category 2 and to forward the recommendation to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Historic Resources Board staff report of June 20, 2001 Attachment B: HRB verbatim minutes of June 20, 2001 PREPARED BY: Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Plarmer REVIEWED BY: Lisa ~rot~, Chief Planning Official CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager cc: Steven L. Fasani, 62 Erstwild Court, Palo Alto CA 94303 CMR:356:01 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A Historic Resources Board Staff Report Date:June 20, 2001 To:Historic Resources Board From: Subject: Dennis Backlund, Historic Preservation Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 539 Alma Street [01-HRB-03]: Application by Steven L. Fasani for Board review of a proposal to designate the former Auto Electric Company Building, designed by A. B. Clark in 1921 and re-designed by Birge Clark in 1928, to the City ofPalo Alto’s Historic Buildings Inventory, and Board recommendation to the City Council of a Historic Category number for the building as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board recommend that the City Council designate the property located at 539 Alma Street as a significant building in Category 2 " consistent with the criteria for designation of historic structures in Municipal Code Section 16.49.040(b), and the definition of Historic Category 2 in Section 16.49.020(b). ASSESSMENT OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING Introduction The following historic assessment of 539 Alma Street will evaluate the building’s architectural style, the importance of the architects, and the level of historic integrity. The history of the site and building usage will be surveyed. Date of Initial Construction: 1921 The original plans for the building by A. B. Clark are undated, but an advertisement in the Palo Alto Times of June 16, 1921 states that the building is under construction. The plans for the addition and complete remodel by Birge Clark, A. B. Clark’s son, are dated May 5, 1928 (see Attachment A). S:\plan\plandiv~trb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 1 Architectural Style The A. B. Clark Design. As initially designed by A. B. Clark for the Auto Electric Company, 539 Alma Street was an extremely simple one-story reinforced concrete commercial building with stucco-clad parapet walls (see Attachment B). It was 25 feet wide on Alma Street, 120 feet long on Hamilton Avenue, and approximately 14 feet high. The Alma Street elevation featured a plain wood door with glass panel below a single- pane transom window. Flanking the entry door were plate glass windows above simple panel-style bulkheads. The Hamilton Avenue elevation provided greater visual interest in that the parapet wall was slightly stepped and there were 12 large multi-pane windows (four feet wide and ten feet high). None of these features have survived. The original design of 539 Alma Street was typical of numerous understated California commercial buildings constructed during the prosperous 1920s. Surviving examples include the Sanor Building at 150-158 Hamilton Avenue and the Werry Building at 383 University Avenue. The Birge Clark Remodel. In May 1928, Birge Clark completed plans for a remodeled building at 539 Alma Street with a new storefront addition adjacent to the Auto Electric Company. The project included doubling the size of the building and giving the whole a unified massing decorated with Spanish Colonial Revival details (see Attachment C). To accommodate the new addition, the existing wooden false-front structure that housed the Palo Alto Fruit and Produce Company was demolished (see Attachment B). Both Palo Alto Fruit and Produce and the Auto Electric Company occupied the remodeled expanded building. Birge Clark’s plans indicate the retention of several elements of his father’s design of 1921: much of the Alma Street elevation, and several of the multi-pane windows at the rear of the Hamilton Avenue elevation. None of A. B. Clark’s design survives, however, and it is likely that Birge Clark’s remodel was constructed somewhat differently from what is indicated on the plans because staff could find no evidence that variants from the plans were later alterations. Specifically, the angled recessed entry at the corner of Alma and Hamilton (not shown on the plans), and all the existing steel window frames, and the doors and hardware appear to date from the late 1920s. The lower portion of Birge Clark’s remodel displays the same typical California commercial block character found in A. B. Clark’s design, but the details of the upper portion of the building are Spanish Colonial Revival, a style that Birge Clark adopted for his commercial buildings from 1925 to about 1932. The principal elements of Birge Clark’s remodel are as follows: on the Alma Street elevation the building was raised from the existing height of fourteen feet to a height of twenty feet at the peak of the medium- pitch side-facing gable. The roof is clad in red clay tile which slopes down to a wide overhanging eave with ornamental soffit facing Alma Street. The gable-end wall features S:\plan\plandiv~rbkstaffreportkI-IRB staffrep, template Page 2 clay tile scuppers. The copper gutter system overlooking Alma Street includes a pair of large copper downspouts in the shape of brackets which appear to support the cave. Along the Hamilton Avenue elevation the stepped parapet wall was replaced with a non- stepped wall edged with an overhanging cornice of red clay tiles with ornamental soffit matching the soffit on Alma Street. The Birge Clark plans (like the A. B. Clark plans) indicate a system of wood trusses that support the roof. The plans for the remodel also indicate four substantial wood, metal, and glass skylights for the addition and these survive. Significance of the Sts, le. The Spanish Colonial Revival detailing of the 539 Alma Street remodel links this building to the Hispanic architectural tradition in the Palo Alto area which began in 1891 with the completion of the construction of Stanford University. The University’s Mission style inspired the local Mission Revival which began in Palo Alto shortly after 1900 and continued to the World War I period. By around 1920, the Mission style had given way to the Spanish Colonial Revival which drew from a wider range of Spanish influences. From 1920 to 1935 Spanish Colonial Revival homes and commercial buildings were built in such numbers that the City’s first historic survey consultants, Paula Boghosian and John Beach, reported in 1979 that "...it is the Spanish Colonial Revival which helped to establish the image of the community" (Historical and Architectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto, page 13). Notable examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style near 539 Alma Street include the former Palo Alto Ice Delivery building across the street at 132-136 Hamilton (recently determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places), and the Ramona Street Architectural District three blocks to the east which is listed on the National Register and is composed entirely of Spanish Colonial Revival buildings. The typical commercial storefront aspects of the building link it to the concrete and stucco storefront buildings built throughout California during the early 20th century. The Architects A. B. Clark. The original architect of 539 Alma Street was unknown until Steven L. Fasani, the applicant, discovered and submitted the plans ofA. B. Clark, thus demonstrating for the first time that A. B. Clark did commercial work in the Downtown area as well as his well-known residential work, and also demonstrating that only members of the Clark family participated in the evolving creation of the building at 539 Alma Street. Professor Arthur Bridgrnan Clark, early head of Stanford University’s Art Department, was one ofPalo Alto’s first notable designers. Three of the outstanding homes of the City’s founding years are by A. B. Clark and are listed on the Historic Buildings Inventory: 1136 Waverley Street (1893), 433 Melville Avenue (1894), and 356 Lincoln Avenue (1896). S:\plan\plandivkhrbkstaffreport~q-RB staffrep, template Page 3 Birge Clark. The son ofA. B. Clark is ot~en cited as Palo Alto’s most important architect of the 20tu century, having designed many of the most prominent buildings in the City. He opened his Palo Alto office in the summer of 1922, and continued practicing in the City until the 1970s. Birge Clark’s significance is summed up by Paula Boghosian and John Beach in Historical and Arch)tectural Resources of the City of Palo Alto, page 66: "It seldom happens that a single architect is so influential that his work actually provides a major component of the.image of a city. There are, however, at least 3 California towns where this has happened: in San Diego with the work of Irving Gill; in Watsonville with thework ofW. H. Weeks; and in Palo Alto with the work of Birge Clark." Clark is best known for his Spanish Colonial Revival buildings of the 1920s and early 1930s includh), g such National Register landmarks as the Norris House, and the Hamilton Avenue Post Office. He remodeled 539 Alma Street during his most productive period in the Downtown area when he was designing the buildings that decades later would become the Ramona Street Architectural District. Level of Integrity The building at 539 Alma Street appears to retain integrity with respect to its most important character-defining features: (a) the form and massing of the building, (b) the distinctive recessed entry and wide glass-paneled door with original hammered hardware, (c) the second entry door, transom and hammered hardware on Alma Street, (d) a third entry door (on Hamilton) with multi-pane panel and period hardware as shown on Birge Clark’s plans, (e) the clay tile roof and the tile cornice on Hamilton Avenue with their decorative soffits, (f) the ornamental bracket-shaped copper downspouts, (g) the steel framed plate glass windows, and (h) the hand pressed stucco walls. Although the recessed .entry and certain fenestration features of the building are not shown on Birge Clark’s plans, staff did not detect signs of alteration and concluded that the entry and the windows date from the 1928 remodel. The Hamilton Avenue elevation exhibits large and small wood panels in the stucco walls whose purpose could not be determined. Staff did not fred permit records for exterior changes and concluded from their appearance that these utilitarian alterations all dated from the mid- or early 20tu century and do not diminish the historic character of the building. A roll-up garage door at the rear of the Hamilton Avenue elevation appears modern but is compatible with the building. Therefore, staff believes that the level of integrity of 539 Alma Street meets the requirements for a Category 2 structure on the Historic Buildings Inventory. The building appears to be in good condition but would benefit from cosmetic restoration of exterior surface elements (for example, the removal of paint from the steel window frames and the repair and refurbishing of various wood and stucco elements). The Site The site of 539 Alma Street is a corner lot across from the railroad tracks at the intersection of Alma Street and Hamilton Avenue (see Attachment D). Since commercial S:\plan\plandivkhrbkstaffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 4 development in Palo Alto began in the area around the southwest end of University Avenue near the railroad tracks, the site of 539 Alma Street is located in the oldest part of the City. The lot has a frontage of 50 feet and a depth of 125 feet, which total 6,250 square feet. The building at 6000 square feet nearly covers its site. Early uses of the site include a blacksmith shop, a livery stable, a wagon house, and a grain and feed business all housed in simple wood frame buildings. The long-lived Palo Alto Fruit and Produce Company began on the site about 1908 and was eventually housed in Birge Clark’s remodel and expansion ofA. B. Clark’s building. History of Use During the period prior to World War II, the building byA. B. Clark and the remodeled building by Birge Clark were home to representatives of the two biggest industries in Palo Alto, the food business and the "Auto Row" automobile industry. By 1931 these two industries accounted for 45% of the total retail expenditures in Palo Alto (23% food and 22% automobiles: Palo Alto Times, January 31, 1931). The ftrst use of 539 Alma Street (then numbered 561) was the Auto Electric Company, a battery and ignition service station, which occupied the entire building until 1928, and the front portion until 1935. This business represented the development of the important downtown Palo Alto automobile district which evolved from its beginnings around 1908 to a position of major economic importance by 1930. The district occupied the area between Alma Street and Emerson Street and between University Avenue and Channing Avenue (an area of approximately 10 city blocks). After Birge Clark’s 1928 expansion and remodel of the building, the Palo Alto Fruit and Produce Company (whose building had been demolished for the 1928 addition) moved into the storefront at the rear of the remodeled building (115 Hamilton Avenue). The new addition’s Alma Street storefront was occupied by Don L. Morris Auto Parts which stayed until 1938. In 1942, Palo Alto Fruit and Produce expanded into the vacant storefront of the addition, and remained in the building until 1953. Auto-related businesses occupied the various storefronts on the Hamilton Avenue side of the building until 1973, including Hambaugh’s & Kimberk Tire Service, L. J. Baer Auto Repair, Union Auto Repair, Holland Auto Repair, and National Auto Glass. A business listed as Charles Padgett, Machinist occupied one of the Hamilton Avenue storefronts from 1941 to 1957. Beginning in 1953, floor covering businesses began to occupy the Alma Street storefronts including Peninsula Floors & Floor Coverings from 1953 to 1954, Peninsula Carpets, Inc. from 1955 to 1966, and, finally, Fasani Carpets from 1967 to 1999. The Fasani family currently owns the building. S:\plan\plandivklarb\staffreportkHRB staffrep, template Page 5 CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AND DEFINITIONS OF HISTORIC CATEGORIES Municipal Code 16.49.040(b) provides general criteria that apply to all historic designations in Palo Alto. The criteria are: 1.The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; 2.The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; 3.The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; 4.The structure or site is connected with a business or use .which was once common, but is now rare; 5. The architect or building was important; 6.The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. Municipal Code 16.49.020(b) establishes the level of significance of properties that meet the general criteria for designation. The focus of the definitions of the Categories is on architectural significance. The Categories are defined as follows: Category 1: "Exceptional building" means any building or group of buildings of preeminent national or state importance, meritorious work of the best architects or an outstanding example of the stylistic development of architecture in the United States. An exceptional building has had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. Category 2: "Major building means any building or group of buildings of maj or regional importance, meritorious works of the best architects or an outstanding example of an architecturalstyle or the stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. Category 3 or 4: "Contributing building" means any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing S:\ptan\plandivkhrb~staffreporthHRB staffrep, template Page 6 building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. FINDINGS FOR DESIGNATION Based on an analysis of the criteria for designation and the definitions of the Historic Categories found in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 staff finds that 539 Alma Street meets all the criteria for designation, and best fits the definition of a Category 2 building in that~ it represents the early expansion of Downtown and the development of a significant industrial district, "Auto Row" (Criterion 1); it represents the typical understated concrete and stucco storefront buildings of the early 20th century (Criterion 2); it is a rare intact example of a once-common form of commercial building (Criterion 3); its history represents the once-important automobile industry Downtown (Criterion 4); its original architect, A. B. Clark, and the architect of the remodel, Birge Clark, are of major local significance (Criterion 5); it retains its Spanish Colonial Revival tile roof and cornice with ornamental sofflts, doors with hammered hardware, and steel framed windows (Criterion 6); and the building is consistent with the definition of a Category 2 building in that it is the work of major local architects, represents the development of a major local industry (Auto Row) and retains a high degree of historic integrity. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Advertisement from Palo Alto Times, June 16, 1921. Attachment B: Photograph ofA. B. Clark’s design for 539 Alma Street (Auto Electric Co.) and the original Palo Alto Fruit and Produce Co.. building. Attachment C: Recent photographs of 529 Alma Street. Attachment D: Sanborn Maps for 1901, 1908, 1924, and 1949. COURTESY COPIES Steven L. Fasani 62 Erstwild Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 PREPARED BY: Dennis Backlund Historic Planner REVIEWED BY: Planning S:\plan\plandivkhrbkstaffreport~RB staffrep, template Page 7 ATTACHMENT A Palo Alto Times June .16, 1921 Attachment B Auto Electric Company Original Design by A. B. Clark To the left is Henry Pratt’s Palo Alto Fruit and Produce (Demolished in 1928) Attachment C 539 Alma Street Attachment C " 539 Alma Strcet Attachment L) Sanborn_~ ........~av--~,~ L 539 Alma Street II II Sanborn Map--1908 II 11 ’1" 539 Alma Street il II I I ,,,,] / 539 .Alma Street Sanborn Ma~--1924 ’ ALMA I Sanborn Map 1949 539 Alma Street 6/4 | I Attachment B Verbatim Minutes of the Historic Resources Board Meeting of June 20, 2001 Agenda Item 2: Proposed Historic Designation of the Building at 539 Alma Street Chair Haviland: Opposed? We’ll continue the May 2nd minutes until our next meeting. So, the next item is Item #2, which is 539 Alma Street, and I’ll read this into the record. It’s an application by Steven L. Fasani for Board review of a proposal to designate the former Auto Electric Building, designed by A. B. Clark in 1921 and re-designed by Birge Clark in 1928, to the City ofPalo Alto’s Historic Buildings Inventory, and Board recommendation to the City Council of a Historic Category number for the building as provided in Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance). Is there a staff report? Sorry, Marty? Vice-Chair Bemstein: Madam Chair, only to excuse myself from this item. I have a conflict of interest that results from my owning property within 300 feet of this address. So I’ll be stepping down. Chair Haviland: Thank you very much. As we still have a quorum we’ll proceed with the item. And the staff report. Staff Caporgno: Thank you, Madam Chair, Dennis will give the staff report. StaffBacklund: Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Board. We have before us a building that was included in the general survey by Dames and Moore that was carried out from 1997 to 2000. In that report, there was a finding of potential eligibility for the California Register. That information was not included in the staff report because what those findings of potential eligibility meant was basically that they had done a drive-by of this building and thousands of others and found that it had an identifiable historic style, that it was definitely a period building, and that it appeared to retain integrity. Any building that met all three of those criteria was put on the potential eligibility study list. However, most of the research still remained to be done, probably 80% or more. Nevertheless, I contacted Dames and Moore and asked what records they had on this building, and they did not have other records than what I have just told you. They had not been able to find anything about the exact year of construction other than the MetroScan records which we know can vary. Where they do vary, they vary by two or three years usually, but they can vary by ten or fifteen years in error. If permits were taken out on a building, this can cloud the issue and result in a mistaken date. So, in short we had very little to go on. However, the applicant who is the owner of this building, Steven L. Fasani, whose family operated one of the longest-lived family businesses in Palo Alto in the later 20th century, undertook research at Stanford University where there are materials on Birge Clark. It had been pretty much determined that Birge Clark had been involved in this building at a later stage and had done some sort of remodel. The exact scope of this remodel was not certain--you have to know what the building was as originally constructed. HRB Minutes of 6/20/01 Page 1 EXCERPT It was that information that we did not have, and so the applicant conducted research at the University and discovered plans for the original construction of the building. IfI may, I will hand this out to the Board. It is a copy of the plans that that is not terribly clear, but you can see the outlines of the building. What these plans revealed is that this, indeed, was an A. B. Clark commercial building. The staff report took the position that it’s the only commercial building that we know of from this residential architect--a very important architect. So, therefore, the applicant has discovered, and we’ve confn’med it, a Clark family building dating from the very beginning of Birge Clark’s career who was probably involved to some extent in this building because he was working with his father already at the Lou Henry Hoover House and other projects of his father’s before he opened his own business in 1922 on Embarcadero in Palo Alto. So I will now hand out these plans. They include the Birge Clark remodel in the later pages, but the first two pages are these endearingly sketchy plans by A. B. Clark that show a very, very different building than we have there today. Once staffhad this information, then we could take very seriously the proposal by the applicant to designate this building in a significant Category, either Category 1 or Category 2. An unusual examination of the building had revealed some alterations, and it was clear that alterations we saw, except the roll-up garage door, were done during the period of significance. We were initially not certain what in the building was surviving from Birge Clark. We finally reached the conclusion that virtually all of it represents the work of Birge Clark but, having some question, we proposed a Category 2 because Category 1 allows very little in the way of alteration and requires us to be able to identify the source of any alteration that we see. We began in the staff report with the establishment of the date of construction. We know that it is 1921. You will see in Attachment A an advertisement from 1921 that announces that the building is under construction in June of that year. The business is open at the end of the year. The second set of plans, tmlike the plans ofA. B. Clark which are undated, are dated by Birge Clark in May of 1928, so we know when that remodel took place. That meant that this building was redesigned by Birge Clark at the height of his most valuable activity in Palo Alto. This building was designed at the time that he was completing his work up and down Ramona Street, which has now become a National Register District containing buildings by him and Pedro De Lemos.. Of course, the building has detailing that is characteristic of his work at this time, Spanish Colonial Revival. However, we noticed in the plans of 1921 that A. B. Clark’s building was similar to 611 Emerson that we designated in Category 2 a year or two ago in that it was one of those concrete block commercial buildings typical of the early 20th century. It is also shown in the photograph in Attachment B. That photograph shows just half of the facade. But we can see from the plans that the part of the building that is not visible in the photograph just continues and terminates the design that we can see in the photo, so it’s a plain commercial block. We also see in Birge Clark’s plans that much of his initial design in the lower portion of the building maintained the earlier A. B. Clark design. However, when you go to the building itself what you see are variants from the plans, and some of the variants include significant features. So we had to make up our minds on several site visits whether these variants occurred after 1928. We closely inspected the building using a magnifying glass and whatever tools we had to try to HRB Minutes of 6/20/01 Page 2 EXCERPT determine any sign of alteration after 1928. We looked for any telltale lines in the wall, and changes in window framing, where the profiles of the steel frames might be slightly different perhaps because they came later. We had a long list of questions that we put to the building and we could not find any sign that there had been a significant alteration after 1928. The front door of the building at 539 Alma is obviously a door of the 1920’s, a glass-paneled door with the dark hammered brass hardware, that’s very typical of the period of the ’20s. However, that door is much wider than the one facing Alma Street in Birge Clark’s plans And if you’ve visited the building, you know that the entry is recessed which creates a kind of triangular covered porch at the front door. That recess is not shown on the plans. I think that unless there had been a real issue with the weather, there would not have been much incentive to redesign the building in a manner that results in the loss of usable square footage. So we didn’t see signs of alteration, and I know from having surveyed alterations of the entire Inventory a couple of years ago and comparing intact buildings with the original blueprints, that very often buildings are not built exactly according to plans. Generally and structurally they usually match the plans, but the detailing can differ, and the approval for these last minute decisions might not be noted on the blueprints. We believe that that was the case here. We concluded after long examination of this building that where there are variants from Birge Clark’s plans, those were changes that occurred during the final decision stage in 1928. So the building is indeed a Birge Clark building. There were, as we noted in the staff report, some very fascinating treamaents of wood panels that are on the side of the building on Hamilton Avenue. There’s a place where the bulkhead that is stucco otherwise has a 4-foot-square panel of wood set in that seems to serve no purpose. There is also a whole bay on the Hamilton Avenue elevation that is done in grooved wood siding rather than stucco. There’s no sign that there had previously been a garage door there. However, in that location on the original A. B. Clark building there had been a lot of divided-light windows, and Birge Clark’s plans show he was intending to conserve these. All of them are gone and in their place are solid wall treatments including this large grooved wood panel. So there is a certain amount of mystery on this elevation that these wall treatments might be later alterations. But even if they are original, they are not character- defining features. All of the character-defining features like the recessed entry, the distinctive doors, transoms, awning boxes, and steel window treatments, all of that appears to be from Birge Clark. There are three surviving entry doors that were included in the 1928 remodel. The doors all have original hardware. So there’s an unusual lack of change to this building and that is thanks, generally, to the Fasani family because their proprietorship of the carpet business in this building occurred at a time in the ’60s when wholesale modernizations and demolitions of old features were occurring everywhere in the United States. And yet, the Fasani family did not do those kinds of changes to this building. They have conserved it, and that is, to my mind, the primary reason that it has become what we called in the staff report a rare surviving commercial block. Rare in the sense that it’s there at all and very rare in the sense that it is almost unaltered. The roll-up garage door at the far rear on Hamilton is the modem change that covers the largest square footage of the wall surface. We regard the door as generally compatible with the building although it is clearly new. I think the garage door would be approved under the Secretary Standards. So with all those factors considered, we came to the conclusion that this is an intact building that has conserved the level of integrity that meets the standards of Category 2 in our Ordinance, which are very high standards. HRB Minutes of 6/20/01 Page 3 EXCERPT As to the use history of the site, it is a complicated history as is the case with most commercial buildings have that have multiple entrances. This is a long building, about 120 feet long, and there were at times three to four businesses operating in it. So rather than detail all of the tenants from City Directories, phone books, and the tenants that the applicant discovered, staff organized all those tenants into large classifications of types of businesses. And that’s when we found another kind of significance for this building: during the early century, this was a building of Palo Alto’s Auto Row, and that was what it was built for. It was built for ignition and battery services for cars and that is why we call the building after its first business name, the Auto Electric Company. That’s whom it was built for and they remained for a number of years. After that, there were all types of tire businesses, different kinds of auto repair, and machinist businesses related to automobiles. Auto businesses continued all the way to World War II and afterwards. Then after 1950, floor covering businesses began to appear, and it’s interesting that there are several such businesses culminating in ’67 when the Fasani carpet business begins to be listed. They carried on until the end of the century. During the early part of this building’s history, however, it was an Auto Row building and staff is conducting research on this subject relative to other projects in the area to establish a context statement for Auto Row. Curiously, this was a context that was not studied carefully in the Dames and Moore survey. Rather, they studied the laundry industry context which was the other important industry in the area. But we are uncovering information that indicates that Palo Alto’s Auto Row is one of the industries that essentially built the downtown area and paid for City services through large retail sales taxes. That is shown by the entry that t gave from the Palo Alto Times in 1931. That indicates that the auto business was second only to the food industry in importance in Palo Alto in retail sales. It had 22% of the retail expenditures of the entire city. That is an extremely significant figure for an industrial district, to be nearly a quarter of the income of the city. That this building was part of that context was, to our eyes, very significant, especially in that the building has retained integrity from the time that it was an auto business, and that it has signs in its architecture of that use. So for all of these reasons, we concluded on page 7 of the staff report that findings indeed are there for a Category 2 rating. Our Ordinance has designation criteria presented in two different places and serving two different functions. We have six criteria for designation that are similar to those of the California Register. Those function in our Ordinance as criteria for a fmding of historical significance in any of the four Categories. Those six criteria tell you whether a historic resource is present at all. If it is, then you ask the level of significance of that resource, and that’s where the Categories begin to function in the Ordinance. Categories 1 through 4 are the different levels of significance. Those Categories are symptomatic of the time in which they were devised--around 1980-- in that they are almost entirely architectural in emphasis. However, those are the criteria in our Ordinance. In practice, though, we have designated buildings like the Packard Garage for reasons completely other than architecture. But we still have to consider our Category system seriously, and we found that this building meets those criteria. It is not a Spanish Colonial building in the sense that the Norris House or the Post Office fully represent that style. But that’s not really the purpose of this design. This design functions as 50% a typical concrete office HRB Minutes of 6/20/01 Page 4 EXCERPT block with steel frame windows from the early 20th century--a building once very common, but now rare (which is one of the criteria for significance). The other half of the building, the upper half, has all the Spanish Colonial detailing very characteristic of Birge Clark’s work of the period. And so, in a sense it is a transitional building and we regard it as significant in that way, too. It is exactly between the designs of the early 20th century that you could see even in Santa Barbara in the early ’20s (the wooden orconcrete commercial blocks that were everywhere in California) and the designs of the later ’20s that often were in the Spanish style. This building demonstrates an exact transition between the two. It is half and half, exactly reflective of when it was built. And therefore, we regard it as meeting Category 2 for that interesting transitional character. Those are our fmdings and if the applicant wishes, he may tell you other factors about this building. Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you very much, Dennis. Would the applicant like to make a presentation. No, I see not. There is one question that I’d like to ask the applicant at this point. That is just to reiterate for the record that you are the owner of the building? Steven Fasani: [inaudible] Chair Haviland: Oh yes, I’m sorry. Could you repeat that into the microphone, thank you so much. Steven Fasani: My four sisters and I own the building in trust for our children. Chair Haviland: Thank you very much. Are there any other Board questions for the staff or for the applicant? Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? Apparently not. Then I guess we’ll move on to Board comments about the application. Are there any? Millie? Board Member Mario: Well, I think your presentation, Dennis, as always, was very thorough, and in my mind there’s no question as to whether or not this building should be designated. Of course :it should. And I thank the family for bringing it to us because I would hate to see this disappear as we’ve seen quite a few things disappear in this city, unfortunately. And I, for one, would be glad to make a motion that we should send this to the City Council for approval. I think there is so much documentation, and for a building to have not only Birge Clark, who was our very famous architect, but his father involved with it, there is no question that we should definitely try and save this building in any way we possibly can. Chair Haviland: Thank you, Millie. Are there any other comments? We have a motion on the table. Is there a second yet? Mike? Board Member Makinen: Mainly questions more than comments, but looking at the copy of the advertisement here, which is dated June 16, 1921, it refers to the new location as "our building HRB Minutes of 6/20/01 Page 5 EXCERPT under construction at the comer of Alma Street and Hamilton." That would set the date for this building somewhere in1922, you think, Dennis? StaffBacklund: The advertisement is in June of 1921 and it says "our new location" which staff confLrmed in the City Directory. They indeed moved into the building "now under construction at the comer of Alma and Hamilton". So the construction was taking place in 1921 and in the staff report we cited 1921 as the date of initial construction. Citing the year of initial construction is our usual practice. Board Member MakJnen: I wondered if the applicant has any further comment on the original date of construction from the family records? I just wondered if from your family history you have any knowledge that confirms 1921-22 as the original date when we think the building was built? Steven Fasani: No, our family moved from 210 Hamilton where we had a small space that we leased from Warren [inaudible]. In 1964, we moved when it was announced that Peninsula Carpet was vacating the space. We moved to that location and closed our warehouse in Campbell because the space was larger. The only reference to 1921 was in the ad I found. In 1921 Palo Alto Auto Electric was moving from a different Hamilton location to that location. Board Member Makinen: Okay, so that’s probably the best evidence we have on the original date. Thank you. Chair Haviland: Thank you, Michael. Any other questions? Carol? Board Member Murden: I believe Millie made a motion? Board Member Mario: Yes. Board Member Murden: I would second that for the reasons given in the staff report. I was fascinated that A. B. Clark had designed the original building. Birge Clark says in his autobiography, rather airily, that his father did a little bit here and there to sort of keep his hand in during the summertime, and one has the impression that A. B. Clark was really not doing much designing of architecture. This building, of course, is earlier, 1921 when A. B. Clark was probably doing more. But one keeps stumbling across A. B. Clark’s buildings. We emphasize Birge Clark quite rightly in this town, but I suspect A. B. Clark did a great many buildings that are perhaps unknown. So it think it’s really exciting that he did the original plans for this building. I very much appreciate that you’ve found the documentation. So, I would second the motion. Chair Haviland: Thank you, Carol. Mr. Fasani, I want to thank you and congratulate you for bringing this building to us. I think it’s just wonderful. I’ve long admired this building and I think it’s about time that it gets recognized. And I think, as you can see, that the entire Board is just delighted that you’ve come forward with this. There is a motion on the table and a second. All those in favor? HRB Minutes of 6/20/01 Page EXCERPT Board Members - Alh Aye. Chair Haviland: All those opposed? No? The motion passes. ¯Board Member Mario: I’ve been fascinated by that piece of land in the back. Do you own that piece that nothing is happening on? Steven Fasani: [inaudible] Board Member Mario: Because that’s, you know -- Steven Fasani: You’re talking about the vacant lot? Board Member Mario: Right. Steven Fasani: We do own that. Board Member Mario: That’s amazing to have a vacant lot in the middle of Palo Alto sitting there. It’s unusual Chair Haviland: I do feel compelled to make a comment into the public record that there are substantial incentives that are available to owners of commercial property to conserve historic properties. And I really would like to see similar sorts of incentives presented to people with residential properties because I think that the. incentives that are available are quite effective in helping us keep properties that would otherwise be demolished. And I think we’re seeing an instance of this possibly happening at this meeting, It’s just a general comment that I think needs to be made more often. Other business? I guess we move on to report on current staff reviews on historic projects. HRB Minutes of 6/20/01 Page 7 EXCERPT