Attachment B - Historic Report.pdfSECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS REVIEW
PROPOSED REHABILITATION PROJECT
at the
HISTORIC MILLER HOUSE
Guerard Residence
10518 Phil Place
(Parcel Number 375-42-051)
Cupertino, CA, Santa Clara County, California
For:
Etienne & Marie -Alice Guerard
10518 Phil Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
Prepared by:
ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE LLC
PO Box 1332
San Jose, CA 95109
408.369.5683 Main
408.857.3323 Mobile
www.archivesandarchitecture.com
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner and Historic Architect
February 13, 2018
Revised June 13, 2018
Revised June 28, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Executive Summary
With the incorporation of minor recommended notes in the building permit set, this rehabilitation
project would be compatible with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties - Rehabilitation Standards (Standards). The recommendations for
revision/conditions for approval are presented here, and the analysis is described more fully in the
report that follows:
It is recommended that language on the cover sheet should refer to the property as a listed
Historical Site, requiring review of all design revisions (Standard 6).
It is recommended that the project should include notes or sketches that define how the
existing historic elements are to be protected during construction (Standard 6).
Report Intent
Archives & Architecture (A&A) was retained by the applicants to conduct a Secretary of the
Interior's Standards Review of the proposed alterations to the exterior of the historic resource, two-
story residence at 10518 Phil PI., Cupertino, California. A&A was asked to review the exterior
elevations, plans, and site plan of the project to determine if the proposed design is compatible with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards). The Standards are
understood to be a common set of guidelines for the review of historic buildings and are used by
many communities during the environmental review process to determine the potential impact of a
project on an identified resource. We understand that the goal of the applicant and the City is for
the project to be compatible with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (Standards), and, therefore, be mitigated to a "less than significant impact" on
the environment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Qualifications
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner of the firm Archives & Architecture, has a Master of Architecture with a
certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia. She is licensed in California as an
architect. Ms. Dill is listed with the California Office of Historic Preservation as meeting the
requirements to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities within the
professions of Historic Architect and Architectural Historian in compliance with state and federal
environmental laws. The state utilizes the criteria of the National Park Service as outlined in 36 CFR
Part 61.
Review Methodology
For this report, Leslie Dill referred to the historic survey listing of the residence in the Cupertino list
of Historical Sites and where the property was identified as a significant Historical Site under
Criterion 2.
Now Sites Recommended to he listed in the General Plan as Historical Sites
sihysi-ct— I Location owner criteria Si nRicance ._� .
Owner: Private
Miller House 1ill 5'h. - s..P F. •-LA Flee 7e� -he orighs-oma n( the M: !a Fu'uli I lie i,—a nos ra,r.—d —1 •---r. a, -h: G:
upprevaFxlsl bl:g tle'.ml^nin(tC�y, 'I'iiu _ -a F.cuse was IA --n [he 196:1, ny FI'.� 11, ::ir 0-:1 n':i, :.n.:�" i•'.i_. y :� 1,y ,antis
R-0iller Parr O.
tlMeir cccemo I;:.c::c ::� a I•�.
Excerpt of May 2010 Cupertino Historical Sites Summary
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E
To understand the significance of the property, some additional research was performed, to clarify
the history of the property and personages. The physical of the building, based on the site visit,
served as its own historical record, as well. That evaluation is included in this report below.
In September 2017, a set of proposed sketch plans was forwarded to initiate the review process. On
October 20, 2017, Ms. Dill met on site with one of the owners to confirm the character -defining
features of the property and discuss the project briefly. A&A provided initial comments and
suggestions in the form of a memo dated November 6, 2017. The design was subsequently revised
in December and electronically forwarded for review in January 2018. Ms. Dill prepared a report
that included some minor recommendations that might have been taken into consideration by the
City. The suggestions were largely incorporated into a final revised design in May.
For this report, A&A evaluated, according to the Standards, a set of nine sheets from the Planning
Department Submittal set of drawings. The sheets remain dated 12/14/17, but the pdf was
generated May 21, 2018. (Sheets A1.0, A2.Oa & b, A2.1a & b, and A3.0, 3.1, 3.2, & 3.3).
The drawing set included a 25 -page window specification package that was only reviewed as
supporting information to confirm the proposed materials and understand the composition
illustrated in the primary drawing set as noted above. The drawings refer to sheets A0.1a regarding
design notes, but that sheet was not included in this Planning Submittal set.
Disclaimers
This report addresses the project plans in terms of historically compatible design of the exterior of
the residence and its setting. The consultant has not undertaken and will not undertake an
evaluation or report on the structural conditions or other related safety hazards that might or
might not exist at the site and building, and will not review the proposed project for structural
soundness or other safety concerns. The Consultant has not undertaken analysis of the site to
evaluate the potential for subsurface resources.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY:
Architectural Significance
Part of the design analysis process is to be sure that the standards are applied in keeping with the
significance of the property. The goal is to assure that the historic integrity of the property, the
authentic associations with the past, are preserved. For this, we briefly researched the historical
background of the house, to add to the bare -bones listing from 2010. As noted in the introduction,
the property is listed as an Historical Site under Criterion 2 in the City of Cupertino. Criterion 2
states, "It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period style
method of construction or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship or is a unique or rare
example of an architectural design detail or historical type valuable to such a study." The project,
therefore, must be analyzed for its impact on the distinguishing architectural characteristics of the
residence.
Note that the residence has been considerably altered over time, so the remaining character -
defining features must be given additional "weight" with regard to their preservation. The loss of
nineteenth-century historic fabric or design given particular attention.
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E
4
Historical Background
The Tantau, Theuerkauf, and Miller families were early American -era pioneers in the area, and the
house's core and its approximate location continue to represent a glimpse into the past. The site
visit indicated that the house has been altered over the years, and that the alterations most likely
occurred after the time of Elias Miller, with whom the house has been associated. Elias and Sarah B.
Miller's daughter, Frances Parrish, continued to live in the house into at least the mid-century, and
Sarah had lived with her daughter and husband until her death in 1931.
Noting that the house was designated by the City of Cupertino after the early -twentieth-century
alterations were already constructed, and because the City designation language includes Frances
Parrish, this review will assume that all portions of the house prior to deaths of Earl and Frances
Parrish in the 1960s have achieved significance in their own right as reviewed under Standard 4,
below.
Character of the Existing Resource
The primary character of the historic house is obtained from its early nineteenth-century core,
altered and partially encapsulated by an early -twentieth-century Craftsman design. A late -
twentieth -century wing has been added to the south. The house is a low, irregular volume, with a
rectangular second story. The roofs are gabled, with a first -floor gable facing in each direction and a
long, gabled roof over the second story.
The house has character -defining elements that date from the 1880's. The original wing, now
altered and encapsulated by the early -twentieth-century addition, appears to have been a small
rectangular building. The house includes 2/2 double -hung windows and channel -rustic siding, as
well as a balloon -framed central portion with high ceilings and smaller room areas; however, one of
the 2/2 windows is currently located within an area that was likely added in the early twentieth
century, and the channel -rustic siding has been extended into more recent wings. The front door is
nineteenth-century, as well. There is an interior wall that is clad in channel -rustic siding, indicating
the eastern limits of the original house.
The house was clearly altered in the Craftsman Era, which indicates a major remodeling and
addition sometime between 1905 and 1930. The relatively low -slope roof and square -pattern attic
lattice indicate a date more likely in the 1920s than earlier. The timing of the alterations possibly
occurred after the passing of Elias Miller in 1917, by his widow and their daughter. From our
research, the early -twentieth-century history likely includes the relocation of a small, nineteenth-
century residence within what had been a much larger property, with the surrounding Craftsman -
influenced wings added at the time. Buildings were often relocated around the turn of the last
century. Houses, in particular, were constructed on mudsill, without concrete foundations, and
often they did not have electricity or indoor plumbing to connect them to the ground.
The house was further altered in recent years when the surrounding orchards were developed, and
the house was relocated, in or around 1994 (permits are Application No 6-U-94, 1-Z-94, and 2 -TM -
94.)
Character -Defining Features:
To review the design of the proposed rehabilitation and addition project, Archives & Architecture,
LLC created an in-house list of character -defining features. The list of features includes, but may not
be limited to:
• encapsulated nineteenth-century center wing with its high ceilings and balloon -framing;
• horizontal channel -rustic siding with flat -board corner trim;
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E
• individual placed nineteenth-century 2/2 double -hung (noting that one appears to be
outside the original house footprint, so was likely relocated);
• 6 -lite front door.
• Pinwheel 1920s footprint with its rectangular second story;
• gabled roof forms;
• exposed rafter tails;
• square lattice attic vents and knee braces;
• stucco gable end siding;
• 6 -lite prairie -style twentieth-century windows in pairs and trios, and as focal picture
window placement, and the original door and window trim.
Alterations or added elements, appropriate for removal or further alteration, include: the 1/1
double -hung windows (although their upper sash "ears" indicate that they are older windows, they
do not act as character -defining windows); the recent brickwork (chimneys and front porch
flooring). The south roof surrounding the chimney does not appear original, with its narrow braces
that don't match the other knee braces and because it doesn't show up on the 1990s elevations
(although there are several other apparent errors in those drawings). It is not clear from visual
observation whether the channel -rustic siding was original throughout. Note that the 1990's
remodeling sketches indicate stucco siding; this would be appropriate for the era and the gable end
design.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Summary of the Proposed Project
The proposed design consists of the general rehabilitation of the house, including considerable
interior alterations that are expressed on the exterior as only minor modifications to the original
nineteenth-century wing and a modest number of alterations to the surrounding Craftsman -era
exterior, as well as some modifications to the more -recent southern wing.
The project includes the preservation of the overall gabled forms of the existing house, including
the encapsulated nineteenth-century center wing with its high ceilings and balloon -framing, and
the distinctive 2/2 double -hung, nineteenth-century windows and the 6 -lite front door; the
preservation of the pinwheel form of the twentieth-century wings, and the recessed front porch; the
horizontal channel -rustic siding with flat -board corner trim; the stucco gable -end siding; the
exposed rafter tails, square lattice attic vents, and knee braces.
Historic elements proposed for alteration include the replacement -in-kind of the characteristic
Prairie -style windows throughout the house and the alteration of most of the old -but -not -
character -defining 1/1 windows.
Proposed alterations of non -character -defining materials includes removal of the south -facing
overhang; the alteration of the size and/or location of the windows in the more -recent south wing
of the house; raising the roof of the south wing, removal of a false chimney at the northwest corner
of the second floor, and the replacement of several non -historic windows as noted in Standards 2
and 9 below.
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E
M
SECRETARY'S STANDARD'S REVIEW:
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards), originally published in 1977
and revised in 1990, include ten standards that present a recommended approach to repair, while
preserving those portions or features that convey a resource's historical, cultural, or architectural
values. Accordingly, Standards states that, "Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making
possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving
those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values." Following is
a summary of the review with a list of the Standards and associated analysis for this project:
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."
Analysis: There is no change of use proposed for this residential property.
2. "The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided."
Analysis: No historic massing of the building is proposed for removal; the forms and
footprints of the remaining historic residence will be preserved. The original nineteenth-
century 2/2 double -hung window sash are proposed for preservation. These windows have
a distinctive, irreproducible narrow muntin and are a highly visual connection to the past.
The existing false chimney at the northwest corner of the second floor is also not original, so
its removal is compatible with these Standards.
The existing low roof around the chimney on the south elevation does not appear original,
so its removal is compatible with these Standards. (See also Standard 9)
The distinctive 6 -lite twentieth-century windows are proposed to be replaced with modern
windows that match the size, shape, location, wood material, and muntin design of the
originals. They will be double -pane and modern in construction, so differentiated per
Standard 9 (See Standard 9). Comprehensive window replacement is not recommended by
the Standards, or in the Guidelines or Tech Briefs that support the Standards; however, the
Standards are intended to be applied relative to the significance of the features over time.
Because the historic building has been modified over time, and because the significance of
the house is based primarily on the nineteenth-century associations, it can be accepted that
only the Craftsman window sash be replaced.
The 1/1 windows, although older units, are not identified as significant features, and the
removal of these windows and the installation of new windows and/or doors, so their
removal is compatible with this Standard.
The south -facing windows in the recent wing are not original, and their removal is not an
impact on historic fabric. Altering the height of the roof of the south wing does not impact
the historic character -defining rooflines or windows of the main house. See also Standard 9
for analysis of the altered proportions.
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E
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 architectural elements from other historic properties, will not
be undertaken."
Analysis: The proposed new windows are designed to be differentiated in a way that they
would not be mistaken for original features. The new windows are 1 -lite sash. No other
elements are conjectural in association or would be mistaken for historic features.
4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will
be retained and preserved."
Analysis: It is understood that the Craftsman features and area have acquired historic
significance in their own right. Although ascribed somewhat less significance than the
nineteenth-century windows in the analysis in Standard 2, these twentieth-century
elements are analyzed as character -defining features of the overall for Standards 2, 5, and 9.
S. "Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved."
Analysis: Distinctive features and finishes that identify the house are generally shown as
preserved on the proposed drawings. Specifically, this includes: the encapsulated
nineteenth-century center wing with its high ceilings and balloon -framing; horizontal
channel -rustic siding with flat -board corner trim; 2/2 double -hung nineteenth-century
windows; nineteenth-century 6 -lite front door; the pinwheel 1920s footprint with its
rectangular second story; gabled roof forms; exposed rafter tails; square lattice attic vents
and knee braces; stucco gable end siding, and the original door and window trim.
For analysis of the proposed replacement window sash, see Standard 2.
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."
Analysis: The current physical condition of the house appears visually to be very good, and
the historic features are shown as generally preserved in the project drawings (see also
Standards 2 and 5). It is recommended that the proposed building permit plans include
notes and sketches that clarify for the building department and contractor how the existing
historic elements are to be protected during construction.
It is recommended that general notes be added to the final building permit documents.
These would note the historic significance of the property, indicate that all changes to the
project plans must be reviewed. Recommended language should be similar to the following:
"This property is listed by the City of Cupertino as an Historical Site. All changes to the
project must be brought to the attention of the architect and reviewed by the City for
compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties."
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E
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."
Analysis: No chemical or physical treatments are shown as proposed, or expected, in this
project, other than preparation for painting.
8. "Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken."
Analysis: Archeological resources are not evaluated in this report.
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 its environment."
Analysis: Because so much of the original exterior design is proposed for preservation, the
new design is generally compatible with the historic character of the house and
differentiated by its detailing, form, and materials. Specific analysis is as follows:
Centering the paired window unit in the projecting rear wing (dining room) would not
appear to alter a significant characteristic of the rear wing (i.e., asymmetry/symmetry are
not significant features of the house). The 6 -lite paired window configuration would
otherwise be retained (See also Standard 2).
As noted in Standard 2, the existing low roof around the chimney on the south elevation
does not appear original, so its removal is compatible with these Standards. The overall
composition of this elevation would continue to be compatible with the scale, size,
proportion, and spatial relationships of the surrounding wings.
The removal of the non -original windows in the main front wing is consistent with these
Standards. These include the pair of south -facing windows at the chimney, the individually
placed window under the porch roof, and the pair of casement windows flanking the
chimney on the west fagade. The proposed 1 -lite replacement windows are consistent with
the 1 -lite new windows used throughout the proposed project, creating a consistently
differentiated "vocabulary" of new elements. The proposed new windows are compatible in
scale, size, and materials with the historic windows.
The removal of the 1/1 window on the north elevation, at the east corner (in the closet)
would not alter a character -defining feature, and, because of its size and location, the overall
proportions and composition of the fagade would be compatible with the original design.
The removal of the 1/1 window on the north elevation, at the east -projecting wing would
not alter a character -defining feature, and the 1 -lite design of the proposed French doors is
compatible in scale with the large panes of glazing in the historic windows.
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E
The removal of the three 1/1 windows on the east elevation, along with the second -story
1/1 window on the west elevation, would not alter character -defining features, and the
proposed windows are differentiated per this Standard without multiple lites, matching the
windows in the more recent south wing.
The 1/1 double -hung replacement of the existing 1/1 window at the west corner can be
considered consistent with the historic design in size, location, material, and operation.
Note that this window could also be reinstalled with a 1 -lite sash if so desired, to be
consistent with the analysis regarding the other existing 1/1 windows in the house.
The removal and alteration of the existing windows in the non -historic south wing of the
house are compatible alterations to the residence. The proposed new windows facing west
are compatible in size, scale, and configuration with regard to the historic composition. The
lack of windows on the south wall of the modern wing does not impact the historic design,
as there is adequate separation from this wall from the historic composition.
Per Standard 2, the alteration of the roofline of the non -historic south wing does not
interrupt the character -defining features of the historic wings of the house. The current roof
height is lower than the surrounding main house, and the proposed higher plates and ridge
are in keeping with the historic massing and proportions.
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."
Analysis: The proposed design would preserve the essential form and integrity of the
historic property. The critical character -defining features of the exterior of the house would
be unimpaired in this project.
CONCLUSION
With the minor set of notes recommended in Standard 6 for inclusion in the construction drawing,
the proposed rehabilitation project would meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation.
A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E