The URL can be used to link to this page

Report on Historical Status - Seven Springs.pdf REPORT ON HISTORICAL STATUS SEVEN SPRINGS RANCH 11801 Dorothy Anne Way, Cupertino Santa Clara County, California Prepared for the City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 .�� ._ N-�_��- - �---' �'��- ��. ��. - ,., ` - ��- ��.'- ._1;•�'�- ;Y_1.. t'q, 1 � �1� t i.:. �. .�Sx�� r� ��'� , '-s t. �� :;� ` � �r .`�,�. - ..,.;v.» .;� . — .-:.. — -_- * �+e = � �My _. - � P �„ �_ � �. - ..-,"��.,,.+kli� r`�'F�'�s,»-3. �` .. '� � '�. '"'�d�. �'!:rr ..., �o�l � YlP�• � �4 �+�.-� �i �'�� _ ! ti �:.� i I '"� �� '�� ! � - � r, _�� ` �� .._. ,.._ __ ,,�—� _� � J�� w ,�� .� �► ., . _ ..:�-, ;.��' � -` � �. W�,:.m -� � :;�■ Prepared by ARCHIVES &ARCHITECTURE, LLC PO Box 1332 San Jose, CA 95109-1332 408.297.2684 Office 408.228.0762 Fax Leslie A.G. Dill, Architectural Historian and Historic Architect John Tabuena-Frolli, Historic Architect Franklin Maggi,Preservation Planner October 5, 2015 Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 2 Cupertino,California TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 3 ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................... 3 ReportIntent..........................................................................................................................4 Qualifications.........................................................................................................................4 Sourcesof Information .......................................................................................................... 5 Disclaimers ............................................................................................................................ 5 Location................................................................................................................................. 5 LOCATIONMAP........................................................................................................................ 6 SKETCHMAP............................................................................................................................. 7 PROJECTDESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 8 Significance of the Historic Resource.................................................................................... 8 Summary of the Proposed Project.......................................................................................... 8 AlteredContributors.............................................................................................................. 9 UnalteredContributors......................................................................................................... 10 Non-Contributors................................................................................................................. 11 SEVEN SPRINGS RANCH CUMULATIVE OVERVIEW..................................................... 12 Description summary of the Property from the National Register Nomination: ................. 12 Integrity................................................................................................................................ 13 Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 13 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDICES �Cover Image is the back page of Radford Ranch Seven Springs Promotional Material,from The Radford Architectural Company. Undated. On fzle with Santa Clara County Archives. Box/Folder 2/35.J A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 3 Cupertino,California INTRODUCTION Executive Summary Seven Springs Ranch is a property rich in history, located in the western foothills of Cupertina It was identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on March 29,2011. Based on this determination,the property was listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. It is,therefore, considered an historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act. Buildings, structures, and sites that contribute to the historical significance of Seven Springs Ranch have recently been altered in designs that are not compatible with the Secretary of the Interior's StandaYds for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). Alterations to historic resources that are compatible with the Standards are defined as having no impact under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Because these alterations do not meet the Standards,they are considered to have adverse impacts on the contributing resources and cause a degradation of the overall significance of the historic property. The alterations have the potential of cumulatively adversely impacting the significance of the ranch as a whole. Assuming that the City of Cupertino determines that the alterations and demolitions are considered a—p�rject"under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the project, as it is currently observed in the field, would be considered to have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA. There are two options in this case: (1)The project, as it is currently understood, could trigger an Environmental Impact Report and associated analysis, along with mitigation recommendations and other regulatory requirements and proj ect revisions, or (2)The project intent and design proposal can be altered substantively (—ritigated to a less than adverse level") so that the project would no longer have a significant effect on the environment and be issued a negative declaration with regard to historic resources. Alterations to historic resources that meet the Standards are defined as having no impact under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Recommendations are included in this report to address this option. The altered buildings and structures have a correctable adverse effect on Seven Springs Ranch. Because the property is large,with many contributing features, most of the alterations have scattered and concentrated impact that create small holes in the authenticity of the property. If the project were to be completed as observed, without mitigation,the integrity of the ranch would be eroded and the significance of the Seven Springs Ranch could be lost over time. If the recommendations are followed as outlined for the individual features—revising the project and creating a project that meet the Standards—the integrity of the whole ranch property would be maintained, along with the integriry of each contributing element. Of concern is the cumulative impact of new residential housing development throughout the property. The primary overall character of the property is open agricultural space with orchard trees, gardens, naturalistic wooded areas, and meandering paths,with examples of high-quality architecture in a low-density setting. Although the current configuration of buildings is compatible with the overall character of the historic property, it is recommended that no additional dwelling units approved without a comprehensive master site plan that has been reviewed for compatibility with the Standards and which preserves the overall integrity of the property. A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 4 Cupertino,California Report Intent In 2015,the City of Cupertino became aware that some of the significant buildings, structures, and sites at Seven Springs Ranch had been undergoing alteration.The City hired Archives & Architecture LLC (A&A)to visit the site to document the property and its components with regard to the historic designation. A&A was further asked to review the alterations with regard to their impact on the property within the framework of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to make recommendations. Qualifications This report has been prepared by Archives &Architecture, LLC(A&A). A&A is a partnership of three preservation professionals: Leslie A.G. Di11, Historic Architect,Franklin Maggi, Architectural Historian, and Charlene Duval, Public Historian. The firm was founded in 1989 by the late Glory Anne Laffey, Historian, and has been constituted in its current form since 2003. The principal authors of this report were Leslie Dill, Architectural Historian and Historic Architect,John Tabuena-Frolli, Historic Architect, and Franklin Maggi, Architectural Historian.. Ms. Dill has a Master of Architecture with a certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia. She is licensed in California as an architect and is qualified as an Historic Architect. Mr. Maggi has a professional degree in architecture with an area of concentration in architectural history from the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Tabuena-Frolli has a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Design with a minar in Energy Resources (passive solar design) from San Jose State University. He is licensed in California as an architect and is qualified as an Historic Architect. The California State Office of Historic Preservation maintains a list of qualified Historical Resources Consultants, and all three investigators are listed as within the California Historical Resources Information System(CHRIS). Leslie Dill and Franklin Maggi meet the Secretary of the Interior's qualifications to perform identification, evaluation,registration, and treatment activities within the field of Architectural History; Leslie Dill and John Tabuena-Frolli meet the Secretary of the Interior's qualifications to perform identification, evaluation,registration, and treatment activities within the field of Historic Architecture. These definitions are in compliance with state and federal environmental laws. CHRIS utilizes the criteria of the National Park Service outlined in 36 CFR Part 61. Review Methodology For this report Leslie Dill and John Tabuena-Frolli met June 11, 2015 on site with City of Cupertino Staff, consultants for other aspects of the proj ect, and the owner. Ms. Dill and Mr. Tabuena-Frolli discussed the status of the construction briefly with Staff and walked around the site, observing the status of the historic resources and taking photographs and notes. A112015 photographs were taken by John Tabuena-Frolli on that date. A&A then described and assessed the buildings, structures, site, and setting for changes, including narrative and photographic documentations, including use of the Historical/Architectural National Register nomination forms and photographs prepared in 2010 for the former owner. All photographs in this report referred to as 2010 were taken by Franklin Maggi May 20, 2010.A&A also provided design review services for the altered contributing buildings, structures, and sites, and, finally, A&A wrote conclusions, recommendations, and treatment measures with regard to the impact of the alterations. In the appendices,A&A utilized the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards). These were originally published in 1977 and revised in 1990, and 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, A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 5 Cupertino,California Standards states that, —Re�bilitation 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". Sources of Information Archives &Architecture, LLC, Franklin Maggi, Architectural Historian National RegisteY of Historic Places Registration Form, .Iuly 16, 1010. State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Milford Wayne Donaldson, State Historic Preservation Officer Letter of Determination of Eligibility National Register of Historic Place,Apri129, 2011. United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Supplementary Listing Record,NRIS Reference Number 11000146, March 29, 20ll. Disclaimers The consultant is documenting the condition of existing alterations designed by others, with respect to commonly accepted historic preservation analysis. This report addresses the design only in terms of historically compatible design of the exterior elements of the proj ect(and where interior alterations might impact the exterior). The consultant has not undertaken and will not undertake an evaluation or report on the structural conditions or other related safery 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. Location Seven Springs Ranch is located in the City of Cupertino (Santa Clara County), California, at the base of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. The address is 11801 Dorothy Anne Way, and the property is listed by the County Assessor as APN 366-09-043. A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 6 Cupertino,California LOCATION MAP USGS Cupertino (7.5 minute series) 1980 photo revised s�i ��: �- , � Memar I-��1. ' • ��,,,� - ,� . � � ��:� � -�� FE , � � :�g �'� ,� � ' k'. � . : ,- _ '��' �. �� ' Fa� . '� '��91k � .-�q !��, o' i � !f Il�.t SI do e�h l �+�� -�� a j� � � �-�- � Sc� , .. t_ �� I�'�F✓ENS _ � 3� �CRFfK -. Y AOAo p_ �• :��3 � �"�" �", .:yrF'. ' -�1F":. - �• -=�_.ffi� ��.�'": '�_'. -_ _ �_ .:. -_ .�r��, 385' . ' .'; T`^i-.._��._:.J.-Z gh} i � ' fs1A srF�rnsi. ..-��'� : �� ^I- • ae Rnze � 274 : •� �i � ..- Bf C �y�.F •��r � � ��5�".' Cotl�ge Faria�f,�T�""- Z�� • M s GoIE CQ 5 � 't .i� •'� � ' ��w■ Sch■ i , O f� _ �:■ . _ �. ; _ -.. � � �. � . `, �� . � M i a � 5 ''r r •. �F�� ; �--. � ...�r' � : -- Park ; i� �I^ : � �� .� �'I�•i'.--! � �� W �l V € ! E ,�� s � � �� ., � I�~pf f � � _ � • a m o t�a ta - _� = � �.` � � i �".. ��a � ^�.:� sr��, \ � �'` , � , . .. ` ' ' > . ,'• ,. - ._.�. - ` � , . ' � � � . BM,247 , MC Eella h`. . �_:., . �. � 331 �__ -._�..- - - ------- - ---��- --------- • T ...�_.�.�-"_-_._-.. - -�--........- - -- r[c H�, [ � F---`- �qc cifu.a ROAu.. ____. �1 i...\. .� , <�� . ' y� �� ' �\.�hom��7s'ia��r=i`!uncaln k i 1 �-: ' � `i '� �� s i� � �: s�n ��cl �- en�o� � _"� f � ,J o E. � s�n. � ' �� T�� ' �'`-.... �'� � Q i O � Cp� � .� .. � . a .. � �'. ; . •• _1 "'i �`b o�' . � Kenned9�d -�---�� €. ��a' c�P� { -�� r igh Sch;�� JaUyman�.. RrlN � ~ � NP � � J - -- ark__.:�� '�-. � S�qryy 25"� J J. '�-�f �d_?3 ,�o 'r f';T�" '\ ' ; ' Jo E'�/' �� V54�N .. �. � � .1 �� '• { .�� 'i �k /� �.\ � j'. -+6�1 34a �., �a `i E �f �s:@� � ��.`� . ��•. � � ` :f �Mcyer ol �1'_ �enk ,�, . .. ; - , _ m��,ti� _� ,� F .-_- 5�h �A��. �� -� ��.` E1 �\ , I }�t� n� , !�r� 5�'l. . � . f' ;� _ i��-. � '.�' . ',� � - /� S �'-`7�'�� —��`. t BaRx i�earvE- J �. ' � ��.t6ac +� J J' � • � ' \ - Sch � '1 `\�. ��~ Cd ab i �-� �.. � ./fif�K;9! �^�"�`."} � . Pur . .� � J I�a k f ' -""' . �} r .�/ � . J• � �I - wo�n _ •��3;r.�:, I_r _ . __._ ;_ __ � ; , ;' ��_.I�� ' �. j� � � a �Hav �1 � =� . ,,. -� , pq� , . f: �: 1 E� r:�� . r �-� f i �. I r-� ��}�at�+ \�� ;,,• �ti i -�.{ ``r � a".7• TaRr..k-r.�1�' .� �' - - ,�. ,s� � o / i ;I�';'�� v. �U�,�:,`�S' a`�f�r.f� �, �',.E F� . r�I � } ` I � ' ) 1 ti k--' '`_: � 4 �. . , ��.l`i•� �� . '^ ' �• ., ' _—,�_'_'. _ _ ��;�: �1�' 1 i �r� ��_� � �'�-' 3. a � �' i.• I . C, � �. � .� �., f.: • i r� \�\ � .7. f�- .�� .r ��-; . � _ � >j_. / 3 arM �/ i �� s... `�'� 1•�. � '�_�� ' � d,C' ti' ` ;5 �� "� 5 • 4'/� � . -t�--_-_� '....r� . . �� - ` _ _� 'saR � � J•7� r-� +^ P7tAS�Cr --; ��F �� i \. r 90 . � l a 5 • �"�1; BA9 37 � o�' .� �_� �}, , � . _ ,,' ' ' r.� , , \ � `� �r�-" � J �„ .��z� �� s6°''f 1 �r�..J,J� ` 1� / 3 i�, '�. ��Y.�r� �� ";�, , / `•�V�'�, � , l� J J�t . �� ', t �v�': ;��f _;,r�� ; `•.. • , _� • r � -_�r 4'� ; ��'�Q l�+' `�:� `�:- y,,;o•�---`/. � ,,�.� ; W � 1� � �1'ro33�� ... �� r '►7�.VA-lq]•��J �1 r � . � T 'y. ,1� �gcy¢N911�. �a : � � J !• �.�� f�f � ' .BM h i�r � �� ' � S \\j :�� a � •��J�� . Bfue il�s �. '3�a �' � J �-I��. ,� � � '.\ £f JJ � �. � �'v_�. �� .. f` . . '.3.LI ��}j( f f�` � `�.--'� � . ��_�, l ' . -ti �� ..F��1.. � �4�!`�I I `C _�j. �] I � �l � �� ' �! _./ ,,� �1 e� ti -��:iF�,ns� t �,- � � t . • �' i � � � f I er -} , i ; / i.. '�� I. sai�aya-�/ �� `� �, � ~ x;..,, ;�� I �Hn Cavntrl� Clpo� �� -'r•� . J no.p �'� .. . �/ r�WR�OE! - �� . � ��'__ }"_ I �_" I � � ' ,J. � �I �� , . .�yl��,-1�� (J ^i ��y J 'i...�� sM �, �-• rB� }[.. �. �.., 1 r�� 1� r�a � - � - _ S�` � 353 ''so 1 �n �� I� � k i ,.--�i4z �<�F ;,1, /�' � � F �. »� , 1 �� -.,��_�--`��-1- -_ �'� 3:�"� ._� 'L�; • ;��t� 3.fi J'�. � � - 578�"� � � }-\ � � � ^�'-- i^ � . e �� r.f�p �i� ��% �- . �� ,po r i ,{ ��r�'`4...�.�-..�� - ..I r.� �7 1 _. .� . _.. i_, F�. . �... •{• i � A onaut �.. ' �/ [.�ti ' ' . ;G - 'f I �, �. -� , �. a' i � � L `9 sch` - .J�. i. 1 4 i-! _ `J C ' � � sg3000n,E, �sg4000mE_ sgSaovR,E. WG584Zonz 105 sgS000R,E_ ..�rM� 0 312 . . . . .1 MRE I1']4'/r° ��0 FEET 0 .SP7m_ ]OOOm V Map emutcd vnt6TOPO!£3 @200.3 Nalunel Gcogra�lS�(vrwu-rmtiane�cagrnphic�omhopo) A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 7 Cupertino,California SKETCH MAP From National Register Nomination � �: � � � ~ � d��:.`y '�" � �;:i � �f �4 �a '-'''.., �y ` _ .�; � . � „� . r �� ,�;,� � . � yA / 1 � : :' #� R � .MJ�" 4 �- �N� y �` ' - Z [-� L 3rf r. � � t ;+ �.y"` a ;�, �'� � ��, -. �, --. r..� � � • y , � o �+ � ,� �`" -- � • ,� � r , . �� , . �r ,� , . o =n' _� a. � � . + `` . � " .�y� W�, ` t�.� r � � ~� TF i GJ' • • y{, .. ` �+ � � �` Y � ` - ��.� _ Q� r � �. ' � ` ' a + r �' f �' �1�_ r ��1 � � � r �v � ` ■ � ��e' �S ' . �. ��..��j� � f � ' r � � I� � ' � �i"� •�`'Y.�� • � • � • � Q� • ��''�•� .,�.; �t+ x�� i5i '.;''!� ,... ��`.i;p y . � 1. � y ,—�` �'�f• � `��}a'' •• �� • � � .� �. a U � '� �r� ' je L • � : �*' � • . � _�� ...�T Y/ .�At�,�: �, Q� Y•~�� • � � ' 4;� ,y�� '�� i. �` � •� N �� .��! ,� rr.,t . l+ �f '�"� �•','71 G7 �+.• • 4` W y 4?� f,l} ' r� '� � . Y� • �� }L .�' � �'�• 7,•��•�.� .i � •,��' L ri 'r � y � � — w,.� ti ' � rR `��a � � {� . ' � .�, `� �4 orr ' .� ` y ��' (� ., rn " '�" �.f' f•.' . , �� ,�'# �, .� � . � , � : l�.y� . :� �� `�-•y� ..�''�� . �. �;1.� � '��+��,. � M � ..'�,,y� � ` ,; � L,�,j"'a `^�1R „ '�y•' �� ;' � � ��; �y '� /�: 4• �'��"4 y. � .r,� � �� Y �` �� . . �� i L r � � ;�i �W� * ,� " ` - L '+ � y - '�. fl� � ��'_� � . a - ' a • (,� �.'• .� • �� G� �y � ' � . Y:t � .� r}� �,� , � �;.. � ' � �:y `��„' 'k.`' ' � �•�� -�Gr: +�+ � , �� i' , ��,.',�.' . �� , '' � � : �O ,��. ��. � � � _� � r� ,�,;�� `�. �ti�. ��,Y�• �` '.r.:.� ,, , � # . • �� . a �'�}.��.�'� * 'Y � 1 " ��, , . ►. Y � � � '+�►� , � �: �`�'' � �� 1 S. � " '� �� ' � � t ' � 3 . , 1► ' m;:'7 F , .C`�4,� - •r,,�! � �.� �; - �[- �" , "'�' � ¢ '-. `'�'� , 'Q �r� � �a�.+ r: ' ,.�"_ .�.' �a= � =m = � i i%''�" ' � t L� 1 �� _ �L S ` ��\ -: •�� . � a � �.: � � �'�� ti ' �Q� _ � � � _ � � •� },:_ . . ti°�`3 l '''�`��; aF � 1 w. T 4w� '� �1� � � V! ��,-• r • ��, . `� '�� . '� � � � ��i+ � � � y �,. � �. ,� � '� � � � �� , ��..� , �:_1,a:''�. ' � • �s ' �� -- ; . ,:..� f ..: �...� �;�:, �, � '`� M� � _ �` � A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 8 Cupertino,California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Significance of the Historic Resource: The following summaYy is excerpted from the property's nomination to the National Register of Historic Properties, written by Franklin Maggi of Archives &Architecture, July 16, 2010: Seven Springs Ranch was founded in 1866 at the western foothills of Santa Clara County during California's Early American period. California pioneer John P. Bubb settled on 40 acres that year in an area that would eventually be called Cupertino. Bubb established a cattle ranch and built a house and barn, and for forty years was a local fixture in the West Side, as Santa Clara Valley transitioned to a robust horticultural district at the end of the nineteenth century. Seven Springs got its name from the seven springs that provided water to this ranch from the Santa Cruz Mountain Range that rises to the west. Over the next 144 years,the ranch would expand to 265 acres during the twentieth century, incorporating the hillsides of what would later become the first acquisition of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a Bay Area greenbelt system of nearly 60,000 acres in the heart of the San Francisco peninsula. Seven Springs Ranch continues to exist today as a 40-acre ranch on the edge of inetropolitan Santa Clara County,now known internationally as Silicon Valley. The boundary of the ranch is now shifted into the hillsides from its valley-flatland origins,but continues to reflect its long history of agricultural use of the land that coincides,time-wise,with that of California itself. Twentieth-century owners William A. Radford of Chicago,beginning in 1922, and Grant and Gladys Stauffer of Kansas City, Missouri,beginning in 1937,recognized the unique setting and sense of place that Seven Springs offered. Both bought the ranch and brought their families to California,building upon the man-made setting to achieve what they saw as the California dream. [For many years] the ranch remain[ed] in the hands of descendants of the Stauffer family, as an equestrian facility for the breeding and training of Morgan horses. The present-day site contains representative structures related to the long history of the ranch. Many of these buildings are significant works of design by prominent regional architects. The property... constitutes a district of historic buildings woven together by one of the last agricultural settings remaining in the Santa Clara Valley. The ranch has historical significance, representing an early pattern of development that continues today(National Register Criterion A)... and for the distinctive architecture of the Stauffer-era residential structures designed by regionally significant architect/designers Ralph Wyckoff, Robert Stanton, and Hugh Comstock (Criterion C). Summary of the Proposed Project: Seven Springs Ranch as a whole has significance for its patterns of development and the distinctive architectural design. There are many buildings, structures, and sites that contribute to the property's associations with the past, and some buildings and structures that are identified as not contributing to the historical or architectural significance of the property. At the end of this report are eighteen appendices that contain descriptions,photographs(from 2010 and 2015), and analysis of the current status of each identified historic and non-historic building, structure, and site. Some of these buildings are paired in associations but listed separately, such as the Gardener's Cottage and the detached Gardener's Cottage Garage. The buildings, structures and sites could be described as physically adjacent clusters within the site;however, in the National Register nomination,the elements were described chronologically by era, so within each category in this report, the features are presented in the same chronological order. A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 9 Cupertino,California Of the eighteen ranch features,there are twelve identified buildings, structures and sites that are listed as contributing to the significance of the property. These elements are identified as integral to the historical and architectural significance of the larger ranch. Altered Contributors Five of these twelve contributing buildings have been altered. Because much of the construction is incomplete,the alterations can be safely understood to have been started very recently, definitely within the last five years. Within the appended reports, the alterations and additions are described and analyzed, and the designs are evaluated for their compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and their impact under CEQA. These buildings include: A Barn—Bubb-era contributing building This historic barn building itself is generally unaltered; however, an addition has been attached to the rear wing, affecting one wall of the barn's historic addition, and the setting has been affected. The new addition does not meet the Standards, and the construction detailing appears to have the potential to damage the barn. It is recommended that the design be revised substantially and documented per the appendix notes, and reviewed for its compatibility with the Standards and for its technical soundness, or that the new construction be removed entirely(separated from the barn building) and the barn restored. B Implement House/Garage—Radford-era contributing building This historic garage and agricultural building has been altered extensively. It is not clear that the alterations are reversible; however, some mitigation appears possible as noted in the appendix. It is recommended that the design be revised,documented, and submitted for review of its compatibility with the Standards. The status of this building as a contributor is of concern. C Gardener's Cottage—Radford-era contributing building This historic residential building has been altered with modifications to the roof and by the addition of square footage, along with the demolition and alterations of the front porch and screened back porch. It seems from field observation that the alterations are reversible. It is recommended that the design be revised and documented per the appendix notes, and submitted for review of its compatibility with the Standards. D Stauffer House—Stauffer/Lyddon -era contributing building The kitchen interior of this historic residence has been partially demolished, and at least one window has been removed and replaced. The purview of the City of Cupertino historic preservation process seems to be limited to the exterior of the building, so the recommendation for this historic resource is that the design be documented per the appendix notes, and submitted for review of its compatibility with the Standards. E Adobe House— Stauffer/Lyddon-era contributing building The windows and doors of this historic residential building have been altered and replaced, perhaps without appropriate waterproofing details that would protect the historic resource in the future. It seems from field observation that these alterations are reversible in general. It is recommended that the design be revised and documented per the appendix notes, and submitted for review of its compatibiliry with the Standards. A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 10 Cupertino,California Unaltered Contributors Seven of the twelve contributing buildings, structures, and sites have not been altered substantially. Included in the appendices are descriptions and photographic illustrations of these features, with confirmation of the original character-defining features. These include: F Water Tower—Radford-era contributing structure This historic structure at the top of the hi11 is generally unaltered, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. A pair of lamp posts has been added to the staircases that access the structure. In the appendix,these are reviewed for their compatibility with the design. G Gardens and Moat—Radford-era contributing site The landscaping features that comprise the historic site surrounding the main house are generally preserved, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. The plantings are overgrown in some cases,but this is reversible with appropriate maintenance. H Gardener's Cottage Garage—Radford-era contributing building This small historic accessory building associated with the Gardener's Cottage is unaltered, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. I Guest House—Stauffer-era contributing building This historic residential building similar in design to the main Stauffer House remains unaltered, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. J Adobe House Gardens—Stauffer-era contributing site The landscaping features and accessory structures that comprise the historic site surrounding the Adobe House are generally preserved, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. The setting of the Greenhouse has been altered where it is adjacent also to the Adobe House,but these small areas do not seem to be directly associated with the Thomas Church design;therefore,recommendations regarding these alterations are included in the analysis of Appendix E. K Manager's House—Stauffer-era contributing building This historic residential building set into the hillside near the eastern entrance to the property remains unaltered since the National Register determination, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. L Manager's House Garage—Stauffer-era contributing building This small historic accessory building associated with the Manager's House is unaltered, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 11 Cupertino,California Non-Contributors There are also five features on the property that were identified as non-contributing buildings and structures in the National Register nomination. A new residence has been built on the property in the last five years,which must also be understood to be a non-contributing building. These buildings and structures include: M Greenhouse—Lyddon-era non-contributing building This small accessory building has not been altered, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch. The setting of the Greenhouse has been altered where it is adjacent also to the Adobe House. Recommendations regarding these alterations are included in the analysis of Appendix E. N Pool House—Lyddon-era non-contributing building This small accessory building has not been altered substantially, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch. The garage door was replaced with an incompatible new roll-up door. O Office—Lyddon-era non-contributing building This small building has been expanded in size and altered extensively in form and detailing although the materials are generally compatible with the original design. The separation of the altered building from the historic contributing buildings and structures creates a design buffer, so there is no substantial architectural impact on the significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch; however,the change in use from an accessory structure to a residence may have a cumulative effect on the historic designation of the ranch property. This effect is analyzed in the Seven Springs Ranch Cumulative Overview below. P Equestrian Structures—Non-contributing(recent) structures The demolition of these non-historic equestrian elements throughout the properry has created no visual or historical changes to the greater design of Seven Springs Ranch, so there is no inherent impact on the significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch. The change in land use from a collection of agricultural accessory structures to sites for new residences may have a cumulative effect on the historic designation of the ranch property. This effect is analyzed in the Seven Springs Ranch Cumulative Overview below. Q Electrical Tower—Non-historic non-contributing structure This series of accessory structures and systems has not been altered since the National Register determination, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch. R New residence—Recently constructed non-contributing building There is no inherent impact on the significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch from the construction of new buildings and structures, such as the new residence observed to the west of the historic Bubb Barn. The change in land use from a collection of agricultural accessory structures to sites for new residences may have a cumulative effect on the historic designation of the ranch property. This effect is analyzed in the Seven Springs Ranch Cumulative Overview below. A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 12 Cupertino,California SEVEN SPRINGS RANCH CUMULATIVE OVERVIEW: In addition to the impact of alterations and development on the contributing components of the historic property, the character and design of the entire resource must also be considered. Do the altered buildings and structures together create an adverse impact on the property as a whole?To rephrase that in official terminology: does the property retain its historic integrity? According to the National Park Service, �tegrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance"i. The California Office of Historic Preservation defines integrity as —.the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance."�After a project,the resource must retain its integrity to remain eligible for historic status. Description summary of the Property from the National Register Nomination: Seven Springs Ranch is located at the edge of the greater Santa Clara Valley in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains,within the western boundary of the City of Cupertino, California. The 37.01-acre parcel which constitutes Seven Springs Ranch in the twenty-first century consists predominantly of open space; some of it designed as picturesque gardens, some of it remaining as wooded ravines and roads, and the majority of it encompassing hillside open space comprising vanishing orchards. Seven Springs Ranch today encompasses many acres of buildings and grounds that represent a continuum of significant and supporting design elements from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries. Although the majority of the associated agricultural lands have been developed for residential use and a few central buildings on the site have been lost, the ranch continues to embody significant associations with the historical development of California agricultural properties, as well as associations with historic personages and architects who are regionally and nationally significant. These associations are illustrated by the various residences, outbuildings, and landscape elements, which together preserve the feelings and associations of a Northern California agricultural estate ranch. Design elements that are related specifically to this uniquely Western setting include the close relationship between the indoor and outdoor spaces of the residences,the form and materials of the early barn,the use of Spanish Colonial Revival and Mission-style motifs for the main house and guest cottage,the adobe house surrounded by its Third Bay Tradition styled outbuildings,the idealized and picturesque garden landscapes with their specimen trees,terracing and water elements, and the practical and composed clustering of the buildings within the greater site. The buildings are generally located in three closely related clusters while a few buildings are located individually on outer reaches of the current site. When the 'http://www.nps. og v/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_8.htm z http://oh�parks.ca.�ov/pa�es/1069/files/technical%20assistance°/o20bulletin°/o206%202011%20u pdate.pdf A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 13 Cupertino,California property was more extensive,the larger area, situated more in the lowlands than the foothills, was used primarily for agricultural purposes. At that time,there were agricultural buildings and warker residences located on access roads within the related cultivated lands. The original address of the house was on Cupertino's Stelling Road, and the driveway was aligned with the most direct route to the railroad right-of-way that passes nearby. Integrity There are seven aspects of integrity per the National Register criteria: location, setting, design, materials,workmanship, associations, and feeling. The following is an updated integrity statement,based on the integrity statement presented in the National Register nomination in 2010; the revised language is underlined: The open space and buildings maintain their original locations and proximities within the ranch property now annexed into the City of Cupertino. Although some of the original ranch property has been sold and developed, the buildings are still surrounded by a largely historic agricultural setting in the rural foothills of Santa Clara Valley. Each contributing building and landscaped element retains its appropriate scale and most continue to evoke their associated feeling to illustrate its associations with to local ranching in Northern California, including the early American Bubb agricultural era,the Radford experimental ranch era, and the Stauffer family's estate ranching contributions. The barn has been altered slightly over time to include a paneled corner office and an addition made from another ranch building; however, its flared form, timber framing, and other original materials and craftsmanship represent mid-nineteenth-century design and agricultural associations embodied by historic barn design. The attached modern residence diminishes these associations and feelings. The Radford water tower, garage [implement shed], Gardener's Cottage, and gardens have each been altered with some minor changes.For example, the Water Tower has been stuccoed,the garage has had one garage door filled in, and specimen trees have been added to the garden; however, each building and localized setting illustrates its residential scale, original materials, form, and workmanship. Currentiv the Gardener's Cotta�e has been altered and no lon�er embodies its early twentieth-century desi�n, and the Implement shed is barelv reco�nizable. The design of each element at one time embodied Radford's ideals as understood through his various early-twentieth-century publications. The bungalow style and interaction of the roads and gardens retain their integrity as an overlay of the Radford era. The main house and series of primarily residential outbuildings built by the Stauffer/Lyddon families also retain their design integrity with the architectural history of these significant designs. The main house has had almost no alterations except for the landscaping of the rear courtyard; the guesthouse has also suffered almost no alteration over time. Their Spanish Colonial Revival design, craftsmanship, and materials are intact. The Adobe has been altered with compatible sliding wood doors,but its materials,form, and detailing are also intact at a high level of integrity to its original design. Currently the Adobe has had alterations to windows and doors that reduce its level of authenticitv. The Manager's House from the Stauffer era has had its windows modified;however,it has retained sufficient integrity to remain a contributing structure to the district. Seven Springs Ranch as a whole retains much of its special feeling in the long-time history of the Western Santa Clara Valley and represents a variety of long-time associations through its preserved forms, locations, detailing,materials,workmanship, and design. Analysis: At Seven Springs Ranch,the altered contributing buildings and structures, along with the altered non-contributing buildings, structures and new construction, have a clear, although reversible, A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 14 Cupertino,California adverse effect on the larger properiy. Because the property is large,with many contributing features, most of the alterations have scattered and concentrated impact that create many small holes in the authenticity of the property. If the project were to be completed as observed,without mitigation,the integrity of the ranch would be eroded and the significance of the Seven Springs Ranch could be lost over time as noted above. This approach would require an EIR If the recommendations are followed as outlined for the individual features—revising the project and creating alterations that meet the Standards—the integrity of the whole ranch property would be maintained, along with the integrity of each contributing element. Of concern is the cumulative impact of residential housing development throughout the property. The primary overall character of the property, as described in the National Register nomination, �nsists predominantly of open space; some of it designed as picturesque gardens, some of it remaining as wooded ravines and roads, and the majority of it encompassing hillside open space comprising vanishing orchards."The property has�nificant associations with the historical development of California agricultural properties, as well as associations with historic personages and architects who are regionally and nationally significant..."The property had a total of six dwelling units at the time of the National Register nomination; after alterations and new construction,the currently constructed or adapted total appears to be ten or more (some of the buildings may include more than one dwelling unit and none has received occupancy permits for confirmation of this expansion). The alteration of the Implement House and the Office into residences,the residential Barn addition, and the new separate residence represent a clear development of the property for multiple units with no master plan. The development of the property with multi-family housing has a large-scale and immediate adverse impact on the character of the setting of the resource. If the City of Cupertino planning regulations allows residential development within a parcel such as this, it is recommended that no additional dwelling units be constructed or created from the existing buildings without a master site plan that has been reviewed for compatibility with the Standards and which preserves the overall integrity of the site. Decisions about new development in a sensitive environment can't be considered and reviewed piecemeal. The overall composition and balance of buildings in the landscape is critical to the preservation of the Seven Springs Ranch. CONCLUSION Many contributing buildings and structures have been altered at the Seven Springs Ranch; the alterations do not fully meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Ti^eatment of Historic Properties; therefore,the altered buildings and structures have an adverse impact on each resource and leave holes in the overall integrity of the larger property. The project, as it is currently proceeding, could either trigger an Environmental Impact Report and associated analysis, along with mitigation recommendations and other regulatory requirements and project revisions, or the project intent and design proposal could be altered substantively(—titigated to a less than adverse level") so that the project would no longer have a significant effect on the environment and be issued a negative declaration with regard to historic resources. Of concern is the cumulative impact of new residential housing development throughout the property. It is recommended that no additional dwelling units approved without a master site plan that has been reviewed for compatibility with the Standards and which preserves the overall integrity of the site. A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Seven Springs Ranch—Report on Historic Status PAGE 15 Cupertino,California APPENDICES A-R A R C H 1 V E S & A R C H 1 T E C T U R E Appendix A- Page 1 APPENDIX A: BARN—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—ALTERED (IMPACT PER SISR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS; POSSIBLE CUMULATIVE IMPACT) Summary: The historic barn building itself is generally unaltered; however, an addition has been attached to the rear wing, affecting one wall of the barn's historic addition, and the setting has been affected. The new addition does not meet the Standards, and the construction detailing appears to have the potential to damage the barn. It is recommended that the design be revised substantially and documented per the following notes, and reviewed for its compatibility with the Standards and for its technical soundness, or that the new construction be removed entirely(separated from the barn building) and the barn wall and setting be restored. National Register Nomination Description: Bubb Barn (Map #1) The timber-framed barn has a flared design consistent with nineteenth century barns built in the region of Santa Clara County. It is constructed with the traditional one-and-one- half-story gabled center wing,flanked by one-story shed wings that continue the roofline at a lower pitch. Indicative of the early age of the barn is the side-gabled main roof and the symmetrical front-gabled accent roo£ Also consistent with a mid-nineteenth century barn structure are the 6/6 double-hung wood windows with slender muntins; this type of window is generally found locally on buildings that date from the 1870s and earlier. The square nails, channel-rustic siding, 12"-wide skip sheathing at the roof, and the angled boxed eaves all suggest at least a pre-1880s date of construction. Complex joinery holds the post-and-beam structure together. The front fa�ade consists of a one-story wing with a large picture window to the office side of the sliding barn door. The barn door features a ribbon of vertical windows that are likely not original. Above the barn door is a centered hayloft door and cantilevered support beam. At the southwest(uphill) side wall are individually placed 3x2 windows at the first floor, a hay door centered in the fa�ade of the upper level, flanked by individually place 6/6 double-hung windows. The northeast(downhill) side wall rests on a pony wall below the main level. At the main level are five 3x2 windows; three 6/6 windows are set within the upper gable. Two of the double-hung windows are lower, and the central window is high. The rear fa�ade and setting was altered within the last decades. Historic photographs show that there was a lower shed wing extension to the rear that has been removed. Physical evidence indicates that this was likely an addition that was removed, leaving the original barn walls. This addition was likely removed when a one-story gabled addition was built in the 1980s; an apricot barn from the early-twentieth century was dismantled from a remote location on the same property at that time and rebuilt at the rear of the barn as an addition. The cleared location of the former apricot barn and cutting shed was subsequently sold for development. Appendix A- Page 2 Interiors of the barn have apparently changed with the property's ownership over time. The original timber framing is exposed at both levels, as is the truss roof system of the apricot-shed addition. Although not physically a part of the building, stored in the loft area there are associated apricot boxes and picking ladders from the early twentieth century. The horse stalls are constructed of stacked horizontal boards that are topped by openings caged with exposed rebar; these are likely original or were constructed early in the site's history. The horse stalls are clad in beaded board, and the floors are wood. The center of the barn floor is concrete, not an original feature. The area at the south corner of the first floor was designed in the middle of the twentieth century to accommodate the equestrian office; it features stained plywood walls and built-in shelving. A photograph published in the 1920s by a subsequent owner,William A. Radford, shows a raised roof and second-story windows on the front fa�ade of the barn; however,the photograph is clearly colorized and likely was also altered materially for publiciry purposes. Description of Current Building and Setting: The barn appears as it did five years ago. The form, siding, windows, doors, and wall trim, along with its distinetive agricultural interiors, are preserved.The rear wing is also visually unchanged in form, and the north and east elevations have no observable alterations. The south side of the rear wing has been altered; it has been incorporated into the side wall of a residential addition. The residential addition is a one-story house in the neo-modern style. It is set inside a wrapped corner retaining wall at the southwest. These exterior concrete walls were existing elements,part of the former equestrian shed in this location,which has been demolished. (See Equestrian Structures Appendix P.) The house has a low-slope gabled roof with deep eaves and expanses of glass at the front(east)fa�ade, including trapezoidal transoms over the front entry, and a series of individually placed slider and bay units around the remainder of the house. The house north wall is shared as a party wall with the south wall of the rear barn wing, and the two gabled roofs abut at this joint. It was not visible that the roof drainage was being provided by a cricket or other method of shedding water. Secretary's Standard's Review (SISR): 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 observed for the barn itself; however, the new addition represents a change in residential density of the property that is not, in and of itself, individually an issue,but which has the potential for cumulative adverse impacts. The physical joining of a residential building with an agricultural building is an uncomfortable change in use of the overall setting. It is recommended that the residential addition be revised or removed to improve the use of the existing building. Appendix A- Page 3 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 barn was observed as having been removed. The spatial relationships and spaces embodied in the historic site design are not cleanly preserved in this design. The physical addition of the modern residential building to the back corner of the historic stand-alone barn is a jarring spatial juxtaposition. 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: There are no proposed changes that might be mistaken for original features.All new elements are modern and have adequate differentiation(See also Standard 9). 4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved." Analysis: The rear wing of the barn has been identified as acquiring historic significance in its own right. It is addressed in this analysis as an integral part of the historic barn building.The form of the rear wing addition is currently retained and the materials are generally preserved. The southern wall of the rear wing has been incorporated into a party wall with the new residential addition. It is recommended that the design of the new addition be revised to respect the character-defining features of the rear wing, along with the rest of the barn building, or that the residential addition be removed and the barn wing be restored. 5. "Distinctive materials,features,finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved." Analysis: The features, finishes and craftsmanship that characterize the main barn building and its historic addition are currently preserved. 6. "Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced.Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,the new feature will match the old in design, color,texture, and,where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence." Analysis: The current physical condition of the barn appears in fair to good condition, and the historic features are shown as generally preserved so far. It is recommended that general notes be required on any final building permit documents, which would note the historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed.Also on the permit documents, it is recommended that there be notes specifying which existing historic elements are to be protected during construction. Appendix A- Page 4 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 treatments were indicated in this work. The observable roof connections, drainage, and foundation areas do not exhibit clear detailing designed to protect the barn structure from water infiltration. The former open corral area had drainage that was designed to protect the barn building. The protection of the historic structure is a critical element of any proposed addition or preservation project. 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: The recent residential addition to the barn is not compatible with the historic character of the barn. It is too starkly differentiated by its detailing and style. In particular,the modern expanses of glazing and the large scale of the new siding are in contrast with the smaller scale of the multi-pane historic windows and repetitive siding elements. The low-slope roof is highly in contrast with the traditional gables of the historic barn. The size of the addition is compatible; it is smaller and offset from the large historic footprint. 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 design of the new addition design preserves the essential form and integrity of the historic building. The critical character-defining features of the barn and site would be unimpaired in this project. Concluding Analysis: The current design does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The design, therefore, creates an adverse impact on the historic significance of the resource and the larger historic property. If the recommendations are undertaken and the Standards met, the design would have no adverse impact on the resources. Recommendations: It is recommended that the design be revised substantially and documented per the following notes, and reviewed for its compatibility with the Standards and for its technical soundness, or that the new Appendix A- Page 5 construction be removed entirely(separated from the barn building) and the barn wall and setting be restored. It is recommended that the residential addition be revised or removed to improve the use of the existing building. Furthermore,it is recommended that the design of the new addition be revised to respect the character-defining features of the rear wing, along with the rest of the barn building, or that the residential addition be removed and the barn wing restored. It is recommended that the house addition be considered as part of a cumulative review of the overall development of the property for compatibility with the Standards, and that the environmental declaration be withheld until the entire project,with all its proposed residential components, is understood to preserve the overall integrity of the site. Photographic Illustrations: - , at ��„ � :�r�....` �� '��` s.k;. ��. -� _ - �.; �, . .�1 �_' �,� ' .� � � �:gdu��'.� ,f ',��5 il RI :7� '�' j} � . . . Ip �� F� �� .- �� . _ — -„ I �. .,_ - _ .. � �` III t I! . ` �.� �:- . I,,I� Ili - ` w �' ` ,w � �,� � ' y� - 11C - ��' ' ' ��_,. � � �11 �,Y�� ; � . . #K n� �•. . � . a �� .. , �;''a _ , ,A � �....��_ �- � �,' �� - .,�� '- '' � °�i'. .si. ��- —- � _ � a'� j',�.�� . . ' . /_'' � �� k �� . . , . _. .. /` . . � . �S�' 2010 View of Barn Northeast Corner-from the 2015 View of Barn Northeast Corner-from the northeast northeast No building or significant landscaping alterations noted in this view Appendix A- Page 6 �: � � � :� � - ` 1 a�� 1 � .. > - u� ��, , _ �.. �*-� �. , _ � __ p� j; � � m �� - � �� , ■ � -- t}!- §a. � �A: � Jti�, t _ T � �� s`� Rl� �, <r �lu G�"� � ■ � �� t � �� : i,�� :R � "__ � P � - r. {�_ -� .. �.�<;-� �� 11'ah ' " � � �. `� �I'� I '� . ._ '� i , ' —. �- - ' .,� — � ''�"TY, -. . ' � � �~, . .- 'f' .�,.... • ' - . . 2010 View of Barn Front and Southeast Corner- 2015 View of Barn Front and Southeast Corner- from the southeast from the southeast No barn alterations noted in this view;landscape altered and garden wall/fence removed ��.�,� � � ,��'} �= _. =' _ - - .. . - , ,,. __ " �-�t .- __ . "t�'_ / �� _ �- --� __ - � ��_.' -- _ � _ ;� �:��---- ,�. _ , _ __ �i j� __ ��T _ �� - ��+� �':� ■i - �_ ��■ , � � � �� y� . �r � �, - :� __ - : _ - _-- � -� �. _�..: � �� . �_ _ -� -- _ :. . ...,,,,� � �_ m�-- � ' ``'- _ .. F � � 2010 View of Barn South Side and Shed -from the 2015 View of Barn South Side and Addition -from southeast the southeast Residential addition shown, with associated alterations to rear wing of the barn Appendix A- Page 7 .Wt O.yx.�1T' � � ' i� � :l�.. _ — __ __ _ _w'� � ��. ,�. �� • _ .��"...e. _. i— � . �� -_. ` 5 � -- - - , '�y � _ �� ' ■�, � . �� ' : ��. . 1 i�� -.�- �/,. w,� --- �n A n_ I ,,� k � � i'_ I ��! '� �� — - ,�',h t, ■� 0■ F3i"` � � >�a� .:. �� ■� � -- _ . ��,. '�y ::: � _ � :�� f■ �1� - . _,...__ � � r I ��ri � _ Y� ■ �� AI I� � - i�. �� 1 .� A . � . � k• .� ;, � � .. �� N �� '� ��-�, I L+,. J i atY� '`^f.� .�. I �� '_ �, .:;.�, �",�„�, ',r4- ;{� }�; ., � - - �e+ �.: _. 2015 View of Residential Barn Addition -from the 2015 View of Barn and Shed Southwest-from the east south Residential addition shown, with alterations to rear wing of the barn . ti . � , Y �"�f . r � -�.-. �w� '�"`'� � '�� -. r .��1�� 4 -�,: x - z, r� T b � J. j �.;� r. �� 4��,�2 �/ f � .s ,,,. � ' a "� � ,��< t��7:. �� _n. � k•; :i:�s.:.�#� �`�` � " � �- � , ' �� '. / � � �� `"� �� k .- . .. . .. .... ...�` �� 1 _ '_ _- � � �� , � L .✓. �� i _ �� f .i_� q , � +�� . �:. _._.�.,�-..:.�, � _ j „;=� ,l...��- i , _ �J e _ � ! �' � A �-� �' _ .n . . r,,..... � .. � . .� 2010 View of Barn and Shed Southwest Corner- 2015 View of Barn and Addition Southwest Corner from the southwest -from the southwest Residential addition shown, with alterations to landscaping and rear wing of the barn Appendix A- Page 8 °:�. � �M�•� . �- �, .�. ;:� � * �: .�` �r � .S ry,�'. ..« � � � - _ � `�` yer �k�i:, M ° �Y �: ^ �. - - .{a'; --- - — - _ � �� e�n �— -- - - - ' ilr' ;.1�� '� :.;�� , �� . _ �� - �_ - - . :_.. ,, . 2015 View of Barn Rear (West) Elevation -from 2015 View of Barn Rear(West) Elevation and the west (no similar photo from 2010) addition -from the northwest No alterations noted to the majority of the fa�ade Roof connection alterations and addition � " �::� � � ��.< � � . ,.'�:� . , IP r r . } _'�, � { \ 1 Y a � � � � � �� - � �� - :i - _ � .� - . � 2015 DETAIL of Barn and Addition Rear(West) 2015 DETAIL of Barn and Addition -from the Elevation -from the west southwest Roof alterations and wall connections Roof alterations and wall connections Appendix A- Page 9 �F '.`r' -- — I-- ..ry,, - _ . ---.�J ��. � —��- � -� �� . �. _�� a � � . � --� �� s,:�_- � ,� �r� _- " -.jl _ � ' . �� ,' _ 'iI �'" �� ! �II . 1 ,�iA {I r� � 3 i � . �,f � _ _ _ . . n�'� _ _ _ � �. � �� ' �� '�� ' �,�'. . _,��..�,, � . � _ i: . _ �' i ��-'��.� •�,� � �� - �1 �� . �.�. +� � I"'r�'" �� ,r�. , �' �9 2015 DETAIL of Barn Interior Adjacent to New 2015 DETAIL of Barn Interior Adjacent to New Addition -from the north Addition -from the northeast eoarded-up doorway and windows eoarded-up windows Appendix B - Page 1 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENT HOUSE/GARAGE–CONTRIBUTING BUILDING–ALTERED (IMPACT PER SISR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS; POSSIBLE CUMULATIVE IMPACT) Summary: This historic garage and agricultural building has been altered extensively. It is not clear that the alterations are fully reversible; however, some mitigation appears possible as noted below. It is recommended that the design be revised, documented, and submitted for review of its compatibility with the Standards. The status of this building as a contributor is of concern. The National Register Nomination Description: Implement House and Garage (Map #4) Completing the main cluster of historic agricultural outbuildings near the main house is a two-story Bungalow/Craftsman garage, referred to in the Radford leaflet as the "Implement House and Garage."The current owners refer to this building as the "Carriage House," and the family has used the building to store sulkies,but it is of an age and form that it was likely also originally designed for horse-drawn carriages and automobile storage with an upstairs apartment. This 1920s late-Craftsman-era garage is located to the northwest of the main house, across the gravel turnaround from the creek and immediately uphill from and aligned with the Bubb barn. Residential buildings from the Craftsman era—about 1905 to 1925—embody a local design response to the Arts- and-Crafts movement, as presented in such historic magazines as Craftsman, and represented in such pattern books as Radford Architectural Company's Homes for Everyone. There was often an emphasis on heavy joinery, such as exposed rafter tails and knee braces, and architects of the time highlighted the horizontal proportions of their designs. Even very modest buildings from that era, such as this functional outbuilding, included character-defining elements that refer to the more popular motifs of Craftsman design. The building includes such late-Bungalow/Craftsman features as the full-width hipped- gable roof, heavy knee braces, exposed rafter tails, shingle siding,4/1 double-hung windows, and some tripartite ribbon windows. The form is not overly horizontal, although the overall massing is elongated to provide multiple garage openings,the eaves are low, and the second-floor ribbon windows provide additional horizontal lines on the main fa�ade. The four garage doors of the subject building face roughly southeast toward the main house; there was reportedly a fifth door where there is now a wall section. The footprint of the building is"L"-shaped,with the bulk of the side-gabled building aligning with the footprint of the Bubb barn and a small wing projecting to the rear at the north corner. The building is set into a moderately sloping hillside. The downhill side(northeast, facing the barn) is raised on a high concrete foundation, visibly board-formed. The uphill (southwest) end of the building features a level terrace surrounded by retaining walls. Access to the second-story apartment is from a recent exterior wood staircase on this end of the building. The roof design at the two ends of the main wing is a hipped gable or jerkinhead; the rear wing is hipped. The rear slope of the main roof is accented by two Appendix B - Page 2 shed dormers, one long, above a tripartite unit, and one narrow, above a single 4/1 double-hung window. A narrow shed dormer punctuates the interior slope of the hipped wing, also. The frame building is covered with composition shingle roo�ng. The walls are clad in painted wood shingles. The exposed rafter tails support flat-board sheathing, and the gable ends are supported by knee braces at each joint. The windows are all wood,with standard shingle moldings and flat aprons. The interiors of the main level include an unusual level of detail for a carriage house/garage,including v-groove ceilings and varnished,paneled walls. The apartment has a low, sloped ceiling and includes some original trim and floor plan. Description of Current Building and Setting: The historic "L"-shaped form of the Implement House/Garage is somewhat visible at the second level,but the building has been altered with a first-floor addition that enlarged the footprint into a rectangle. The roof forms have also been altered; the hipped gables remain visible at the north and south ends of the building,but the roof pitch has been altered at the west side, and the three separate dormers rebuilt and connected into a continuous side dormer that wraps the inside corner. The historic wood windows and doors have all been replaced; facing west, the upstairs windows have been replaced with French doors that open onto a roof deck. To the east,the tripartite ribbon windows have been replaced by large slider units; similar square sliders have also replaced the series of four garage doors (originally five)that characterized this building's first floor. At the ends of the building and at the new first floor area are modern greenhouse windows. The stairs at the south end of the building have been demolished, and upstairs entrance is made at a new set of stairs integrated into the new addition. At the north end of the building, small original windows have been replaced by a pair of larger sliders and a new first-floor entrance. The entrance is formed with a new gabled porch and double stairway. Modern-styled new gutters wrap the eaves. Walkways have been added and planted landscaping has been replaced by pavement in the immediate setting. Secretary's Standard's Review (SISR): 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: The use of this building has changed. The downstairs garage/storage area has been enlarged and converted to residential use. The upstairs was not accessible during this site visit; however, it seems as though there are multiple dwelling units in this building(at least two). Adapting a non-residential building for residential purposes is not inherently a conflict with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards;however,the new use must consist of"...minimal change to its distinetive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships."The current design, with its altered form, materials, and detailing,is not compatible with this Standard. Appendix B - Page 3 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: The historic materials and character-defining features of this building have not been retained or preserved. The alterations include: the removal of the historic windows and doors,the alteration of the roof form,the size and location of the first-floor addition,the alteration of the entryways, and more. 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: There are no current changes are that might be mistaken for original features.All new elements are differentiated(See also Standard 9). 4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic signi£cance in their own right will be retained and preserved." Analysis: It is understood that no existing changes to the building have acquired historic significance in their own right. 5. "Distinctive materials,features,finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property wiIl be preserved." Analysis: The features and finishes that characterize the main house were not observed to have been preserved. Specifically,this includes: the form, detailing, and such design details as the historic lack of the gutters (exposing the rafter tails). It is recommended that most, if not all,the distinctive materials, finishes, and examples of craftsmanship be restored(See Standard 9). 6. "Deteriorated historic features wiII 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 building in general appears to be in very good physical condition; however,the few remaining historic features may not have undergone appropriate preservation treatments, and the new construction might not be integrated well with the historic structure. Specifically the current alterations do not visibly exhibit the quality and technical workmanship necessary to confirm that the historic building is protected from water infiltration. One example is that the shingle joints align at the former garage door openings.Another example is that there is no physical separation between the siding and grade. The protection of the historic structure is a critical element of any proposed addition or preservation project. It is recommended that all window installation— replacement or restoration—be inspected for code compliance with respect to the preservation of the historic materials and workmanship. It is further recommended that general notes be added to the final building permit documents,that would note the historic significance of the properry and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed, and note that the remaining existing historic elements are to be protected Appendix B - Page 4 during construction. 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 were observed in this wark. 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: The current set of alterations has destroyed historic materials, features, and special relationships that characterize the property. The new addition,the window replacements and door alterations, as well as the trim detailing, do not meet this Standard. Recommendations include,but are not limited to,the following: • The main addition and entry additions be redesigned to be more compatible in size, scale of detailing, and location,including the handrails and trim and corner joints at the original footprint of the house • The windows be generally restored to their previous size, style, and materials and that new windows be compatible with the historic design • the proposed dormer design be revised to reflect the historic form • The eaves be restored or revised to reflect the original design without fascias or gutters • The garage door openings be restored or interpreted in the revised design • The setting be restored and revised to embody the character of Seven Springs Ranch in general and the original setting of the Implement House/Garage It is recommended that the owner be required to submit an as-is drawing set of the existing conditions and a substantially revised design that includes considerable restoration of lost elements along with restoration of much of the setting. The intent of the revised design will be the compatible rehabilitation of the Implement House/Garage to embody its period of significance and use within the larger historic Seven Springs Ranch property. It is recommended that the entirety of the documented and revised proposed design be reviewed for compatibility with the Standards prior to issuance of permits. 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 current design has not preserved the essential form and integrity of the historic property. The current design may have made changes that impair the essential form and integrity of the historic resource as a contributor to the property. Appendix B - Page 5 Concluding Analysis The current design does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The design, therefore, creates an adverse impact on the historic significance of the resource and the larger historic property. Because of the considerable alterations that have taken place,it is not clear in this stage of evaluation how the Standards can be met in full,to reduce the direct adverse impact on the contributing resource and the property as a whole. Recommendations: It is recommended that the owner be required to submit an as-is drawing set of the existing conditions and a substantially revised design that includes considerable restoration of lost elements along with restoration of much of the setting. The intent of the revised design will be the compatible rehabilitation of the house to embody its period of significance and use within the larger historic Seven Springs Ranch property. It is recommended that the entirety of the documented and revised proposed design be reviewed for compatibility with the Standards prior to issuance of permits. The drawing set must also be reviewed for its preservation treatments and construction detailing, to protect the historic building. Recommendations include,but are not limited to,the following: • The main addition and entry additions be redesigned to be more compatible in size, scale of detailing, and location, including the handrails and trim and corner joints at the original footprint of the house • The windows be generally restored to their previous size, style, and materials and that new windows be compatible with the historic design • the proposed dormer design be revised to reflect the historic form • The eaves be restored or revised to reflect the original design without fascias or gutters • The garage door openings be restored or interpreted in the revised design • The setting be restored and revised to embody the character of Seven Springs Ranch in general and the original setting of the Implement House/Garage It is recommended that all window and door installation—replacement or restoration—be inspected for code compliance with respect to the preservation treatment of the historic materials and workmanship. It is recommended that general notes be added to the final building permit documents, which would note the historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed, as well as note that the existing historic elements are to be protected during construction. It is recommended that the number of residential units be considered as part of a cumulative review of the overall development of the property for compatibility with the Standards, and that the environmental declaration be withheld until the entire proj ect, with all its proposed residential components,is understood to preserve the overall integrity of the site. Appendix B - Page 6 Photographic Illustrations: , _� � �. `� �.i� _ � �'r��r �` ��, � p, _ 1 i�`Z�v � - �' � i � �� -... _ � --- - -- -- ■� - � �� r � - --�� J ' : � 1` i = _ - A7Fs��k'i�f:u - - - --—— —: -- k . . , � .�. '_�� ' �,�— ` ' � „� __ - . , • .._ _ :�{ i . .._ _ _..-- - -. - -_.._ _. , .a' . � . � s�rk,_ N.�� , 'I-��.� � _ � �• � 2010 View of Implement House/Garage East 2015 View of Implement House/Garage East Elevation -from the east Elevation -from the east Note garage doors and ribbon upstairs windows Windows and doors replaced r � ;`� �. � ;; � ��.' . { ��',' �� y � , �� - ._�F �,�' r. u; � � �t,F r 4 a- 1'� .#y j�� . , �." � � �' !'�' � p/ � , � sF�'� r % r �� k T` �� :3 � �F U { h .� �� q_�, / _ �/% t�° 1 �.•-� �, � -- � '.. � ;� /.." '�� ! � -�' . ' " �_. / � �'��i ' __: ` _ .. _ _ % '�� - �`f ' �� - �`� I .--- �• � �� _ a �- .. �.�- �� .... . _ P 6)�,_ "�_--�� _ ' � ��J� � � � Y ._ .'__ � � - '_ ..�-' '� � � � ,�� - ti- -a ../g"'., 'r n ly ��,f�:'�a� ��il �i. ../" � _ `. i -�, � . � � � .. 2010 View of Im lement House Gara e North Side 2015 View of Im lement House Gara e North Side p / g p / g Elevation -from the west Elevation -from the west Note 4/1 double-hung windows Windows replaced;entrance added;landscaping altered Appendix B - Page 7 �-.: ,�. , ;�,� . . v ,a.. f ....33-y�,'�F' � �. `- ✓� ~ \�'a,� . L'" �y-,�.�,. �\ jY��l',{ �j?�� l.'' �' d� "?i -.i^: �� 1 ,'L�-r ��_ ,5....� �i� . � �, � € +�Yf' _ `� _ . �y�"!� � �� / � �9 �Y._��,� � yp P � � . �D � _ � ., od:; ��:'�� y �. — ..�` � ��I��M�II� ��'��eq��'��II i ,� . . � � �. . _ _ _ . .._ _._ _ _.._ �`3d�. �- � -: i �.- __ r'�=1�N l�i�Y� �n �!e �� , � .� v • _ _ . _ i L'g -'�.c � {.._ . � !s �i r � �� , .__.•T �.- _ - _�- �' -�i; �. .�; � W .J�? . � � --.�� i ; � � � '� � Jw# '. : '_: j .k -0 " - __ _- s � _ r►,4 �.�.�� — _� �: -- _ � ,��_ _ � .�_.. � -_ � a..,��,.�-__�.;.,,.,.:..�._� ��- - . -Ww�='<. . . . ' , r • _..��__ . 2010 View of Implement House/Garage Rear 2015 View of Implement House/Garage Rear (West) Elevation -from the west (West) Elevation -from the west Note exposed rafter tails, double-hung windows Windows replaced;roof and eaves altered;living space added x� � �: ,�. � �.,:: � �..�:. - � ��,_ �� - �f_ ., �; ��- � — --��`� f > � �� , � � � � � _ �� 1 x + �".-, � � _ �_ �, ,�� r, �, ,�, .� ��, ` �. �-�� R�a .: �� ' ' �� . , t . ._. � � � � , � � � �. k-lr A /� ' � "!'_� � .-, .I� / VF � � /� �� i y � ;4' i .�r � '�. � �� '� � �� { � . :/� - � `�'� ,� -� . �.. �� , N.-� �� ' ' � ��,�.�4'.; ( 1 �i__ � Fr�,,� �� :�, � "a- ,'��u�,��;'`:�" , 2010 View of Implement House/Garage South End 2015 View of Implement House/Garage South End Elevation -from the southwest Elevation -from the southwest Note dormers and small stair wing Windows replaced;roof altered;entrance altered; living space added Appendix B - Page 8 �4 �:, �� _ �';xi�`� `� �� _�. �� _ __-�- 'h,��'. ' �� -_ J. ' -� _ . .. -- -.-_ �. -Y � .�... .� 2015 DETAIL of Implement House/Garage Southeast Corner-from the southeast Windows, roof, doorways altered;stair and first- floor entry removed Appendix C - Page 1 APPENDIX C: GARDENERS COTTAGE—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—ALTERED (IMPACT PER SISR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS) Summary: This historic residential building has been altered with modifications to the roof and by the addition of square footage, along with the demolition and alterations of the front porch and screened back porch. It seems from field observation that the alterations are reversible. It is recommended that the design be revised and documented per the following notes, and submitted for final review of its compatibility with the Standards. National Register Nomination Description: Gardener's Cottage(Map#5) Separate from the rest of the built structures, at the foot of the current property is a small, simple Bungalow/Craftsman originally used as a"Division Superintendent's Home," more recently referred to as the "Gardener's Cottage."Cottages similar in size, scale, and detailing to this one were common throughout the Santa Clara Valley and beyond in the early-twentieth century,both in town and rural locations. It is clear from the Radford flier that the residential and agricultural buildings at Seven Springs Ranch represented much of Radford's design ideals. It is possible, or even likely,that if a Radford home plan book were found from this decade, that this small house might be one of the designs. The cottage is in a level area of the property, and was originally situated in a more central location in the larger open space of the ranch, surrounded by orchards. It is visible in many historic photographs, due to its open location at the time. It is currently located in a corner of the parcel, surrounded to the north and east by recent housing developments. This small house faces approximately south on the outer curve of the oval drive that loops the property. The one-story house exhibits much of the traditional bungalow form, including the compact,rectangular footprint,raised floor, simple hipped roof, and full-width recessed porch. A small room wing projects to the west side with shared eave lines. Differing from many hipped cottages of the same age,the siding is shingles (rather than tri-bevel drop siding or stucco),there is no dormer, and the rafter tails are exposed without knee braces, rather than boxed. There is very little classical detail,but the proportions are consistent with houses of this type. The full-height posts at the front fa�ade are shingled; the porch is enclosed with screens and a handrail that consists of vertical beaded board. The porch shades the wide 1/1 double-hung focal windows. The interiors include many original features, such as kitchen cabinetry and tile, as well as five-panel doors in original trim. A fireplace was removed from the house. There is a detached garage with a hipped roof and sliding garage door across a gravel driveway from the cottage. Appendix C - Page 2 Description of Current Building and Setting: The historic roof form(massing) of the house has been altered in this project; the more diminutive"T"- shaped footprint of the historic house has been expanded into a large, unrefined rectangle. The roof has been altered into a double truncated hip form. The new addition is clad in T1-ll plywood siding that wraps onto the full width of the rear(north) elevation. The original front porch has been removed, and the construction of a full-width new porch has been started. The northeast rear screened porch has been enclosed,but the exterior east side has only temporary plywood protection. The associated(contributing) Gardener's Cottage Garage is reviewed separately in this report. No alterations were noted at that building. Secretary's Standard's Review (SISR): 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 obvious change of use proposed for this residential building;however,the recently constructed addition does not include residential elements (such as doors or windows), and it is unfinished. It is unclear how this new wing of the house would be utilized as part of a small cottage.As the addition is now built and detailed, it is not likely to be compatible in use with the small cottage home. It is recommended that this addition be removed (See also Standard 9).All other changes are compatible with this Standard. 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: The historic roof form(massing) of the house has been altered in this proj ect; the more diminutive "T"-shaped footprint of the historic house has been expanded into a large,unrefined rectangle. The spatial relationships and spaces embodied in the historic design have not been preserved. It is recommended that the current addition be removed and the original footprint be restored. If an addition is still desired, it is recommended that a new design be submitted for review according to the Standards. 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: There are no changes that might be mistaken for original features.No elements have conjectural basis.All new elements have adequate differentiation. See also Standard 9 with regard to the extent that the alterations have too much contrast. 4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved." Analysis: It is understood that no previous changes to the building had acquired historic significance in their own right. Appendix C - Page 3 5. "Distinctive materials,features,finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property wiIl be preserved." Analysis: Many of the features and finishes that characterize the house were preserved. Specifically,this includes: the siding,windows, wall trim, and the encapsulated footprint. The screened porch has not been preserved, and it is recommended that the design of that(northeast) corner be documented and revised per the Standards. The front porch was also not preserved; it is recommended that the porch be restored per physical evidence on site and per photographic documentation. 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: From observation, the existing historic features of the house appear to be in very good physical condition. It is recommended that when the final building permit documents are prepared,that they would note the historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed, and note that the existing historic elements are to be protected during construction. 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 treatments are shown as proposed in this proposed phase of work. 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: The size of the west-side addition is out of scale with the original house. The footprint size and location create a bulky, asymmetrical mass where the original massing included setbacks and lower rooflines and a centered main wing. This form is not compatible with the original character of the property. The materials of the addition are also not compatible with the original house;plywood does not have the scale that repetitive elements provide. It is recommended that the addition be removed entirely. If no addition is required,the original house walls and windows should be restored. If an addition is desired, a new plan—designed to meet these Standards— should be submitted for review. The porch replacement is not finished,but the design appears to be incompatible with the main house in materials and form. It is recommended that the front porch be restored from physical evidence on site(paint scars, old footings, salvaged materials) and from photographic Appendix C - Page 4 documentation.The porch should span only the original main wing of the house and embody the Craftsman Bungalow style that was the character-defining feature of the house. The northeast corner room enclosure is incomplete, and the materials and design are not compatible with the historic screened laundry porch design. It is recommended that the materials for this porch enclosure be revised to be compatible with the original design of the cottage. 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:As of the time of the site visit,the current west addition appears to be removable with little adverse effect. If the northeast corner is completed as per the recommendations, it would be considered reversible. The recommended restoration of the porch would not need to be reversible, as its design would be integral with the historic building. Concluding Analysis: The current design does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The design, therefore, creates an adverse impact on the historic significance of the resource and the larger historic property. If the recommendations are undertaken and the Standards met, the design would have no adverse impact on the resources. Recommendations: It is recommended that the owner be required to submit an as-is drawing set of the existing conditions and a revised design that reflects the following recommendations, with the intent of rehabilitation of the house to embody its period of significance and use within the larger historic Seven Springs Ranch property. It is recommended that the entirety of the documented and revised proposed design be reviewed for compatibility with the Standards prior to issuance of permits. It is recommended that the proposed revised project retain the critical overall residential scale and size of the form, materials, and detailing. The revised project should restore original detailing and materials that have been removed or altered. It is recommended that the proposed revised project retain and preserve (and restore as necessary)the original character-defining features of the house,including: the eaves (overhang depth, soffit materials), wall trim(fascias, corner boards, window and door surrounds, water table), siding,windows, and doors. It is recommended that the west addition be removed in its entirety, and the original roofline, walls and openings be restored to their original form and detailing It is recommended that the northeast(Laundry Room) corner porch enclosure be completed with appropriate materials and detailing that is compatible with the character of the original house • Use upper siding that does not match exactly,but is compatible in scale (such as horizontal or vertical board siding),to indicate that the corner was historically a screen porch that has been enclosed • Use matching horizontal wood siding under the water table to create a composition that is compatible with the original design Appendix C - Page 5 • If a door is desired at the new location,have the design reviewed for compatibility with the Standards prior to construction It is recommended that the front porch be restored, as it is a critical character-defining feature for the cottage and its original design • Enclosure is not required to be restored,but the posts, soffits, steps, and other components must be in keeping with the original design, in both dimension and material. Photographic Illustrations: �� , �.. �� r � ��. � �V '¢t'��`r v - . ,�� ,� •3 . ' `_ a �: I� �1� Y ��`.. •r�, .�9 - ��}� �"' � �=�„ �' : - _ 6":�`�,,,,� i. �.":° -� (.._ �` , .� �F, .� {�' � - � `'�..'� � :� �; �,�,�. . i � . � � '�; � r� �� , y � � � -: , ' '�"_ �_ • � A� � �''°,�,, � � — � �. II : ,�, � �; = a _ �` �:'` a ` _ ` � < . . , .. .. __ � �"`� .+�'"� �� ''�� •;..-�� .��• ,.�. 'a - � , q, �� :� .,� '�,,,. . �� . �y�'y ' �� ,� ; ..c � ��- 6 ,,,. i.'aq, - �� 3. '+��, �.�W ..� 2010 View of Gardener's Cottage Front (South) 2015 View of Gardener's Cottage Front (South) Elevation -from the southeast Elevation -from the southeast Porch altered Appendix C - Page C :�.: , �- ,: - w :�-., ,��, ,'�� , :��a�� _� _ .�.� . . � � _ `�; � _� � ` �., - _ �... s F wF . � - L:X.�+y7' �.. .'.. L� � _ "7� '�'. �c �� ' . —` ,�''" -e`''' - -�?��'�:-._ . � +? '��–` � �'� �" , e � �,,�.:,�� R � � u �� 4� ��:qy�"¢ ;y Il�ti ✓ � � � ,A,� Td��e YF�a� ��+^ e� -� �– �' ,� -� � � �� , ' � �� ' � �"�� . �� :� ��' � _ = �'•� �` 4 � �:k:�- � -,a„^T�` - � �'a � •��.�, � " ' ., . .. 2010 View of Gardener's Cottage West Side Wing- 2015 View of Gardener's Cottage West Side Wing from the southwest and Addition -from the southwest Porch and roof altered;new square footage added ��, ,�� i- ��; � , , • . � � ,`�,� . ' -_ - ~ ",� �� .__ _ _ � �; � �. _ � ::�e ;� �� ,. . ; ,, � �; � � �.�� .: .� , A �iI y � I �� __ .•� �' 1 I ti_ �� _ ! ! � . .. - Y � �� R�h� � �. .. . �`.. ' � �.a;b�._. - . . �' � _ � - . 2015 DETAIL of Gardener's Cottage Northwest 2015 DETAIL of Interior of Gardener's Cottage Corner—from the northwest Addition—from the east All new construction All new construction Appendix C - Page 7 a � .�` }'q-- V� . ...;�_ , � ' _/1' - .. . ' � �''� � �u . r � �: � � . +�� a a= $ �y�= , � , � r ��l�g e '� ' �c, � \ _ _� y' +Zv-$- � � �� . � �:� ' I'; + � , � �. . � e M i�..�' ��i 1 , L �� 4�•§ ,, �: " ` � a;,. ik � 'a '�F+. �e2� Y1 �$ .5:. ■ ��!..,.= '� 1 r v d�.�I.`' -�'?y� " .. �� . _�l� _ , � '�P� ' f� � �`� �-� �...'--a' �i . �1 � r � i - � . .. �::� - . _ . _.__- . 2010 View of Gardener's Cottage Rear (North) 2015 View of Gardener's Cottage Rear(North) Elevation -from the east Elevation -from the east Screen porch enclosed;new square footage added ' ; � � �� ,,� � .� �}.� ,�� ,;. . '�� ,� � 4., � '��`- �t , , ti �� '�'`'�� Y :%;- ' '�^,� �' � � �s.. Y ,. �,;;� * , � '�` ..s:, �. -,<s _ . -_ _ _.. ; � ,.� , r,c ,,.'. � �0.. `---�_ t.. - � ,{ .f� � �«��.( -. . C.� � - . � � q ' � I ��i�'�8 '� � � �� Y t _ I k i� �� ,�ia"� `��S 1_ __ � ."_ r _�� j ..i` �� . �� `IN' I z. . '_`�_^��- S:_:i �-�- - - . r--+._ �,: �f_' � , r �� - - � �.�T _ � ��_ - � � =--�- - _ ' - . ��~ _— x __ ' ,� � � ` _ 2010 View of Gardener's Cottage Northeast Corner 2015 View of Gardener's Cottage Northeast Corner -from the east -from the northeast eack entry altered Appendix C - Page 8 _ r� , : , . , �� .,` � �� , _� � r � '� �� . • .-: .� 1 ; � � i . i j �� , ,. � �� . '��,` . "" ,;� �'. . �;�� '�' ; jr� -i 2015 DETAIL of Interior of Gardener's Cottage 2015 DETAIL of Gardener's Cottage Porch Northeast Corner Laundry—from the west Alterations—from the east Note new construction Note altered porch posts, ceiling, wall details Appendix D - Page 1 APPENDIX D: STAUFFER HOUSE—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING-ALTERED AT EXTERIOR OF KITCHEN(SISR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS) Summary: The interiar finished of the kitchen in this historic residence have been partially demolished, and at least one window has apparently been removed and reinstalled. The purview of the City of Cupertino historic preservation process is generally limited to the exterior of the building, so the recommendation for this historic resource is that the design be documented per the following notes, and submitted for review of the complete project's compatibility with the Standards. National Register Nomination Description: Stauffer House(Map#6) The Spanish-Colonial-Revival main house on this property represents a unique, highly designed single-family residence of the mid-1930s. Its asymmetrical one-story form, exceptional details, and meticulous craftsmanship create a distinctive overall composition. Its rambling"U"-shaped plan is located within a level,landscaped clearing against a steep,wooded hillside in a srylized rural setting that predates the house. The house, as well as the Guest Cottage nearby,was designed by Ralph Wycoff, a significant local architect known regionally for a body of work that includes many unique single- family residences, as well as commercial and institutional buildings constructed during the 1920s to mid-1950s in the South San Francisco Bay Area and the Salinas/Watsonville area. Ralph Wyckoff(1884-1956)was born in Watsonville, California. He trained under prominent California architect William H. Weeks, and received his certificate in architecture in 1914 from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris. During the early part of his career,he worked primarily in the Central-Coast area, in Watsonville under H.B. Douglas and in Salinas under Hugh White. In 1922 Wyckoff relocated to San Jose where he practiced for thirty years. His most prominent design is the National-Register-listed North First Street Post Office, a WPA building constructed in 1933. In the 1930s he designed a number of local Spanish Eclectio-styled schools, and by the late 1930s, had evolved into one of the region's earliest modernists, designing the Art Moderne San Jose National Bank and the Medical Arts building in San Jose. In the post-World-War-II era,he is credited with designing modern structures in San Jose, such as the Levi Strauss plant and a number of buildings at San Jose State College. His work at Seven Springs Ranch embodies an eclectic use of Mission style and Spanish Colonial details and forms, and also includes some Modern elements. The house designed by Wyckoff is located in the Radford-designed setting, within the large lawn outlined by the ornamental moat. The broad site gently slopes up from the creek and drive,where the bank is higher on the house side and the road is slightly lower. The one-story house and its setting,therefore, are visually prominent while retaining an informal feel. The hillside rises steeply immediately behind the house, somewhat at an angle toward the west. There are historic photographs of the Radford house in this location; it was replaced by the current house in 1937. The Radford house was a Appendix D - Page 2 Craftsman Bungalow with a side-gabled roof,recessed porch, and low shed dormer. It is portrayed in Radford's literature with the ornamental creek in the foreground,with a flat- roofed balcony draped in flower boxes. The northeast-facing, one-story Spanish Colonial Revival Stauffer House is roughly"U"- shaped in plan. The northwest wing is shallower and the southeast wing is deeper, in response to the angled orientation of the hillside and terracing behind the house. Open arches under shed roofs line the two wings at the inside couriyard. The courtyard has a stepped wading pool,not original to the building,but designed to be compatible with the setting. The roof is a complex composition of gabled volumes,including a side-gabled main wing with a two-story central accent gable to the rear and a lower gable at each side. There is a massive gabled chimney at the southern end of the main high roof, and the front porch is protected by a low-slope extension of the front roof plane. The wings are also gabled; the northwestern wing includes a dropped gable at its end, and features a projecting gabled accent to the outside. The southeastern wing is a continuous gable, punctuated by a large chimney,which turns at the end to face into the courtyard. Additional chimneys are located in the northwest low front wing, in the outside accent gable of the northwest rear wing, and at the rear corner of the southeast rear wing. The northwest side of the house includes a dug-out basement garage entrance with a long, curved concrete driveway that leads from the automobile bridge at the northwest end of the creek. The driveway is bounded by vertical concrete retaining walls. Many distinctive features contribute to the overall composition of this house. Highly detailed ornamentation, materials, and workmanship accent the simplicity of the main materials,red-tiled roof, and smoothly textured stucco walls. Character-defining features include such special details as rustic "finger"marks in the barrel roof tiles, intricate wrought ironwork, triangular attic vents built-up of stacked barrel tiles, tile insets at the windows, exposed rafter tails in the form of heavy corbels, copper gutters and downspouts, capped chimneys,wood casement windows with scroll-cut wood header beams set in stucco and wood shutters, and carved rustic entry doors. One detail of particular note is the set of focal windows at the front fa�ade set into tapered and tiled niches reportedly formed to emulate the main parapet outline of Mission San Antonio de Padua in Monterey County. The front fa�ade features a broad,tripartite arched porch with a red-brick floor and shed roo£The house has the initial appearance of symmetry,with the low, open porch at the apparent center,but the flanking wings are not equal in width, and the front door is centered in one of the side arches,not in the center of the porch itself, and the large living room is offset from the porch design,having windows both beneath the porch and exposed to the garden. The arches of the porch are pointed, in a somewhat Mayan design. The center window beneath the porch is elaborately designed, with tile insets,tapered sides and shaped forms; this window matches a focal window immediately to the side of the porch. The front door is massive, representative of those found in California Mission buildings; it is set into an arched opening and flanked by sidelights and a transom that form the arch. A similar arched window is located beneath the porch at the opposite end of the porch. To the sides of the porch are two subordinate wings; these feature focal windows in Mayan arched forms similar to the porch arcade. The windows have tile bulkhead; the windows have wrought-iron railings at their bases. Visible from the front fa�ade are two of the house's stucco chimneys. These feature heavy tile caps. The hand- troweled stucco finish is excellent example of twentieth-century plasterwork; it is subtle Appendix D - Page 3 with deliberate imperfections. The roof is supported by heavy corbels that act as exposed rafter tails. On this, and other, elevations,the roof drains into copper gutters and decorative tops to the downspouts. The northwest side of the house spans the sunken driveway, so a wrought-iron guardrail borders the narrow side pathway. This side is long and low, accented by a gable set back into this fagade at the front corner of the house and a projecting gable near the rear. The gable ends on this elevation encompass distinctive attic vents built up from stacked barrel tiles in a triangular opening. Fenestration on this elevation consists of a series of lx4 wood casement windows set in paired units with shutters. Each portion of the wing has a roughly symmetrical placement of windows, such as a pair of windows in the projecting gable end, evenly spaced units between the gables, and a single window in the gabled segment at the front corner. The windows feature heavy exposed-wood lintels and stucco aprons. A gabled chimney is located near the rear of this wing. The southeast side of the house is similar to the northwest side in its regular rhythm of shuttered casement windows. This side is much wider than the opposite side. It features a front gable, set back from the main plane of the farade, as well as a gabled accent near the rear of the house.Near the front of the house is a projecting side entry porch, at the kitchen. The porch roof is an extension of the main roofline; it is supported by slender posts. The porch itself is a narrow red-stained concrete bridge that spans an areaway below. The porch and areaway are surrounded by wrought-iron railings. Of note on this elevation is the corner window at the front of the wing. This modern feature is integrated with the remaining casements by scale and size. The rear elevations of the two side wings are continuations of these same elements, including the casement windows, shutters, lintels, etc. The courtyard features Roman arches at the side arcades. At the rear of the main front wing is a two-story, gabled arch that links the corner arches. Original wrought-iron light fixtures adom this arch's wide base. The interior mimics the Spanish Colonial texture of the outside walls,with heavy timber detailing, arched openings,tile floors, and carved wood doors contributing to an integrated design consistent with the revival style. The main room of the house that opens off the foyer is a tall narrow space reminiscent of the grandness of the archetypical California Mission chapel. Of note is that the plan of the main rooms reportedly is based on the golden rectangle. A Modern feature is the glass-block master-bathroom wall. The interior detailing of the house includes artwork integrated into the structure, and unique 1930s-modern original fixtures and hardware. Of particular note is a tile mural in the master bathroom composed of Spanish galleons. The interiors are superbly maintained, including many pieces of period furniture and rugs related to the use of the building by Grant and Gladys Stauffer. Description of Current Building and Setting: Other than in the kitchen,no alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Stauffer House building were noted during the site visit in 2015. The Stauffer House continues to be designed and detailed as an excellent example of a Spanish Colonial Revival residence, with all its related exterior materials and workmanship, as well as extensive original interior fixtures and finishes. Appendix D - Page 4 No significant alterations to the immediate setting of the Stauffer House building were noted during the field visit. Some trees were removed near the building. Most previously identified plantings remain,but have not be maintained and are overgrown. The surrounding Gardens and Moat, comprising an associated contributing site of the larger property, are reviewed separately in Appendix G of this report. Secretary of the Interior's Standards Review(SISR): 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 was no observable change of use for this historical residential building. 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 house was removed or implied that it might be removed; the forms and footprints of the historic building are preserved. The special relationships within the historic design have been retained. 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: There are no proposed changes are that might be mistaken for original features. There are no observable exterior altered features. 4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved." Analysis: There are no previous changes to the building that had acquired historic significance in their own right. 5. "Distinctive materials,features,finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved." Analysis: The features and finishes that characterize the main house are shown as preserved on the proposed drawings. Specifically,this includes: the form, detailing, and materials. 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 excellent, and the historic features are shown as generally preserved in the project drawings. Of note is that the entire interior floor was protected, indicating an underlying goal of protecting the significant features of the house. Appendix D - Page 5 Remodeling a kitchen is not fundamentally incompatible with the Standards; however,the final proposed plan for the kitchen has not been submitted for review of its impacts on the historic significance of the house. The project plans must be reviewed for compliance with the Standards, to ensure that there are no adverse impacts in the project as a whole. It is understood that the kitchen window was removed and reinstalled,indicating that other exteriar elements might also be impacted during the construction of this interior project. No flashing was apparent on the interior of the kitchen window, generating a concern that the wark was not completed according to acceptable construction practices, and possibly indicating that the window might be removed or replaced in the future. It is recommended that the owner be required to submit an as-is drawing set of the existing conditions and a fully realized design plan that includes all potential changes at the exterior of the building. The intent of the construction documents will be to ensure the compatible rehabilitation of the house as it embodies its period of significance and use within the larger historic Seven Springs Ranch property. Priar to issuance of permits, it is recommended that the project design be reviewed for compatibility with the Standards as a complete and whole composition(rather than piecemeal). The drawing set must also be reviewed for its preservation treatments and construction detailing, to protect the historic building. Finally, it is recommended that general notes be added to the final building permit documents, to note the historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed, and to note that existing historic elements are to be protected during construction. 7. "Chemical or physical treatments,if appropriate,wiII be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used." Analysis: No chemical or physical treatments were observed in the work. 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: No additions or exterior alterations were observed. Appendix D - Page 6 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 critical character-defining exterior features of the house and site appear generally unimpaired in this project. Concluding Analysis The observed changes to the Stauffer House primarily affected the interior, so,upon initial analysis,the project appears to meet the Standards. The observed design creates no current adverse impact on the historic significance of the resource or the larger historic property. However,because there is some evidence that the exterior window had been handled, and because there is a strong potential for the project design to affect the exterior(i.e.,replacement windows or altered doors),the project cannot be confirmed to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation without review of a set of project plans. If the recommendations are undertaken and the design is confirmed to meet the Standards, the altered kitchen project could be confirmed to have no adverse impact on the resource. Recommendations: It is recommended that the owner be required to submit an as-is drawing set of the existing conditions and a fully realized design plan that includes all potential changes at the exterior of the building. The intent of the construction documents will be to ensure the compatible rehabilitation of the house as it embodies its period of significance and use within the larger historic Seven Springs Ranch property. It is recommended that the entirety of the documented and revised proposed design be reviewed for compatibility with the Standards prior to issuance of permits. The drawing set must also be reviewed for its preservation treatments and construction detailing, to protect the historic building components from water infiltration, structural damage, and other potential hidden dangers. Finally, it is recommended that general notes be added to the final building permit documents,that would note the historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed, and note that the existing historic elements are to be protected during construction. Appendix D - Page 7 Photographic Illustrations: �� z° q , � ~;. '� w r _ ,I' 1�, �.d�'�� - _ `'�_.�R _ — ;� - .� _ y ;�i� �/�f,ul: � _� .aiuK' R /.i� d ,�,�' ��? '�-�'-___� ,�.� .r� �. �� + . � �� ..I 49�� _ � `: .le~Y A `v F • , 1�- � ��A ,,� � �.�_v�, '� '�"�� . .. !� `a�.-' h i� � �� .�$'��i`'�'F�+�#-�. ��,L��'��. "t��- ��"t,'. ��y �, '� ,.'aLi rV,`i" y=;��5 �-�' � ��, y*' �.� y y e 'R`_. v�P� ,�1�� '�� °�''},�� °�;_ � C' �` �� S i�v"�F,�X-. �'.�y�. ,�. �� -��e�tL�"�Ay+l� �, Y_ R - 4 � �,�., ,+� '5+�,. � � , t�; � .VP c �r,'�''� �� l�wr,. . �� ' •��'�'; ' P ��e#'�`'� �..J� `�. ,` ��'�� e� �, �. ' �I� �� ' � 4`s.P�,A� `� � I"�,.��'' �� . ::�s, /� �t�: . .�J�. ,u $� . 'k . _rR� . �6 y�;j-, <.� �. 2010 View of Front(North) of Stauffer House— 2015 View of Front (North) of Stauffer House— from the north from the north No building or significant landscaping alterations noted � � � : ,{°+��rw ;. � t t- � � .L ��'*1� �.�2� r Ila.'.- � ��. � t � � �.�� Y t a;, P �g ! �. �,.L+t " '�► 'c�i � .4. y °��'�',f-`� � L��,st�e,�. ,�,'r' � � .� � �. �,�rr �.�a, _G.�.. �1:. * _.• �k�,'t,A a # _iy{. ..�,�� . t, � ' ;1 � dJ�:' +f f. '� `, �_��¢ #� � ..� '�. -��:� '.*, �:. c - �+�, . "'� �� 1� �Y I� � �� . . � � ,�x;�� ', Ci i�M"!N� : '� ��.;��; F !l�'� ��,��y!'`rl� �lY ��, v.�. X}j�Y," ,.. � •�S. �•r�..:-� . •` -. . . ... . . � . . . "�'+�_ •:�.r '� - c t �, �`�i�.��,'�4��:.. , . . � . . ��R�� ,-'r�` ' '� a3� _.. , � . 'r�^.+ .+k� `�'�+*w�^a -��, !^'� - ' ' ,YYi.. .� � � ; �dL ' v � � '�'��; e - �w ,,,,{,� �1�7k�y.9,�' +� . .. . . ,.w:,.�rr . .;M�r". . � .i�-af�L . rr�, � � ,.�.�:�a 1� � ,. ��w.-�� .'�An„f�,.�:ti�f�',.d."'�a�l 7R'�.Caf�?IFyS.;� 2010 View of Front of Stauffer House -from the 2015 View of Front of Stauffer House -from the northeast northeast No building or significant landscaping alterations noted(Trees have been removedJ Appendix D - Page 8 e , ,� ' .�h:. r_..��,'�.a.. _ ' .,�.. �. C .- k rC . fi. - v t Y� T� �,. � �L�� '. �.. � -� �:� �^1 ..d"� . �� ~T"'F . �Y �'l - --� _ �r •� 5_= �t�7._ V.� �._ � f � �. •'p�.:� ��, �' F''�� . �� .� "� � f,� �t.� � k � ° -:.r ��. .;,. _� A 1� ,,�r,., ,..r � I �, i i �h�r� �w. . � .�II -� " "� � �� _ � ,. � � . � r � � � . - _ f'� �� qri"..' P� ' � a� �i.. zY` _� �' ��ic� �_��;�- �� ,�z.y�l�,a,w .v,_ �-y �,�'�. ��. x . t:� .. _ � .. .�...: 2010 View of West Side of Stauffer House-from 2015 View of West Side of Stauffer House -from the northwest the west No building or significant landscaping alterations noted 4 �� ¢� a � �� a r�, � -.� � '�+� �� - � �` r ,�� y,• •'�� '�� ` - .. 6 _.. a4`�� -� __.�'�� A ': :��y`" - _. �, . , � �. , .�� ;,� �. � L �; � � L -,•:.� .. �,�, �, ,� , �,, ��. ,� ': '� 1 ! .. �`�q e °_'TrrC �l�t Y� '� S�:<.n' .� �. ,s t ;�. � ��` � ,�-=a - � �,,a . H� � . ... F-•y F �.�a r '��. e ' _ �. � ` ��,� g�{ s �+`I'K �y . ' _q .{,i` I i' � :1- ?,i �.. 9N'+�.� � ��ar�1..lF.r�'{��.i��-`• . - . n 1^� . � 2010 View of Southwest Wing of Stauffer House- 2015 View of Southwest Wing of Stauffer House - from the south from the south No building or significant landscaping alterations noted Appendix D - Page 9 x Y�� w 'L�. _��^' �` �' � �� ♦ �r`� " � ,H. - .. �... ` ..� . ♦ �r:s '�'f h. 4 .y�y .. �'�,u� �� . ,q`, 41#C i�i' '� .y�uFF" . r, i. .'1 o; � � �� -� �ti'�a'�s:s:Sv3�j.Sai - '� �r�x'-.�'��\ - � . ' �'.'..-r __ '_ '_ -��' .}i•S:�C'_'' _ � � � - �� 1 � � � ; �,; _ �:: Y � . , � . - _ -- - � � �-- � �-��, .. Y --- _ _ � ` -_ . _ _ � --� - : �- , 2010 View of West Side of Courtyard of Stauffer 2015 View of West Side of Courtyard of Stauffer House -from the east House-from the east No building or significant landscaping alterations noted , .� t "�` `�� . - � >;;� �^ �": : � �� y� � `�, � , - �" '� a�p ��,, � RR ; � Y �S }�.�„ II � �'h �- �'� '. - - /� �' �� .�. .� 4C�h\a - jr': �� Y :_� '�'�•R'?,r,� �.�~��'�',+�,war � �.+p, �`- m .�. '/°i� ��'�:. �,�, . x ._ -. -�a� � �-tt rt„• .1 i,� - 'i` _l F�,y t,�w+ti4� i^�� .. �l _ �^. � � S 1 _ .� � , .� ��„� � �.'..y� � _yt1' µ�R «�.� 5: -.:� i' � ' � r�,...� � � ��: �� •,. `..r�� a� �'� � . - � I �,.!' ,� 1 ?.- � t�'. ..`�. ��,.. ,� . � ,A, ' ��v�� Y1 'f� ��" '�`b � �.�v, � Em � �, � A � {'� �"�,�11: .�"�6,�r�� kl. 2010 View of Stauffer House Courtyard -from the 2015 View of Stauffer House Courtyard -from the southwest south No building or significant landscaping alterations noted Appendix D - Page 10 � , � , � �+ �s f _�;� �� C�es j� � �1��ff i��V � L�f'�\��a� . '� rr��/ '\i�� }� `� '� Si�.►. ��=��Ct CF } �f ',��i !• � �a ��\ f .�.� _ �. ` ��i��.�i�Vf' —��1w ��rQZ� w�_._ �� i � '� � � � ' I� � 1� a + � u � y � r ' � � � � � � � Y � � i � � � � � � w- � ; � � � :, � , .� � � � �. '�Y � .�s �I t � � ~ ��..,� ��:�� t` � � } ' . /�'' `E-��.. � �' ' �� S� ?�� , � �I I 1 .'y �: . . I � a� _ � �.4w'!, h 1� - �.1• :� � � , � �� c ' �.> - � f' !�'. ��w.t_ ... '� n.�� _ ,� . �.: ,.:,°r,;:._�.-yT��•!. , k/:�;.urvr�.a,.v�--�..,� .. . `�eS. . . b;. . • .�yJ: . �: .'.... 2010 DETAIL of Mosaic Window-from the north 2015 DETAIL of Mosaic Window-from the north No building alterations noted � `�,� � �;_ .-.� ;,, �;.:.._� - �. � ��e� , . � ,� ,. , ;;:f . -_,� ��},, �ti, �: , ,, � �� .�. �`�'� ,�!�"'� ti� r y //`� � ;/�� I� �, �,� 1"1i��i� � F r �� x.� ,� ; , . � 5 I��, 1 � 1 '� �I' I� .�� .� - .��. �,' . � '�. ( .i � 4, 'I � __ 1 •; '� ` �' . -� -�'� '� � ,�� , � � � w�� .� _ �,/ � �,� �h�r.:.� n� , .t� -_—.. �� A� ��' �; t �y �� / ; ; p ✓ j �y Lt v ''� ` J` '� � � t ? , y �l �`f�� I� .,� �'!. ,/ 1 .f. a��'i��.. n' � � � ,�1 v ��.e ,��r �, �;�' �'�' V u��w'�,��f ln.'�"*� �3 ' � �'` � �. ,�.��or,, l . . a+l�"/�]��, �-,;,., �' 1+j� -� V,,�'�4!��y nsx�i' . �•.�� . � '1 �:�J d►:��.:.,�y , �:'� , Y.�n .`.��o r��5;��' , .,1�"�r nr :w,;-` 2010 DETAIL of Arched Dining Room Window- 2015 DETAIL of Arched Dining Room Window- from the north from the north No building or significant landscaping alterations (Tree removedJ Appendix D - Page 11 � '� . � k.. '� M . r-'� � �.�� , ' � � � � M /�,� f � .-34:' �`' ,`/ ��i'„ "l �4 . + t +. .`�y��t_ '� '�'S �r 7,-s. � � - � �-�� f} �� I ��y _. i'-y __ � ' _ N +�• �� . �','`�,i.. �fr� :�� ,�-� . � _ _- �. ��: �, �F _ f _ � .f P. � -' }A � ��..- .. i � =d � � �� '� �.S. ''�.� ,. ��f � _�,�.t p '_�_�— �� . . -_ � � � 'a ��. _ 9�`'1��1 ~y ��, � �� `, ■ � _ � �'��v �` _ 1 . -�= _ ' ,. ,��,� , ■ � r . - `_�_------...�.- `_"�-�.._'=-- '.°'-5'-`'' '�,.: , , . .._ — ,. 4�r�^ � r' . �:��5. � ��"�� j ��'.. . �+.,'F ' y�:.�: _ ,�!� .��`�� , T .� - ..�., � �•*�'�ki�t".. ,�e� �� : '� � c � - ' . `�"6.', ��ir' •j�� .S�::C �4,�r�= . .. .. . , �'� .- . . . . . ..-. :.ry,a."C.':�i'. 2010 View of Northeast Corner of Stauffer House- 2015 View of Northeast Corner of Stauffer House- from the northeast from the northeast No building or significant landscaping alterations noted in this view(Tree partially removedJ �� , ,,,� ,� ��;,.,,, -: . ,�< , - _ :��-�i;��""gg,� .j-'_�P, ,� .�. F�1" _ �s.^ .-,r.�''�i ��' -_ .acs+.r. K�i '�� V""'.+.: '� .,_�_L-�•.�"��,^•.��Y .� �„_ � _ -^yT�-�� j . "y,t}) �: y +.�'. ..�- =.11)��._`.. .`� r �,�� ri'. ^t � ' . : � _ . :. . ,,. � �� -- " . �., _ '. ,tc3 .._.: - -� 1-�s-��: r ,..;., .. . " _ � •.,., ..M.. .ar�A_ _� ��_�� r� fl� ' _!I : � � � �� .. �� u � � � � � � � ''I k i � �_ 1 �� `� �•� fi � ��;�� I � � �f I � I �f9 �' ��- X � l s � . : i � 1 J f�-�� Y �, I�}"1�,_ � ..__ .:'� �� "�� " _ �` ' _ �w�' �:csr a�+' �� ,�. 4�� . _ —' ' ...�¢d+ +_.� ;� - ` 2010 View of East Side of Stauffer House -from 2015 View of East Side of Stauffer House -from the south the south No building or significant landscaping alterations noted in this view Appendix D - Page 12 ►r� f - -,�., ��- � � ,�,`_ _A , T]+� � , y i�l .� h..-�» �,� � I �'� I:�. .� I . � � ,� �P�� ,.� � ', ; � � �I � �, '�� • .. � kEEi �'_ - � � . -�,`__.-ai� � ',� °��1 � �; '"�. .. L ' �/ ' �� _� �! �� _ � -�� :�.�,f _ _ - _ 7 ;. � � ''�`'�' ' , . � � � ' . jl- � � i � 8 F`+` �. �M V' � � L _��. .. . .�■ . � � ' �1.,.` _' . .� � ..A . �Y J �, � ' _ i •'ml,ri �P �� _.� �` .�' __ ' �' . _ ' "i � � ' .. 1 . �:C~.'��'.]w , _ ':'�t'..'r;,�. ; �'... - 2015 View of Main Kitchen Interior-from the 2015 View of Kitchen Entry Interior-from the west west Showing original window with broken pane and no Showing original door and window and no visible visible flashing flashing r,r� , �r�=, �' T�;,< - .�'�� , - _ ._. ��.� ��- _ -�'_,�. .r i, �'�� 's?-'�'"'-: f I e w,,_•�r— _ ', -�A• , � F_ + �� _g_ . ��p� �� _ �'I � � �:��f1''i ,� :� : '; ,� —` ;� I� ,�,,, �J- l, ; k` �,r � . �� ;,5 r� -�- - �s_i � 1y�:.' 'il .,1� 1�� L ' � I;'� . - - � �.� l f � � � 1� •� ��. . �� I � �l _ � ^t� ;� � y�. I � ,� 1�! ' ' �' -�� ''I �� ' �i � .� � � ' A � _ � j � � .�I �� . . �� ' �!� �� ...' ��:..• . , �t . -,_ �: �.. ��r,�� -� �. � F , � �� .� �: '�. , _ . � � . ,. � � - - • 4' � _� "��: _. �. ,i, _ 2015 View of Main Kitchen Interior into 2015 View of Main Kitchen Interior into Entry/Icebox Area–from the northwest Entry/Icebox Area–from the northeast Appendix E - Page 1 APPENDIX E: ADOBE HOUSE AND ADDITION—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—ALTERED (IMPACT PER SISR WITH RECOMMENDATIONS) Summary: Many windows and doors of this historic residential building have been altered and replaced with windows of incompatible sizes and types,perhaps without appropriate waterproofing details that would protect the historic resource in the future. Some of the setting surrounding the Adobe House and Addition has been altered as well. It seems from field observation that these alterations are reversible, and it is recommended that the house and setting be restored. It is recommended that the design be revised and documented per the following notes, and submitted for final review of its compatibility with the Standards. National Register Nomination Description: Adobe House and Addition (Map#8) The adobe house built by the Stauffer family embodies,through its form and detailing, a distinctive 1946 Ranch-style residence,with a compatible Ranch-style addition completed by Dorothy Lyddon in 1964. Robert Stanton, a prominent Carmel architect known for his experimental module housing,used a mix of Modern and traditional materials and forms to create a distinctive,unified composition for the adobe house. The 1964 addition,by Hugh Comstock is harmonious with the original design in massing, materials and features. The adobe is designed as the focus of a distinctive cluster of mid- twentieth-century-and-later buildings,primarily in the Bay Region II style. These buildings are united within a garden designed by Thomas Church,the prominent Modernist landscape architect, created at the time of the addition and installation of pool in 1964. Robert Stanton was born in Torrance, California and graduated from Universiry of California School of Architecture. His architectural career started in Southern California where he worked with architect Wallace Neff and both architects worked in experimental modular housing in the 1930s. By the mid-1930s,he had established himself as a prominent Carmel architect,with most of his work in Monterey, Santa Cruz and Carmel. He is recognized for his design of the�Ioneymoon Cottage` - an experimental modular housing project, as well as civic projects such as Salinas County Courthouse,Monterey County Courthouse. His portfolio of work includes sixteen hospitals and forty schools in California`s Central Coast. Hugh Comstock was born in Illinois and came to California in 1907. He was never formally trained as an architect,but entered the profession in 1924 when he designed a dollhouse cottage showroom for his wife-to-be, Mayotta Brown. This signature structure in Carmel became the prototype of storybook` houses in that city,which today give Carmel its unique character. Comstock also worked with different adobe construction techniques and developed a post-adobe system of construction,which he described as simplified adobe construction combining a rugged timber frame and modern stabilized adobe.` Comstock`s prototype Ranch house designs were profiled in Sunset`s first pattern book on California Ranch residential design. Appendix E - Page 2 Thomas Church was born in Boston,raised in Oakland, California and was educated at University of California at Berkeley and later at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. He was a nationally known landscape architect who worked primarily with private residential landscaping projects,but also executed master planning projects for universities such as University of California Santa Cruz, Stanford University and University of California at Berkeley. His body of wark includes the design of grounds for private companies such a General Motors in Detroit, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, and planned neighborhoods such as Park Merced in San Francisco as well as Pasatiempo Estates in Santa Cruz, California. Ranch-style houses became extremely popular after World War II,but had their beginning in local design of the late 1930s. The Ranch style exemplified an idealized and practical embodiment of Western living, as presented by Sunset Magazine with Cliff May in the 1946 book, Western Ranch Houses. In that book,the label was investigated: —�at is a ranch house?"Their answer includes the following: —'�e close-to-the-ground look of a ranch house is of secondary importance to its being actually on ground level. The ability to move in and out of your house freely, without the hindrance of steps, is one of the things that makes living in it pleasant and informal... —'�e form called a ranch house has many roots. They go deep into the Western soil. Some feed directly on the Spanish period. Some draw upon the pioneer years. But the ranch-house growth has never been limited to its roots. It has never known a set style. It was shaped by needs for a special way of living–informal,yet gracious." The book goes on to describe the ethos of Ranch-style design, including recommending modern adobe using�ulsified asphaltum as a stabilizer."The book illustrates a number of house plans with similarities to the adobe house at Seven Springs Ranch including large, open-ceiling living rooms, covered passageways, on-grade wide doorways, attached arbors, and garden walls encircling garden rooms. Both Stanton and Comstock had photographs of their work published in Western Ranch Houses. The immediate setting for the one-story adobe house is a largely wooded, slightly sloping area to the south of the current main access road, near the former Bubb reservoir. The adobe and its outbuildings are to the southeast of the main house and gardens, visually separated by a dense row of evergreens. The long,rectangular footprint of the original adobe house is perpendicular to the access road. The port-cochere, at the end of the gabled structure, crosses a small driveway spur that widens at one point to create a landscaped planting island. The original house was rectangular in shape, containing a large central room and small ancillary spaces at each end. The addition by Comstock created an�"-shaped form wrapping around a pool and terrace to the northwest that is framed by a tall garden wall. Church designed the pool setting, as well as a terraced patio on the east side of the building that leads to the horse corral,now over the site of the earlier 1890s reservoir. Character-defining features are the adobe and wood post walls, large multi-light windows, shake roof,large trellis, and clay floor tile patios. Appendix E - Page 3 Description of Current Building and Setting: The low-slope hipped rooflines and�"-shaped footprint have been preserved, as has the majority of the adobe exterior finish and most of the exposed rough-timber structure. The eaves have been preseroed, in particular the wood gutters, and the sliding glass doors remain in place. Some of the critical character- defining features of the Adobe House and Addition have been altered from the historic design. Many windows and doors have been replaced and altered, along some of the exposed timber structure, as noted in the review below. Interiors have also been altered, including the possible enclosure of outdoor space into the house square footage. This area of the house was not accessible during the site visit. The associated contributing Adobe House Gardens site(Appendix� and the non-contributing Greenhouse building(Appendix M) are reviewed separately in this report. The recommendations affecting the setting of the Adobe House and Addition are incorporated into this appendix. Secretary's Standard's Review (SISR): L "A property will be used as it was historicaIly 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 evident in the alterations to this residential building. 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 Adobe House and Addition was observed to have been removed or altered at this time; the forms and footprint of the historic building are preserved. The characteristic special relationships, including the enclosed pool area and the natural setting are also generally preserved. 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: There are no observed changes are that might be mistaken for original features,because all the new elements are modern materials (See also Standard 5). 4. "Changes to a property that have acquired historic signi�cance in their own right will be retained and preserved." Analysis: The south wing of the house is an addition that has been identified as acquiring historic significance in its own right. It is addressed in this analysis as an integral part of the historic Adobe House and Addition building. The addition has been retained,with some alterations noted in the analysis of the other Standards. 5. "Distinctive materials,features,finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property wiIl be preserved." Appendix E - Page 4 Analysis: Some of the features and finishes that characterize the house have been altered. Specifically, facing the pool area, an original window facing west has been enlarged and replaced and a large new window added at the location of a smaller window and a wall segment; a new set of doors has been installed in an enlarged opening facing north. Facing the east gardens, an exteriar door near the southeast corner has been replaced by a window;the ranch-style exterior corridor that was entered through this door has been incorporated into the living space.Also facing east, adjacent to the replacement window,is a matching replacement window. The replacement windows and doors on all sides are surrounded by patched adobe and modifications to the exposed timber structure. The window and door trim does not clearly illustrate that it has been installed correctly. The windows are white aluminum sliders, a material and style incompatible with the natural materials of the historic design, formerly unpainted wood.A roll-up garage door has been installed to conceal the full-height glass focal doorway facing east under the arbor. It is recommended that the windows and doors be restored with appropriate materials that match the materials, sizes,lite-patterns, and placement of the original design, and that all installation detailing be confirmed to meet technical installation standards. Although full restoration is recommended, altered and new windows and doors are not inherently in conflict with the Secretary of the Interior`s Standards. If alterations to the resource are desired, it is recommended that a new design be prepared with windows and doars that are compatible with the historic design and more subtly differentiated.Any revised rehabilitation plan should be presented as a full composition, including all proposed alterations and preservation techniques for the building and setting, and submitted for comprehensive review according to the Standards. 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 original historic elements appear from visual observation to be in excellent physical condition; however, from external observation the new construction may not exhibit the quality and technical workmanship necessary to confirm that the historic building is protected from water infiltration. The protection of the historic structure is a critical element of any proposed addition or preservation project. It is recommended that all window installation— replacement or restoration—be inspected for code compliance with respect to the preservation of the historic materials and workmanship. It is further recommended that general notes be added to the final building permit documents,that would note the historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed, and note that the existing historic elements are to be protected during construction. 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 treatments are shown as proposed in this proposed phase of work. 8. "Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place.If such resources must be Appendix E - Page 5 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: There are no additions created at the Adobe House. The patio area between the Adobe House addition and the Greenhouse was not accessible during the site visit; it is assumed that no living space has been constructed in that location. It is possible,however,that an outdoor corridor,representative of the original Sunset Magazine ranch house aesthetic,has been enclosed. It is recommended that the design of the area between the Adobe House and Addition and the Greenhouse be revised to accentuate the detached nature of the Greenhouse and to restore the original landscaped setting. 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: If this report`s recommendations are undertaken,the proposed revised project would preserve the essential form and integrity of the historic property, and the critical character- defining features of the house and site would be unimpaired in this project. Concluding Analysis: The current design does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The design, therefore, creates an adverse impact on the historic significance of the resource and the larger historic property. If the recommendations are undertaken and the Standards met, the design would have no adverse impact on the resources. Recommendations: It is recommended that the owner be required to submit an as-is drawing set of the existing conditions and a revised design that reflects the following recommendations,with the intent of rehabilitation of the house to embody its period of significance and use within the larger historic Seven Springs Ranch property. It is recommended that the entirety of the documented and revised proposed design be reviewed for compatibility with the Standards prior to issuance of permits. It is recommended that the windows be restored with appropriate materials, lite-patterns, and placement. It is recommended that all window and door installation replacement or restoration be inspected for code compliance with respect to the preservation of the historic materials and workmanship. Appendix E - Page 6 It is recommended that general notes be added to the final building permit documents, which would note the historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be reviewed, as well as note that the existing historic elements are to be protected during construction. It is recommended that the area between the Adobe House and Addition and the Greenhouse be revised to accentuate the detached nature of the Greenhouse and to restore the original landscaped setting. If alterations are desired, in lieu of the recommended restoration, a revised design should be prepared with windows and doors that are compatible with the historic design and more subtly differentiated. This documented and revised proposed design should then be reviewed for compatibility with the Standards prior to issuance of permits as noted above. Photographic Illustrations: � �y:.�, ��_ -.v � ;Ya 1 �. . _ �_ - - . � 4�._,I F -� - -_ �.� ��a�.=� - -- - � 4 �,�• �_,- y i^. �� - � � m � `� I ►% ". y ��, r{� � - � y. I �^' � � I � ��. A .I� I i ��+�.�. t y'�0�A - R ��:� _"" �`�F'A�� - �, � �`�� .. -,r, '�I _��.- � = — ^-� � �° ;- - �"�`�'`� - ,` M . _ , _ . , �� - - _ _ r. . 2015 DETAIL of Front Door of Adobe House and 2015 DETAIL of Northwest Corner of Adobe House Addition -from the northeast and Addition Foyer-from the northeast No alterations noted No alterations noted Appendix E - Page 7 1�:,� ��: », - �,�: :�A - ;� '�y�'„.��` "' � , . - � _ - .ryt �,�4 ,y. µ�' - y�� v `�r ��.� '_.-�� INjN� f � � �` _ __ '_ ' I +I�' w�s. � �� - . fi - �' �� u�* �� . _ ��: �� -�� E� � - � � �e r � � �I =� -� . � ►� __ �� , �� _ �.� �_ J � � -'�= �`, .� _ ,A �+u�- _ _ . ;��. �, ��y` s ,�.,. \ 4{ �.� ►,y _ . . . � --_ •-� �� t.� Ei # _�� '� _ # �##'-': : s , . '�� . 2010 View of West Elevation in the pool area— 2015 View of West Elevation in the pool area— from the west from the southwest Note paired casement windows and utility box. New large tripartite window installed; trim and adobe altered. Exposed electrical box. '. �� a; ��.� � ,� ,,.� 2 ��;�. - , � ,�: � ��'s.��a= �v"�.} �„ � �� w �-�r � �, � - -��' . �� . �- � � J.�• .�'� _._ ---� � y�}�. ,��,.'� �.�� :.�,b �� - � _ ,s� �. ..... �.�� . .,�- _ ��:, � . .� �[ �i� �,� - , ,� - _,,Ly�.,a'sl� y�x�_-��` � �� _ F�'��"g' � r. ,� 9•�.�� ; �` .E 'I , �.f'��'f..� _ + :; I'�, �• �i _ = Y !r�•� � l� I �1, �'� �!�'� �F+ . . ., C . .�t i ,7 � . . �. . .r. ��.-. .� � � k; ;:t ..�.-� .p'�,€ � �� y�'.» ; , ' �� ¢;E♦�� y� -� � �� "'.;f S� "�' ��.�. '� F �i ! F^�yi.0 �� 1 �4 - �'� -� �!� /�� (� � i"�-' da �' A� ,T�i� r'' �.r ' �,+i fi: 'u { t �' � � - r - ,t'�(' .!14 � `�N�, .?..: �. ��v3 C� �� ._�,� y�� 4.�1xA0,^ �'+J�: � .�. '- _ - -�'.�� .. �' �.��,�� _ � �+!:. ��, y f .`_. ...i...,�"� . � . -`�; �.. t- „`h�':� ' 2010 View of Rear(South) Elevation of the 2015 View of Rear(South) Elevation of the Addition -from the southeast Addition -from the southeast Note open patio that steps out into landscape with Board wall and altered patio foundation noted low wall Appendix E - Page � 1�-- �j =s, 4 � _- -� � 1 W� '� i'� - .. y�.- , � i.� � � `�4Mp - , �`'�,.. :"�ak+"CJ .��4�'�� - �.�L; � ..3: . f' 6�' �- �. ��. .��'� F '?�� ' V �``f <t �i7 . � �,:, '�s"';�� '� � t� . ,�- •�. s � . ��:. y ,,, �:-. _� � � . � r .� �`.� � ��,, _� rt '4, :.. f -' 1�,y 4 �,.1 i .;� 1 a Rr- Y� - f � L � ��, � . � �.� _ �_ . - ,� .r,.-r . 2010 DETAIL of Patio Alterations—from the southeast Note the exposed column framing and cut footing . � � t. .; A s . � � i :;. :� � -a •+� � � �t '� '.. � � . �. , �`,»� � , � "�' �� ._ � �, , <., - ,> , �, , „ � _ _- r. • � �� #°��w�_5-- �-�� :, f_ - C� '�': ^'� _ _ a �, _ . ��s"�'�rr`�' `-�� - - _ - ,-- - ,.s�c-��-'�- . - �.:,�:ro� _ � - � � ` - -- �` � � �. � �- � i � ° ,'<$:� � l y �' ��,�4 � t j� , '� ,- �?'; '. �`A X;� s- }: � `-�"'. �: 7 �� t �'F_' . nS' 'r'� f{�. R�� . , j I - �r=�x' �, � .D-. `' s`�r� +�� ,� � �� ... _ '�� _ , .. 2010 View of Southeast Corner-from the east 2015 View of Southeast Corner-from the east Note open doorway(behind treeJ and single Paired slider windows with white anodized finish; window with vertical trim pattern altered trim;expanded patio fencing Appendix E - Page 9 "�. . ;;.� . - -_.�. - �.�-: � , - _ �. ,�, - ,��.:, ;.�,� e.,,,,�:,.- - ;' ;.. - � ��. '�-ss�,,. a. .., .;� �. W , �� '�,`�'� " � �,»�. '' �� .,._`-� - _ ; .R _ �� . � t�.: '�. 1� n ; '� � ' _ :� . _ s � �� ti ,. � r . '?f, , i:�:,,. �. ``�'� : ' �;` . -�,., 2010 View of Covered Patio,Arbor and Outdoor Kitchen -from the southeast No alterations noted in 2015 ,✓ ] � ' Y' . �.� � � , ., � ��;_�- :�. .: , � . 3 � � � . � , �. �_ - �``�+� . �. R,... ;s ;..4 ��'�:�� - ��--�; ,�-�, - � �+ ;:��'��~ s, � � ��y'�y)S.rJd ,�� P9+ 1`+�§:� p �� . i� � Y� J� ,-�. A'��7 1 � i\ #� - - _ `��`��r 1 � "M�' r �"e.ia ?,�'df.P L ,q.r•'_�i ��= ,�: - � �lp �•tl._ ,-��f .,i�'.�R �.L p„ w1i a4 . Yc':. �1i/' �Wt'� - ' �� - ,�i� .ad'r � .'� �� - Y�=- 3�� ;�_ _ -- _ � , �� .., �� .. � ,,� �� _ � �, ,� � � � � � - _ , �� _. � �� `��'C�,�� ► .� �:� �� ,� _�. � `�I �'�4�� ' � r� " � f - � i,l,* ;' ^�.r� �� t�r�, '�� I.� - f �� . - �� ai N- � t � � ,a j , r` ��c�:_ -- ,'_ .� , �li � � � � - - � - , �- - - _ �' _--�- �.----- -�. � a-�. � r �� - _ -- " �.::� �—_,�''—��.� .��-� - �.T� � . �r � - � l� . � . ... . . � � . � . � - � -� � .. �� f ' � 1. � ��~ ..-�� :d�M�arrL��,��J.�°� ;.��}`y� ��y ..� � .-'�"�� . . .� . 2010 View of East Fa�ade and Arbor-from the 2015 View of East Fa�ade and Arbor-from the east southeast Roll-up door added in front of focal window Appendix E - Page 10 ..` k,i a. r`"� ,.�i - -i_- .� ',� -��r �`�«t�'�:�~�� '�� ;`•_ _- Rti.'�. a"-�,;s�::.= �'` ' F i� ,,�� '�_� _ � �� I if �� ' �`��.,'+� .: ' .1 �1,��,. Y '��I �� 1 ' �. I "�'� �i�` - �" �,� j ' � �. _ � ; � �� ' . i ... ��.��,•{ -, i I �,. - �� . �� - � _ ,� - =�w�� .- «� Y,� ��'' . . _ �t 4� �,��_ : a � _ .�� -�. -�. � 2015 View of Pool Side of Adobe House-from the 2015 View of North Fa�ade of the Adobe House north Addition—from the northwest Adobe cut for new window;new French doors No building alterations noted . � k_ ; , . �.•- �; � '� � � � ,.. ;� � � , *'�,a�,�� .�:= �' �� kr; � ��, �� f"�� ,� �__ __ '�' _ - �; _ _ -- ;` - � , _ -L_ - �_ ,�_ �0 �,� f �� _ ,` } 1,' �� P -:a- j,1 �- � ' �� - - ; ' �.. .� . � R � �� = = -�. -- '�� ,�_� _�_ - - �:�--� � _ � - :f .��.,� �.. !� ��.- � . �� - +r'L �'��.�' ' �t_ � ". . . ��~}s�� _ ' ,�� .�.�T� i . .�. ' r��. _ � �i. '�' ��._ J� �- 2010 View of Greenhouse at Southeast Corner of 2015 View of Greenhouse at the Southeast Corner Adobe House -from the northeast of Adobe House -from the northeast Tree removed, brick paving loosely added, and fence altered;fenced area enlarged(was inaccessible during the site visitJ Appendix F - Page 1 APPENDIX F: WATER TOWER—CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE—ESSENTIALLY UNALTERED (NO IMPACT) National Register Nomination Description: Water Tower(Map#2) On the crest of the hill directly to the southwest of the main house is a Mediterranean Revival water tower with arched niches and simplified classical balustrades.The materials,form, and craftsmanship indicate that the building was designed at the turn of the twentieth century. A symmetrical staircase leads to the water tower from a terrace at back of the main house. Its straight run and hardscape surface creates a strong garden axis related to Italian garden design of the Renaissance. During the Radford era, this stair was shown made of apparently natural materials (i.e., stepping stones).The stair currently is concrete, rebuilt by Grant Stauffer,with light-post footings at the landings.This stair widens at the top of the brow of the hill, creating a more architectural base for the water tower. The water tower has a compact, rectangular footprint and flat roof.The roof serves as a deck, providing expansive views of the Santa Clara Valley.The rear base of the building is set into the slope of the hill, with the roof surrounded by trees at the crest of the hill and the main floor level at a narrow, paved terrace below. Stairs follow the slope of the hill along both side elevations. A historic photograph from the Radford era shows the building with a brick front fa�ade. Although, as with the barn photos in the same publication,these photos are colorized, the actual underlying structure of the building is brick that does appear to have been exposed originally.The building is currently stucco on all sides.The symmetrical front fa�ade features three arched niches.The center arch encompasses a lion's head fountain that projects from the wall; a half-circular pool cantilevers from the base of the arch. The concrete pavement is scored in a stone-like representation at the terrace. Flanking the center arch is a pair of simple arches that have been ornamented with painted murals after the Radford era.The roof and deck are wrapped on three sides by simplified classical balustrades accented by low pedestals at the corners and between each arch below.The outer corners of the front fa�ade are built out into shallow pilasters. The stucco balustrade serves as a cornice for the front fa�ade, along with a fascia that consists of a series of small open arches.The balusters are square in profile; the side staircases have matching balustrades. Although the stucco of the building appears in very good condition,the balustrades are in only fair condition;the stucco is separating from the steel armature beneath.The automobile bridge at the creek has railings from this era, as well. It features stucco pedestals and square balusters that match the water tower design. Appendix F - Page 2 Description of Current Structure and Setting: No alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Water Tower structure were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Water Tower continues to be designed and detailed as a compact stucco structure set above the main house with an excellent view of the Santa Clara Valley.The square structure continues to be set deeply into the hillside with a pair of flanking stairways,topped by a flat roof used as a viewing terrace, surrounded by stucco railings and accented with painted arches and a central lion's head fountain at its main (north)fa�ade. The structure is set into the hillside that terraces up behind (to the south of)the main house.A narrow set of steps rises from the lower terracing, expands at an intermediate landing, and continues as a wider set of steps to the upper terrace at the base of the Water Tower structure.The hillside is open to the sides, planted with groundcovers and an occasional accent shrub.To the sides and behind the Water Tower is dense vegetation, including oaks and other chaparral plants. Only one minor alteration to the immediate setting of the Water Tower was noted during the field visit. A pair of light posts has been added to the intermediate stair. Analysis: The Water Tower is identified as a contributor to the historic and architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch. Because there have been no alterations to the building and only one minor, practical alteration to its immediate setting, there has been no change in the significance of the garage structure itself, nor has there been any change in the significance of the property as a whole related to this structure and its setting. Lamp Post analysis:The lamp posts are in keeping with the overall design of the water tower area and the Seven Springs Ranch as a whole.The lamp posts are located where there were originally light fixtures,the scale of the design is appropriate—it has small components,the style of the fixtures is compatible—it is neither too modern nor historically inaccurate, and the materials are in keeping— metal fixtures are found elsewhere in the ranch. Appendix F - Page 3 Photographic Illustrations: -.. _ �� I f. g�'Ay":�'�` : c` - F�y�?' � � ^.� i', �� , x� ��r �` ¢ Z�'._ � :,� �� ,� ��:.��'�� ,� - 111fllllltiif: 3�iiir�illtiae,� �:e sii�;�� IIIIIiIfIilllgi if;{�,�5i�f�llll �ile��fT�ili�: '�� :, .�••••• •••••••�••••�;�, , � - - E R��e s �i�� a � �� i I1 • ''�. !'�" �� N�� . .�6'� .� '�_� - � - �"""".,�' .i�>. , -. �,° ! �i}F J� �e : �.l �� ,� 1r� ��-' � i '�' � - - ' ..:1•.,� t. ✓ � �� Y� y,6- ;+ Y°y�' L5# ` !M" R�F^'�'L xry1 �. _� .�•� _ � � " I � . 1 J �� r} � ... ., r<f� �4C;y �v . vi�; r _ �' A.r ty �". O�a �y� 1� rsWiS� ...�� I`.{ .�f�:.��'. �Ct�4 `'ie'x i..- �-.x� � .:��P '_ :�'�� --�-' -...,k_.'Di:#"�"�'T'-`-- '�-';- 1 . . . � - � � . . .,. . . ,..=�_ '.v 2010 View of Water Tower Front (North) Elevation 2015 View of Water Tower Front (North) Elevation -from the north -from the north No building alterations noted;lamp posts added �A�-�� , �-,��.:.� -�� S � �: �� # `:�n�' H :� u x -�_ ,� ,. � -mt�: � :�' _ -'r ,.;r -.� � ;i �,, =;_�,., � « z:,� �� , ,�.- k � a,- �i' I l '�� #'�' �'i �� , �'� � ��, . :��7�,;��j�l�_ � ��►`�;;li�l rr�rr�le„ ��1� ��lli6lll«1�_ ��,� ,�f ,,r � �1l��f+ �, .. �� -�-� 1 ��. � _ � ��i� _ - �� -_ _ � _ _ - _ — ,� - ��y � ��. ,� . � � ��.� v . � �Y.- �.w.�y � ' . _' ... f � � .y��-� �___ - �. . .<� _ _ .� �.�X �� , -� "��' �. ' ..- - ,-.��_ '��,�, . . _�n».� a � _ •� �, , .. ai��. . . 2010 View of Water Tower Roof-from the 2015 View of Water Tower Roof-from the southeast southwest No alterations noted;standing water Appendix F - Page 4 � L' j 14' � .� �III�I��I �� ro, � ' L :"� '� . •�� E[,I� , ^-�_ �+,�- �r _ .'�' ��A� `i��:�` _ � �� _ ` ��''''� � I �� - �"' , F�� ' �- - �: . � � �=� �':� ,� � ��z�.`� �'� � �•�� —�� "� �� .�� ,��, �` . d� �'' � y '� . �1r `^",�,,. a,�_ w' - �1' r� '`�:. �.i"a� ,..,L•, t� __ ��_ �,.''`��r:� t . x� iA"" •s� '��. t'_��'�''?� {,-�'. -. yt_ ' A, �' h�E, , �� i '�:':, �' rt� '. � � �,,��.� .�,^` ;�,` ,. . , ! � � +� :. �r-�: � .i,��.�� . `''#`,� i:�� '.�tLxo..,� %3 e�#`,�:- 4-�� 4 �� y . . .. . . ` � � � "'��r �' t�-�, � Y�:: �f ' ,�'�'-' � ��"�� ,!-.;. �+��'�1,t � t� k r y .Y� 5 ��Y �'1. '- },� � �� A �� b! ' � S � ... '+EsSe.��"�� L t'1 1�r �j i �i� °�n+::i,: � ' � � ''� R � �� 7 �'� y � ye s � • ��;+ , '3�'_ . �.;. ,,�� ,:�,� _�� : ' � � � . >, . ,� ��:,�_ .._y. � ` '' `'�`� � �'� '�' � � :�-��.��.. ti i ._�� .�.�, � :�..�s�..... �� rYe r.. t� � � i'� �' �!r ..� fu�� .�I 2015 View of Water Tower Stairway-from the 2015 DETAIL of Water Tower Stairway Added south Lamp Posts-from the north Showing added lamp posts _ �� , I � � � � � � 1 � � t � � � '�` ��P� �� '� . . :� . - _..�d .s� ; �` ��`g- �{��III��IIII I�II�I1Il1l1'd , � ;�:r�� M��w ,� � 1 � �,_ �a: � ; . , j�� I •, !�, � ` � - , .�- - � _ _ i i � , � � � ro ;� � .o:-- -r�� , �; ,; , .�, � �„r,;, , �: y, r i .�'�- � ` _ ,1 i 1�. L -s �F �- � . � '..: S � ��. =`Yµ '�".�$ c+�� 4 � � - _ ��. Y-. , i,y�'1 ...:.a �i.: �� 2015 DETAIL of Water Tower Front(North) Fa�ade 2015 DETAIL of Water Tower Roof and Railings- -from the north from the south No alterations noted No alterations noted Appendix F - Page 5 � � � : � � t�. �`''� r� ��t � �� ,� � � � �,, �f,a + ` F.-��! -'��_ � a*%;.i� `�^t�:'� _ , a � �:�� rir,4 �� . �_ ..", . r: g ✓}� '0.e. � . � �� `�� _ �q.F - �� .' I;�!. f P. '"�r',J�' ,,�j 3 .�`�: ��` �iR.+. � 'e� - •�+�}��, F� r�� `�� .(��'��4'��"�y.;i �''�} y�T�'§4`f:.� � ��y�,,. _-.' _ � -w�� ,� ,,� k' � „�r,� �': �.�i� � ' � � -, . � � , .. +W4rea,.,.,a. � .f ' •��/ 4 -_'._ _ . T Y��;' 'Fi{"`�. �. ��> _..�� ;' ~. - � . �." �f'A� 9i�{ �,� � I.� a'�,'� y�f `�`��( '�'Sti� �f��. -� � " .. . <��s ,]J �tir °�� ; ��'�� .� � �� ' - '3 � r� si �, " � 4 r- ��.� � < �t h� t{t 5�! �`� - t � ; � . '`� y � _"i• � ', y<� - � u y, �� yY('� �'4 _ ayg� :/ y LYh ��h�"��'i�' " ` Y k �. . yt.+r F �"" . 7,'� � 7�1� j �Ip�''f�'. 1�K:k"a. `#�. `+-��'-�� ,.'\'- ��.1�. � .� Rf��7,��l.y`s�In��. .+G.��..�.. - ,. ��:,'�a.��z. . _w - �`�:..�'i_.�.-�"�.: 2010 View of Gardener's Cottage Detached Garage 2015 View of Gardener's Cottage Detached Front (West) Elevation -from the southwest Garage Front (West) Elevation -from the northwest No alterations noted Appendix G - Page 1 APPENDIX G: GARDENS& MOAT—CONTRIBUTING SITE—UNALTERED(NO IMPACT) National Register Nomination Description: Radford Era (Context) The property owes much of its appearance to landscaping, buildings, and land planning designed during the Radford era at the beginning of the twentieth century. During this regionally historically significant period of agricultural expansion, Radford instituted many aesthetic and practical plans that remain integrated into the overall design today. These plans were presented in a brochure that illustrated the ranch design ideas of Radford during the height of his occupancy. Most importantly to the current property, Radford planned the landscaped setting for the main house, including the broad lawn, bridged creek and the hilltop Mediterranean- Revival water tower... Gardens and Moat(Map#3) The landscape design surrounding the main house is significant, and was respected and enhanced by the subsequent owners.The creek was designed as an "ornamental moat" to flow from its origins and encircle a wide, level peninsula that encompasses the main house. At the upstream end of the designed portion of the creek is an automobile bridge that has elements and materials that match the water tower's design, so it represents a Radford design. Immediately downstream is a pedestrian bridge that was remodeled in the mid-1930s when the current main house was built; a similar bridge is centered in this short expanse of designed creek, at the main brick walkway to the front entry of the house. At the downhill corner of the main lawn is a small pond with a rustic footbridge of unknown date. According to the brochure,the moat was designed originally for goldfish breeding. The creek encircles a broad lawn area, and incorporates a variety of plants along its banks.The garden includes specimen trees and specialty planting areas, such as a cactus garden. Description of Current Site/Setting: No major alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Gardens and Moat site features were noted during the site visit in 2015.The grounds that surround the main house continue to be designed and planted to accentuate the natural stream that flows through the property, to surround the house with lawns,to accentuate the hillsides with terraces and retaining walls, and to utilize uncommon plants as a part of the landscape. Some trees and plantings may have been removed, but primarily the landscape has been allowed to get overgrown in recent times, cloaking some of the original cactus plantings with palm saplings, as one example, allowing the lawn grasses to reach knee height, and allowing previous open spaces to fill with weeds. This neglect does not imply that the grounds have been altered, however;the vast majority of the setting is intact. Appendix G - Page 2 For example, all the identified significant site features remain on the property, including the twig bridge, the fish pond,the main entrance bridge and its wrought-iron arch,the shaded west side bridge,the driveway bridge, a small resting bench, and the wishing well on the east side of the main house. Significant plantings remain, including the cactuses,the redwood trees,the specimen trees that surround the house, etc.An exhaustive inventory was not taken, but the general design is intact. Analysis: The Gardens and Moat that surround the main house are identified as a contributing site within the historic and architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch. Because there have been no observable alterations to the landscape features and overall setting of the main house, there has been no change in the significance of this site feature itself. Because there are no observed alterations,there is also no change in the significance of the property as a whole related to the Gardens and Moat. Photographic Illustrations: � e �.` s � d. r. y�.�� + r. b .,o;vF,, ;� ��i�. . . '�-� . � �� y.�, r � .< 4 « ��a;. 1 �p}�- �i -`.� �Y�` �� I _Z��q ��,�1� �� .��-� t ,� � _ ig 4 ,g. ��°�,F�h�� .,.�Cr .._.i�r , ii� p��:�:. ��. - 7f A i. � i.' ,., � „� .. . r�//'t'♦ ',�:i k k + � �- .S : ,�i , y �r ��_.� �. i Z � � �!� �„� ` :. � �, t r � , _ f� � ;", k�� '�'�' �" ,° "�?� � �h. �r � �� _ _,�_,ti� ��A��' ' ' � � ,� f��t� r� , �� ` � , � �.�- � �,+ �"� � :?� � � a,�. + ��; p' .,- a';� �,a � i l t r ,.�,� Q..•�'�a .-�,' ,� # � �a. �? ' .M.,�� ,,��, ��Lg ��/1� �1y� , �,�.�.--- � .,�'��C�� i� ;`'-" ` j�'`�y{�ey� ,e i '1..I��.. i?� I �..,�?, e � i'� $�� -=�� . ��ii��l _�,� �>�� "� r B ' �� < �� _ � �i (4� � . �� ..�-. .� .r -y.y '� � . 9. ��$�6 .� t '.m�"�`�'� - , _� , . - .: 4 � � '�: �i .�_x �,� � � � �a� ,� �' S l k _� ^•--_o �`. , _ `� t, 2010 View of Front(North) Lawn and Entry Bridge - 2015 View of Front (North) Lawn and Entry Steps- from the northwest from the northwest No significant landscaping alterations noted— weeping cherry tree has been removed;plants have grown Appendix G - Page 3 ..f� , . ar4 4 � �k �'� �� U` ' � � ` F � �'' '� Ir �� ' � R� �^ �;��_� ', ��. / �� - `�. � -w. . u� .� k e z c�`:.� �1''�yr �1- ":� �.. �. '!n�, �;'`.�n,z�,w. �� .:�.. � ��. .J e ' .3i,k {�- •. '�� -.'. ,_ {* i . � f-'.`�_'$ �sr' �y �EL,. p �As+.� . � ', x' � , � � .. �, y c. . � 't � .£' '�, _r . ��r. • . r.� y„� � �'�`�a�=- �° �7t+--. '� i f��y� a';� .'$! � � � �'.�i �"�`f �� y�_�* �k� ►�'� -c�"� a� f' � �. _ � y� ��", ��._ ti: �' �� .:� '� _ - -.�. - -- - _ "::x,� �, �;� y �; � � � � ,�;. '`�. �,.�, ,��, � .. � .. � ' ' � A:4�,�. � . .�4 r,� f� Y��'/ � '� _, � {a - ` ��', ,t�� .. , . } ,��fi�1��y! +(�� 1 'i � '�,I ,7 � ,�f.!` � �� f ._,_. ��..i�ifloW .:1'��I. . �.�.'.!.1 , � � x. 6„L,�1,1�' .i.a�� ,� H.. �:"�1��'.. 2010 View of Front(North) Lawn -from the 2015 View of Front (North) Lawn -from the north northeast No significant landscaping alterations noted(Tree in 2010 view remains, but out of view) I�1 3' i + - � ,�'� T ' ��-i_�.. 3� '�' 4, � t pL;?,_ �4��, . , '�,,,o{� �, x-tS° ,�y�" r �� - �f ' 'r� �.. .. - � � ,�yE�� K'�p� � - SrN��rz _ y.y'� '` `. � ^,i�� i',. �.._+�. ��;;:... '�'' ' ` l+ � . -• : s ... �-�.. .. a W� � ,. �_: �,,.� _ - ,•ip- v,,.�. ��1, .r�^- "� '-� �:r '� �: �-r 9 A �'l r�3�• ��^.r . . 1•� ; ` �� ?I-�, ._ : a..9 "''j{f6 I~i Y - � i� �. F :.� � �?�i'� ,. 4�� .ifil�.p .. q.-' �,,'� Ili �' . h. .. __ . I �-� 'Sp ?t�c. 1 .�� +�- . .:e� . ` , . s ,�.-' - - '- � �'3 i ^ -_ . N:� ,'� l�i�i " - - - ,G„ � �y �L f � ..h.'� '�':�. 1 I - m, ,. _ , � -- � �p.�� ;••"x��"�� _ _ ��.. �E''� � �' . �n R1�`" . ��i .-.afh,..:�i� �. q. . , r . - �e�xaE�., ��r., 1 �ry�?c�:�.a�'�� i -l.. � ' � — - � � ��,�ai%��a4`k� '�• J�_� � ��t�c�u � .�-..�aM� , � 2010 View of East Lawn Area and Paths-from 2015 View of East Lawn Area and Paths-from the the south south No significant landscaping alterations noted Appendix G - Page 4 �w � � i� � �� IFP �� +`�1� _ ,�..l;+ . F �� Ar'.. f.��`'_ " . t:r � �,�y, i; ,,,yyy�� , .-�.��tYy� t . � , v �'� �14fi1� •I.� �::, : d l�f. ��, ,,,- ��.� r � � , �" ,�� _"„� ..,. ' `'*�' �`c:�, �� .s\ d'� ! ��.. � * �T?; - �.,. � �:. .�� a �i�,_ �� , 'L , �� '�' � � � ` �'i�� ^�*� f� {'�''Lp�, ..� � �,_ `=�6 ��.�� '� � , . ..� ,;�;,' .,�,, - ,,-, r a. • .�a�. +� �• � . .,.,,. .,. ``�; ,..,�.,.. ..Y,... 2010 View of Rear(Southeast) Lawn -from the 2015 View of Rear(Southeast) Lawn -from the southeast southeast No significant landscaping alterations noted ° ,a�' ��ti F� %tl�i�� fn. `� -'r� ��11 I ' �,� � . ��. --t- �' .�, .. .. �, II t M'W ., 1k� * �. �� \1�\� .,�\\�� \\�� '�'. �., \�� '- .. � ��,`��` ,'..I��f � � lr Y _' . a....� � l � '�iF- �.. �` -�-''�.,i�-,..^-,.-�.,��.-,�;,� _ - _ -•=_-�..-� w�;. .. _ - � .-'.s�'��` �`^.�"`+�'�`^�� ti� � �� i Z k` � a�� r -�. � a.. y �`.A �..,��.' � ...� i� , .' '�. S x h.\,.'.'"_ �I '�.i ..v,'kF,' .. � F. e� � �� J ,� � �_ � �y,�`; (�r:�� = - � :fi 1`M ,�,. '.�r ��' �3 . �' � r�' •4• '* �'... , �- � �,. �. � h �'. z'`�� '` �` �� >4�` — �, �� ,'.� r " -�� '.� ,� ,r� �� k.E-'- �,�,,: � �.fl w '�,¢.' � d - � ;�" �v � �L J : R p ��.j' '�.Y ��y�� ..r1- }W �dr ��..,", t . � jL ,�3 •� �Ai j { do I �Y' . . . S.�� .�n��. '-�L� _ . F. . . µy� , Ia� n . . _-,R�.F��?,i . . t.. � .tl ,. . �'4.�,... `.. , -.. �.f� ' � . /�i��Lk,.S ��.�'�� 2010 View of Courtyard -from the southwest 2015 View of Courtyard -from the southwest No significant landscaping alterations noted Appendix G - Page 5 4 - , .�+a� .. � - � t . \� ,� .. �� :.�i� ly.�., i �r � _o �y��ti �� w r�� '._ � •n S �,� ' " ''�1� .$ � � 1 ,,. �_' `�'- . - - � �� .�� \ A�� ° � � �� . +*'-,�� 5..�.' R�� J �1 �`. .� �6� � ' "R.�'� � �.. IIR S ,t�� \ �,.',�� .?�.� '_ �c,4 _ � �.,�� LBr�i� i � lY'! \ i4rT•7 �y � s c� �" ;�.�' 1 .� ��,:ti �,k''��y✓ ��... �` 'rd 4';a;i� �' v ., "� _.''',�'2'� z ' s �� '�_:.:- ��S��l',-��_ ( _ ,� �Y A �U"�.;' +?. �k n.. J �-�, ♦ , 6 t-�� 3� j . � t�;'•,l,�'k ,y � '?•s'.�.,�. y h�.4 �. ^� }, � ��, `,�`�� t�;•S� �� , ��F� .. �'� �� \�^'��'"��- h ;,�r � }�4 P. �, ,� ?' �r �, z SX.' .,.. �+� :'� - . �:�,: c- , � �;• � �� , . '�r ' . . �':. � ' . ; . �'J,�� ,. X - �, � ��"J �� . � +r � � y� z_� �r ,�:�� '�� ` ''c; -# � #"� . � `'s:- �,��.o ��_. � .t ��yx'��r ' ,;��s�: - �.^r Fr lr,�. . '� � .. � ��. �� . F� /�� ..i ,,f�Si'. ' � .v�. v W! �� ... . � ._ 2010 View of West Side Terraces and Paths-from 2015 View of West Side Terraces and Paths- the south from the south No significant landscaping alterations noted _ �d�y ,��a3-, s �� .ir �� . ,. �,..N �'z ;4�...�. .� �, .d .,' ,. _ � �: 'b`�. � - 3'Yl' _ y.. '- 4 ��% J�; '. �" �'�� -- � ° � r`� .z y . .. �;'7' . � . : � -� . , " a � -v, Y � � � � .,,, : �;�� M� ;�: - , � � , � �� ,. , . 4�� . _ ... .. � _ .✓..:_�r _ .1:� ''� J � � , q,a i � �� I"� .r� � . �� .. #�'. I _ � �� . �T.r.� � � ,.wn- ' � ��_ . _ +r7�� L. �s � � � - �`r� '��.`�.j� - - . - .�,�.�:'^ �� . _ . ' -._� _ . F�5��,', �.�.. �� i�,. _ � t. . . hl �_ 2010 View of West Lawn -from the west 2015 View of West Lawn and West Bridge -from the west No significant landscaping alterations noted Appendix G - Page 6 � � s r y ,� s� � � t� �� ° �:�' �, � ; � ` ��I �� l�� '�'�,�.`�,�'��:�� , � ':�� i.- °; ` �a ,`V �`� s � _� .,,�.- w' .�� ' � . �:.�. � "'�'�".�"'-+�s..Yr. C 3�4 sj-�. � �. .. a �. �r °�"�`.,�3_ �' �1' � �'�f � . 2 'P .. �.�t-wr�� '��, �.'��,'�'4•.. � ��,� �.�M� a� y:�.4.?� �.,,� .�6�� ,i� � "'ti� �� i J�",_. .._ ,'� � �4 � t- . :�4� �� . . � � �,� � 4 � M` �.. . r R��_ � � � _,. _ � . , d r� 5 �.��a��w` " �, � ��i S. �' ,.�.� ��' e �' �.� � ��;��wM1 ,. � _°.� � �_� � ... � ; ,.�„ �;,.,�� ,t �� t �:. > � , � � �, a �.� �!' �_�:;..+� � ";m - � . -�� ,�s �e ' �+'`{� '� 'k' �' 'N� '� ^ �� 1 � � Y! �' f� h-`� M` � ��, ..,�� '��s � � ?�£ - V��. iy�. , �. Aw��. _. ��i- �.� fF� #.i d`� �'��+ k-�.i� ��'` ;�� ^ .w� y. 7L` ��..-^a.�:, +� � �� _ � `�a*��r�'_ t . :~� _ '+'"".�y .. _ _ �rir�. . .�..�,��, S��rk '�%' t` .�.'... ...�. `3.•I� . �� 45iPn� , . . 2010 View of Twig Bridge -from the northeast 2015 View of Pond and Twig Bridge-from the Pond not shown northeast No significant landscaping alterations noted +� cr f �a��.$�` ' , :� - I' Fi a �� .. . -VY� y, l i � � , c F4 ��! 1q�� :�� : �� ",r. � .. �, ��Yy,. .�. � ,� � a , • . � .�;_. r. � , �,4 � ,�; R� � ` � '� . '� i\ i � i�� r'i � . ' � � !�� i[ �;� 1 ,^ . � . ._ � ,h� PII,��'� �� .. 3.. �' . S k„ �� . ��"�.:;�. �. - �;,� ,�. ��y� �':'� �` � . � a� � .y.�. � � � ., �•''�� f j r ``f._ 1�"E � rR�l�'.. Pu�s 8 �� P . 1 � ��'' � P .K��` : � .. � . a.- _ ji�,� �it-- _ � �„ - ' �.\ F:��.�1.'�J �� . _ . . . .��.^.. .. j �.. t g.v� _ � , , J' �e�wL � !I f�` •Yl �:�� .'a�"1°'T��T�� ...� � `.�. � i� �': . 1 _� � . (y' 'II ' � l �,• � ��'r?:� _'xr'T S.E�.. a'pa� *�� A � II ,�'��> 't �3'; 1�Y' 1 I 4 i �� I�.i�l � �`�; }� �,�R� .�� `y _ . '.„ �p �� 2010 DETAIL of Lamp Post near upper stream 2015 View of Bench and Stream -from the west No Photograph taken in 2015 No previous photograph has a similar view Appendix G - Pa;�e 7 �� ? ' � � � �( �k -'AyJ, - � 4�� j-:�` '" `�� -_ ,,�. ,4 �.��, ��' - �•`.' - j�^`'� ��- pP� � � �-,�f..i ..� � 1 . .�`+'e:�' �I�1{ }��f��'.-'_ �� f�1��1i1,�,�� . , �"�,"�#:. � �''�$�>� ��:+� � ` .u"�� y.s1�� ..�ry :�fi�t� ", _ a �.�•��a:4!z�s -.a$ �� , � ��. �� '�,_ .� �` , ' �P __ - !_ �{"� � -• - . ' � }�� h '' : tiP� .�- �. � . r � �� +i�,1 � .: �7G' �W\ _ � . �� CI r`t{ } �. .� . �'A'�'.. �+ �i-� _ � 41,�� :� •f ,/�Y'�'. 11�i d�� ro, �'�� _ __ �� ° �A -wr t�� *� '�F� �k :�� _ ��`i, �� ,.b=, � :�a� �+ �a;w 1 M M �k✓ 4 �� t} � �.� :: � r..�� 2010 View of Front(North) Main Bridge and Brick 2015 View of Front (North) Main Bridge and Brick Steps—from the north Steps—from the northwest No significant landscaping alterations noted k � � � . � �� r .� .�� ' :: I�µ t �� +��y.a2� .,:��j�. ..�. . ._•�j� D+ � , `ip �pt t � � .+��'� ,Fq ��fi� . !�M 1�'�R . } � 1 �(I d�1 w£ R W f �� -�'Y a -' *�� ' ��y . �� i! 1, .5�'� a �� '+1y� .,P, i � �5- ��¢�� t,=��'•. i �„ � .c.r .R �� ._...� .�� ,�,�1 +��'� . ..,4�,-. � L, �# j � �� y . . f�'`. �. '"�' ' w :i: �"�"t. � .. S. 1 � � . *' e � . u �. . �JI . �'�`eS�4. .� R_ _ • ''ll .� .A . . . Sw �t.,4�t � �6� rRr c�i._'�p ,��1� " �✓y .. `�`'g�.+` a�9� - V � .. Y." .f'�., � •. .� 7, . 2 • E §t ° �s b t �`\��:v ' �,"��7��a,��..� �y�$ �. � ' �� .* ��, � `�\ ' "� ar'• a , . �� .. '� , �.��.. ' .... -_�( .'�:,��'� V��!Z\ � � . � ��'E l �' t �;� �� - }s-• �,�- .� „� . ,a� � �� ;��"�•:k'��,�.,�\ i:�."�. �' ,2 _ �, �. ''; � , � �� , .''• � . . .a M' �', ' . 2010 View of Natural Stream Area, as general 2015 View of Natural Stream, as general illustration illustration No significant alterations in the stream were noted Appendix G - Page � � .� _ � l, ��, � , � `$� �� .x h,� ��e , � � ��,��, -� F � �;� ��, � .E �� ` � � S � '+• � �� _ � .-. !��'i � � � -Y�t� - .. � �� i� . .� � y��f , � , }�� ;,�{�,, , �� = ��,� '� �� - � �� . /� / � � � ; `s . ��;� 1 -=; - § � � . ."' � �k� � : i� ,� � � �: :�t� t ��,, � p F_� —� - n' x 3 J� � ...,� �y �:; � �� .� � � �� -. .�.:_� � F. _-.., 'S. . �� } _ _ . _..,.x4C.. 2010 DETAIL of West Pedestrian Bridge-from the 2015 View of West Pedestrian Bridge—from the west south No significant landscaping alterations noted � �,�„��:r ��,. -a , f ; � � �.v-� a•" 4 . � 'I1�'•. i�� .: x��,ry,�� , `x1N�.. ��y'� ti" � "�"4 � Rv . �f � �'� r _ E.��.��s�� '�" , r,, � .F� �_: �. . JF��IE g � p�� q � � k�� ,. �� - z_ F � I I m V - � �, a"!• �. x. �. � r � , .. � f:; ,��r ,��:%:._ a. . a �� ---- � 4� �9i � �� a _' � r' - # � - 2010 View of Garage Approach Entrance -from the 2015 View of Garage Approach Entrance -from northwest the west No significant landscaping alterations noted Appendix G - Page 9 A �t��'r ._�� `2� ..(�I G '�(�JSE� . .: ��t� n��` � ,,. � i y � 5 ..'� i,S +��i'+ h:. �.. •� ` � "r',f 'K. a •- �,p'�� .'+d'�k .,� �� 4 7 fpf s�p�. .f eR+A'�� s� � � �l -Af �. ��3 �� T��}"IA -..�e �' �1 '�'f . '*�` �o #� ��q�,yr�,�i w . .�} '�, _ �ti:��*��:R "S�„ �'P. � _ �� ,.^7 .�2�`�`t' . +F, �',�i�. �_ri' y+�. �.�„� � f �::� -7�, � � '�& �' @ � � „y�„ � W;,��,`;• k .�N:�,J S} ��,� y'� .i��, �,.. .. �° .. �'��`1� '' 5'� �, ��"'�,'', _�' 1 i.� � R i).•ii . gf,��]� .i. .'s�'P.,. . ,'�"Y d'A' _ ��Il��ll�i�� ,, _ -- � - �� _ . =�;� ; - 2010 View of Driveway, Bridge and Arbor-from 2015 View of Driveway, Bridge and Arbor-from the north the north No significant landscaping alterations noted � , . =�� x' _,� , � . �, , �� ,y�. � � ,� r�.��,,. E ��.. �� ,^�nv'' . ��_� -rr. t y, .r,: > 3D . ' {�,_.; x�� w4�.. �. d . -- t ��l��lp .L�� '�'3l,� .... ' :1�� .. � � : Y'��' .�L ' �k� r _�_"_" _ � �� i 4 Y' ; �. '�`� �... � i � . s :,. ,."�'.� � �s�'"-+ �'�*.�'"�E .f�'�,. . _. S 6' � � _. � y �"� . �� '� : y. F , �. � �., . -Mr~-� jF �t. �. ` ��i%y�� A�`"7r.w:.� ` 3 t �. _�+� ,� -� �� . aa �as 1 S �'` �. ¢ F� -�"„.. ,� � '� ��•�� _' .� � i � � ► � ss.. ��l�� •' y�' "t �' �� ►.w�, ��c.--'_ =' a��.,_ � "'�} �- � ►�,r.�� i-r� �'- . � ' � '-r a1 �' - - __. �:,� ��w� ..t^f� (''�� .�}.�� : { I�. 1. - � � ' ,�? . � i 1'. , � :r ' 1"r''"'�� -�' _ � „ � � � �. {' � - '�,._ �.� ,�. � ��.- .. T 9 ' _ _�r e �., .• f;:'�- . ' ' 2010 View of Materials Stockpile in the Southwest 2015 View of Materials Stockpile in the Southwest Parking Area—from the north Parking Area—from the north Some materials have been used Appendix G - Page 10 � � '1�� f �'#}t'"c��, � 5 . � ,� � ■� �+, "'"'=a�" _ „� a � � ! `':� - " �r � � � � - r �j. \ .� y �� ,t ��. � I ayC � ,I, .{. ��'�! �1�T�� I:. 1 � .. \ � �-=��r .. ��+' c_ ' � . . � �+ �� 3,r �1 7yjy?..r �\\...1 /� . .. h�.�. . _ �. � ' - �;V ��fY \�,W,4� I . .,� � . . � _ _ 1 4 �;� � �� ' �..r �. � � 1'� l f �,,._.. .� ��"' `_ ' .. � . ' ... 1�a '� - � - •-��'� --� � � . . ' . . . 1 ,.. -_ � y-� " . . ._. `� .__ .' .. t . !� ':�i\ ., _ _ ��.E ' P• . - , �_, '.� . �r. . _. - . . .�;.6, � , � _ '_ - �tiL . � _ . .. . .: 2010 View of Cactus Garden East of Implement 2015 View of Cactus Garden East of Implement House/Garage -from the east House/Garage-from the east Cactuses remain;palm saplings are invasive -r � T,.+. ,� r ., �,- R - •� � � llc: ��w: `R ,,,�i-..� '�. . ��u. � � �'( Y:_ti .'S3 ��R; ��" S x,y 1,�I� � � i�� 14•. A/ ,l�` ��t � %�/p/y��+.�' _ � . .- - k�� ,f�� 4 �n�`.'I�t ��.L �YI,� +.��}y{(� "/:-t ~ ��. y m1�"'1 ^ -�4+ _ .� .'�� i. � I£.�Y � .�Y., "�'. N.;l';�,1 _ � � ' � ,..t a �f �P. � � a..;,{.!1�\j � � �`�'�� \1 ji�, � �� L ,�r i '�,`�� ,� �'� P�. ,f ._ ."_ ' �P � 't� #•,F . � t ,.!� __. � .�- �8 t � � ,,� . W'.:� iti� ��t�. ?� �� ` " ��'.1 � �� -� i ._�" , . ' " � ,+y�� V,�i� T'.va.�Y� e\�� .. S� `+a� . ��yP, � •4 �� u�� ,� _�1/�'4.8 b bP1 1r • '^i��' ��. �-1�'s �a '�d�^ '-!� �f�l�, . :. . . ._ . ��nM'� i T;1 t �.+d' Z r� �'� ` ,u t�� .-� � Y�� y°�:� � §, . � ...� ! �� T� '� ''S.j %!�� .�y��v, -.% , '� . .. . _ � �,�',~�� '.� S ��r �-, � �y�� r� (� �. � �t;�� . . . . . � . .. • . - . ��14j�!�r�,- � ;Pfi7�e�i�k'�.,is' 2015 View of Cactus Garden East of Implement 2015 View of Cactus Garden—from the south House/Garage -from the south No significant landscaping alterations noted Cactuses remain;fewer palms in this area Appendix G - Page 11 y' a �r� �.'� �X � �.. �� " `�, �',.' � � * " ; y ,�.,.� � � , �5 � �; �t ��,� �r ��`°��'t�� .... .�r��y4��L''� �� d y -)� b] � �J. y� V � � , �/ . � � �� ,. � � ' � , k ..�� .. 4 ..��,` ,� { i '; ;. -.,d,i' � �.[,� .��}Jt�_ ��.�.�y- � � {�" � � � k��ei�'Y .t ,� 1i . � \ >�. . . . �SL. .. .. -, � !ACi�..�„� � ��`''Y, ,� ,� r ` �;,�c • . ; r�. , - ��' �� .�.'4^�-- . .::.a3 :J'i�:,' � ,�� , +, ...,..,_ ��a� � ,�. . �,�.w� a,,�� '�� ;a�� .�. . . � — , -�f� A _ `�:a,�t��a�.► '`�'_ °'� �'� ��'s''`aS � �t�+�� +�y' ` ;r yi s:t�3� � , � � =,`=~� � ee,p��"�aY�1r"�'�� r� _ ��nOpy`�> �. �� ,b d.. l\ 4i \�(}Y� A .. � 91- i6 �O��v� � . . ..e� � �v0.'—/\ �aY+' '�-. - �: as a; .- , 9� � ��.. y�_�:� �.9�� ..r ' s ��.�-�"`:.', .- - -_ ;.��d�.. �� ' i . �- — s�_�;'• - _ ..�_�. ,,,��:- :�, - . � 2015 DETAIL of Wishing Well -from the south 2015 DETAIL of Front Entry Bridge—from the Showing wrought-iron decoration northeast Showing wrought-iron decoration that matches wishing well Appendix H - Page 1 APPENDIX H: GARDENERS COTTAGE GARAGE—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—UNALTERED(NO IMPACT) National Register Nomination Description: Gardener's Cottage [and Garage] (Map#5) Separate from the rest of the built structures, at the foot of the current property, is a small, simple Bungalow/Craftsman originally used as a "Division Superintendent's Home," more recently referred to as the "Gardener's Cottage." Cottages similar in size, scale, and detailing to this one were common throughout the Santa Clara Valley and beyond in the early-twentieth century, both in town and rural locations. It is clear from the Radford flier that the residential and agricultural buildings at Seven Springs Ranch represented much of Radford's design ideals. It is possible, or even likely,that if a Radford home plan book were found from this decade,that this small house might be one of the designs... ...There is a detached garage with a hipped roof and sliding garage door across a gravel driveway from the cottage. Description of Current Building and Setting: No alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Gardener's Cottage Garage building were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Gardener's Cottage Garage continues to be designed and detailed as a modest detached accessory structure with almost no wall openings.The square building continues to be comprised of a front-gabled roof, horizontal lap siding, flat-board trim, a one-panel exit door, and an original sliding garage door comprised of vertical boards. No significant alterations to the immediate setting of the Gardener's Cottage Garage building were noted during the field visit. The associated (contributing) Gardener's Cottage building is reviewed separately in this report. It has been altered and there are recommendations associated with that review. Analysis: The Gardener's Cottage Garage is identified as a contributor to the historic and architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch. Because there have been no alterations to the building or its immediate setting, there has been no change in the significance of the house itself, nor has there been any change in the significance of the property as a whole related to this building and its setting. Appendix H - Page 2 Photographic Illustrations: � „�� ,�� , ..E Y� �� i�_. ��; -�� ,� �� ;r�� ,,,,�,, ,_ � �~� �`:��, �, ° .� � ��,.. : _,� � �� °I+ ,;. -:-� .� .. ow = "at' �. 3. .-..,r vT - '� F ..f�y. . _ � t�, �sr. . _ .r �.>,-�3. �" N . ,.. ,.�, .s. - ��`y •. * � .�`*f ..�,�. i .,.�s i�� ,r �'� �.��. •� . �:'� '��c "�-a �� //� - �-� � ! y .. , '� .-N�� . � . ,�ac'Z_;� � ° , __._ s .ce. � . �� b�� .d' �b . t� j /�1 �� ' 4' \ '�. . .i,_ . . _- �. .�.� � � . ' . ' .-.' .." a. Y_• ... . . �_ ,_�.. . 2010 View of Gardener's Cottage Detached Garage 2015 View of Gardener's Cottage Detached Garage Front (West) Elevation -from the southwest Front (West) Elevation -from the northwest No alterations noted G-��- ��'� a � ' "�` � � �„',�� - s �g' ��,� +.,� � � �,�� ,��,� ts�i A �'� f� � �° µ� . . �} ' F+ : �� V�'.� ..��. - � _ �-� �.i . � � �e � '� ��,, 7 ��r - . � "°�"� �� ; 4NT _ � Y_ � ' � . _ _-.1(� "_ _ �� ' . . •��,+ `�, 4�, i ,'(y �1 �. � • � ,y 2 _ `63� �'� � . �.� .a � a .. . _-� �-k•:�y� "�. `,1� � � - i �,.� �-�.+. �lit�,�,��z�`1- -- 1�� _, F i�.-r� � .��, =y ; '� � q , ♦ e� � � �O�` -_� q�~��" �'��'016+�*�� ;� ° ' _ ' ,^�.�, �l• T;��4.�.�.��1 _ � - � � ♦ ' ��y , ; _- 1 �,'��.�A`��s°;E+��j .��r' "-��--`a,� '��-��.�}'�'`.r�`B„"�+1�� } A . -k -- ,,,a�';� e�;�,�r*,�_ .. :g�i . . �.I;. � .„� .. . .+'� 2010 View of Gardener's Cottage Detached Garage 2015 View of Gardener's Cottage Detached Garage North Side- from the northwest North Side -from the northwest No building alterations noted(fencing removedJ Appendix I - Page 1 APPENDIX I: GUEST HOUSE—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—UNALTERED (NO IMPACT) National Register Nomination Description: Guest House (Map#7) Adjacent to and to the rear of the main Stauffer House is a small Guest Cottage that, although more simple in form and execution of detail, matches the character of the main house.The main volume of the cottage is side-gabled; a hipped wing is offset to the rear, adjacent to the small creek that drops into a culvert and pipe at the rear of the main wing.The projecting entry porch is covered by an extension of the tile roof and framed by heavy wood posts and a wood balustrade.The house features stucco siding, carved eave corbels, heavy wood lintels, paired casement window units, stacked barrel- tile attic vents, and a French front door. Description of Current Building and Setting: No alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Guest House building were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Guest House continues to be designed and detailed as a Spanish Colonial Revival cottage that matches the main house.The compact one-story building continues to be comprised of a gabled front roof form with a hipped roof to the rear, red tile roofing, stucco siding, decorative triangular vents at the gable ends, recessed metal casement windows with heavy exposed lintels, and a matching front door under the original porch. One alteration to the immediate setting of the Guest House was noted during the field visit. One notably large tree was removed near the southeast corner of the building. Because the tree is part of the naturalized wooded area to the rear of the house,the loss of this one tree is does not have a direct impact on the architectural or historical character of the building or its cultivated, landscaped setting. It is understood that non-historical aspects of the analysis of tree removal is being addressed by other consultants. Analysis: The Guest House is identified as a contributor to the historic and architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch. Because there have been no alterations to the building or its immediate designed setting,there has been no change in the significance of the house itself, nor has there been any change in the significance of the property as a whole related to this building and its setting. Appendix I - Page 2 Photographic Illustrations: ,.� t., _ . �� , �`�` � �- � �.�- r f, �w � � �: �...., ` � � ` �,�,. d. ,.r � ,�� , �.�� ' : k , * „V� . r ��,�I,a �� `��2� -ri`, �2 5 .-F r�,- �.w�d$ �� r �y� •..p .p _�1�, £& �. � },��- �-� � � qF�"��'=' �. _ �"q�' _s:, � '�a a.. .,�. �� ` � - _ - ,� _' �;�� _� ��..-_�. � - � �� ..,, _. . � - - .:.Yi_14`'� g� .. . . . b,�� p,�'_'�-. .._'- ...r - ��' ' � . . ' . y .. � N Y. � 1 �, '•�'k'h*` 1`',�,,,,� {i1 �� Q• � �' � r �� h ,' �� , � � „ .., ., f ��. .. ,., i�' . .� �.��h.yi�.'��F' .: .,:.t�t�:. � � , . ,.,,r .Ei . i . ,. . _ 2010 View of Front of Guest House-from the 2015 View of Front of Guest House-from the northwest northwest No building or significant landscaping alterations noted in this view t4._. "T _S� :� �`� :: � �° ; * , �' y , +� "d�� !�'S �� # ��-� d� ��t�,� F � 5��''L �f .�.': �� 1�I � 4 � 1 , 5��.9 K,v �f� � �- � �� w�'�� 1 i�� _��. r , r � � - „ :'�":ir-� . -- . .. .. ` �.r� N SA ., ;� ."�,,� �" �.�'-• .e, r: : .� � . . 2010 View of West Side of Guest House-from the 2015 View of West Side of Guest House -from the northwest northwest No alterations noted in this view Appendix I - Page 3 � ;��.� ,,k� , �� `��, f � ��,. �� v. ,� . , ' 7 ��; ,,.5 � �`� " ,r ' a ", _ �. �a ��' ' �'�. � � � � ,� � — , .� 6 � b ,� '�'� : ,. , �' " " _tM � �� v" �_ �� '�� ., ��. . �, � �, . "` �� , � y� ' � ' ,�!� — � ��,�a"i i �� , , � !� � — �� ,'. '' }, � �;, .l ' ��w �, a �� ,.. . � , �� `�� ` � �y� C _ i � �' [�E� � '..e�� '��iwt �.� jY �� °_n i+s�'� .p' _ h. ��'.. � �, (I�1� 1� r �, � � ,�.' :'�., � �' ' ( � y�. , , �_,a�',' — � " ' , r°'a5`��M;` .� „ F � . f� � _ � ��` �;. ,� �+ ��p� �. ,k�A�SY::.� K i.'�' �, �. .�- h�� . .r:'�k � � . .iii .Vc<.i.1{� #d'.t� T S.ii'l_4 . 2010 View of Rear(South) Elevation of Guest 2015 View of Rear(South) Elevation of Guest House -from the southeast House-from the southeast No building alterations noted in this view; Oak tree has been removed .� z: - �� .� � �.x �#: � ;� �:�1 � �x. �� , a. s `- � a .` ��-�,� � -- � .��" � _ - � � ��;' � � - ' ,�-F--~- — • �J� �,_ . . . �_.- � �� ,�. --_ , � � F - �` ; 4� �� ,�� f�� . ,JII,, 1 � j�� :�� ___ � I �. .i . ,� �'' ' �� f`- � y? ,:�` r .,;, �c�� - n� �. ��.� '�'�'�� r�I r - Fr ��/ � . � � � � � F*� - 1�/.�.. � �-� .._ . � �� =�., �' ., �� sy('�, �+ '' l 1� i�K 3 � �a .� s"V�... . '�' . E • •(7•�r y') , � � S i��h~ -. e � ,�:.- _.:'` . .. _ ' = '� vs��`.�/ . ��.��a:��`: ,.��'�:�:�� 2010 View of East Side of Guest House -from the 2015 View of East Side of Guest House -from the southeast southeast No building alterations noted in this view Appendix J- Page 1 APPENDIX J: ADOBE HOUSE GARDENS—CONTRIBUTING SITE—UNALTERED (NO IMPACT) Summary: The landscaping features and accessory structures that comprise the historic site surrounding the Adobe House are generally preserved, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the individual resource or the larger Seven Springs Ranch. The setting of the Greenhouse has been altered where it is adjacent also to the Adobe House,but these small areas do not seem to be directly associated with the Thomas Church design; therefore,recommendations regarding these alterations are included in the analysis of Appendix E. National Register Nomination Description: Adobe House gardens (#8) The immediate setting for the one-story adobe house is a largely wooded, slightly sloping area to the south of the current main access road, near the former Bubb reservoir. The adobe and its outbuildings are to the southeast of the main house and gardens, visually separated by a dense row of evergreens. The long,rectangular footprint of the original adobe house is perpendicular to the access road. The port-cochere, at the end of the gabled structure, crosses a small driveway spur that widens at one point to create a landscaped planting island. The original house was rectangular in shape, containing a large central room and small ancillary spaces at each end. The addition designed by Comstock in 1964 created an"L"- shaped form wrapping around a pool and terrace to the northwest that is framed by a tall garden wall. Thomas Church collaborated on the project, designing the pool setting, as well as a terraced patio on the east side of the building that leads to the horse corral, now over the site of the earlier 1890s reservoir. Character-defining features of the Adobe House,its addition, and the landscaped setting include... herringbone brick patios, casual landscaped terraces, and a framing of private outdoor spaces with the use of garden walls. Description of Current Site/Setting: No major alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Adobe Gardens site were noted during the site visit in 2015. The rounded brick terraces, specimen and ground plantings, Greenhouse, pool deck and arbor, Pool House, and board fencing around the pool are generally maintained. A few trees and shrubs have been removed, and the plantings are overgrown,but this is reversible with appropriate maintenance. Significant plantings remain,including the major oak trees, the wisteria, the specimen olive tree, and the rose garden, etc. An exhaustive inventory was not taken,but the general design is intact. Analysis: The Adobe House Gardens are identified as a contributing site within the historic and architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch. Because there have been no observable alterations to the landscape features and Appendix J - Page 2 overall setting of the Adobe House,there has been no change in the significance of this site feature itself. Because there are no observed alterations,there is also no change in the significance of the property as a whole related to the Adobe House Gardens. Photographic IDustrations: �,: '— `� ` , � ; � y: � � .:_¢ ��`� _l. �;y . T <1Me _ �;-_ �, � „�� ` '� ... � �f�� 4 �y� R � .�� a c�` ' � �'8�.. � q� ,��p a. � � r �� ¢ a � . .� .B ': , j' � �� iF R } �� .�1�.. �tA� ' LM-k�.:if�s � F n� �tp't �i � iM r 'tK or E�'�.. ��'+�� F��-, .. . , ' g � � � • • �� i� � __ � � . l. r�� :r°� �� , _ _- � t�.. �'� � x ,...".�� .�i'."-�'f.^,�--- �� t ,�'Ha� r _ r (, • ,"�' . �� T�-�P.� �. �1 1� � �.i�� ''-."��.,. - - ��.. j � - =k �I �1 ��` . _ : . r.- � . w,.. � _ ,� i j �`�d'��I;�1.�r �!. �� . � ' ,' . . � a � .. �� . - ^ �__ �s � .._� � . ' �� #a�r -� �_,w. � ,�� pr:�+'�: - '2~"�'��i, r, �._� s . � .� • ,4 p . . .. . ._..l v ' ��.�' • ' ' 2010 View of Thomas Church Gardens-from the 2015 View of Thomas Church Gardens-from the southwest northeast Tree removed at corner of Adobe House and Greenhouse. No other alterations noted although the plantings have not been maintained 1`1}7}hiiuin .r - i u��, � si; oi{,w$�,=� ';� ��.�y . � �� ':r r, _. � "�i' 'A �'T :F „p y ''_ '�� k. .. A .� ,,r �s sa ,��3f , �. � 1:. � . -� �_ �f .�E re �,.�-� �..k„p J•_ _p�• �� :' � hy�p' T '. � � ��nF �."' y�.�A. �f � � r, .,. .. 7 �� k� i $`�i. "'" . 3 . �� dp �� r+ � � �, , �� .�'- `� _` 4.,��,.�t � . - �„ r� , �, .. �� 'R^ -- � -� '. • c � � � �.n;�ite�. �} '� � A+ �. a �: �y. � '�"r : �r�x`� � ( i- 9�.J�� _ �� , "' ,� " N•� ° t�� t � °�' _ �;� ., �� . . _ . . v__.�—_�•_� .`��p.:.'- �.�� # 'F�l�.,� ��_ .� � „�v,�J .. �, . - ;` .. � �� '. � ��t'� -` - r , a�,� •is+�. �zi , . 9�cw _ - s � 'g;;� x�=s � �-b^��° �t,. . _ eC'�. �•�a i „�, -i^ i ._. . �'��'-�� x, �n-a. `''Y,�-tlC �.+h7n { �'�3-��i ,.� �.� ,+� �":_ � r�. � ._.� � fi 1� � \� .� �rro R.. . .. �_ ..... ..�yi_:i T*'�,. �'.9i � . ' ,. � ., ... . . � ,� .,.. 'R� 2010 View of Thomas Church Gardens-from the 2015 View of Adobe House Pool Deck-from the east north No alterations noted � K q� A `,�" �� ° ��,� �y . -, � �' � x��5 � b�y}��S -" � k!�: �, ..� .i- ' ;. _ �. �S �� _ � h�� ' - � "�.7w., .� � � �a� �� '�; _ '�: _ . ��-� .��'�e :' .� e � � :'��'�'�A A �' t�',,, y '•�'*e�j .'?h. "�'�;.!� A .� ��3ria�� ' �� _ . ., 'S• ,.7�� `y% ,�� ky �.T � _ , � � �� r,i- F F � .� } ' .. ,; .� �� +� � � �•� E �� . .II .�\`'� �{�" � �� } �� y�y� � .1.d �' � � r� 1 �'.�� i � � ��Y'�i�I� ';... . �itla'�,S � � ��cy�.�. y_. 1' �'`,�. t � F - � I'rw—� . ._ -- ___ _ V j { �' � —_ ._ __ ____ / -`- —_ � - ��. '/�;_,,;,: _ _ a� 2010 View of Adobe House Pool Deck Arbor-from 2010 View of Adobe House Pool and Fence/Side of the northeast Pool House-from the northeast No alterations noted No alterations noted Appendix K - Page 1 APPENDIX K: MANAGER'S HOUSE—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—UNALTERED(NO IMPACT) National Register Nomination Description: Manager's House (Map#9) Located to the south of the adobe Guest House and horse corral,the small Minimal Traditional house used by the site manager was constructed in the late-1940s. Recessed into the hillside with a half-story at the basement level, the building has a front offset protruding gabled wing, covered entry porch set back over the basement level, and a "L"-shaped wing to the rear. Clad with stucco walls below vertical dog-eared siding in the gables. The house and matching detached garage were sited out of view of the main complex and intended as a more utilitarian aspect of the ranch for use by the onsite manager. Some of the fenestration has been replaced, but the building maintains most of its integrity to its original design. Description of Current Building and Setting: No alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Manager's House were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Manager's House continues to be designed and detailed as a Minimal Traditional cottage with a walk-out basement level.The "T"-shaped building continues to be comprised of a cross- gabled roof, stucco siding and vertical-board gable ends,with large focal windows with divided lites, and a matching front door.The walk-out entrance had already been altered prior to the property's designation. No alterations to the immediate setting of the Manager's House were noted during the field visit. The associated (contributing) detached garage is reviewed separately in this report. Analysis: The Manager's House is identified as a contributor to the historic and architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch. Because there have been no alterations to the building or its immediate setting,there has been no change in the significance of the house itself, nor has there been any change in the significance of the property as a whole related to this building and its setting. Appendix K - Page 2 Photographic Illustrations: ��'' � � ri�p'� '� : �t�` i. i 7 Rsra:� " < t, r�- V _ .'g '�;.i:... - .'.-a y�... ri ��l� �. �:�4 � �t � � � �4- .,� �Ji° �,�:��'P'•.,, / __ -' �T �`, '`� - !. � � �._��' , ��, - � R �� _ -; , „ � � �i,. '�,. I� ` �, • `� � � 1 I1 a. °-�1�1 19��i� � ' If I �a s ,.�---t�, . , , �. , — , ,� � ; ---- �'+a � �� ` �� ' ��` »�• � �� .� �• � l� ��,F,�, �;'L� R�F��},,�� ,� `1J 11 � � � ��. i;". � .d.� 'R�`�e}�1� , � �', �'��J1f�� . : ,�'Y�. 3��, .:�...- . � �t. .:�-.�� - - �� y��y�' � �j� � � � k a'�i4 t .. . . .. x.� .��1��'� P �( ' �j�;�y . ! �4 '�.-:.,�� .., ��' `y�(�� .. . ., - ��' ��'ey��.�, � ��. �p'��1;; � (/ y��l4�[I f/ �,,_. � . _ � �•� �'. . �4 ~ �� a ,i,r�- , a� 73.� '::K'1��!��I.��G/ ' - �'��11��!�� - _ � 2010 View of Manager's House Front (North) 2015 View of Manager's House Front (North) Elevation -from the northeast Elevation -from the northeast No building alterations noted _ , � _ - �� . .'�" i . ..,i :� . '*`�. -•:I e._ ----. . .r L�,,�. r � . ,_ ,� � . �. Y�4"� ''' ' /P.. `�r� � — _.. � � i '� �� ,y� ': , � .. , ��"�". -� � . .. �� s� . �� .+��f.k� . � ,.. � '�iy��, ��` � � �l;'' �r1, . _ _ r� -�,�� V'` � � .�� . r�. 1.. ��'� �� - � ■ � , , �� ►� `�� ; � �a S�. � "��, � E�---- � �� . , � E � a � �`` �� ` � � � �''_ r'� � ��✓, � _� j�l �°��' -- �._.� �� .Y �: ,�'. 2015 DETAIL of Manager's House Front Porch, 2015 DETAIL of Manager's House Northwest Front Door and Focal Window-from the north Corner-from the west No alterations noted No alterations noted Appendix L- Page 1 APPENDIX L: MANAGER'S HOUSE GARAGE—CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—UNALTERED(NO IMPACT) National Register Nomination Description: Manager's House [and Garage] (Map#9) Located to the south of the adobe Guest House and horse corral, the small Minimal Traditional house used by the site manager was constructed in the late-1940s. Recessed into the hillside with a half-story at the basement level, the building has a front offset protruding gabled wing, covered entry porch set back over the basement level, and a "L"-shaped wing to the rear. Clad with stucco walls below vertical dog-eared siding in the gables. The house and matching detached garage were sited out of view of the main complex and intended as a more utilitarian aspect of the ranch for use by the onsite manager. Some of the fenestration has been replaced, but the building maintains most of its integrity to its original design. Description of Current Building and Setting: No alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Manager's House Garage building were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Manager's House Garage continues to be designed and detailed as a Minimal Traditional detached accessory structure almost no wall openings.The square building continues to be comprised of a hipped roof, stucco siding, and an overhead double-wide garage door comprised of vertical board pattern. The building is set into the slope of a hill near the southeast extents of the current parcel. Only one minor alteration to the immediate setting of the Manager's House Garage was noted during the field visit. A paved driveway had been extended to the garage door opening.The concrete material is utilitarian and the purpose of the driveway is expected and does not call attention to itself. The associated (contributing) Manager's House building is reviewed separately in this report. Analysis: The Manager's House Garage is identified as a contributor to the historic and architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch. Because there have been no alterations to the building and only one minor, practical alteration to its immediate setting,there has been no change in the significance of the garage building itself, nor has there been any change in the significance of the property as a whole related to this building and its setting. Appendix L- Page 2 Photographic Illustrations: f `�,- �� .`� , , . w. . �� , �a.�"f� . f v",�a . - 2 k.�rL >a w"-'`�. �� r� . _ .-__ _ .. . .*_�� - ; $r� �� Rw�rt.,�+ *M �,��` ,v .'� `�c� ��` t r �' .,� �� , �..: � °��; �f :�� '•c �P, �� _�y�� , � , 1 � -"� �& , TAr ' y � • ` �yT f t� f�i,. . r '_ "' .... � � �0. -0.�" WF 1 � aC iA a�� •.. � � � ' � '��, ,�` �,a �� { �t � � ' �� ,:� i��g �� Yz� � � �� - �',�tn'`�#�:��;e,x.l:r�,�l:,,�;#itm� � 2010 View of Manager's House Detached Garage 2015 View of Manager's House Detached Garage Front (East) Elevation -from the east Southeast Corner-from the southeast No building alterations noted;driveway added �� II � � .. . �� .�, �_ w � i� �� w� - " ��-7�' �c� '� � �' — �1�� ;� �,. '� 2�- � ��ri �F�i��1 F9'�`�' '-J� _ ""�' �k+l .f�- � - — �� `'N.- 4�'� _ '_ _- +,; � y. --—�- _ I �'d __ _ �� - . _ �� - � _ - _ I�..r � � ~��I , ._ � � � h �� i� �� .. •'*�� 3 ( � '��•�� .' t� . � � .. .�. ' �� 1� �'T,��'1 ► {� . _(��Sf� `.: i p�. `5 b �! ,,.,z:S�' , ,�.-� ; w'r� � h+�+4" 'M�� . R._. I �:_- _. - �,�-� " - �ya. F, ��- ._ .�. - �� ., ,..-y�.a:�Fti��` ..'�:_ ... .:..+:,e....:._ y� + � . ,. r. ',y�ex��;:'y� ,r• - � bs ta - , � 3-.. � � , �y' �. ,j C :� �� . ?w � $�rYw' ;1.r'� � e` 2015 View of Manager's House Detached Garage 2015 DETAIL of Manager's House Detached South Side Elevation -from the southwest Garage Southeast Corner-from the east No alterations noted No alterations noted Appendix M - Page 1 APPENDIX M: GREENHOUSE—NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—ALTERED (NO IMPACT) Summary: This small accessory building has not been altered, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch.The setting of the Greenhouse has been altered where it is adjacent also to the Adobe House. Recommendations regarding these alterations are included in the analysis of Appendix E. National Register Nomination Description: Greenhouse (Map#11) Stoller's design for the small office building and greenhouse frames the horse corral to the east of the Adobe House, and the pool house adjacent to the pool completed the setting around the patio to the west of the Adobe House...The greenhouse and the pool house (with garage) are consistent in material with the office, but more vertical, containing shed volumes characteristic of the Third Bay Tradition design motifs found in Northern California's Sea Ranch,the signature architectural example of this style, conceived by Moore Lyndon Turnbull Whitaker in the mid-1960s. Description of Current Building and Setting: No alterations to the overall form, materials, and detailing of the Greenhouse Building were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Greenhouse continues to be comprised of an asymmetrical gabled roof with greenhouse skylight panels, vertical board-and-batten siding wrapping four sides of the structure, a large expanse of inetal windows that wraps the southeast corner, a horizontal vent band, and distinctive sliding shutter panel to the north.The original steel casement window unit remains on the south fa�ade, as does a high vent within the west gable end and a door set into the glazing on the east end. Noted in the field were some alterations to the setting of the Greenhouse. In 2010,the Greenhouse was distinctly separated from the Adobe House by a narrow walkway and an open patio area. Currently, a full-height board wall (or fence) connects the southeast corner of the Adobe House with the center of the north wall of the Greenhouse. A board wall/fence also surrounds the former open patio area between the Adobe House Addition and the northwest corner of the Greenhouse.The area within the board walls was not made available during the site visit; it is unknown what is located within the closed space. No roof was noted. North of the northeast corner of Greenhouse,to the southeast of the Adobe House, a large tree has been removed, and the area has been loosely paved with bricks. Analysis: As the Greenhouse is not considered a contributor to the historic or architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch,the condition of the building and the alterations to the landscaping can, by definition, can have no significant impact on the Greenhouse structure itself. Appendix M - Page 2 Identified as a non-contributor to the historical significance of the property, the Greenhouse was constructed in its current location and design prior to the establishment of the National Register eligibility of the Seven Springs Ranch. With no significant changes noted to the building design, its current condition suggests no direct changes or impact on the property as a whole after 2010. In this report, because the proximity of the Greenhouse and the Adobe House and Addition and the Adobe House Gardens,the alterations to the setting of the Greenhouse are also considered alterations to the setting of the this building and site feature, both considered contributors to the historic resource. The impact of these alterations is discussed further in those sections of the analysis. Photographic Illustrations: !_ "` k,j" w.;:r �` �� ,�'�, _,;�� _ �.. :'+x `�> �'= '� - .�!, , � ----- � .�� S' ;� x^ ��„'i-•�.��`_ 1 ��" ' �S , s I �, ' � V1 1 I �� .,�` � s _T � �� .�� . ��I I , ; , � � � � ' I � � i � il i i, �.�f .. ��.� � � � . ;j� � �� - _ - � � � �� F �}y i � � I � - .. . ... _ �- �' = ��.��.�� ..,� ,. - ;;;�-- �.. _,.-! 2010 View of Greenhouse North Fa�ade-from 2015 View of Greenhouse North Fa�ade-from the the east northeast Note the building was detached without a fence No building alterations noted;landscaping altered Appendix M - Page 3 �.�� ,r � � ;� '�.. � a� �`s �� ' ,t �. s. ,, :� � _ .� � " _ "� � �J ��. �-•.�k V k�,� ' �4��> a � �!*�, .� �:�4 ^tk r��t.. ___ -'��-� _ i �.,,.�.� "` i .$t .'. � �t � v _ r�="i""'e , ;p.:, �� . A"�; � - '.__ �� ' ` �" „9i ��` ""�-�. ,, ----- . . � , - _ ��.;�r : � •�. ,� . �; _ - ._._ � � � ,� _�;�.. �� a '� . . -- -v,�_ .,�a•r�s �r.� ��., �; � -.`��'e I� w,' � _ r � . � i+`.��'W i t� '�R "' �], .�.� �I ��I� I�jj s�'�� "� c',�`w^ v -�de�;4{� ' � ` I ` ' ��' ..,V , .� 7 w`�,.<�-'g" ..�} �-� � � ; ''_�! �r��'1 �. ..� � y� �4�!t� �'�4�!..�..� -�[.�� , 1 � �is:�-'� �� 94f � A� � -- c�t � k� 'il�'ury` �� $'+� _ � r . � _ _ iV.� t V�,^� i� � �-'�y�� i--. - • �� _- -._ __ `.p �� ,�i��y��_• � �_ .,:. __' ._ ein � �- ��it� �� !t �� ; ,fi � ��'�- ' �; � � , ,1..� )�.1 f,'.�4 .:.M� i � p,%�� n'� � ' -'-�� Y ��W i �f ��i� �� l-Y- _ . �/ �. - . ^r� 4 �'� w F �� .. . , . . .�. .. a � N' �.�w . . .� :Y��-:.� .4,p�i��f'Fl1�' ..�.4..,� . .. , , .. ,1 .i � .i, i 2010 View of Greenhouse-from the south 2015 View of Greenhouse-from the south No alterations noted �. �� '""�' }s :, � ¢ �r' � '�'. .. i- s'� . _. � 'k ,� �-; ' �J, �a-�. �� ..- �, �� . � ,� - ' - .�;.. I -- `� �' ��p ►•- �•�� `a� .s'� f � ti''' }�+i �.y � . . ' ':� - :'�h � � . i "Y. I �� I l �j" � --,�- �, � ` � � � ��. � .,- ��' � � XCI � � �� .� ��, �C\��' . -.e .` I � � ." �,�1,lh _"'"' _ I ��\, � I i »'�, � ` `: �_ � .` 1 i1�� xki�� ''� � �`-- �� '��: �-., r _ � _ - '. �, � ' - n _ _ :�__ 2015 View of Greenhouse West End -from the 2015 View of Greenhouse East End -from the east west No alterations noted No building alterations noted;fence added at former patio Appendix N - Page 1 APPENDIX N: POOL HOUSE—NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—SLIGHTLY ALTERED(NO IMPACT) Summary: This small accessory building has not been altered substantially, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch.The garage door was replaced with an incompatible new roll-up door. National Register Nomination Description: Pool House (Map#12) Stoller's design for the... pool house adjacent to the pool completed the setting around the patio to the west of the Adobe House...The greenhouse and the pool house (with garage) are consistent in material with the office, but more vertical, containing shed volumes characteristic of the Third Bay Tradition design motifs found in Northern California's Sea Ranch,the signature architectural example of this style, conceived by Moore Lyndon Turnbull Whitaker in the mid-1960s. Description of Current Building and Setting: No alterations to the overall form, materials, or detailing of the Pool House Building were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Pool House continues to be designed and detailed to blend into the surrounding board-and-batten pool patio fencing.The building continues to be comprised of an asymmetrical roof,vertical board-and-batten siding wrapping all sides of the structure, and a single garage door to the east.The original board-and-batten door has been replaced by a roll-up door. No alterations were noted to the setting of the Pool House. Analysis: As the Pool House is not considered a contributor to the historic or architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch,the condition of the building and the minor alteration of its garage door can, by definition, have no significant impact on the Pool House structure itself. Identified as a non-contributor to the historical significance of the property, the Pool House was constructed in its current location and design prior to the establishment of the National Register eligibility of the Seven Springs Ranch. Although adjacent to the Adobe House,the Pool House is separated by a board-and-batten fence and heavy plantings, and has no visual connection to its contributing neighbor building. With no significant changes noted to the building design or its setting, reinforced by the visual separation, the current condition of the Pool House suggests no direct changes or impact on the property as a whole after 2010. Appendix N - Page 2 Photographic Illustrations: .� �- �� ' � � t {b 6 1Y � <_ �r y��sS �'��I ��• y ��: �•�.�� r'�� . ��+��?�` •r. -�� 4 " � k ��qx�� . ""�. p�Ri�/ � ',� _:'� "�•� �k.'°'�� '� ''�i' �f ;�IY � �,4 . :?S �'I I �� .--/t w� �'` .,tC�. '�'r �,�F �'�.w . ,a , w* '..�� i ��,' � �.. r.•.'� '1 .�.4,r �("�i��n �'i'� :d%w� ��`` � <fP'. � M,,��` `�'' � � � � 4 i. V� � Y��.� �'R",. �� mt i. f��"�„t .-�. 1�*1��'� �'_9�A ({ R. � � �' ,ry.. �, � �' � � , r, �� .,. 4 � , '�' �„��I - ,.L �} +,+�t � � '` � �;. . � ,�' �,�,;r,��J � - � i,;�ts,� � � � . I f � �. . luk�\. t 1' � �' � a_ 2010 View of Pool House Garage Entrance -from 2015 View of Pool House Garage Entrance -from the east the northeast Garage door replaced �{ ��*M YLv y . � � 4 # �, } , � "� ��'.b��— 'r:Tti I '"'... .. �� r r; -',-, `� �-.� , '�'�` , � . . . "�1 � ...A.. , '.n V,� 1xr�„�, d� � Ir , � 2010 View of Pool House Northwest Corner-from 2015 No related photograph taken the northwest No alterations noted in the field Appendix O - Page 1 APPENDIX O: OFFICE—NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING—ALTERED(NO DIRECT IMPACT/POSSIBLE CUMULATIVE I M PACT) Summary: This small building has been expanded in size and altered extensively in form and detailing although the materials are generally compatible with the original design. The separation of the altered building from the historic contributing buildings and structures creates a design buffer, so there is no substantial architectural impact on the significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch; however, the change in use from an accessory structure to a residence may have a cumulative effect on the historic designation of the ranch property.This effect is analyzed in the Seven Springs Ranch Cumulative Overview below. National Register Nomination Description: Office(Map#10) Completing the setting around the Adobe House, in 1981-1982, Stoller's design for the small office building and greenhouse frames the horse corral to the east of the Adobe House, and the pool house adjacent to the pool completed the setting around the patio to the west of the Adobe House. The U-shaped one-story structure of the office is wood- framed and plywood clad, with large vertical false battens providing a rhythm to the floor-to-ceiling windows.The low-sloped hipped room expands outward from the volume with composite wood posts merging the structure into a large trellis draped with vines.The hipped roof of the office is punctuated with small vented gables... Description of Current Building and Setting: Major alterations to the overall form, materials, and detailing of the Office building were noted during the site visit in 2015.The Office continues to include some original elements; however,the footprint, roof, windows, doors, and other elements have been altered since 2010.The building is comprised of an hipped roof with a new, central gabled section,vertical board-and-batten siding that has been continued onto a new south addition,the replacement of some original metal casement windows with sliders and the reuse of some steel casement windows into the new addition, and the installation of new entrances at the north and south, along with the related foundations and eave alterations that come from the new construction. Analysis: As the Office is not considered a contributor to the historic or architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch,the alterations of the building and its immediate setting, by definition, can have no significant impact on the Office structure itself. Identified as a non-contributor to the historical significance of the property, the Office was constructed in its current location prior to the establishment of the National Register eligibility of the Seven Springs Ranch. Even with the significant changes noted to the building design and size, the Office remains Appendix O - Page 2 visually sheltered by vegetation from and physically separate from the historic contributing buildings, structures, and sites of the property.The current altered design would, therefore, suggest no direct impact on the significance of the property as a whole after 2010. Photographic Illustrations: �. ... '� S. � j� ; � .. 4 ._ � vFc 4""�f � �t � - - �� *.'�� . �� "LS �!1-C If% ��a �.�'F-�hr��4'£'� �.. 1� �; � 8` .F. }6:. _ h 9.�.`_..1 , �. �a - y"�'� � '�y,�,x AO^ s'' Q� _ .. —. '_ - _- , ..��;_.. !S�' h''��47 $ H . 'eT - ��i� - .�' ?� �. _ . N _`,�?iq� :2'��1� ..�''.�:'-�V� .b � . I `� �� : .�' I *T��'��'w' - ` � �� _ ��N ��,'� �� F3��, . �� r .-� . .. _. _ _. � � �_ I� ��rr.o .. —�+ �� .. .. _ �� ti r� , }�� r3:�.;�- � �.s� �. � - . . _ . ,� � - - .�'N ._�" .. � .._ �� ' 'j�. ...�'�'Y..�is.=�.� �.. ._s�',�t� 'kti_t:�?�a;� - . 2010 View of Noncontributing Office Building— 2015 View of Noncontributing Office Building— from the southwest from the west Altered walls, roof, and additions Appendix O - Page 3 � ~� s.�, � �C �'N�� ,r � ; ` �,,�, � �"�. � �- '� � ti� _ ��u .z,. a.. � '� „.� � � � ��-- s . �` 4'Av" • '�/Y1�. f Y�'i ��S� �., � � ��f � � ,..- ��T.�� .` �� ' � �� \+• � ��-- - i.: >. �'� , `/ x ��' ,_ ��-_---�.�_ - �`'� -�{ . � � 1 l � [-_ �;. � �� . .� � - �� s � �� i �� ', � _ ,.. ki�' . �_ �� ^- ��,.. �� G �� a �I��iyr��,; � � _ �� Ii11.1 � �� s� �• T t-. �-�-, "� � . ■■ �� s _ �r, `� 7 '� � -. � � �` `':� - ,::�. y 2015 View of Noncontributing Office Building 2015 View of Noncontributing Office Building South Elevation—from the southeast North Elevation—from the northwest Central gable is an alteration;projecting wing has Central gable is an alteration;entrance has been been enlarged and altered altered �� :�. � , � . ��'��„ � �� r _��'��,� A � k � �� .� �� ;� � �� _ h - _ . � _ �. � �. � � { r - �� t �,; � �� ¢ f "v ' f . . ,� { '/ ' � � I ; . :� - � .ti . _- -- �'i � � . � .,. c >. �°tr� _ " � '`� .�` - ` � _ 's. - -��-- � .a+ � ,F.9; V' � � `� .y- 4�e 't �' ' , � `rt _. 3 �. ..a�..� �sra� ,�.� � . e . 't:��lY; .�w�'fe--a�.�` _ ..-,1.� ..~y�"+�., �� ..:'�t �:.:• « '��TM f�.. � „r..:. �. _.:^� '� _`_ c,..r` . .ci. ,�- . ��_ � +-�� b� _ 't�3��t��;•... �:-.�s� -. `�4 �` ��„.. _ �.. � ,`�i � —s•��w. .N:_..'�,s„'�''"'�� a. ::u-.`__ � 2010 View of South Fa�ade of Noncontributing 2015 DETAIL of East Side of Noncontributing Office Building—from the southeast Office Building—from the southeast Note original column pier and change in foundation, indicating extent of addition Appendix O - Page 4 ��f � � , } . � _ � � � ts.i.� �` �'.�� `' r.,� �>F� _ _ � .�. , � � � � ` ��i:� � � � - A j ; � � � � � i � . - - -' � i � f '�, . `� � � ,ti:-,. , : � � �� , ,;�� t� ' ' I u�"` �:, ,- a �.� �_.. . ��,�t.�, .d�Y .��..,,-': - . :,r�+�^. � . ._ . - �:."io . ' < ' � .. � -�� k �� '� _� q .� �� `�" _ --?�. ^��:,� ,'�'�.�a';� � �. � z��, �� - 2010 View of East Side of Noncontributing Office 2015 View of East Side of Noncontributing Office Building—from the southeast Building—from the southeast House enlarged to the south; windows altered;roof altered ------ ,°�.,,,,. _, ,� -- --- -- ,� � � � � � � . . . � _� • ` _ _ � �'� � ,ti. '�. . • ;. `�,; 4 . I �� » II �. �.., � � '�� ' � 4 , - 2015 DETAIL of Original Eave Soffit at 2015 DETAIL of New Eave Soffit at Noncontributing Noncontributing Office Building-from the east Office Building-from the southeast Soffit was rough-sawn plywood to match siding Soffit at addition is oriented strandboard Appendix O - Page 5 i _ �.:.,.�. .;. ��:r I i ,q-:.� �� i; � � . � �� : , � , . � , 2015 DETAIL of Noncontributing Office Building East Side Windows—from the east Original window(to right)is tripartite metal casement;replacement window is slider Appendix P - Page 1 APPENDIX P: EQUESTRIAN STRUCTURES—NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES—DEMOLISHED(NO DIRECT IMPACT/POSSIBLE CUMULATIVE IMPACT) Summary: The demolition of these non-historic equestrian elements throughout the property has created no visual or historical changes to the greater design of Seven Springs Ranch, so there is no inherent impact on the significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch.The change in land use from a collection of agricultural accessory structures to sites for new residences may have a cumulative effect on the historic designation of the ranch property.This effect is analyzed in the Seven Springs Ranch Cumulative Overview. National Register Nomination Description: Equestrian Structures(Map#13) These structures are of recent construction and were constructed to serve the equestrian use of Seven Springs Ranch. Many are prefabricated or recent vernacular structures and they do not contribute to the historical significance of the property. These buildings and structures are small in scale and practical in nature, and they are set within the larger pattern of agricultural outbuildings at the ranch.They do not interfere with the significance of the setting of the historic resources. Description of Current Structures and Setting: A prefabricated horse barn and corrals, previously located on a knoll toward the southwest corner of the property, has been demolished.The site is now an open,flat site with some concrete and asphalt paving. A prefabricated horse shed and corrals, previously located immediately adjacent to the Bubb Barn south wall has been demolished and replaced by a residence.The retaining walls and fencing that surrounded the horse shed to the south and west have been retained. At least one corral and fencing specifically used for equestrian training have also been removed from the site; no special note was made of these structures during the site visit, as the features were not considered as contributing structures. Analysis: The horse barn at the southwest portion of the property was remote and concealed from the contributing buildings, structures and sites.The open space resulting from its demolition is also remote and concealed.The removal of the prefabricated barn structure has no impact on the historical or architectural significance of the historic resource. Appendix P - Page 2 The horse shed at the barn was visually identifiable as separate from the barn by its contrasting use of materials and physical separation from the barn roof and walls. The removal of the prefabricated shed has no impact on the historical or architectural significance of the historic resource; however,the construction of a replacement building in the same location does have a related but separate impact on the historic barn.The impact of this new construction is discussed further in the Bubb Barn section of the report. The corral fencing and other minor equestrian structures were, as noted, small in scale and set within the larger pattern of agricultural outbuildings.The removal of these non-historic equestrian elements throughout the property has little or no visual or historical impact on the architectural or historical significance of the resource. Photographic Illustrations: _t, �. ' I � - �� : _ -. - � ,,, > �_ �, � � _ ,� �.r '� a ��_.,`= i;� �� ,� � a. � 3. '� ��,'»y�y �.. l�� 4 .:�� ':�i � t "� '�:� -_- � �r�� z�. f"�'I"� , ��:4 � �, �� ; � ��:' �1 E ,,�;.a � � � , � 4 ��;��: � ,,� ;�yn�n, � � .�., ; � y' .,� :,�"-�'.�_.___��: � ; , .�� 'A. ��.. . • '�! - �_ ... .��," �-.� ... -. � . , _ 4. '. . ' ' 'r � _ � _ h, . � �� _. . . �.,, ... •;.� 4 �� ,. , �-�.. �! _ ' � �� .�. 2010 View of Barn and Noncontributing Equestrian 2015 View of Barn and Former Site of Structure (Corral)—from the northeast Noncontributing Equestrian Structure (Corral)— from the northeast tippenuix r - ra�e � _ j d �\ � .,f � " � z- .� � ,7: .,,�'i�.+l "� , � � . _,�..?�� . .. �., ` � � � . � ..1'�+� .�+ .. -...:,.. : ' SC r �.,y� �7 � �' Y S _ _____ _ '_____ __'-. aT�-`.._ K' �� - � . TiM' _- :� -__ � g� 9a __ �� . . � . � S-� _ , � . . ' '��1 . -' _ `4 ' 'P�• w��::�J��!k�. —.�� R, d ;� IW ,. c�w, .::� - =t.- o� �ti - : .`w a . . . .. � ��1� ��-_.,- .. ._ - . .� .�4 . . _ .....�S� •'�� - . � T • ,f L � ,y L'.1 c l 2010 View of Noncontributing Equestrian 2010 View of Noncontributing Equestrian Structure at the Barn—from the southeast Structure on the Southwest Knoll—from the northeast - P��:-� .. �. ¢�� ;. � � `��F �� t � , A� '-� r-$ i` � r��,`� ,� ��'�� ; � � � �r � ; � � •�� , g�,* ,x: � ��'. � '�";,,. ��.�> �r�.� � c� � ''��; ``�� w'- ' °`•�„ � i '.wr "f•;'' `s" ' �. � L � � � �� _�..""1 - � . , _ _ a ,. _�: ^ � ��: . � _�� .�:�;�" _. �a; � . - _ - ��w x r qa'�'4�. +�._ .. #"•�s.w - E't' ` � . �' t x a ,^� fE"`rt F: $�, i °Ir; . . ....,.,. ....�.?I... _ .. ..i,..,:. .t�,. . ... r , ,. ,.i, 2015 View of Former Site of the Equestrian 2015 View of Former Site of the Equestrian Structure at the Southwest Knoll—from the north Structure at the Southwest Knoll—from the Small shed remains northeast Shows extent of former structure site Appendix Q - Page 1 APPENDIX Q: ELECTRICAL TOWERS AND HIGH-TENSION LINE STRUCTURE(S)—NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES— UNLATERED(NO IMPACT) Summary: This series of accessory structures and systems has not been altered since the National Register determination, so there is no impact on the historical significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch. National Register Eligibility Review: "A non-historic high-tension wire (with tower) crosses the southern property area." Description of Current Structure(s)and Setting: The series of high-voltage electrical towers and high-tension wires continues to cross the southern property area. Analysis: As the high-tension lines and towers are not considered a contributor to the historic or architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch,the condition of these structures can, by definition, can have no significant impact on the electrical power structures themselves. Identified as a non-contributor to the historical significance of the property,the power lines were constructed in their current locations and configurations prior to the establishment of the National Register eligibility of the Seven Springs Ranch.With no significant changes noted to the power line design, its current condition suggests no direct changes or impact on the property as a whole after 2010. Appendix Q - Page 2 Photographic Illustrations: ��, � � ,.: ^. .. , �� • k'�.f� ��,,ij � �: ,..,r� �_� .� ._ ,. ,��-� 1 * � �,, �,. . ! � �,.t � s � k : �tr:-•�' v �r:- - � �..�..� : t � �, ::�r'= ' ...., �. � �� '�� "� . � _ �1 �� .. �i� _. ."+.� "�"`M_-� �'- +�y '� tA�� - s. '-�i,'.'��' 9 �::{ �a �;�' � 'I ; F.�-,:��,�:',� � . �r. _ � � � ��R , ti� � ... . .��. � .. _ �, .r `ti. '�;,,' ,,.��,.... _.r 1tx��:1., ,,.. j� — . � ` ��i �T�T�Tr , .,. -a 'i:\ �,,y��p '� '�` �9�' -.�. ��-' .. , i p,�L - .' � 5�1w �.,i ��, ��r— '. i � "� 1�� r,{' -�� '!�' - �f�� ,�•'�i;l.. 5 _ yi�,�� y 17�`. .Y� ,Pk_ .. . � _ .':- � ._Y��'�id, ._�4" . ;'7�� '! ;��1�,-•'r 2010 View of Noncontributing Electrical Tower and 2015 View of Noncontributing Electrical Tower and High-Voltage Structures—from the west High-Voltage Structures—from the northwest Appendix R- Page 1 APPENDIX R: NEW CONSTRUCTION—NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING(POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT) Summary: There is no inherent impact on the significance of the larger Seven Springs Ranch from the construction of new buildings and structures, such as the new residence observed to the west of the historic Bubb Barn. The change in land use from a collection of agricultural accessory structures to sites for new residences, however, may have a cumulative effect on the historic designation of the ranch property. Context of the Property(from the Introduction of the National Register Nomination: Seven Springs Ranch continues to exist today as a 40-acre ranch on the edge of metropolitan Santa Clara County,now known internationally as Silicon Valley. The boundary of the ranch is now shifted into the hillsides from its valley-flatland origins,but continues to reflect its long history of agricultural use of the land that coincides,time- wise, with that of California itsel£ Twentieth century owners William A. Radford of Chicago,beginning in 1922, and Grant and Gladys Stauffer of Kansas City, Missouri, beginning in 1937,recognized the unique setting and sense of place that Seven Springs offers. Both bought the ranch and brought their families to California,building upon the man-made setting to achieve what they saw as the California dream. Today,the ranch remains in the hands of descendants of the Stauffer family, as an equestrian facility for the breeding and training of Morgan horses. The present-day site contains representative structures related to the long history of the ranch. Many of these buildings are significant works of design by prominent regional architects. The property today constitutes a district of historic buildings woven together by one of the last agricultural settings remaining in the Santa Clara Valley. The ranch has historical significance,representing an early pattern of development that continues today(National Register Criterion A), for its direct association with two significant personages in American history, William A. Radford and Grant Stauffer(Criterion B), and for the distinctive architecture of the Stauffer-era residential structures designed by regionally significant architect/designers Ralph Wyckoff, Robert Stanton, and Hugh Comstock (Criterion C). Description of Current Building and Setting: The New Residence is a detached one-story house in the neo-modern style. It is set against a backdrop of trees near the western property line, to the west of the historic barn. It has a low-slope shed roof with deep eaves and expanses of glass at the front(east)fa�ade and south side, including a trapezoidal transom over the front entry, a triangular transom above a window unit, and a square bay window facing south. The house foundation is set into the slope of the grade, and the front door is at grade. The New Residence is accessed by an expanded(but previously established) gravel driveway that continues up the hillside to the site of the former Equestrian Barn. The size and form of the driveway, along with the stacks of materials stored in the barn,imply that other residences may have been planned on the western side of the property,but this was not confirmed. Appendix R- Page 2 Analysis: As the New Residence is recent and not considered a contributor to the historic or architectural setting of Seven Springs Ranch, the alterations of the building and its immediate setting,by definition, can have no significant impact on the structure itself. Without a historic review of the fu11 extent of a11 proposed development on the site,the construction of this new building represents an adverse impact on the setting of the property. It is recommended that this house be considered as part of a comprehensive review for compatibility with the Standards, and the environmental declaration be withheld until the entire project is understood to preserve the overall integrity of the site. Photographic IDustrations: , , , :� �� - �� u <�r� ' �r , � ` :,;��, � ,� �x,�� l �,�rry�• . � • ��'3�;, "`�'�� - &�r �^i •±�: .� �;,�, 0� -•�_ �'',qf°..#,.-_�"".�' +�{'F'.� �,'� �-�i*� :.� ` T.,�,, '�1°� ?x �,. � � �` ��Z.� ^� , � '� ,� �,�� - �.�� `� y �"�"� ak..' _ � .�; �� rs 6 .� � � F i �� -i,� �� '� ' � � � � ' �� ' y. • .: �- yesar." � — ,� 9 �:�'w . � �_ � t� � � ` :�� j �.��,� o�. � . � .] �_` r � - _ � ` ? `�i k �,' _ + r�. ,O K - .y. , - _ _ x:Y�-::. . ,,,T _ ; ,� _ � � ' �. S�f�✓ t�r - d��•'�,��.,�"�' 2015 View of Rear(West) Wing of Barn and New 2015 View of New Residence East Fa�ade -from Residence—from the northeast the east Note the proximity of the historic and new buildings Appendix R - Page 3 -- 1 �} / A �,.k,' w� a o f t . �~ '�;. T '�-s , y;:� ..,; � �� 1 �c,:�y.�r ;�,. --- - '� � ��'�'�' . : � a , .. . �... _ � ,. ` !ti Y" � . __... _ � _.. s�/�� '� �€, �, -. � � �� .3 �! � �/ ... �- � . �� Mr. ��t.E� ` �. ,,�,�'�41 _� �,.. i: � _ �� ,� ' � { I �� y „ ,� °��` � � w" i � x--� ��_�Ik :l� _ ,� -- ' _ �. - -�.,,..� - _ � `_ _ `�.�,,.� _ ,.� - - _ , ..,�_ - � _- ` -�- - - , � � :,:R �-. � � � .. _ �� .. - . ..�. �. _. .... , ..$ -, .. ....4 ..,. `'-'�3� . . . — .. _. . . .. .:"$a.. .. .�-�. . . -.. 2015 View of New Residence Southeast Entry 2015 View of New Gravel Driveway to the East of Corner-from the southeast the Implement House/Garage-from the southwest