HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-09 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, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen, Brandon Corey, Council Member Holman
Absent:
Chair Bernstein: Alright, I’d like to our March 9th meeting of the Historic Resources Board and I see we do
have a quorum of members here. Will the secretary or Staff please call roll? Thank you so much.
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda will be oral communications. Members of the public may speak on
an agenda item, not on the agenda. I see no cards or members of the public in attendance today so we
will move on.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Next, are there any agenda changes, additions, and deletions?
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you.
City Official Reports
1. Election of Officers, Discussion by HRB Subcommittee on Governance, Resume
Retreat Discussions including Prioritization of Items on Potential Projects List
Chair Bernstein: Next, under City official reports, our first item today is the election of officers for the
Historic Resources Board and I’d like to start off by asking if there are any nominations for a Chair of the
HRB? Yes, Board Member Bower.
Board Member Bower: I know that the City likes to have a rotation of the Chair but Martin, I think you’ve
done an excellent job and I’d like to nominate you if you are willing to continue for another year.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that. I’ll accept that nomination. Any other nominations for Chair? Yes, go
ahead.
Board Member Makinen: Is it on? Ok, I just wanted to say that one year I was Chairman and I went on
for I think, two or maybe three years in a row because at that time, we didn’t have very many meetings.
It’s not unprecedented.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
MINUTES: March 9, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any other – that’s been nominated for Martin Bernstein as to continue as
Chair for another term. Any comments on that before we call for a vote on that? Do we need a second
for that? No, we don’t. We do not need a second for that. Ok, all those in favor say aye?
Chair Bernstein, Vice Chair Wimmer, Board Member Bower, Board Member Bunnenberg, Board Member
Makinen: Aye.
Chair Bernstein: Opposed? Ok, that passes unanimously for those in attendance.
VOTE PASSED TO ELECT MARTIN BERNSTEIN AS CHAIR PASSED 5-0 WITH 2 ABSENT
Chair Bernstein: I’d like to thank you for that and now I would like to receive nominations for Vice Chair
for the Historic Resources Board? Yes.
Vice Chair Wimmer: I would like to nominate David Bower for Vice Chair.
Chair Bernstein: Is that acceptable for you?
Board Member Bower: I’ll accept that.
Chair Bernstein: That’s excepted. Any discussion on this nomination? Ok, all those in favor signal by
saying aye.
Chair Bernstein, Vice Chair Wimmer, Board Member Bower, Board Member Bunnenberg, Board Member
Makinen: Aye.
Chair Bernstein: That passes unanimously. Welcome and congratulations David. I would like to comment
now our former Vice Chair, Margaret Wimmer, for the excellence she’s done. I know in my absences, I
have heard good reporting from her and good presentations for what you have done. Thank you so much
for your term this past 12-months. Congratulations.
VOTE FOR DAVID BOWER TO BE VICE CHAIR PASSED 5-0 WITH 2 ABSENT
[Elena Lee joined the meeting to inform the Board about secondary dwelling units]
Ms. French: Can I also say, I know we’re in the middle of this item but I also wanted to alert you that
under City Official reports, it’s not listed here but I know at the last meeting at the retreat, the topic of
accessory dwelling units was on there and we kind of chatted a bit. I said what I knew and what I didn’t
know so now we’ve had action by the Council, which is going to be finalized and Elena Lee, who’s the
Advanced Planning Manager is able to give you an update of what happen if that’s alright?
Chair Bernstein: I’d also liked to welcome new appointed Board Member Corey to our meeting so
welcome Corey. So, if the attendance records can show that Corey is present, thank you.
Mr. Elena Lee: Thank you. Staff took on Tuesday evening a first reading of a proposed ordinance to
respond to Council direction on encouraging – encouragement of assessor dwelling units and also to
bring our code and compliance with recent State laws, basically, three laws that were passed late last
year and were effective as of January 2017. This is following three Planning Commission hearing on this
item, two study sessions as well as one public hearing item and at the Council hearing on Tuesday night,
there was a lot of discussions, both comments from the public as well as among City Council. The Council
made approve – at the first reading – well, approved an ordinance that definitely expanded the ability for
more ADUs in the City and made some changes to Staff recommendation. This item will have to go back
to the City Council as a first hearing item sometimes. We haven’t determined the schedule yet but we
anticipate it will be within the next month and then a second reading will follow after that. Basically, the
Council approval was basically, to reduce – remove minimum lots sizes, allow ADUs within – to encroach
City of Palo Alto Page 3
within the setbacks and also to remove design review requirements. I know the concern of this Board, in
particular, was about historic preservation because what this law does is definitely removes prohibitions
for ADUs and also removes the City’s ability to do any kind of design review or discretionary review. All
these permits are ministerial so in order to address that – because it’s ministerial, it’s not subject to
CEQA, which is the tool we use to really help shape proposals. In this case, what we have done is
incorporate into the development standards within the ADU ordinance – basically, what we also did was
we took all of the requirements of ADUs from the individual zoning districts where they were allowed and
we’ve incorporated into Chapter 18.42. The – you reference the code for that section and then it will
refer you to Chapter 18.42.20 I believe is the new number. In this particular case, for a historic
properties, we’ve incorporated a standard saying for properties –we can send you a copy of this language
but it says for properties listed in the Palo Alto historic inventory, the California Register of Historical
Resources, the National Register of Historic Places or considered historic resources after a completion of
a historic resources evaluation, compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards will be required as
determined by the Planning Director. That was incorporated by Council, this is a late Staff addition and
this condition – this standard of approval as well as the entire ordinance will go back to City Council for a
first reading and further initial approval. That concludes Staff’s report.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that. Thank you for bringing that up and it’s good to hear that the Council
will decide on how to handle properties that are listed as a historic resource. I looked at the State
regulations and it says that all – there shall be -- all applications shall be ministerial so this is obviously,
that’s not a ministerial issue if it’s required to come to – to conform to Secretary of Interior Standard’s
rehabilitation. That is not a ministerial review, correct?
Ms. Lee: Actually, that would be under the ministerial process so what happens is somebody will submit a
building permit and through that process, Staff would work with the applicant and building Staff to
ensure compliance.
Chair Bernstein: Right so if the HRB reviews an application and votes as a majority that the proposed
project does not meet Secretary of Interior Standards, that recommendation would be not to approve a
permit. Are in conflict with the State law I guess I my question?
Ms. Lee: I don’t think the intention is to necessarily have to require applications to be brought forward to
the HRB because as a ministerial project, it wouldn’t be subject to public hearing requirements but they
would have to work with Staff, with Amy’s Staff and also ultimate approval by the Director to ensure
compliance. Staff would work carefully with the applicant to make sure and this happens a lot of times on
single family projects of a single story. I know some are brought to the HRB, that’s not anticipated for
this particular process but we’re still kind of refining all of this so we’ll probably have further follow up
after the first Council hearing.
Chair Bernstein: What I hear so far is that projects in Professorville for example, that they want to add an
AD unit would not come to the HRB?
Ms. Lee: That’s not currently in the vision but as I was saying, we’re going to have continued
conversations with the attorney to refine all these issues.
Chair Bernstein: You can see the concern from the Historic Resources Board point of view or at least
certainly my point of view that that would be a project that would not come before us.
Board Member Corey: That’s what I’m hearing.
Vice Chair Bower: That was a remarkable vacancy in that if it’s ministerial, then it – as I understand it, it
can’t come before this Board.
Ms. French: Can I correct that? We do have projects in Professorville that are ministerial, one-story or
what have you, that do not require individual review, variance, HIEs, that come before this Board. It just
City of Palo Alto Page 4
that how does it stick, is the question? When it’s a building permit only, we can’t condition building
permits. It’s the charge of the HRB to, I guess convince an applicant that this is the right thing to do and
then we hope that they continue on and do the right thing but it’s not an actual – it doesn’t stick because
you can’t condition a building permit.
Chair Bernstein: I’m hearing that that application for an ADU will not even come to our Board, correct?
Ms. Lee: I think current as it was envisioned it wasn’t because part of the whole rationale for this – for
these State legislation is to just to make this process more efficient.
Chair Bernstein: I understand that.
Ms. Lee: What – I understand the concern of the Board and certain Staff shares that concern about the
impacts on historic resources and that’s specifically the reason why this standard was included in the
ordinance. This gives us teeth to ensure compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Even
though they are not subject to CEQA, it's just – like I said, it does give us teeth to make sure that this
can happen or will happen.
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) so far is what we’re hearing today is that the teeth are provided by Planning
Staff, not the Historic Resources Board that takes all the training.
Ms. Lee: Well, correct…
Chair Bernstein: That’s what we’re hearing right now.
Ms. Lee: … correct because – I mean that would be the same for any sort of ministerial permit. Certainly,
we can consult with the HRB and we’ll – I’ll have that discussion with Staff about the process but
ultimately, we did make sure to ensure that we had teeth to make sure that compliance is required
despite the ministerial process.
Vice Chair Bower: Can I (inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Yes, please, go ahead.
Vice Chair Bower: One quick question to Council Member Holman. State law really is designed not to
allow us – because they have required that it be a ministerial decision so Palo Alto can’t override that,
isn’t that, right? Their law trumps anything we do here?
Council Member Holman: Yes, and Amy can speak to this as well. We have to comply with the State law
and the City can do things like what Elena has just described to try to put some teeth if you will, to
helping ensure that Palo Alto’s compliance with the State law isn't as devastating as potentially it could
be.
Board Member Makinen: Can you explain, these units can be built in the back of the house. Does that
mean you still have to comply with the maximum floor area?
Ms. Lee: Yes, so we did not change FAR of lot coverage however, the City Council did approve some
minor additions so for example, we would allow additional 175-square feet for an accessory dwelling unit
but not a second story accessory unit. Also, another 50-square foot for the remainder of the house if you
put in a junior accessory dwelling unit, so the junior accessory dwelling unit is limited by State law to
500-square feet but you get an additional 50-square foot that could apply to other parts of the property.
Board Member Makinen: If you’re – oh, boy. There’s a – what about – can this unit in the backyard just
be put anywhere or does it have to comply with the setbacks or not?
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Ms. Lee: In terms of the accessory unit on the property, if it’s a new unit, then you are allowed to have –
if this approved at the first and second reading, have a 12-side and rear setback. This is a City
requirement that we’ve decided to put however, the State law includes probably what is the biggest
change, would be allowing conversion of any existing square footage. If you have an accessory unit in
the back yard or if you have existing space within your primary space that you want to convert to a
second unit, State law allows you to do that and prohibits the City from really putting any sort of
additional requirement on it. We can’t limit size, we can’t limit location.
Board Member Makinen: It can be on the property line?
Ms. Lee: It can but what we’ve done through PTC and Council is to require safety requirements. You
have to comply with fire codes basically. You couldn’t have an opening directly on the property line, it
would have to comply with fire code or I think it’s a minimum of 6-feet for an opening.
Board Member Makinen: How high – how tall can these walls be at the property line?
Ms. Lee: The height of an accessory dwelling unit is still subject to the same requirement if it’s new so
typically, that’s 12-feet or less and it has to comply with daylight plane requirements.
Board Member Makinen: Daylight plane for accessory structures…(crosstalk)
Ms. Lee: Correct…
Board Member Makinen: …(Inaudible)
Ms. Lee: The point of this conversion is that it’s the conversion of existing space. The way the code is
written is says – where the code – what we’re proposing is that it would – conversion would be allowed
for accessory dwelling units only if it was permitted with a building permits as of January 2017, If you
were to build something in anticipation of this law in March, you wouldn’t be able to convert that but you
would be able to convert any other space that was built prior so that would be within the primary unit or
within an accessory unit such as a garage – built with permits, correct.
Board Member Makinen: This is going to be a nightmare.
Ms. Lee: It is a significant change, definitely. (Crosstalk)
Board Member Makinen: (Inaudible)
Ms. Lee: It’s been a concern for us.
Board Member Makinen: This just boggles my mind. (Inaudible) can just go out there and – historic or
not, I mean this is going to be a real nightmare. People are going to be really upset. You don’t have to go
for any kind of review, you just build your house?
Ms. Lee: You wouldn’t have to go for a discretionary review but you would be required to have building
permits to bring it into compliance with the State requirements. For example, if you have a storage shed
and you want to convert that, you would have to comply with building codes but you would not be
subject to planning review – planning permit but that’s why we built into the code specific requirements
to make sure that our requirements are met so for example, parking. For a conversion, you wouldn’t be
required to provide any parking but we still have control over the fact that the primary residence does
need to provide their required parking. We’ve tried to build into the code to make sure that that doesn’t
get lost.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower, you have your light on.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Board Member Makinen: Wait, wait, I’ve got to finish up, this is really mind boggling because you don’t
know how – (inaudible) 120-square foot structures don’t require a permit. We use to have a 10 x 12 and
then we put a porch out front and then people I guess started enclosing it so now, you can’t do a porch
in these little houses – little structures. Now you can do a structure that’s 120-square feet and you can do
a trellis 5-feet away from it. Then what a lot of people do is after it’s been permitted, they cover it up and
connect it again. It’s just going to be – I can just see neighbors getting just biolistic about these building
that -- there’s no daylight plane required for them, right?
Ms. Lee: Well, the – if you – the conversion issue is again, only for structures that were built with permits
prior to January 2017 and I believe the State requirement is at the minimum size of a residence is a 150-
square foot so you would not be able to convert 120-sqaure foot or less accessory structure.
Board Member Makinen: Could you add onto it?
Ms. Lee: You cannot add on to it for the purposes of putting in an accessory dwelling unit. You’re only
allowed to convert what you already have as of January.
Board Member Makinen: OK, alright. Well, I’m glad I’m not in the Building Inspection Department.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I share Rodger’s concern but let me just use one example. In – since the City required
– start requiring garages to be located in the rear corner of a property, several of them that I have seen
are – used -- to meet the fire codes, they use cinder block walls on the rear and the side walls and they
put them on – an inch off the property line so that technically they are still on their property. I can
imagine now, with this law that somebody comes in and says well, I want to convert my garage which
sits on the rear and back property line into a dwelling. I’ll just add another garage on the front of that
building and then suddenly, the people who live on the side yard or on the rear yards, they have
somebody living basically, on their property line. I have a case where two accessory dwelling units exist
behind my property on two different parcels. One was built many years ago, and they actually created an
open porch, which the second the permit was signed off, they enclosed it. It was 900-square feet and
now it’s another 150-sqaure foot let’s say. When the property was sold, they opened those walls up
again, remodeled the house again and the second that second permit was signed off, which was 2-years
ago, the walls came right back. Right next to that there is a garage built that was always intended to be
a secondary dwelling unit and the second that garage was finished, it was inhabited. The reason I bring
this up is we have our lap pool out there and we have a nice patio next to it and that noise, which in
those – one of the buildings, they are actually 20-feet away from us. We hear everything that goes on.
The television is on in that unit all the time. On the property line, that will be horrendous and I know that
this is not something that we can do but maybe what the City ought to be thinking about is – if I’m
understanding you now correctly. If I build a building now and put my garage on the property line
legally, which is what you can do or very close, would I still 10-years from now or 5-years from now be
able to convert that garage into an accessory dwelling unit?
Ms. Lee: (Inaudible) Sorry, the conversion requirement I think is tied to the January 2017 rule so…
Vice Chair Bower: Anything afterward can’t be converted?
Ms. Lee: Correct but for now, right? I think part of the confusion that happened with the – with all these
Cities is that – as I said, three laws were passed. Two were regarding accessory dwelling units and a
third was regarding junior accessory dwelling units, which is a new term for many people. The rule for
accessory dwelling units -- those two laws weren’t actually meant to – only one was meant to pass but
for whatever reason, both passed which causes the confliction of what was really meant. I think it takes
some time for the Cities to kind of go through this and for HCDL to also give some clarification on what
these issues are. I think we’re not the only ones struggling with all these issues but certainly, we’re in
City of Palo Alto Page 7
regular consultation with our attorneys to make sure that we do whatever we can to ensure the quality of
life without violating State requirements.
Chair Bernstein: Certainly, any change to planning regulations in any City is going to have a consequence
and that’s what we’re discussing right now. It’s also important to remember what was the purpose of this
new State law promoted by Governor Brown and that is that we have the issues of housing cost and we
also – I know families where adult children are moving back in or that their aging parents of families that
need housing and family support. This is actually a good social way of addressing those housing issues
and family support structures so there is actually a real benefit for this. Obviously, we’re –as the HRB,
we’re discussion impacts on the Cities goals of historic preservation concerns here. It’s good to know that
the City in some form, is talking with the City attorneys too – how can we get the California State Historic
Building Code issues and concerns in historic preservation, into compliance or into concert with this goal
here? Council Member Holman, did you have a light on?
Council Member Holman: Yes, please. I think it would be helpful if Elena -- thank you for coming if you
could send the ordinance that was passed or wasn’t passed but recommend by Council the other night
and will be coming for first reading, do you know when that will be?
Ms. Lee: We haven’t determined a date yet.
Council Member Holman: If you could forward that to the Board and also actually, I would love to see it
too because there was like a A-M changes made by Council Members at the meeting and that caused
three of us not to accept the recommendations – caused us to vote against the primary ADU ordinance.
The reason I bring that up is because, in addition to the issues that the Board has raised, there was
another addition that was made at the Council that illuminated ADUs from counting against sight
coverage. I bring that up for this Board because that also could provide additional challenges to the
compliance of Secretary of Interior Standards because it’s another elimination of limitation. So, the Board
might want to – might be interested in reading all of that.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I’d like to ask, say some of the properties that – historic properties that have
either an old barn on the back or a garage that was built at the same time as the main structure, may or
may not be part of the designation but what if major changes and the barn changed to have a lovely
porch and all sorts of – a new front on it. This would actually have a quite an effect on historic structures.
Ms. Lee: Thank you. The – that condition which I read or standard approval that I read would be the tool
that we would use so if there’s any impact on the historic quality of it, if it’s deemed a historic resource,
we would have the ability to ensure that you would have to comply with the Secretary of Interior
Standards. Other than that, the State has sort of removed any sort of design reviewability of us to make
changes. For example, if someone were to convert the interior of the house, there’s really not much we
can do to – we can’t impose any condition of approval on that.
Board Member Makinen: It’s interesting because I’d say two or three out of ten house we do are – have
been built in such a way that once the permits there, that they can have another unit in their house,
either in the basement or upstairs. It’s a need thing to have, I just don’t – from the historic point of it,
you have to be a little – a lot of the homes in Professorville aren’t – don’t have fences. I mean, a lot of
them do but you can see these random shacks and – not shacks but building appearing here and there
without approval. It could have an impact on Professorville.
Chair Bernstein: It seems like within about 8-weeks is when the City attorney will need to agree what
kind of HRB review can there be, right? Within 8-weeks we’ll know if that’s going to be – if the City
attorney will agree to something that can be put into the ordinance. Any other comments on this subject?
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. French: We can invite Elena back in, I guess April or May, depending on when it actually gets
approved…
Chair Bernstein: Is there any …
Ms. French: … to give a recap.
Chair Bernstein: … way or is it – any comments from Council Member Holman or Amy or Elena, if the City
attorney can hear from representatives of the HRB about this issue or how’s the City attorney going to
hear about our concerns?
Ms. Lee: We’ll – between Amy and myself, we’ll definitely let the City attorney know, as well as the
Director know exactly what all the concerns are and we can certainly incorporate it into our report to the
Council on what the HRB’s concerns where. We’ll make sure that it is formally in the record that –
throughout the process and Staff will also send to you the – we’re probably not going to have the
ordinance ready for a while – until the packet is ready but we will forward you the motion as soon as it’s
finalized from the Clerk’s office.
Ms. French: With the draft ordinance that was shown to them.
Ms. Lee: Well, the draft ordinance that was shown to Council is already available so I think we can
forward you to the link to the report with all of that. Then we will provide you with the motion that was
approved by Council and then as soon as a revised ordinance is ready, we’ll certainly make sure that you
get a copy of that as well.
Chair Bernstein: For communications between the Board and City Council Members who will be eventually
voting to enact and approve an ordinance. The communication between the HRB and City Council
Members, is there a process for that? Is direct communication between Council and – maybe a joint
meeting or something just so that we can…
Ms. French: You have one Council Member here, I might add.
Chair Bernstein: I agree.
Ms. French: We do have an annual – supposedly an annual joint meeting with the Council and so, we’re
hoping that it will get scheduled before the break so maybe May, to have a joint meeting.
Chair Bernstein: Which would be after this ordinance could get approved.
Ms. French: Correct.
Chair Bernstein: That to me is too late.
Ms. French: Correct but anyways, that’s the official meeting.
Chair Bernstein: I understand.
Ms. French: I think there are other opportunities. Certainly, there are elected officials and you report to
them. I mean they have appointed you.
Chair Bernstein: I understand.
Council Member Holman: Chair – Amy will correct me if I am wrong here but on any item, whatever it is
or any subject, I think the HRB could agendize topic of concern like you’re talking about what the
subcommittee came up with. You could agendize something for discussion as this was and come up with
a recommendation and convey that recommendation as a Board to the Council, could they not?
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Ms. French: Sure, if you wanted to put this on for the very next meeting, we could do that. I don’t know
what the timing is of the report. I imagine it’s due yesterday already but if there’s an opportunity to
convey what the HRB said through minutes, that kind of thing.
Chair Bernstein: I would like to put that on the agenda for our next HRB meeting. There may be Board
Members that are not in attendance but they’ll still get the copy of the Staff report for the meeting and
Board Members who aren’t able to attend can still email in some comments to you, is that correct? Yeah.
Ok. Any other comments and lights on this topic? (Crosstalk) Yes?
Ms. French: Not on the ADU topic so I think we can say thank you to Elena.
Chair Bernstein: Elena, thank you so much, appreciate everything.
Ms. French: Also, because here we are under City official reports I think – we’ve moved onto discussion
items and I wanted to say why I also included in – I think it says it in the report but I included a report to
transmit the findings for architectural review and the definitions of context and compatibility and
compatibility requirements from the context based design criteria and SOFA plan phase2 because I had a
request by the Chair to get a copy of those in advance of the joint meeting that’s expected to happen
April 6th, on two SOFA projects. The concept is that we would have a study session first with the
ARB/HRB sitting up here – 12 people and I just…
Board Member Makinen: Maybe we should put them on one side and us on the other side.
Ms. French: I’ll leave that other folk to determine but…
Board Member Makinen: (Inaudible)
Ms. French: The point is to make sure you have, what are the tools from the code for – with respect to
compatibility and I know Martin, you – I’m just responding to your request. If you wanted to say
anything more about your intention, please do.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. The intent was just to have it ahead of the – the intention was just so that
the Board Members can have this before the meeting and study it, that was the intent but thank you for
that.
[Board Resumed Discussion Item #2]
Discussion Items
2. Governance subcommittee
Chair Bernstein: Next would be the subject of the governance subcommittee. That Committee was
attended by and formed by now Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Bunnenberg and myself. Vice Chair
Bower, would you like to give a report to the HRB, Staff and the members of the public of what we
discussed?
Vice Chair Bower: Thank you, Chair Bernstein. As Martin, has said, Beth, Martin and I met and discussed
the issues that have been summarized on the sheet in front of you that’s titled, Recommended Ordinance
Changes. This is a bare bone outline of what we think the HRB should explore and recommend to the
Council to add to the – either add or change to the historic ordinances. There are, in this group of pages
– I’m just going to work through this quickly. There is an attachment that describes why a City would
want to be a Certified Local Government, there is an example of the San Francisco building – Planning
Department’s questionnaire about demolition or changes to the exterior of the property and at the very
last page, it’s a historic renovation pre-construction conference, which I had created maybe 2 ½ or 3-
City of Palo Alto Page 10
years ago, so let’s start at the top. As every Member of this Board knows, there is no other Board in the
City of Palo Alto that reports to another Board. The Historic Resources Board is the only State Certified
Board and that’s why this handout, why become a local Certified Government, is so important and there
are portions of it that – this by the way, comes out of the State Office of Historic Preservation. I have
highlighted -- they don’t show it very well but highlighted the things that I think are most important
about why Palo Alto worked so hard to become a Certified Local Government. If I can, I’ll just run down
them. Under credibility, what pops out to me is that a CLG (Certified Local Government Board) insulates
the local preservation program from charges of arbitrary and capricious behavior. I think that’s
extraordinary important because it backs up the kinds of decisions we make. Under streamlining, a CLG
integrates local, State and federal levels of review so there’s a single review, not multiple reviews and
that seems to me to help every property owner when they approach the HRB. Under-involvement,
Certified Local Government Boards are obligated to involve their Boards and Commissions in CEQA and
Section 106 of the review process. That’s helpful in I think, determining very difficult changes to historic
properties. Funding, which is another important one, allows the City of Palo Alto to apply for grant money
that’s available through the National Parks Department and Palo Alto was successful 2-years ago, I think,
in getting grant money to develop the Crescent Park Design Guidelines – I’m sorry, Professorville Design
Guidelines. We could use – we could apply for grant money to do a – for instance, an updated version of
our inventory, which we desperately need. Under autonomy, Certified Local Government agrees to carry
out the intent of the National Historic – NHPA? National Historic Preservation Act and more importantly,
the Secretary of Interior Standards, which is what we use as our bible. Finally, under the last paragraph,
Economic Benefits, COG designation can increase property values and pride of place. It conserves
building resources, it uses existing infrastructure, generates local jobs and purchasing, supports most
business development and heritage tourism and enhances the quality of life in the community character.
There are many reasons to Palo Alto’s sought this distinction and it is not easily achieved. I remember
Dennis Backlund the former Preservation Planner, telling the Board – I think it took many years, maybe
as many as 10-years to get this designation. Bullet point number 3 under why the HRB should report
directly to the Planning Director and these last two I think, are the most important reasons. One, we as
Board Members have experience and also are required to maintain training in historic preservation issues
and so most of us, except for Brandon who has just arrived on the Board but he’ll catch up, have been to
seminars that describe the Mills Act. CEQA, which is extraordinary complicated. What are some of the
other ones? Construction techniques to – when renovating a historic structure, was one I went to last
year. All of these seminars give us a unique perspective and sort of the up to date information that we
need to make decisions. Finally, I think the most important reason why we should not be reporting to a
different Board is that the ARB in this case, where we report to, frequently just ignores our
recommendations and I’ll give you two examples. The first one, which I think is really most distressing to
me personally, is the Avenidas project. When we reviewed that project and we reviewed it several times,
this Board was very clear that we wanted to have a compatible building that had features like the original
police building – the – I guess it’s a City Hall building and what came out our recommendations – back to
use from the ARB, was a building that has a third-floor glass wall, which is completely unlike anything on
the original building. In my mind, incompatible and I think we may have expressed that strongly but by
the time we saw the final project, we couldn’t make a change to is. The ARB had driven the design in
that direction and our most important consideration, which is compatibility of material and design, had
been totally ignored. We went through the process just like they did but our process stopped at their
doorstep and then they drove it in some other way. The other example that – as I mentioned here, is not
complete – the review is not complete is fire station #3. As I think I said in our review of that building, I
found a modern box structure to be totally inappropriate on that sight, even though the new fire station
is screened by existing trees. It is completely different and again, I think it’s incompatible with the Lucie
Stern Center, the Girl Scout House, in both materials and design in particular. It is not even compatible
with the residential buildings across the street nor the City – the former City Hall, which is now the Art
Center and the Rinconada Library. Somehow this process I feel, is not working and we need to convince
the City Council that we need to have a different process, that makes our determination at the same level
or even more powerful than the ARB, when it comes to historic buildings. The Second item we discussed
– I just want to go through these and I won’t spend as much time on the rest of these and we can talk
about them one at a time. Change in benefits for historic categories. The subcommittee felt that having
different benefits for Category 1 and 2 buildings and 3 and 4 buildings is confusing and doesn’t make any
City of Palo Alto Page 11
sense when you want to preserve historic structures. We feel that all the benefits that come from
[Chapter 1849] should be applied to all categories and this will save the expense – property owners the
expense of coming to this Board to ask us to re-categorize a building as [Rocky Rap] did with the
University Art building across the street. When that building is clearly important, he wanted the change in
category so he take advantage of all of the opportunities that a Category 1 and 2 has.
Chair Bernstein: Excuse me, Vice Chair Bower, I want to correct – I found the ordinance regarding – it’s
not [1849], it would be 18.12.120, those are all the home improvement exceptions where it just says that
it’s limited to certain categories of historic structures and then what our subcommittee – what Vice Chair
Bower is mentioning is that, don’t have any discrimination between whatever historic category it is but if
it’s on the listed Category 1, 2, 3, 4 historic, State, National, Local, that it can be applied for. There’s still
the governance of and recommendations from the HRB that if those applications should be approved or
not but just don’t have any discrimination – if it’s historic, let applicants apply. Thank you.
Vice Chair Bower: Thank you for that correction. Next item is change building demolitions from ministerial
to discretionary. We had a fairly long discussion about this at our retreat. We – the subcommittee felt
that we should use a model similar to the one that San Francisco uses and so I have included a copy that
I had in my files from 2007. When you run – this is a 6-page document. The first 2 pages are essentially
identifying the property. The most important page I think, are pages – the 3rd and 4th pages and 5th
pages. By the way, the page numbering on the bottom is not mine, it’s San Francisco’s and I’ve left off
their cover page but their numbering starts at 8 so it’s pretty weird. This is their work product and I’m
not trying to steal it from them. It’s a good process and as Martin discussed in our retreat, if you say you
are – if you agree to leave the façade of your building alone, this process goes away. Obviously,
demolition has serious consequences too and then you have to go through a review. This doesn’t have to
be a burden on homeowners, it’s an encouragement not to demolish or change the façade. Next item and
this is really the last item, is creating a pre-construction conference requirement by the prime contractor
or owner or developer for historic renovation projects. It’s very simple, I’ve put together a two-paragraph
description, which of course, we can add anything we want to or subtract from. The idea is to change the
construction personal’s attitude about working on historic buildings. I can tell you from 40-years in the
construction business that when you start a new project, the idea that most people come to the project
with is that we need to get rid of all the old stuff and make it look brand new and that’s the antithesis of
what you want to not do on a historic renovation. What you want to do is save the old stuff, replace
what’s damaged and treat it according to the Secretary of Interior Standards. I have been on two
projects that required to have this pre-construction conference for environmental impact and it changed
the behavior of every person on the project. It took 5-minutes of time to talk to people about just what
they were doing, in my case, with the environment since we were building in what will eventually be a
State Park or preserve. The road building crews, which are notoriously bad about destroying everything
around them, really behaved remarkably differently than I have ever seen. This doesn’t have to be a – I
don’t think we want it to be a big cost but we want to make people aware that they don’t want to take
things apart or throw things away, so that we don’t have a project that – like 465 University Avenue,
which I think that’s the right address. It’s the building that sat – they took the whole thing apart and lost
bonus floor area and it actually bankrupted the developer. They sold the project and it sat there for what,
3-years? Do I have the right address, 465? It’s the yellow building between Webster and Cowper. Finally,
the other bad – terrible example but not surprising to me, was the building out at Edgewood Plaza that
was totally demolished. Probably inedibility, that would be the case but when it was – it was demolished
without really – before the right process had been applied and the developer I think was fined $95,000
for that. It cost a huge amount of money for delay of the project and those – I think those 2 projects are
like the poster child projects for why we want to try to change the construction viewpoint for renovation
projects. Sorry, to take so long but I’ll turn it to the Chair.
Chair Bernstein: That was a great summary of our subcommittee meeting. Beth, did you want to add any
comments to David’s? Ok, great. We need your mic on, please.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) in our packet has a very nice sheet, which talks about why
preservation matters at the local level and about the Mills Acts and that’s separate but an important
component.
Chair Bernstein: I just want to make a follow-up comment on what Vice Chair Bower mentioned about
the San Francisco discretionary review regarding demolitions or major changes to historic properties. I
guess this is a repeat of what we discussed during our retreat – recent retreat. It talks about the façade
of residences in San Francisco. Many homes in San Francisco, you only see the front facing façade
because all of the other houses are 2-inches apart from each other. If we adopt anything like this in Palo
Alto, we’ll need to revise that idea of façade-ism since we usually see three sides of a building from the
public – the two sides and the front. It’s a great model we found in San Francisco, where it’s presumed
your house is historic and this says you go through the process to say that it’s not. The City does the in
house – it’s review. That takes time and about a $3,000 fee and if you decide not to change the – in San
Francisco, that street facing façade of a residence, you avoid that process, you avoid the fee, you – so
there’s – you’re saving a lot of time and money and effort. You can apply for the revision to the façade
and then you go through that process but it’s a nice little carrot if you decide not to do it and then the
preservation automatically happens. The idea of the pre-construction conference is a fantastic idea. I was
on a project yesterday, we had a pre-construction conference between the contractor, building
representative, architect and structural engineer. It creates a great tone before any work is done, puts
everyone on the same page, sets the tone for good communication so if things are discovered that need
to be worked out, at least there is a good working relationship right away. That meeting took 1-hour and
that sets the tone for the next 12 months of construction and it’s a fantastic solution.
Vice Chair Bower: Can I make a comment? To follow-up on Martin’s comment about the San Francisco
process. He and I have both done that process and have gone through it. I did it with my daughter’s
house which is in the Liberty Hill Historic District. We haven’t to change the windows on the façade of the
building in two locations. We wanted to remove the aluminum sliding windows that had been put into the
location where they had triple double hung windows originally, we had a picture of it. They had no
problem with that. It flew through the Landmark Board in 12-months and that’s when they had no
trouble with it. If – I bring that up because in San Francisco at least, they take it very seriously the
landmark – any changes in a historic district and that was an easy one so I don’t want to have a 12-
month process in Palo Alto to change windows back to what they use to be, to be compatible. We do this
– people say –recommend – I mean, propose to do that in projects they bring before our Board and we
approve it I think, relatively quickly. The idea here is to stop the demolition of old buildings and the
gaming of the planning process, although, I think that’s very hard now. I was noting yesterday that the
property across the street from Steve Job’s house, which Steve Young the football quarterback for the
49ers use to live in, has been vacant for several years and I know you -- even then couldn’t tear down a
house without a building permit but there’s no house there, it’s just a vacant lot. Anyway, I don’t want to
make – I’m very conscious of not adding the 45th layer of the process for the Planning Department but
trying to give the City a little more control over historic demolitions.
Chair Bernstein: The general heading of this recommended ordinance change is ordinance changes so
one of the things that we can discuss today is how or what is the process for a requesting from the City
Council to enact these changes. I guess that would be the next step (inaudible) that process.
Ms. French: Hi, Amy French here for the transcriptionist. I think the ordinance is not attached to this and
it – I think the first step is to actually look at the ordinance because how this is characterized is not
exactly jiving what the ordinance language so I would just say that the first piece -- anyways. It’s
basically – as far as – it says referrals. The ARB refers projects to the HRB for a recommendation on the
proposed alteration of the structure. It doesn’t say refers to the HRB so that the HRB can recommend
back to the ARB but I get what you’re saying. The ARB has the last review of it and then both
recommendations go to the Director for action. The Director is the decision maker and yet, the Director
doesn’t make different decisions than the ARB when there is a unanimous vote. In practice, I get that but
technically the wording is that the ARB refers applications to the Historic Resources Board for a
recommendation; it doesn’t say to them. Just a technical matter and then the other thing that there are
City of Palo Alto Page 13
standards of review for proposed alterations and that for the HRB, which is to say that they should not
adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical (inaudible) that add value to
the building and its site. This is when you’re dealing with a historic building, not in a historical district. In
the case of let’s say the fire station, technically that whole site is not in a historic district. It is – it wasn’t
an alteration, technically, it was a demolition. The HRB had the opportunity to weigh in or review the
historic resource evaluation that was prepared that made the determination that the or the suggestion or
recommendation that the existing fire station was not historic – was not – did not have what it took to be
designated a historic resource. I think there’s a nuance on the fire station site and because I’m highly
aware of that project and Avenidas, I mean I would love to have more conversations about that to help
everyone understand that process. It was a critical need for the HRB to look at the HRE on that project
and to offer ideas and with the context to support the ARB in that case. It wasn’t the charge of the HRB
to actually review and recommend on the project itself, technically it wasn’t a historic resource nor was it
in a historic district. Having said that, I do think that looking at the ordinance is a good idea and – but I
would suggest that we start with an actual copy of the ordinance, which is 1649 in the building code. It
behaves kind of like a zoning code but it’s actually in the building code so because it’s in the building
code, technically it does not need to go the Planning and Transportation Commission, which is where
most zoning code changes have to go. I would say let’s start with getting a copy of the ordinance and
have a look at that before a meeting.
Vice Chair Bower: Just help me understand how to find that on the City website. I would go on and just
search for…
Ms. French: City of Palo Alto and then in the search box put municipal code. It will pop up and then
Chapter 1649, Historic Preservation. It has there – I’m not live up here…
Vice Chair Bower: That’s ok but I put in municipal code and that will get me to a place where then I can
put in 1649 and it will find…
Ms. French: Historic preservation and then what you would do is go to – there’s a section on demolition
and there’s a section on alterations and so, 1649.050, exterior alterations of historic structures is where
you will find the section on review bodies and it talks about architectural review approval is required or it
refers you over to 1876 and that’s sentence that I read you about the ARB refers.
Vice Chair Bower: I’m just – I find the City website and getting into those ordinances very hard because if
you don’t have exactly the right wording, then it won’t take you there but I’ll work on it. I just wanted
you to tell me how to do it.
Ms. French: I can make it easier on this Board as the liaison, I can just simple email everybody the link
and then you don’t have to go search. Now, that we have – because this just got to me last night and I
was busy with the Castilleja but I will be more prepared for you to help you out at the next meeting if
you would like to continue this discussion to the 23rd. I don’t know who is available but I’m happy to
support you.
Vice Chair Bower: That’s great, that’s exactly what we need to do. Thank you.
Board Member Wimmer: I just – I have a copy of that code and I thought – I always thought that maybe
we could put together a little binder for all of us just to have because I have created one for myself.
Maybe I could just throw it out that to use mine as an example and maybe we just make copies because
I always tend to bring this because I always feel like I have to reference it. Maybe I can assist in creating
some kind of a binder that we all bring with some of this stuff in it.
Chair Bernstein: That sounds great.
Board Member Wimmer: I’d be willing to do that.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
[Board Jumped back to City Official Reports]
[Board Resumed Discussion item #2]
Ms. French: I high jacked – we were kind of in discussion item, governance subcommittee. We went
backward because Elena came here and so we’re City official reports that are why inserted this but now
we can go back to the discussion item for the ordinance.
Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you. Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I think I’d like to suggest that maybe the subcommittee meet with Amy and try to
identify the areas of the ordinance that these ideas would fit into and then maybe come back and have a
discussion with really – with ordinance here – I don’t want to shut down this discussion but I think at this
point, I’m feeling like there isn’t a lot more discussion to have because this format is ideas and what we
need to do is convert these ideas. Now maybe we should have some idea from the Board if this is the
way—if these ideas should move into this next phase.
Chair Bernstein: I think as Amy mentioned if you could at least send to the Board all the code sections
that these recommended changes are referring to and then we can make our suggestions on that, that
way?
Ms. French: I’m just – I’m kind of thinking on time line on this so our next meeting we’re saying – I
believe the meeting, March 23rd, to have a more robust discussion about the accessory dwelling units as
far as getting something on the record of the opinions of this Board…
Chair Bernstein: Correct.
Ms. French: … with seeing the actual proposed changes to the ordinance. That might be enough for that
meeting and it would give us more time to – and I’m looking at the end of April because the first meeting
of April is going to be a joint meeting so maybe we have a little bit more time to have discussion with the
Director, with the attorney and pull something together that’s not slapped together too much.
Chair Bernstein: That sounds good. I think the highest priority is the concern the HRB has on the ADUs,
the accessory dwelling units, that’s the highest priority.
Ms. French: Plus, we have another item on today's…
Board Member Makinen: I’m curious as to what can we actually do? I mean, it’s a done deal.
Ms. French: Well, that…
Chair Bernstein: No, it’s not, it’s not a done deal. There’s no ordinance yet, Rodger.
Board Member Makinen: Well, I got the impression – well, ok.
Ms. French: There’s a proposed ordinance. It went through first reading, it was continued to another first
reading.
Board Member Makinen: I thought the State was mandating certain rules.
Ms. French: That’s correct. In place, right now is the State law that if somebody wanted to walk in – I
don’t want to advertise but – we don’t have an ordinance that modifies what the State has imposed on us
already. That’s what we’re aiming for.
Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Council Member Holman: Yeah, just to be clear so Amy is correct. This will be coming for a first reading
to the Council and there were a lot of changes, including the addition of the historic preservation aspect
that Elena described and that’s what Elena is going to send you guys so you can see all of those changes
that we have on top of what the State regulations where. Having to do with the joint meeting with the
ARB actually, I see this ARB – my personal view is that I think this ARB is pretty sympathetic to historic
preservation. I would suggest that -- what has happened in the past is that the HRB and the ARB have a
joint meeting just for the purpose of discussion. That’s happened in the past between other Boards and
Commissions. I think, once a long time ago, with maybe the HRB and ARB – across pollinates if you will
and share knowledge basis and interests and share those interests and determine where the common
interests are. Maybe educate each other on where the differences might lie because the best situation is
for everybody, applicant, Council and both Boards, is if there is a sympathetic relationship. I would
suggest that having to do with this document – thank you for the subcommittee for bringing this
together. Just a couple notions based on comments that were made is a change of benefits for historic
categories, there’s a reference here to 1, 2, 3, 4 but not reference to National and California Register so
that comes up and it has come up with Board Members so that would be one comment. Also, for Board
Member Bower – Vice Chair Bower’s comments about the property across from Steve Job’s house, that’s
a loophole that was discussed being changed back when the historic – actually, it wasn’t then.
It was when the individual review was going in so what happens now, for anybody who might not know,
is you can go in and apply for a demolition permit if you’re going to do a single-story house but then you
can sell the property and sell it to somebody who wants to do a two-story house. That’s a loophole and
the Board might want to consider closing that loophole. Like I said, it was considered before and it just
didn’t happen. Another thing that is in the current code is – then something that – meeting is timely
because something I watched on the Planning Commission meeting last night but another thing that is
the current code is the HRB review projects. If – Amy, correct me if I get the language wrong but
basically, if there is a project what involves a historic resource or a project that’s in a historic district, that
does not capture where there is going to be a project that would impact a historic resource – how would
I say this? Because of the area potential effect. That’s also something because – the community is
sensitive to that, on 429 University, the community was exceedingly sensitive to that and that project got
sent to this Board. What I observed last night is something else that you might want to consider and
bring to the attention of Amy since I am here. There is a project being proposed for the Old Iron Works
site -- then it was Compadres but the Planning Commission was charged with doing site and design
review. I didn’t see the whole meeting, I saw part of it. I saw the most – probably most of the
Commission member discussion but what had happened was there was an HRE that was done. I’d read
the original HRE and it was incredibly not adequate and I think the Staff had another one done. What I
observed was that the Planning Commission had not been provided the HRE and Staff concurred that
they had not been provided that HRE and concurred also that a determination of historic eligibility would
not come to the HRB so it was done at the Staff level but then it wasn’t provided to the public, even in
the Planning Transportation Commission materials and so there’s been no public review of whether there
was – I know this was an accident mistake but I guess my point here is I observed one Planning
Commissioner in particular who was concerned about how can we make the finding for site and design
review if we don’t know if we’re satisfying CEQA or not because we haven’t seen the historic evaluation.
It just seems to me that it would be a lot simpler and a lot clear for everybody if evaluations of historic
designation would come to the HRB and my concern as a Council Member is if this goes – if this project
or any project – I’ve seen other projects too. If the project continues to go down the pipe and questions
still continue to be raised about is it historic or isn’t it historic, then you have an applicant who has spent
an incredible amount of money to promote a project that may or may not get stopped later. We’ve seen
for years and years that if an applicant has spent a lot of money on a project, there is – people are
loathed to say oh, wait for stop, you can’t do that. There gets to be a head of steam so it just seems like
it would be a lot clearer if the HRB where to review HREs to help make that determination about a
recommendation about whether a project or a property is historic or not. That’s not currently what the
process is but I just watched the struggle last night and it was painful to watch. It was very painful to
watch. Apparently, there were several members of the public there to speak. I didn’t see that but
apparently, there were several members of the public there who were expressing concerns too; I heard
that referenced.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Chair Bernstein: Rodger.
Board Member Makinen: I guess I have to disclose things. Number 1, on the property that you talked
about that got demolition, I have plans for a one-story home with a basement on that project and that’s
– I was—I had no idea that they were going to demolish the house and we were still like of futzing about
with these people and next thing I knew, the house was gone on Waverley there. Secondly, as a
youngster, I use to go to the – Boy, my mind, I’m getting old -- Compadres as a youngster because it
was – I use to go there and visit with (inaudible). I use to go there to buy things for mom on Mother’s
Day as a little kid because we lived right near there. Then – all of us use to go there for – because they
had bands and good food and it was outside. It was a wonderful place as a restaurant and it’s been –
I’ve been kind of wondering because it’s just sitting there. It’s a prime location. I don’t understand.
Chair Bernstein: The newspaper a couple days ago, showed a proposal of what’s going on there. It had a
little graphic of it. As far as…
Council Member Holman: If I could just add to that really quickly, it’s – because when this was going to
the ARB 2 or 3 years ago, or something like that, I don’t remember how I got – this came to my attention
but I went (inaudible), it’s an Adobe building and that’s also part of the concern I heard raised. Anyway,
it just seems like a lot clearer if the HRB is involved in making those historic determinations and
reviewing the HREs.
Chair Bernstein: We have an upcoming joint HRB/ARB meeting and what I see is that to be almost like an
analogy of a pre-construction meeting, where people who have different concerns come together and
that inspires me to think about the idea of what if there was – if the ARB is going to be reviewing a
project that historic merit, what if those meetings where joint HRB/ARB meetings, just so that the HRB
has something and then we give our report – what is all that conversation happened at the same
meeting? Yeah, that’s my thought, just so that we’re all together.
Board Member Makinen: We’re being good folks when we're all together but sometimes you think maybe
the ARB could be at that end and we’re at this end.
Chair Bernstein: Well, that’s one suggestion of the politics of placement but my idea is that if we’re trying
to address the same project, why don’t we have instead of a pre-construction meeting, it’s a pre-planning
approval meeting. That’s just my idea, just call it communication.
Ms. French: We can talk about this a little bit more another time but just to say, I think when we do have
these SOFA project meetings, I believe it would transpire that the HRB would – after discussion, then
there would be a motion but the – first we’d take the HRB’s motion and then the ARB motions so just to
tee that up, I think that’s the expectation. There has to be a way of coming to an action or
recommendation and so if you have any thoughts on that.
Chair Bernstein: Board -- Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I would think that in a – when a project like Avenidas comes to the Planning
Department and has both the historic resources component and an ARB component, that the most
efficient way and a way that would have saved the project owners who Avenidas group a lot of money is
if all 12 of us, 7 HRB members and 5 ARB members heard that project together every single time, instead
of going to HRB, ARB, HRB, ARB. Design changes that cost I’m sure, hundreds of thousands of dollars in
time and pushed them up against a funding deadline that really made it difficult to move forward. I think
it would have saved them money, I think it would have been a cleaner process, I think all of the interest
would have been right on the table at the same time. I’m very conscious of not adding costs.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower, I think – did you have a – Ok, good. Any other Board Members for the
topic we’re discussing? Alright, thank you. Oh yes, Board Member Wimmer?
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Board Member Wimmer: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I understand. Fine.
3. Prioritization of potential projects regarding historic preservation in Palo Alto
Chair Bernstein: Right, let’s go down our agenda. Let’s see what’s next. Let’s see, I think we’re getting
toward the end of our agenda items I see. Number 3 – thank you. Prioritization of potential projects
regarding historic preservation in Palo Alto. Does Amy have a comment on that item?
Ms. French: Yes, this was – we were at the retreat together last month and there was the whole list,
which I think it did not probably get duplicated here for your – to be able to look at it but there were
basically, three buckets of item potential. There was the training, which I’m proposing to have Page and
Turnbull come next meeting as well as this ADU discussion. We will have – talk about house moves –
moving a historic home on the site. That’s next – two weeks from now and then there was the
governance which we’ve begun. Then there were this potential projects so we had – I call them A-F
bullets and so there was some discussion about hey, should we talk about prioritizing some of these. I
guess governance rose to the top to tackle but I wasn’t sure if there was remaining discussion or if you
wanted to differ that to another time.
Chair Bernstein: Those 6 bullets are 1. Mid-century modern building protection plan 2. Demolitions as
discretionary 3. Ordinance review 4. Website improvements and 5. Update City’s historic inventory. Those
were the potential projects. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I would like to ask that the modern age context statement would be
something to put toward the top because we are losing a number of “modern buildings” right and left at
this point and I think that it does take time to get that done. Do we have any money to do…
Chair Bernstein: That’s underway, right?
Ms. French: We had a grant proposal that was prepared by our former historic planner and that was not
submitted to the OHP. That was kind of on the heels of the Professorville, which we were just completing
so it wasn’t submitted but it’s at the ready to submit if we wanted to look towards getting a – requesting
another grant for those moneys so we could have that discussion if you’d like at a future meeting.
Board Member Bunnenberg: We need to go all the way back to requesting a grant?
Ms. French: Well, to get money, yes. To get money that’s or a matching grant I would say.
Vice Chair Bower: Amy, is there a reason why we’re not submitting that? I mean, that’s a priority. We’ve
talked about it, if the grant is ready, what’s the downside? We might get the money?
Ms. French: I can’t give the full explanation exactly but there’s prioritization of workload and resources
(inaudible)…
Vice Chair Bower: I perfectly understand the workload issue but if the grant is really ready for
submission, it’s that an email transmission to the State Office of Historic Preservation?
Ms. French: Yeah, so how it works is there’s a deadline for the grant and that from last year was passed
and it wasn’t submitted. There’s another deadline coming up. I can look into that and see what date that
is but typically, with these grants, the City match is in kind – work by Staff and then the money they give
us, we use for a consultant. Ideally, we have another body to help to pull it off in the timeline that they
give us because we have to execute and submit like we did for Professorville, by a certain date.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Vice Chair Bower: If I remember correctly, it’s about a 2-year planning time before we actually got word
that we received the funding. I mean, the – create – we had to – discuss the idea, you have to write the
grant. It took a long time.
Ms. French: I think the first step would be to share that grant with you, the work that Matt did on that
and then we can have a meeting on that to talk about the content and what have you.
Vice Chair Bower: Then does the – I’m not familiar with the City budget process but does money have to
be set aside say in an annual City budget for to match what we’re asking for?
Ms. French: Yes, the Council would need to be requested to approve dedication of in-kind services
basically, to match what the State would grant us.
Vice Chair Bower: I remember the grants – the Professorville Design Guideline grant was $40,000, is that,
right? Sometime like that. I’m sorry?
Council Member Holman: That sounds about right. I can’t remember for sure but that sounds about right.
Vice Chair Bower: I just wanted to understand the order of magnitude. Well, bring it to us and I guess
we can talk more about it.
Ms. French: In the meantime, I’d like to say that there is – we don’t sit on our hands. There is the Eichler
Design Guidelines project, which is in part addressing or at least it’s the topic mid-century modern
residential development so that will be of interest to all of you and of course, all of you are on my
interested parties list so you will be alert to when the first workshop is, which is, I believe April 11th that
is our first workshop on that. I’ll send you out an email shortly.
Council Member Holman: Since you are talking about mid-century modern, I think of this building a lot
and is the glass slipper. It’s pretty iconic and I think it certainly doesn’t have any historic designation and
so anyway. I’m putting my little plumb up there for you guys to think about.
Chair Bernstein: Reminds me of the Doggy Dinner sign in – on – across from the San Francisco zoo. That
actually became historic. Alright (crosstalk). Yeah, yeah, sure, on – at the – from this? Board Member
Wimmer, you have a comment.
Board Member Wimmer: Last meeting when we were going through our list of ideas and things that we
were brainstorming about, we talked about having a pamphlet for sort of a public outreach pamphlet. I
did a draft of a pamphlet that I thought we could maybe – and I made copies. Maybe we can put in on
the agenda for next time. I don’t know if it’s really worthwhile but I’ll just pass out – on my computer last
night when I was – here two for you. This was – I think sometimes in our discussions we talk about how
we get this information out to the public and one idea was to have some kind of informative pamphlet
that we might keep at the Development Center. I just sort of throw this out as a starting point but it was
– we were talking about incentives and this probably doesn’t encompass all the things that we want. It
doesn’t really talk too much about how to go about getting a permit or anything like that. I mean, it sorts
of just a really cursory, preliminary, very brief overview but I know we talked about it and I said that I
would come up with something that could be a starting point. Maybe you could look at it and we can put
it on the calendar for next time to see if this is a worthwhile project or – but it was just a thought. Some
of the stuff I did actually, pull off the website but then I realized a lot of the links on the website are
broken and some of the – I know because I was trying to get – to fill my – to get content. Then some of
the – I think it can be updated, just the wording and some of it didn’t necessarily make sense to me but
that doesn’t – maybe it makes sense to other people but I think it could have been better – I guess
better worded or something. I can help on that if need be but I just thought this was sort of a starting
point that we can critic, I guess.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. This looks wonderful. I look forward to reviewing it.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Vice Chair Bower: I would like to say that this is a very impressive document. As a starting point, this is
great.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you so much. Also on the potential projects was website improvements. The City’s
website improves to list National Register eligible and determined eligible properties and potential
California Registered properties. If that’s not on the current website, what’s the process to get those two
Categories on the website?
Ms. French: I believe this is a project that involves taking paper forms and converting them into PDFs and
uploading them and maybe having an index for each with some kind of descriptor of how this relates to
our Chapter 1649 and time and bodies.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, well, at least it’s on our list.
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible)
Council Member Holman: Could volunteers do that? Could somebody at PAHA or whatever, could
somebody take that list and digitize it? Would that be…
Ms. French: We have these precious boxes with originals and photos and such that have always been in
the historic planner’s office. We no longer have a historic planner’s office. We’re tight on space but the
boxes still exist.
Chair Bernstein: Well, there are…
Council Member Holman: Maybe as Chair, you could reach out to PAHA or Palo Alto Stanford Heritage
and see if there’s a volunteer that might be willing to digitize that and take it off Staff’s…
Chair Bernstein: I know there are two Members of the Board who are Members of PAHA and pasted so
perhaps those Board Members can contact their representative groups and see if there’s interest in
pursuing that.
Ms. French: It would be very timely, I should say. Just to wrap that – my part of this is because we are
going to be remodeling the 5th floor in May. I mean, I have this on my what to do, what to do long list so
help is definitely – yeah.
Vice Chair Bower: If we can find volunteers – let me just follow up on this, would this work be done on
the 5th floor?
Ms. French: Yes.
Vice Chair Bower: You just get somebody to arrange with you a time and just sit down and start scanning
this stuff?
Ms. French: Yes, we have a copier that’s temperament but we’re working on that too – it would be called
the round table in my office.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Now, are we referring to the Dames and Moore files?
Ms. French: There would be a number of places and some of these are scanned – we can talk further
about it but yeah, I think so of those…
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Board Member Bunnenberg: The Dames and Moore files for priority one are in the archives of the City of
Palo Alto Case 7 Cubberley. We have some of the priority 2s but my understanding was that a number of
the priority 2s are somewhere here in the building so it would be really important to locate where those
are.
Ms. French: I think that would be another layer as well, the priorities 2, which are not technically
designated resources. We probably should have a further conversation about how this would be
explained as well.
Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Yeah, it just occurred to me that one other benefit of doing this – going
through this exercise is that the City isn’t tracking what properties are being demolished so I don’t think
we know how many of the Category 1s have been demolished or how many of the Category 2s. I
mentioned last time I think about how we had so many wonderful tutor examples that many weren’t put
on the list or potential list because of the proliferation of them but we lost so many, is that going to
change? It would be the second phase of this but it would be an exercise I think – maybe a CLG
requirement, I don’t know. It would certainly be informative.
Chair Bernstein: Yes?
Board Member Corey: Do we actually have – because I think the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, I think they
actually track a lot of that as a separate independent body. I wonder if we could actually leverage some
of that for our archives because they seem to be pretty up to date on their website on anything that gets
demolished or changed. It might be a good resource to use.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that. Any other comments on this? Ok, moving throughout agenda. We
talked about our discussion items.
Action Items
Chair Bernstein: Action items, none.
Study Session
Chair Bernstein: Study session, there is none.
Approval of Minutes
3.
Chair Bernstein: Approval of minutes, none.
Subcommittee Items
Chair Bernstein: Subcommittee items, we already discussed those.
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is Board Member questions, comments, and announcements. Yes,
Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: I was just going to follow up on I think last meeting or the meeting before last,
I mentioned that California Preservation Foundation or CPF conference may well be here in 2018. That’s
looking much more likely. There will be people meeting to set up Committees and there will be a
City of Palo Alto Page 21
stakeholders group formed. I can’t imagine that HRB Members won’t want to participate in that. It’s not
definitive but it looks pretty much like it is going to happen. It would be in the spring, dates need to be
set but I look forward to Board Member participation in that. I think it’s pretty exciting. It hasn’t been
here since what? Well, it goes back so far that it was the reason that Palo Alto Stanford Heritage was
formed. It goes back that long ago so it’s been what, the 90s, something like that since the CPF
conference has been here.
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible) of – is celebrating its 30th anniversary so could it be that long?
Council Member Holman: It is that long ago, then. Yeah.
Vice Chair Bower: Wow.
Council Member Holman: The City has committed – it’s a—there’s exciting things about it besides just the
conference being here and the (inaudible) that will be provided, which a group of people will be –
stakeholders will be helping to determine what the topics are going to be but there are also benefits. The
City is going to co-sponsor by committing $10,000, Stanford has committed $10,000 and there are
training that comes along in exchange for that support. There are training that comes along for City Staff
and it’s a pretty nice reciprocal relationship.
Chair Bernstein: Excellent.
Ms. French: That’s great news. Also, I wanted to – I just brought up to the dais the – a training that’s
offered coming up at the end of March so I wanted to make sure that you guys are aware of that.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that. Yes, Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: Amy, I don’t know if you were on that California Preservation Foundation webinar
yesterday on how to avoid [phonetics][mac-mansionization]. I did. These webinars are an hour and a
half long. You get to sit where ever you can put a computer so you can eat lunch. They happen to be
held between 12-1:30 and it was – this is the second or third one I have participated in. It was an
astoundingly informative hour and a half and a very sad tale of the 10-yeas Los Angeles has spent
preventing the destruction of historic properties from the 20s and 30 – 1920s and 30s in the City and the
terrible things that were done. Buildings – three-story buildings built to the – practically to the property
lines. Garages that use to be in the read pulled to the front, big huge boxy things next to single story
houses and they had really interesting information. The most interesting to me was that when you start
treating down buildings in a neighborhood, everybody thinks oh, wow, my property value goes up but it
turns out that over a 10-year period, they discovered that actual surrounding property values have
declined and that was a big surprise. I’m not sure we could demonstrate that here in Palo Alto but it was
the lack of context and the fact that when these buildings -- these incompatible buildings are then
dropped in the middle of neighborhood, nobody wants to be there anymore and what happens is the
property values drop, the developers move in, more houses are demolished and eventually you just
destroy -- every house goes. I encourage you to – if you have time, to participate in those because they
are really interesting.
Ms. French: Yeah, I went to the façade-ism one that – the month before that – I don’t if anyone else
attended that but that was great. The same thing, lunch hour, perfect, not too expensive. I think it was
$40 for members, yeah.
Chair Bernstein: Any other comments before we move to adjourn? OK, I think that’s it. We are
adjourned. Thank you.
Adjournment