City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-357 Agenda Date: 5/17/2023
REPORT TO HISTORICAL AND LANDMARKS COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Consideration of a Mills Act Contract and Major Significant Property Alteration Permit at 1365 Main Street.
BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2021, the owner submitted a formal application requesting to rezone the property at 1365 Main Street and 1070 Lewis Street from R1-6L to PD-Planned Development, and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide one parcel to two parcels to create a separate lot for 1070 Lewis Street. The development includes interior and exterior alterations, addition, and construction of two new parking garages, and a new ADU. The project is referred to the Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC) for the review of a Mills Act agreement and Major Significant Property Alteration, as the residence at 1365 Main Street is a listed resource on the Historical Resource Inventory (HRI). The residence at 1070 Lewis Street is not listed on the HRI.
DISCUSSION
The two houses at 1365 Main Street and 1070 Lewis Street sit on a 9,386 square-foot L-shaped lot located on the northwest corner of the block bound by Lewis Street to the north and Main Street to the west.
The one-story over basement single-family Craftsman bungalow at 1365 Main Street is square in form and clad in stucco. The wood-frame building has a cross gabled roof with two shed roofs over the east and west facades all clad in asphalt shingles. While the house at 1365 Main Street underwent alterations, many of the character defining features have been retained. Major exterior alterations include the stucco cladding over the horizontal wood siding, the east and west additions, and new windows and doors.
The one-story over basement vernacular house at 1070 Lewis Street is rectangular in form and clad in wood clapboard siding. The wood-frame building is capped by an asphalt shingle-clad cross gable roof with a low slope roof over the front porch. The north (front) façade features a low sloped-roofed partial-width porch supported by square wood columns sheltering the main entrance. A historic assessment was prepared by TreanorHL and is attached to this report. The assessment concluded that this residence does not appear eligible for local listing since it does not have any significance under the City of Santa Clara criteria.
Project Description:
The proposed project includes splitting one lot into two lots and rezoning from Single-Family Residential to Planned Development to allow unique development standards for setbacks, lot size, lot width and a second-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The project will include interior and exterior alterations and a rear addition to the house at 1365 Main Street, demolition of all accessory City of Santa Clara Printed on 5/12/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-357 Agenda Date: 5/17/2023
structures, construction of a new detached garage at 1365 Main Street, and construction of a new detached ADU above a two-car garage at 1070 Lewis Street.
The addition at 1365 Main Street will extend to the east and a new roof cover the addition and the east section of the existing house. The interior alteration will remove nonoriginal addition in the front and rear of house and the proposed floor plan will include four bedrooms and three bathrooms. The existing shed roof extension at the east façade will be demolished, but the section under the existing north-facing gable roof and the basement access will remain. The addition is roughly square in form (approximately 22 feet by 21 feet) and will expand from the southeast corner. Both the addition and the east half of the house will receive new gabled roofs.
Other exterior alterations to 1365 Main Street include:
· North façade: Three double-hung multi-lite windows will be added to the extension. · West façade: One of the four multi-pane windows to the south will be removed and the remaining three will be centered on the wall. The gaps on each side will be infilled. The existing door will be replaced with a new door.
· South façade: The group of four windows to the west will be removed and the area will be infilled. The group of four vertical casement windows will be removed and the area will be infilled to match adjacent stucco. The center three double-hung windows will be replaced with two new double-hung windows to meet egress code requirements. The pair of double-hung windows will be replaced with one larger double-hung window required for egress. At the extension, two double-hung windows will be added.
· East façade: Two sets of double windows and a new door will be added.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standard (SIS) evaluation was prepared by TreanorHL and it concludes that the proposed project appears to be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards). The project complies with Standards 1-7, and 9-10; provisionally complies with Standard 8. As the project complies with all Standards, it would not cause potential impacts to the historic significance of the property. The project plans include a Window Assessment and Treatment Plan in the SIS evaluation to guide the property owner and contractors in the proper techniques for construction of the addition according to the SIS for Rehabilitation. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the impacts would be reduced to a level of less-than-significant. The project includes limited excavation, but appropriate mitigation measures such as stop work and investigation would be conditioned to address Standard 8.
Mills Act:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Historic Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) for the property including the adoption of a 10-Year Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan associated with this historic preservation agreement. An updated DPR form in the SIS evaluation was prepared my Lorie Garcia of Beyond Buildings on December 2, 2021. The draft Mills Act agreement is attached to this report along with the 10-year preservation plan. Some of the notable work that would be performed under this Plan include repair and replacement of exterior windows, termite fumigation, adding HVAC, interior paint, and foundation replacement.
Conclusion:
Staff finds that the proposed project adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation with mitigation measures to repair and replacement of deteriorated windows. Standard City of Santa Clara Printed on 5/12/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-357 Agenda Date: 5/17/2023
conditions will apply to implement protection mitigation for any uncovered archaeological discovery.
With evaluation of the original features of the HRI resource and the Treatment Plan, the exterior alteration of the resource is consistent with the SIS evaluation for Rehabilitation. The 10-year preservation plan will preserve the integrity of the historic resource. Given the historic integrity and the proposed 10-Restoration and Maintenance Plan, staff supports the proposed Mills Act Preservation Agreement for the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Class 1 Existing Facilities, in that the project involves the repairs and alterations to a historic single-family residence and per Section 15331 - Class 31 Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, in that the project concerns the renovation of a property in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
PUBLIC CONTACT
On May 4, 2023, a notice of public hearing of this item was posted in three conspicuous locations within 300 feet of the project site and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
No public comments have been received at the time of preparation of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Historical and Landmarks Commission find that the residence will retain sufficient integrity as a significant example of Craftsman Bungalow style architecture through the construction of the proposed addition, subject to the procedures outlined in the Treatment Plan, and recommend approval of the following:
1) That, based upon the analysis and findings of the historical evaluation, the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Mills Act Contract application, including the adoption of a 10-Year Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan associated with this historic preservation agreement; and,
2) That, based upon the analysis and findings of the historical evaluation, the Commission forward a recommendation of approval for issuance of a Major Significant Property Alteration (SPA) Permit to the Planning Commission for the proposed addition, subject to the procedures outlined in the Treatment Plan attached.
Prepare by: Steve Le, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Rebecca Bustos, Principal Planner
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. SIS Analysis and Treatment Plan with DPR Form for 1365 Main Street
2. Historic Assessment with DPR Form for 1070 Lewis Street
3. Draft Mills Act Agreement
4. Development Plan
City of Santa Clara Printed on 5/12/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
treanorhl.com
TREANORHL
1365 MAIN STREET, SANTA CLARA, CA
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S S TANDARDS
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
MAY 8, 2023
treanorhl.com
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................3
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................3
3. METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................3
4. SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................3
5. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................6
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................. 11
5. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 12
6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................... 15
7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 16 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
13 65 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com
1. INTRODUCTION
At the request of Robson Homes, TreanorHL has provided the following Secretary of Interior’s Standards c
ompliance analysis for the design of the proposed project at the 1365 Main Street property in Santa Clara. The L-shaped parcel (APN 269-05-082) features a single-family house at 1365 Main Street, a single-family house at 1070 Lewis Street, and three accessory structures. The house at 1365 Main Street was constructed c. 1912 and is identified as a historic property in the City of Santa Clara’s 2010-2035 General Plan (The Public Hearing Draft,
July 2010).1 Additionally, the property is within the area of historic sensitivity which is defined by the City of Santa Clara as “100 feet from the property line of an identified historically significant property,” since it is nearby multiple historic properties.
2 In addition to project design documents provided by Robson Homes, TreanorHL reviewed the previously completed historic resource evaluation of the property at 1365 Main Street dated February 2022.
The initial designs for 1365 Main Street, dated December 20, 2021, have changed. This updated report takes the new February 3, 2023, designs into consideration. TreanorHL reviewed the existing condition report provided by Robson Homes:
Condition Assessment and Treatment Plan for 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050, dated May 5, 2023. That report discusses the existing conditions of the building fabric, both original materials and newer materials are discussed.
2. S
UMMARY OF FINDINGS
Following a thorough review and compatibility assessment of the proposed project TreanorHL finds that the p
roposed project at the subject property appears to be partially compliant with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards). The project complies with Standards 1-7 and 9-10; provisionally complies with Standard 8. As the project complies with all Standards, it would not cause potential impacts to the historic significance of the property.
3. M
ETHODOLOGY
TreanorHL conducted a site visit on June 8, 2022, to assess the existing property and its context and take p
hotographs. Drawings from SCDC Architecture Interior Design dated December 20, 2021, and updated drawings dated February 3, 2023, the City of Santa Clara’s 2010-2035 General Plan, the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for 1365 Main Street (Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings, February 2022), and the Condition Assessment and Treatment Plan for 1365 Main Street from May 2023 were reviewed.
4. SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY3
The DPR forms prepared in February 2022 concluded that the house at 1365 Main Street has significance s
ufficient for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a Craftsman Bungalow constructed c. 1912 as identified by the building’s square plan, broadly pitched cross-gabled roof with wide eave overhang, knee braces under the gable, and original windows. The building was also considered to
1 Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings,1365 Main Street DPR Form, February 15, 2022, 1; City of Santa Clara, 2010-2035 General Plan (Public Hearing Draft, July 2010; adopted November 16, 2010), page 8.9-12. 2 City of Santa Clara, 2010-2035 General Plan, pages 8.9-3 and -17. 3 Summarized from Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings,1365 Main Street DPR Form, February 15, 2022. 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 4
contribute to a potentially eligible historic district due to its proximity to other historically significant homes in t
he area.
The house at 1365 Main Street was also found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Places (CRHR) under Criterion 1 (Events) for its associations with the arrival and settlement of immigrants from Madeira and the Azores Islands in Portugal to Santa Clara during the first two decades of the 20 th century since the ethnic
group made significant contributions to the cultural heritage and broad patterns of local history.
• Criterion 1 (Geographic Significance) for being in The Old Quad neighborhood, an area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history. The neighborhood reflects the history of the city’s development during the Mission Era of when the missionaries established the Mission Santa Clara de Asis, and also for the first two decades of the 20
th century during the arrival and settlement of
Portuguese immigrants from Madeira and the Azores Islands.
The character-defining features of the house at 1365 Main Street include:
• One-story massing with wood-frame construction
• Low-pitched gable roof
• Moderately wide, open eave overhang
• Exposed rafter tails
• Decorative barge boards
• Covered porch
• Knee braces that support the eaves on the west, north, and south facades • Wood divided light casement or double-hung grouped windows of two, three, or four • Four-over-one wood-sash windows
barge
C
ity of Santa Clara Historic Preservation and Resource Inventory Th
e house at 1365 Main Street is listed as a historic property on the City of Santa Clara’s Historic Preservation and Resource Inventory, and is in an “Area of Historic Sensitivity,” defined as 100 feet from the property line of an identified historically significant property. 4
The DPR form only addresses the house at 1365 Main Street and includes no findings relative to the house at 1070 Lewis Street. The two garage structures are listed as related features to the 1365 Main Street house but are not specifically evaluated.
4 Santa Clara General Plan, Page 8.9-3.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 5
Figure 1. Aerial view of the subject property (Google Earth, image date September 2020).
Figure 2. Map of the Architecturally Significant & Historic Places in the Old Quad Area of Santa Clara, the L-shaped parcel at 1365 Main Street is marked by an arrow (City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan, Figure 8.9-2). The purple areas show architecturally significant and historic sites and yellow represents the 100-foot-buffer around the historical sites.
N
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 6
5. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The L-shaped parcel features two single-story over basement houses and three accessory structures. The subject p
arcel is on a block bound by Lewis Street to the north, Washington Street to the east, Harrison Street to the south, and Main Street to the west.
1365 Main Street
Wh
ile the house at 1365 Main Street underwent alterations in the 1940s and 1960s, many of the character- defining features have been retained. Major exterior alterations include the stucco cladding over the horizontal wood siding, the east and west additions, and select new windows and doors at the additions.
The one-story over basement single-family Craftsman bungalow at 1365 Main Street is square in plan and clad in stucco. The wood-frame building is capped by a cross gabled roof with two shed roofs over the east and west facades; all clad in asphalt shingles. The roof features an open eave overhang, exposed rafters, knee braces, and decorative barge boards.
The west (front) elevation features a shed-roof extension with a partial-width porch. The recessed entryway is accessed by three wood steps and leads to a north-facing single door with three side lites and an east-facing single door, both wood with security gates. The primary window type on this façade is a multi-pane vertical wood-sash casement window with wood surrounds, grouped in threes and fours. The north windows under the gable roof are original. A vertical non-original glazed opening sits in the recessed entry facing north.
The north façade faces the concrete driveway. Under the gable roof sit three sets of original wood-framed windows: single-hung, double-hung, and multi-pane casement windows, all with wood casing.
Under the shed roof of the east elevation are two aluminum-sash windows flanking a single door behind a security door and capped by an aluminum awning. The door is accessed by a series of concrete steps. Under the gable roof, a concrete stairway a with decorative iron railing leads to a single wood-frame east-facing door with a security gate. The basement is accessible from an at grade bulkhead entrance with double doors. The west façade is punctuated by two groups of multi-pane windows: a mix of casement and fixed. The south façade features four sets of wood-sash windows with simple casings: a single double-hung, a double-hung pair, a group of three double-hung and a group of four multi-pane vertical casement windows.
A detailed property description can be found in the appended DPR form.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 7
F
igure 3. The west (front) facade of 1365 Main Street.
Figures 4 and 5. The north (left) and east (right) elevations of 1365 Main Street.
Figures 6 and 7. Details of the south elevation of 1365 Main Street.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 8
1070 Lewis Street
Th
e one-story over basement vernacular house at 1070 Lewis Street is rectangular in plan and clad in wood clapboard siding. The wood-frame building is capped by an asphalt shingle-clad cross gable roof with a low slope roof over the front porch. The north (front) façade features a low sloped-roofed partial-width porch supported by square wood columns sheltering the main entrance and a wood-sash multi-pane single-hung window. Three concrete steps lead to the single wood-frame door behind a security gate. At the gable end is a wood ornament and a multi-pane wood sash window with faux wood shutters and wood trim.
A shallow wall extension projects out from the east façade and is capped by an asphalt-shingled gable roof. The extension is flanked by two wood-sash one-over-one windows with wood casing. Mirroring the east façade, a shallow wall extension with a gable roof and asphalt shingles projects from the west façade. Two wood-sash one- over-one windows with wood casing flank the extension. The south façade has a single door behind a security gate accessed by a concrete step. A fixed wood-sash window with a wood sill and an aluminum-sash sliding window with wood casing are on either side of the door. The basement is accessible through an at grade bulkhead entrance with double doors.
Figure 8. The north facade of 1070 Lewis Street.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 9
F
igure 9. The east elevation of 1070 Lewis Street.
F
igures 10 and 11. The west elevation of 1070 Lewis S treet.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 10
Figure 12. The south elevation of 1070 Lewis Street.
A
ccessory Structures
A o
ne-car garage stands to the northeast of the 1365 Main Street house. The wood-frame structure is rectangular in plan, clad in wood clapboard siding, and capped by a gable roof with rolled asphalt roofing.
Double wood doors face west, and two single wood doors face south.
Figures 13 and 14. The garage to the northeast of the 1365 Main Street house.
A
nother accessory structure is located to the east of the 1365 Main Street house. The wood-frame structure is rectangular in plan, clad in vertical wood boards, and is capped by a shed roof. The east and west facades each have an aluminum-sash sliding window. The north façade is punctuated by a single wood door with a screen. On either side are aluminum sliding windows. The south façade abuts a fence.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 11
Figure 15. Accessory structure.
Figure 16. the garage to the south of the 1070 Lewis Street house.
4. P ROJECT DESCRIPTION 5
The proposed project includes splitting the existing parcel into two lots, interior and exterior alterations and a r
ear addition to the house at 1365 Main Street, demolition of all accessory structures, construction of a new detached garage at 1365 Main Street, and construction of a new detached accessory dwelling unit (residential above garage) at 1070 Lewis Street.
The east elevation at 1365 Main Street will receive an extension featuring double-gable roofs over the new and existing sections of the house at the rear. The existing shed roof extension at the east elevation will be demolished, however the wall under the existing north-facing gable roof and the basement access will remain.
The addition is roughly square in plan (approximately 22 feet by 21 feet) and will project from the southeast corner. A pair of casement windows, a pair of double-hung windows, and a new door will be added. The chimney will be removed.
Additional alterations include:
• North elevation: Three double-hung multi-lite windows will be added to the extension. • West elevation: One of the four multi-pane windows to the south will be removed and the remaining three will be centered on the wall. The gaps on each side will be infilled. The existing door will be
5 Proposed plans provided by SCDC Architecture Interior Design, see Appendix for drawings.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 12
centered and replaced with a new door. The attached mailbox will be removed, and the area will be c
overed with stucco to match the existing.
• South elevation: The group of four vertical casement windows will be removed and the area will be infilled to match adjacent stucco. The center three double-hung windows will be replaced with two new double-hung windows to meet egress code requirements. The pair of double-hung windows will be replaced with one larger double-hung window required for egress. At the extension, two double-hung windows will be added.
The project also proposes to construct two new structures on the subject parcel. The one-story two-car garage at 1365 Main Street will be square in plan with stucco clad walls, a composition shingle-clad gable roof, and paneled wood doors. The accessory dwelling unit (residential above garage) at 1070 Lewis Street will be two stories and square in plan. The first floor will be clad in stucco while the second floor will have horizontal wood siding. Decorative wood corbels and a wood trim will separate the slightly projecting second floor from the first.
On the first floor, a paneled garage door will be on the north elevation. The second floor will feature four-lite wood windows and a single door. A flight of stairs with wood railings will be located at the west side.
5. S
ECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS ANALYSIS
Of the four prescribed treatments for historic properties outlined in the Standards, Rehabilitation provides the most appropriate set of standards for the subject project. Rehabilitation is the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Analysis. The proposed project would maintain the subject property’s current and historic use as a single- family residence. Current code requirements necessitate changes in size at some windows to allow for egress. These window alterations are minimal, on secondary facades, and do not impact the overall integrity of the structure. While the proposed project now calls for some windows to be replaced in-kind with slightly larger egress windows, the proposed project maintains the majority of the character-defining features of the historic resource. The majority of the character-defining features visible from the public right-of-way will be retained. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 1.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Analysis. The proposed project would generally maintain the historic character of the subject property as defined by its Craftsman architectural style, its one-story massing, grouped windows, and low-pitched cross gabled roof with knee braces, open eave overhang, decorative barge boards, and exposed rafters. The project proposes to remove the existing addition to the east and remove or replace windows on the west and south facades.
On the west (front) façade, the original windows at the north end would be preserved. The group of four casement windows will be reduced to a group of three with the removal of one window. The remaining three will be recentered on the wall. While one of the windows is removed, the windows remain a group, and this alteration will minimally impact the character of the building. Additionally, these four windows are not original to the house and were installed in the 1960s. The existing door under the covered porch would be replaced with a new one. The enclosed front porch is a later alteration and is not original to the initial 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 13
construction of the house. Therefore, the proposed alterations at the west façade would not remove or alter f
eatures that characterize the property.
The proposed removal of the east addition would not impact any significant historic characteristics of the property. Constructed in the 1940s, this addition is not original to the house and does not reflect the characteristics of the Craftsman style architecture of the original house.
On the south elevation, the proposed project removes the group of four casement windows that were installed in the 1960s. These windows are not original to the house, so their removal would not affect the historic character of the property. The group of three windows will be replaced with a pair of double-hung windows. The existing pair of double-hung windows will be replaced with a single double-hung window.
Removing some of the original windows is required as some of the windows do not meet current code egress requirements for bedrooms. These windows required a change in size; however, the new window style, operation, and material will match those of the existing. Additionally, as the windows on this elevation are not visible from the public right-of-way, the loss will have minimal impact to the overall character of the property.
The only element on the north elevation proposed to be removed is an aluminum-sash sliding window that was added in the 1940s. Its removal does not affect the historic character of the building. The chimney will be removed. It is barely visible from the right-of-way, it is not a character-defining or prominent feature, and its removal will not have a significant impact on the character of the property. The existing accessory structures are utilitarian in nature and are not among the character-defining features of the property, so their removal would not affect the historic character of the property.
Overall, the proposed project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 2.
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 buildings, shall not be undertaken.
Analysis. The proposed project does not include the addition of conjectural elements or architectural features from other buildings. Although the proposed project involves a one-story addition at the east side of the 1365 Main Street house as well as new windows and doors, the new work would not create a false sense of historical development. The addition is compatible with the Craftsman style of the existing house in its materials and proportions. The proposed window and door replacements and new installations would not create a false sense of historical development and would be compatible with the subject property’s overall historic character.
The proposed accessory structures on the parcel also appear to be compatible with the existing house and would not create a false sense of historical development. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 3.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Analysis. The building received multiple additions and alterations over time including the enclosed porch and shed roof in the 1960s, the east extension in the 1940s, stucco cladding, and window and door replacements. These additions and alterations have not acquired significance over time and do not possess historical significance. The removal of the east addition, replacement of the front door, and alteration of later windows will not affect the significance of the property. Therefore, the project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 4.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 14
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of fine craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
Analysis. The distinctive features and finishes or examples of f ine craftsmanship that characterize the house at 1365 Main Street are found on the exterior facades including its wood windows with plain trim and gable roof with decorative features. The proposed project maintains and preserves most of the building’s distinctive finishes and character-defining features. The original wood-frame construction technique of this one-story Craftsman bungalow would also be preserved. Although not original, the existing stucco cladding would be maintained. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 5.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacements of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Analysis. The proposed project does call for the replacement of several windows which were determined to be deteriorated beyond repair during the January 2023 window survey completed by TreanorHL. The existing conditions survey report provided by Robson Homes discusses the conditions of other exterior materials, including stucco, all original wood features and other original architectural elements, and provides appropriate repairs for damaged and deteriorated members. Deteriorated features shall be repaired in place when possible. If elements are deteriorated beyond repair, TreanorHL recommends replacing the elements in-kind to match the existing size, shape, and material. The National Park Service’s relevant preservation briefs, especially
Preservation Brief 47: Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-bri ef-47-exteriors-small-medium-buildings.pdf), should be reviewed prior to undertaking any work. The proposed project complies with Standard 6.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Analysis. The proposed project does not involve any chemical or physical treatments. Therefore, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 7.
8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
Analysis. The proposed project includes limited excavation for new foundations. If archaeological features are uncovered, the project would undertake the appropriate mitigation and protection measures. Therefore, the proposed project provisionally complies with Rehabilitation Standard 8.
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 will 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 proposed project requires the removal of the 1940s extension on the east façade for the construction of a new addition. The new one-story addition with stucco-clad walls and gable roof is not visible from the public right-of-way, and will be compatible with the overall character of the historic building including materials, massing, size, scale, and proportion.
On the west facade, the group of four non-original windows would be altered to be a group of three using the existing features. On the south elevation, the group of four windows will be removed entirely while the 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 15
group of three windows will be replaced with a pair of double-hung windows to meet code egress r
equirements for bedroom windows. Further, the pair of double-hung windows will be replaced with a larger window required for egress. The new windows will match the existing in configuration, profile, and design, although they will be larger to meet current code requirements. Additionally, the five original windows which will be removed as part of the project were found to be extensively deteriorated during the January 2023 window survey, with the majority of the windows needing to be replaced. While the change alters the historic spatial relationship of the windows the impact is minimal and not visible from the public right-of way.
Some of the windows are required to be replaced to meet egress size requirements, making them differentiated from the old; however, they will match the existing windows in style, operation, and material.
All replacement windows will be wood. The new windows will be compatible with the property’s overall character.
The detached accessory structures to be constructed to the northeast and east of the 1365 Main Street house would be contemporary but compatible with the historic building. The one- and two-story structures would be set back from the street, and feature stucco and wood clad walls, gable roofs, and wood windows and doors. They would be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, and scale of the historic building.
Overall, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Analysis. The proposed east addition would replace a 1940s addition, so its future removal would not impair the integrity of the historic building at 1365 Main Street. The proposed two-car garage and the accessory dwelling unit on the parcel are free-standing structures; therefore, if removed in the future, the form and integrity of the historic building would be unimpaired. Overall, the proposed project complies with Rehabilitation Standard 10.
Bas
ed on the above analysis, the majority of the proposed project at 1365 Main Street appears to be mostly consistent with the Standards. The project fully complies with Standards 1-7, and 9-10 while provisionally complying with Standard 8.
6. P
OTENTIAL IMPACTS
Impacts to the Project Site
A p
roject that has been determined to conform with the Standards can generally be considered to be a project that will not cause a significant impact (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)).
The project proposes to repair deteriorated and damaged elements. Where elements are deteriorated beyond repair, elements will be replaced in-kind to match adjacent finishes and textures. The new wood window shop drawings will be reviewed by a qualified historical architect to ensure the new windows are compatible with the historic character of the house. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in an impact to the historic resource.
Impacts To Adjacent Historic Resources
City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan identifies the adjacent 1365 Main Street property as an architecturally significant and historic site. The February 2022 DPR forms also identified 1365 Main Street as a contributor to a potentially eligible historic district due to its proximity to other historically significant homes in 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 16
the area. The project complies with Standards 1-7, and 9-10; the window changes and addition are compatible w
ith the historic materials, size, scale and proportion and massing of the 1365 Main Street house and its environment. The proposed project would not substantially impair the significance and integrity of the potential and previously identified adjacent historic properties; they would continue to communicate their significance.
7. C
ONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, the proposed 1365 Main Street project appears to be partially consistent with the S
tandards: it complies with Standards 1-7, and 9-10; provisionally complies with Standard 8 and if archeological resources are encountered appreciate mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause an impact to the historic resource and the project would be in full compliance with the Standards.
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
City of Santa Clara. “2010-2035 General Plan. Celebrating our Past, Present, and Future.” Adopted November 1 6, 2010, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning- division/general-plan.
Garcia, Lorie, Beyond Buildings. DPR Form, 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050 . February 15, 2022.
Google Earth.
G
oogle Maps.
Historical Aerials by NETR Online, https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Park, Sharon C. “Preservation Brief 47: Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings.” Technical Preservation Services. National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, June 2007. https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/47-mai ntaining-exteriors.htm.
Tom Halaszynski, Robson Homes. Condition Assessment and Treatment Plan, 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050. May 5, 2023.
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (Washington, D.C., 2017).
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review Pr
oject No: HP0932.2202.00
May 8, 2023
treanorhl.com 18
APPENDIX
Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings,
1365 Main Street DPR Form, February 15, 2022
SCDC Architecture Interior Design, 1365 Main Street and 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara, CA Tom Halaszynski, Robson Homes, Condition Assessment and Treatment Plan, 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050, May 5, 2023
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Other Listings
Review Code
NRHP Status Gode
Reviewer Date
Pl. Other ldentifier: 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara. CA. *P2. Location: tr Not for Publication I Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara.tand (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5'Ouad SAalqSe l4&Ct Date 1980 photo revised T 7S; R 1W; unsectioned ; Mt. Diablo B.M. c. Address 1365 Main Streel City Santa Clara Zip 95050
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone _, _ mE/ e. Other Locational Data: (e.9., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Assessor's Parcel Number: 269-05-082
Easf srde of Main Street between Harrison and Lewis Slreefs "P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. lnclude design, materials, condition. alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) 1365 Main Sfreef rs located in the urban setting of an unusual block of houses that was primarily developed in the early 1890s and the first quarter of the twentieth century. Divided in half by an alley, which runs easf fo west through the middle of it, the southern portion of the block was developed from 1891 to the mid-1890s. Known as the Harrison Street Block, the block's southern poftion consisfs of a group of seven homes of one-and-one-half to three story vafiations of the architectural styles popular during this period, with similar sefbacks from the street and urban sized front yards. With the exception of a house constructed in the 1860s, development of the block's northern portion began after 191 0. Due to the differing periods of development, the lots on the block have varying widths and (Continued on page 2,form 523L)
*P3b. Resource Attrjbutes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 Single - Family Property *P4.Resources Present: I auitOing Estructure floOlect Dsite EOistrict EElement of District EOther (lsolates, etc.) mN
ired for buildi *Psb. Description of Photo: (view. date, accession #)
Front faQade (view toward ENE) Photo No:
100_2893, 12J2021
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
ft Historic E Prehistoric E eoth
191 1-1912
Assessor's Records, City Directories, Newspaper
Articles, Sanborn Maps-
*P7. Owner and Address:
Pear Street Investment, LLC.
21 85 The Alameda #1 50
SanJose, C494012
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)
Loie Garcia
Beyond Buildings
P.O. Box 121
Santa Clara, California 95052
*P9. Date Recorded: February 15,2022
*P10. Survey Type: (Describel tntensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historic Resources lnventory Form " Multiple propefty; 1346, 1356, 1357. 1365, 1386, 1407, 1436, 1460 Main St." dated December28, 1980. *Attachments: trNONE I Location Map I Continuation Sheet ft eultalng, Structure, and Oblect Record_EArchaeological Record EDistrict Record ELinearFeatureRecord trMillingStationRecord trRockArtRecord DArtifactRecord DPhotographRecord DOther(List):
DPR 5234 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by:
26 Lorie Garcia
*Resoutce Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Date 0211512022
Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House
I Continuation I Update
(Continued from page 1, Form 5234, P3a. Description)
depths, ranging from those on the southern half being mostly 41'wide and 140'deep, to those on the block's northern half, which range from 40'to B0'wide with depths that range from 60'to 152.70'deep. Like the surrounding blocks, the streetscape is a pleasant one which evokes thd sense of an early Santa Clara neighborhood.
Originally the subject home was situated on a large 14,386 sq. ft. parcel that was divided into two lots in 1994, so that today it is located on the 9,587 sq. ft., L-shaped lot, which resulted from this division. This lot has one home facing Main Street (1365 Main) and a second home fronting on Lewis Street (1070 Lewis). The subject home at 1365 Main Street fronts roughly west onto Main Street and rs sef towards the front of a 54' x138.33', 7,469.82 sq. ft., pottion of the L-shaped lot. lt is sef back from the street enough to allow for a modest cultivated lawn and narrow brick-edged planting beds with ornamental shrubbery. On the north side of the property, a wide concrete driveway leads to a detached garage. A wide, south side-yard with a brick-paver walkway adjacent to the house and fruit trees and plantings fills the space between the house and the south propefty line. A short, wide, straight, concrete walkway, leads from the Main Sfreel sldewalk to the front (main) entry. Concrete walkways branch off from this walkway with one leading to the driveway and the other to a gate that leads into the south side-yard. This gate is built into a high wood fence that runs from the front corner of the house to a fence on the south properly line and secures access to the home's south side and rear yard. A wrought-iron, gated, fence with a sliding wrought-iron gafe across the driveway, adjacent to the Main Sfreet srdewalk, secures access to the front, north side and rear of the property. A neatly trimmed hedge set between the fence and the sidewalk softens the severity of the fence.
To the rear of the house and reached by the straight driveway from Main Slreel rs the detached, street-facing, rectangular, gabled roof, wood-framed garage, sheathed in wide, horizontal wood siding. /t ls sef near the rear of the house, adjacent to the north property line.
Thegarageappearstohavebeenconstructedca. 1911-l2andisindeterioratedcondition. Asecondlargegarage,whichopensonto Lewis Street, originally constructed pre-1930 for 1365 Main Street is currently used for 1075 Lewis Street.
The rear of the propefty is deep with a concrete patio adjacent to the house and a wide, concrete walkway that extends from it and leads to a small accesso4/ dwelling unit that abuts the south properly line. Fruit trees, vegetable and flower beds with connecting dirt paths fill most of the rear yard space. As the subject home is on an L-shaped lot that has two houses with no division between the open areathat comprlses their rearyards, the rearyard spaceforthe subject house at 1365 Main Sfreetis indistinguishablefromthatof the house that fronts on Lewis Sfreef. And. as fhls is
an L-shaped lot with two existing houses on it,
fencing is unusual- A high wood fence runs along
the south property line and connects with a similar
fence, which continues along the east property line
past the Lewis Street house to a point where it
connects to a lower wrought-iron fence that then
runs to Lewis Street. Similarly, a porlion of the L-
shaped lot's west and north property lines are
bordered by a high wood fence, which then
connects to lower wrought-iron fencing.
Originally the mirror image of the neighboring
house at 1357 Main Street, the primary building on
the site is a 1,375 sq. ft., one-story house
constructed in 1911-1912 and designed as a
Craftsman Bungalow in a vernacular version of the
Craftsman architectural sfyle's cross-gabled roof
subtype. The plan of this wooden, single-family
residence is squared, set over a partial basement,
(Continued on page 3, Form 523L)
Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #)
(Camera pointing E) Notth side-elevation and partial front fagade. Photo No: 1 00_2894; 1 2/31/2021.
DPR 5231 (1/ss) *Required information
State of California * The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by:
26 Lorie Garcia
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Date 0211512022
Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House
ft Continuation I Update
(Continued from page 2, Form 523L)
which slightly elevates the living area above the ground- lt is distinguished by a prominent side-facing (nofth-south) low-pitched, gabled roof punctuated by a subordinate front-facing gabled roof that projects from its west s/ope. As is characteristic of this architectural style, it has a moderatety wide, unenclosed eave overhang. Both the front-facing and side-facing gabte's rake eaves are suppofted by knee braces and trimmed with unusual and decorative verge boards (original). The verge boards are multiJayered with a space before a small, final board. The knee braces project through fhis space with a notch near the end that rests upon the board. (The low-pitched gabled roof, verge boards and knee braces are character-defining features of the Craftsman architectural style.) On the front, as paft of alterations made in the 1960s, which included a new interior front room, a poftion of the west face of the side- facing gabled roof has been altered to form a shed roof across the extended portion of the house and the new front porch, truncating the inner corner of the original front-facing gable. Suppofted at each end by knee braces and trimmed with the same decorative verge boards that appear on the original house, the shed roof has unenclosed eaves and exposed roof rafters. ln the rear, a shed roof that projects from the east face of the side-facing gabled roof, covers a 1940s extension that projects from a poftion of the home's rear- elevation- Neither shed roof is original. Composition shingles sheathe the various roof forms Sfucco, which was applied in the 1960s over the home's original wide, horizontal, wood siding, sheathes the body of the house. A small, paftially recessed front porch (not original) ls sef in the middle of the front faEade. A narrow, tall, hoizontal, opening in the porch'sopenend,admitslightintotheporch. Low,wooden stoopsare settoeithersideof the sfepsandatthetopof eithersideof the entry stairs, plinths provide a decorative element. Another decorative element is found in the wide board, supported by small corbels, which trims the top of the of the porch opening.
The principal entrance is on the front (west) fagade. Offset on the porch, it faces Main Street and ls accessed by 3 wooden steps, which lead to a wood porch from the concrete walkway that connects to the Main Street sidewalk. This entrance has wide wooden trim with a plain narrow edging that surrounds the entry door. The wooden door (original) has multiple g/ass panes, typical of the Craftsman Bungalows found locally. A secondary entry set into the original rear (east) fagade, adjacent to the drivewa% is accessed by 3 concrete stairs leading to a wide concrete landing. A wrought-iron railing ls sef on the outside of the stairs. The entrance is framed with narrow wood trim. The wooden door has a design of two small square panels on top with fwo sefs of two horizontally orientated panels below.
The entry appears original; however, the door is a replacement.
Another secondary entry set into the rear of the 1940s addition on the rear (east) fagade, ls accessed by 3 concrete stairs leading to a narrow concrete landing. Wrought-iron railings edge the stairs and landing. The wooden door has a large glass pane in the top half set over a wood panel in the lower. (This entry and door appear original to the 1940s addition but not to the original 191 1-1912 house.) A unusual aluminum overhang (not original) she/fers the entry below. Both rear entry doors are sef flush with the house. Sef at ground level, adjacent to the addition's rear entry, a pair of hinged doors, comprised of wood boards that open in the middle, provide access fo fhe sfeps that lead into the basement.
Other character-defining features of this home include its windows, which are mainly typical Craftsman style with two or more windows often grouped together, casement or double-hung windows and simple window surrounds. Fenestration on the front fagade consists of a ribbon of three (3) casement windows (original) set in the wall under the front-facing gable. The casement windows are narrow, veftically orientated and wood-framed, each having 10 panes separated by muntins. They have a surround consisting of wide wood boards edged with a plain narrow trim and projecting sills. Set rnfo the opposite slde is a ribbon of four (4) casement windows. These also are narrow, vertically orientated and wood-framed however, these each have B panes separated by muntins. (Ihese casement windows date to the 1960s alteration to the house.)
Those on the north side-elevation are all original and display a mix of Craftsman style windows. On the north side-elevation, closest to the front, is a ribbon of four (4) casement windows, identical to three found on the original front fagade. ln the middle is a pair of small one-over-one, vertically orientated double-hung windows. Grouped together towards the rear are three (3) medium-sized one-over- one, veftically orientated double-hung windows. All have surrounds consisting of wide wood boards edged with a plain narrow trim and projecting sills. On the south side-elevation, closest to the front, is a ribbon of four (4) casement windows. They are narrow, vertically orientated and wood-framed and each have B panes separated by muntins. They have a projecting sill but no surround. (These casement windows date to the 1960s alteration to the house.) Going towards the rear is a ribbon of three (3) medium-sized four-over- (Continued on page 4, Form 523L
DPR 5231 (1/95) +Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House *Date 0211512022 ft Continuation ft Update
(Continued from page 3, Form 523L)
one, vertically orientated double-hung windows, followed by a pair of identical windows. All have projecting sills and surrounds consisting of wide wood boards edged with a plain narrow trim. (Both sefs are original.). C/osesf to the rear is a single medium-sized one-over-one, dduble-hung window. It has a projecting sitt and is surrounded with narrow back-banded trim. (This window appears to date to the 1940s rear addition.)
Fenestration of the home's rear fagade consisfs of an aluminum-framed sliding window with no trim set into the wall on either side of the rear entry into the 1940s rear addition. (These are not oiginal.) Sef a/ basement level, three (3) small wood-framed original windows, one on the north side-elevation and two on the south side- elevation, allow light into the basement. Like the original windows of the house, they are surrounded by wide wood boards edged with a plain narrow trim. Smaller sized openings with no trim, set around the perimeter of the foundation, allow for basement ventilation.
With the exception of the alterations made in the 1940s and 1960s, prior to its addition to the City of Santa Clara's Architecturally or Historically Significant property list in 1980, the residence at 1365 Main Street appears to have had little external change since the time of its construction in 191 1-1 91 2. lt has been well maintained and is in good condition.
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
of California C The Resources Agency Primary #
,ARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*NRHP Status Code N/A
81. Historic Name: None
B.2. Common Name: None
83. Original lJse: Sinqle familv residential 84. Present Use: Srng/e family residential *85. Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow*86. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The residence was constructed in 191 1 -1 2. 1 940s - Rear addition with new rear entry constructed. 7 960s - Front faEade altered. This included the creation of a new interior front room by enclosure of the original front porch and construction the new room in front of it; removal of the original catement windows and their re- installation in the front and south side-elevations of new room; creation of new shed roof over new space; construction of new front entry porch.
*87. Moved? E tlo I Yes I Unknown Date: _ Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
Small garage,constructedcal9ll-l2,relocatedtonorthpropertylineca. l933. Largegarageatrearpropertyline(currentlyusedforl0T0 Lewis Street), constructed late 1920s.
B9a. Architect: Not known b. Builder: Not known
*B10. Significance: Theme Architecture and Shelter Area Santa Clara Old Quad Period of Significance 1926-2020 Property lype Residential Applicable Griteria none (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The parcel located at 1037 Harrison Street ls a portion of a largdr parcel that had originally been identified as Block 4 Notlh, Range 1 West of the original survey of the City of Santa Clara. This survey was done July 1866 by J.J. Bowen and recorded on August 22 of thatsame year. (lt ls fhls suruey that forms the basis for the part of Santa Clara known as the "Old Quad.") This block framed by Harrison, Washington, Lewis and Main Sfreefs had not been subdivided in 1866 and Lot 1 encompassed the entire block. According to the list of property owners and their improvements, which accompanied the 1 866 survey, this was a 93177 sq. ft. tract, which contained 4 frame houses whose exact locations are unknown. The owner of both this block and the block immediately to the north was shown to be James Harris. Originally from Scotland, he had arrived in Santa Clara prior to 1852. Harris, a blacksmith, is shown on the 1868 Poll List for Santa Clara as having his residence on the subject block "near the comer of Lewis and Main." When The Plat of Santa Clara was drawn in the period between 1873 and 1875, it showed no change in the configuration of the block (Continued on page 6, Form 523L)
B'11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 - Single Family Propefty *812. References: Garcia, Lorie, "Santa Clara: From Mission to Municipality," 1997: Foote, H.5., "Pen Pictures Fromthe Garden of the World," 1888; Lick, Sue Fagalde, "Storles Grandma Never Told: Portuguese Women in California," 1998; Map of the Town of Santa Clara, drawn by C. E. Moore, 1893; McAlester, Virginia & Lee, "A Field Guide to American Houses," 1991: Polk and Husted City Directories,1910 -1979; San Jose Mercury Herald, 11/ 23/1916, 05/10/1921,09/06/1921,09/13/1937; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1891,1901,1915, 1930, 1950; San Jose Mercury Herald,06/1 5/1917,03/20/1926, 1 1/17/1939, 01/04/1946; San Jose Mercury-News, 08/03/1952, 03/15/1953; San Jose News, 03/09/1960; Sanfa Clara Weekly, 06/28/2017; The Evening News, 06/03/1893, 01/13/1941, 01/26/1956; United States Census: 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940; Wagner, Julie [Freitas] and Christina, Communication, January & February, 2022.
813. Remarks:
*814. Evaluator: Lorie Garcia
*Date of Evaluation: February 15, 2022
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 5238 (1/95)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
8.4 N.R. tW.
cJlfi'^|-i : I
- _.,10-e_,___.d al u I lo tl
82 PCL. t
- o.2! le
w !2
4 =
_j_ _'_HARRtsoN-- __1,
I
a
t2
I
i11t-
14'l
iroirs
€ i5
I
#i 17
!
I
7 !9
-Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022
Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House
fi Continuation fi Update*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
(Continued from page 5, Form 5238, B10. Significance)
that had been surveyed nine years earlier. However, by then the block was owned by Samuel A. Bishop, who like James Harris had arrived in California during the Gold Rush. Born on September 2, 1 825 in Albemarle County, Virginia, in 1848, he crossed the plains by ox-cart along the Santa Fe Trail, arriving in Los Angeles in Qctober 1849. He spent two years mining in the Mariposa mines, then became an lndian trader along the Fresno River, eventually being in charge of all the Indians in the area. He then purchased the great Castro grant and became responsible for the establishment of Kern County, where he became one of its first County Supervisors. ln 1867, S. A. Bishop resigned that office and moved fo San Jose.
Here, among his many entrepreneurial activities, he invested in the purchase of several large tracts of land, started the street railway sysfem where he acted as "President" of the San Jose and Santa Clara Horse Railroad, and among his many other business lnferesls was Vice-President of the San Jose Savrngs Bank and President of the San Jose Homestead Association. By 1873, he had purchased the subject block from James Harris and the end of the 1880s, while keeping ownership of the nofth half of Block 4 North, Range 1 West, Samuel A. Bishop sold the south half of the block to Hervey Morgan Leonard. When Bishop unexpectedly passed away on June 3, 1893, he still owned the north half of the block, which is where 1365 Main Street would later be constructed, and it was included in his 9100,000 estate, which went into probate. Probate became complicated due to the fact that in 1890 he divorced his first wife, Francis on grounds that she had deserted him, and married his second wife, Elizabeth, to whom he had willed his estate. Although Francis had received a fair divorce settlement and married again, she sued the estate on 'failure to provide." lt wouldn't be until 1902 that the esfafe was finally settled.
Among the properties in S. A. Blshop's estate, which were now sold, was the large 21 ,129.90 sq. ft. lot at the SE corner of Lewis and Main Street, north of the alley that divided the block. lt was acquired by Isaac Newton Thompson. Born in lndiana around 1824, L N.
Thompson had come to California in 1849 with his wife, Anna and by 1850 had settled in Santa Clara. By 1852, when the Town of Santa Clara was incorporated, he had already started acquiring what would soon be large landholdings adjacent to the town and started raising a family-
During the following decade he invested in Quito Rancho land and propefty in the neighboring community of Meridian. As delineated in the 1876 Thompson and West, Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, by then /saac N. Thompson owned the 355.03-acre Bennett Bennet Tract. This large land holding was Tract II of Mary Bennett's 2 land grants, Iying west of the road to Saratoga, and following her death in early 1869, he had purchased it from her heirs. The October 1869 Poll List for the Santa Clara Precincf, shouzs that by now he is tiving on this land. As shown on the 1866 List of property owners that accompanied the first official Town Suruey, he also purchased small parcels within the Town limits. The Suruey lists him as the owner of the 11,547 sq. ft. Lot 1 and also the 25,291 sq. ft. Lot 3 of Block 5 North, Range 1 West, the block immediately norlh of the subject block. Described as a "Farmer" and also as a "Capitalist," on the 1870 Census, rt shows tha tby then he had become a wealthy man with the value of his Real Estate listed as $29,000 and that of his Person Estate shown to be $30,410.
ln the earty 1 870s, his wife, Anna, passed away following the bfulh of their 6th and 7th children (twins) and in 1 874 he married his second wife, Emily A. C., who had been born in 1839 in lllinois and arrived in Santa Clara in 1862. lsaac N. Thompson continued to participate in the purchase and sale of land and also in its development. He invested in that portion of what was at that time called the Saratoga and Santa Cruz toll road lying within Santa Clara County and in 1BB0 sold it to the County. Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, he continued to be a land speculator. By the turn of the Century, he and Emily resided in a house at 1085 Clay Street on a lot he owned at the NE corner of Clay and Main Streets. When he passed away at age 90, on August 5, 1 91 3, /saac N. and Emily A. C. Thompson were living in the recently constructed house, located at 1365 Main Street, on the property he had purchased from Samuel A Bishop's estate. (Note: this house and the one next door at 1357 Main Street, which is its mirror image, had to have been built between 191 1 and 1912, as the address does not appear on the 1910 Census but the 1913 City directory, which came out in January, lists Emily as already living at 1365 Main Street.)
Following l. N. Thompson's death, Emily A C. Thompson continued to live in the subject residence at 1365 Main Street until 1918, when she moved in with her daughter, at 1321 Bellomy Sfreef. (She was living here when she passed away in 1928.) ln 1919, the home at 1365 Main Sfreef was sold to George W. Lyle.
Born in 1BB5 in Missouri, George W. Lyle had grown up in Santa Clara, where as a young man he staried work as a constable. ln 1910 (Continued on page 7, Form 523L)
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022
Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House
ft Continuation ft Update*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
(Continued from page 6, Form 523L)
he married Ora Van Curran. ln 1918, he was elected the Sherriff of Santa Clara County, the position he held when the following year he purchased the subject home at 1365 Main Street. Thitiy-four-year-old George moved into the home with Ora and their two sons, George, age 7 and 2 % year-old Robert. By 1925, George W. Lyle had left this house and moved into the new home he had purchased at 1543 Franklin Street. Manuel Souza, a grocer on Franklin Street, and his wife, Amelia, were now living the subject residence and Joseph and Nora Souza lived next door at 1357 Main Street. ln 1926 Manuel Freitas purchased 1365 Main Street and moved into it with his family. At the same time, his brother, Louis Freitas, purchased 1357 Main Street, next door to Manuel.
After heaing stories of the vast opportunities available in America, and with prospecfs limited in their homelands due to economic and political factors, in the late 1800s many young Portuguese started immigrating to the United S/a/es- The United States Bureau of lmmigration reports that while between 1891 and 1900, 508 Portuguese Immigrants arrived, with 69149 in the period from 1901-1910 and 108,927 from 191 1-1920. While some came from the mainland of Portugal, the majority of these families were from the Azores /s/ands along with many from Madeira and the Cape Verde /s/ands. Those who arrived in Santa Clara, mainly seff/ed in the areas already inhabited by other original Portuguese immigrants, where they could be paft of a very close-knit community. The 1910 and 1920 Census show that during this decade an oventrrhelming number of people native to Portugal, along with immigrant families from Spain, settled in the blocks adjacent to the one where 1365 Main Street is located. Here, almost all of them owned their own homes and here their children were born and grew to maturity. The family of Manuel Freitas was among these immigrant Portuguese families who arrived in Santa Clara during the first two decades of the Twentieth Century.
Manuel Freitas was born around 1880 in Santa Cruz, a small town that is north-west of Madeira's capital, Funchal. ln 1909, Ieaving behind his wife, Rosa, he immigrated to America, sailing on fhe SS Gallia from Madeira and arriving in the Port of New York on March 30th of that year. On November 4, 1908, Manuel had married Rosa [Affonso] in Santo Antonio da Serra, Madeira, her hometown, and when Manuel teft, she was pregnant. Their first child, Manuel, Jr., was born in Santa Cruz five months later on August 1"t, and Rosa would remain in Portugal with him, until Manuel had gotten settled in Santa Clara. After Manuel arrived in New York, he traveled by train to Santa Clara and upon his arrival here, Manuel Freitas moved in with his older brother, John, and John's family in their house at 1686 Lafayette Sfreef. John had arrived 1904, from Portugal via Hawaii where he had married his wife, Mary, who had been born there in 1892 to Portuguese immigrant parents. Here in Santa Clara, John had become employed as a lamplighter on the Railroad and while living with John, Manuel Freitas also got a job on the Railroad. In 1913, Manuel and John Freitas were joined by their 17-year-old brother, Louis, when he arrived from Portugal. Louis went to work as a tanner in the Eberhard Tannery.
In 1916, Rosa and their son, Manuel, Jr., immigrated to America, entering at Boston, Massachusetts, after leaving from the Azores to which they had traveled from Madeira. After a stay with relatives in the Boston area for about 1 month, they came to Santa Clara and joined Manuel. Manuel Freitas had bought some land on Jackson Street and here, with the aid of members of Santa Clara's Portuguese community he built his own house at 1569 Jackson Street. On June 29, 1917, Manuel and Rosa's second child, a daughter Lorraine, was born and in 1918, a second son, Albert. Tragically Albert died that year from the "Spanish Flu" pandemic that was sweeping across the country. On July 9, 1920, Manuel and Rosa had their foutlh child, a son they named Louis after Manuel's brother, Louis Freitas. Also, by 1920 Louis Freitas, who now was working as a laborer on a farm, had married Mary Mattias who had arrived from Poftugal with her family in 1906 and Louis, Mary and, her mother, her two sisfers and her brother were living in a house he rented at 1067 Lerazis Sfreef. Ihousands of miles from their homeland, the three Freitas brother were once again living in close proximity to each other, now with their own families in Santa Clara, California. ln 1926, Manuel and Rose Freitas and their youngest children, Lorraine and Louis, moved from their home on Jackson Street into the house at 1365 Main Street, which he had recently purchased. (Note: the 1930 Census shows that at that time was valued at $3,000.) When the family moved to 1365 Main Street, their oldest son, Manuel, Jr. was not with them. He had recently enlisted in the U. S.
Navy, in which he would serve until he was honorably discharged four years later. The Freitas' new home was located on the large parcel of land that began at the SE corner of Main and Lewis Sfreels and then went east for almost 140 feet on Lewis and south for 104 feet on Main Street. This gave the family plenty of room in which they, like so many of their fellow immigrant neighbors, could raise chickens and have a large garden in which to grow fruits and vegetables, both for eating and canning- For several years, Manuel had been employed picking fruit on a fruit farm and now, following the move, Rosa a/so went to work. For these hard-working people, it has been stated that "it was essential that everyone contribute to the family's survival." For the women in (Continued on page B, Form 523L)
DPR 5231(1/95) xRequired information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
xRecorded by:
26 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Manuel and Lorraine Freitas House xDate 0211512022 [ Continuation I UpdateLorie Garcia
(Continued from page 7, Form 523L)
Madeira and the Azores work centered around the home, in the house or on the farm. The immigrant PorTuguese women found life different in American where, although they still had to do most of the jobs at home and spoke limited English if any at all, they found they could also lake jobs outside their home and earn money for the first time in their lives. In Santa Clara, the agicultural-related busrnesses were the economic engine behind Santa Clara's growth and prosperity and while many of the men labored on the fruit farms, the great majority of the Portuguese women found work in the canneries and packing houses to provide extra income for their families; often joined by their sons and daughters as soon as they were old enough. When during the 1920s when Rosa Freitas went to work, it was at the Pratt Lowe Preseruing Company, a fruit cannery and, as Josephine Freitas would later relate, in 1926, the summer she turned nine, she earned "$100 at her first job by 'cutting cots' (apricots) for drying at the California Packing Corporation" in Santa Clara.
ln order to help each other, raise money for the church and to socialize, in their new country the Portuguese immigrants banded together and founded the Portuguese Lodges. From their slarf as service organizations these organizations played a very important role in the lives, a role they continue today as they stiil bring the community together and preserve the Poftuguese culture. Both Manuel and Rosa Freitas were active participants in the local Portuguese lodges.
Manue! Freitas and his brother, Louis were officials in the Santa Ctara Councitof the Associagao Protectora da Unido Madeirense do Estado California (APUMEC), a group dominated by lmmigrants from Madeira, which met at their hall on Grant Street (today's The Alameda)) between Benton and Fremont Sfreefs- As in every organization maybe three good workers did all the work, and as Lorraine, who later joined when they let women in, would later recall, "Members would give people rides to the meetings, set up tables and clean up afterward. When the APUMEC was strictly man's organization, they would come to her father Manuel's house, tell her mother they wanted to her (Rosa) to do the cooking, then ask Lorraine to help serve the food... She and her mother would work hard hauling big pans of meat and bread from there fo lhe SES hall ... You couldn't say no. There was no such word as 'no' to them." The Portuguese women also had their women's lodges, of which fhe SPRSI was one of the biggest. Their patron is Saint Isabel and they sponsor civic and social activities along with donating money and goods to the poor. Rosa Freitas belonged lo SPRSI Council 15, Our Lady of Fatima and the Sociedade Espiritu Santo (SES). Lorraine followed in her mother's foofsfeps and also became a member ofSPRS| andintheearlyl9S0s,becamePresidentof Council 15. lnl952shewasinstalledasamemberof theStateBoardof Grand Directors of this lodge.
ln the early 1930s, Manuel Freitas had another house built on his property; 1070 Lewis Street. By 1935, this house was being rented to Vincent Mirrione, a railroad clerk, and his wife for $2)/month, providing rental income to the family. The 1940 Census shows that Manuel Freitas, now 60, was still working on a fruit farm but now Rosa was at home- Lorraine, who had attended St. Clare Elementary school in Santa Clara and graduated from Notre Dame High School in San Jose was seeking work and Louis, one of their star football players, would graduate from Santa Clara High School that year. ln January 1941 , Manuel Freitas entered into a new line of business, fhaf of owner of a "tavern and restaurant." However, as Manuel had not been naturalized and become a citizen, his daughter Lorraine had to apply to the State Board of Equalization as the owner, for the liquor license to sell beer and wine on the premises. Known as Freitas Villa, the lounge was located at 1024 Main Street, near the corner of Main and Franklin Sfreefs, only 3 blocks from the family home at 1365 Main Street. (Note: Freitas Villa was later renamed the Cypress Lounge and would be in business until 1967, when the family had to deal with the Redevelopment Agency that would force it to close, prior to the demolition of Santa Clara's downtown.) In 1941 when the United Sates entered WWII, and until 1946, Manuel, Jr. would once again serue in the military and this time, so did his younger brother, Louis. Now, of their three children only Lorraine Freitas still lived at 1365 Main Street with their parents. ln 1943, Manuel Freitas finally became a United States citizen and the naturalization paperwork sfafes hls occupation as a bartender and janitor.
By 1950, Manuel Jr., was married and lived in a home at 1822 De La Pena Avenue in Santa Clara. Louis also, no longer lived with his parents however, Lorraine Freitas was still living in the family home with Manuel and Rosa at 1365 Main Street. By then she had started her working career, which would go to include 23 years as an office manager for Simoni's Furniture store in downtown San Jose and 17 years in accounting for FMC Corporation, until she finally retired in 1984 when she was 67 years old. ln January 1956, 67-year-old Rosa Freitas died and her obituary referred the fact that she had been born in Madeira and also described (Continued on page 9, Form 523L)
DPR 5231 (1/95) "Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
26 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Manuel and Lorraine Freitas House *Date 0211512022 [ Continuation I Update
(Continued from page 8, Form 523L)
hermembershipinthePortugueseLodges. Fouryearslater,onMarchT, 1960,Manuel Freitaspassedawayandhisobituarypointed out that at the time of his death, he been living with his daughter, Lorraine and had lived in Santa Clara for 50 years. Her father's death left his daughtefi, Lorraine, as the only member of the Freitas family still living at 1365 Main Street. The land was left to the three Freitas children (Manuel Jr 1/3, Lorraine 1/3 and Louis 1/3). Then, due to trading other property with Manuel Jr., ownership of the 1365 Main Street property changed to Lorraine Freitas owning 2/3 and her brother, Louis, 1/3 of the property. Lorraine's share included the Freitas home at 1365 Main Street.
When Louis Freitas passed away in July 1965, ownership of the property once again changed. Lorraine still was the owner of her 2/3 portion however, Louis' 1/3 went to his widow, Dorothy. Around 1980, Dorothy Freitas Pickett (she was now remarried) changed her 1/3 ownership to her and Louis' daughter, Julie [Freitas] Wagner. So now, while Lorraine still had ownership of her original A3 of the propefty, her niece, Julie, owned the remaining 1/3. ln 1994, the original parcel purchased by Manuel Freitas in 1926 was subdivided into 2 parcels. One of the new /ofs was an L-shaped portion with 38.33 feet fronting on Lewis Street where the house at 1070 Lewis exisfs and 54 feet fronting on Main Street where the Freitas home at 1365 Main Street ls located. The 2nd parcel was a 50' x 100' lot on the SE corner of Maine and Lewis Sfreefs and here a new house (1074 Lewis Sfreet) was constructed.
Lorraine Freitas never married and was stilt tiving alone in her family home when she reached the age of one hundred years old on June 29, 2017. Involved ln Sf. Clare Parish and many charitable organizations, by the time of her birthday this extremely active woman had that year already knit and crocheted 70 se/s of baby blankets and matching hats to donate to new-born infants in the hospital. On June 24th, a surprise birthday party with 100 guesfs was thrown for her af lhe SES hall in Santa Clara, where the Mayor of Santa Clara presented her with a City Proclamation and Lorraine shared stories of her memories of when the sfreefs of Santa Clara weren't paved and the valley was calldd the "Valley of Heart's Delight." On September 1, 2020 when she was 103, Lorraine Freitas passed away and, after stating that she had been "born on June 29th, 1917, in Santa Clara, California, her obituary specified that "she passed away peacefully in her childhood home," the home her family had owned and she had lived in for 94 years.
The following year, on August 9, 2021 , the L-shaped portion of the original propefty that had been bought by Manuel Freitas in 1926 and where the Freitas home at 1365 Main Sfree/ rs located, was sold to Pear Street lnvestment, LLC. The corner portion with the new house at 1074 Lewis Streef ls still in the family, currently owned by Manuel Freitas' granddaughter Julie [Feitas] Wagner and her husband, Steve, and his great granddaughter Christina and her husband, Michael Nolan.
Historic Evaluation
ln order to be considered historically or culturally significant, a property must satisfy certain requirements. lt must be 50 years old or older (except in cases of exceptional significance); it must retain historic integrity; it must meet one or more of the National Register of Historic Places criteria for significance, and/or the California Register of Historic Resources criteria for significance, and/or the criteria for listing in a local historic resource inventory.
Age Requirement.
Constructed 1 n 1 912-1 91 3, the subject residence at 1 365 Main Street is over 50 years old and thus meets the age requirement.
I ntegrity Requirement.
lntegrity refers to a property's ability to convey its significance. Slgnificance is conveyed by the retention of a resource's visual and physical characteristics and its surroundings. The National Register of Historic Places criteria recognize seven aspects to integrity. (Continued on page 10, Form 523L)
"Required informationDPR 5231 (1/95)
State of Galifornia - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
26 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House I Continuation I Upaate*Date 0211512022
(Continued from page 9, Form 523L)
These are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several and usually most of these aspects. Both the California Register of Historic Resources and the City of Santa Clara Criteria for LocallSignificance follow the National Register integrity criteria.
While the architectural integrity of the original structure was diminished by alterations made in the 1960s, fhis was pior to its addition to the City of Santa Clara's Arehitecturally or Historically Significant property list in 1980. Most of the visual and character defining features of the historic building have been preserued and retained and the residence at 1365 Main Street retains its original location.
The historical use of the building has not changed, it remains a single-family home and the property is well maintained. The subject property is set within a historic residential setting in the area of Santa Clara known as the "OId Quad," and, while the immediate streetscape has slightly been compromised by new development, the surroundings retain many of the qualities that reflect the period in which the house was constructed.
The subject properly retains enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as a historic property and to convey the reason for its significance (integrity).
National Reqister of Historic Places Criteria.
There are not any eyenfs associated with the residence at 1365 Main Street which have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history or cultural heritage. lt would therefore appear that the building would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places based on Criterion A (associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history). The building has had four owners over the 110 years of its existence and none appear to reach the level of significant influence required under Criterion B to be considered eligible for the National Register. Neither do any of the other occupants appear to be significant to the history of the region, Nation or State of California. It would therefore appear that the building at 1365 Main Street would not be eligible for the National Reglster based on Criterion B (assoclafed with the lives of persons significant in our past).
Although remodeled 60 years ago, several of the charactendefining features of its original circa 1912-13 construction as a Craftsman Bungalow in the cross-gabled roof subtype of the Craftsman architectural style remain, such as its squared plan, broadly pitched cross- gabled roof with its wide eave overhang, knee braces under the gables and original windows, and thus under National Register Criterion C the residence at 1365 Main Street could be considered to "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction" and "represent[s] a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction" and due to its proximity to other historically significant homes in the area, it does contribute to a potentially eligible Historic District.
Therefore, it does appear that the building may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C.
California Reqister of Historic Resources Criteria
The Criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Places are consistent with those for listing in the National Register.
However, they have been modified to better reflect the history of California at both a local and State level. Criteion 1 is the California Register equivalent of the National Register Criterion A (events) and California Register Criterion 2, the equivalent of National Register Criterion B (persons). As the property at 1365 Main Streetis assoclafed with the arrival and settlement of immigrants from Madeira and the Azores lslands, Potlugal, to Santa Clara, in the first two decades of the Twentieth Century, a major ethnic group that made significant contributions to the cultural heritage and broad patterns of local history, it does appear to be eligible for the California Regisfer based on Criterion 1. Criterion 3 addresses the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction.
According to McAlester, the Craftsman Architectural style has a low-pitched roof that can either be front-gabled, side-gabled, orcross- gabled with cross-gabled roofs making up one-fourths of Craftsman houses. This style has wide overhanging eaves, usually with exposed rafters, decorative brackets (knee braces) under the rake eaves and a front or corner porch with columns that suppott the porch roof. /fs doors and windows are similar lo fhose used in vernacular Prairie houses, with two or more windows often grouped together in one assembly. The Craftsman Bungalow version of this style typically is characterized by being a one-story house with one ormore broadly pitched gables. McAlester a/so sfafes thatthe Craftsman style originated in southern California" andthat"thiswasthe dominant style for smaller homers built throughout the country during the period from about 1905 until the early 1920s and that it "rapidly faded from favor after the mid-1920s; relatively few were built after 1 930." (Continued on page 1 1, Form 523L)
*Required informationDPR 5231 (1/95)
State of California - The Besources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Page 'l 1 of
*Recorded by:
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Date 0211512022
Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House
Lorie Garcia
(Continued from page 10, Form 523L)
Although the subject residence was altered in the 1960s when stucco was applied overthe original horizontal wood siding, the front porch enclosed and a small addition added to the rear, many of the character-defining features of its original construction in 191 1 -191 2 as a Craftsman tsungalow, in the cross-gabled subtype of the Craftsman architectural style remain and it appears to reach the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3.
Citv of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Siqnificance
ln 2004, The City of Santa Clara adopted Criteria for Local Siqnificance. Under these criteria, "any building, site, or property in the city that is 50 years old or older and meets certain criteria of architectural, cultural, historical, geographical or archaeological significance is potentially eligible," to be a "Qualified Historic Resource." The evaluator finds that the property meets the following criteria:
Criteria for Historically or Cultural Significance:
To be Historically or culturally significant a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1 . The site, building or property has character, interest, integrity and reflects the heritage a nd cultural development of the city, region, state or nation.
This propefty does have a direct association with the broad patterns of Sanfa Clara history. Located in the area mainly settled by early Portuguese immigrants from Madeira and the Azores /s/ands in the first two decades of the Twentieth Century and lived in for 94 years by members of one these families, this building has interest, integrity and character and reflects Santa Clara's heritage.
3. The property is associated with an important individual or group, who contributed in a significant way to the political, social, and/or cultural life of the community.
Owned for 94 years by people directly related to the early Porluguese immigration from Madeira and the Azores /s/ands to Santa Clara, this building is associated with one of the first immigrant families from Madeira, the Freitas family, who seff/ed in Santa Clara in the early Twentieth Century. They and this hard-working immigrant group not only contributed to the economic life of community but for decades members of this Portuguese community made significant contributions to the town's political, social and cultural life.
5. A building's direct association with broad patterns of local area history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes or social, political, or economlc trends and activities.
As the town's population grew at the turn of the 20th Century, the residential growth necessary to accommodate the influx of working- class families, areas in Santa Clara were newly subdivided into onto smaller /ofs, such as the half block where the subject property is located. One of the first homes built on this half of the block, it was constructed as working-class housrng in an area where, at the time itwasconstructed,Portugueseimmigrantfamiliesweresettling. Overtheensuingyears,thisbuildingprovidedshelterforoneofthese immigrant working-class families and reflects the pattern of this area's development.
The subject property does meet Criteria 1, 3 and 5 for Historically or Cultural Significance of the City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance. However, it does not meet Criteria 2 or 4 for Historically or Cultural Significance.
Criteria for Architectural Significance:
To be architecturally significant a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. The property characterizes an architectural style associated with a particular era and/or ethnic group.
The residence at 1365 Main Street was constructed in 191 1-1912, and designed as a Craftsman Bungalow in a vernacular version of the cross-gabled roof subtype of the Craftsman architectural style. The Craftsman Architectural style has a low-pitched roof that can (Continued on page 12, Form 523L)
26 E Continuation ft Update
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of Galifornia - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
26 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
xDate 0211512022
Manuel and Lorraine Freitas House
fi Continuation ff UpAate
(Continued from page 11, Form 523L)
either be front-gabled, side-gabled, or cross-gabled with cross-gabled roofs making up one-foutihs of Craftsma, houses. This style has wide overhanging eaves, usually with exposed rafters, decorative brackets (knee braces) under the rake eaves and a front or corner porch with columns that support the porch roof. lts doors and windows are similar to those used in vernacular Prairie houses, with two or more windows often grouped together in one assembly. The Craftsman Bungalow version of this style typically is characterized by being a one-story house with one or more broadly pitched gables. The Craftsman style originated in southem California" and is assoclafed with a particular era in that, according to McAlester "this was the dominant style for smaller homers built throughout the country during the period from about 1905 until the early 1920s and it "rapidly faded from favor after the mid-1920s." The subject property does meet Criterion 1 for Architectural Significance of the City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance.
However, it does not meet Criteria for Architectural Significance 2,3, 4,5, 6 or 7.
Griteria for Geographic Significance:
To be geographically significant a propefty must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. A neighborhood, group or unique area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history.
The subject property is located within the area of Santa Clara known as the "Old Quad" neighborhood, an area that reflects the history of the city's development srnce its time as the site of Mission Santa Clara de Asls, The specific portion of the "OId Quad" in which it is located, became an area mainly settled by Portuguese immigrants from Madeira and the Azores /s/ands in the first two decades of the 20th Century. The simp:ls homes constructed on the lots that were being newly created duing that time, Iike the Manuel and Josephine Freitas residence at 1365 Main Street, were the perfect small dwellings to accommodate the influx of these new working-class resldents. These historic residential properties contribute to the historic setting that reflects the neighborhood's role in the broad patterns of Santa Clara's early development.
The subject properly does meet Criterion 1 for Geographic Significance, of the City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance.
However, it does not meet Criteria for Geographic Significance 2,3 or 4.
Criteria for Archaeological Significance:
As the property at 1365 Main Street contains no known or unknown prehistoric or hisioric archaeological resources, it would not be Archaeologically Significant under any of the five of the City of Santa Clara's Criteria for Archaeological Resources. However, should any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources be uncovered in the future, this would be subject to change.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Currently, this property is on The City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties list. ln this update of the December 28, 1980, Historic Resources lnventory for the City of Santa Clara. the evaluator finds that no alterations have been made since the time of its designation as a historically significant home. lt continues to be a nice example of a Craftsman Bungalow designed in a vernacular version of the cross-gabled roof subtype of the Craftsman architectural style and to retain sufficient integrity to qualify as a historic property. Thus, the property at 1 365 Main Street appears to continue to be, based on compliance with the National Register of Historic Places Criteria, the California Register of Historic Resources Criteria and the City of Santa Clara's Local Significance Criteria, eligible for listing on the City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties List. xRequired informationDPR 5231 (1/95)
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022
-ffContinuation
fiUpdate*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
HISTORIC MAPS
&swffit
\ {qr
& {Cr
Sld
I xr.\[&#s
$eilerI\d$ '"f| {*d
ttd! .*fr3Ild
Bq$wltq"'
w
tuKWffiw
w*effiwwwww
LEWIS STREET
N- *-S -
mw&wff
HARRISON STREET
Plat of Santa Clara circa 1873-751866 J.J. Bowen Survey of the Town of Santa Clara \c-
x*9.x.
\\r
\1
ffi vs*CIFr.
rTK Fv {?. ?^r* ',yfr'ade "
Q
\-
TD @
let
w
t
0.'
tV
dJ
.0rV
rztvj
4$
a.$
$
\
4.f
0;
s
.hC-!w
5b{-
I -->
loo-n
k*f
\r
e
HARRISON STREET
,Dec.
1893 C.E. Moore Map of the Town of Santa Clara
DPR 5231(1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
xDate 0211512022 fi Continuation I Update*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
1891 SANBORN MAP
i'
A{\I
i.rl ,
HARRISON STREET
;l '; i
rl
:lTIRIel
I
:{,".-';* ."1
r.:l 11
: --.:ii
ll-t- ''at-1
HARRISON STREET
1915 SANBORN MAP
t4eE
t, .
)ftgd
IE-t
f,
t*rit
t_14
r'lL
f.lr;-
lf.l'r
l
UJE=
KJ
l-rj,
r-rl-2 I
td
J
to$/
HARRISON tJa
1930 SANBORN MAP
fiARRtAOlt
.&
'.t
:.,J
J
n
m
17-.hr.I
he3
r7'7"
fl' lrF sl
lil*
ld-.',
f*L\"a J
k r$t
lrl--tltd
n.-lrc l
tlIrl\l
r4-|]
Lri
ls
t-+',
I
LE-s
q
&JL*l
1rtr
rr'i ;p I
4 w.,
ru
u
rq
'-l l\ trJ
H
DPR 5231(1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022 [ Continuation fi Update
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
1950
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
191s 1930
1365 Main Street
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS 1915 - 1950
LEWIS
HARRISON
1950 Sanborn Fire lnsurance
_ --Ei-;
f/----l-
h o :t
1"_JJ
trt!.rJ
EI
m
l=;1l*l
Jlhfil" In- # 477
q
/
_pIF
ir
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia *Date 0211512022 fi Continuation fi Update
HISTORIC PHOTOS
Photo Coudesv Julie
L - R: Rosa, Louis and Manuel Freitas pictured in front of their home at 1365 Main Street in the early 1940s.
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022 fi Continuation I Update
HISTORIC PHOTOS
LOUIS and LORRAINE FREITAS
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
Lorraine Freitas, August 1952
X,tlUll} FIt[tlTt.'\S
Lr*tls Sants Clnrn
Mt" View, Santa
Clara Meeuln
Evening Contest
Ily .IOlf rY CATff"rrlI tAN'
Sonrc of thc bcsi foolirntl of the
seasolt rvill bs played thie afl"el"
$oon ancl evenill8 irs thrce tcil}ns
titcl f*t' thc San{.a Clarn YnileY
Athlsti.c lcngtre lead bat'Lle in ou[
, in !.he season's finnle.
'I'n'o scniot's stnr.t fon tlrc Fan,
titcrs in thc backf icki, I,nuis
F'r'eita$ and Jac Ganra" rvirile
Sophonrore Slike Garron!, opens
at fultback and Jaclc '\Yat'c at
right half, replacing Lnny Frei.
tils, Lorraine Freitas in her home, crocheting baby blankets, 100 years old. June 2017
San Jose Mercury Herald November 17. 1939
DPR 5231 (1/95) "Required information
State of Galifornia - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022 [l Continuation fi Update
HISTORIC PHOTOS
1365 MAIN STREET
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
i'
ic?
&-
f Lr-g"r'- .l; t;-rr *
-
April12,1979
January 1998
Above: 1998 photo shows Lorraine Freitas standing at the end of the driveway.
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
26 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
*Date 0211512022
Manuel and Lorraine Freitas House
I Continuation fi Update
Additional Photos
LEWIS STREET
f tsos Main Street C 1070 Lewis Street
Above: 2021 Google aerial view of the north section of the block showing the subject property and the adjacent residences. Note the common setbacks from the street and the absence of street trees on this portion of Main St.
Shown to the right is an aerial view showing the
residence at 1365 Main Street in the lower left and 1870 Lewis Street in the upper right and the layout of both
properties on the same L-shaped lot. The large
residence in the upper left is 1074 Lewis Street
constructed in 1994 when the original large square lot
was divided into the L-shaped lot and the lot this house is located on.
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022 I Continuation fi Update*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia Additional Photos
Photo No: 100_2900; View: N side-elevation and garage facade; Photo Date: December 2021: Camera Facinq: Easi
Photo No:100_2905
View: Rear fagade;
Photo Date: November 2021; Camera Facing: WSW
Photo No: 100 2909
View: Rear fagade, view towards street;
Photo Date: December 2021; Camera Facing: WSW
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia *Date 02115t2022 E Continuation I Update Additional Photos - South side-elevation
Photo No: 100_2911
View: Partial S side-elevation & ade: Photo Date: December 2O2'l: Camera Photo No: 100 2915
:WView: 1960s front addition): Photo Date: December 2021: Camera F DPR 5231(1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022 fi Continuation ft Update
Additional Photos - Entries
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
Photo No:100_2930
View: Front entry (Original); Photo Date: December,2021 Camera Facinq: ENE
Photo No: 100 2921
View: Rear entry (believed original); Photo Date: December, 2021 Camera Facino: WSW
Photo No: 100_3005
View: Rear entry - (addition); Photo Date: December,2021 Camera Facinq: W
Photo No: 100_2005
View: Basement entry; Photo Date: December, 2021
Camera Facing: WSW
DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Date 0211512022 I Continuation fi Update
Additional Photos - Eave and Trim Details
*Recorded by: Lqqg Ga4;1q
Photo No: 100_2916
View: S Side Gable, unenclosed eaves and knee braces;
Photo Date: December. 2021: Camera Facinq: NNE
ili
,:':'.11 i
';l'.t.1
Photo No: '100 2897
View: Front Gable; Photo Date: December,2021
Camera Facing: ENE
Left- Photo No: 100 2917
View: Front Porch roof trim; Photo Date: Decembet,2021
Camera Facing: SSE
Right - Photo No: 100_2931
View: Front Porch entry trim & shed roof eaves with exposed rafters; Photo Date: December, 2021
Camera Facinq: SSE
====JG:-
t
L?===$ro',h;ffimlmlw
Photo No: 100 2896; View: Verge board on rake eave (Front); Photo Date: December, 2021
Camera Facinq: ENE
DPR 5231 (1/95) xRequired information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorled by: t-orie Garcia
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Manuel and Lonaine Freitas House *Date 0211512022 I Continuation fi Update
Additional Photos - Windows
Above: Front casement windows (Original) - Photo No:
100_2895; Below: 1960s Addition Front casement windows; Photo No.100 2893; Camera Facing ENE
View: Left - N side-elevation
casement windows (original) -
Photo No: 100 2925.
Below: Photo No. 100 2923; N side-elevation pair of dbl-hung windows.
Photos Date: December, 2021 ; Camera Facing : SSE
Above: Photo No: 1O0 2924
View: S side-elevation ribbon of 3 double-hung windows; Photo Date: December, 2021; Camera Facing: NNW
Above: Photo No: 100_2925; N side-elevation basement
window: Photo Date: December. 2921 : Gamera facino SSE
Left: Photo No: 100_2005
View: S side-elevation pair of dbl-hung
windows (original); Photo Date:
December, 2021; Camera Facing: NNW
Right: Photo No.100 2912; S side-
elevation single double-hung window.
Camera Facing: NNWPhotos Date: December, 2021
DPR 5231 (1/s5) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
xDate 0211512022 I Continuation ft Update
Additional Photos - Garage and Rear Yard
*Recorded by: Lorie Garcia
Photo No: 100_2903
View: Garage - S side-elevation Photo Date: December,2021 Camera Facinq: NNW
Photo No: 100_2901
View: Garage Front; Photo Date: December,2021
Gamera Facinq: ENE
Photo No: 100_2904
View: Rear yard - view toward E property line;
Photo Date: December. 2021: Camera Facino: ENE
$r.f 'l,i t.l,, 'i
tri 1i
Photo No: 100_2902
View: Small accessory dwelling; Photo Date: December, 2021 Camera Facino: E
DPR 5231(1/95) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
*Recorded by:
oI 26
Lorie Garcia
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Manuel and Lorraine Freitas House xDate 0211512022 fi Continuation I Update
Additional Photos - View of Original Exterior Wall and House Cladding (now lnterior Wall) DPR 5231 (1/95) *Required information
1365 MAIN STREET
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND
TREATMENT PLAN
APN 269-05-082
CITY OF SANTA CLARA PROJECT #PLN 21-15422
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA
PRIMARY PROJECT CONTACT:
Tom Halaszynski, Architect
2321 Tice Valley Blvd.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
408-761-2710
[email protected]
May 5, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE 1 METHODOLOGY 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS DEFINITIONS 2 EXISTING CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES AND EVALUATION 2 GENERAL FEATURE CONDITION TO PRESERVE THE RESIDENCE 5
TREATMENT
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 7
REHABILITATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 9 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION 17
APPENDIX
CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN A
DPR FORM, LORI GARCIA, BEYOND BUILDINGS B
SECRETARY OF STANDARDS, COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT, TRENOR HL C
WINDOW SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT, TRENOR HL D
SITE VISIT REPORT, GOUVIS ENGINEERING E
SCDC ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PLANS F
1 PURPOSE
This report has been prepared for the City of Santa Clara Planning to establish the existing conditions and treatment recommendations regarding the main residence at 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050.
The property consists of a .22-acre parcel with two single-family homes, two independent garage structures, and an accessory building. The property will be subdivided. Only the main house at 1365 Main Street is of historical value. The accessory and detached garage structures will be demolished. A garage with an ADU above will be built on the parcel for 1070 Lewis Street. A new single story detached garage will be built at 1365 Main Street.
The main house at 1365 Main Street meets criterion for local significance within the City of Santa Clara being part of the area known as the ‘Old Quad’ neighborhood.
The property is on the City of Santa Clara’s historically significant properties list. It is a nice example of the vernacular Craftsman, cross gable architectural style.
The subject property is owned by Pear Street Investments, the current property consists of one parcels. The historic home will be renovated to maintain its historic character and a new detached garage will be added.
This report includes a conditions assessment and treatment recommendations based on the conditions observed.
METHODOLOGY
Robson Homes architectural staff has conducted several site visits to 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, California. Photo documentation of all existing interior and exterior conditions have been performed for evaluation of existing historic conditions as needed. Robson Homes architectural staff worked to prepare:
• Accurate field measurements.
• Digital images were collected as part of the field survey. • DPR form prepared by consultant and has been reviewed, DPR FORM, LORI GARCIA,
BEYOND BUILDINGS, APPENDIX B
• And a Secretary of the Interior Standards Compliance Review has been prepared and reviewed, SECRETARY OF STANDARDS, COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT, TRENOR HL,
APPENDIX C
• A window survey and assessment has been prepared by TRENOR HL and reviewed,
WINDOW SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT, APPENDIX D
• An evaluation of the building structure by a qualified structural engineer has been performed and reviewed, SITE VISIT REPORT, GOUVIS ENGINEERING, APPENDIX E • A local historic architect has evaluated the historic character of the existing structure and prepared plans with proposed modifications to the existing structure, SCDC
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, APPENDIX F
2 This condition, assessment and treatment recommendation report has been prepared upon review of the above consultant documents. Based on these consultant documents, an in-house evaluation of the homes initial historic character and significant elements were assessed and treatment recommendations have been prepared as part of this report.
3 EXISTING CONDITION DEFINITIONS
Unknown (U)
The assembly or feature was not accessible for assessment or not enough information is available to make an evaluation. Unknown conditions which are observed in the field during construction shall be evaluated by the historic architect and the Robson restoration team for historical value and context. Upon review of the existing condition appropriate repairs or remediations will be developed which are compatible with the character of the building. These actions will be reviewed by the historic architect.
Poor (P)
The building feature or element is in poor condition. The element is deteriorated, damaged or missing. The feature or components of the feature have deteriorated more than 30% of the component. The parts or element shows signs of imminent failure. The component is no longer performing the intended purpose.
Fair (F)
The building feature or element is in fair condition. There are signs of failure in part or the whole of the building component. The parts or component are performing their intended purpose but show signs of failure due to deferred maintenance or damage.
Good (G)
The building feature or element is in good condition. The element is structurally sound and performing the intended purpose and does not show signs of failure. Good components can still require maintenance but do not show signs of failure.
EXISTING CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES & EVALUATION
The character defining features of the building will be discussed in this section and recommendations shall be made to rehabilitate these components in later sections.
The significant components defining the character of this building based on consultant reports include:
1. Roof form and shape
2. Roof eave size and characteristics
3. Eaves and rafter tails
4. Decorative barge board
5. Knee braces
6. Windows, window frames and window trim
7. Entrance
8. Stucco
4 Roof form and shape
The roof form is a defining feature of architectural character of this building. The cross gable creates a repetitive roof pitch and element tying the front and side elevations together. The cross gable is in good condition. Specific components of the roof form are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit. No treatment recommendations are required to maintain the roof form and shape unless additional changes are proposed.
Roof eave size and characteristics
The roof eave size is a unique defining characteristic of the vernacular Craftsman. The roof eaves are open, and the rafter tails are exposed. The rafter tails are in good overall condition protected from rain and sun by a gutter. Specific components of the roof eaves are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit. See the TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Wood and Paint sections for how to maintain and rehabilitate the roof eave as needed.
Decorative bargeboard
Decorative bargeboards consist of a four plane barge with a floating trim wrapping under each knee brace. This unique historic element appears original and in good condition overall. The bargeboard ends typically show signs of dry rot and are in poor condition. Specific components of the decorative barge are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit.
General recommendations shall be made for field evaluation by the contractor and painter during construction. The top flat surface of the floating trim shall be checked for dry rot and repairs made on an as needed basis prior to painting the surface. See the TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Wood and Paint sections for how to maintain and rehabilitate the decorative bargeboard as needed.
Knee braces
The knee braces are a historic feature common for the vernacular Craftsman, cross gable architectural style. The knee braces are in good overall condition. Specific components of knee braces are addressed in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit. General recommendations are made for the contractor and painter during construction. The top flat surface of each brace shall be check for dry rot and repairs made on an as needed basis prior to painting the surface. See the TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Wood and Paint sections for how to maintain and rehabilitate the knee braces feature as needed.
Windows, window frames and window trim
A detailed survey and assessment was performed for every existing and proposed window for the project by Treanor HL. Any additional window assessment of existing and proposed window features would be repetitive. Specific components of entrance features are evaluated in the attached WINDOW SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT by Treanor HL. The window conditions vary from poor to good. See the TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Wood and Paint sections for how to rehabilitate existing windows to remain. See treatment recommendation in the WINDOW SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT REPORT.
5 Regarding window trim, the existing exterior window trim at windows shall be removed and salvaged for reuse at new windows, when feasible. If the trim is in poor condition upon removal, the profile and size of the trim shall be matched and replaced.
Entrance
The entrance is a defining feature of architectural character of this building. The opening and dropped beam and bead board ceiling are part of the buildings historic character and should be restored. Specific evaluation of other entrance features are made in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit. The entrance is in overall good condition.
Stucco
The stucco was added to this building in the 1940s. Various remodels were performed since the structure was built. The stucco texture and patching were consistent based on site observations. The stucco will be retained as part of the proposed restoration and will be repaired to match existing where required. The stucco as an assembly is in fair condition.
Stucco has minor cracking. Specific evaluation of stucco elements/locations are made in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit.
GENERAL FEATURE CONDITION TO PRESERVE THE RESIDENCE
There are several general features of the building which require maintenance to preserve and enhance the historic character defining features of the building.
The general features requiring evaluation for the preservation and the enhancement of the historic character features include:
1. Site
2. Structure
3. Roof
4. Stucco (addressed previously)
5. Gutters and downspouts
6. Flashings
7. Mechanical, electrical and plumbing
See the GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS section for recommended actions to address common issues and provide strategies. These recommendations will help preserve the historic building.
Site
The overall site features have little historic value. Due to time, planters have a tendency to build up organic material over time around the perimeter of the building. This puts older buildings at increased risk for water damage, dry rot and insect infestations. The site is in fair condition.
6 Structure
Older buildings often have structural issues related to settlement and structural deterioration.
A survey was performed of the visually accessible portions of the structure by Gouvis Engineering of the existing structure. The existing structure is in fair condition based on an observation of the subfloor/partial basement area and the attic. The condition of bearing walls is unknown. Additional recommendations and repair work will likely be required as demolition of interior work occurs. The structural engineer will prepare structural drawings and calculations to the city for the home addition, interior remodel and new garage. Specific components of the structure are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit.
Roof
The roof form is a defining feature of architectural character of this building. The cross gable creates a repetitive roof pitch and element tying the front and side elevations together. The existing composition shingles are 30 plus years old. The existing composition shingle roof is in poor condition. It may be difficult to match the existing roof material. More importantly, however, the roofing material should be replaced. Specific components of the roof are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit.
Gutters and Downspouts
The existing gutters and downspouts are in poor condition. The downspouts are undersized at most location based on the gutter size. New gutters were added within the last 20 years, but the downspouts were not replaced. The gutters are not historical significant elements, but are required for general protection of the historic building façade and roof eaves from rain and splash up. Specific components of the gutters and downspouts are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit.
Flashings
The roof and gable flashings are poor with minimal use and are generally missing. Specific components of the flashing are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit.
Mechanical, ele ctrical and plumbing
The mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems are in poor condition. These systems are in need of replacement to prevent failure and support habitable use of the structure. Specific components of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing are evaluated in the attached CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN exhibit.
7 TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHARACTER DEFINING
FEATURES
The treatment recommendations outlined below are intended to preserve the character defining elements of the original structure. Recommendations will prolong the useful life of the historic elements and preserve the overall character of the building. All damaged or deteriorated historic elements shall be repaired when possible. If replacement is required historic elements shall be replaced in-kind. Historic element treatment recommendations are covered first. Then general building recommendations are covered.
Historic Element Treatments
Wood - Roof Eaves, Decorative Bargeboard, Knee Braces, and Window Trim Extra care is required in the treatment of the buildings wood features. During rehabilitation decorative wood features should be evaluated visually by the painter and through the use of an awl or equivalent tool. A visual inspection involves:
1. Looking for missing wood and voids in wood components
2. Identifying potential issues visually:
a. Paint pealing;
b. Wood cracking;
c. Wood or paint is discolored.
All horizontal planed woods and woods showing potential signs of decay should also be tested.
Testing wood with an awl involves establishing a base line for testing. To establish a base line, consistent pressure is applied on wood trim in good condition and observing the depth of penetration if any. When the awl with consistent pressure penetrates deeper than the baseline test area, the area should be marked with paint for repair. The edge of damaged wood should be marked with paint as well.
Most rotted wood repairs can be made with filler or epoxy. Care should be taken to match preserved elements shape, size, and character. Damaged wood material should be removed until sound supporting wood can be found. Follow the exterior filler/epoxy manufacturer’s instruction. All wood filler should be sanded smooth, primed, and painted upon repair/restoration.
Areas where sound wood does not exist to support the epoxy/filler, the wood should be patched using the same decay resistant wood species with similar graining as the original. This work requires an experienced exterior trim carpenter. Below are the standard steps:
1. Remove the damaged section: If a splice is deemed appropriate, the next step is to remove the damaged section of wood. This can be done using a saw or other cutting tool, and care should be taken to ensure that the cut is clean and straight. 8 2. Prepare the new section of wood: The new section of wood should be prepared to match the existing wood as closely in profile, species, and graining as possible. This may involve planing or sanding the wood to the correct thickness and shaping it to match the existing wood's profile.
3. Cut the splice: The splice should be cut into the new section of wood using a scarf joint or other appropriate method. The splice should be cut at an angle to ensure that it fits tightly and securely into the existing wood.
4. Apply adhesive: Once the splice has been cut, an adhesive should be applied to the surfaces of the splice and the existing wood. This will help to ensure a strong and secure bond between the two pieces of wood.
5. Install the splice: The splice should be installed into the existing wood, with care taken to ensure that it fits tightly and securely. Clamps or other devices may be used to hold the splice in place while the adhesive dries.
6. Finish the repair: Once the adhesive has dried, the repair can be finished by sanding or planing the wood to the correct profile and applying any necessary finishes or coatings.
Should a visible structural element or a larger historic element need repair vs. replacement, the use of concealed and covered fasteners is acceptable. The additional steps are outlined below:
1. Choose the appropriate fasteners: The type of mechanical fasteners you choose will depend on the type of wood you're working with and the specific repair you're making.
For example, screws may be more appropriate for some repairs than nails.
2. Determine the placement of the fasteners: The placement of the fasteners is critical to ensuring that the repair is effective and minimally intrusive. Fasteners should be placed in areas where they will not be highly visible and where they will not compromise the structural integrity of the wood.
3. Pre-drill holes: To avoid splitting the wood, it's important to pre-drill holes for the fasteners. The holes should be slightly smaller than the diameter of the fastener.
4. Install the fasteners: The fasteners should be installed carefully and securely, without over-tightening or damaging the wood.
5. Finish the repair: Once the fasteners have been installed, the repair can be finished by sanding or planing the wood to the correct profile and applying any necessary finishes or coatings.
Should a visible structural element or a larger historic element need replacement, these steps are outlined below:
1. At demolition, multiple profiles should be preserved of the wood element to be replaced. Photos including a scale should be used to document the wood profile and shape prior to removal and after removal.
2. A matching piece of wood for the trim should be milled based on the historic profile.
3. Prime and install replacement historic piece of trim during reconstruction.
9 TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GENERAL FEATURES
Paint
Paint can in historic buildings conceal or diminish historic elements when excess paint has been applied. The historic wood details are not so fine in nature that the existing paint should be removed and the building repainted. Instead the building should be prepped for painting similar to any building being repainted. The main difference being an extra level of care should be utilized to prepare the building for new paint. The following steps are recommended:
1. Clean all exterior surfaces by wiping them down thoroughly.
2. Remove all loose paint to reach a sound substrate.
3. Sand all surfaces to create a good bond and a smooth finish.
4. Clean all exterior surfaces by wiping them down thoroughly.
5. Fill voids and prepare all surfaces for priming, taking care to follow appropriate protocols for wood, stucco, gutters, or other materials.
6. Apply an appropriate primer based on the material of the surface.
7. Paint with an exterior-approved paint to enhance the historic character of the building.
It is important to note that this process should be carefully evaluated and colors selected based on its compatibility with the historic fabric of the building, as well as its effectiveness in preserving historic elements. Working with a preservation expert or professional contractor experienced in historic restoration is recommended to ensure that the treatment options are appropriate and do not cause damage to the historic fabric of the structure.
Caution
Working with lead-based paint can pose a serious health hazard, so it is important to take appropriate precautions when dealing with it. Here are some cautions to add to the recommended treatment option:
1. Since the building was built before 1978, it is likely to contain lead-based paint, which can pose a health risk if it is disturbed. Before beginning any work on the building, it is recommended to have a certified lead inspector test for lead and follow all necessary lead-safe work practices.
2. If lead-based paint is present, workers should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, such as respirators and disposable coveralls, to prevent the inhalation or ingestion of lead dust.
3. The sanding, scraping, or otherwise disturbing of lead-based paint can create lead dust, which is toxic if inhaled or ingested. It is important to take measures to minimize the creation of dust, such as using wet sanding methods or a HEPA vacuum to capture dust.
4. Proper containment measures should be used to prevent lead dust from spreading beyond the work area. This may include plastic sheeting or other barriers.
5. All waste and debris generated from the work should be handled as hazardous waste and disposed of properly in accordance with applicable regulations. 10 6. Workers should wash their hands and clean their clothing and equipment thoroughly after working with lead-based paint.
7. It is important to work with a contractor or professional who is experienced in working with lead-based paint to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken and that the work is done safely.
Gutters and downspouts
Based on observations, gutters were added or modified multiple times in the homes history, gutters are necessary to protect the structure from water damage in this climate area. Based on the available limited information and resources, below are the recommended treatment options for the historic house gutters:
1. Since gutters are deemed necessary, select a gutter material and style that is compatible with the historic character of the building. Bonderized painted metal gutters are appropriate if carefully evaluated and installed in a way that is compatible with the historic fabric of the building.
2. The gutter installation should be in a way that is compatible with the historic fabric of the building and does not cause damage to the structure. This may involve working with a professional contractor experienced in historic restoration. A decision on the appropriate treatment of barge board ends and gutters should be determined by the architect of record. There were multiple solutions visible on the building.
3. Trees, shrubbery should be cut back from the gutters and downspouts. Gutter debris, gutters, and downspouts should be removed regularly as part of future maintenance.
4. Gutters and downspouts and diverters should be utilized to direct water away from the building to protect the building and the historic character of the building.
Stucco
Stucco finish is consistent, some cracking is visible. Stucco was applied over existing siding material down to finish hard surfaces or earthen grade.
Here are some additional guidelines for working with a later addition of stucco:
1. Compatibility: The stucco contractor should ensure that the new stucco material is compatible with any existing stucco on the house. Since the existing stucco is in good condition, the contractor can match the new stucco to the existing stucco in terms of texture and color.
2. Texture and finish: If an alternative texture and finish is desired, the style selected should take into account the overall style of the house when determining the texture and finish of the new stucco. The entire house can be treated with a finish coat of stucco to achieve a cohesive texture and finish.
3. Color: The stucco color should complement the existing color scheme of the house. If the house has a more neutral color palette, a warm beige or light brown may be appropriate for the stucco. If the house has more vibrant colors, the stucco color should be chosen to complement those colors.
11 4. Repairs: the existing stucco is in need of repair based on penetrations, repairs required, etc. At these locations, the stucco contractor should use a matching stucco mixture to ensure a seamless repair. The contractor should also be careful to match the texture and finish of the surrounding stucco if the original texture is being maintained.
5. Protection: To protect the stucco from the elements, the stucco contractor may recommend adding an admixture and finish to the stucco. The addition of acrylic paints and additives will reduce cracking and enhance the longevity of the stucco.
A stucco contractor who has experience working with historic buildings and understands the unique challenges of stucco repair will be best equipped to handle a project like this.
Site
The site surrounding the building has no historic elements or significance. Multiple improvements have damaged the historic character of the building and should be changed.
Below are some site specific treatment recommendations for the historic building:
1. Landscaping: Remove landscaping plants against or on the structure. Consider landscaping options that will enhance the historic building. This could include planting trees, shrubs, or flowers that are historically appropriate for the area or that complement the architectural style of the building.
2. Hardscaping: Remove hardscape elements that drain toward the historic building. Add hardscaping elements like walkways, patios, or seating areas that will enhance the use of the site and complement the building's historic character. Consider using materials that are historically appropriate, such as brick, stone, or concrete pavers.
3. Drainage: Ensure that drainage away from the building is carefully addressed to prevent water damage. Area drains and slopes away from the building should be added as needed. Consider installing gutters and downspouts, or other drainage solutions to channel water away from the building and into appropriate drainage areas.
4. Lighting: Consider adding lighting to the site to enhance the building's historic character and improve safety and security. Use fixtures and styles that are historically appropriate and complement the architectural style of the building.
All of these site recommendations should be tailored to meet the unique needs and character of the historic building and the site on which it is located while also ensuring that the site is functional and safe for the future residents.
12 Roof
The existing roof is an asphalt composition shingle roof. Asphalt composition shingles have traditionally been considered a suitable replacement for traditional wood shake roofs on historic homes. They can provide a similar aesthetic while offering the benefits of modern roofing technology, such as improved durability and fire resistance to protect the life safety of the occupants.
The existing asphalt composition is in poor condition and no longer protects the structure from water damage in multiple locations. Roof materials should be selected to replicate historically appropriate wood shake materials.
It is also important to consider the long-term maintenance and repair needs of any roofing material. Asphalt composition shingles will still require periodic maintenance and may eventually need to be replaced.
Working with a professional contractor experienced in historic restoration and roofing is recommended to ensure that the selected materials and installation methods are appropriate and compatible with the historic fabric of the property.
13 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Photo 2
Phase: Struct. Design/Construction
Comments: In the remodeled area,
wood piers and plates are bearing
directly on soil. Current standards call
for a minimum of 8 inches clearance
between soil and wood framing. Some
piers are unsupported. Shore and
provide a concrete footing/piers as
required by structural engineer.
Photo 3
Phase: Demolition/Construction;
Plumbing, Electrical, and HVAC
Comments: The current plumbing
system is failing. The entire system
needs replacement. In addition, the
electrical and HVAC system are
inadequate for modern living and
require full replacement.
Photo 1
Phase: Struct. Design/Construction
Comments: Structural floor sheathing
is failing in some location. During
demolition, material and locations
should be evaluated for decay.
Decayed or failing 1 x 6 sheathing to be
removed between joists and replaced
with an equivalent thickness exterior
grade plywood with an appropriate
span rating. Structural engineer should
provide a detail.
14 Photo 4
Phase: Design/Demolition/
Construction
Comments: This awkward floor
transition is in the existing Family
Room due to an earlier remodel. To
eliminate this trip and fall hazard, the
lower floor should be furred and
sheathed to the same level as the
higher floor. The interior door
threshold will be removed for the same
reason.
Photo 5
Phase: Design/Demolition/
Construction
Comments: The current electrical
service appears to be 100 to 125 AMPs.
This is likely inadequate, but should be
verified with a licensed electrician. If
so, it is recommended the electrical
service be located to a less visible
location on the South Elevation of the
building.
Photo 6
Phase: Demolition/Construction
Comments: Termite damage is evident.
Upon completion of wall plaster
demolition, all exposed wood framing
members should be evaluated,
replaced as needed, and the structure
treated as needed.
15 Photo 7
Phase: Demolition/Construction
Comments: Termite damage is evident.
Upon completion of wall plaster
demolition, all exposed wood framing
members will be evaluated, replaced as
needed, and the structure treated as
needed.
Photo 8
Phase: Demolition/Construction
Comments: Water damage is evident.
Upon completion of paneling
demolition, all exposed framing
members will be evaluated and
replaced as needed.
Roof replacement will elevate any
future issue.
Photo 9
Phase: Design/Construction, Windows
1-7, Additional recommendations
Comments: Window trim and putty has
a specific profile. Window repair and
glazer should maintain the same flat
ogee trim/putty profile.
16 Photo 10
Phase: Design/Construction, Windows
1-7, Additional recommendations
Comments: Original window
eye/bracket assembly to lodge window
open during hot days appears intact in
multiple locations, see photo 11 as
well. Clean, repair, and replace as
needed.
Photo 11
Phase: Design/Construction, Windows
1-7, Additional recommendations
Comments: Original window
eye/bracket assembly to lodge window
open during hot days appears intact in
multiple locations, see photo 10 as
well. Clean, repair, and replace as
needed.
17 CONCLUSION
The recommendations outlined in this report are intended to guide the repair and restoration of character defining elements of the building. Overall, the structure and its elements are in good to fair condition. All character defining elements will be repaired when possible rather than replaced. Any element damaged or deteriorated beyond repair will be replaced in-kind. Specific building exterior elevation components and recommendations regarding the design, demolition, and construction are attached in Appendix A, CONDITIONS BY ELEVATION/PLAN.
APPENDIX A
Phase: Construction
Comments: Downspouts should not extend past
bargeboard. Run downspouts inside of
bargeboard. Remove excess electrical equipment.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add note. Remove TV antenna and
exhaust vents from front of house. Vents to
be relocated to rear elevation.
Phase: Design
Comments: The crown termination is
unclear. A return or termination design
needs to be developed.
Phase: Design
Comments: Window on porch is not original
and should be removed.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Adjust note. Floodlight and
circuit to be removed. New compatible
fixture to be selected at ceiling.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Adjust note. Remove handrail
and mailbox. Patch stucco as needed.
Phase: Pre-construction
Comments: The porch ceiling height and trim
varies. During construction, evaluate structure
and conditions. Retain the bead board and crown
at front of porch.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add/Note. These attic vent
elements appear original. Retain by
cleaning and repainting as needed.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: The gutter passes the barge. Develop
repair detail. Bargeboard end needs restoration.
Extend bargeboard and crown to original location.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add note. Replace/repair vent screen as
needed. This prevents rodent intrusion. Unless screens can be repaired. Stucco needs to be removed, an
matching vent installed, and the stucco patched at
multiple locations. Stucco is delaminating due to
moisture. Either patch stucco, or remove stucco, add a
weep screed to prevent moisture wicking/entrapment
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add note. The wall finish jogs and an old
porch ledge is exposed. Remove ledge, fur wall, and
adjust windows. New window trim should match
addition to differentiate between old and new.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Existing concrete slopes toward house.
Add drainage if possible, Slope planter away from
house.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add note. Remove and relocate
irrigation, surface mounted electrical to side yard.
Adjust water line as needed.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add/Note. Conduit is exposed on
the building. Reroute conduit to inside wall.
Note electrical panel requires an upgrade.
Phase: Construction
Comments: Gutters and downspouts are loose
and in poor condition in multiple locations.
Replace system.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add note. Exterior conduit to
be removed. Patch stucco as required.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add note Remove AC. Remove
AC unit and wiring during construction.
Patch stucco.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: New locations for utilities. Wall penetrations when utilities are moved should be flashed. Add note,
Remove stucco, add flashing at new wall penetrations.
Phase: Design
Comments: Existing gable end vents are not shown
on architectural drawings. Add to drawing. These
vents are not original and were added with the
stucco for ventilation of the attic.
Phase: Design/Pre-construction
Comments: Add note: All MEP penetrations to be
evaluated and abandoned wire/pipe penetrations
to removed during demolition. Remove and patch
stucco as needed.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Adjust note. Replace existing basement
access doors.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: The stairs and the porch enclosure
were part of an addition and will be removed and
replaced with a compatible stair and railing.
Phase: Design/Construction
Comments: Add/Note. The wood trim
around the door and the horizontal wood
trim are from a prior remodel. Remove
corner trim and horizontal trim. Patch
stucco.
treanorhl.com
February 8, 2023
13 65 Main Street
Santa Clara, California
W
indow Survey and Assessment
Ro
bson Homes is in the planning process for a proposed project at 1365 Main Street in Santa Clara and has requested TreanorHL complete a window survey of the wood windows at the building. The intent of the window survey is to note the conditions of the wood windows and identify the required repairs. This window information will help inform the City of Santa Clara of the disposition of the extent windows. The summary table in the Appendix documents TreanorHL’s detailed window survey conducted on January 9, 2023. In total, 26 wood windows were surveyed. The aluminum windows at the rear addition and the makeshift window between the front porch column and the building were not surveyed. As these windows are non-original additions to the structure and do not contribute to the historic character of the building, their removal does not impact the historic integrity of the house. Only sixteen of the surveyed windows are visible from the Main Street public right-of-way. These windows are identified on the included plans in the Appendix with asterisks. Further, these windows have been noted in the summary table found in the Appendix. All other windows are not visible from the public right-of-way, some due to a tall fence at the southern side of the property which is to remain as part of the proposed project.
All surveyed windows are painted. There is a mix of casement, fixed, and double-hung in various configurations found around the building. The number of lights varies from window to window. The following table summarizes each window, including information about its condition, and identifies recommended repairs. Windows determined to be beyond repair are identified. Photographs of each window are included in the Appendix. The windows are keyed to floor plans provided in the Appendix.
Most of the windows were in excellent to good condition, as it appears that these windows had been extensively rehabilitated sometime in the past. Five of the windows on the south façade are severely deteriorated and have had little to no repairs over the years. In general, the most commonly noted issues were peeling or scaling paint, minor cracking of glazing compound,
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA
Window Survey and Assessment
February 8, 2023
treanorhl.com
poorly installed glazing compound and signs of localized dry rot that will require replacement of select wood elements in-kind. Most other identified repairs are considered minor and can be completed using epoxy consolidant, if needed. Five windows were found to be in poor condition and are recommended to be replaced in-kind. Any replacement of individual wood elements should also be done in-kind with a similar wood species, in order for the project to be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Since five of the windows are in poor condition with over 75% of the wood showing signs of deterioration, TreanorHL recommends these windows be replaced in-kind. Shop drawings of the in-kind replacement windows should be reviewed by a qualified historical architect to ensure the replaced windows adequately match the existing.
The project currently calls for these deteriorated windows to be replaced with slightly larger egress windows that match the existing. The enlargement of the windows is required for compliance with code mandated egress window size. While ideally the windows that are deteriorated beyond repair would be replaced in-kind, the required enlargement for egress from the bedrooms is a life safety issue and will minimally impact the overall integrity and character of the building. These egress windows will match the existing in style, configuration and profile. Further, these windows are not visible from the public right-of-way. For additional discussion on compliance see the
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, Ca Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Compliance Review completed by TreanorHL (February 8, 2023).
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA
Window Survey and Assessment
February 8, 2023
treanorhl.com
Appendix
1 . Floor Plan of 1365 Main Street Santa Clara, CA
2. Window Survey Summary Table
3. Photographs of Windows
1*
2*
3*
4*
5*
6*
7*
8*
9*
10 11
12 A
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
C
B
D
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BLUE TEXT BY TREANORHL, BACKGROUND
DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY ROBSON HOMES
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA
Window Survey and Assessment
February 8, 2023
Window
Number
Window Type Overall
Condition
Condition Issues Required Repairs Visible from
Public Right-of-way
Feasible for
Reuse
Wood Sash Glazing Hardware
1 10 -light Casement –
(part of group three)
Good 1. Cracked paint - minor
2. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
2. One broken light
1. All intact
2. Dirty
1. Replace broken light
2. Prepare surface for painting
3. Clean hardware
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
2 10 -light Casement –
(part of group three)
Good
1. Section of missing wood at
one muntin
2. Cracked paint - minor
3. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. All intact
2. Dirty
1. Replace area of missing wood at one muntin
2. Prepare surface for painting
3. Clean hardware
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
3 10 -light Casement –
(part of group three)
Good
1. Peeled and cracked paint -
minor
2. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. All intact
2. Dirty
1. Prepare surface for painting
2. Clean hardware
3. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
4 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Good
1. Peeled and cracked paint -
minor
2. Dirty
3. Does not open all the way
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. All intact
2. Dirty
1. Prepare surface for painting
2. Clean hardware
3. Repair cracked glazing compound
4. Ensure window opens completely
Yes Yes
5 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Good
1. Section of missing wood at
one muntin
2. Cracked paint - minor
3. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. All intact
2. Dirty
1. Replace area of missing wood at one muntin
2. Prepare surface for painting
3. Clean hardware
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
6 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Good
1. Wood deterioration at one
muntin
2. Cracked paint - minor
3. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. All intact
2. Dirty
1. Repair area of wood deterioration at one muntin
2. Prepare surface for painting
3. Clean hardware
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
7 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Good
1. Peeled and cracked paint -
minor
2. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. All intact
2. Dirty
1. Prepare surface for painting
2. Clean hardware
3. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
8 Do uble Hung, one-
over-one (paired)
Good
1. Peeled and cracked paint -
minor
2. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact
1. Prepare surface for painting
2. Clean hardware
3. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
9 Do uble Hung, one-
over-one (paired)
Good
1. Peeled and cracked paint -
minor
2. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact
1. Prepare surface for painting
2. Clean hardware
3. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
10 Do uble Hung (part
of group three)
Good 1. Upper sash, bottom rail
cracked
2. Peeled and cracked paint –
minor
3. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact
1. Repair crack in bottom rail
2. Prepare surface for painting
3. Clean hardware
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
11 Do uble Hung (part
of group three)
Good 1. Section of missing wood at
stile
2. Cracked paint – minor
3. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact
1. Replace area of missing wood at stile
2. Prepare surface for painting
3. Clean hardware
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA
Window Survey and Assessment
February 8, 2023
Window
Number
Window Type Overall
Condition
Condition Issues Required Repairs Visible from
Public Right-of-way
Feasible for
Reuse
Wood Sash Glazing Hardware
12 Do uble Hung (part
of group three)
Good
1. Peeled and cracked paint
2. Dirty
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
2. Scratched glass, one light
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact
1. Prepare surface for painting
2. Clean hardware
3. Replace scratched light
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
Yes Yes
13 10 -light Fixed (part
of group four)
Fair 1. Peeling paint
2. Minor wood deterioration at
lower half of window
3. Dirty
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
1. N/A 1. Repair minor wood deterioration at low half of window
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Replace all glazing compound
Yes Yes
14 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Fair 1. Minor water damage at
bottom rail and side stiles
2. Peeled and cracked paint
3. Dirty
4. Window does not close
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
2. Residue on glass
1. Rusty hardware
1. Repair minor wood deterioration at bottom rail and
side stiles
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Clean hardware
4. Replace all glazing compound
5. Remove residue on glass
6. Ensure proper operation of window
Yes Yes
15 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Fair 1. Minor water damage at
bottom rail and stiles
2. Peeled and cracked paint
3. Dirty
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
2. Residue on glass
1. Rusty hardware
1. Repair wood deterioration at bottom rail and stiles
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Clean hardware
4. Replace all glazing compound
5. Remove residue on glass
Yes Yes
16 10 -light Fixed (part
of group four)
Fair 1. Peeling paint
2. Minor wood deterioration at
lower half of window
3. Dirty
4. Window does not close
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
2. Residue and paint on glass
1. N/A 1. Repair minor wood deterioration at low half of window
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Replace all glazing compound
4. Remove residue on glass
5. Ensure proper operation of window
Yes Yes
17 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Fair 1. Peeling paint
2. Minor wood deterioration at
lower half of window
3. Dirty
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
2. Residue and paint on glass
3. One broken light
1. Rusty hardware
1. Repair minor wood deterioration at low half of window
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Replace all glazing compound
4. Remove residue on glass
5. Replace broken light
No Yes 18 10 -light Fixed (part
of group four)
Fair 1. Minor water damage at
bottom rail and side stiles
2. Peeled and cracked paint
3. Dirty
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
2. Residue on glass
3. One broken light
1. N/A 1. Repair minor wood deterioration at low half of window
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Replace all glazing compound
4. Remove residue on glass
5. Replace broken light
No Yes 19 10 -light Fixed (part
of group four)
Fair 1. Minor wood deterioration at
bottom rail and muntins
2. Peeled and cracked paint
3. Dirty
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
1. N/A 1. Repair minor wood deterioration at bottom rail and muntins
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Replace all glazing compound
No Yes
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA
Window Survey and Assessment
February 8, 2023
Window
Number
Window Type Overall
Condition
Condition Issues Required Repairs Visible from
Public Right-of-way
Feasible for
Reuse
Wood Sash Glazing Hardware
20 10 -light Casement
(part of group four)
Fair 1. Minor wood deterioration at
bottom rail and muntins
2. Peeled and cracked paint
3. Dirty
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
1. Rusty hardware
1. Repair minor wood deterioration at bottom rail and
muntins
2. Prepare wood surface for paint
3. Replace all glazing compound
No Yes
21 Do uble Hung, four-
over-one (part of
group three)
Poor 1. Dry rot/termite damage
present at bottom rail, stiles,
and muntins (upper and lower
sash)
2. Likely dry rot at sill and at
jambs
3. Scaling and peeling paint
4. Metal brackets on exterior
5. Unable to open
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact - rusty
1. Full replacement of window required
2. Repair sill and jambs with Dutchman patches or epoxy consolidant
3. Prepare wood surface for paint at sill
4. Provide new hardware compatible with hardware at
other single hung windows
No No
22 Do uble Hung, four-
over-one (part of
group three)
Poor 1. Dry rot/termite damage
present at bottom rail, stiles,
and muntins (upper and lower
sash)
2. Likely dry rot at sill and at
jambs
3. Scaling and peeling paint
4. Stuck open
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact - rusty
1. Full replacement of window required
2. Repair sill and jambs with Dutchman patches or epoxy consolidant
3. Prepare wood surface for paint at sill
4. Provide new hardware compatible with hardware at
other single hung windows
No No
23 Do uble Hung, four-
over-one (part of
group three)
Poor 1. Dry rot/termite damage
present at bottom rail, stiles,
and muntins (upper and lower
sash)
2. Likely dry rot at sill and at
jambs
3. Scaling and peeling paint
4. Parting bead out of place
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact - rusty
1. Full replacement of window required
2. Repair sill and jambs with Dutchman patches or epoxy consolidant
3. Prepare wood surface for paint at sill
4. Provide new hardware compatible with hardware at
other single hung windows
No No
24 Do uble Hung, four-
over-one (paired)
Poor 1. Dry rot/termite damage
present at bottom rail, stiles,
and muntins (upper and lower
sash)
2. Likely dry rot at sill and at
jambs
3. Bottom rail dislodged at
bottom sash
4. Scaling and peeling paint
5. Parting bead broken and out
of place
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact - rusty
1. Full replacement of window required
2. Repair sill and jambs with Dutchman patches or epoxy consolidant
3. Prepare wood surface for paint at sill
4. Provide new hardware compatible with hardware at
other single hung windows
No No
1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA
Window Survey and Assessment
February 8, 2023
Window
Number
Window Type Overall
Condition
Condition Issues Required Repairs Visible from
Public Right-of-way
Feasible for
Reuse
Wood Sash Glazing Hardware
25 Do uble Hung, four-
over-one (paired)
Poor 1. Dry rot/termite damage
present at bottom rail, stiles,
and muntins (upper and lower
sash)
2. Likely dry rot at sill and at
jambs
3. Bottom sash likely entirely
replaced
4. Scaling and peeling paint
5. Parting bead broken and out
of place
1. Deteriorated and missing glazing
compound
2. Broken glass at one light
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact - rusty
1. Full replacement of window required
2. Repair sill and jambs with Dutchman patches or epoxy consolidant
3. Prepare wood surface for paint at sill
4. Provide new hardware compatible with hardware at
other single hung windows
No No
26 Do uble Hung, one-
over-one
Fair 1. Peeled and cracked paint -
minor
2. Dirty
3. Racked lower sash
1. Localized cracks at glazing
compound
2. Paint on glass
1. Pulleys intact
2. Dirty
3. All intact
1. Reset lower sash
2. Prepare surface for painting
3. Clean hardware
4. Repair cracked glazing compound
No Yes
WINDOW 1
WINDOW 2
WINDOW 3
WINDOW 4
WINDOW 5
WINDOW 6
WINDOW 7
WINDOW 8
WINDOW 9
WINDOW 10
WINDOW 11
WINDOW 12
WINDOW 13
WINDOW 14
WINDOW 15
WINDOW 16
WINDOW 17
WINDOW 18
WINDOW 19
WINDOW 20
WINDOW 21
WINDOW 22
WINDOW 23
WINDOW 24
WINDOW 25
WINDOW 26
WINDOW A, B, & C
WINDOW C WINDOW C
WINDOW A WINDOW A
WINDOW B WINDOW B
treanorhl.com
TREANORHL
1070 LEWIS STREET, SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
FINAL
AUGUST 23, 2022
treanorhl.com
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................................3
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................3
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................................3
5. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE .................................................................................................................................7
6. SITE HISTORY .................................................................................................................................................7
7. HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................... 14
8. ARCHITECT/BUILDER .................................................................................................................................. 16
9. OCCUPANCY HISTORY ............................................................................................................................... 16
10. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................... 16 National Register of Historic Places Criteria ................................................................................................ 16 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria ...................................................................................... 17 City of Santa Clara Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 18 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................................................... 19
11. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................... 21 Current Historic Status ................................................................................................................................. 21 NRHP/CRHR Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 21 Integrity ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
12. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 3
1. INTRODUCTION
Robson Homes requested TreanorHL evaluate the property at 1070 Lewis Street in San ta Clara (APN 269-05- 082). The L-shaped parcel features a one-story single-family house at 1070 Lewis Street, another one-story single-family house at 1365 Main Street, and three accessory structures. While the 1365 Main Street house is identified as a historic property in the City of Santa Clara’s General Plan (July 2021) and was recorded on a DPR form (February 2022), the 1070 Lewis Street house has not been documented or evaluated before. The following report provides an evaluation of the property’s potential eligibility to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and the local inventory.
2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Upon completion of the survey, research, and evaluation, the single-family house at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear individually eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR as it was not found to possess sufficient historical significance. The subject property also does not appear to be eligible individually for local listing since it does not have any significance under the City of Santa Clara criteria.
3. METHODOLOGY
TreanorHL conducted a site visit on June 8, 2022 to evaluate the existing conditions, historic features, and architectural significance of the property. Research was completed including consultation of Santa Clara County Directories, historical aerials and photographs, newspaper articles, Santa Clara Co unty Assessor’s Office, City of Santa Clara Permit Center, City of Santa Clara Planning Department, and various other online repositories.
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject property is in the southeast of City of Santa Clara, on the block bound by Lewis Street to the north, Washington Street to the east, an alley dividing the block and Harrison Street to the south, and Main Street to the west. The rest of the block consists of single-family homes and the surrounding area is predominantly residential with some commercial buildings.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 4
Figure 1. The parcel for 1070 Lewis Street and 1365 Main Street, outlined in dashed red, 1070 Lewis Street marked with a red star (Google Earth, imagery date September 2021).
The L-shaped parcel features five structures: two single-family houses, two detached garages, and one accessory structure. The house at 1070 Lewis Street sits on the north of the short arm of the L-shaped lot. A driveway leading to the garage for the house at 1070 Lewis Street runs north to south, east of the subject house.
Constructed c. 1935, the one-story over basement single-family house is rectangular in plan with central projections on the east and west facades. The wood-frame clapboard siding-clad building is capped by asphalt shingle-clad cross gable and flat roofs with wide eaves and closed rafters.
The asymmetrical north (front) façade features faux wood shutters on an aluminum-sash single-hung divided lite window on the west end and a partial-width porch with flat roof and wide overhang on the east. A decorative set of wood shutters sits on the gable end. The porch is supported by two square wood columns and shelters a single multi-lite glazed door and a multi-lite window with simple wide wood trim and an aluminum screen. A concrete walkway from the property line, perpendicular to Lewis Street, leads up to three steps to the porch.
A shallow volume projects from the east façade. It is capped by an asphalt-shingled gable roof and centered under the main cross-gabled roof. The extension is flanked by two wood-sash one-over-one windows with wide wood trim. Mirroring the east façade, a shallow volume with a gable roof and asphalt shingles projects from the west façade. Two wood-sash double-hung one-over-one windows with wood casing flank the extension; and a casement window with wood surrounds punctuates the center.
The south façade has a single glazed door behind a security gate accessed by a single concrete step. A fixed wood-sash window with a wood trim and an aluminum-sash sliding window with wood surrounds are on either side of the door. The basement is accessed through a pair of hinged T-111 panels that cover the low shelter extending from the south façade.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 5
A one-car garage is located to the south of the house at 1070 Lewis Street. The wood -frame structure is rectangular in plan and has a gable roof. The east façade features double wood doors, while the other elevations are blind. The structure is clad in both vertical board and batten and horizontal dropped wood siding.
Figure 2. North (front) façade of 1070 Lewis Street.
Figure 3. East facade.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 6
Figures 4 and 5. West facade.
Figure 6. The south façade.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 7
Figures 7. The detached garage.
5. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
The single-family house at 1070 Lewis Street is vernacular with some characteristics of the Minimal Traditional architectural style. This style was popular between c. 1935 and 1950 and was constructed throughout the United States. The character-defining features the subject property shares with Minimal Traditional houses are:
• Low-pitched roof, oftentimes gabled
• One story in height
• Little roof overhang
• Double-hung multi-pane windows
• Minimal architectural detail1
6. SITE HISTORY
The 1876 and 1887 maps show a whole block bound by Lewis, Washington, Harris on, and Main streets and by 1915, the Sanborn map shows the block divided by a narrow alley parallel to Lewis and Harrison streets. An accessory unit where the current detached garage sits appears on a 1931 aerial photograph. The subject house at 1070 Lewis Street was built c. 1935. The address was first listed in a 1935 city directory and the house first appears on a 1950 Sanborn map on a rectangular-shaped parcel separate from 1365 Main Street.2
The subject property falls within an area called the Old Quad, bound by railroad tracks to the north, Newhall Avenue to the east and south, and Scott Boulevard to the west. 3 The Old Quad encompasses the majority of the original town lines. Within the Old Quad is Franklin Street, which made up the core of the downtown area in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Franklin Street was the main thoroughfare and had a streetcar line, numerous businesses, a bank, theater, and the original town City Hall which was a mixed-purpose building with the police
1 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2020), 587-288. 2 Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings, Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA, February 15, 2022; 1931 aerial photograph; Polk City Directories via ancestry.com. 3 “About,” Old Quad Residents Association, accessed July 8, 2022, https://www.oldquadsantaclara.org/about.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 8
department and library.4 Main Street intersected Benton Street, Franklin Street, and Homestead Road, leading to City Plaza Park, one of the town’s first parks. 5
Efforts for Santa Clara’s downtown urban renewal began in 1958. 6 Federal funding was given to the City and by the 1960s, demolition began in the area bound by Benton Street, Lafayette Street, Homestead Road, and Madison Street.7 The impetus behind the change was to tackle urban blight, a topic citizens were divided on.
City planners envisioned commercial businesses clustered on a superblock, competing with emerging shopping malls. Franklin Square, located on the east end of the superblock, was completed and City Hall was moved to Warburton Street, but the rest of the demolished section remained relatively vacant for years. 8
The block history is taken from the 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara DPR form from February 2022.9
The block framed by Harrison, Washington, Lewis and Main Streets was not subdivided in 1866 and Lot 1 encompassed the entire block. According to the list of property owners and their improvements, which accompanied the 1866 survey, this was a 93177 sq. ft. tract, which contained 4 frame houses whose exact locations are unknown. The owner of both this block and the block immediately to the north was shown to be James Harris. Originally from Scotland, he had arrived in Santa Clara prior to 1852. Harris, a blacksmith, is shown on the 1868 Poll List for Santa Clara as having his residence on the subject block "near the comer of Lewis and Main."
[…]
When The Plat of Santa Clara was drawn in the period between 1873 and 1875, it showed no change in the configuration of the block that had been surveyed nine years earlier. However, by then the block was owned by Samuel A. Bishop, who like James Harris had arrived in California during the Gold Rush. Born on September 2, 1825 in Albemarle County, Virginia, in 1848, he crossed the plains by ox -cart along the Santa Fe Trail, arriving in Los Angeles in October 1849.
[…]
Here, among Bishop’s many entrepreneurial activities, he invested in the purchase of several large tracts of land, started the street railway system where he acted as "President" of the San Jose and Santa Clara Horse Railroad, and among his many other business interests was Vice-President of the San Jose Savings Bank and President of the San Jose Homestead Association. By 1873, he had purchased the subject block from James Harris and at the end of the 1880s, while keeping ownership of the north half of Block 4 North, Range 1 West, Bishop sold the south half of the block to Hervey Morgan Leonard. When Bishop
4 Urban Field Studio for the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Downtown Community Meeting Notes, October 21, 2015. Accessed on July 8, 2022. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/42032/636029014747270000; Reclaiming Our Downtown, Map Historic Downtown Santa Clara CA, Inclusive of Historic Pictures, https://www.historypin.org/en/historic- downtown-santa-clara-ca/geo/37.349392,-121.945451,11/bounds/37.196946,-122.111963,37.501529,-121.778939/paging/1/pin/1154356. 5 “Santa Clara Living, Downtown Santa Clara: Past, Present, and Future [2020],” YouTube video, posted by Santa Clara Living, March 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkXsAQ0tL5Y.
6 Carolyn Schuk, “The History of Santa Clara’s Downtown,” The Silicon Valley Voice, November 16, 2017, https://www.svvoice.com/the- history-of-santa-claras-downtown/.
7 Janice Bitters, “Residents rally to ‘reclaim’ demolished downtown Santa Clara,” San Jose Spotlight, August 19, 2019, https://sanjosespotlight.com/residents-rally-to-reclaim-demolished-downtown-santa-clara/. 8 “The Remaking of a Downtown: Destruction and Renewal in Santa Clara,” WRT Design, January 21, 2021 https://www.wrtdesign.com/news/remaking-of-downtown-santa-clara. 9 Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings, Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA, February 15, 2022.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 9
unexpectedly passed away on June 3, 1893, he still owned the north half of the block, which is where 1365 Main Street [and 1070 Lewis Street] would later be constructed, and it was included i n his $100,000 estate, which went into probate.
[…]
Among the properties in Bishop's estate was the large 21,129.90 sq. ft. lot at the SE corner of Lewis and Main Street, north of the alley that divided the block. The lot was acquired by Isaac Newton Tho mpson who was born in Indiana around 1824. Thompson came to California in 1849 with his wife, Anna and by 1850 had settled in Santa Clara. By 1852, when the Town of Santa Clara was incorporated, he had already started acquiring what would soon be large landholdings adjacent to the town and started raising a family.
[…]
Thompson continued to participate in the purchase and sale of land and also in its development. He invested in that portion of what was at that time called the Saratoga and Santa Cruz toll road lying within Santa Clara County and in 1880 sold it to the County. Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, he continued to be a land speculator. By the turn of the Century, he and Emily resided in a house at 1085 Clay Street on a lot he owned at the NE corner of Clay and Main Streets. When he passed away at age 90, on August 5, 1913, Isaac N. and Emily A. C. Thompson were living in the recently constructed house, located at 1365 Main Street, on the property he had purchased from Samuel A Bishop's estate. (Not e: this house and the one next door at 1357 Main Street, which is its mirror image, had to have been built between 1911 and 1912, as the address does not appear on the 1910 Census but the 1913 City directory, which came out in January, lists Emily as already living at 1365 Main Street.) Following Thompson's death, his second wife, Emily Thompson continued to live in the subject residence at 1365 Main Street until 1918, when she moved in with her daughter, at 1321 Bellomy Street. (She was living here when sh e passed away in 1928.)
ln 1919, the home at 1365 Main Street was sold to George W. Lyle. Born in 1885 in Missouri, George W.
Lyle had grown up in Santa Clara, where as a young man he started work as a constable. ln 1910 he married Ora Van Curran. ln 1918, he was elected the Sherriff of Santa Clara County, the position he held when the following year he purchased the subject home at 1365 Main Street. By 1925, George W. Lyle had left this house and moved into the new home he had purchased at 1543 Franklin Street. Manuel Souza, a grocer on Franklin Street, and his wife, Amelia, were now living the subject residence and Joseph and Nora Souza lived next door at 1357 Main Street. ln 1926 Manuel Freitas purchased 1365 Main Street and moved into it with his family. At the same time, his brother, Louis Freitas, purchased 1357 Main Street, next door to Manuel.
[…]
The Freitas' new home was located on the large parcel of land that began at the SE corner of Main and Lewis Streets and then went east for almost 140 feet on Lewis and south for 104 feet on Main Street.
This gave the family plenty of room in which they, like so many of their fellow immigrant neighbors, could raise chickens and have a large garden in which to grow fruits and vegetables, both for eating an d canning.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 10
In Santa Clara, the agricultural-related businesses were the economic engine behind Santa Clara's growth and prosperity and while many of the men labored on the fruit farms, the great majority of the Portuguese women found work in the canneries and packing houses to provide extra income for their families; often joined by their sons and daughters as soon as they were old enough. When during the 1920s when Rosa Freitas went to work, it was at the Pratt Lowe Preserving Company.
[…]
ln the early 1930s, Manuel Freitas had another house built on his property; 1070 Lewis Street. By 1935, this house was being rented to Vincent Mirrione, a railroad clerk, and his wife for $2/month, providing rental income to the family.
[…]
ln 1994, the original parcel purchased by Manuel Freitas in 1926 was subdivided into 2 parcels. One of the new lots was an L-shaped portion with 38.33 feet fronting on Lewis Street where the house at 1070 Lewis exists and 54 feet fronting on Main Street where the Freitas home at 1365 Main Street is located.
On August 9, 2021, the L-shaped portion of the original property that had been bought by Manuel Freitas in 1926 and where the Freitas home at 1365 Main Street is located, was sold to Pear Street lnvestment, LLC. The corner portion with the new house at 1074 Lewis Street is still in the Freitas family.
No permits were found to be associated with the 1070 Lewis Street property.
Figure 8. Thompson & West’s Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara, 1876, subject block highlighted in red (Stanford Searchworks).
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 11
Figure 9. Sanborn map of Santa Clara, April 1887, the subject block highlighted in red. Main Street runs through to City Park Plaza on Lexington (Proquest via San Jose Public Library).
Figures 10 and 11. Left, streetcar on Franklin Street, 1898 (Santa Clara City Library, Alice Hare Collection) and right, City Hall on Franklin and Washington streets, c. 1945 (Santa Clara City Library, Silicon Valley History Online Collection).
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 12
Figures 12 and 13. Left, businesses on Franklin and Main streets, c. 1880 (Santa Clara City Library, Santa Clara Historic Archives); right, Main Street looking south from Franklin Street, 1962, approximately a year before the city’s urban renewal (Santa Clara City Library, Santa Clara History Center Collection).
Figure 14. 1915 Sanborn Map, San Jose, approximate location of 1070 Lewis Street outlined in dashed red (Library of Congress).
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 13
Figure 15. 1950 Sanborn Map, San Jose, the house and the garage at 1070 Lewis Street outlined in dashed red (Library of Congress).
Figure 16. Aerial photograph from March 13, 1931, approximate location of the subject property outlined in dashed red (UCSB Geospatial Collection).
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 14
Figure 17. Aerial photograph from May 2, 1968, subject property outlined in dashed red (UCSB Geospatial Collection).
Figure 18. Aerial photograph from May 2, 1968, subject block outlined highlighted in red, the Franklin superblock in dashed blue (UCSB Geospatial Collection).
7. HISTORIC CONTEXT
The land where the City of Santa Clara developed was inhabited by the Ohlone people, who are estimated to have arrived in the Santa Clara Valley about 10,000 years ago. The area was later surveyed in 1769 by Jose Francisco Ortega, a member of the Portola expedition. In 1777, the Mission Santa Clara was established by the Franciscan priests, and remained under their jurisdiction till 1836. In the late 1830s, the government granted
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 15
portions of land, or ranchos, to their citizens. A section of Potrero de Santa Clara overlapped with the Santa Clara town lines. Cattle was raised on these lands and spurred a tanning and tarrow industry. 10
Drawn by the vast amount of land and prospect of gold, droves of American settlers began moving to the Santa Clara Valley in the 1840s. In October 1847 William Campbell surveyed the lots in this area and drew up a town plat creating the original lines for the town of Santa Clara. On September 9, 1850, California became the 31 st state and the town was incorporated on July 5, 1852. In the 1850s, the town began to take shape with each citizen being given a single plot of land, approximately one hundred square yards, under the condition they build on the land within three months. During this time, 23 houses were imported from the east coast and town structures were erected including stores, a schoolhouse, and churches. In 1851, Santa Clara College was established on the old mission site and became a prominent feature of the developing town. Santa Clara became a state-chartered city in 1862.11
While the city encompassed a small area of two miles long and a half mile wide, small family farms and orchards developed outside city limits. As the town grew, it was supported by a variety of manufacturing, seed, and fruit industries such as the Block Fruit Packing Company established in 1878, and the Pratt -Low Preserving Company established in 1905. Santa Clara’s economy in late 19th and early 20th century was largely characterized by fruit and seed industries, and logging manufacturers. Exported fresh, canned, or dried, the fruit industry was supported by the transcontinental railroad which was completed in 1869.12
By 1906, the population of the city had grown to nearly 5,000. Although the fruit business, including growing , packing, and canning peaked in the 1920s, it remained the focus of Santa Clara agriculture in the first half of the 20th century. Large farmlands were subdivided into three to fifty-acre orchards devoted to fruit production. The population remained fairly stable and did not increase greatly until after World War II when the city outgrew its 19th century boundaries and expanded to open lands north and west of the original city limits. 13
The city’s boundaries remained the same till after World War II when the city decided to expand north and west.
The business community launched an active campaign to attract new non-agricultural related industries to Santa Clara County. Early industries that established plants in the Santa Clara Valley included Chicago’s I nternational Mineral and Chemical Corporation’s Accent plant, the General Electric plant, and IBM. By the 1960s, Santa Clara County’s economic base was dependent upon the electronic and defense industries. Attracted by the increasing job market, the population of the Santa Clara Valley experienced phenomenal growth after 1950. Between 1950 and 1969, residential subdivisions replaced orchards at an amazing speed. Rural roads were widened into freeways, and expressways and boulevards were lined with restaurants, automobile salesrooms, and car-oriented establishments. In response to the growing population, the city of Santa Clara replaced its 1913 city hall with a new civic center at the corner of Lincoln Street and Warburton Avenue in 1963; the new civic cente r included administrative offices and police facilities. Intel located in Santa Clara in 1970; by 1990 there were close to 500 manufacturing plants in the city. The electronics industry changed the agricultural nature of Santa Clara and the valley; and the city continued to grow into the late 20th century.14
10 A Brief History of The Mission City: Santa Clara, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/about-santa-clara/city-history (accessed June 30, 2022); Bea Lichtenstein, Images of America, Santa Clara (Inscribe Digital, August 2004), 6. 11 A Brief History of The Mission City.
12 Summarized from “City History,” City of Santa Clara Website, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/about-santa-clara/city-history (accessed May 25, 2022); Archives & Architecture, LLC., County of Santa Clara, Historic Context Statement, December 2004 (updated February 2012), 43-47; Lichtenstein, Images of America, Santa Clara, 62. 13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 16
8. ARCHITECT/BUILDER
No architects or builders were found to have been associated with the subject building.
9. OCCUPANCY HISTORY
The occupancy history of the subject property is outlined below.15 No occupants were identified for the years between 1945 and 1971.
Dates Occupants
1976-2020 Alda Leal
1993 Helder Leal (student)
1970 - 1972 Manuel J. Lourenco (janitor)
1944-1947 Carrie Mendoza (widow to Frank Mendoza)
1945 Chan Mendoza
1945 Joseph Mendoza (cannery worker)
1935 – c.1940 Vincent Mirrione (railroad clerk) and Edna Mirrione (nurse)
10. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory background provided below offers an overview of national, state, and local criteria used to assess historic significance.
National Register of Historic Places Criteria
National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the property must be “associated with an important historic context.”16 The National Register identifies four possible context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national, state, or local level. As listed under Section 8, “Statement of Significance,” of the NRHP Registration Form, these are:
A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
15 Polk Directories; ancestry.com.
16 National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin 15 (Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1997), 3.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 17
D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.17
Second, for a property to qualify under the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” 18 While a property’s significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to “a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.”19 To determine if a property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National Register has identified seven aspects of integrity:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred...
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property...
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property...
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular p eriod of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property...
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory...
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time...
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.20
Since integrity is based on a property’s significance within a specific historic context, an evaluation of a property’s integrity can only occur after historic significance has been established. 21
California Register of Historical Resources Criteria
The California Office of Historic Preservation’s Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, outlines the differences between the federal and state processes. The criteria to be used when establishing the significance of a property for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) are very similar, with emphasis on local and state significance. They are:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
17 National Park Service, How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National Register Bulletin 16A (Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1997), 75.
18 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15, 3. 19 Ibid., 44.
20 Ibid., 44-45.
21 Ibid., 45.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 18
4. It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.22
The CRHR requires the establishment of historic significance before integrity is considered. California’s integrity threshold is slightly lower than the federal level. As a result, some resources that are historically significant but do not meet National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) integrity standards may be eligible for listing on the CRHR.23
California’s list of special considerations is shorter and more lenient than the NRHP. It includes some allowances for moved buildings, structures, or objects, as well as lower requirements for proving the significance of resources that are less than 50 years old and a more elaborate discussion of the eligibility of reconstructed buildings.24
In addition to separate evaluations for eligibility for the CRHR, the state automatically lists on the CRHR resources that are listed or determined eligible for the NRHP through a complete evaluation process. 25
Integrity
Second, for a property to qualify under the CRHR’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” 26 While a property’s significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to “a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.”27 To determine if a property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the NRHP has identified seven aspects of integrity (identified above under the NRHP criteria), which the CRHR closely follows.28
City of Santa Clara Criteria29
The criteria for local significance were adapted on April 20, 2004, by the City of Santa Clara City Council. Any building, site, or property in the City that is 50 years old or older and meets certain criteria of architectural, cultural, historical, geographical or archeological significance is potentially eligible.
Criterion for Historical or Cultural Significance
To be historically or culturally significant, a property must meet at least one of the following criterion:
• The site, building or property has character, interest, integrity and reflects the heritage and cultural development of the city, region, state, or nation.
• The property is associated with a historical event.
• The property is associated with an important individual or group who contributed in a significant way to the political, social and/or cultural life of the community. • The property is associated with a significant industrial, institutional, commercial, agricultural, or transportation activity.
22 California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6, (Sacramento, 2001), 1.
23 California Register and National Register: A Comparison. 24 California Register and National Register: A Comparison, 2. 25 All State Historical Landmarks from number 770 onward are also automatically listed on the California Register. California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process, Technical Assistance Series 5 (Sacramento, n.d.), 1. 26 United States Department of the Interior, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, No. 15 (Washington, D.C., 1997), 3.
27 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 44. 28 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 1. 29 Santa Clara General Plan, Public Hearing Draft (July 2020), pages 8.9-18 and 8.9-19.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 19
• A building’s direct association with broad patterns of local area history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes or social, political, or economic trends and activities. Included is the recognition of urban street pattern and infrastructure. • A notable historical relationship between a site, building, or property’s site and its immediate environment, including original native trees, topographical features, outbuildings or agricultural setting.
Criterion for Architectural Significance
To be architecturally significant, a property must meet at least one of the following criterion:
1. The property characterizes an architectural style associated with a particular era and/or ethnic group.
2. The property is identified with a particular architect, master builder or craftsman.
3. The property is architecturally unique or innovative.
4. The property has a strong or unique relationship to other areas potentially eligible for preservation because of architectural significance.
5. The property has a visual symbolic meaning or appeal for the community.
6. A building’s unique or uncommon building materials, or its historically early or innovative method of construction or assembly.
7. A building’s notable or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature. These may include massing, proportion, materials, details, fenestration, ornamentation, artwork or functional layout.
Criterion for Geographic Significance
To be geographically significant, a property must meet at least one of the follo wing criterions:
1. A neighborhood, group or unique area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history.
2. A building’s continuity and compatibility with adjacent buildings and/or visual contribution to a group of similar buildings.
3. An intact, historical landscape or landscape features associated with an existing building.
4. A notable use of landscaping design in conjunction with an existing building.
Criterion for Archaeological Significance
For the purposes of CEQA, an “important archaeological resource” is one which:
1. Is associated with an event or person of
A. Recognized significance in California or American history, or B. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory.
2. Can provide information, which is both of demonstrable public interest, and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions.
3. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind.
4. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
5. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.
California Environmental Quality Act
When a proposed project may adversely affect a historical resource, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a city or county to carefully consider the possible impacts before proceeding (Public Resources Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 20
Code Sections 21084 and 21084.1). CEQA equates a substantial adverse change in the signif icance of a historical resource with a significant effect on the environment (Section 21084.1). The Act explicitly prohibits the use of a categorical exemption within the CEQA Guidelines for projects which may cause such a change (Section 21084).
A “substantial adverse change” is defined as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Further, that the “significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources;” or “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources...” or demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.”
CEQA effectively requires preparation of a mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR whenever a project may adversely impact historic resources. Current CEQA law provides that an EIR must be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued, on the basis of substantial evidence in the administrative record, that a p roject may have a significant effect on a historic resource (Guidelines Section 15064). A mitigated Negative Declaration may be used where all potentially significant effects can be mitigated to a level of insignificance (Section 21080). For example, a mitigated Negative Declaration may be adopted for a project which meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and local historic preservation regulations, and so will not adversely affect the resource.
For the purposes of CEQA (Guidelines Section 15064.5), the term “historical resources” shall include the following:
1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et.seq.).
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4800.3) as follows:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 21
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act)
11. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION
Current Historic Status
The subject property at 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara has not previously been identified on any local, state, or national historic resources inventory.
NRHP/CRHR Evaluation
Criterion A/1 – Association with significant events
The subject block sits in the Old Quad, which developed in the late 19th century when the town of Santa Clara was beginning to take shape. Main Street ran through south to the City Park Plaza and was occupied businesses as well as single-family dwellings. While much of the eastern and southern sections of the block by Harrison and Main streets had houses by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the subject house was not built until the 1930s.
The house at 1070 Lewis Street is not associated with the 19th century development of the town of Santa Clara nor the wave of residential construction at the beginning of the 20 th century. The subject parcel is associated with the Portuguese immigrants who made significant contributions to the cultural heritage and broad patterns of local history. The Freitas family who immigrated from Madeira, Portugal to Santa Clara owned the subject parcel that features the houses at 1365 Main Street and 1070 Lewis Street. The early Portuguese immigrants from Madeira and the Azores Islands contributed to the economic life of community and made significant contributions to the town's political, social and cultural life. While the parcel, especially the house at 1365 Main Street, is associated with the Portuguese immigrants who settled in Santa Clara in the early 20th century, and the house at 1070 Lewis Street is a later addition to the property and does not appear to individually reflect the contributions of this group in a significant way. Therefore, the property at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.
Criterion B/2 – Persons
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property. 1070 Lewis Street shares its L-shaped parcel with another single-family dwelling on 1365 Main Street. Manuel Freitas purchased the house at 1365 Main Street and lived there with his family. While active in the Portuguese community of Santa Clara, none of the Freitas family members are known as important figures in the history of the City or California. Freitas later built the house at 1070 Lewis Street, and rented it out to Vincent Mirrione and his family. The Mirriones and the subsequent occupants are not known as important historical figures to the city of Santa Clara or California. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.
Criterion C/3 – Architecture and Construction
Constructed c. 1935, the house at 1070 Lewis Street is vernacular in character. Although it shares some characteristics with the Minimal Traditional style in its simple one-story rectangular massing, low-pitched gabled roof, and minimal ornament, it is not an exemplary representation of this architectural style. A utilitarian garage is to the southeast of the house. Both the single-family house and the garage are of common construction and materials. No architect or builder has been identified for the building. Therefore, the subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 22
Criterion D/4 – Information Potential
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Since the property does not appear individually eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, an integrity assessment was not undertaken.
City of Santa Clara Significance Evaluation
Criterion for Historical or Cultural Significance
1. The site, building or property has character, interest, integrity and reflects the heritage and cultural development of the city, region, state, or nation.
Constructed c. 1935, the house at 1070 Lewis Street was built after the initial establishment of Santa Clara in the late 19th century and after the city’s turn-of-the-20th-century residential development. It does not significantly reflect the growth of the subject block, but rather follows an established trend and does not stand out among other houses that were built the area. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
2. The property is associated with a historical event.
The property does not appear eligible under this criterion since research has not indicated any associations with a particular historical event.
3. The property is associated with an important individual or group who contributed in a significant way to the political, social and/or cultural life of the community.
Manuel Freitas, the original owner of 1070 Lewis Street, was part of Portuguese social and culture clubs in Santa Clara. The early Portuguese immigrants from Madeira and the Azores Islands contributed to the economic life of community and made significant contributions to the town's political, social and cultural life .
While the parcel, especially the house at 1365 Main Street, is associated with the Portuguese immigrants who settled in Santa Clara in the early 20th century, and the house at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear to individually reflect the contributions of this group. Therefore, it does not appear eligible under this criterion.
4. The property is associated with a significant industrial, institutional, commercial, agricultural, or transportation activity.
The property was constructed c. 1935 well after Santa Clara’s original downtown was developed and is not associated with commercial development along Main or Franklin streets. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
5. A building’s direct association with broad patterns of local area history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes or social, political, or economic trends and activities. Included is the recognition of urban street pattern and infrastructure.
This building is not directly associated with the broad development patterns of the city of Santa Clara. The house was built after the turn-of-the-20th-century residential development of the city. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 23
6. A notable historical relationship between a site, building, or property’s site and its immediate environment, including original native trees, topographical features, outbuildings or agricultural setting.
The property does not appear eligible under this criterion since it lacks a notable historical relationship with its immediate environment.
1070 Lewis Street does not appear to be individually eligible for local listing under historical or cultural significance.
Criterion for Architectural Significance
1. The property characterizes an architectural style associated with a particular era and/or ethnic group.
The subject property is vernacular with some characteristics of the Minimal Traditional style. The building is a modest single-family house, not discernable from other vernacular houses of its time in the area. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
2. The property is identified with a particular architect, master builder or craftsman.
No particular architect, master builder, or craftsman is associated with the building; therefore, the property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
3. The property is architecturally unique or innovative.
The property does not appear to be architecturally unique or innovative; both the house and the garage are of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
4. The property has a strong or unique relationship to other areas potentially eligible for preservation because of architectural significance.
The house at 1070 Lewis Street shares a parcel with the single-family dwelling at 1365 Main Street, which has been found potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion C/3 (Architecture). The single-family dwelling at 1070 Lewis Street was owned and built by Manuel Freitas, who purchased the single-family house at 1365 Main Street years prior. However, the house at 1070 Lewis Street is not architecturally significant and bears little resemblance to the single-family house at 1365 Main Street. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
5. The property has a visual symbolic meaning or appeal for the community.
The property does not appear to have any visual symbolic meaning or appeal for the community ; thus, it does not appear eligible under this criterion.
6. A building’s unique or uncommon building materials, or its historically early or innovative method of construction or assembly.
The subject building appears to be of common construction and materials. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
7. A building’s notable or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature. These may include massing, proportion, materials, details, fenestration, ornamentation, artwork or functional layout.
The house at 1070 Lewis Street is a modest residential structure with no notable or special attributes; therefore, the property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
The house at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear eligible for listing for architectural significance.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 24
Criterion for Geographic Significance
1. A neighborhood, group or unique area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history.
Constructed c. 1935, the subject property is in the Old Quad neighborhood which developed in the late 19th and the early 20th centuries. The subject property followed an established trend and is not associated with the neighborhood’s or Santa Clara’s original downtown’s initial development or Santa Clara’s original downtown. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
2. A building’s continuity and compatibility with adjacent buildings and/or visual contribution to a group of similar buildings.
The subject property is compatible with the surrounding residential buildings and landscape, specifically the single-family house at 1365 Main Street, since all the buildings on and around the subject block are similar in scale and material. However, the connection is minimal, and this does not create a significant visual link with the adjacent buildings. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
3. An intact, historical landscape or landscape features associated with an existing building.
There are no intact historical landscape features associated with 1070 Lewis Street; thus, the property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
4. A notable use of landscaping design in conjunction with an existing building.
The property does not appear eligible under this criterion since it does not have a notable use of landscape design.
1070 Lewis Street does not appear eligible for local listing under geographic significance.
Criterion for Archeological Significance
1070 Lewis Street was not evaluated for archeological significance.
In conclusion, the property at 1070 Lewis Street in Santa Clara does not appear individually eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR or the local inventory as it does not have significance under any criteria.
12. CONCLUSION
The property at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear to possess sufficient historical significance for listing in the NRHP or CRHP. The property is not associated with the residential growth of the area, Santa Clara’s original downtown, or the City of Santa Clara in a significant wany. No persons of significance are known to be directly associated with the property. The building is a modest vernacular house and is not associated with a master architect, designer, or builder. The property is unlikely to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the area. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to be individually eligible on the NRHP or CRHR.
The subject property also does not appear to be eligible individually for local listing since it does not have significance under the City of Santa Clara criteria.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ancestry.com.
Archives & Architecture. County of Santa Clara, Historic Context Statement. December 2004 (Revised February 2012).
California Office of Historic Preservation. California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2001. ----. California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process. Technical Assistance Series 5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d.
City of Santa Clara. “City History,” City of Santa Clara Website, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/about- santa-clara/city-history
----. City of Santa Clara Property Report, City of Santa Clara Public Web Map, https://map.santaclaraca.gov/public/index.html?viewer=regional ---. Permit Center, https://aca-prod.accela.com/santaclara/Default.aspx Garcia, Lorie (Beyond Buildings). Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA. February 15, 2022.
Google Earth.
Google Maps.
Historic Aerials by NETR Online. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Library of Congress.
Lichtenstein, Bea. Images of America: Santa Clara. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2020.
Newspapers.com.
National Park Service. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin 15.
Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior, 1997. ----. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National Register Bulletin 16A. Washington, DC:
United States Department of the Interior, 1997.
Polk Directories.
Reclaiming Our Downtown.
Santa Clara County, California; Including its Geography, Geology, Topography, Climatography and Description.
San Francisco: Alley, Bowen & Co, Publishers, 1881.
Santa Clara City Library.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 26
San Jose Public Library.
Thompson & West, N. Friend, C. T. Healey, Thos Hunter, and C. L. Smith. 1876. Historical Atlas Map Of Santa Clara County, California. Compiled, Drawn And Published From Personal Examinations And Surveys By Thompson & West, San Francisco, Cala. 1876. Thos. Hunter Pr. Phil. N. Friend, Engr. Philad. C.L. Smith, Del.
TreanorHL, 2855-2897 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA, Historic Resource Evaluation, June 2022.
University of California Santa Barbara Library Geospatial Collection.
Project Name: 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara HRE
Historic Resources Assessment - FINAL
Project No: HP0932.2202.00
August 23, 2022
treanorhl.com 27
APPENDIX
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
DPR FORM
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, 1915, Vol. 2 (Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division).
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from San Jose, Santa Clara County, California; Reprinted 1950 (Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division).
P1. Other Identifier:
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California
The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: Not for Publication ✓ Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 1070 Lewis Street City Santa Clara Zip 95050_ d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN 269-05-082
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The subject property is in the southeast of City of Santa Clara, on the block bound by Lewis Street to the north, Washington Street to the east, an alley dividing the block and Harrison Street to the south, and Main Street to the west. The rest of the block consists of single-family homes and the surrounding area is predominantly residential with some commercial buildings. (See Continuation Sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*P4. Resources Present: ✓ Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #)
The front (north), TreanorHL, June 2022.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:✓ Historic Prehistoric Both c.1935, Beyond Buildings,
Department of Parks and Recreation
Primary Record 1365 Main Street,
February 2022; aerial maps; Polk City
Directories.
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
TreanorHL
550 Montgomery, Suite 500, Street San
Francisco, CA
*P9. Date Recorded: August 1 ,
2022
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive survey
*P11. Report Citation : (Cite
survey report and other sources,
or enter "none.") TreanorHL, 1070
Lewis Street, Santa Clara, CA, Historic
Resources Assessment – Draft, August
1, 2022
*Attachments: NONE Location Map ✓Continuation Sheet ✓Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1070 Lewis Street *NRHP Status Code
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California
The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: 1070 Lewis Street
B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present Use: Residential *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed in c. 1935. (See Continuation Sheet.)
*B7. Moved? ✓ No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: b. Builder:
*B10. Significance: Theme Area
Period of Significance. Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The land where the City of Santa Clara developed was inhabited by the Ohlone people, who are estimated to have arrived in the Santa Clara Valley about 10,000 years ago. The area was later surveyed in 1769 by Jose Francisco Ortega, a member of the Portola expedition. In 1777, the Mission Santa Clara was established by the Franciscan priests, and remained under their jurisdiction till 1836. In the late 1830s, the government granted portions of land, or ranchos, to their citizens. A section of Potrero de Santa Clara overlapped with the Santa Clara town lines. Cattle was raised on these lands and spurred a tanning and tarrow industry.
Drawn by the vast amount of land and prospect of gold, droves of American settlers began moving to the Santa Clara Valley in the 1840s. In October 1847 William Campbell surveyed the lots in this area and drew up a town plat creating the original lines fo r the town of Santa Clara. On September 9, 1850, California became the 31st state and the town was incorporated on July 5, 1852 . (See Continuation Sheet.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
See Continuation Sheets.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: TreanorHL *Date of Evaluation: August 1, 2022
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
*P3a. Description, Continued:
The L-shaped parcel features five structures: two single-family houses, two detached garages, and one accessory structure. The house at 1070 Lewis Street sits on the north of the short arm of the L -shaped lot. A driveway leading to the garage for the house at 1070 Lewis Street runs north to south, east of the subject house.
Constructed c. 1935, the one-story over basement single-family house is rectangular in plan with central projections on the east and west facades. The wood-frame clapboard siding-clad building is capped by asphalt shingle-clad cross gable and flat roofs with wide eaves and closed rafters.
The asymmetrical north (front) façade features faux wood shutters on an aluminum -sash single-hung divided lite window on the west end and a partial-width porch with flat roof and wide overhang on the east. A decorative set of wood shutters sits on the gable end. The porch is supported by two square wood columns and shelters a single multi - lite glazed door and a multi-lite window with simple wide wood trim and an aluminum screen. A concrete walkway from the property line, perpendicular to Lewis Street, leads up to three steps to the porch.
A shallow volume projects from the east façade. It is capped by an asphalt -shingled gable roof and centered under the main cross-gabled roof. The extension is flanked by two wood-sash one-over-one windows with wide wood trim. Mirroring the east façade, a shallow volume with a gable roof and asphalt shingles projects from the west façade. Two wood-sash double-hung one-over-one windows with wood casing flank the extension; and a casement window with wood surrounds punctuates the center.
The south façade has a single glazed door behind a security gate accessed by a single concrete step. A fixed wood - sash window with a wood trim and an aluminum-sash sliding window with wood surrounds are on either side of the door. The basement is accessed through a pair of hinged T-111 panels that cover the low shelter extending from the south façade.
A one-car garage is located to the south of the house at 1070 Lewis Street. The wood -frame structure is rectangular in plan and has a gable roof. The east façade features double wood doors, while the other elevations are blind. The structure is clad in both vertical board and batten and horizontal dropped wood siding.
*B6. Construction History, Continued:
The 1876 and 1887 maps show a whole block bound by Lewis, Washington, Harris on, and Main streets and by 1915, the Sanborn map shows the block divided by a narrow alley parallel to Lewis and Harrison streets. An accessory unit where the current detached garage sits appears on a 1931 aerial photograph. The subject house at 1070 Lewis Street was built c. 1935. The address was first listed in a 1935 city directory and the house first appears on a 1950 Sanborn map on a rectangular-shaped parcel separate from 1365 Main Street.1
The subject property falls within an area called the Old Quad, bound by railroad tracks to the north, Newhall Avenue to the east and south, and Scott Boulevard to the west. 2 The Old Quad encompasses the majority of the original town lines. Within the Old Quad is Franklin Street, which made up the core of the downtown area in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Franklin Street was the main thoroughfare and had a streetcar line, numerous businesses, a bank, theater, and the original town City Hall which was a mixed-purpose building with the police department and library.3 Main Street intersected Benton Street, Franklin Street, and Homestead Road, leading to City Plaza Park, one of the town’s first parks.4
Efforts for Santa Clara’s downtown urban renewal began in 1958. 5 Federal funding was given to the City and by the 1960s, demolition began in the area bound by Benton Street, Lafayette Street, Homestead Road, and Madison Street.6 The impetus behind the change was to tackle urban blight, a topic citizens were divided on. City planners envisioned commercial businesses clustered on a superblock, competing with emerging shopping malls. Franklin Square, located on the east end of the superblock, was completed and City Hall was moved to Warburton Street, but the rest of the demolished section remained relatively vacant for years. 7
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
The block history is taken from the 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara DPR form from February 2022. 8
The block framed by Harrison, Washington, Lewis and Main Streets was not subdivided in 1866 and Lot 1 encompassed the entire block. According to the list of property owners and their improvements, which accompanied the 1866 survey, this was a 93177 sq. ft. tract, which contained 4 frame houses whose exact locations are unknown. The owner of both this block and the block immediately to the north was shown to be James Harris. Originally from Scotland, he had arrived in Santa Clara prior to 1852. Harris, a blacksmith, is shown on the 1868 Poll List for Santa Clara as having his residence on the subject block "near the comer of Lewis and Main."
[…]
When The Plat of Santa Clara was drawn in the period between 1873 and 1875, it showed no change in the configuration of the block that had been surveyed nine years earlier. However, by then the block was owned by Samuel A. Bishop, who like James Harris had arrived in California during the Gold Rush. Born on September 2, 1825 in Albemarle County, Virginia, in 1848, he crossed the plains by ox -cart along the Santa Fe Trail, arriving in Los Angeles in October 1849.
[…]
Here, among Bishop’s many entrepreneurial activities, he invested in the purchase of several large tracts of land, started the street railway system where he acted as "President" of the San Jose and Santa Clara Horse Railroad, and among his many other business interests was Vice-President of the San Jose Savings Bank and President of the San Jose Homestead Association. By 1873, he had purchased the subject block from James Harris and at the end of the 1880s, while keeping ownership of the north half of Block 4 North, Range 1 West, Bishop sold the south half of the block to Hervey Morgan Leonard. When Bishop unexpectedly passed away on June 3, 1893, he still owned the north half of the block, which is where 1365 Main Street [and 1070 Lewis Street] would later be constructed, and it was included in his $100,0 00 estate, which went into probate.
[…]
Among the properties in Bishop's estate was the large 21,129.90 sq. ft. lot at the SE corner of Lewis and Main Street, north of the alley that divided the block. The lot was acquired by Isaac Newton Thompson who was born in Indiana around 1824. Thompson came to California in 1849 with his wife, Anna and by 1850 had settled in Santa Clara. By 1852, when the Town of Santa Clara was incorporated, he had already started acquiring what would soon be large landholdings adjacent to the town and started raising a family.
[…]
Thompson continued to participate in the purchase and sale of land and also in its development. He invested in that portion of what was at that time called the Saratoga and Santa Cruz toll road lying within Santa Clara County and in 1880 sold it to the County. Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, he continued to be a land speculator. By the turn of the Century, he and Emily resided in a house at 1085 Clay Street on a lot he owned at the NE corner of Clay and Main Streets. When he passed away at age 90, on August 5, 1913, Isaac N. and Emily A. C. Thompson were living in the recently con structed house, located at 1365 Main Street, on the property he had purchased from Samuel A Bishop's estate. (Note: this house and the one next door at 1357 Main Street, which is its mirror image, had to have been built between 1911 and 1912, as the address does not appear on the 1910 Census but the 1913 City directory, which came out in January, lists Emily as already living at 1365 Main Street.) Following Thompson's death, his second wife, Emily
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
Thompson continued to live in the subject residence at 1365 Main Street until 1918, when she moved in with her daughter, at 1321 Bellomy Street. (She was living here when she passed away in 1928.)
ln 1919, the home at 1365 Main Street was sold to George W. Lyle. Born in 1885 in Missouri, George W.
Lyle had grown up in Santa Clara, where as a young man he started work as a constable. ln 1910 he married Ora Van Curran. ln 1918, he was elected the Sherriff of Santa Clara County, the position he held when the following year he purchased the subject home at 1365 Main S treet. By 1925, George W. Lyle had left this house and moved into the new home he had purchased at 1543 Franklin Street. Manuel Souza, a grocer on Franklin Street, and his wife, Amelia, were now living the subject residence and Joseph and Nora Souza lived next door at 1357 Main Street. ln 1926 Manuel Freitas purchased 1365 Main Street and moved into it with his family. At the same time, his brother, Louis Freitas, purchased 1357 Main Street, next door to Manuel.
[…]
The Freitas' new home was located on the large parcel of land that began at the SE corner of Main and Lewis Streets and then went east for almost 140 feet on Lewis and south for 104 feet on Main Street. This gave the family plenty of room in which they, like so many of their fellow immigrant n eighbors, could raise chickens and have a large garden in which to grow fruits and vegetables, both for eating and canning.
In Santa Clara, the agricultural-related businesses were the economic engine behind Santa Clara's growth and prosperity and while many of the men labored on the fruit farms, the great majority of the Portuguese women found work in the canneries and packing houses to provide extra income for their families; often joined by their sons and daughters as soon as they were old enough. When during the 1920s when Rosa Freitas went to work, it was at the Pratt Lowe Preserving Company.
[…]
ln the early 1930s, Manuel Freitas had another house built on his property; 1070 Lewis Street. By 1935, this house was being rented to Vincent Mirrione, a railroad clerk, and his wife for $2/month, providing rental income to the family.
[…]
ln 1994, the original parcel purchased by Manuel Freitas in 1926 was subdivided into 2 parcels. One of the new lots was an L-shaped portion with 38.33 feet fronting on Lewis Street where the house at 1070 Lewis exists and 54 feet fronting on Main Street where the Freitas home at 1365 Main Street is located. On August 9, 2021, the L-shaped portion of the original property that had been bought by Manuel Freitas in 1926 and where the Freitas home at 1365 Main Street is located, was sold to Pear Street lnvestment, LLC.
The corner portion with the new house at 1074 Lewis Street is still in the Freitas fami ly.
No permits were found to be associated with the 1070 Lewis Street property.
*B10. Significance, Continued:
In the 1850s, the town began to take shape with each citizen being given a single plot of land, approximately one hundred square yards, under the condition they build on the land within three months. During this time, 23 houses were imported from the east coast and town structures were erected including stores, a schoolhouse, and churches.
In 1851, Santa Clara College was established on the old mission site and became a prominent feature of the developing town. Santa Clara became a state-chartered city in 1862.9
While the city encompassed a small area of two miles long and a half mile wide, small family farms and orchards
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
developed outside city limits. As the town grew, it was supported by a variety of manufacturing, seed, and fruit industries such as the Block Fruit Packing Company established in 1878, and the Pratt-Low Preserving Company established in 1905. Santa Clara’s economy in late 19 th and early 20th century was largely characterized by fruit and seed industries, and logging manufacturers. Exported fresh, canned, or dried, the fruit industry was supported by the transcontinental railroad which was completed in 1869. 10
By 1906, the population of the city had grown to nearly 5,000. Although the fruit business, including growing, packing, and canning peaked in the 1920s, it remained the focus of Santa Clara agriculture in the first half of the 20 th century. Large farmlands were subdivided into three to fifty-acre orchards devoted to fruit production. The population remained fairly stable and did not increase greatly until after World War II when the city outgrew its 19 th century boundaries and expanded to open lands north and west of the original city limits. 11
The city’s boundaries remained the same till after World War II when the city decided to expand nor th and west.
The business community launched an active campaign to attract new non -agricultural related industries to Santa Clara County. Early industries that established plants in the Santa Clara Valley included Chicago’s International Mineral and Chemical Corporation’s Accent plant, the General Electric plant, and IBM. By the 1960s, Santa Clara County’s economic base was dependent upon the electronic and defense industries. Attracted by the increasing job market, the population of the Santa Clara Valley experienced phenomenal growth after 1950. Between 1950 and 1969, residential subdivisions replaced orchards at an amazing speed. Rural roads were widened into freeways, and expressways and boulevards were lined with restaurants, automobile salesrooms, and car-oriented establishments. In response to the growing population, the city of Santa Clara replaced its 1913 city hall with a new civic center at the corner of Lincoln Street and Warburton Avenue in 1963; the new civic center included administrative offic es and police facilities. Intel located in Santa Clara in 1970; by 1990 there were close to 500 manufacturing plants in the city. The electronics industry changed the agricultural nature of Santa Clara and the valley; and the city continued to grow into the late 20th century.12
Architect/Builder
No architects or builders were found to have been associated with the subject building.
Architectural Style
The single-family house at 1070 Lewis Street is vernacular with some characteristics of the Minimal Traditional architectural style. This style was popular between c. 1935 and 1950 and was constructed throughout the United States. The character-defining features the subject property shares with Minimal Traditional houses are:
• Low-pitched roof, oftentimes gabled
• One story in height
• Little roof overhang
• Double-hung multi-pane windows
• Minimal architectural detail13
•
Current Historic Status
The subject property at 1070 Lewis Street, Santa Clara has not previously been identified on any local, state, or national historic resources inventory.
Significance Evaluation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) & California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Evaluation14
Criterion A/1 – Association with significant events
The subject block sits in the Old Quad, which developed in the late 19th century when the town of Santa Clara was beginning to take shape. Main Street ran through south to the City Park Plaza and was occupied businesses as well as single-family dwellings. While much of the eastern and southern sections of the block by Harrison and Main
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
streets had houses by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the subject house was not built until the 1930s. The house at 1070 Lewis Street is not associated with the 19th century development of the town of Santa Clara nor the wave of residential construction at the beginning of the 20th century. The subject parcel is associated with the Portuguese immigrants who made significant contributions to the cultural heritage and br oad patterns of local history. The Freitas family who immigrated from Madeira, Portugal to Santa Clara owned the subject parcel that features the houses at 1365 Main Street and 1070 Lewis Street. The early Portuguese immigrants from Madeira and the Azores Islands contributed to the economic life of community and made significant contributions to the town's political, social and cultural life. While the parcel, especially the house at 1365 Main Street, is associated with the Portuguese immigrants who settled in Santa Clara in the early 20th century, and the house at 1070 Lewis Street is a later addition to the property and does not appear to individually reflect the contributions of this group in a significant way. Therefore, the property at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.
Criterion B/2 – Persons
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property. 1070 Lewis Street shares its L-shaped parcel with another single-family dwelling on 1365 Main Street. Manuel Freitas purchased the house at 1365 Main Street and lived there with his family. While active in the Portuguese community of Santa Clara, none of the Freitas family members are known as important f igures in the history of the City or California. Freitas later built the house at 1070 Lewis Street, and rented it out to Vincent Mirrione and his family.
The Mirriones and the subsequent occupants are not known as important historical figures to the city of Santa Clara or California. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.
Criterion C/3 – Architecture and Construction
Constructed c. 1935, the house at 1070 Lewis Street is vernacular in character. Although it shares some characteristics with the Minimal Traditional style in its simple one-story rectangular massing, low-pitched gabled roof, and minimal ornament, it is not an exemplary representation of this architectural style. A utilitarian gara ge is to the southeast of the house. Both the single-family house and the garage are of common construction and materials.
No architect or builder has been identified for the building. Therefore, the subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3.
Criterion D/4 – Information Potential
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion D/4.
Integrity
Since the property does not appear individually eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, an integrity assessment was not undertaken.
City of Santa Clara Significance Evaluation
Criterion for Historical or Cultural Significance
1. The site, building or property has character, interest, integrity and reflects the heritage and cultural development of the city, region, state, or nation.
Constructed c. 1935, the house at 1070 Lewis Street was built after the initial establishment of Santa Clara in the late 19th century and after the city’s turn-of-the-20th-century residential development. It does not significantly reflect the growth of the subject block, but rather follows an established trend and does not stand out among other houses that were built the area. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
2. The property is associated with a historical event.
The property does not appear eligible under this criterion since research has not indicated any associations with a particular historical event.
3. The property is associated with an important individual or group who contributed in a signi ficant way to the political, social and/or cultural life of the community.
Manuel Freitas, the original owner of 1070 Lewis Street, was part of Portuguese social and culture clubs in Santa Clara. The early Portuguese immigrants from Madeira and the Azores Islands contributed to the economic life of community and made significant contributions to the town's political, social and cultural life. While the parcel, especially the house at 1365 Main Street, is associated with the Portuguese immigrants who settled in Santa Clara in the early 20th century, and the house at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear to individually reflect the contributions of this group. Therefore, it does not appear eligible under this criterion.
4. The property is associated with a significant industrial, institutional, commercial, agricultural, or transportation activity.
The property was constructed c. 1935 well after Santa Clara’s original downtown was developed and is not associated with commercial development along Main or Franklin streets. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
5. A building’s direct association with broad patterns of local area history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes or social, political, or economic trends and activities.
Included is the recognition of urban street pattern and infrastructure.
This building is not directly associated with the broad development patterns of the city of Santa Clara. The house was built after the turn-of-the-20th-century residential development of the city. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
6. A notable historical relationship between a site, building, or property’s site and its immediate environment, including original native trees, topographical features, outbuildings or agricultural setting.
The property does not appear eligible under this criterion since it lacks a notable historical relationship with its immediate environment.
1070 Lewis Street does not appear to be individually eligible for local listing under historical or cultural significance.
Criterion for Architectural Significance
1. The property characterizes an architectural style associated with a particular era and/or ethnic group.
The subject property is vernacular with some characteristics of the Minimal Traditional style. The building is a modest single-family house, not discernable from other vernacular houses of its time in the area. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
2. The property is identified with a particular architect, master builder or craftsman.
No particular architect, master builder, or craftsman is associated with the building; therefore, the property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
3. The property is architecturally unique or innovative.
The property does not appear to be architecturally unique or innovative; both the house and the garage are of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
4. The property has a strong or unique relationship to other areas potentially eligible for preservation because of architectural significance.
The house at 1070 Lewis Street shares a parcel with the single-family dwelling at 1365 Main Street, which has been found potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion C/3 (Architecture). The single -family dwelling at 1070 Lewis Street was owned and built by Manuel Freitas, who purchased the single-family house at 1365 Main Street years prior.
However, the house at 1070 Lewis Street is not architecturally significant and bears little resemblance to the single-family house at 1365 Main Street. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
5. The property has a visual symbolic meaning or appeal for the community.
The property does not appear to have any visual symbolic meaning or appeal for the community; thus, it does not appear eligible under this criterion.
6. A building’s unique or uncommon building materials, or its historically early or innovative method of construction or assembly.
The subject building appears to be of common construction and materials. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
7. A building’s notable or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature. These may include massing, proportion, materials, details, fenestration, ornamentation, artwork or functional layout.
The house at 1070 Lewis Street is a modest residential structure with no notable or special attributes; therefore, the property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
The house at 1070 Lewis Street does not appear eligible for listing for architectural significance.
Criterion for Geographic Significance
1. A neighborhood, group or unique area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history.
Constructed c. 1935, the subject property is in the Old Quad neighborhood which developed in the late 19 th and the early 20th centuries. The subject property followed an established trend and is not associated with the neighborhood’s or Santa Clara’s original downtown’s initial development or Santa Clara’s original downtown.
The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
2. A building’s continuity and compatibility with adjacent buildings and/or visual contribution to a group of similar buildings.
The subject property is compatible with the surrounding residential buildings and landscape, specifically the single-family house at 1365 Main Street, since all the buildings on and around the subject block are similar in scale and material. However, the connection is minimal, and this does not create a significant visual link with the adjacent buildings. The property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
3. An intact, historical landscape or landscape features associated with an existing building.
There are no intact historical landscape features associated with 1070 Lewis Street; thus, the property does not appear eligible under this criterion.
4. A notable use of landscaping design in conjunction with an existing building.
The property does not appear eligible under this criterion since it does not have a notable use of landscape design.
1070 Lewis Street does not appear eligible for local listing under geographic significance.
Criterion for Archeological Significance
1070 Lewis Street was not evaluated for archeological significance.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
Criterion for Archeological Significance
1070 Lewis Street was not evaluated for archeological significance.
In conclusion, the property at 1070 Lewis Street in Santa Clara does not appear individually eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR or the local inventory as it does not have significance under any criteria.
*B12. References (Endnotes):
1 Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings, Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA, February 15, 2022; 1931 aerial photograph; Polk City Directories via ancestry.com. 2 “About,” Old Quad Residents Association, accessed July 8, 2022, https://www.oldquadsantaclara.org/about. 3 Urban Field Studio for the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Downtown Community Meeting Notes, October 21, 2015. Accessed on July 8, 2022.
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/42032/636029014747270000 ; Reclaiming Our Downtown, Map Historic Downtown Santa Clara CA, Inclusive of Historic Pictures, https://www.historypin.org/en/historic-downtown-santa-clara-ca/geo/37.349392,- 121.945451,11/bounds/37.196946,-122.111963,37.501529,-121.778939/paging/1/pin/1154356. 4 “Santa Clara Living, Downtown Santa Clara: Past, Present, and Future [2020],” YouTube video, posted by Santa Clara Living, March 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkXsAQ0tL5Y . 5 Carolyn Schuk, “The History of Santa Clara’s Downtown,” The Silicon Valley Voice, November 16, 2017, https://www.svvoice.com/the-history-of-santa-claras-downtown/. 6 Janice Bitters, “Residents rally to ‘reclaim’ demolished downtown Santa Clara,” San Jose Spotlight, August 19, 2019, https://sanjosespotlight.com/residents-rally-to-reclaim-demolished-downtown-santa-clara/. 7 “The Remaking of a Downtown: Destruction and Renewal in Santa Clara,” WRT Design, January 21, 2021 https://www.wrtdesign.com/news/remaking-of-downtown-santa-clara. 8 Lorie Garcia, Beyond Buildings, Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record 1365 Main Street, Santa Clara, CA, February 15, 2022.
9 A Brief History of The Mission City: Santa Clara, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/about-santa-clara/city- history (accessed June 30, 2022).
10 Summarized from “City History,” City of Santa Clara Website, https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our -city/about- santa-clara/city-history (accessed May 25, 2022); Archives & Architecture, LLC., County of Santa Clara, Historic Context Statement, December 2004 (updated February 2012), 43-47; Lichtenstein, Images of America, Santa Clara,
62. 11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California
Natural Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial
CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 1070 Lewis Street
13 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2020), 587 -288. 14 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation, 75, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm (accessed April 26, 2017); California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6 (Sacramento, 2001), 1.
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
RECORD WITHOUT FEE
PURSUANT TO GOV'T CODE SECTION 6103
Recording Requested by:
Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara, California
When Recorded, Mail to:
Office of the City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Form per Gov't Code Section 27361.6 [SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE]
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement, (herein, "Agreement"), is made and entered into this ___ day of ___________, 2023, ("Effective Date"), by and between Riccardo Marino, owner of certain real property located at 1365 Main Street (“OWNER”) and the City of Santa Clara, Califor nia, a chartered California municipal corporation with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 ("CITY"). CITY and OWNER may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."
A. Recitals.
(1) California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. authorizes the CITY to enter into a contract with the OWNER of qualified Historical Property to provide for the use, maintenance, and restoration of such Historical Property so as to retain its characteristics as property of historical significance.
(2) OWNER possesses fee title in and to that certain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, shown on the 2023 Santa Clara County Property Tax Rolls as Assessors' Parcel Number 269-05-082, and generally located at the street address 1365 Main Street, in the City of Santa Clara ("Historic Property"). A legal description of the Historic Property is attached hereto as "Legal Description," marked as "Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference.
(3) The Historic Property is on the City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties list. OWNER submitted a Mills Act Proposal to City on December 23, 2021.
The Proposal included a Primary Record from the State of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation. A true and correct copy of the Proposal is attached to this Agreement as “Exhibit B”.
(4) CITY and OWNER, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this Agreement both to protect and preserve the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property and to qualify the Historic Property for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Section 439.2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
B. Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and OWNER, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, do hereby agree as follows:
(1) Effective Date and Term of Agreement . The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date of this Agreement and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the effective date, such term will automatically be extended as provided in paragraph 2, below.
(2) Renewal.
(a) Each y ear on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, ("renewal date"), one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of this Agreement unless notice of nonrenewal is mailed as provided herein.
(b) If either the OWNER or CITY desires i n any year not to renew the Agreement, OWNER or CITY shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreement. Unless such notice is served by OWNER to CITY at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by CITY to OWNER at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the balance of the remaining term of the Agreement as provided herein.
(c) OWNER may make a written protest of a nonrenewal notice issued by CITY. CITY may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to OWNER o f nonrenewal. If either CITY or OWNER serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term t hen remaining, from either original execution date or the last renewal date of the Agreement, whichever is applicable.
(3) Standards for Historical Property .
During the term of this Agreement, the
Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements, and restrictions:
(a) O
WNER shall preserve and maintain the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property. "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," marked as “Exhibit C” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference, contains a list of those minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use, and preservation of the Historic Property, which shall apply to such property throughout the term of this Agreement.
(b) OWNER shal l, when necessary or as determined by the Director of Planning and Inspection, restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and the Califo rnia Historical Building Code and in accordance with the attached schedule of potential home improvements, drafted by the OWNER and approved by the City Council, attached hereto as "The Description of the Preservation and Restoration Efforts," marked as “Exhibit D” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference.
(c) OWNER shall allow, and CITY requires, that after five (5) years, and every five (5) years thereafter, an inspection of the property’s interior and exterior shall be conducted by Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
a party appointed by CITY, to determine OWNER’ continued compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNER acknowledge that the required inspections of the interior and exterior of the property were conducted prior to the effective date of this Agreement.
(4) Provision for Information.
(a) OWNER hereby agree to furnish CITY with any and all information requested by the CITY to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
(b) It shall be the duty of the OWNER to keep and preserve, for the term of the Agreement, all records as may be n ecessary to determine the eligibility of the p roperty involved, and the OWNER compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to blueprints, permits, historical and/or architectural review approvals, and schedules of potential home improvements drafted by the OWNER and approved by the City Council.
(5) Cancellation.
(a) CITY, following a duly noticed public hearing as set forth in Cal ifornia Government Code Section 50280, et seq., shall cancel this Agreement or bring an action in court to enforce this Agreement if it determines any one of the following:
(i) the OWNER breached any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement; or
(ii) the OWNER allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets standards for a qualified historic property.
(b) CITY may also cancel this Agreement if it determines that:
(i) the OWNER allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets building standards of the City Code and the codes it incorporates by reference, including, but not limited to , the Uniform Housing Code, the California Historical Building Code, the California Fire Code, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings or;
(ii) the OWNER has not complied with any other local, State, or federal laws and regulations.
(iii) the OWNER failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in subparagraph 3(b) of this Agreement.
(c) In the event of cancellation, OWNER shall pay those cancellation fees set forth in California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. As an alternative to cancellation, OWNERS may bring an action in court to enforce the Agreement.
(6) No Waiver of Breach.
(a) No waiver by CITY of any breach under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach. CITY does not waive any claim of breach by OWNER if CITY does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for under the terms of this Agreement or in the City's laws and regulations are available to the City.
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
(7) Mediation.
(a) Any controversies between OWNER and CITY regarding the construction or application of this Agreement, and claim arising out of this contract or its breach, shall be submitted to mediation upon the written request of one party after the service of that request on the other party.
(b) If a dispute arises under this contract, either party may demand m ediation by filing a written demand with the other party.
(c) The parties may agree on one mediator. If they cannot agree on one mediator, there shall be three: one named in writing by each of the parties within five days after demand for mediation is given, and a third chosen by the two appointed. Should either party refuse or neglect to join in the appointment of the mediator(s) or to furnish the mediator(s) with any papers or information demanded, the mediator(s) may proceed ex parte.
(d) A hearing on the matter to be arbitrated shall take place before the mediator(s) in the city of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, at the time and place selected by the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall select the time and place promptly and shall give party written notice of the time and place at least fifteen (15) days before the date selected. At the hearing, any relevant evidence may be presented by either party, and the formal rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings shall not govern. Evidence may be admitted or excluded in the sole discretion of the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall hear and determine the matter and shall execute and acknowledge the award in writing and cause a copy of the writing to be delivered to each of the parties.
(e) The submission of a dispute to the mediator(s) and the rendering of a decision by the mediator(s) shall be a condition precedent to any right of legal action on the dispute.
A judgment confirming the award may be given by any Superior Court having jurisdiction, or that Court may vacate, modify, or correct the award in accordance with the prevailing provisions of the California Mediation Act.
(f) Each party shall bear their own cost(s) of mediation.
(8) Binding Effect of Agreement.
(a) The OWNER hereby subjects the Historic Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. CITY and OWNER hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and re strictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the OWNER successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering, encumbering, or conveying the Historic Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.
(b) CITY and OWNER hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations, and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that OWNER’ legal interest in the Historic Property.
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
(c) CITY and OWNER hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and maintaining the historic characteristics and significance of the Historic Property for the benefit of the CITY, public (which includes, but is not limited to the benefit to the public street generally located at 633 Park Court), and OWNER.
(9) Notice.
(a) Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.
CITY: City of Santa Clara
Attn: City Clerk
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
OWNERS: Pear Street Investment, LLC
1365 Main Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(b) Prior to entering a contract for sale of the Historic Property, OWNER shall give thirty (30) days notice to the CITY and it shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified above or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.
(10) No Partnership or Joint Enterprise Created .
None of the terms, provisions, or
conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns; nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
(11) Hold Harmless and Indemnification .
To the extent permitted by law, OWNER
agree to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its City Council, commissions, officers, agents, and employees from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim arising there from for which OWNER shall become legally liable arising from OWNER ’ acts, errors, or omissions with respect to or in any way connected with this Agreement.
(12) Attorneys' Fees.
In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to costs and other relief ordered by the court.
(13) Restrictive Covenants Binding . A
ll of the agreements, rights, covenants,
reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heir s, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner pursuant to this Agreement.
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
(14) Mills Act Historic Property Contract Application Requiremen ts. An application for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract shall be made through the Planning Division and shall include the following:
a. a
Historic Resources Inventory form;
b. the description of the preservation or restoration efforts to be undertaken as referenced in paragraph 3 (b) as Exhibit "D";
c. a statement of justification for the Mills Act Historic Property designation and reassessment; and,
d. the Mills Act Historic Property Contract filing fee pursuant to paragraph 17.
(15) Mills Act Historic Property Contract Approval.
Based upon the Historical and
Landmarks Commission's ("Commission") review of the Mills Act Historic Property Contract criteria and recommendation to Council, and based upon the recommendation and approval by Council, a Mills Act Historic Property Contract may be entered into with OWNER. The decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive in the matter.
(16) Recordation and Notice .
No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the CITY shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara.
(17) Fees.
The Planning Department may collect such Mills Act Historic Property Contract application fee of $8,350.95 (eight thousand, three hundred, and fifty dollars and ninety- five cents), or other fees for the administration of this contract as are authorized from time to time by the City Council. Such fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the ser vice for which these fees are charged. OWNERS shall pay the County Recorder's Office recordation fees for recordation of this Mills Act Historic Property Contract a nd the recordation of the OWNERS updated Historic Resources Inventory form.
(18) Ordinary Maintenance. Nothing in this contract shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any Historic Property covered by this contract that does not involve a change in design, material, or external appearance thereof, nor does this contract prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition, or removal of any such external architectural feature when the Director of Planning and Inspection determines that such action is required for the public safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California Historical Building Code and when such architectural feature can be replaced according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards.
(19) California Historic al
Building Code . The California Historic al Building Code ("CHBC") provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of structures desi gnated as Historic Properties. The CITY's building permit procedure shall be utilized for any Historic Property which is subject to the provisions of this Agreement, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the CHBC. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prevent any fire, building, health, or safety official from enforcing Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and standards to protect the health, safety, welfare , and property of the OWNERS or occupants of the Historic Property or the public. (20) Conservation Easements .
(a) Conservation easements on the facades of the Historical Property may be acquired by the CITY, or on the CITY's behalf, by a nonprofit group designated by the CITY through purchase, donation, or condemnation pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.
(b) The OWNERS, occupant, or other person in actual charge of the Historical Property shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of the Historic Property, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature.
(c) It shall be the duty of the Director of Planning and Building Inspection to enforce this section.
(21) Severability.
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, such decision shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions of this Agreement. CITY and OWNER hereby declare that they would have adopted this Agreement, and each section, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespecti ve of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
(22) Integrated Agreement - T
otality of Agreement. This Agreement embodies the
agreement between CITY and OWNER S and its terms and conditions. No other understanding, agreements, or conversations, or otherwise, with any officer, agent, or employee of CITY prior to execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement. Any such verbal agreement shall be considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon CITY.
(23) Captions. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation.
(24) Statutes and Law Governing Contract .
This Agreement shall be governed and
construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California.
(25) Amendments.
This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/1365 Main Street Typed: 5/3/2023
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNER S have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
Jovan D. Grogan
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
“CITY”
Pear Street Investments, LLC
Owner of 1365 Main Street
By: _____________________________
Pear Street Investments, LLC
1365 Main Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
“OWNER”
Exhibits:
A – Property Description
B – Primary Record
C – Standards for Rehabilitation
D – Restoration Schedule
Order Number: 4322-6635058
Page Number: 5
First American Title
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:
PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 12, 1994, IN BOOK 658 OF MAPS, PAGE 1.
APN: 269-05-082
Order Number: 4322-6635058
Page Number: 6
First American Title
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
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.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materia Is or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be 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.
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.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
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 will 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.
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.
Exhibit C
Main St. Project
1365 Main St Santa Clara
10 Year Mills Act Agreement
YEAR 1‐2 Exterior Touch Up Paint & Cement Plaster Crack Repair Perform touch up on exterior of residence, including all stucco, eaves, gutters, downspouts, windows trims, doors and other associated. Any minor dry rot or pest/rodent damaged areas found shall be repaired with epoxy filler and
repainted to match.
YEAR 3‐4 Termite Fumigation & Hvac
Check for infestation by drywood termites. Drill and treat the infested areas with termiticide. If required, mask over all accessible pellets and also check for the pellets to sift down or reappear in the same area where they have been masked over. Inspect and clean HVAC throughout the
house. Replace filter in the return area.
YEAR 5‐6 Interior Paint & Front yard landscape
Repaint or touch up all interior wall. Any minor damages on interior trims shall be repaired.
Maintain front yard landscape. Trim all existing pl ants and replace/ add new plants. Check all irrigation and drainage in the front yard.
YEAR 7‐8 Repair Gutter & Roof
Repair partial existing asphalt composition shingle roofing with new asphalt composition shingle roofing with a more similar profile and shadow line of wood shingles.
Repair any dr
y rot at roof rafters at the eaves (epoxy repair or replace to match) and install new ogee style gutter with 2” or 3” diameter downspouts in required areas. Must check if rain gutter or downspouts appear to be leaking or clogged before replacing.
YEAR 9‐10 Foundation & Substructure
Replac
e deteriorating and compromised concrete foundation (over‐excavation at dirt basement storage area) with new concrete basement foundations (concrete slab and retaining walls with associated drainage). Remove and replace all the damaged wood members found underneath flooring. Inspect any subfloor without insulation or insulation touching the ground. Also, check if there is cellulose debris in earth contact in the substructure area. Replac e the wood members
of the substructure.
Dear Planning Staff and Historic & Landmark Commissioners,
This letter is to verify the progress of the 10 year Mills Act agreement. The agreement will provide historical integrity of the property as outlined in the 10 year plan. Our desire is to make
the property function in a safe and comfortable manner. We intend to restore as much hardware and fixtures as possible or replace them with other used historical items as well as installing some new materials. This project fits our desires wel l and most certainly would be good for this historic area of Santa Clara.
Sincerely,
Salvatore Caruso Design Corporation
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1070 LEWIS ST
1070 LEWIS ST
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1070 LEWIS ST
1070 LEWIS ST
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1070 LEWIS ST
1070 LEWIS ST
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1070 LEWIS ST
1070 LEWIS ST
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1070 LEWIS ST
1070 LEWIS ST
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TEL. No. (408) 998-4087
DESIGN CORPORATIONSALVATORE CARUSO
980 EL CAMINO REAL, # 200, SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FAX. No. (408) 998-4088
ã
1365 MAIN ST
1365 MAIN ST,
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050