The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-02-23 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members David Bower, Beth Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Absent: Chair Bernstein: Alright. Good morning everybody and welcome to the February 23rd meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Will the secretary please call role? Thank you. A special welcome to new Board Member Brandon Corey, welcome. Oral Communications Chair Bernstein: I’d like to start with oral communications. If there are any members of the public who would like to speak to us and I do have one card. Nathan, if you would like to come up to the speaker and introduce yourself. Yes, yes, good. I think you just push the button there and then you can give your name and then your comments, please. Mr. Nathan Bernstein: Is that ok? Chair Bernstein: Yes. Mr. Bernstein: Can you hear me alright? Ok. I am Nathan Bernstein and I’ve got 97 years of things to think about. I am busy. (Inaudible) about historical things and I go back 97-years of things that were important to me. I grew up in San Francisco in 1919, that’s when I started (inaudible). Oh, that button – ok, can you hear me now? The theme of my program is How I met Walt Disney. History – Walt was a great person and I admired him. He was an individual with his own ideas about how to entertain the world. At that time, he was just starting out Disney Land so he was just starting to build a few rides here and there and how I connected with him was very interesting. All my life I worked with wood and metal and growing up in San Francisco, I was deciding which way I wanted to live my life. I had a choice of going to Lowell high school or Polytechnic. Both were leading schools and Lowell was a – if you wanted to get a better education or Polytechnic if you want to make a living. In 1925-26 I growing up and I always lived with my mother and her fam – her brothers – my brothers and sisters. My mother had a Victorian house which was old then and it always needed something and I seemed to be the one that was taking care of it for her as I grew up. I learned little skills here and there and when I decided about the school, I wanted to go to Polytechnic to learn more about what I liked to do. I decided that way and that opened up a lot of windows for me on how to make a living – a good living. I started doing little odds and ends and I wound up working wood and metal, which was my favorite thing and one of my jobs was working with wooden station wagons. In the summer time, the wood would swell, doors wouldn’t close and we’d have to open – fix them and in the winter time they’d shrink and we had to add wood so we’re going back and forth with the same customer all the time. In a course of doing all this work, I wound up with a lot little oddball pieces of wood; crazy shapes, cylinders around stuff. I would take them home and give them to [Marty]. Then [Marty] would have his train board and he’d make tunnels and bridges and all kinds of buildings. That’s where we got his start. As I got into the merry-go- HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: February 23, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 round business, I met these two gentlemen, Carl Bacon and – I can’t remember. I know I have a lapse something. Male: Morgan. Morgan. Mr. Bernstein: Ed Morgan, thank you. Ed Morgan and they were workers just like me, craftsman and they organized this little company making merry-go-rounds. When the word got around that we could make good stuff, Walt Disney’s company came over and approached us to build a ride. Our first ride was a Matterhorn and then Pirates of the Caribbean and then it’s a small, small (inaudible). Our company grew and grew and grew until we were making big stuff and that’s when we developed the corkscrew ride. It was done by a ball barring with a tube and we found by gravity – and we could make that thing do anything we wanted and the company’s motto was ‘if you give us electricity and water, we could do anything’ and our ride would fit no matter what and that’s what we did. Anyway, the company grew and grew and then (inaudible) major rides, Walt Disney wanted a merry-go-round and he wanted authentic horses so we had a crew that went to Europe and picked up the wooden horses that were abandoned. They were made by logs and they’d force pieces of wood into the log and the carvers would create animals out of it. They were classic things but they were old and disintegrated and not to good shape. They were sent to our company and then we’d clean them up a little bit and then make horses and camels and giraffes and lions, anything. That was our connection and Walt Disney came over and he looked at our plant and he says ‘you could a nice but my crew does the painting’ and he was coming with his crew of artists and they’d have their air guns and they would be spraying all these animals. It was really a pleasure to watch them work. They were artists, not painters, they were artists. That’s – Walter came to our shop and we met and we talked and he would praise our company for doing all this beautiful work and that’s how I met Walt Disney. Thank you, gentleman for listening to my story and if you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer them to you. Chair Bernstein: We have some questions. Amy? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: I have a question. I’m Amy French and I’m the Chief Planning Official. Pleasure to hear your story (inaudible). I had a question because there’s that Walt Disney museum. Are you – do you have an area there about your company in that museum? Mr. Bernstein: The company is long gone. Ms. French: Right but I mean is there some narrative there – in San Francisco, the Walt Disney – sorry, what did I say? The museum up in the (inaudible) there’s a Disney Museum and I think since you are a local company in San Francisco, you were? Is there any mention in that story that they tell up at that museum about your company? Mr. Bernstein: I don’t really understand your question. Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) Ms. French: It would be neat to see a little blurb up there at the Disney Museum; it’s part of history. Chair Bernstein: I haven’t visited the museum yet so maybe…(crosstalk) Ms. French: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: I haven’t, not yet. (crosstalk) Ms. French: Sorry for confusing you. Mr. Bernstein: Yeah, ok. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Bernstein: Why do you tell us when you – they actually invented the rides and then created them. This is in Mountain View. Dad, you said there was something you said about a scream test with the – Mr. Bernstein: A what? Chair Bernstein: A scream test. How do you know if the ride was scary enough? With the secretarial Staff, would take the ride in the parking lot. You said how the secretarial Staff would ride the rides – test riding. Mr. Bernstein: I don’t understand you. Chair Bernstein: The – you would tell me the story of how the secretarial Staff takes a ride before it got shipped to Anaheim and if they would scream loud enough. Mr. Bernstein: I’m not hearing you. I’m not hearing you. (Crosstalk) Alright, so -- my hearing has started to deteriorate and I don’t want to have any implants yet but I may have to. Ok, sorry about that. Ms. French: Thank you so much. (Crosstalk) Mr. Bernstein: One to one I could talk but from way over there, it’s not coming in as clear as you should and I can’t help that. That’s something I don’t have. OK? Thank you very much for letting me speak about my – what I enjoyed doing and you’ve got a nice group here. Continue with your meeting. Thank you. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bernstein: Next is if there are any agenda changes, additions, and deletions? Ms. French: No changes. I want to also introduce our Attorneys. Cara Silver, who was our attorney has retired, surprisingly. Anyways. It seems too young to retire but there it is. Our attorneys here today are supporting the planning. We have a new attorney, Sandy Lee over here and then Albert Yang, who has been with the City for a number of years now and is now more focused on planning; our department. We did – what? We did have an orientation yesterday and so Brandon Corey was able to meet Albert but I wasn’t sure if the rest of you had an occasion to meet Albert and now Sandy. Board Member Bower: I don’t know if that’s good news that we now have an attorney for the HRB or the bad news. Welcome. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. City Official Reports 1. City Official Reports Chair Bernstein: Next is City official reports. I see none in our packet. Also, -- thank you. Also, I’d like to introduce to the members of the public our new Board Member, Brandon Corey. Welcome. Board Member Corey: Thank you. Chair Bernstein: You’re welcome to having any introductory remarks if you care to, if not, we will move on. Board Member Corey: I’m excited to be on this Board and I’m ready to learn and soak in information. We’ll take it from there. Thanks for… City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Welcome. Study Session 2. Historic Resources Board Retreat Chair Bernstein: Next would be a study session. Public comment is permitted for a Historic Resources Board Retreat. Amy, would you like to introduce the subject, please. Ms. French: Certain, thank you. I am Amy French. I’m the Chief Planning Official and thanks to the attorneys. We generally like to have a retreat annually each year (inaudible) and my review of the record is that the retreat of last January and continuance to February kind of dematerialized. I assumed – I started with you last March resuming and I’m apologizing on my part for not realizing that the retreat didn’t actually happen. Here we are, you folks discussed the potential retreat topics in – on January 26th of this year. Those were captured in this report that I put in the packet and I put them in three buckets, 1. Training 2. Governance and 3. Potential projects. I might add in the potential projects category is an actual project that is under way. The Eichler Design Guidelines Project so I’m running that project and I can tell you a little bit about that. There is, of course, background material about that. The Council did the go ahead and funding for us to hire and we hired Page and Turnbull who I’ve had a kick-off meeting as of the last day of January. We are now in full swing as far as preparing for our first community workshop. We’re looking to later in March for that and I will be extending an invitation to all of you. We’re gathering a number of interested parties to keep informed and to solicit participation in the process so more on that later. I don’t want to focus the retreat on – but just to let you know that that’s not a potential project, it’s an actual project. Others on the list in these three buckets of topics, again, where called from what was said on January 26th at the HRB meeting. As far as what to do in a retreat generally, I think it’s great too, especially with a new member, to talk about how the format is working. How the reports are working or not working? What – as a Board in a functioning group, how you come to decisions and anything in the manner of operating as a Board. Then finally with these topics, to perhaps cull them down to a few topics that can be presented in maybe perhaps a subcommittee. Gathering together to prepare some sort of document to forward to the Council so that they can as a full Council, direct Staff to proceed on any number of these that are listed or anything else that might come up today. Especially, with our new membership, there may be something else that’s not listed here. That’s just what I would say is that’s my recommendation as a Staff member having seen what or hear what you’re interested in. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Just moving down, the list of – first on training, we can see in our report that March 6th is when the City Council is going to start discussing the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinances. I made a comment at the last meeting that it would be good to get some information about that but probably if we let the Council do their deliberation first, I would think. My simple comment was that if there is going to be some recognition of historic properties in the easing or relaxing of any existing ordinances regarding second dwelling units, especially if it – if the proposed structure for an AD unit is an existing old structure. I think Council – but I think we’ll have the AD discussion with the Council first and then we’ll get information but that’s the simple comment if there could be any recognition by the Council of old buildings that maybe become accessory dwelling units. Yes? Council Member Holman: Actually, it’s a question and I know some other of my colleagues has – as we’re starting to dig into this is – well, the question came up about concerns of Ads being introduced onto historic sites and wanting some clarification about what the State law requires to have happen or to allow to happen because you can image, all of you, introducing an additional building on a historic site could be quite impactful. Some clarification on that. Maybe you know that or maybe you could flush that out for HRB Members and before the Council meeting. Ms. French: Certainly. That’s a list of – let's meet again to more thoroughly discuss this. There will be reports coming out and I certain have forwarded and flagged this issue or this concern on behalf of the HRB, to our Staff that is working on this. There’s been a number of discussions – I see these discussions City of Palo Alto Page 5 from the Office of Historic Preservation, I get the emails. I flagged a concern for the Staff that is working on this but hopefully, we will – it is March 6th so hopefully, we will see a report soon that has a mention of this. If it doesn’t then now is the time to make a mention. Council Member Holman: (Inaudible) Ms. French: Oh, ok so you did receive a report already… Council Member Holman: But it's… Ms. French: For the March 6th… Council Member Holman: It’s just discussion – yeah, it’s just discussion of the ADUs. I didn’t find anything specific having to do with this but I haven’t gone through all of it yet. I just know it’s a question that’s come up. Ms. French: I guess what I’m asking for clarification is the packet for the March 6th Council meeting come out already that – I can go research it myself but… Council Member Holman: They stack up. Ms. French: Yes, they do. I’ll take a look on behalf of the HRB to figure out what’s going on there. What the status are and see – and talk with the Staff that is bringing that forward. Chair Bernstein: Certainly, the Secretary of Interior Standards would be looked at… Ms. French: Of course, still relevant. Chair Bernstein: …if there is a structure added to a historic property. Board Member – did I see a light on over there? Board Member Kohler: Me. Chair Bernstein: Rodger. Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) light. I encounter what to do with accessory buildings all the time and beyond --Ms. French: not necessarily historic but there’s a lot of – as Staff probably know, there’s a lot of innuendos and issues and problems with neighbors when you start putting a second unit in a backyard. That has come up quite a bit in my part of the world so adding a layer of historic home will be interesting to see how this is going to work out because it’s a – it can be a very hot topic for neighborhoods – neighbors in the area so beyond the fact that it’s a historic structure, you then have neighbors’ complaints and concerns about living units in the back. That’s – I’m sure we’ll get into that as well. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: Just in thinking about that whole process. Do you think we as a Board, should come up with some bullet points of things that we think are a concern? For instance – I mean, I know a lot of things that Rodger’s talking about – a lot of the things that Rodger is talking about are planning concerns that would be covered with – through the Planning Ordinance but for instance, if there is a secondary dwelling that’s proposed on a historic site, should we come up with some concerns that we would think are necessary for review and – I guess that would trigger if there is a secondary dwelling unit proposed for a historic site, would that have to come to us before it’s ultimate approval? For us to see if it is fitting with the environment? If it does relate? Maybe we should come up with some criteria points instead of just letting the Council – because the Council probably won’t do it unless we suggest something. I mean, City of Palo Alto Page 6 would that be something that we would want to come up with 3 or 4 bullet points of things that we think as a Board would be necessary for ultimate approval? Council Member Holman: That would be helpful. Vice Chair Wimmer: Yeah. Chair Bernstein: I think would be – I think that’s an excellent idea. It’s often times during public hearings with the Council -- the Council will ask a Board Member to speak to an agenda item that the Council is looking at and so here’s a good time, I think as Vice Chair Wimmer is mentioning, is to be a little bit more proactive about any potential ordinances. Would that be kind of – perhaps maybe a subcommittee of the HRB to work with you or Council Members or how could that be set up to implement Vice Chair Wimmer’s excellent idea? Vice Chair Wimmer: I think we’ve had conversations about subcommittees and that some of the Board Members have thought that subcommittees are not such a good idea because it excludes other thoughts. If we want to take 10-mintues now and do it or do we want to set it for later in this meeting to revisit it? I don’t know. Are we going through all of our items just briefly or are we digging into the material of each item right now? Chair Bernstein: Let’s see, since we are all here… Vice Chair Wimmer: Yeah, I think we should tackle it, why not? Chair Bernstein: …yeah, let’s do that. I think that’s an excellent idea Vice Chair Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: Do you want to talk about it now? Board Member Kohler: I have mixed feelings about that because I think the Committee will come up with their own set of standards and once that completed, it might be easier for us to… Council Member Holman: There’s (inaudible) Vice Chair Wimmer: I think that if we suggest it before it’s set in stone because I think the Council is actually going to adopt the ordinance on March 6th. Are they not or are they discussing it? I think the – I think all the information came out January 1st, which was part of what Govern Jerry Brown has said that he wants to instate the secondary dwelling units and it’s not just in Palo Alto; it’s a lot of Cities. I think a lot of Cities have already adopted their ordinances. I think that Palo Alto was refining theirs and I think that – I think this is when the City Council was going to adopt it but that doesn’t mean that they can’t – I mean maybe if we come up with a set of our own personal guild lines for this circumstance. Maybe that’s not going to be adopted by the Council – it sounds like they need to adopt the fundamental guild lines and we could just have them say, if a secondary dwelling unit is proposed for a historic site, it needs to be reviewed by the HRB. Then we have our own second tier of requirements. Chair Bernstein: I’m curious to hear the idea that each Board Member would have about what things to look at. I already mentioned the Secretary of Interior Standards as a – so, I’d like to invite Vice Chair Wimmer to maybe start off us with some of the ideas that she’d like the Council to consider. Vice Chair Wimmer: I think… Board Member Bower: Martin? Vice Chair Wimmer: Oh, sorry. Board Member Bower: Can I make a comment before? City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Bernstein: Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Board Member Bower: As a Board, we have reviewed secondary dwelling units in Professorville on a number of occasions and what we have done – our concern has been is compatibility, massing, material selection which is part of a subset of compatibility. I think those things would still apply in any situation where we had a request by a property own to add a secondary dwelling unit on a property that we – the City has deemed to be of historic significant. In a sense, we’ve already done this and we already have the – not quite criteria but we have used the Secretary of Interior Standards to make decisions about the appropriateness about these dwellings. In a sense, I think we’ve already – we could tell the Council that that’s what we would like to have done and not run down bullet points. I think that it takes longer to really develop bullet points than we have available today. We have a lot of stuff we want to try to cover so the message that I would like to send to the Council is when we have a secondary dwelling unit, propose that the HRB reviews that using the Secretary of Interior Standards. I think that’s probably what we need unless you think we need to do more. Council Member Holman: I think the primary question here, which we don’t have the answer for right at this moment is whether there is a requirement to allow accessory dwelling units on historic sites. What you're talking about is important – but even though we don’t know yet – do you know yet Amy? Ms. French: My limited knowledge of the – because I –again I’m not pulled into that whole group that’s working on this but it is that the State law basically has this grandfathering effect for existing units that never – they don’t need parking, this kind of thing and now, it’s ok that they can retroactively be allowed. Then there are some other points and in Palo Alto, we have a minimum lot size that – (inaudible) that goes beyond the minimum lot size for a single-family home. I think those are zoning type issues that are there. If something says is in Professorville, we have the Professorville guidelines. If it is a listed resource, then as David said, there are requirements for review. Now because (inaudible) – secondary dwelling unit permits are not discretionary now for any secondary dwelling unit, they just have to meet parking. I would suspect that going forward it’s -- just again, a building permit and on the way to the building permit, we have HRB input and recommendations that – because it’s not discretionary we have – we’re just hoping for the best and moving forward. It’s mistrial, exactly. Council Member Holman: What I’m trying to get at is does the City have to allow them on a historic site? That’s the (inaudible) question. Ms. French: I don’t have the answer to that. I’m telling you what I do know and I don’t know that. Council Member Holman: Ok, got it. Chair Bernstein: Yes, Beth. Board Member Bunnenberg: In addition to the scale and massing kind of thing. There’s also Secretary of Interior Standard number 2 which means in the character of the property shall be preserved and alterations of features and spaces. Sometimes we do end up with looking at something that has a historic garden or some other feature and somewhat appears distinctive and historic. Then there might be a question of, could you then take that out and put a second dwelling on it. Chair Bernstein: It goes back to Council Member Holman’s question which is that does the State law trump any historical regulations? That’s what we don’t have an answer too. Ms. French: Again, State law currently trumps us until we get an ordinance in place that provides some nuances and refinements to this, such as how are we addressing these zoning questions? I think State law that governors historic listed properties are still subject to CEQA review, at least for discretionary and of course, then we have our Professorville Guidelines when we’re talking about Professorville. Other areas of town we don’t have guild lines for. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Bernstein: Alright so we’re leaving it as – it sounds like the end of our conversation is right now for this subject. Vice Chair Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: Maybe instead of getting into bullet points or something like that from us. Maybe we should just remind them to include in the wording of the ordinance that if it is a historic structure or a historic site, it needs to be reviewed and comply with CEQA. Maybe it’s as simple as that and then we can – if it gets to us, then we can interrupt it on our own or critic is on our own. Board Member Bower: Everybody ok? I see a lot of lights on down there. Board Member Bunnenberg: Oh, sorry. Chair Bernstein: Alright. Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: Is there any – sorry. Is there any current requirement for the Board to review any accessory structures? Ms. French: When on a historic listed Category 1 or 2 anywhere in the City of Palo Alto and when it’s Categories 1-4 in Professorville and – those are kind of the criteria based on our ordinance 16.49. Just because we do not require an additional use permit, as we use to, for second dwelling units. That was a State law that we implemented 10 or so years ago, it’s not a ‘discretionary’ permit so again, it’s just a building permit as long as the meet these prescriptive requirements. I was going to suggest that maybe we take this up again at our March meeting and we can kind of look towards dates on that; on either March 9th or 23rd. Obviously, that’s after March 6th but it’s – there’s a second reading always for an ordinance. Chair Bernstein: During the March 6th City Council meeting, Board Members can also speak to the subject. Just a reminder of what we talked about today or what do you think? Council Member Holman: Would it be good to have one of the Board Members come and just speak to this briefly to the Council as a representative to the HRB? Ms. French: Sure. I think having perhaps – I can orchestrate a meeting with the Staff in planning that is working on this. The director certainly and perhaps the Chair of the HRB to – in the coming week to have a conversation. Chair Bernstein: I’m available for that. Ok, so I’ll wait to hear from you on when and where? OK, thank you. Any other last comments on this subject before we move on? Seeing none. Next is governance. The report says, ‘reporting structure for HRB: currently HRB recommends to the planning -- what’s PECE? Planning and Community Environment Director via ARB or major projects. We had some comments at our last meeting. Board Member Bower. Board Member Bower: I’m – Chair Bernstein and I had a discussion about this. I am very concerned about the reporting procedure and I know that Council Member Holman has expressed this in our meetings. There have been two recent reviews that the HRB has done on projects that have been totally ignored by the ARB. The one I find most egregious is the new fire station as Embarcadero and Knewll. That fire station is desperately in need of being replaced and this is my fire station so I have two interests in it but the proposal that was brought to the HRB that we reviewed – the three options where what I would consider, brutalist architecture. Boxes, armored, not friendly; that property while screened by the redwood trees and the shrubbery around the fire station is part of a historic – really important historic to Palo Alto property and it sits across the street from the Art Center and the Rinconada library. This building doesn’t remotely conform to the architecture of those buildings. It doesn’t look anything like the Lucie Stern Center, the Girl Scout House. It doesn’t even have the same materials and we – the thing that I find most objectionable is that it doesn’t have a sloped roof like all those other structures do. Across the street from it is a residential area; they’re all sloped rooves. I understand new architecture. City of Palo Alto Page 9 There is a great deal of modernist architecture in my term, being built now in Palo Alto but I think this was a particularly unpleasant experience for me as an HRB Board Member to – I think our Board unanimously rejected the design, which was completely ignored by the ARB and they’ve now pushed that onto the Council for approval, I think, haven’t they? Ms. French: If I can correct that. The ARB is now on their third hearing and we did pass on – I did pass on what the HRB said and with the minutes and all. They’ve struggled along and they are at the third hearing coming up on March 2nd. That’s what, in two weeks? Board Member Bower: Is there a new design proposal? Ms. French: They explored – yes, in the sense that it has been modified. They explored the pitch roof concept and some other issues that the ARB brought up. It was significantly on the park side, concern with the adjacency with the open space and – so, it’s gone through it’s – the ARB concerns and they studied but the study showed unfavourability the additional massing. There’s a lot there to talk about but I feel this isn’t the forum but to say it hasn’t been approved and the Council will not approve it – will not review it. They do not have a part to play in it unless it’s appealed. Board Member Bower: Right, well that’s even more concerning to me because of course, if we don’t as a Board, find the proposed design to be compatible with surrounding buildings and that is not in some way part of the consideration – and it shouldn’t have to be a Council consideration, I think it should be a planning director – we’re going to talk – that’s one issue that I’m troubled about. The other one was the Avenidas project, which came – which was a difficult project; it had massing issues. Our Board was somewhat unsettled by it. We didn’t have a unanimous verdict like we normally do but I think one of the ARB Members came to our meeting and said we should destroy that little garage on the property and change the project so that the massing was smaller but the garage turned out to be the oldest building on the property. By that definition, it would be the most significant because of its age and it’s really untouched on the outside. Now, it’s surrounded by other buildings and it’s going to be compromised to some extent but we don’t – Secretary of Interior Standards don’t allow for removing something because it’s inconvenient and it was in fact, as part of the final project, retained. I was distressed that a Member of the ARB would come and suggest to us that we should just demolish that. I think if we had a direct line of communication to the Planning Director, we ought to be at the equal with the ARB. There’s no reason why the ARB should be taking our recommendations and then doing what they want with them. They have different issues than we have and I feel that we’re not – our issues are not being represented as they should be with the Planning Department and Council. I feel very strongly that we should have a different reporting mechanism here. Chair Bernstein: Would that require an ordinance change of the communication between Board and Council? Ms. French: Yes, there’s 16:49 and it does reference – we have several ordinances, the Zoning Ordinances and 16:49 which is not in zoning. Zoning sets forth processes such as the ARB process that is – the ARB recommends to the Director and then the Director takes action on most projects. The HRB and the 16:49 ordinance is reporting to the Director, same as the ARB is reporting to the Director. In the order of things, we typically go to the HRB first and then those considerations are passed to the ARB and because there are findings related to context and existing features and such. There are references even in the new findings to historic conditions. There is a line and I would say that the HRB is reporting to the director just like the ARB is reporting to the director, it’s just that the HRB goes first and there’s no requirement for the HRB to ‘approve’ the project; you’re recommending. I guess the nuances are you recommending to the ARB or are your recommending to the Director? I would say you're recommending to the Director. Board Member Bower: Again, my problem with that is a recommendation is not an approval. Ms. French: Correct. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Bower: The approval is what matters and it makes the HRB a secondary Board really and the (inaudible) is the only State Certified Board in the City of Palo Alto. That status alone should make us worth of direct reporting to the Planning Director. Now, I’m not suggesting that the Planning Director doesn’t pay attention to what we do but the way this process works, our recommendations go to ARB and ARB makes the final choice. I just think that… Ms. French: (Inaudible) Board Member Bower: … I think the ARB can review our recommendations but that the Planning Director should make the final decision or if necessary the Council but not the ARB and that’s the way it’s structured now. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: I think maybe something that we could do to assist in that mutual understanding of what they do and what we do is maybe we should try to work in a yearly meeting with them like we try to do with the Council. Maybe we have also, in addition to a retreat or some kind of activate with the ARB because I think the more we talk about what are concerns are – I mean, I think just having an open conversation about what our concerns are and maybe we can even use that project as a case study and say, hey this is what we thought. This is what our – what we’re trying to accomplish but this is what we saw happen, how can we better communicate our work, our – because – especially with Avenidas, we reviewed it 2 or 3 times. That was a lot of time we put into it. Board Member Bower: So, did they. Ms. French: It was challenging. Vice Chair Wimmer: For me, I just think it’s just because their one group and they're doing their things. We’re another group, we’re doing our things and we’re relying on Staff to communicate. I think if we had an opportunity to meet with them and get to know them, I think maybe we would have a more successful, overall project. For me, I always feel like I benefit from spending time and talking instead of just that compartmentalize work that – I’m just thinking out loud, that maybe just suggesting that we have a meeting with them. I think we’ve talked about that. Have we not talked about having a joint meeting with them? I think it would be necessary and I think… Board Member Bunnenberg: We did one time. Board Member Bower: Didn’t we have one last year? Vice Chair Wimmer: I don’t think we have since I’ve been on – I remember – no. Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible)(crosstalk) Vice Chair Wimmer: I haven’t since I’ve been on the Board, I don’t think (crosstalk), that I remember. Board Member Bunnenberg: Yeah, we had one meeting. Board Member… Vice Chair Wimmer: Maybe that’s something we put on our yearly agenda, is to have a meeting with them. I know they spend a lot more hours than we do, on their Committee. I don’t know if they would want to spend another hour with us but we could suggest it. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Bunnenberg: Bunnenberg – Another sample of this is the difficulty that came up around 429 University and actually, I think Council Member Holman suggested that the project be sent to the HRB because it was a project that was surrounded by small – much smaller Birge Clark, mainly designed, properties and the compatibility and it was important to put forward that as a part of the whole things for the Council to see rather than it having to be picked out by the Council and noted. That – it’s not only the historic structures but what is the surround because it has a tremendous effect on the whole street. Chair Bernstein: Have we concluded – Yes, Amy. Ms. French: I’d like to just say, we do have opportunities to meet as a two-Board – requirement actually, in the code for the SOFA project so in April we’re actually going to be having a joint meeting with the ARB and I had suggested, because you had brought this up collectively, that we do combine that with a – before the item – an actual project -- there’s a discussion opportunity; a study session and then conclude that and move into the item, the SOFA project. That is in April. In the meantime, I might suggest again, as I did in the report, that if you – I know subcommittees are awkward for reviewing projects but subcommittees are probably a better way to prepare some kind of a memo, kind of in the vein of a Colleague’s Memo. If you wanted to – you’ve studied the concept of these three projects and what was at issue. Certainly, somebody could write that up and maybe a pair of HRB Members could think that through and what the concerns are that might be addressed in a joint study session to talk about so that I can have an agenda for that meeting and make that efficient. Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman, did you have your light? Council Member Holman: Yeah, just one comment kin to what Board Member Bower has said is that I can’t think – of just sitting here, I can’t think of any other Board or Commission that reports to another Board or Commission. As you said very well, this is the only State Sanctioned Board or Commission that the City of Palo Alto is required to have and does have and it seem like that any report from this Board – taking – Board Members taking their work seriously, should be viewed as an expert report that needs to be considered as a part of any review. I guess that’s all I need to say. The reporting structure is antithetical to, I think, the purpose and import of this Boards – I guess I’m making a statement here, aren’t I? Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank… Board Member Kohler: I’d just like to make one last comment. I’ve been fortunate enough to design quite a few homes here in Palo Alto and I’d say 1 out of 15 or 20 of the homes we’ve done have been modern homes. We have done all the remodeling of – some are historic, some aren’t but I’m just saying, the overall feeling I’m getting from 40-50-years of doing this is modern is more commercial oriented than homes. Most homeowners – in fact, there is a number – real estate agents will tell you that they can’t get the same amount of money for a modern, slick, flat roof house then they can for a historic home. The value in historic homes seems to be there almost automatically, where a brand new home is going to – the 20 or 30 real estate agents I know – is a good thing right now but in the end, they don’t think – it’s not quite – what I’m trying to say is that traditional looking homes are still very popular and they have a certain feel to them that your exuding – this is a really – I’m not getting the good words but well done historic home refurbished or even a brand new one has a certain look to it that modern homes just can’t catch. Modern homes tend to look like they are not done. They’re cheap, they don’t have trim, they don’t have this, they are just a bunch of boxes and some of the homes we’ve done – there’s one there now that’s selling for 10 million dollars. Chair Bernstein: I’d like to continue focusing (inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Kohler: My point is historic homes and situations are very important and it’s just the opposite with the HR – ARB. They tend to be mostly modern and clear slick, kind of looking mentality and that work’s in Stanford Shopping Center maybe but not in downtown Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Bernstein: We’ve had some good comments about the structure of HRB recommending – oh yes, Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I’m just thinking back that one project that comes to my mind, I think Rodger was on it, South of Forest was a joint HRB/ARB project and I think that was a pretty successfully done as a joint effort. Chair Bernstein: 901 High Street. Board Member Makinen: Pardon? Chair Bernstein: 901 High Street. Board Member Makinen: Yeah. I would encourage that we go back and look at some of those past experiences and reincorporate them in our way we operate. I think that – correct me, Rodger, I think you were on that Board and I think it was – Yeah, Beth was on it too. (Crosstalk) Chair Bernstein: 901 High Street. Board Member Bower: (Inaudible) was returned to the developer. Chair Bernstein: Correct. Board Member Makinen: I think that’s a good case study of something that worked quite well. Chair Bernstein: Ok, any other comments on this agenda item? Board Member Bower: A question for Council Member Holman, what do you think we should do as a Board to move this idea forward? This would be an ordinance change, wouldn’t it or not? Council Member Holman: It would be an ordinance change and I can’t remember if it was – was it you who mentioned a subcommittee? Preparing a memo? Ms. French: Yes. Council Member Holman: I don’t know how you come to a collective – having collective input in preparation of a memo without starting here but it seems like that would be a reasonable way to go as long as you get the collective input. What Board Member Makinen just mentioned about the joint review, having been a part of SOFA and that whole preparation and having watched several joint reviews of projects. I hadn’t thought of that but it sounds like you had a recent experience with that. I wasn’t quite remembering that so maybe that’s a part of it. Ms. French: I would say in preparation for the very next SOFA joint review and study session prior to the same meeting, that’s a good time for me certainly, to bring up the concerns with the corner office basically, in planning. Council Member Holman: Can I just add one thing to that? When project get appealed or something -- for one reason or another and it comes to the Council, it is – there’s always going to be some conflict of some nature or other but when projects come forward and if the issues can be laid out most clearly -- whatever that process is or whatever you end up recommending towards this but if the issues can be laid out most clearly for the Council. That would be really helpful and for the public as well because the public comes up and they have their issues that point back to historic that sometimes seem like they’ve been glossed over. I think clarity and being more definitive and incorporating of the historic issues would be helpful to everybody including the Council and certainly the public. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Bernstein: Alright. Thank you for all the good, thoughtful comments on this. Board Member Bower: Do we want to create a subcommittee? Vice Chair Wimmer: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: Alright. Board Member Bower: I’d like to recommend that we do a subcommittee and we can only have three people because of Brown Act limitations but I would certainly volunteer to be part of that. I don’t think this is going to happen – we’ll make it happen as quickly as possible. I envision that the subcommittee would flush out the issues, bring it back to the Board for a full hearing and the Board – all Board Members would then be able to participate and modify. Then the Board would recommend this go to the Planning Director and then I guess where ever that goes after that – or to the Council? Council Member Holman: It has to come to the Council for an ordinance change, correct Amy? Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Bower: Fine, so – whatever the process is, I think that’s the way we start. Board Member Kohler: Maybe put as an item of a feature meeting to discuss this – what we just talked about and come up with – I don’t think today’s the day we’re going to decide what we’re doing, right? Ok. Board Member Bower: (Inaudible) We should decide to do this – we should decide if we’re going to create a subcommittee and then get people to participate. Chair Bernstein: We have a volunteer position so Board Member Bower has volunteered to be on this subcommittee. Are there any other Board Members that would like to be on that subcommittee for this? Board Member Bower: Have to have two more. Chair Bernstein: Ok, we have Beth Bunnenberg. Good. Is there a third member that would like to be on that? Board Member Bower: Just the two of us? Board Member Kohler: Are you deciding right now? Board Member Bower: Just on the subcommittee members. Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok. Chair Bernstein: I’ll join you. I’ll join that Committee also. Chair Bower: Good, great, thank you. Chair Bernstein: Ok, anything else on this agenda item? Moving on to potential projects. As Amy mentioned, the first one, the Eichler (inaudible) guild lines, that is under way and contracts have been signed with consultants with that so I guess it’s just underway and I guess HRB will get (inaudible) what happens with that. Ms. French: Yes, if I can comment on that again. You will be invited as interested parties to be a full participation in that and of course, we’ll have a community workshop and that’s looking like March so City of Palo Alto Page 14 we’re just starting to identify how we’re going to move forward with stakeholders and such. Expect to see more from me and I can even at the next HRB meeting give an update on that. Board Member Kohler: Could I just interrupt – mid-century Eichler guild lines, could you let me know when they are going to have a meeting or something. I might like to sit in on it if that’s possible or allowed. Board Member Bower: You start with a public meeting? Ms. French: Yeah so, I’m developing a list of interested parties; stakeholders and we’ll be unveiling the process and what’s going to happen and who’s, you know. Board Member Kohler: I’ve had some very unhappy situations in the Eichler neighborhoods. Council Member Holman: Just clarification, Amy. The HRB would be considered an interested party or would the design guild lines come to the HRB for review and input? They are historic at this point. At least some of the neighborhoods are. Ms. French: We do have two neighborhoods that have been designated National Districts so yes, the HRB is very much – just like Professorville, involved in seeing the guild lines, shaping the guild lines because they are – yes. Now all of them are historic or potentially historic, depending on their integrity and all that. Council Member Holman: Thanks. I wasn’t clear on what that process was. Thanks. Board Member Kohler: Can I add something to that? Flood zones – Eichlers in the flood zones is a huge problem and I’ve had some very sad situations so I don’t know if they are taking that into account but it should be taken into account. Ms. French: Just the high level – the first step is guild lines. The second step would be ordinance – potential ordinance modification so as we collect input, that will out there as a potentially part of the process but the focus is first on the Eichler’s themselves and doing compatible additions and this kind of thing. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Bower. Board Member Bower: A quick question, would this design guild line effort also include the opportunity for the City to designate these neighborhoods as historic neighborhoods in the sense – the same way Professorville has a historic designation and different planning/zoning requirements. Ms. French: That’s not part of the contract with Page and Turnbull who is a historically minded consulting firm but the focus is on the development of guild lines. It’s not on – again, this is coming out of the whole single-story overlay review process that appeared to be somewhat broken as we went through with several of the requested single-story overlays failing for various reasons but certainly through that whole process of a year or so with the Council, the theme was gosh, wouldn’t it be great if we had design guild lines because not everyone wants to be restricted to one story and so we need to move on that and so now – yes, we are moving on that. I don’t know if that helped. Board Member Kohler: I’m going to have one last personal thing is that Bill Turnbull was one of my visiting critics when I was at the University of Oregon all those ancient history days. Anyway. Chair Bernstein: Let’s move on, next is demolition as discretionary. Currently, demolitions are ministerial and we had some comments from other Board Members regard San Francisco’s – how they address these things but that’s a true statement, right? If someone wants to apply for demolition, historic or non- historic, that’s just ministerial and it’s approved, is that correct? City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. French: Yeah – just one nuance to that is for projects that are subject to the ARB process, architectural review, the code is clear. Thou shalt not demolition a building until the approved replacement building is approved through that whole process including appeal. That’s not for single- family homes. Then we have a policy that has been in place for many years and is related to CEQA basically, California Environmental Quality Act and our concern for the loss of historic fabric so that we do not similarly – we don’t allow a building permit to be issued or we don’t allow a demolition permit to be issued prior to approval of the building permit. There’s a caveat that if you’re doing deconstruction, which is more and more the norm, that that can actually happen in the weeks prior to the issue of the building permit but we don’t want the game to be played by someone saying they’re building a one-story house, then they demolish it and then it sits vacant, which has happened, for years. Then they come back with a two-story home request. We have issues as far as loops holes in our code and yeah. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: I also have a question or feeling about another factor of loss of historic fabric and it – I’ve been receiving many complaints from the public and I see it too that we approve a project and then first they take off the siding and that disappears. That historic fabric is gone. Then they have the studs and they’re visible for a while and before you know it, new studs have been put in. Then a new overlayment on that goes in and you really have lost all that historic fabric. Board Member Bower has talked about some regulations in – is it San Francisco that has some requirements around training being required for the construction workers and the construction boss to recognize historic fabric. Board Member Bower: If I could comment on that, Beth. San Francisco doesn’t have that requirement? Board Member Bunnenberg: Doesn’t have that one? Board Member Bower: No. They have a different requirement that both Martin and I have participated in. They – let me back up for a moment before I discuss this. For those who – in the audience, who don’t know the difference. Ministerial approvals are not challenged – how would you describe this? Do you want to describe this? Ms. French: Yes, let me give an overview because I’m still not sure I answered the question as it was asked. Discretionary – let me do the two types. Discretionary permit is something that the code sets forth as a planning entitlement process whereby a decision maker, the Director of Planning and Community Environment or the Council in some cases and on appeal, is using their judgement after the review of the Environmental Review and technical documents, recommendations from Boards such as this and makes a decision which is appealable. In the case of Council, not appealable but yeah, that’s discretionary. Ministerial is when it’s not that. When it’s simple a building permit and there are prescriptive requirements in the building code and zoning code, that say, thou shalt built a house that is set back 20- feet from the front property line. As long as they do that, there is no design review whatsoever, of a new building. If they are sticking to one-story, let’s say, and they meet all of the zoning requirements. Board Member Bower: In San Francisco, the City ordinances view every project as a discretionary project and what you need to do is fill out the foam that I have given to Martin, that details the history. This is a form that San Francisco requires of every applicant for a building permit and you have to demonstrate that your project is not going to destroy historic fabric on historic properties. It’s a very simple process. It’s a – ironically, really interesting as a property owner. Unless you are a developer and you wouldn’t find it interesting as a developer but I learned a great deal about my daughter’s building in the Liberty Hills Historic District, by going through and filling that out. In Palo Alto, you can apply for a demolition permit as part of your building permit and there is no way the City can stop that unless it triggers a CEQA analysis. What we should be doing, I think as a City, is adopting a similar process to the one San Francisco uses and it’s very simple to administer. You fill this out and they make a decision at the counter and they say ok, you can move on or no, you can’t. In the case of my daughter’s building, because it was in a Historic District, that was complicating. It would be equivalent of doing something in Professorville and that’s not simple and it shouldn’t be. What San Francisco wanted to do this-this particular approach City of Palo Alto Page 16 is avoid the mass demolition of building that they experienced in the 1960’s when most – huge – half of the – I think half of the Victorians were demolished in the City and it was so distressing to a large portion of the population that they actually stopped it. It’s still – you can still demolish the building but there is a procedure for doing it and right now, in Palo Alto, the – a policy, which as you described, is not powerful enough to avoid demolitions and it should be harder to demolish the building that has historic value to our community. Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) – As David mentioned, I went through the process for a property in San Francisco also and it’s a simple – basically it’s a – the City will presume that your property is historic, that’s the default and now prove that it’s not and that’s what this process goes through. If you want to avoid that process, then don’t change the street facing façade and then – by the way, this review process it’s a – the fee is about $2,800.00 but you can avoid all that process if you say you’re not changing the street facing façade. Know yourself out on the interior, do your additional stuff in the back, meet all the zoning regulations and it’s a pretty simple process. It’s a great process for the protection of neighborhood character and that’s part of the character of San Francisco, is that character. Board Member Bower: If I could just add one thing. San Francisco, with some major exceptions for really eladoratory main – extensively maintained elaborate buildings, does not have any interest of the inside of the building. It’s all about the street face. Whatever you can see from the street, they want to preserve if it’s a significant building. As long as you’re not trying to do something to say the posada, where everything in those buildings is considered valuable because of its history. You can move through this process very fast as long as you agree to maintain what the street face is. We should be doing the same time. Chair Bernstein: I guess this basically makes a demolition discretionary and here’s the discretionary review that the City says, sorry, no you can’t, then there’s no demolition. There you go. Ms. French: I might just weight in. As far as the size fits all concept obviously, things have to be studied and look at how it works here. In San Francisco, there are many buildings that are zero lot-lined together so the façade preservation of – that makes sense. I just attended a seminar on facadism that was put on… Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes. Ms. French: …yeah. Anyways, that was a very interesting seminar. Male: Of course. Ms. French: We just need to be – tailor something to Palo Alto and I would say as far as the CEQA relevance, the City Council via ordinance would need to establish what are the parameters here. I mean obviously, we can’t just say, we’re just going to preserve the front wall and now we’ve met CEQA. It’s got some complexity. Board Member Bower: It’s not that – Yeah. Chair Bernstein: I agree, yeah, San Francisco properties are 2-inches apart from each other. Vice Chair Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: Yes, I think where that procedure would be particularly effective is in Professorville because – I mean I think that would be hard to enforce for every house in Palo Alto but I think when we – now that we’re trying to establish these historic districts – because if someone wants to do a remodel or something in Professorville, that would be an opportunity for us to say, hey, let’s take a closer look at this house. Is it historic? Does is have some kind of historic fabric that contributes to the historic district that it’s in? This I think, would be a great tool to use for – to protect our historic districts. I think it would be hard to do it for everyone, at this point. I mean I can see San Francisco because it’s much more City of Palo Alto Page 17 historic I think, far beyond our historic inventory but I think that in our historic districts, it would be a great idea. Chair Bernstein: I agree with that and then I totally agree with your idea that – I mean, my thinking is that involving historic districts. Vice Chair Wimmer: Yeah. Board Member Bower: Right. Chair Bernstein: I think that’s what David Bower was mentioning too. Board Member Bower: I think that the purpose of this – and I think it could be applied easily in Palo Alto. The places that we want to preserve are the Eichler – these Eichler Districts. The owners have agreed to put these into some kind of protected status. The City should recognize that, just like we do Professorville and then Professorville, of course. In most cases, I think there’s a huge amount of this City that was built after the second World War, south of Oregon, where I grew up and there’s not much there that would qualify. Just because it’s over 50-years old, that’s the first trigger but that’s not – that doesn’t begin to exhaust all the other requirements. Chair Bernstein: Somehow – I think this idea of – and for demolishing – yeah, I think it only involves historic properties or historic districts. Alright, Council Member Holman? Council Member Holman: Something that -- Board Member Bunnenberg brought up something that Staff has heard a lot from me and that is the definition of demolishing. What is a demolition? There have been conversations about this for a few years actually because I don’t know what Page and Turnbull would say for instance if they went through Professorville right now and saw the buildings that are actually in our inventory but they are really new buildings. There’s nothing left so the definition of demolition I think, is something that still needs to be addressed, again, to what Board Member Bunnenberg said. The other thing that something like this – I’m not familiar with that document but just hearing you talk about it and we’ll get to this when we talk about the City’s inventory. There are – I can see how something like that might be helpful for properties that are outside of historic districts because we have so many potential California Register eligible properties that nobody ever gives even a wink or a nod to. They just get demolished and a number of those are the root of one of my frustrations of the prior inventory update that happened and I would note that there were so many wonderful buildings that were not considered eligible or potentially eligible even for the California Register because we had such a proliferation of them. It’s the irony of inventory – to me it’s like oh, you have a great proliferation of tutors… Board Member Bunnenberg: Tutors. Council Member Holman: … yeah, in particular, and so you’d have this stellar building that was enacted, in great condition and yet it got no merit. Something like this could help preserve some of those. I go around Palo Alto and note one some of the blocks that almost every single house has been replaced. As you mentioned, there are plenty of places in Palo Alto where new buildings could be built but (inaudible) – I will shut up in a second here but Coal Ridge – there was a stretch of Coal Ridge because of the proliferation of – excuse me, the word for the day, of Birge Clark buildings. That was a potential National Register District but now, some of those have been demolished so no longer is there potential, even for a National Register District. Something like this would be really helpful in helping to educate – the last thing I’ll say is I know somebody who built a– I’m sorry, I feel like I’ve always got my back to you, pardon me. I know somebody who bought a house in Berkeley and this is a stretch that I don’t think Palo Alto will go to but they bought a house with the full intention of demolishing it and building something new and in Burkley, they had to go through a process – a lot of you maybe you know. They go through a process that you have to demonstrate that the building isn’t feasible to retain. That’s how they stop a lot of demolitions. Now, this is – I don’t know that this is still the case. This was just a handful of years ago, so they went through and they learned that there really is no good reason to demolish this building. They City of Palo Alto Page 18 could amend it, they could add onto, they could do this and that. They ended up keeping it and I was over there one day and bumped into them actually and they were so happy they had not demolished that house because they learned a lot about it in the process and learned what they had, not just from a historic standpoint but just from the building itself. We don’t have any kind of educational mechanism here, historic or non-historic and anyway. Chair Bernstein: The – I have a little – final comment to make but go ahead. Board Member Bower: I just want to make a comment. We went to a – the entire HRB Board except for Brandon, went to a seminar 2 or 3 years ago, in Oakland at a hotel that was being repurposed as a low- income housing unit and one of the things the State Historian said – he was one of the speakers at this seminar, is that what makes these buildings worth saving are not the studs. It’s not the siding. It’s the overall appearance of the building you are trying to save. He said there’s no expectation that a shingle will last forever and you’re going to have to shingle the buildings and when you do, you want the re- shingling to look like it did when the building was built. That’s part of maintenance and if you put new studs in next to every other old stud because you need to meet structural requirements, which are important for us in earthquake country, that doesn’t diminish the value of the building. In fact, it improves it because it makes it last longer and survives earthquakes better so I have remembered that because I think that’s a very important thing. I built houses for 40-years and renovated two buildings that are considered historic and you add a lot to these buildings but you don’t have to remove the features that are really important. Those are the details – that’s really mostly the detailing. It’s a very difficult, strenuous – it’s a tension between what we’re trying to do to make buildings safer and what we’re trying to do in retaining the original stuff. Council Member Holman: One last comment, I apologize for this but if you want to see what sequential demolition looks like. There was a National Register eligible house at the corner of Waverley and Churchhill, right across from Gamble Garden; that wonderful tutor. It wasn’t a demolish and goes look at it now. It’s nothing at all like the original was (crosstalk) Board Member Bower: (Inaudible). Right and that’s the second time that’s been done to that house. It was done in the 70’s. They stripped all of the – Board Member Bunnenberg: Tutor. Board Member Bower: The Palo Alto Stanford Heritage group, on its website, the front page has a picture of that house and you’re right, it’s was a terrible example of how you do not remodel a house. I mean they’ve changed the character entirely. There’s nothing – no original fabric on that – on the face of that building. It didn’t have to be that way but it’s outside of – I guess it’s outside of Professorville. Chair Bernstein: (Crosstalk) I think one of the really important things that Council Member Holman just mentioned is the idea of education for homeowners and builders. The San Francisco process -- the homeowner or applicant or developer wants to say I want to do something to this property. The first conversation is let’s talk about the historical merit. First conversation and you must get through that conversation first before you’re doing anything else. That can change people’s minds about – I mean, San Francisco, in particular, has great resources of the history of the house. I mean, I did one project – I saw a copy of the building permit in pencil – I mean, you just learn a lot of stuff and – now, that’s San Francisco and we can – we have our archives here. I know Beth is familiar with our archives. We have a lot of information here also but the first step is historic is the first conversation and then, now what do you want to do so that really helps a lot. Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: Yeah, yeah, just to comment. I agree with that. Overall in the City, it seems like even -- what we’ve talked about that’s being done in San Francisco, even if it’s not in the Professorville District, you could have something where you have this conversation initially and you have some sort of research and even if there is a lot of properties that aren’t – don’t have historic value, you could still have a conversation about the ones that do and those ones could still be flagged out. It’s interesting as far as City of Palo Alto Page 19 having the default position be that the home is historic and having the homeowner -- or through records or what have you, prove that it’s not because then that just – it doesn’t seem like a huge burden to me to be able to save some of these things. Chair Bernstein: Ok, any other items on this – any more comments on this item? See none. Ok, moving on to the next item on our list is the Development of Preservation Incentives. You can read the list. I’ll read the list for the members of the public. Reduction application fees, expedite the review process, Mills Act Programs. Any comments on this before we – or we can move on? Board Member Bower was going to talk about Mills Act but he’s (inaudible). Board Member Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: We’ve been talking about the Mills Act ever since I’ve become on the Board and so there’s only one property in Palo Alto that participates in the Mills Act. I mean, we just keep talking about it but we just, for some reason, don’t really get to the level of incorporating it because I think every time we talk about it, we – the word is that we have to see if Palo Alto wants to instate that. I don’t’ know if an individual property owner can file to be on the Mills Act. I don’t know how a property gets that status. Is it the interest of the home owner or is it the City encourages – it’s got to be both I suppose but because we’ve been talking about it and we haven’t done any more than just talk about it, maybe we can create our own Palo Alto Mills Act, in a way. Our own – that’s what I was saying at last meeting was that – I think maybe some this became from what I had said about reduction application fees and expediting the historic review process because I think some people find that they do have historic homes. Then it’s such an extra step and extra expense for them to achieve ultimate occupancy approval – final approval. I just had a project that I went in front of the Board for on Lincoln and Ramona. I mean, it took a lot of extra time and effort just to get their final approval, which they had to have Kristie come out and take a look and they had to change things. I mean I know that’s all part of the process but it seems -- from the homeowner’s perspective, it seems like another layer of expense and another layer of time and another layer of burden. In thinking about that, they should be rewarded for keeping these historic houses and doing that restoration so somehow, I’m not sure if their perception is I’m being rewarded for doing this or I’m being penalized for – and punished for doing this. I think that’s what my thought is, that we – maybe the Mills Act – because that’s a Statewide? That’s a State thing? That’s not a Nationwide thing, it’s a Statewide thing, right? Maybe that’s just too much for us to achieve but we can locally come up with our own incentives, right? I think maybe – that’s what I was thinking. Could we do something to reward these people? To have them have a sense of reward. That kind of an incentive. I don’t know. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower, we’re talking about incentives. Ms. French: For the Mills Act in particular (inaudible). Chair Bernstein: I think you had some comments at our last meeting about Mills Act. Chair Bower: I think the City should adopt a Mills Act program. I think that’s a hard sell in this City because it potentially jeopardizes the property tax revenue for the school district. It’s my understanding that the City only has 9% of the property tax revenue for City funding and it’s gets divided up in other ways but the bulk of it goes to the school district. As we know, the school district this year had a 3- million-dollar deficit. It’s not going to be easy but I did participate in a webinar from the California Preservation – I’m sorry. I’m now spacing… Council Member Holman: (Inaudible) Board Member Bower: Right, foundation, about Mills Act planning and development. A number of Cities said that they have very good experience with it. They limit the amount of money – all the money that is reduced on the property taxes of an individual property, has to be spent on that property to maintain the historic character and features. It’s not like the homeowners get a freebie. They are going to spend the same money that they’re not paying in property taxes to preserve the buildings. Most of these Cities limited it to $10,000 a year and it had a – there were a contract that had terms and if you didn’t perform under the terms of the contract, you lost the benefit and you paid back the taxes. It’s – I think it’s doable City of Palo Alto Page 20 here. The City has – everyone in this room knows, is undergoing an enormous turnover in properties and as one example that I’ve used before. The building next door to me sold 2-year ago, and they were paying $1,800.00 a year in property taxes and that property now pays $20,000.00 a year in property taxes so it’s a ten-fold increase in revenue and that’s happening all around. Council Member Holman lives in my neighborhood and it’s everywhere around us. Those properties turn over and the low property tax rates are being replaced by really, gigantic amounts so it’s a little bit suspicious to me that that the school district can’t get this right. Nonetheless, I mean there’s an opportunity there for the City to take advantage of the popularity of our properties. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: Often – I don’t think Palo Alto has but often part of the Mills Act contract involves even reporting each year what the owner has spent – how they’ve spent the Mills Act money. Another thing is often a – holding an open house and by the way, this is a point to tip our hat to Pat Di Cicco, who was a member of this Board for a number of years and she was always very generous in giving our house for tours, for walking tours. She was a great model and so it was not her house here that at a Mills Act, it was the house – a house she has in, I don’t know, Carmel or somewhere – no, south of here. Board Member Bower: Coronado. Board Member Bunnenberg: Coronado, that’s it. We appreciate all of Pat’s years of service. Chair Bernstein: Other items on this list are – as a vice – oh, I’m sorry, go ahead. Council Member Holman: I’m not sure because – we get to this a little bit later. Two things, one is – we’ll get to this later about the website but there’s a laundry list of incentives that apply to historic properties and I just don’t think people know about them. I just don’t think people are aware of them and then the State of Historic Building Code too, which I really don’t think people are aware. There have been in the past booklets in the development center for – there was one there for a good while that was great for Eichlers. There’s been one for R-1 and I think a really good one that this Board could probably develop would be for owners of historic homes and list the incentives and such because they are quite numerous and they’re worth money because they have to do with (inaudible) and such. The other thing is whether this bullet or the bullet above, what the action the Board wants to take or what do you want do about those – these conversations. About governance, there was a subcommittee form so that will come back. What do you want to do about – the first bullet on number 3 is it’s going to be coming back. What do you want to do about these bullets? There’s conversation and what about – what are you going to do about them? So, what’s the action? Chair Bernstein: That’s our underlying question on all of these things, for sure. The – briefly, to talk about an action, I guess it’s – if the action results in a change in the ordinance so that these things are incorporated (inaudible), I guess that’s the action that needs to happen by Council, correct? Council Member Holman: The Council and the Staff would be looking for what does this Board recommend? What do you want to see happen? You have to somehow rather at this meeting or a subsequent meeting develops what you want to have rolled out of any of these bullets. Chair Bernstein: If we – for example, if the Chair and Vice Chair came up with a summary of today’s meeting with a list of recommended actions and then that gets presented to who? Who would we present that list too? Council Member Holman: That would essentially be a subcommittee. You should answer that. Ms. French: Just again, overview, you have formed a subcommittee for the purpose – and I’m lost now where that was – governance, (Crosstalk) number 2. If any of these other bullets would like to be City of Palo Alto Page 21 ranked, prioritized, called into focus – I mean obviously, we have work programs in the City and we’re taxed to do many things. The importance – this is a laundry list that came out of the January meeting so if there is a – the same subcommittee or another one that wants to work on that, I thought maybe at this meeting there was interest in maybe culling that down or prioritizing and then coming up with a plan of action of some sort, that would be a good idea as Council Member Holman is stating. I put these down not because I think we can handle everything all at once but because I think it needs some prioritization. Council Member Holman: I certain agree with Amy’s comments. Prioritization would be a great – the other thing that I meant to or should say is which of these could the HRB Members themselves take on? If there was, for instance, a – because Staff is taxed, and there was some money that Council set aside, $500,000 in the budget this year for additional Staff support in the Planning Department. Some of that certainly expended on the Eichler Design Guild lines. Could Members of this group come up with – I’m just going to throw it out. I’m not saying this is what you should do. Come up with a booklet to have at the Development Center for historic building review that would include incentives or something like that so it’s a handout. What is this Board willing to do to help supplement the Staff’s capability in terms of load? Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: I think that’s a great idea and I have actually seen other Cities with such pamphlets and I have – I thought I – I was trying to look through my book and that maybe I had one here but I would absolutely like to take that on and go and research the information that I have and that I’ve seen in other Cities and maybe come up with a rough draft of what something like that would look like for our City. I would like to do that. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Vice Chair Wimmer: I don’t know if I need anyone. I mean, I would like to get some one’s input but I would be happy to put that together. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Rodger. Board Member Kohler: In the ancient days when I first joined the Committee, I think there was a little pamphlet like that, that had a little – there was a little rack that they had varying HRB, ARB – all the varying pamphlets that you could pick and one of these was the Historic Board, which had in their things that we do. That’s 15 or more years ago, so – now we have websites and things like that so I don’t know, do we – I haven’t looked to see if we have an acting website, do we? Chair Bernstein: Alright, so Vice Chair Wimmer, is that something you would be willing to do yourself or would you like any other help or do you want to start on your own or how would you do that? Vice Chair Wimmer: I think I need help with the – with all of the incentive items. Maybe some of them I don’t… Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Wimmer: … Yeah, so I might –if you guys can give me your thoughts on what the incentive items are. Chair Bernstein: I think it’s chapter 18.4. It has like 12,13, 14 incentives… Vice Chair Wimmer: Yeah, I’ll do some research. How about I’ll just do a – I’ll do some research and a first draft and then I’ll present it at the next meeting and then we can critic it? Chair Bernstein: Ok. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Bower: Martin? Chair Bernstein: Yes, (inaudible), yes. Board Member Bower: When I was thinking about the items under number 3, potential projects. I actually think there are two main initiatives here. The Mid-Century Modern Protection Plan and the updated City historic inventory, I think are really tied together. I think they work together and that – so that’s one. The other one – well, there are three. The demolition issue I think is separate but then preservation incentives and ordinance review seem to me to be one in the same. Again, they are complimentary and I think they should be approached as – in a unit. Not that each of those things –they don’t stand alone I think, is the way I see them. If we’re – if Margaret is going to work on articulating incentives, let’s make that a broader statement than just a pamphlet. We had talked about a sign on projects that said this is a Historic Resources Reviewed project or something and we got push back -- before Amy joined us, from Staff saying they didn’t want that and I don’t think we under – so it never went anywhere. I suggested what Beth has brought up, that there be a construction site… Chair Bernstein: Pre-construction meeting. Board Member Bower: …pre-construction meeting, thank you. That helps construction people understand that this historic renovation is different than other renovations because contractors and their agents and workers see renovation as just take everything else and put it all back new. In some cases, you have to do that but that’s not the way you do a historic renovation. You actually have a totally different mindset so I have participated in those for environmental purposes and they were really effective in changing the behavior of the construction personnel in viewing environmental issues. We can do the same thing for construction. I’d like to think of those as sort of larger initiative with multiple targets. Chair Bernstein: I look forward to Vice Chair Wimmer report to us. I also have that same experience of the pre-construction meeting when working on a historic structure and it was a pre-construction meeting with the contractors and they were all ready to say, we’re going to make this thing look new. My instruction, as project director, was that no, we want to keep the historic quality to it and that changed their behavior. Just took that conversation and then – that was a good successful thing and that’s no expense to anyone to – for a meeting like that. Board Member Brandon – Corey. Board Member Corey: I’d also like to talk about what we – we don’t have to talk about it today but as far as what we could do for the Mills Act. I also think that’s a – I know people who take advantage of that in other Cities and as we’ve talked about it within the context of demolition and Council Member Holman talked about a program they have in Berkeley. There’s a lot of properties that have been I think, left in particularly bad shape and having that option and the fact that the City doesn’t have it is kind of troubling considering we have this Professorville Historic District and we have this District flavor but we don’t incentivize anyone with that. Chair Bernstein: (Crosstalk) We need your mic on, please. Board Member Bunnenberg: Sorry. One more thing around training – of a different kind of training that we had mentioned here on our list, it’s back up on the move – it’s a bullet point, moving of historic structures and for this Board to get some further looks at how that stands with the State and the Secretary of Interior Standards. Also, to help people understand that – is the question – does it just stay on the same lot? Is that not considered changing the site plan or is it that it stays where we found it? I think this is something that is a temptation more and more to move historic structures and you almost feel like we have them on roller barring and we’ll just scoot them around to where ever this owner wants them and that can get to be a problem. Chair Bernstein: Amy, is moving a building a discretionary permit or ministerial permit, do you know? Ms. French: If – both, depending. If somebody is coming to put a basement under a historic home let’s say and as part of putting that basement under the home, they want to lift the house up and then they City of Palo Alto Page 23 want to move it over. They’re not adding on to the second floor so we have discretionary when we’re doing a variance or two-story home over 150,00 sq. ft. of the second floor, this kind of thing. We have these limited reasons that somebody is discretionary and I would say – having said that, in the Professorville Guild Lines, there is a mention – a whole paragraph that I’ve used, of course, to say when you’re in Professorville, it says right here that you shouldn’t move your building on the site. I think there’s exception to that. There are maybe good reasons for that. If it’s not feasible for some reason to keep it where it is and of course it’s subject to Secretary of Interior Standards. This comes up and I would also like guidance because if someone moves something one foot but it’s in the same position otherwise, is that tolerable? What are the tolerances for when you destroy the context or the cultural landscape or whatever you want to call it? Chair Bernstein: Beth, what do you think if we made a moving a structure – make that ministerial – I mean to make that discretionary? Any movement is discretionary act review, not a ministerial. Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) that would have to be looked at; evaluated. Chair Bernstein: Amy, if that could just be another comment for when we’re talking about what’s discretionary – maybe making moving a building as a discretionary. Ms. French: That’s again, it would be an ordinance change… Chair Bernstein: We understand that. Ms. French: … of some type. Board Member Kohler: In my experience with the 3 or 4 homes that we’ve added basements under is that there’s not a whole lot of options on most of the lots in Palo Alto. You really can’t be moving them a whole lot because they’re not like Atherton and Los Altos Hills but sometimes moving them 1 or 2-feet is hardly anything. Chair Bernstein: But I think if it adds – if it’s discretionary, not ministerial, that gives – that forces the conversation with HRB. Board Member Kohler: Yeah. No, I’m just saying that it’s fairly – not a very common thing here. Chair Bernstein: Well, we see if often enough in Professorville though, right? Ms. French: I would say it is a conversation with the ARB – sorry, HRB, if it’s a listed historic resource or in Professorville or as a National Register District, it would be a conversation. It’s just that it’s not a – what force did the recommendations of the HRB have if it’s not discretionary. Board Member Bower: Martin, if I could make a comment. Chair Bernstein: Yes. Board Member Bower: Rodger and I did a project in Professorville where we put a basement underneath a house. We didn’t move that house a quarter of an inch, we supported it, dug the basement out, built the basement, connected it back to the house – the new portion of the house – the basement connected to where the house was and we could not move it. If we moved it, it would out of compliance with the setbacks so it had to stay right there and it’s possible to do that, it wasn’t that difficult. It was difficult because of the oak tree in the front yard but on another project reviewed, which was Margaret’s project, I think that house is better sited because it was moved 1-foot back? Vice Chair Wimmer: 7-feet. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Bower: 7-feet back. It created a better setback in the front because when the house was built, the street wasn’t where it is now. Then, of course, the more controversial project is Fulton and Kingsley? Female: 221 Kingsley. Board Member Bower: Yeah, 221 Kingsley, which that was very controversial and the Board was not unanimous about the movement of that building but in my opinion, as a Board Member, that house now is more – sited more suitably after it’s beautiful palatial property was cut up 5 times. It was diminished 5 separate times and so the resulting sighting of that building, before it was rotated 90 degrees, I thought was awful because it was right –10-feet – the back of the house was 10-feet off of another house. Those are – that’s a very controversial one and there were some people in Professorville who thought we made a mistake doing that. The bottom line here is, we should have some ability to make these decisions as a Board so that the relative issues are discussed and then the decision is… Board Member Bunnenberg: This is that (inaudible). Ms. French: Could I add to that just one other consideration that of course, planners find ourselves constantly in this conversation about -- there’s an existing non-conforming, non-complying setback and it's historic and they want to lift it up and then, ok, if you do a certain amount of work, then its – then you’re going to put it back in the same non-complying location? Then you need a variance and all these other things. I mean this is a struggle frequently, because of the age of structures, where they sit on their lots, how much RAF they have that predates the RAF requirement or limitation? This gets really into a challenging area for planning and zoning as well as for historic preservation. Chair Bernstein: That’s where that Chapter 18.40 I think, that Margaret is going to work on and expand on, allows the homeowner to make those kinds of changes and still keep all the non-conformant. Ms. French: Right. For instance, the Home Improvement Exception method. Chair Bernstein: That’s going to tie in when we talk about the inventory categories. Right now, some of those HIEs apply to only Categories 1 and 2. Well, there are Categories 3s and 4s that are stellar examples of historic properties too. When we get to that (inaudible). Anything else on Development and Preservation Incentives before we move on? Yes. Ms. French: I have one thing also to say. We do have – when Matt was here, Matt Weintraub, our former Historic Planner, we did modify the website completely for historic preservation so there are listings of incentives and that kind of thing. That is a place to find those things. I have to confess that there – that not all of the links are active. We need to be in a process of scanning documents that are only on paper and getting those uploaded so that’s a project that’s out there. Do check the website before you get on to your path to see what’s on there under – yeah. Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: A questions for Amy. If people know – I don’t know exactly what – how the Staff utilizes interns but people often hear of intern availability. Is it – the don’t come and sit down and start working, they have to take some supervision as well? If people know of intern possibilities is that something that Staff could well utilize for things like scanning and the website and that sort of things? If that a help or is it just like we don’t even have time to supervise an intern? Ms. French: That’s complex as well but – because it involves space planning as well. We’re currently getting ready for a redo of our floor. Putting people in cubes and that kind of thing. I – it’s not a – we have had interns in the past, not with all success in the past but certainly, it’s always a consideration. Every summer comes up – the City has a program for interns and they’re paid denominally. That kind of support structure is great. I’ve even had a high school student come in and want to – it does take City of Palo Alto Page 25 oversight and space and you don’t want to have to fix what they’ve messed up. It’s a very important leadership opportunity – mentoring the future generation so I support it and I’ve had interns in the past. Council Member Holman: Case by case basically. Chair Bernstein: Alright, thank you. Next is the ordinance review. Two bullet points, the first one says penalties – increase penalties for tearing down historic buildings. If we have incentives that are well advertised to property owners, I think that’s – those are nice carrots versus the stick of penalty for tearing down. Also, if any demolitions are – become then ministerial – discretionary, not ministerial, that helps protect the tearing down a historic building. Let’s go with the positive approach, in my opinion, about incentives and then have any demolition to be discretionary. I think that can reduce the chance of historic demolitions. What do you guys think? Board Member Bower: I’d agree with that. Board Member Corey: I agree. Chair Bernstein: Alright – yeah, go ahead. Council Member Holman: Amy, do you want to do the update about what Council did recently with the fees and schedules – fees and penalties schedules? Prior to this year, the penalty for demolition a historic building was $1,000.0 and even with – I don’t disagree with you. Carrots are always better than penalties. That said, there is always a possibility somebody is going to tear something down because it’s just much more expedient. Edgewood Plaza being a very prominent example. The Council this year changed the fee to, I think it’s $10,000.00 I think is what it went up to. It’s still pretty nominal. At least it’s some kind of nod to hey, it’s not on the same level as destroying a newspaper rack. Board Member Corey: Is there any – I mean, if a building going to cost at least 300,000 or more to do, I mean your penalties I think would be up – in my opinion, would have to be really, really high in order to actually deter somebody from doing that. I guess that’s my thought. It’s a good idea to keep… Board Member Kohler: Could you have penalties that weren’t financial in nature? I’m thinking that it would slow down the process that they could complete the project in or they would have to go through more reviews? I think that might be more of an incentive of to do the right thing rather than the financial stick. Council Member Holman: Other Cities do things such as the penalty is (inaudible) with the cost of replacement of the building that was removed and other Cities also do things like if a building is torn down without a proper permit, then a project on that site is delayed for – pick a period of time. Some Cities do a thousand – a thousand? Do a year, some people do – some Cities do other amounts of time. Amy will have more information on that but that’s just the ones I’m familiar with. Board Member Kohler: I think that would have a much bigger impact than the financial stick because that’s just ridiculous. Board Member Corey: That’s kind of what I was thinking. Board Member Bower: There use to be a provision in the Uniform Building Code, which is now I think the California Building Code, where any work that was done without a permit was a 10 times the fee penalty that was applied and that’s pretty significant when you consider the permits for a new house run in the $30,000 range and so if you were to have to pay 10 times that, that’s real money. I don’t know, demolition permits are a couple hundred dollars. I am way out of that market. Chair Bernstein: Right now, the Council has a new penalty so at least that’s on the books right now. What about public shaming? City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Bower: (Inaudible) We haven’t been able to get a grocery store back in the Edgewood Plaza with public shaming or penalties for that matter. Chair Bernstein: Next on the list is inventory categories – categories – what’s printed is Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 can be simplified via ordinance changed into two categories, is one example. One Category is historic, one Category is non-historic. The – I’m the one who suggested that idea and the geniuses of that idea is that some of the incentives for properties apply to only categories 1 and 2 but there are some examples that are – there’s a great example of a Category 3; there’s one right across the street, that’s Category 3. That wouldn’t be able to – may not be able to use those ordinances – those incentives or the home improvement exception applications. Either has all the incentives available to all categories or reduce the number of categories to historic or non-historic. Somehow, so that every historic structure that’s listed can apply for those incentives, I guess that’s my bottom line. Either expand it to all properties or reduce it – or only don’t -- only have categories that are listed in the ordinance right now. Both of those ideas require an ordinance change. Board Member Wimmer. Vice Chair Wimmer: I know we’ve kind of talked about this before and I – for some reason, I’m voting to keep the four Categories but just redefine them because I think Categories 3 and 4 are too general, where now we’ve developed these historic districts so I think one of the categories could be – because your property is located in a district, it is a Category -- let’s says for instance 4 because of its location. I think – I don’t know I think it would be helpful to at least – I think that the first two Categories are pretty descriptive but then Categories 3 and 4 are grouped together so there’s no differentiation – no difference between Categories 3 and 4. I think we could focus on refining what Categories 3 and 4 are. I know before we talked about maybe one of the categories would mean it’s a historic building in a commercial district and that could be its own Category. Then maybe the other ones – or maybe it could be a Category 1 because it’s on the National Register and it’s a Category 3 because it’s in a commercial district. I mean maybe it could – one property could be categorized in two different of those categories. I don’t know. I do think that categories 3 and 4 are too general but I just think with these new districts that we’re coming up with, I think could take one Category that you’re considered historic or potential historic because of the district you’re in. Maybe each of these would coincide with – ok, if you’re a Category 1, you need to fill out this form. If you’re a Category 4 you’re – I think that each Category could have its own itemized flow charts so to speak, of requirements. For some reason, I vote for keeping the four Categories but to better define them because I think it would be easier for us -- as a project comes in and we can say, oh yeah, it’s a Category 3. I can’t already figure out what that means. Having one Category that’s historic and one Category that is not historic, I think that’s a lost opportunity to have Category 2 meaning not historic so that means you only have one Category – I don’t know. Chair Bernstein: My thought on that is again, going back to the overall scheme of, how is the public and property owners get educated about, oh, historic quality. Let’s – I want to make it easy to learn about that. If a property owner who is not versed in as we are in all of these ordinances, my Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, Category 4 seems like – and if each one has its own little [neesh] definition. I don’t know if that’s simple for a lot of homeowners. Female: Right. Board Member Kohler: Could I interrupt here for a second? We’re not going to decide that today, is that correct? Chair Bernstein: This is – well, I’m willing to… Board Member Kohler: I think this is pretty big Category just to wave over here in the last 10 minutes of the meeting or half hour. I think that needs to be agendize and talked about because I’m not ready to decide on that today. That’s a big deal. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Bernstein: I would offer just as Vice Chair Wimmer has offered to do a worksheet on the – the pamphlets on the incentives. I’m willing to – if the Board is accepting of this idea. I’ll put together a little draft written item for to be – so we can agendize that item of regarding consolidating historic Categories for the whole Board then to review. Board Member Bower: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: Beth. Board Member Kohler: You could present something but I… Chair Bernstein: Just as Vice Chair Wimmer… Board Member Kohler: … your side of it. Board Member Makinen: I would go along with it – what Margaret was saying. We need better definitions of 3 and 4 before we even act on anything else. Let’s not take a giant step, let’s see – refine what we have right now. It’s sort of working, it’s got some deficiencies but I think we can correct some of the deficiencies and keep what we have. Board Member Kohler: I agree with that. Chair Bernstein: Let me ask, when everything is – how does the Board feel about all the incentives that are in chapter 18:49, that are allowed for Categories 1 and 2 to expand those to all Categories? Vice Chair Wimmer: I think we need to define the categories first. Board Member Kohler: We’re not going to do that today. Board Member Bower: Also, we have to look at what those are. Chair Bernstein: There are about 14 different HIEs that you can apply for; they are great. Ms. French: Can I say something? Might it help if at a future meeting, I was to return with a report to clarify 1s and 2s and downtown who has these benefits? Then 1s and 2s elsewhere homes etc. have these benefits such as floor area bonuses. Then 3s and 4s, this is what’s different about those. In other words, they don’t get the HIR floor area bonus but they still have HIEs available to them and more likely to be granted for 3s and 4s then non-historic because we’re trying to retain something. I’d like to help the Board to understand and parse out the difference between getting into inventory discussions and how you Categorize things versus your original goal which is why can’t we have these incentives – these bonuses available to the other categories, right? Chair Bernstein: If it’s listed as a historic, why not allow the property owner to use – doesn’t matter if your Category 1, 2, 3, 4, why bother with historic qualities if you can’t apply for – easily apply for… Ms. French: (Inaudible) has to be an ordinance – (inaudible) ordinance change and the other would be to delve into the inventory. Chair Bernstein: Yeah. Right. Ms. French: That is a whole bigger… Chair Bernstein: I mean, from my point of view, if all Categories 1, 2, 3, 4 all get the same chance to apply for exceptions, keep all four Categories. I have no problem – just don’t discriminate I guess is what question. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Board Member Corey: I agree. I think we should allow these exceptions for all properties and that, I think, is the big issue. I would say there is a lot of confusion about the differences between 3 and 4. That’s even come up here today and I personally couldn’t tell you the difference even though I can kind of – I can certainly parse out 1, 2 and then 3, 4 are vague. Board Member Kohler: Nobody in town understands though but you can go around and talk to 100 different and I’ve talked to them. That’s part of the education program too. We get this – Amy, if you come up with something that’s really official and it’s got – writing, that can be… Ms. French: (Inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Kohler: Nobody understands this stuff. Ms. French: Just to follow up on what I had said and agreeing with you that it would be nice to have a really good understanding. Again, I think this is an opportunity, we could use an HRB meeting, which gets captured on video etc. and allow people to go get tutorials on things. If we were to say, have a look at the 1998 Dames and Moore Study – I don’t know what everyone has – I know that not everyone has seen all of those documents that were prepared. Some talking about potential districts that never went anywhere, right? Board Member Bunnenberg: Never approved. We worked on it. Ms. French: Right, there was work done and then it didn’t go anywhere beyond that, based on things happening and (inaudible) Board Member Kohler: Even as Realtors that you see at open houses, they – you start talking to them, they don’t have the faintest idea of what’s going on and they’re convening a lot of information to clients and it might not even be correct. Ms. French: We might first have the opportunity as a Board to revisit those documents and try to understand them as a Board. What happen? Why is it the way it is and then when are the steps towards updating inventory? What are the steps – and that’s a whole meeting right there. Board Member Corey: I’d like to encourage… Ms. French: At least one. Board Member Corey: …it to at least – actually be orthogonal though and have the incentives separate from the categories because again, if we haven’t – if anyone – we deem any property that’s historic, we should be able to give them a good set of incentives but then it is also good to have a distinguish of the levels also for our reference and for any decision making and how you preserve it. Chair Bernstein: The bottom line, my main point is let every Category, whatever it is, have the same opportunity to apply for the incentives because that’s – good, thank you. Alright – Beth, yes. Board Member Bunnenberg: I do think there are some really glaring at examples that you pointed out such as the building across the street, that certainly over the years has taken on more significant and it should be a 1 or a 2. I think there are samples. Vice Chair Wimmer: How – for instance, -- yet again, using that as an example, how could we get that from a 3 to a 1. Who does that? Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Council Member Holman: I think this Board has in the past -- with an exception because your new but I think this Board in the past has talked about, on more than one occasion – maybe from different perspectives, the Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 and recently, in looking at the – I think it was the Development Center review, decided to get rid of the A, B, C, and D because that was really hierarchical. Just to remind folks, Amy is correct about the 1998 inventory update but recall that existing properties were not reviewed so Professorville was not reviewed. Just for instance, in Professorville, you could have a Category 4 building that is National Register eligible independently. It seems to me that the very last bullet here, the City’s updated historic inventory, is – should be integrated or could kind of logically be integrated into the Category 1, 2, 3, 4 discussions; that’s also hierarchical. In the public's perspective, having four Categories means there’s a level of importance that actually doesn’t exist. Especially because the inventory is so old, 1979 is like – how many years ago, is that? That is 40-years ago, and yet we’re required as a CLG City to update our historic inventory. You ask the question about how to update a Category 4 to a Category 1, I think doing the historic evaluation is one of those – maybe instead of a 1, 2, 3, and 4 – I don’t know what the answer is here. I’m just throwing out something. Instead of a 1, 2, 3, and 4, you have maybe two categories that are like National register and Local register because local inventory – properties are eligible if they’re local inventory still are (inaudible) on the inventory so it seems like it would be simpler if you’re either on the inventory or you’re not on the inventory and maybe it’s not 1, 2, 3, and 4. The last things are there are several of the incentives when you look at them, actually are applicable to all 1, 2, 3, and 4. Not all of them because they were done earlier but some of the later ones – when I was on the Commission, they applied to – a lot of those applied to all four. Just for a little bit a clarity but it seems to me that this sub-bullet and the historic inventory bullet are pretty internally related. Chair Bernstein: Amy, you said on the – as some future HRB meeting, you’ll show a list of here what’s Category 1 and 2 can apply for and 3 and 4 cannot apply for, right? Ms. French: I’m thinking this the year of study sessions on topics with the HRB because we don’t have a lot of projects coming through but we have the opportunity to meet. Chair Bernstein: I think we’re moving on. Next is the website – next bullet point is website improvement. Anyone or Amy or Board Members like to comment? Ms. French: Just an overview on that, I had noted already that we updated the website so have a look if you haven’t in the last 6-months because it’s changed but I’ll just tell you now so you’re not as disappointed if you went and tried – the Professorville guidelines are linked but there are many – what looks like links that aren’t – don’t have a link because we’re not – we have to relink things and also scan documents to be linked. Chair Bernstein: Alright, our last bullet point is update the City’s historic inventory. Any other comments? We had some comments about that already. Yes? Board Member Bower: I have a question for Council Member Holman. Doesn’t the City have to – that’s an expensive and time-consuming process – I guess this is for both you. Doesn’t the City Council have to appropriate money to do that? Council Member Holman: The City Council would need to appropriate money to do that and also grants. I don’t know what the status are of grants, Amy would know. You could also apply for a grant through the State. One comment I neglected to say earlier, by the way, is the properties that are determined eligible for the National Register are not even in our inventory. That’s something this Board could also… Ms. French: That’s just low hanging fruit. Council Member Holman: It’s really low hanging fruit. I mean… Board Member Bower: It’s on the ground. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Council Member Holman: … that’s something else that couple be changed. (Crosstalk) Board Member Bower: As you have mentioned in, I think our last meeting, we’re – I think we’re pretty far behind on updating this inventory and that’s a condition for our State Certification. It seems to me that that ought to be a very high priority and I’m not quite sure how we move that forward. Should we – I mean, we don’t need a study session for that. Should we proposed to the City Council that this is – we’re behind on this and get this done? Council Member Holman: It seems like a first step. Thank you for the question. It seems like the first step would be what would it cost because the Council would need to know – what would we need to budget? This is going to be a challenging budget year. Not that all years don’t have give and take. What would the cost be and are there priorities – say for instance, do you want to do the properties – I’m not – I’m just throwing it out there, you decide what you want to do. Should the properties that were not inventoried in the 1998 review, should they be reviewed as a priority; for instance, the Professorville properties? I mean that’s one way of doing it so if you need to prioritize or what are the other ways – what are the other ways they could prioritize updates? Ms. French: Right so we’re many years later from 1998… Council Member Holman: Yes, we are. Ms. French: … and as noted, we’ve got this Eichler Guild Lines thing happening. Many of those are over 50-years old and so how do you focus money that you can get on – and we’re focusing on design guild lines for those Eichlers. We’re not saying we’re going to go do a historic inventory for Eichlers but that is in this bucket and then there are other buckets like gosh, the 1979 inventory didn’t say much; two pages worth. Wouldn’t it be nice to know more about those and maybe they get upgraded to Category 1s and 2s if we’re still going to use numbers from our inventory? The thing you mentioned which was let’s get the National Register properties on our inventory – the local inventory. We have three inventories, we have the local inventory, we have the national and the State. How do those all intertwine and what – where do we want to focus the money? Do you still want to look at those that date prior to 1950’s first and then leave those other ones off and do that in a subsequent year, I don’t know? I mean there’s a whole range of opportunities. Board Member Bower: It seems to be what the answer to my question is that we need to have a scope of inventory – what we want in this inventory and that leads us to get a cost and at the same time we can look at grant opportunities. I don’t know what those are but we could get a grant for Professorville Guild Lines. Ms. French: Since we did prepare a modern context statement grant application but we didn’t submit that. There’s a – this is something that can be done to ask… Board Member Bower: I think this is another Board topic, right? Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: It’s important to note on the Dames and Moore it says potentially National Register and potentially – and they cautioned us very much about that. That it needed more study and some of the study has been – even the raw materials of the study have been done but nobody has looked at it because the City didn’t except that whole inventory. Council Member Holman: But the National Registered potential ones were looked at and there were National Register determined eligible properties. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Ms. French: Yeah, this is definitely a whole meeting, right here, this whole topic because how we treat – again, it gets back to the discretionary versus ministerial. Once we have a discretionary application, then we’re – we have some obligations with CEQA review and there is some – it’s very complex to gloss over. Board Member Kohler: I just had a recall. You’re talking about the tall – well, I had a client ask me, very seriously he says, what do you think about all these tall ugly buildings going up and boy, the City must be really rolling in the dough because of all these big buildings being built. I said well, I don’t know but I just thought that was a – it was a curious question that would come up from someone who is also spending a lot of money on their house but the – I have to admit, some of the common things that come up is that big ugly buildings on El Camino, number 1 and there’s a couple here in downtown that people are not happy about. Not that that has anything to do with our Board but eventually they are going to be historic building but anyway it just – it’s crazy. Chair Bernstein: Right, we’ve come through all of our bullet points today. On our agenda, it says next steps are that Staff recommends the HRB to discuss the above topics, which we just did. Some items can be advanced by Staff such as a training website and others would require a Council direction. For us to come to Council for direction, at our next HRB meeting we would vote on what to move toward Council. Would that – how does it get to the Council? I’m just trying to answer the question. How do we take action? That will be determined. Ms. French: It all depends on if there’s a report that I have to generate for the next meeting or not. We can have a meeting it’s just that provision of materials and study on by me is one man – women show here at this point and I am, by the way, moving towards getting interviews of (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Just to let the public know that we are still in search of a Historic Planner Position and who does a lot of things that we’re discussing today. As of today, the City of Palo Alto does not have that position filled yet so that’s still in process. These reports as Amy is mentioning, take a lot of laborious time to put together everything. That’s where we are in terms of administrative assistance. Ok, anything else for our study session? Board Member Bower: Do we have our next meeting date? Ms. French: (Crosstalk) Ok, so we could – there’s – we’re listed on our City website as two meetings a month which we have not been doing as of late for kind of obvious reasons but certainly, the opportunity to meet is there. March 9th, I believe is -- and then again, the 23rd and it’s just a matter of when we don’t have an application on file that is timey ready for your input, then we’re not rushing to schedule a meeting on that date because the rest of the stuff we can talk about is stuff like this in a study session; which does take some prep time on my part if I’m going to bring background materials. Again, prioritizing the study sessions throughout the year might be good and then we can decide if we just want to talk more or we need background materials that I would prepare for those if you want to have more than one meeting a month. Anyways, does anyone have a preference as far as March 9th versus March 23rd? Board Member Bower: I’m out of town March 23rd. My preference would be March 9th. Vice Chair Wimmer: Do we have any projects – pending projects? Ms. French: No. Vice Chair Wimmer: I think March 9th is too soon, do you think? That’s in two weeks. I don’t know. We could, I’m sorry. Chair Bernstein: I’m available for March – both March times. Ms. French: The only thing I imagine for March 9th would be related to the ADU if there’s a desire to discuss that. It will be after the Council meeting and before the 2nd reading if there’s an adoption of an City of Palo Alto Page 32 ordinance of that meeting. That would be the only reason I would say, might be some desire to meet again on the 6th. It’s just that I don’t know what I will be able to provide. Perhaps you’d see the report – the Staff report that goes to Council. That would be something to talk about at that meeting but I don’t know how much I would have as far as work on that. Board Member Bower: We might be able to – the subcommittee might be able to put together enough information to start the discussion about reporting – HRB reporting. We could just give that to you Amy, right? Ms. French: It would be more comfortable to as the 23rd but I don’t want to discount – certainly we can look in the future meetings, are there other dates that people know that they’re not in town. For instance, April 6th is a meeting date and I think that’s the ARB but it’s also HRB is invited – it’s either the 6th or the 20th ARB dates because we have that SOFA project and that would be a great time to talk – so we can ramp up to a joint meeting with the HRB, that would be one of those topics. What do we want to have a conversation with the HRB about or the ARB about? Chair Bernstein: How will the HRB know which date is going to be the joint meeting? Ms. French: We – I will get back to you this week, hopefully, they know at this point if it’s ready for (inaudible)each of those meetings. Vice Chair Wimmer: Maybe we should meet before that meeting… Ms. French: I would say so. Vice Chair Wimmer: …so we’re a little bit more prepared and then whatever material we have to review, we can review it. Ms. French: If you want to say March 23rd is the meeting in March and David can catch up as need be. Are others available for March 23rd? Chair Bernstein: I’m available, yep. Vice Chair Wimmer: Well, then we should do – see if March 9th would work, in two weeks. Ms. French: We can do both, it just… Vice Chair Wimmer: I would do one or the other, not both but so far, we already have one person who can’t make the 23rd. Board Member Kohler: We just need to figure out what works (inaudible) Ms. French: Right. Well, what’s on the agenda is what needs to be worked out too. If you as a group are asking to have a study session on something in March, what’s that study session to be on? The ADUs? I could have – I could probably arrange the training to happen at -- Page and Turnbull is our – is on contract with us. While I don’t have a planner so I could perhaps see how much they would charge us and go with that as a training opportunity on moving houses on the lot. I could make that happen perhaps. I have to ask them if they are available that date. Chair Bernstein: Yes? Council Member Holman: Based on what I’ve heard today, it sounds like maybe – because you’re not here for the 23rd and you’re on the Committee that’s doing number 2. Maybe if there was a meeting on March 9th, your subcommittee could report out on number 2 and then perhaps the Commission – the City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board could talk about prioritization of the items in number 3. It wouldn’t be all that long of a meeting but perhaps that would be a way to get better clarity and structure on how to move forward. Ms. French: Right and not a report that I would write. Council Member Holman: That’s correct. Ms. French: It would just be an agenda and you would come to the meeting. That saves me from having to… Council Member Holman: Does that make sense? Chair Bernstein: Works for me. Ms. French: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: (Crosstalk) Yeah, we’re in agreement. Good. Ms. French: (Inaudible) March 23rd unless we want to have a house training – but then, of course, you miss that training. Board Member Bower: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Wimmer: Where are, you going by the way? Board Member Bower: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: Yes. Council Member Holman: I remember one thing that didn’t come up today that we had discussed which was who prepares historic structure reports and historic eligibility… Chair Bernstein: Yes, yes. Council Member Holman: …because right now the applicant’s consultant does that as opposed to the City’s hired consultant. Has that changed? It goes back and forth… Ms. French: Can I correct that? Council Member Holman: …so it’s by whatever the practice is at the time so it switches back and forth. Ms. French: I can say there are many projects that have been in the pipeline for many years. Pipeline being preliminary reviews at the ARB, this kind of thing, and so some of those – they came in with their historic report that they had a consult prepare for them. They being the applicants and then we proceeded to peer review by our applicant – their historic – which is not the best way so more recently, in the last year we’ve been telling people don’t go off and do – you can go off and do your own historic resource evaluation so you know if you want to proceed with your project with some comfort level as to whether it’s historic or not. Then when you submit it for major ARB at least, we are going to go and hire somebody to prepare an original source document rather than the peer view because it just gets really messy having experts peer view other experts work. Yeah, it’s been a very awkward situation. Council Member Holman: I’m glad to hear and thank you for that. Would it be – because this is the place where a Council Member would be able to ask this question in an informed environment than at the (inaudible). Is that something that should be put into an ordinance as opposed to a practice because it has flip flopped and flip flopped and flip-flopped over the time that I’ve been involved which is now like City of Palo Alto Page 34 what, 18-years or so? It’s really flip-flopped and the other thing is clarity. As I see projects come to the dais, sometimes an evaluation has been made whether something is historic or not but it hasn’t come – again, inconsistently but it hasn’t come to the HRB to review that report to say yes, it is historic because blah blah blah or no, it’s not historic. It just has a consultant’s report done and then the project moves forward without it coming through here. Again, it’s practice versus policy or ordinance and so there is that inconsistency depending on who the Staff is. Should that – how should that best handled? Ms. French: What we’re talking about here just so everyone is on the same page, is properties that are not listed anywhere. On our bulletin that everyone had a look at and that’s published on our website – October 20th is the date I use for that bulletin, it has different processes. The last category is older than 50-years or 45 – going through discretionary – we require Historic Resource Evaluations of those and then depending on what type of project it is. Is it subject to ARB review or is it just a home and so therefore not and how does that works its way throughout the process? Then we’ve had a long-standing policy about single-family homes and CEQA that is fraught with conversation. I have a hard time answering this question as you can see. Chair Bernstein: So… Council Member Holman: Maybe the next – I’m sorry. Chair Bernstein: I was going to say… Council Member Holman: Maybe at the next meeting you could think about it and see if there is a way to come back with more clarity on that if it’s possible. If there’s a suggestion, we could make to the HRB on how to move forward. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. You can think about it. Ms. French: Certainly, any Board in the City, HRB, ARB, whatever, has the ability to suggest policy as short of an ordinance and for instance, for many years, the ARB had a policy about the foot candles on – and height of lighting. That was observed by Staff and we would always Council people, gee, don’t put wall packs on your building, do this and so that was a policy that we shared with applicants, this kind of thing. How does policy get created that is Council adopted policy versus this is something you’re using to help Staff to make suggestions to applicants and then it has an outcome? It’s a big question as far as how policy moves forward and what level of sanctioned policy is it. I guess that’s a conversation too. Chair Bernstein: The rule in San Francisco about who rights the report – one project I was involved in San Francisco of a historic property, I told the planners that I’ll write the report and can I have these qualifications? They will say, thank you for your offer but here’s the fee and we’re writing the report. Then you can review what we wrote and comment on it. I think if we can make that the rule in Palo Alto that’s a – well, first of all, it’s clear and as I said before, if you don’t want to change the significant fabric then you avoid the whole process. It makes it really simple for a property owner to make a decision and if you want to go this route, well here’s the process – you can avoid this process. Ms. French: Right. I’m getting to the point of saying what’s significant fabric? I mean, in San Francisco, the front façade is ever so important. Here, you don’t have that, in a nice rule of thumb and… Chair Bernstein: Correct. Ms. French: …so each time, if it meets these certain thresholds, a report has to be done so we know what are the character defining features? What needs to be saved? Chair Bernstein: That all ties into education so if a property owner/developer/contractor walks in and has this pre-education stuff that we’re encouraging, then we all speak the same language, I think that simplifies a lot of the decision making. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Board Member Kohler: We had a recent experience where the consultant – the owner’s consultant was way off base and he was actually – that was a very (crosstalk) – I was really shocked. Chair Bernstein: I would emphasize the fact that we want the City to provide the reports, not the owners to do that. Action Items Approval of Minutes 3. Meeting Minutes Approval for January 26, 2017 Chair Bernstein: Alright, I think we’re through with all of our items except for voting on the approval of the minutes from January 26th. Any motion to approve or amend? MOTION Board Member Bower: So, moved. Chair Bernstein: A second? Board Member Bunnenberg: Second. Chair Bernstein: Any discussion? All in favor say I. Chair Bernstein, Vice Chair Wimmer, Board Member Bower, Board Member Kohler, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Bunnenberg, Board Member Corey: Aye. Chair Bernstein: That approves. MOTION PASSED 7-0 Chair Bernstein: Awe, yes and Council Member Holman? Council Member Holman: Just a closing comment. One is welcome to New Board Member Corey. Thank you for your application and serving. Thank you to all you because you could be spending your time doing other things so thank you for your commitment to this Board. Thank you very much and also, a thank you to Amy because this is extra work for Amy. There was a planner before Matt and Amy has stepped in and taken his position so thank you very much for your commitment and publicly, thank you. Also, as Council Members, we do sometimes run into other people on Staff and publicly, I would like to say to you, that Staff really enjoys working with you. That’s nice to hear and thank you. Chair Bernstein: With that, I would like to thank the members of the public who joined us today and thank you, Mr. Bernstein, for your wonderful presentation. Very good. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you. Subcommittee Items None. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements ** Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 36