HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-10-2023 Heritage Preservation Commission Agenda PacketPage 1 of 2
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 10, 2023
8:30 AM REGULAR MEETING
Public Participation Information
In accordance with Saratoga City Council’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of
the public may participate in this meeting in person at the location listed below or via remote
attendance using the Zoom information below.
1.Attending the meeting in person at the City Hall Linda Callon Conference Room,
located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070; OR
2.Accessing the meeting through Zoom
•Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89724230427 App
(Webinar ID 897 2423 0427) and using the tool to raise their hand in the
Zoom platform when directed by the Chair to speak on an agenda item; OR
•Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand
to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order,
if you need assistance to participate in this meeting due to a disability, please contact the
City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the
meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide
as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety.
1.Site Visit(s)
a.None
2.Call to Order
3.Roll Call- Sharon Boyce-Bender, Zhen Li, Margarete Minar, and Priya Shastri
4.Oral Communications
Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the
agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment
on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda.
5.Approval of the July 11, 2023 minutes
6.New Business
Page 2 of 2
a. 14754 Pierce Road
b. Brown Act/Parliamentary Procedure (City Clerk)
7. Staff Comments
a. HPC recruitment
8. Old Business
a. Projects status worksheet
9. Commission Items
10. Adjournment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you
need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 868-1216 or bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Requests
must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the
meeting.
Any recommendation made by the Heritage Preservation Commission may be appealed to
the Planning Commission within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall
be taken by filing with the Secretary of the Heritage Preservation Commission a written
notice and filing fee within ten (10) days of the date of the decision.
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff report, and other materials
provided to the Heritage Preservation Commission by City staff in connection with this
agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after
the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the Director
at the time, they are distributed to the Heritage Preservation Commission.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner, for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for
the meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission was posted and available for public review
on October 3, 2023 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on
the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Page 1 of 2
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
July 11, 2023
8:30 AM REGULAR MEETING
1. Site Visit(s)
a. None
2. Call to Order
Chair Boyce-Bender called the meeting to order at 8:33 AM
3. Roll Call
Present: Sharon Boyce-Bender, and Priya Shastri, Margarete Minar
Absent: Zhen Li
Staff: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner
4. Oral Communications
None
5. Approval of the June 13, 2023 minutes
SHASTRI/MINAR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 13, 2023
MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BOYCE-BENDER, MINAR, SHASTRI. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: LI ABSTAIN: NONE
6. New Business
a. 14445 Donna Lane
MINAR/SHASTRI MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
EXTERIOR CHANGES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BOYCE-BENDER, MINAR,
SHASTRI. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: LI ABSTAIN: NONE
b. Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record information (DPR)
(Stacy De Shazo)
Stacy De Shazo provided an overview of what is included in DPR forms, when
they are needed, and who prepares them.
7. Staff Comments
3
Page 2 of 2
8. Old Business
a. Projects status worksheet
Commissioner Shastri commented that she is working on research for 18530,
18570, 18550 & 18600 Montpere.
9. Commission Items
• The commissioners discussed the Saratoga Jail research, Gene Zambetti
discussed that he may have some background/history that he can provide.
• Chair Boyce-Bender discussed the Fourth of July event. The HPC is requesting
a QR code to have at tables for general HPC information.
• Heritage Orchard- Commissions and staff should have separate harvest days.
10. Adjournment
Chair Boyce-Bender adjourned the meeting at 9:27 AM
4
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
MEETING DATE: October 10, 2023
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC)
FROM: Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Item 6a-14754 Pierce Road (Paul Masson Lodge)
Addition/Exterior Modifications/New Wine Shed
APPLICATION: HPC221-0012
Property Location: 14754 Pierce Road
Property APN: 503-72-033
Property Owner/Applicant: Adams-Weser Residence
Background:
The subject property is listed on the Heritage Resource Inventory (HP-88-01) as the
Paul Masson Mountain Hunting Lodge.
This house has a steep roof and round turret, is an unusual Eclectic-Revival design.
The two-story house is built of red used brick and has a large cylindrical tower topped
with a conical roof. There is a one-story wing at the north side. The home was situated
at the end of a long drive with a brick carriage house/caretakers’ home.
This house is said to have been designed by Henry Clay Smith. Smith (1874-1945) was
born in Santa Clara and studied at the University of Pennsylvania. After working for
James Hamilton Windrim, he returned to the San Francisco Bay Area where he went
into partnership with Louis S. Stone in 1900 until 1909. Smith's later signature
buildings involved the sitting of houses in hilly terrain, and he became known as "The
Hillside Architect."
The property reflects changes over the last century, from rural country manor to a
single-family residential property. The Paul Masson Lodge can be found to continue
to convey a mostly authentic 1920s architectural style, with integrity of location and
larger setting, with methods and materials of construction, feelings, and associations,
with some loss of integrity of materials, artisanship, and immediate setting.
5
Page 2 of 3
Project Description:
The property owner is requesting HPC review for the following modifications:
• Existing Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit- an interior remodel and exterior
modifications are proposed for the existing ADU. All existing brick will be saved
and re-used. Proposed new windows, casing, trim/moldings, exterior details,
finishes, and roofing will match existing. Paint colors and finish textures will
match existing.
• Addition to main residence - A small exterior vestibule for access to the
existing living room is proposed. New door to match the existing original front
porch and entrance door. All new brick shall match existing brick. New
windows, casing, trim/moldings, exterior details, and finishes shall match
existing. Paint colors and finish textures shall match existing.
• Detached Winery Shed- A new winery shed is proposed. The new windows
will match the existing windows in the main house. Roll-up doors will match
the new garage door at the ADU. The closed end walls of the detached
garage will be clad in slate shingles to match the same at the main house
roof. The new windows and doors will match existing at the main house. A
new wood pergola (with fire retardant materials and/or heavy timbers) which
matches the details of the existing, is proposed to be built adjacent to the
new garage.
• Site Work- new landscape work includes the removal of existing gravel
drive/parking areas. The conversion of a large existing expanse of gravel
drive/parking area to be planted with native vegetation.
Three recommendations for this project as provided by Archives & Architecture that
should be included in the Building plans are:
• Clarify that the original historic door be restored and/or repaired rather
than reproduced; however, if the door is not repairable, it is
recommended that the “match the old in design, color, texture, and,
where possible, materials.”
• General notes should be included into the plan set that identify the
historic significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the
project plans must be reviewed, as well as identifying that the approach
to deteriorated elements should be to preserve and repair, and to
replace in-kind only if necessary.
• There shall be no treatments of the historic brick (including, but not
limited to power washing or repointing) are currently proposed at the
6
Page 3 of 3
Paul Masson Lodge (main building). It is recommended that all such
treatments be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the HPC consider the applicant’s request for the proposed
project with the recommendations provided by Archives & Architecture and
recommend approval of the project.
Attachments:
1. DPR
2. Historic Evaluation prepared by Archives & Architecture dated August 23,
2022
3. Development Plans
7
Mount Diablo
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
NRHP Status Code
4of Paul Masson Lodge*Resource Name or #
HP-88-01 (14574 on Inventory) P1. Other identifier:
*P2. Location:
Santa Clara County*a. County
Cupertino*b. USGS 7.5' Quad 1980 Photorevised .8 S.T .2 W.R
Pierce Rd. c. Address:SaratogaCity 95070Zip
10S d. UTM:(give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/mN
northeast corner of Pierce Road and Vintage Lane.
e.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
(Assigned by recorder):
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a location map as necessary.)
;;
;
This house is not visible from the public right-of-way. City records and aerial views indicate
that the house, with its steep roof and round turret, is an unusual Ecelectic-Revival design
with influences from the Burgundy region of France. The two-story house is reportedly built of
red used brick and has a large cylindrical tower topped with a conical roof. The remainder of
the roof is a typical French mansard, and is punctuated by flat-arched dormers. The wood doors
and windows are deeply inset into flat-arched openings and feature heavy shutters; the
openings are placed symmetrically around the building. There is a one-story wing at the north
side. The home was situated at the end of a long drive with a brick carriage house/caretakers
home to the left before entering the paved entry court. The property was recently subdivided,
and the land remaining around the house is planted in vineyards. The property is enclosed by
an iron fence and entry gates, recently erected by the present owner.
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements, include design, material, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
HP2. Single family property*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)*P4. Resources Present:
None
Location Map
Sketch 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):
*Attachments:
Archives & Architecture: City of Saratoga Statement of Historic Context, 2009.
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none".)
Date unknown, from City files.
P5b.Description of Photo:
(View, date, accession #)
Historic Prehistoric Both
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
James & Jane Asher
10647 Blaney Ave.
Cupertino CA 95014
*P7. Owner and Address:
Archives & Architecture, LLC
PO Box 1332
San Jose, CA 95109
*P8. Recorded By: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
10/26/09*P9. Date Recorded:
Reconnaissance
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
1936, 73 years old.
* Required InformationDPR 523A (1/95)
Not for Publication Unrestricted
1
503-72-033APN#
B.M.
F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz
Date
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Page
14754
8
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
3CS*NRHP/CRHR Status Code
Paul Masson LodgeResource Name (Assigned by recorder)
4of
Paul Masson Mountain Hunting Lodge B1. Historic Name:
14574 Pierce Rd. B2. Common Name:
Single family residential B3. Original Use:Single family residentialB4. Present Use:
French Chateau*B5. Architectural Style:
Constructed 1936.
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)
No Yes Unknown*B7. Moved?n/aDate:n/aOriginal Location:
Brick carriage house.
*B8. Related Features:
Henry Clay Smith B9a. Architect:Unknownb. Builder:
Architecture*B10. Significance: Theme Congress Springs / Pierce RoadArea:
1936 - 1940Period of Significance:ResidentialProperty Type:C (2),(3)Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
Paul Masson Lodge is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory, included as a part of
HP-88-01. It qualified under Criteria a, b, and c:
a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, aesthetic,
and architectural history of Saratoga;
b) the property is identified with persons significant in local history;
c) the property embodies distinctive characteristics of the French Chateau style, type and period;
Paul Masson Lodge appears eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under
Criterion (2) and (3), as the house embodies the distinctive characteristics of the French
Chateau house-type within Saratoga's City of Homes period, and is associated with a person
important to Saratoga's past.
(Continued on page 4, DPR523L)
DPR 523B (1/95)*Required Information
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes)
Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission, Historic
Resources Inventory form, 1988.
*B12. References:
Listed Heritage ResourceB13. Remarks:
Franklin Maggi*B14. Evaluator:
October 26, 2009*Date of Evaluation:
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)
2
None
Primary #
HRI #
Page
9
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
4of
DPR 523J (1/95)*Required Information
* Map Name:Multiple n.t.s.* Scale:Varies* Date of Map:
Paul Masson Lodge*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder)3
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Page
10
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
4of
DPR 523L (1/95)*Required Information
(Continued from page 2, DPR523b, B10)
Historical Background
Paul Masson first visited California from Burgandy, France as a young man between 1878 and
1880. Masson studied business in San Jose, and met Charles LeFranc, A French immigrant who had
established an early winery in the South Bay area. Masson returned to France for a time, but in
the 1880s he moved permanently to the South Bay where he went to work for LeFranc. In 1887,
Charles LeFranc was killed trying to stop a runaway team of horses. The estate passed to
LeFranc's three children: Henry, Louise, and Marie. Masson married Louise shortly after her
father's death. After a working honeymoon in France, Masson formed a partnership with his
brother-in-law Henry to manage the winemaking business, with the LeFranc properties remaining
in the hands of the three LeFranc children. While Masson apparently initially focused on local
champagne production from his New Almaden base, releasing a champagne in 1892, he was
investigating different areas in the Bay Area optimum for the growing of premium grapes.
Meanwhile, grapes were being cultivated above Saratoga as early as the early 1880s by Alexander
Rodoni, who lost the land in a bank foreclosure in 1892. The Saratoga News reported on November
20, 1896, that Masson had gone up to inspect the property he had acquired from Rodoni. At this
new site Masson planted better grape varieties, yielding in 1905 a particularly successful and
acclaimed champagne that he marketed aggressively at expositions.
By the 1920s, Masson's champagnes had achieved worldwide recognition. In part this was due to
their quality, but also due to his marketing skills. During Prohibition, the company was
allowed to continue production of wines with "special dispensation." They are described as the
only American champagnes allowed to do so.
In 1936, Masson sold the property and business to Martin Ray, a local businessman, who
continued local ownership and management along with his first wife, Elsie. After retiring in
1936 he built his new French Chateau on 14 acres across Pierce Road from the entrance on Pierce
Road to his Mountain Winery. Although he apparently never actually lived at this property, it
is said that he lunched here as his health permitted. His primary home was in downtown San Jose
in the Naglee Park neighborhood. According to a later informant, Mr. Masson was laid in state
in the living room of his chateau prior to his burial. He died in 1940 at the age of 81 years.
Architectural Context
This house is said to have been designed by Henry Clay Smith. Smith (1874-1945) was born in
Santa Clara, and studied at the University of Pennsylvania. After working for James Hamilton
Windrim, he returned to the San Francisco Bay Area where he went into partnership with Louis S.
Stone in 1900 until 1909. Smith's later signature buildings involved the siting of houses in
hilly terrain, and he became known as "The Hillside Architect." Smith was adept at many
architectural styles; with many Spanish, Mission and Tudor Revival, Italian Renaissance and
Neo-Classicism buildings to his credit. He was awarded the Jury Prize "for schoolhouse
architecture" at the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition.
Integrity
The integrity of this property cannot be determined for this survey.
* Recorded By F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz
Paul Masson Lodge*Resource Name or #(Assigned by recorder)
Continuation Update10/26/2009* Date
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Page 4
11
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS REVIEW
PROPOSED REHABILITATION AND ADDITION PROJECT
at the
PAUL MASSON LODGE
Adams-Wiser Residence
14754 Pierce Rd.
(Parcel Number 503-72-033)
Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California
For:
Kate Adams
c/o Glen Fries Associates
505 Mercer Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
Prepared by:
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E L L C
PO Box 1332
San Jose, CA 95109
408.369.5683 Vox
www.archivesandarchitecture.com
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner and Historic Architect
September 20, 2021
Revised August 23, 2022
12
2
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Adams-Wiser Residence rehabilitation and addition project, proposed for the historically
significant Paul Masson Lodge property addressed at 14754 Pierce Rd. in Saratoga, can be found to
be substantially compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties – Rehabilitation Standards (Standards). The proposed project can also be found
to preserve the significant historical associations using an analysis of the cumulative historic
integrity.
There are only three recommendations for this project. These could easily be addressed during the
Building Permit process:
• It is recommended that the Building Permit Plan Set clarify consistently that the original
historic door be restored and/or repaired rather than reproduced; however, if the door is
not repairable, it is recommended that the “match the old in design, color, texture, and,
where possible, materials.” (Standards 6 and 9)
• General notes should be included in the Building Permit Plans that identify the historic
significance of the property and indicate that all changes to the project plans must be
reviewed, as well as identifying that the approach to deteriorated elements should be to
preserve and repair, and to replace in-kind only if necessary. (Standard 6)
• No treatments of the historic brick (including, but not limited to power washing or
repointing) are currently proposed at the Paul Masson Lodge (main building). It is
recommended that all such treatments be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.
(Standard 7)
INTRODUCTION
Report Intent
Archives & Architecture LLC was retained by the architect on behalf of the project applicant, to
conduct a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Review of the proposed alterations to the setting
and exterior of the historic two-story main house, identified as the Paul Masson Lodge, at 14754
Pierce Rd., Saratoga, California. Qualified professionals from Archives & Architecture LLC were
asked to review the site plan, plans, and exterior elevations of the project, as well as some details, to
determine if the proposed design is compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation for the Treatment of Historic Properties – Rehabilitation Standards (Standards). The
Standards are understood to be a common set of guidelines for the review of historic buildings and
are used by many communities during the environmental review process to determine the
potential impact of a project on an identified resource.
Qualifications
Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner of Archives & Architecture LLC, has a Master of Architecture with a
certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia and a Bachelor of Arts in
Architecture from Princeton University. She is licensed in California as an architect. Ms. Dill is listed
with the California Office of Historic Preservation as meeting the requirements to perform
identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities within the professions of Historic
Architect and Architectural Historian in compliance with state and federal environmental laws. The
state utilizes the criteria of the National Park Service as outlined in 36 CFR Part 61.
13
3
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Review Chronology and Methodology
At the end of 2020, review services for the current project commenced with the forwarding of
conceptual site-plan and elevation sketches, designed by architectural firm Glen Fries Associates
Architects LLC. An initial review was undertaken by Archives & Architecture, and some comments
were sent to the architect with suggestions for revisions and clarifications.
For this and subsequent reviews, Leslie Dill referred to the reconnaissance survey documentation
and evaluation contained in the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523
(DPR523), written by Franklin Maggi, Jessica Kusz, and herself, as Archives & Architecture, LLC,
dated October 26, 2009. This DPR523 form was prepared as a part of the City of Saratoga Statement
of Historic Context and Survey Update project.
A site visit and tour of the property was undertaken July 22, 2021. The property had not been
accessible or visible for the 2009 documentation effort (DPR523 form), so, based on this site visit, a
list of in-house character-defining features was developed and prepared in a DPR523L “update”
form. It is attached as an addendum to this report. The design review refers to this document for
compatibility of the proposed work, along with the 2009 DPR523, and the integrity statement in
this review is based on this list.
At the site visit, a hard copy of a planning submittal design set, dated 19 July 2021, was provided to
Leslie Dill for review and conveyed electronically soon afterward. Ms. Dill provided a few minor
comments and/or requests for clarification to the architect via email. A revised drawing set was
returned for review. A full report, dated September 20, 2021, was prepared based on this version of
the design.
Subsequent changes in the design were forwarded to Archives & Architecture LLC in May of 2022.
Ms. Dill prepared a brief memo with minor comments and sent this to the architect in June. Final
clarifications and revisions were made to the drawing set, and this report is a revision of the
September 20, 2021, report, based on a new Standards review of the revised drawing set dated July
25, 2022. The drawing set consists of twelve sheets (A-0 through A-5, A-6A & 6B, A-7, A-8A & 8B,
and A-9A & 9B). This Standards review is presented as a revision of the September report.
Disclaimers
This report addresses the project plans in terms of historically compatible design of the exterior of
the residence and its setting. The consultant has not undertaken and will not undertake an
evaluation or report on the structural conditions or other related safety hazards that might or
might not exist at the site and building, and the consultant will not review the proposed project for
structural soundness or other safety concerns. The consultant has not undertaken analysis of the
site to evaluate the potential for subsurface resources.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Historical and Architectural Background and Significance Status
Per the 2009 evaluation:
Paul Masson Lodge is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory, included as a part
of HP-88-01. It qualified under Criteria a, b, and c [of the City of Saratoga Heritage Landmark
Ordinance (13-15.010)]:
a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social,
economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga;
b) the property is identified with persons significant in local history;
14
4
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
c) the property embodies distinctive characteristics of the French Chateau style, type,
and period
Paul Masson Lodge appears eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under
Criterion (2) and (3), as the house embodies the distinctive characteristics of the French
Chateau house-type within Saratoga's City of Homes period, and is associated with a person
important to Saratoga's past.
Character and Character-defining Features of the Existing Resource
The 2009 evaluation describes the residence as follows: “City records and aerial views indicate that
the house, with its steep roof and round turret, is an unusual Eclectic-Revival design with influences
from the Burgundy region of France. The two-story house is reportedly built of red used brick and
has a large cylindrical tower topped with a conical roof. The remainder of the roof is a typical
French mansard and is punctuated by flat-arched dormers. The wood doors and windows are
deeply inset into flat-arched openings and feature heavy shutters; the openings are placed
symmetrically around the building. There is a one-story wing at the north side. The home was
situated at the end of a long drive with a brick carriage house/caretakers’ home to the left before
entering the paved entry court. The property was recently subdivided, and the land remaining
around the house is planted in vineyards. The property is enclosed by an iron fence and entry gates,
recently erected by the present owner.”
To review the design of the proposed rehabilitation and addition project, Archives & Architecture,
LLC prepared a summary list of the character-defining features. The identifiable character-defining
features are provided in the updated Department of Parks and Recreation Update Forms
(DPR523L) attached at the end of this report. In the DPR523L update, there are some photographs
from the site visit July 2021; the applicant includes some photographs in their February 15, 2021,
submittal packet (Sheets A-0 and A-10) and within the current submittal set (Sheets A-6A, A-7, A-
8A, and A-9A). It is also recommended that the decision makers consider referring to online sources
(such as real estate listings) for more extensive recent photographs of the property. One such
example was accessed during the preparation of this report:
https://www.redfin.com/CA/Saratoga/14754-Pierce-Rd-95070/home/1617215
Summary of the Proposed Project Scope
The project scope is described on Sheet A-1 as follows:
Scope of Work: Shall include the renovation of the existing ADU structure. The existing
structure shall be lifted to increase the first floor ceiling height and to ensure that the rebuilt
structure complies with the maximum height requirements. All existing brick will be saved and
re-used. New windows, casing, trim/mouldings, exterior details, finishes, and roofing shall
match existing. Paint colors and finish textures shall match existing.
Interior [and exterior] renovation of the existing attached garage to be converted to a new
bedroom and bathrooms. All new brick shall match existing brick. All new board and batten
siding shall match the new siding. New windows, casing, trim/ mouldings, exterior details, and
finishes shall match existing. Paint colors and finish textures shall match existing.
New construction: A small exterior vestibule for access to the existing living room. New door to
match existing original front porch and entrance door. NOTE: Sheet A-9A elevation indicates
that the original front door is to be rebuilt and reused. New side-lights shall mimic the style of
the existing French doors at the living room. All new brick shall match existing brick. New
windows, casing, trim/mouldings, exterior details, and finishes shall match existing. Paint
colors and finish textures shall match existing.
15
5
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
New construction: A new winery shed shall be constructed with two curved board-formed
concrete walls, open ends, and a low-slope roof. The new windows shall match existing at the
main house. Roll-up doors shall match the new garage door at the ADU. The closed end walls of
the detached garage shall be clad in slate shingles to match the same at the main house roof.
The new windows and person doors shall match existing at the main house. A new wood
pergola (with fire retardant materials and/or heavy timbers) which matches the details of the
existing, shall be built which matches the details of the existing, shall be built adjacent to the
new garage. The walkway below will match the existing brick framed stone walkways. Below
grade water storage shall be created adjacent to the winery shed to collect rainwater from the
new low-slope roofs.
New landscape work shall include the removal of existing gravel drive/parking areas. The
conversion of a large existing expanse of gravel drive/parking area to be planted with native
herbaceous beds and grass. The reconfiguration of the existing gravel drive/parking areas
shall include new curbs to match existing, a low landscape wall to match the existing brick
top/stucco walls, and new brick drive paths shall be constructed to the ADU garage.
The Project List is outlined on Sheet A-3 as follows (floor area information and impervious cover
square footages not transcribed here):
1 Renovation of Existing Garage/Guest House…
2A New construction: Winery Shed. Two walls with sloped metal roof…
2B New construction: Enclosed garage. Four walls with sloped metal roof…
3 New Construction: A small exterior vestibule for access to the existing living room. New
door to match existing original front porch and entrance door... [NOTE: Sheet A-9A
elevation indicates that the original front door is to be rebuilt and reused.]
4 Interior [and exterior] renovation of an existing attached garage to be converted to a new
bedroom with adjacent outdoor terrace… [Includes exterior alteration of former garage
doors and alteration of the rear (north) wall.]
5 Removal of existing gravel drive/parking areas. The conversion of a large existing expanse
of gravel drive/parking area to planted grass with native herbaceous beds and grass…
6 Reconfiguration of the existing gravel drive/parking areas and construction of a wood
pergola (with first retardant materials and/or heavy timbers) and adjacent landscape
walls…
SECRETARY’S STANDARDS REVIEW:
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards)—Department of Interior
regulations, 36 CFR 67—originally published in 1977 and revised in 1990 and 2011, include ten
standards that present a recommended approach to repair, while preserving those portions or
features that convey a resource’s historical, cultural, or architectural values. Accordingly, Standards
states that, “Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a
property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features
which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” Following is a summary of the review
with a list of the Standards and associated analysis for this project:
1. “A property 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: There is no effective change of use proposed for this single-family residential
property. The proposed outbuildings do include some shed space defined as “winery space;”
16
6
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
it is of a residential scale and size and design (as the following review analyzes) that fits
with the historical use of the property.
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 primary historic character, massing, and spatial relationships of the main
house and its recent additions and alterations are proposed for preservation in this project,
including the existing footprint, massing, turret, steep roofs, shed dormer, rustic red brick,
window openings with segmental-arched brick lintels, brick sills, wrought-iron balconettes,
slate roofing, existing pointing, copper gutters, operable shutters, and arched door
openings.
The addition of the new detached, curving garage and wine shed, arbor, and other
landscaping features will alter the immediate setting and will preserve the larger open
spaces that characterize the property, including sweeping views of the surrounding hillsides
and orientation to both oak habitat and vineyards.
Reopening the bricked-in door opening on the south wall and preserving the materials and
form on the interior of the house restores a feature of the house which had previously been
altered.
3. “Each property shall 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: Although many of the notes, schedules, and drawn plans and elevations indicate
that the proposed new elements are to “match existing;” all added features are shown and
noted to have adequate differentiation and would not create a false sense of historical
development or include conjectural design elements. (See also Standard 9).
4. “Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.”
Analysis: No changes to the building(s) have been identified as having acquired historic
significance in their own right, so this Standard is not used.
5. “Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.”
Analysis: The primary composition of original materials, features, and finishes that
characterize the main lodge building is shown as preserved on the proposed drawings.
Elements that are proposed for removal are not original, including: brick infill at former
door opening on the south elevation of the main house, garage doors and walls at the
attached garage wing.
6. “Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature shall 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 current physical condition of the house appears from observation to be very
good to excellent. The proposed rehabilitation project is primarily focused on alterations to
the interior plan of and resulting changes to the exterior elevations, not on repair of
17
7
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
deteriorating materials or elements; therefore, most of the historic features are shown as
substantially preserved in the project drawings.
The one historic element that appears to be proposed for repair and/or restoration is the
massive salvaged front door currently in storage on the property. In keeping with this
Standard, it is recommended that the door be repaired, if at all possible, rather than
reproduced. This property has been altered over time, and fewer and fewer original
materials remain. Like a fine antique, the patina and provenance of an historic element can
be considered more important than perfect appearance. If the door cannot be repaired, it is
recommended that any reproduction door “match the old in design, color, texture, and,
where possible, materials,” per this Standard or be reviewed in the future for compatibility
with the Standards (see Standard 9). Other sheets have seemingly residual notes that refer
to replication of the door; it is the understanding of this reviewer that the current plan is to
restore the salvaged door per the note on the East Elevation on Sheet A-9A, “Re-build and
re-use original front door.” Clarification and consistency of the door reuse is recommended.
It is recommended that general notes be added to the building permit drawing set, which
would specify that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, and,
if replacement is necessary, the replacement feature shall match in design, color, texture,
and, where possible, materials. To this same end, it is also recommended that general notes
be included in the building permit documents that identify the historic significance of the
property and indicate that future changes to the project plans must be reviewed.
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: No chemical or physical treatments are shown as proposed, and none should be
undertaken in this project as currently presented. It is recommended that all potential
construction techniques that may affect historic materials be identified prior to the building
permit submittal phase.
Note that Standard 7 is intended to address preservation techniques that have been proven
over time to be harmful to such historic materials as brick walls. Sandblasting, high-
pressure washing, and incompatible pointing can be damaging architectural treatments for
historic structures. All potential treatments of the historic brick at the Paul Masson Lodge
are recommended to be reviewed by a qualified historic architect prior to issuance of a
building permit.
8. “Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.”
Analysis: Archeological resources are not evaluated in this report.
9. “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.”
Analysis:
Scope Item 3: New Construction: A small exterior vestibule for access to the existing living
room. New door to match existing original front porch and entrance door…
18
8
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
Analysis: The historic original segmental arch, built into the brick wall, marks an original
doorway opening on the south elevation. The arch is proposed to be preserved behind the
proposed new vestibule, providing a placeholder of what is assumed to be the door’s
original location. Although interior design is not the purview of this report; the preservation
of the archway and use of the original opening within the proposed new vestibule is to be
commended.
The materials, size, and attachment of the entrance vestibule provide clear differentiation.
The vestibule design is one story, projecting from the main mass of the house; it is proposed
to be primarily built of wood materials with a low-slope roof, and it will be constructed
using modern detailing that will make it identifiable as a new addition.
The vestibule’s design includes sidelights that are proportionate with the replacement
window sash at the property, providing compatibility with the historic composition while
also providing continuity of the “vocabulary” of recent materials and elements. The vast
proportion of glazing in the feature is differentiated from the proportionately solid brick of
the historic house, creating a strong sense of differentiation and hierarchy of materials. The
vestibule is compatible in scale with the historic house, using smaller wood elements that
are in keeping with the windows and shutters, as well as traditional and compatible in scale
with the texture of the historic brick.
Per Standard 6, it is recommended that the door itself be repaired, rather than reproduced.
Scope Items 2A and 2B: Construction of new detached accessory structures:
• Winery Shed. Two walls with sloped metal roof…
• Enclosed garage. Four walls with sloped metal roof…
Analysis: The form of the historic main house is significant for its large-scaled
Chateauesque elements: a large turret; a large-scale, steep roof; a large, but compact, square
footprint; and tall stories that create a large, bold, dense mass. The large-scale curved form
of the proposed new additions is compatible with the larger-scaled curved form of the
historic house’s prominent turret. The proposed buildings are differentiated by their long,
low curves, in contrast to the traditionally dense twentieth-century massing. The long, low
sweep of the proposed outbuildings is in balance with the bold mass of the historic main
house on the property. The double-height main house with its tall roof retains its
prominence among the more rambling one-story wings and concrete landscaping walls.
The materials and proportions of the historic house compose a significant character-
defining feature: the brick walls are displayed in a large expanse of wall surface in
proportion to the window openings, the slate roofing covers a large, steep roof form that is a
highly visible feature, especially as viewed from upper hillsides. The brick and slate are
rustic and highly textured, as these features are built up of relatively small-scaled repetitive
building units. With their board-formed concrete walls, slate-clad side wall, and wedge-
shaped standing-seam roof materials, the proposed new additions incorporate smaller-
scale, repetitive textural elements, compatible with the scale of the materials of the historic
house. The standing seam roof corresponds to the metal roof above the current west
entrance canopy, and the board-formed concrete echoes the previous landscaping additions
near the swimming pool (curved, board-formed concrete walls), so the materials have a
continuity of design differentiated from the historic residence. The concrete differentiation
from the brick provides a hierarchy of materials in keeping with the utilization of the
structures.
The windows of the historic house include moderate-sized panes. They are neither large,
single-lite windows, nor do they consist of very small multi-lite designs. They are not likely
19
9
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
original to the house, but they do fit into original openings and are compatible in scale with
the design of the Chateauesque residence. The windows and doors at the proposed new
detached garage and winery additions are compatible with a related glazed area in the
overall opening sizes and the scale of the multiple window lites. They are differentiated by
use and modern materials, as well as by having a flat header (i.e., not a segmental arch or an
expressed wood lintel).
Scope Item 4: Renovation of an existing attached garage to be converted to a new bedroom
with adjacent outdoor terrace…
Analysis: The proposed design of this scope would preserve the essential form and
integrity of the historic lodge. The significant character-defining features of the exterior of
the house are preserved, and the new alterations are compatible yet differentiated, so meet
this Standard. Moreover, the massive form of the historic house can “hold its own” against
larger-scale elements within the rambling additions, such as the large south-facing
doorway.
The new, centered French doors at the south and east elevations and the new windows on
the south and west elevations are shown in the drawing set to have a lite configuration that
is similar in scale to the non-original front doors on the historic house, so the modern
materials and size differentiate them from the historic features. The painted wood lintels
proposed above the new openings will be consistent in materials and design as the
proposed lintels at the ADU, so differentiated from the segmental arches elsewhere in the
historic house. The location of these new features, in a compact one-story wing, separated
from the visually prominent original wing by an elongated hyphen, also helps create a sense
of hierarchy between the elements.
The proposed alterations to this wing do not directly affect (attach to) any historic materials
or visually connect with the significant Lodge wing. The materials are compatible with the
complex as it has been evolving; they are differentiated by their location and by their
detailing.
Scope Items 5 and 6: Reconfiguration of the existing gravel drive/parking areas and
construction of a wood pergola (with first retardant materials and/or heavy timbers) and
adjacent landscape walls… and removal of existing gravel drive/parking areas...
Analysis: The proposed alterations to the primary “front” landscaping of the house will
affect no known historic landscaping elements. The existing plants, driveway, and fencing
are clearly all a recent landscape design and installation.
The installation of a proposed new heavy-timber pergola is compatible in scale with the
imposing historic house. It is further in keeping with the differentiated “vocabulary” of the
recent landscaping, while demarking additional non-vehicular open space near the
residence. The larger planted areas surrounding the front of the historic main house would
provide a less-modern (i.e., less car-oriented) setting that would help the house better
communicate its rural historic significance within an unpaved setting.
Scope Item 1: Rehabilitation of (detached) Existing Garage/Guest House
Analysis: The mid-twentieth-century or later detached garage/guest house has not been
identified as significant or as a contributing building to the historical property. It is the
building pictured in the 2009 DPR523 documentation (the rear of the detached structure is
somewhat visible from the street). Alterations to this detached structure will not directly
(physically) impact the character-defining qualities—including architectural and setting
qualities—of the historic house. The accessory building has a remote spatial relationship
with the historic house because it is across the larger driveway area, and the ADU/detached
20
10
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
garage is set against a treed background while the main house is in a leveled and prominent
central location.
The altered garage/guest house design can be considered compatible with, yet
differentiated from, the historic lodge building. Differentiation is provided on the most basic
level by the placement of the accessory building as detached and relatively distant from the
main house. The change in height and form does not create an unbalanced hierarchy
between the ADU with its smaller footprint and less elaborate detailing. Although the
increased rise and run of stairs could have created a somewhat more imposing appearance,
the altered (decreased) roof height and proposed larger window proportions offset that
concern, and this design illustrates a building that is compatible with the historic property
in massing, scale, and materials. The windows, with their painted wood lintels are
consistent with the proposed bedroom wing (former attached garage), and the garage doors
are similar to the proposed doors at the new winery shed and detached garage. These
details create a consistent framework against which the historic house will be
distinguished.
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 design would preserve the essential form and integrity of the
historic property. The significant character-defining features of the exterior of the house
would remain substantially unimpaired in this project.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT
When a listed property has undergone a series of rehabilitation, alteration, and/or addition
projects, it is important to identify and analyze the whole of these changes as a part of the current
project design review. The attached DPR523L update property documentation update forms
include an integrity statement that addresses the cumulative previous alterations to the property.
The Historic Integrity Analysis that follows analyses the proposed project with the previous
cumulative impacts.
HISTORIC INTEGRITY ANALYSIS
Historic integrity analysis is useful as a summary component of the design review process. It relates
to the criteria for National Register and California Register eligibility. A project that might impact
the integrity of a historic resource could impact the significance of that resource. According to the
California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6:
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Historical
resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of
significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be
recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Historical
resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is
evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the
particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a
resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or
architectural significance. [Emphasis added]
The following analysis is intended to address how the proposed residential rehabilitation and
addition project might potentially preserve or impact the historic integrity of the subject property.
21
11
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
The analysis utilizes the seven aspects of historic integrity indicated by the National Register and
State of California’s definition of authenticity of a resource.
Location: The location of the contributing historic resource has been and would be preserved in
this project. The project does not propose a relocation or alteration to the position of the significant
house on the locally listed property. This location is significant because it is adjacent to the former
Paul Masson Winery property.
Setting: Along with the cumulative changes in the setting of the house since before and after the
listing of the property by the City of Saratoga, the current project preserves a
compatible/differentiated setting for the historic house to be viewed and understood. The larger
setting will be essentially unchanged regarding the mountain views and rural foothills, with their
many oaks and natural undergrowth, along with vineyard agriculture.
The original design of the immediate setting (i.e., garden setting, if any) of the historic house is not
known. The immediate setting may not have been developed formally because the property was
designed as a luxurious hunting lodge, not a primary residence. The modern landscape elements
proposed in this project are supportive of the historic placement and prominence of the original
house on this hillside in the 1920s. The integrity of setting has not been preserved in the past, and
the proposed setting, with its contemporary landscaped elements and planting materials, would not
detract from the significant associations or feelings of the historic house or the larger property.
Design: Although altered in the past with replacement windows and new additions, the main
central wing of the residence has been preserved with regard to the massing, turret, roof form,
brick walls, arched window openings, and other features that characterize the Chateauesque style.
The proposed new design only alters the primary historic wing of the house with a small entrance
vestibule, designed to be compatible and differentiated, and restores an original door and an
original arched opening without designing conjectural details. The design of the main original wing
has a strength of massing and form that preserves its prominence within the more sweeping, one-
story additions added in the past and currently proposed. The design integrity will be substantially
preserved.
Materials: The property shows the cumulative preservation of primary character-defining
materials, especially the significant brick walls and openings. Many materials have been lost, but
most significant materials remain. The loss of the original window sash does have an impact on the
integrity of materials, but the window openings, with their integral brick segmental arched lintels,
have been preserved.
Artisanship: The extent of the historic integrity of original workmanship was not researched for
this analysis. The exterior brickwork, including its arched openings, remains substantially intact. It
is unknown if the shutters or slate roofing are original, so, although these elements are preserved, it
is not clear if they might continue to convey a sense of historic or recent handiwork.
Feelings: The residence and its larger setting conveys the feelings of a French Revival
Chateauesque country house built in early twentieth-century America. Its age and significance
would continue to be apparent.
Associations: With this project, the Paul Masson Lodge property would continue to “...reflect
special elements of the cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga...”
including the ability to embody its association with Paul Masson, a person significant in local
history, and the house would continue to exemplify associations with the French Chateau style,
type, and period.
22
12
A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project can be found substantially compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties – Rehabilitation Standards. A project that meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards can be found to be mitigated to a “less than significant
impact” under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The review does include minor recommendations, including one “boilerplate” recommendation
(from Standard 6 analysis) that can be incorporated into the planning set during the City’s building
approval process, along with a recommendation to clarify the reuse of the salvaged historic door
(Standard 6). Because of the importance of the brick, a note about treatment is included from
Standard 7, again intended as a flag for the building permit process.
The proposed project can also be found to preserve the Historic Integrity of the significance of the
property. The property reflects changes over the last century, from rural country manor to a
modern single-family residential property. The Paul Masson Lodge can be found to continue to
convey a substantially authentic 1920s architectural style, with integrity of location and larger
setting, with preserved methods and materials of construction, design, feelings, and associations,
with some previous loss of integrity of materials, artisanship, and immediate setting.
23
DPR 523L * Required information
Page 1 of 7 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Paul Masson Lodge
*Recorded by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture LLC *Date 08/28/21 Continuation Update
Purpose of this Update
The Paul Masson Lodge property at 14574 Pierce Rd., Saratoga, CA, was recorded in 2009 on
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Recordation Forms (DPR523 forms) as
part of a City of Saratoga Survey and Historic Context update. The property could not be
accessed as part of that effort, so there is no description or list of character-defining
features within the DPR523 forms, and the historic integrity was not established. The earlier
DPR523 documentation forms were prepared by F. Maggi, L. Dill, & J. Kusz of Archives &
Architecture, LLC, and are dated 10/26/09.
In early 2021 a rehabilitation and addition project was proposed. The project includes
proposed alterations to the historic residence, its previous additions, and its setting. As
part of project-review services, the property was visited in person on 07/22/21 by Leslie
Dill, a qualified Historic Architect and Architectural Historian and co-author of the 2009
documentation. The intent of these update forms is to provide updated descriptive information
and photographs to the decision-makers who will be reviewing the project plans according to
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
(Standards). The scope of this update includes the creation of a very basic descriptive list
of character-defining features and an analysis of the historic integrity of the property.
Historical Status
The historical status and evaluation conclusions have not changed since the 2009 evaluation.
The property continues to be associated with Paul Masson and features a rare local example of
French Chateauesque design. Per the original DPR523 form:
The property is listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory, as HP-88-01. It
qualified under Criteria a, b, and c:
a) the property exemplifies and reflects special elements of the cultural, social,
economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga;
b) the property is identified with persons significant in local history;
c) the property embodies distinctive characteristics of the French Chateau style, type
and period
Paul Masson Lodge appears eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources
under Criterion (2) and (3), as the house embodies the distinctive characteristics of
the French Chateau house-type within Saratoga's City of Homes period, and [it] is
associated with a person important to Saratoga's past.
Character-Defining Features of the Paul Masson Lodge
The identifiable original character-defining features include:
• Large, rectangular main house footprint, set low to the ground, with prominent round
turret and small square room projecting from the southwest corner
• One-and-one-half-story compact main massing; large-scale two-story turret; one-story
corner wing
• Massive and steep truncated-hip roof, approaching a Mansard style
• Conical “witch’s cap” roof on turret
• Shed-roof dormer centered in west elevation, flanked by eyebrow dormers
• Walls of rustic red-brick with hand-formed or used-brick appearance, set in running
bond
• Window openings with segmental-arched brick lintels and brick sills in a rowlock course
• Wrought-iron balconettes with wrought-iron supports
• In storage on-site is what was referred to as the original front door.
(Continued on next page)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
24
DPR 523L * Required information
Page 2 of 7 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Paul Masson Lodge
*Recorded by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture LLC *Date 08/28/21 Continuation Update
(Continued from previous page, DPR523L, Update)
Features with unknown history proposed for alteration in this project:
• The detached garage/guest house has not been identified for significance in any
previous evaluation. It is the building pictured in the 2009 DPR523 documentation (the
rear of the detached structure is somewhat visible from the street). It features a
steeply sloped, truncated pyramidal roof, slate roofing, brick upper story, and wood-
frame downstairs, and clearly visible garage bays at the ground floor. Compatible with
the historic design palate, the building has materials, scale, and construction
techniques commensurate with the Third Bay Tradition of design in the San Francisco Bay
Area. It can be assumed, without additional research, that this outbuilding was added
in the mid-twentieth century or later, possibly when the other additions were
constructed.
Features with unknown history. None of these features are identified for alteration in this
project, so no additional research was undertaken for this update:
• Slate roofing
• Distinctive depth of pointing between the rounded brick face
• Copper or copper-colored gutters and downspouts (they have little patina, so are likely
recent)
• Operable wood shutters at the original main-house window openings
• East-side segmental-arched door openings with board-and-batten operable shutters
Recent Features. These materials and architectural elements are not considered character-
defining features or contributing features of the property:
• Bricked-up wall segment at south face of turret, most-likely indicating an unknown
previous window configuration
• Bricked-up area on the west elevation, near the southwest corner, an apparent original
doorway
• Replacement wood casement windows – Some in original openings
• Replacement front entry—paired French doors—on north elevation with new standing-seam
metal awning
• East-side paired French doors with arched transoms
• Large addition to the north and northwest, creating an “L”-shaped site plan. This area
consists of:
▪ One-and-one-half-story addition abutting the north end of the main house. It has
a square footprint and large hipped roof with distinctive, wide brick-clad
eyebrow dormers facing east and west. This wing steps down in height to the rear
(north). At the first and basement levels, its wall and roof are continuous with
the wing that leads to the garage. It has a walk-out rear basement door and is
bounded by an outdoor brick staircase to the main level.
▪ One-story garage addition with a square footprint and steep pyramidal hipped
roof. This wing currently features a pair of arched garage doors facing front
(south) and a wall of contrasting board-and-batten siding surrounding a single
small window on the north side.
▪ Narrow, one-story hyphen with gabled roof and eyebrow wall dormers, connecting
the two larger additions. This wing features massive, centered, arched focal-
window units that extend into dormers on the front and back (south and north). A
terraced brick patio is located within the corner of the corridor wing and the
east side of the garage.
This area of additions features materials that generally match the original house,
including used or hand-molded brick, heavy pointing, segmental-arched openings, and
slate roofing. The window units match the replacement units and shutters of the main
(Continued on next page)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
25
DPR 523L * Required information
Page 3 of 7 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Paul Masson Lodge
*Recorded by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture LLC *Date 08/28/21 Continuation Update
(Continued from previous page, DPR523L, Update)
house, indicating that the original main-house windows were replaced at the same time
that these wings were built. The height, window scale and design, roof forms, offset
plan and modern use (garage) clearly differentiate this three-part addition.
• Landscaping includes walls and fenced, pathways, terraces, steps, and a swimming pool
These are differentiated by their smooth and board-formed concrete materials, expansive
curved walls, and crisp modern detailing. Some concrete block is used, some brick
coping and caps are incorporated into the concrete garden piers and walls, and there is
a large heavy-timber arbor. There is some stone paving and gravel groundcovers. They
all employ a modern aesthetic and would not be confused with historic features.
Historic Integrity
The following analysis utilizes the seven aspects of historic integrity indicated by the
National Register and State of California’s definition of authenticity of a resource.
Location: The brick main portion of the house appears from limited observation to occupy its
original footprint. The location of the contributing historic resource has been preserved,
and the setting remains associated with the former Paul Masson Winery property across the
road.
Setting: The larger setting retains much historic integrity with its significant mountain
views and rural foothills, as well as many oaks and natural undergrowth. Some other houses
have been built nearby, but they are not generally intrusive in the setting of the historic
property in a way that would affect historic integrity. Some of the significance of the house
is its refined architectural design in a rural setting, in keeping with the Chateau tradition
of France and Chateauesque grand houses of the 1920s.
The design of the immediate setting of the original house is not known, but the current
landscaping is clearly recent. The current landscape design includes many modern plants,
patterns of planting, and recent features, such as the gazebo and the pavers, as well as the
driveway to the added garages. The concrete walls and pool are known to be recent. Vineyards
surround the immediate house site; these are also understood to be new.
There is adequate integrity of setting to understand the prominent historic placement and use
of the original house on this hillside in the 1920s.
Design: Although altered with replacement windows and new additions, the main central wing of
the residence has been preserved with regard to the massing, turret, roof form, brick walls,
arched window openings, and other features that characterize the Chateauesque style. The
design of the main original wing has a strength of massing and form that preserves its
prominence within the more sweeping, one-story additions over the years. The design
associations have been substantially preserved.
Materials: The property shows the preservation of many character-defining house materials,
including the significant brick walls. The loss of the original window sash does have an
impact on the integrity of materials, but the window openings, with their integral brick
segmental arched lintels, have been preserved.
Artisanship: The extent of the historic integrity of original workmanship is not known from
this investigation. The exterior brickwork, including its arched openings, remains
substantially intact. It is unknown if the shutters are original and whether they convey a
sense of handiwork.
(Continued on next page)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
26
DPR 523L * Required information
Page 4 of 7 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Paul Masson Lodge
*Recorded by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture LLC *Date 08/28/21 Continuation Update
(Continued from previous page, DPR523L, Update)
Feelings: The residence and its larger setting conveys the feelings of a French Chateauesque
Revival country house built in early twentieth-century America.
Associations: The Paul Masson Lodge property continues to “...reflect special elements of the
cultural, social, economic, aesthetic, and architectural history of Saratoga...” including
the ability to embody its association with Paul Masson, a person significant in local
history, and the house continues to exemplify associations with the French Chateau style,
type and period.
Conclusion
The property reflects changes over the last century, from rural country manor to a single-
family residential property. The Paul Masson Lodge can be found to continue to convey a
mostly authentic 1920s architectural style, with integrity of location and larger setting,
with methods and materials of construction, feelings, and associations, with some loss of
integrity of materials, artisanship, and immediate setting.
Photographs
All photographs were taken by Leslie Dill on 07/22/21.
South (Front) Elevation, viewed from the southwest
(Continued on next page)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
27
DPR 523L * Required information
Page 5 of 7 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Paul Masson Lodge
*Recorded by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture LLC *Date 08/28/21 Continuation Update
(Continued from previous page, DPR523L, Update)
Detail of Southeast corner of South Elevation – Proposed vestibule at original door location
Original Door in Storage
(Continued on next page)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
28
DPR 523L * Required information
Page 6 of 7 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Paul Masson Lodge
*Recorded by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture LLC *Date 08/28/21 Continuation Update
(Continued from previous page, DPR523L, Update)
North Elevation, Showing Previous Addition, viewed from the northeast
Pool and Landscaping, Showing Board-Formed Concrete To Match Proposed New Garage and Shed
(Continued on next page)
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
29
DPR 523L * Required information
Page 7 of 7 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Paul Masson Lodge
*Recorded by Leslie Dill, Archives & Architecture LLC *Date 08/28/21 Continuation Update
(Continued from previous page, DPR523L, Update)
View of Proposed Detached Garage and Shed Site, viewed from the east
Detached Garage and Guest House, viewed from the north
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
30
14754 PIERCE ROADSARATOGA, CA. 95070PAUL MASSON ESTATEEXISTING APPROACH VIEWPROPOSED APPROACH VIEWGLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-0ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCE DAEDALUS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
3031 Tisch Way, Tisch Tower, Suite 110
San Jopse, California 95128
408-517-0373 daedalus-eng.com
31
FIRST FLOOR PLANBASEMENT PLAN5963859SECOND FLOOR PLAN1176EXISTING ADU/GUEST HOUSETOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: 5696+1124+549+217 = 7586 SFLOT AREA: 136,115 S.F. (3.124 ACRES) 33% SLOPE REDUCTION NET LOT AREA: 91,197 S.F.MAIN HOUSE FLOOR AREA: 5696 SFFIRST FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLANFLOOR AREA: 1124 SFTHEREFORE: 6,800 SF +120 SF = FLOOR AREA ALLOWANCE: 6,920 SFADD ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) FLOOR AREA BONUS: 10% . 6920 SF (ALLOWED) + 10% (692) = 7612 SFLOT COVERAGE ALLOWED BASED ON 25% OF NET SITE AREA = 22,799 SF,OR 15,000 S.F. WHICHEVER IS LESSEXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 26,210 SF + 3088 = 29,298 SF - 6398 SF (REMOVED COVER), AND - 7930 SF (EXEMPTED COVER) = 14,328 SF3207+652@ DBL. HT658PROPOSED FLOOR AREAS:+65PROPOSED LOT COVER AREAS:VICINITY MAP10000(IN FEET)PROJECT INFORMATION:NOTE:GENERAL NOTES:SAFETY PLAN:3420 s.f.COVER:718108426,210 s.f.COMPONENTS:11,240 s.f.-=2033423COVER:-8+8515,450EXISTING MODIFIED3020PROPOSED LOT COVER CALCULATIONS:+3011”GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-1ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEFORMER GARAGE RENOVATION PLANWITH NORTH & SOUTHELEVATIONSGENERAL PLAN NOTES ARCHITECT: STRUCTURALENGINEER:CIVILENGINEER:SURVEYOR:REMARKS6398 S.F.REMOVED+32718 s.f.ADU/GUEST HOUSE3420 s.f.MAIN HOUSE423 s.f.& STAIRS-44 s.f.-44 s.f.-63 s.f.972 s.f.WALKWAYSFRONT OF HOUSE3105TERRACE & WALKWAYSSIDE & REAR OF HOUSE2033 s.f.& WALKWAYSPOOL TERRACE-906 s.f.-54 s.f.+70 s.f.+22 s.f.+13 s.f.+8 s.f.+49 s.f.+868 s.f.TERRACE3011 s.f.GARAGE + SHED1084 - 112 =NOTE:+57 s.f.1052189168+76 s.f.7930 s.f.SUBTOTALS14,970 s.f.TOTAL PROPOSED COVER:N.A.466SCOPE OF WORK:§ § -639815,450 s.f.DOTTED OUTLINE INDICATESEXISTING GRAVEL AREAS1122 S.F.REMAINS+772359-326=ATTIC PLAN(683)A-3A-4A-5A-6INDEX OF DRAWINGSA-1A-2A-0A-6A-7A-8A-8A-9A-9ABABABA-10A-10ABTHIS ADU SHALL BE DEED RESTRICTEDPROJECT TO COMPLY WITH:NOTE:217SF(PENDING)GARAGENEW DETACHED549OCCUPANCY AND CONSTRUCTION TYPES:GEOTECHNICALENGINEER:-2350(1122)-731(-1701)-112-1094-88+84s.f.+104+28-7-7-2-2-2-2-72-4-5-9(EXISTING)(REMOVED)(PROPOSED)(PROPOSED)3020 + 85 =EXISTING:ADDED(891-23 s.f.)-7930(ADDED COVERAGE: 3011+77)(PROPOSED)PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 29,298 SF - 14,328 SF = 14,970 SF(REMOVED & EXEMPTED)(INCLUDES DRIVEWAY, PARKINGAND CIRCULATION AREAS)DAEDALUS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
3031 Tisch Way, Tisch Tower, Suite 110
San Jopse, California 95128
408-517-0373 daedalus-eng.com +62 s.f. STAIR +PAD+62A-11NOTE:A-2BAA-12A-1332
LEGEND25150750(IN FEET)50100SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"EXISTINGSETBACK VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT:GENERAL NOTESGLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-2ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEEXISTING & PROPOSEDSITE PLANS25150750(IN FEET)50100SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"PROPOSEDAREA MAPNOT TO SCALEGATE NOTES:NOTE: NOTE:NOTE:A33
LEGENDSETBACK VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT:GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCESITE PLAN WITHGRADING, UTILITIES, & 25150750(IN FEET)50100SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"PROPOSEDTREE LOCATIONSA-2B 988989990991992998987986985.2985.1985993.1984993994995995997NOTE:NOTE:34
GENERAL SITE NOTESPROJECT LIST (SEE PROPOSED WORK KEY PLAN BELOW):SITE PLANPARTIAL EXISTINGSITE PLANPARTIAL PROPOSED”NOT TO SCALESILT FENCE DETAILGENERAL AGRONOMIC NOTES:GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-3ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEPARTIAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLANSSCALE 1/16" = 1'-0"1435120806040201612840(IN FEET)SCALE: 116"=1'-0"62A2B134SITE PLANPARTIAL PROPOSEDSCALE 1/16" = 1'-0"56SITE SAFETY NOTESSCALE: 1"= 1'- 0"DRIVEWAY & TURN-AROUND TYPICAL NEWTYPE II, TIER 1NON-COMBUSTIBLETYPE II, TIER 1NON-COMBUSTIBLETYPE VBUNPROTECTED FRAMETYPE VAPROTECTED FRAMETYPE VBUNPROTECTED FRAME
35
NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTINGEXISTING30201510543210(IN FEET)SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLANNORTHEXISTING30201510543210(IN FEET)GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-4ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEMAIN HOUSE EXISTING PLANS & ELEVATIONSSNSNWEWE36
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING GUEST HOUSESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATIONEXISTING GUEST HOUSESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATIONEXISTING GUEST HOUSESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONEXISTING GUEST HOUSESCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"ATTIC PLANEXISTING GUEST HOUSEEXISTING SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLANNORTHEXISTING GUEST HOUSEGLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-5ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEGUEST HOUSEPLANS & ELEVATIONSEXISTING GARAGE/30201510543210(IN FEET)15105210(IN FEET)SCOPE OF WORK AT EXISTING GARAGE/GUEST HOUSE:MODIFICATION, LIFTING AND RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS:GENERAL DEMOLITION NOTES:DEMOLITION LEGENDREMOVAL NOTESDEMOLITIONSCOPE OF DEMOLITION WORK: SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"ROOF PLANEXISTING GUEST HOUSE-201-100+203+226-35-30SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"ROOF AREA COMPONENTSEXISTING GUEST HOUSE+203-30+16037
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-6AScaleDateFORMER GARAGE/RENOVATED ADUELEVATIONSelement
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC.
39675 Cedar Blvd, Ste #295C
Newark, California 94560
510-573-1557 elementse.com EAST ELEVATIONPROPOSED ADUSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONPROPOSED ADUSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATIONPROPOSED ADUSOUTH ELEVATIONPROPOSED ADUSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"& EX. PHOTOSNORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONNORTH-WEST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONSOUTH-EAST ELEVATIONEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTING14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCENOTE:38
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-6BScaleDateFORMER GARAGE/RENOVATED ADUPLANS & SECTIONelement
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC.
39675 Cedar Blvd, Ste #295C
Newark, California 94560
510-573-1557 elementse.com SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"ATTIC PLANPROPOSED PROPOSED SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLANNORTHPROPOSED 201510543210(IN FEET)SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"ROOF PLANPROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"BUILDING SECTION14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCE NOTE:39
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-7ScaleDateRENOVATEDBEDROOM SUITESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLANPARTIAL PROPOSED 201510543210(IN FEET)WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDEAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDNORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDEAST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONNORTH-WEST ELEVATIONEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTING14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEPLANS & ELEVATIONSNOTE:40
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEPROPOSED GARAGE &WINERY SHED ELEVATIONS,EAST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"SECTIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"EAST VIEW201510543210(IN FEET)TRELLIS PLANSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDTRELLIS ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSEDTRELLIS ELEVATIONTRELLIS ELEVATIONEXISTINGEXISTINGPLANS, AND SECTION &TRELLIS PLAN AND ELEVATIONA-8ANOTE:TRELLIS ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTINGNOTE:NOTE:NOTE:NOTE:41
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.ScaleDateGARAGE & WINERY SHEDSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"201510543210(IN FEET)PROPOSED GARAGE &WINERY SHED PLANSROOF PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"CONCRETE SLAB PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4030208642010(IN FEET)A-8B14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCENOTE:NOTE:NOTE:NOTE:NOTE:NOTE:42
SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PARTIAL EXISTINGPARTIAL EXISTINGSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"PARTIAL PROPOSEDPARTIAL PROPOSEDGLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-9AScaleDatePARTIAL EXISTING &PROPOSED ELEVATIONSSOUTH ELEVATIONEXISTINGEAST ELEVATIONEXISTINGSOUTH EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCE
43
SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"LIVING ROOMGLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-9BScaleDateVESTIBULE SECTION, INTERIOR ELEVATION,SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"BUILDING SECTION14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEPARTIAL 1st FLOOR &ROOF PLANAT LIVING ROOM:NEW COVERED ENTRANCE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"VESTIBULE PLANPARTIAL PROPOSED LIVING RM. &201510543210(IN FEET)NOTE:SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ROOF PLANPROPOSED VESTIBULESCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"VESTIBULE PLANPARTIAL EXISTING LIVING RM. &44
NOT TO SCALESITE PLANON PARTIAL EXISTING#3VIEW#10VIEWVIEW#8VIEW#9VIEW#1VIEW#7PHOTO LOCATIONSVIEW TO N.E. OF MAIN HOUSE #1VIEW#2VIEW EAST OF MAIN HOUSE ENTRY #2VIEW SOUTH OF MAIN HOUSE WALKWAY#3VIEW#5EAST AT SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN HOUSE #5VIEW#6VIEW N.W. OF EAST SIDE OF MAIN HOUSE#6VIEW WEST OF NORTH SIDE OF MAIN HOUSE#7VIEW SOUTH OF N.E. SIDE OF GUEST HOUSE#8VIEW S.W. OF N.E. SIDE OF GUEST HOUSE#9VIEW N.E. OF S.W. SIDE OF GUEST HOUSE#10VIEW#4VIEW EAST OF SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN HOUSE#4GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCE
AEXISTING PHOTOS &LOCATION SITE PLAN-10A45
VIEW NORTH-WEST OF VINEYARD & GUEST-HOUSE FROM STREET#4VIEW NORTH-WEST OF ADJACENT YARD & MAIN DWELLING#1VIEW SOUTH OF ADJACENT WALKWAY & DWELLING FROM STREET#3VIEW SOUTH-WEST OF ADJACENT WINERY ENTRANCE FROM STREET#6VIEW EAST OF TOPOGRAPHY & GUEST HOUSE FROM STREET#7VIEW SOUTH-EAST OF TOPOGRAPHY FROM STREET#8VIEW EAST OF TOPOGRAPHY AND STORAGE SHED FROM STREET#9VIEW SOUTH-WEST OF WINERY ENTRANCE FROM VINEYARD#11VIEW NORTH-EAST OF GUEST HOUSE FROM VINEYARD#10VIEW NORTH-EAST OF ADJACENT DRIVEWAY & DWELLING FROM STREET#2SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 40'-0"25150750(IN FEET)50100200VIEW#4VIEW#1VIEW#2VIEW#3VIEW#5VIEW#7VIEW#8VIEW#11VIEW#6VIEW#9VIEW#10GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCENEIGHBORHOODPHOTO SURVEYEXISTINGA-10BVIEW NORTH-EAST OF MAIN GATE & GUEST HOUSE FROM STREET#5SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"EXISTINGVINTAGE LANEP I E R
C
E
R O
A
D
46
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-11ScaleDate14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCEFIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMREQUIREMENTS:FIRE HOSE LENGTHS25150750(IN FEET)50100SITE PLANSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"PROPOSEDDASHED LINESREPRESENTS HOSESFROM HYDRANT TO ADU.HOSE 1A LENGTH=390 FT.DASH-DOT LINEREPRESENTS HOSE FROMHYDRANT TO WINE SHED 14754 PIERCE ROADSARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070HOSE 1B LENGTH=382 FT.1A1BDASH-DOT LINEREPRESENTS HOSE FROMHYDRANT TO GARAGEHOSE 4 LENGTH=389 FT.234HOSE 2 LENGTH=397 FT.HOSE 3 LENGTH=393 FT.47
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-12ScaleDateTREE PROTECTIONINFO. & CONDITIONSOF APPROVAL - 1element
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC.
39675 Cedar Blvd, Ste #295C
Newark, California 94560
510-573-1557 elementse.com
14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCE 1/132/133/134/135/136/137/138/1348
GLEN FRIES
ASSOCIATES
L.
ARCHITECTS
505 Mercer Road
609 924-8700
Princeton N.J. 08540
Fax 924-8696
glenfries.comL.C.A-13ScaleDateelement
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS INC.
39675 Cedar Blvd, Ste #295C
Newark, California 94560
510-573-1557 elementse.com
14754 PIERCE ROAD
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
ADAMS-WISER RESIDENCETREE PROTECTIONINFO. & CONDITIONSOF APPROVAL - 29/1310/138/1311/1312/1313/1349
APN Address Commissioner Status
503 24 087 3rd Street 20640 Boyce-Bender Owner working on obtaining documents
503 48 045 Congress Springs Rd 22000 (Quarry)Minar Loading Structure
503 23 008 Marion Rd 20602 Boyce-Bender Need criteria for HRI
APN Address Year Entered into Contract Notes
389-04-007 Shubert Drive 19277 2020 Year 1 Complete
389-05-016 DeHavilland Drive 19174 2021 Begins tax year 2023/2024
397-19-010 Fruitvale Avenue 15095 2014 Years 1-7 Completed
397-22-053 Oak Place 14475 2019 Years 1-2 Completed
397-25-099 Saratoga Avenue 14065 2013 Years 1-8 Completed
517-08-017 Orchard Road 20331 2019 Years 1-2 Completed
517-11-005 Saratoga Los Gatos Road 20280 2021 Year 1 Complete
517-22-130 Peach Hill Road 15320 2020 Years 1-2 completed
517-08-047 Oak Street 14666 2022 Begins tax year 2024/25
397-310001 Saratoga Avenue 14275 2023 Begins tax year 2024/25
Oak Street HPC members are researching
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
May 2024
$11,000.00
$11,000.00
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Potential Heritage Resource Inventory Candidates
2023/24 Point of Interest Markers (POI)
Potential Heritage Plaques/Signage
Events
Current Mills Act Properties
Saratoga Jail
Balance
Saratoga Ave Heritage Lane Inventory
Village Inventory
Community Outreach via Social Media
Training
Other
Preservation Month 2024
Harvest Day 2024
Approved
Budget
Blossom Festival 2024
State of the City 2024
Arbor Day 2024
50
Historic Resource Inventory
Added Year/Fiscal Year Reso # Historical Name
Montpere Way 18500 2015 HP15-01
Shubert Dr 19277 2017-2018 HP17-01
Lutheria Way Entrance Posts 14200 & 14221 Lutheria Way 2018-2019 HP18-02 & HP18-03
Saratoga Av 13601 (St Andrew's)2018-2019 HP18-01
DeHavilland Drive 19461 2019-2020 HP19-07 Entrance Planter
DeHavilland Drive 19152 2019-2020 HP19-06 Entrance Planter
DeHaviland Drive 19174 2021-2022 HP21-0006 Eichler Home
Park Place 20390 2019-2020 HP19-03 Saratoga Federated Church Bell
Shubert Drive 19201 2019-2020 HP19-04 Entrance Planter
Shubert Drive 19401 2019-2020 Entrance Planter
Montpere Way 18485 2019-2020 HP19-009 Home
Orchard Road 20331 2019-2020 HP19-02 Peck House
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 20450 2020-2021 HP20-0002 Historical Park
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 20450 2020-2021 HP20-0001 Interurban Stop
Removed from HRI
Hammons Avenue 13514 May 24, 2022 HP22-002 -
Saratoga Avenue 13631 November 9, 2021 HP21-007 Rawdon Dell Ranch
Alta Vista Avenue 14054 February 12, 2019 HP19-001 Water Tower
Discontinued Status
Allendale 19365 2017
Orchard Road 20328 2019
Orchard Road 20350 2019
Elva Ave - Russian Church 14220 2019
DeHavilland 19222 2021
DeHavilland 19223 2021
Saratoga Ave 13650 (Library)2021
Saratoga Ave 13718 (Sacred Heart)2021
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road 20318 2021
La Palmoa Ave 20295 2021
DeHavilland 19246 2022
Saratoga Ave 14301 2022
Orchard Road 20290 2022
Saratoga Ave 14285 2022
Lutheria Way 14321 2022
Montavlo Road 14900 2022
Montpere way 18547 (38926034)2023/24
Montepere Way 18591 (38926029)2023/24
Montpere Way 18521 2023/24
Montpere Way 18530 (389 26 021)2023/24
Montpere Way 18550 (38926020)2023/24
Montepere Way 18570 (38926019)2023/24
Montepere Way 18600 (38926018)2023/24
Montpere Way 18531(38926033)2023/24
Added
Peach Hill Road 15320 2020-2021 Landmark and Mills Act Carey House
Orchard Road 20331 2019-2020 Landmark and Mills Act Peck House
Shubert Dr 19277 2020-2021 Landmark and Mills Act Kenji Matsuda House
Oak Street 14666 2022/2023 Landmark and Mills Act Congregational Church Parsonage
Discontinued Year Status
Bella Vista 20021 2014
Big Basin Way 14501-14503 2014
Fruitvale 14251 2014
Big Basin Way 14519 2014
1Big Basin Way (20640 Third St) 4413-14415 2014
Big Basin Way 14495 2014
Pierce Rd 14754 2014
Old Grandview Ranch 2015
APN Address Year Designated Status
386-47-039 Cox Avenue 19161 2012 10 year Contract Fullfilled
378-25-021 Walbrook Drive 11995 2004 10 year Contract Fullfilled
393-45-017 Saratoga Avenue 13855 2007 10 Year Contract Fullfilled
397-13-066 Chester Avenue 14288 2005 10 Year Contract Fullfilled
503-22-075 Saratoga Sunnyvale 2005 10 Year Contract Fullfilled
517-08-017 Oak Street 14683 2011 10 Year Contract Fullfilled
517-11-003 Saratoga Los Gatos 2011 10 year Contract Fullfilled
Added
Palm Trees - Yerba Santa Court 2017-2018
397 16 055 14120 Shadow Oaks -
397 42 002 14250 Douglas Lane
Point of Interest Markers
Installed Fiscal Year Location
Theater of the Glade Site Point of Interest Marker 2017-2018
Blossom Festival Point of Interest Marker 2017-2018
Ohlone Indians 2019/2020
Saloons 2019/2020
Saratoga Paper Mill 2019/2020
Caledonia Pasteboard Mill 2019/2020
McCartysville 2020/2021
Immigrating to CA 2020/2021
El Quito Olive Farm 2020/2021
Glen Una Ranch 2020/2021
Saratoga Vitaphone 2020/2021
Other Year Status
Village Design Guidelines 2019
Memorial Arch 2019/2020
Heritage Orchard Master Plan Update 2020/2021
Heritage Preservtion Code Update 2022/2023
Approved by CC 8/21/19
Completed February 2020
Approved by CC 12/02/20
Approved by City Council 12/16/22
Owner declined to be placed on HRI (8/17/2022)
Saratoga-Los Gatos Road/Austin Ave
Big Basin Way and Third St
Lack of owner consent
Lack of owner consent plus not eligible as it lacks sufficient integrity to its original design
Lack of owner consent
Lack of owner consent
Lack of owner consent plus not eligible as it lacks sufficient integrity to its original design
Lack of owner consent plus not eligible as it lacks sufficient integrity to its original design
Lack of owner consent
Owner did not want house as a landmark
Quito Road
Owner did not want house on Inventory
On January 2, 2019, staff was informed that the property owner is not interested in having their house on the inventory.
Owner has contacted City and is hesitant about being put on inventory. Owner will contact City whether or not they are interested.
2019- Church responded that they do not want to be included on the inventory
Let sent for 45 day comment period. Period ended 11/8/2021. No response from the owner.
Let sent for 45 day comment period. Period ended 11/8/2021. No response from the owner.
Hold
Owner Requested to Hold
Owner Requested to Hold
Owner Requested to Hold
Let sent for 45 day comment period. Period ended 01/17/22. No response from the owner.
within the road right of way adjacent to 14650 Big Basin Way
Wildwood Park
Big Basin Way near the Buy and Save Market
Big Basin Way where Bank of America is located-the parking lot is where the laundry was located
8/2/23 - 45 day letter sent to property owners 8/10/23 Owner does not wish to be placed on the HRI
within the road right of way adjacent to 14535 Big Basin Way
Owner declined to be placed on HRI (8/26/2022)
Owner declined to be placed on the HRI 9/14/2022
Lettter sent for 45 day comment period. Period ended 09/20/22. No response from the owner.
Lettter sent for 45 day comment period. Period ended 09/20/22. No response from the owner.
8/2/23 - 45 day letter sent to property owners 8/08/23- Owner objected
8/2/23 - 45 day letter sent to property owners. 8/08/2023-owner responded, does not wish to be placed on the inventory.
Wildwood Park
Other
Landmarks
Mills Act Properties
Heritage Tree Inventory
Saratoga Ave/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Saratoga Ave/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
7/18/23 -45 day letter sent to property owners. 8/02/2023- owner objected
8/2/23 - 45 day letter sent to property owners 8/18/23 Owner does not wish to be placed on the inventory.
8/2/23 - 45 day letter sent to property owners -8/30/23 Owner does not wish to be placed on the inventory
8/2/23 - 45 day letter sent to property owners . 9/6/23 Owner does not wish to be placed on the inventory.
8/2/23 - 45 day letter sent to property owners 10/3/23-Owners have not responded, property not placed on inventory.
51