This webpage was created in September, 2010, while our project at 405 Lincoln was in the final stages of approval. We intended it to provide a short description of what had happened and why, to help correct the misinformation that was circulating at the time. Now that the house has been built and the city has moved forward, it seems appropriate to post an update describing the outcome and lessons for future projects.
Our twin daughters were born in 2006. We had been living in our house on Palo Alto Avenue for 19 years. It was ample for two adults and two dogs, but not so much after adding two kids, so we began to look for a new place.
We decided we wanted to stay in the same (Addison) school district. We both work from home, and Allen is also a woodworker, so our wish list included a place with office space for both of us as well as room for a shop. Our parents were quite elderly – and our children the only grandchildren on both sides – so we wanted a house that would support extended visits and accommodate people with disabilities. After 19 years without a garage, we wanted a two-car garage so that we didn’t have to compete for street parking or worry about keeping the cars secure. Like many Palo Alto residents, we loved being close to downtown, and wanted to live within walking distance if possible.
There were not many existing houses that met those requirements, and none were available at a price we could afford. After a long search we found 405 Lincoln Avenue, with a modest two+-bedroom, one-bath house on a decent-sized lot, where we felt we could build a house that would meet our goals. The property had been on the market for a while, but hadn't sold, largely due to the unusual layout and poor physical condition of the house.
We were fully aware that the property was in the Professorville historic district, and we knew that there would be restrictions on what could be done there. We didn't know exactly what the restrictions would be (something that's true even for most people who live in the district, we've since learned). So, before we bought the property, we went to the City Planning Department and we asked about it.
Planning stated unequivocally that the existing house was not historic. (This was subsequently upheld in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and by an independent historical architecture consultant.) That meant that it could be demolished and replaced.
Planning also made it clear that a new house design would have to go through Historic Resources Board (HRB) review, as required by the City's Preservation Ordinance. Compliance with the HRB's recommendations is voluntary, but the review is mandatory for any house in the historic district. Finally, if the new house was multistory, it would have to go through Individual Review (IR); this is the case everywhere in Palo Alto. We felt then, and we still feel today, that these requirements were reasonable.
We rechecked with the City staff to confirm all these things, and after receiving confirmation, we bought the property in April 2007.
We hired Peterson Architecture, a respected Palo Alto firm that had designed houses throughout Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Peterson designed a brown shingle house as recommended by City staff for compatibility with the historic district. We scheduled it for review by the HRB in August 2007 and also applied for a demolition permit for the old house.
While all this was happening the City was in the midst of a lawsuit concerning the demolition of the remaining portions of the historic Juana Briones house. In part, the plaintiffs asserted that the City had failed to follow the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA applies not only to traditional environmental issues like pollution, noise, and traffic, but also to cultural environmental issues like the loss of historic resources. There are specific conditions under which it applies, and Palo Alto's demolition rules are a little unusual; the City argued that CEQA review wasn't required.
The court's decision in the case went against the City. (This was reversed on appeal, but not until a few years later.) As a side effect, it put our demolition application into question. So in July, 2007, the City informed us that their previous assurances were no longer valid and our project would have to be reviewed according to the process defined by CEQA. Since CEQA review for a family home was entirely new to Palo Alto, there was a tremendous amount of uncertainty for everyone. Eventually Planning advised us that if we wanted to proceed, we would have to develop an EIR. (This is just a very brief summary of a more complex legal situation; if you want the details, please contact the City.)
The EIR had to answer several difficult questions, among them: Was the old house itself a significant historic resource? Was the old house a significant contributor to a larger historic resource, the Professorville historic district? If the old house was not a significant contributor, could the impact of its replacement be mitigated? What form would the mitigations take? Would there be an alternative project which would meet all the goals of the original project, but have no significant unmitigatable impacts?
Taxpayers don't pay for an EIR; the property owner does. The owner pays for the City staff’s time, for the City’s consultants’ time, for developing all the house designs required (a minimum of two), plus all help the owner needs from lawyers, general contractors, or consultants. The City’s initial estimate was that the EIR would cost $80K and take six months. Since we were stuck with a house we couldn't use, and the property was under such a cloud that we would have to take a huge loss to sell it, we decided to go ahead with the EIR.
The EIR authors hired by the City determined fairly easily that the old house was not historically or architecturally significant in its own right. Furthermore, it was not a significant contributor to the historic district; its demolition wouldn't compromise the district. However, if the replacement house wasn't compatible with the district, that could have an unacceptable impact on the district. For that reason, most of the work focused on making sure the new house design would be acceptable.
The City's architecture consultant for the EIR rejected the brown shingle house design. He wanted to see a Spanish-influenced building instead, so we asked Peterson for a new design.
That second house was also rejected by the EIR consultant and the City's IR consultant, who wanted to see even more Spanish Eclectic features.
The City doesn't permit a homeowner to work directly with the consultants it hires to write an EIR. That would create too many opportunities for conflict of interest. However, it became clear to everyone that we needed better communication or we were never going to get an approved set of plans, so the lawyers worked out a careful compromise. Our architect met with Planning staff and the City’s architectural consultant five times over the course of a year in order to completely re-site and re-design the house from the ground up. The consultant had veto power at every stage.
After a year of work, the consultant had approved all the early stages of the design and indicated he would approve the final one. Much to everyone's surprise, he changed his mind at the last minute. When asked for specifics he developed a list of additional changes that he wanted to see. These became the “mitigations” mentioned in the EIR. Lawyers and architects and consultants and the City Staff argued about the mitigations up until the last minute. As a result there were no final plans available for us to show to neighbors, or for the public to see at the Development Center, until the beginning of the EIR public review period.
As required by CEQA, we also made a good-faith effort to create an alternative design that incorporated the existing house instead of replacing it. However, given the characteristics of the old house (it was U-shaped with a small courtyard, and the tile roof was an architecturally significant feature), most of it could not support a second story or a basement. The only way to add the required amount of space was to build a two-story “shoebox” adjacent to the house, facing Waverley Street. Even with Peterson’s talents, the result was none too attractive and also failed to meet several of our design goals.
The original cost and schedule estimates for the EIR were drastically wrong. Time after time we faced the choice between accepting the overruns or giving up and selling the property at a large loss. In the end it took over three years and we spent more than $500K just on the EIR process (that is, over and above the costs of one house design and the normal City design reviews). We were reluctant to disclose the costs, because we knew that people would misinterpret them, but we decided it was important that everyone understand just how appallingly expensive the process had been.
To the best of our knowledge, this was the first project in which Palo Alto had to deal with an EIR for a single-family residence. It didn't fit into the existing processes for government and public review, so the reviews were poorly timed, and no one involved was fully informed or prepared. That led to hearings where both the officials and the public were confused and angry. We hope that exposing the entire history of the project will help put that situation in context and prevent it from happening again.
In October, 2010, City Council voted to approve the conclusions of the EIR, and that cleared the way for the project to proceed. After another year of planning and normal City reviews, the building permit was issued. Construction started in early 2012, and we moved in during May of 2013.
CEQA and Palo Alto policies use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation to determine whether a new building is acceptable within an environment of historic buildings. The Standards state that you must not build a “false” historical structure, but rather one that is clearly differentiated, yet compatible in scale, massing, and materials. Architectural style is explicitly not a criterion for compatibility (and that's fortunate for Professorville, which has a mix of styles that are not mutually compatible according to the Standards).
The tension between compatibility and differentiation is a subject of constant debate among architects, planners, and preservationists. For example:
Contrasting design follows the logic that the new and the old should be distinct because each is a product of its own era. Often, the contrasting approach uses simple, modernist surfaces and materials to serve as a counterfoil to the elaborate detailing of historic structures. The buildings may be designed either as background structures, with little identity of their own, or may frankly compete with their historic context; in the second case, the architect considers they will one day be historic structures themselves and seen as products of their own time.
[Tyler, Norman; Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History, Principles, and Practice]
When we introduce a new element or structure into a setting whose character is highly valued, we must proceed with the utmost caution and tact. Creating or conserving an urban district with a strong historical character requires that changes introduced promote conforming and minimize nonconforming features, placing the burden of proof on those interventions that would alter or redefine the preexisting character, however fascinating they may appear to be when considered in isolation.
[Semes, Steven; The Future of the Past]
It's worth noting that few of these discussions take into account the functional requirements for an individual house. This shortcoming is particularly noticeable in Palo Alto's Individual Review Guidelines. That's unfortunate, because it sometimes puts superficial aspects of style in conflict with the greater good of the homeowner or even society as a whole.
There will never be universal agreement about architectural style, much less about the general question of compatibility. We have the most sympathy for this point of view:
We save old buildings because they are good ones. There are many ways to place new buildings successfully alongside old buildings, but what goes best with good old architecture is, simply, good new architecture.
[National Trust for Historic Preservation; Old and New Architecture: Design Relationship]
The Secretary's Standards refer to compatibility in scale, materials, and massing. With respect to scale: Because the first floor is at ground level (to permit easier access for the disabled), the new house at 405 Lincoln is not as tall as most new two-story houses in Palo Alto. It is the shortest of the four two-story houses on the corner of Lincoln and Waverley; more than 6 feet shorter than its historic neighbor at 381 Lincoln. It covers less of its lot than the original house did. Because of the zoning requirement for contextual setback, it is 13 feet farther from Lincoln Avenue than the original house, and has greater setbacks than its immediate neighbors.
With respect to materials: The new house is finished in stucco, like the original house, the two immediate neighbors, and the across-the-street neighbor at 1101 Waverley. It's roofed in composition shingles, like the latter, and is a similar color.
With respect to massing: The arrangement of the main masses is drawn from the Spanish Colonial Revival style. It's fair to object that the overall massing (and thus the roof system) is more complex than is normal for that style. However, we didn't design it all that way; significant complexity arose from the demands of the City consultants. The most notable example is the Lincoln Avenue side, which we intended to be a single wall facing the corner but were forced to change into the current stair-step arrangement.
Stylistically, the house is most similar to the other Spanish houses in the district that have sloped roofs. If you look, you'll find elements that have been borrowed from other Spanish houses nearby; for example, the low stucco walls and associated metalwork are inspired by the Category 1 Norris House a few blocks away on Cowper Street.
There are a few exceptions. For example, the City's IR consultant insisted that our original design for the main entrance was not large(!) enough, so we were required to make it larger and more prominent, even though that's not common for Spanish houses. The Lincoln facade has more glass than is usual; this is because the zoning requirement for contextual setback, plus the IR requirement to place the driveway in the rear, eliminated the space for a back yard. Therefore the front yard is the outdoor living space for the house, and the access doors are on the front.
One of the City Council's instructions to the Planning Department was to change its policies and processes so that no one else would be subjected to an experience like ours.
It's likely that future projects that require CEQA review will start with an initial study, which was skipped in our case. Normally an EIR is developed only if an initial study determines that one is needed.
CEQA's consideration of “historic resources” is amazingly broad; it is not at all restricted to historic districts or individual historic structures. Given that so many old houses and neighborhoods exist in Palo Alto, demolitions and renovations throughout the city can plausibly impact historic resources and thus trigger a CEQA review. A lawsuit against the city could put many of you into exactly the same situation that we faced. (Eichler neighborhoods would be a very likely target.) Be aware that trouble can happen even after you think you've covered all the bases, as it did to us.
The Planning staff also decided to develop a set of design guidelines to give homeowners a sense of what's recommended in Professorville. They set up a committee of residents and HRB members to develop a draft. Allen was one of the residents asked to participate. You can find the committee's research documents, plus Allen's explanations of the draft guidelines, here. As of this writing (July, 2014) the guidelines are awaiting review by the HRB.
We'd like to suggest two more changes that the City could make.
First, Planning should change the procedures in which a single consultant can impose purely arbitrary changes on a project. Our experience is that consultants tend to use such authority to force their personal preferences onto projects without regard for the variety of viewpoints in the community or the functional requirements the homeowners are trying to meet.
Second, the City needs to enact a new local preservation ordinance that interacts properly with CEQA. Neighborhoods may want to create easements to restrict demolition or remodeling of key structures or entire neighborhoods. Individual homeowners can request that their residence be designated as an historic structure, if they wish. CEQA is far too blunt a tool to be the only one used for preservation, takes too much control away from citizens and local governments, and is much too complicated for projects the size of a single family residence.
Michelle Arden and Allen Akin
Updated July 24, 2014 to describe the outcome of the project and link to the Professorville Design Guidelines effort.
Updated September 4, 2010 to clarify the process of CEQA review.
Original version September 3, 2010