Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-23 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Board Member Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Absent: Vice Chair Bower Chair Bernstein: Welcome everybody to the march 23rd, 2017, meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Will staff please call roll? Oral Communications Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is oral communications. Members of the public may speak to us on any agenda item, not on the agenda. I have one card from David Carnahan. Welcome. Mr. David Carnahan, City’s Clerk’s Office: Good morning Chair Bernstein and Board Members. I’m David Carnahan from the City’s Clerk’s Office and I’m here to talk to you about Board and Commission recruitment. The City is currently looking for applicants for the Human Relations Commission, the Library Advisory Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission. Applications are due on April 4th at 4:30 PM. The reason I am here to speak with you is to encourage each of you to reach out to at least two members of the public for one of these Boards and to encourage them to apply. You have much deeper roots in the Community and know a lot more folks and are able to help guide them towards these opportunities. Again, we’re looking to fill or application for 2 terms on the Human Relations Commission, 3 on the Library Advisory Commission, 4 on the Public Arts Commission and 2 on the Utilities Advisory Commission. Applications are the City’s website, CityofPaloAlto.org/Clerk and I’ll give you each a flyer to take home as a reminder that you are going to reach out to some community members to apply. Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler has a question. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, do they make as much money as we do? Mr. Carnahan: They are all paid 6 times what you make. Board Member Kohler: Oh, ok. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Bernstein: Thanks. Next on our agenda is ‘Agenda changes, additions, and deletions.’ Are there any? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: March 23, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Bernstein: Seeing none. City Official Reports 1. City Official Reports Chair Bernstein: City official reports. Ms. French: Yes, just to note that you have a list of the meeting dates in your packet. One of those is not going to take place; instead of the April 13th meeting listed here, it’s going to be April 6th. It’s a joint meeting with the Architectural Review Board. I have to report that unfortunately – I did send an email about this – those items will not be preceded by a joint discussion about the common areas of interest, in a general way. We are going to look for a retreat date in the future so that we can meet with the ARB and have a robust discussion. Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Can you repeat which meeting is canceled, did you say? Ms. French: April 13th, the first one after today’s date; and we will be meeting on April 27th then. Chair Bernstein: Right, ok, got it. Then the April 6th, that’s 8:30 AM in this room? Ms. French: Correct, in this room. Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you. Study Session 2. Study Session: Presentation and Discussion Regarding Moving of Historic Resources. Chair Bernstein: Next is a study session and the first study session is presentation and discussion regarding moving of historic structures. Will staff have a report for us or are we starting with that item right away? Ms. French: Yes, we’ll start the item right away. I wanted to introduce, though he needs no introduction because he’s been here before you before, Jonathan Rusch with Page and Turnbull. Per your request for such training, we’ve retained him to give us an enlightening training, with some case studies that we are all familiar with to help in the discussion. Thanks, and Jonathan? Chair Bernstein: Welcome Jonathan. Mr. Jonathan Rusch, Page and Turnbull: Thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come this morning and discuss this topic. It’s very interesting, I think that amongst many preservation professionals its sights a certain reaction to the notion of moving historic resources and I think that in most – in a lot of cases for good reason but going through the guidance that exist, there’s not a single viewpoint on this topic so it’s kind of interesting to go through and really pick out the nuances of the issues that come into play when moving historic resources is proposed. The plan is to – I’m going to provide some background information, go through the guidance that exists from the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. I will go through three examples just briefly of case studies in Palo Alto. I imagine that they are – at least two them will be ones that many of you are familiar with and may want to discuss more in depth. After my presentation, I’ll open up the floor for conversation and I’m happy to contribute to that as well -- potentially about those case studies that I just mentioned briefly. I’m going to (inaudible) my notes just so that I don’t miss any important information that I intend to share. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Bernstein: We’ll be looking at our screens so we are not ignoring – looking at you as you speak. Mr. Rusch: I want to start by mentioned that for much of the early historic preservation movement, up until the 1960’s and 70’s, moving valued historic buildings was no necessarily greeted with disapproval at all. In fact, it was relatively common preservation “strategies”. In some cases, buildings might be moved great distances from where they were originally constructed with the intention of placing them a long side other moved structures. Open air museums provided the opportunity to create clusters of buildings that originally had no historical relationship to one another. They were taken out of their original contexts and arranged together within a new context so that their histories might be interrupted better or so it was thought. This tradition brought about famous examples like Greenfield Village at the Henry Ford Museum outside of Detroit, where scores of buildings where brought together to form a living history museum taking the form of an imaginary village. The Cloisters in New York, a widely regarded cultural site, now run by the Metropolitan Museum of Art is formed by components of numerous monasteries and chapels that where shipped from Europe in the 1930’s. The last example here is local, the Preservation Park in Oakland near downtown. Here over 10 historic homes where brought together onto a single City block, when those houses where slated for demolition elsewhere. That took place in the 1970’s so it’s relatively recent. Preservation Park now offers a very pleasant pedestrian experience but does not represent a neighborhood that ever truly existed so because I am a historian, I wanted to mention all of that. Now, after the modern historic preservation movement has really gained steam, much more attention has been given to developing a solid framework that would allow us to determine why properties might be considered historic and significant. Over the course of a couple decades, preservation guild lines have evolved considerably. The concept of integrity with which you are all surely familiar, came to be associated with the seven aspects shown on the screen here. Integrity is defined as a property that has the ability to convey the reason for which it has been found to be significant. The seven aspects of integrity include two that are most closely connected to the topic that we were discussing today. First of all, location of course and the second is setting. Advance location is the physical sight where the property was constructed or where a significant historic event took place. For most buildings, integrity of location is retained if it remains in the place where it was first built. Location is considered important because it conveys information on the development of a property. It’s hard to imagine any building or landscape that was introduced without a thought about where the most appropriate place for it would be. A properties original location helps us to think about the question of all places, why here? It’s also important to mention that because location is one of the aspects of integrity, any project that involves moving a historic property would have the effect of diminishing it’s over all integrity. Perhaps not the point of illuminating its integrity all together, depending on other circumstances but integrity will always be effected. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. It’s made up of the features and qualities that immediately surround the resource. An intact setting would allow a property to express its historic significances through its contextual relationships with its surroundings. For a residential property, the setting could include yards, gardens, and a surrounding streetscape of other similar homes. For a far different type of property like a historic airplane hangar, the setting may be comprised of a network of runways, taxi ways, parking aprons, and other features that directly supported its historic aviation related use. It is very possible for a property to retain its original location but to have lost its integrity of setting. It is also possible, although far less common, for a property to retain its integrity setting even if it has been moved from its historic location. We can talk about that possibility later. With those in mind, I just want to explain these two aspects of integrity as related to two different examples in Palo Alto. The first of the these is the Palo Alto Station. It’s located near downtown Palo Alto beside the rail road tracks is a crucial part of its past and is directly related to its functional roll within the development of the City. The tracks are also important components of the building’s setting and they assist the building in conveying its original and continued use. The location of the Hewlett Packard garage at 3367 Addison Avenue, also tells us a great deal about the story of this small building. It’s placement at the rear of the lot is typically of garages in its neighborhood and fits the overall development pattern there but it also emphasizes the unlikely innovation that sprang from this modest and relatively everyday building situated in an easily overlooked location. The setting of the building is it’s surround driveway yard and main residence, which all help to tell the story of this building. If the building where moved even within its own lot, it’s connection to its past significant would surely be diminished. Now we can City of Palo Alto Page 4 take a look at how existing guidance considers the relocation of historic properties. The National Register of Historic Places is fairly unambiguous when it comes to this topic. If I were to go out and document a property and evaluate it for historic significances, in most cases it would no longer be eligible for listing if it had been moved following its period of significant. It can be argued then, that if a property is already listed on the National Register of Historic Places is relocated, then the relocate can potentially be grounds for delisting the property. In some instances, however, a property may meet Criteria and Consideration B. Criteria and Consideration B states that a moved property that’s primarily significant for its architecture or is the last remaining property that is closely associated with a significant person or event, would still be eligible for listing. There are several caveats to this. The one that I want to call out here is the one that’s underlined. There are – this is a list of situations where Criteria and Consideration B does not need to be met for a property that has been moved. The most relevant I think for Palo Alto is the bullet point that states that a district in which only a small percentage of typical buildings in a district are moved. That implies that there might be some flexibility with in a district for having buildings – contributing buildings be relocated without effecting the overall integrity or without compromising the overall integrity of the district. The California Register on the other hand is somewhat more permissive when it comes to relocated buildings. The current guidelines provided by the Office of Historic Preservation specifies that certain conditions that would allow a determination of eligibility to the California Register if a resource has been moved. I’m just going to read this language because I think it’s very important. Therefore, a moved building, structure, or object that is otherwise eligible may be listed in the California Register if it was moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the new locations is compatible with the original character and use of the historic resident – I’m sorry, historic resource. A historical resource should retain its historical features and compatibility in orientation, setting and general environment. Please also note that the OHP is currently revising its guidance on its historic – the California Register so that it’s possible that this exact language will change in the coming months even but we don’t know exactly how they are planning to change it so we will keep you posted. Moving historic residences was a topic that arose during the development of the Professorville Historic District Design Guild lines last year. The guideline that addressed this topic 4.4.2, conveys some of the same information as is in the National Register and California Register. If practical hardship exists as stated here, it may be possible to relocate a residence so long as the project does not alter the buildings orientation in general setting and avoids affecting important landscape features so that’s a topic we can discuss in greater detail later if you like. With all this in mind, chances are good that the HRB will review proposals to move buildings that have been previously identified as historic resources. A plan to move a building may not automatically mean that it is not an acceptable project from a preservation perspective however, each of these projects should be reviewed carefully for conformance to the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation. The standards do not specifically discuss relocating historic property however, some of the standards may still apply to other issues that are brought about during relocation. Standard 1 relates to the use of a building. If a historic resource would be moved to serve a new use, it may not meet Standard 1 if the relocation is found to change more than a minimum – is found to cause more than a minimal change in the defining characteristics of its site and environment. Likewise, Standard 2 would come into play if relocating a resource involves the alterations of an important materials or features particularly within its existing setting. The overall question there is, would relocation preserve the resources overall historic character? Standard 3 may apply if relocation is found to convey a false sense of historical development. One such situation is if a property is rotated on its lot, which clearly obscures its original orientation and expresses a development pattern that did not actually take place. Standard 5 applies when historic materials or evidence of construction techniques may be effected. This standard is related to Standard 2 but this particular standard places greater emphasis on the physical fabric of the resource its self. A project may not be in compliance with Standard 5 if the relocation itself would have a substantial or irreversible impact on the character defining materials such as a porch or entry feature, that could be removed. Depending on the resource, relocation may also require disassembly to comply with Standard 5 and an applicant should present evidence that the resource can be reassembled while retaining significant materials and finishes. At this point, I am going to propose a few different questions – important considerations that should be in mind when reviewing proposals to relocate a historic resource. The first is —oh, that didn’t show up exactly as I’d planned. What is – the question is, what is the reason for the resource’s significance? As I mentioned before, a resource that is significant primarily for its architectural style or value may – there may be an ability to move that – well, I should rephrase. It may City of Palo Alto Page 5 have less of an impact on the integrity of the building than a resource that is eligible for being significant for associations with people or events. That’s because a high style house for instance or a building that has been found eligible for its architecture, would still convey most of those same characteristics of its physical fabric on the exterior if it’s in a new location. However, of course, they – a State residence would still have landscape features that surround it that contextualize its historic significant and those should also be taken into consideration. Is the resource significant individually or it a contributory to a historic district? Again, a building that is individually significant may be more effected by relocation than a district contributor, considering the size of the district. Potentially, if it’s a very small district, even one more relocated building may still have considerable effect on the integrity of the district. Then, a related point actually, have – oh, I’m sorry. Have past changes occurred or are additional changes proposed that have affected or will affect other character defining elements of the property or district? Is a cumulative effect possible? I think this is a really important thing to keep in mind that if there had been other substantial changes to the property in the past and the applicant is proposing to move it, that would – that’s an additional retraction from its integrity. Thinking about the overall accumulative effect of changes that are – that have already happened and are proposed as part of the current project, it should be thought of holistically as leading to an ultimate impact on the integrity of the resource. A couple of question here, will relocation require a building to be disassembled? Involve the removal of character-defining features such as porches or have an impact on important landscape features? I think that I brought these all up earlier but the actual process of relocating a building can be very, very complicated depending on how far it’s going to move, what the path would be, how large the resource is – the building is? It can require a lot of – it’s kind of an individual case what it will really require to accomplish the project. Looking at the individual project, just relocation itself is – I think that the details of a project need to be flushed out so much that HRB can determine what is the real effect on the actual material fabric of this building. Large resources – large buildings might have to be taken apart, which historic house movers are used to doing and if that’s required, that does cause some concern and the question then arises, can it be put together again adequately so that it really doesn’t have a long-term effect on its integrity? My few Palo Alto examples, the first of these it the Hostess House, which I want to bring up as being an example in Palo Alto that was relocated prior to it being designated to being a historic or being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It was designed by Julia Morgan and was originally built as part of Camp Fremont in Menlo Park. Immediately after World War I ended, the building was relocated to its current location and used as a municipal community center, which actually, directly ties into its identified historic significant. The building of course did not undergo historic review at that time but it’s applicable in this discussion because in the 1970’s it was listed on the National Register in spite of its earlier relocation. The reasons for this is that the building is architecturally significant and therefore, still conveys its significant character in its current location and it also gains significant following its move. The fact that it was in one location and did have some important associations but then was relocated and had additional historical associations means that the move was kind of a moot point when it was actually being evaluated in the 1970’s but it the Hostess House would be proposed to be relocated in the future, while unlikely, the fact that it was moved in the past would not automatically mean that it could be moved in the future without an effect on its integrity. 221 Kingsley, I think is an example that most of you are familiar with. In the last few years, the proposal came to rotate this residence on its lot in the Professorville neighborhood. It was originally facing Kingsley and now it faces Romona Street and I don’t know all the details of the administrative history of this project but I do understand that some of the discussion was that if rotated 90 degrees on its corner lot, it was felt that – by some it was felt that on – while facing Romona Street it would somehow improve the development pattern of the neighborhood or it would fit into or join the streetscape on Romona Street better than it currently or that it previously did facing Kingsley. A few points about this is that the change in orientation did bring it into – conform it to the setbacks that are Romona Street but in terms of the actual development pattern of the neighborhood, I think it’s important that this building – in its earlier location facing Kingsley, it kind of conveyed that Professorville developed in a – I don’t want to say hap-hazard but it had different types of – different waves of development with large properties – large lots with grander estates and then smaller properties that are built in between then. Originally this home did convey that development pattern and having it be relocated on its lot, rotated 90 degrees, had the effect of – in my opinion, adding some conjecture to the development pattern of the neighborhood or not being completely accurate about the history of the property. That’s one item – that’s one issue to think about. The surrounding landscape was City of Palo Alto Page 6 also altered, I think considerable because this was relocated in just the axis of the size of the house. It had to take up a lot more space facing along the Romona Street axis. Also, the removal of materials is obviously an issue and I don’t know how exactly this projects was proposed but the relocation of the building has involved quite a – it’s led to a lot of materials being taken off and they will be – understand – brought back in some form. I think there where a lot of issues with this project to think about. Then 433 Melville is another example of residential property in Professorville where it was in the somewhat similar case, it was moved forward on its lot, it wasn’t rotated. Thinking about the California Register Guidance, it retains its original orientation towards the street, which I think is very important here. The landscape features probably less effected although, there was an approached drive in front of this house originally that no longer exists. That’s another thing to consider that this again, was a house in this neighborhood that was – didn’t really – was an outlier in a certain respect that it was on a larger lot but the fact that it was on a larger lot was part of the historic development of the neighborhood. The idea of trying to improve the streetscape from moving it up – the word improve is fairly loaded so it’s still was an effect on the integrity of the property and the district but may have been more successful than the previous example. Those are the – that’s my short presentation and I’m happy to discuss any of these topics further or answer any questions so I’d like to open it up to Board Members. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg, you had a reaction regarding the Hostess House. You had a reaction to the Hostess House when Jonathan was mentioning it. Board Member Bunnenberg: Actually, I had a reaction to all of them but you – I’m not sure that you know or I think you did mention that there was a much more recent proposal wanting to put very large buildings on the side of the Hostess House and move it somewhere, maybe the golf course, maybe the ballpark. I was appalled by those suggestions so I think that sometimes there are things that look like oh, this might be a wonderful thing for the City and historic preservation can get really left behind in the process. Then the other one – the last one that you showed was a sample of one that we did ask about what technique are you using to move this house? Their description was that they were going to take it in sections and then put it back together but the thing that happens was, when you went by the job site, you couldn’t see those sections so we asked, where are they? Oh, they are back by those blue tarps and it turned out that the only thing that they had saved was the upper section of the building and everything else was basically new construction. I thought that was a real travesty. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: Are there any examples where moving a historic structure actually improves the conditions or do we always see the relocation as a deterrent to the historic site? Mr. Rusch: That’s an excellent question. I’m familiar with one example in San Francisco there we have been working with – working on where it is seen – on the balance, I’m not sure it’s seen as acceptable or not but one element of it is that it’s a historic residence in (inaudible) repair building in the southeastern part of the City. It was originally built directly on the shore of the Bay and then in the 60’s, there was a huge campaign of land filling that was right next to it. This building that had a really kind of unusual and interesting connection to the Bay was separated by maybe 1,000-feet from the Bay by this new land form, that directly affects its integrity of the setting. Now, there is a development proposal for that site and the sponsors are proposing to move that building, keeping its same orientation towards the Bay and moving it actually to the new shoreline that is 1,000-feet out. Even though relocation is not, maybe from a preservation perspective, not the first choice. I think in this case, it was seen as more acceptable – well first of all because in the location – if they were to keep it there or it just didn’t – it would be very difficult to keep it in its current location and meet the project goal of this large development. I think that effectively; the development couldn’t happen if that building stayed there so I think that they -- the sponsors argue that it – the building would be demolished otherwise so that’s one thing. In its new location, it effectively – even though it is not in its original location, it does restore to some extend its original setting of location – of – sorry, of setting and its relationship with the Bay and having a direct physical relationship with the Bay. That is something that we have brought up in our arguments. The other thing is that the setting will be affected by vast new construction on the other side of it that didn’t City of Palo Alto Page 7 exist historically. Kind of on the balance of looking at this historic setting, there are good things and bad things. That’s – I think that’s the one example that I’m most familiar with but I think it’s a really good question that there might be some instances where if the current historic setting has or the current setting had eroded so much from its historic setting, maybe – possibly it can be a benefit of the project if it moves it to a place where its historic setting is somehow improved or restored. That wouldn’t, in my mind, grant an automatic pass per say. Chair Bernstein: We also voted to approve moving of the Sea Scouts Building because of the tied, it was destroying the property and if we didn’t move it to a new location, then it would have been destroyed by water. Mr. Rusch: Yeah, that’s a very good consideration, especially I think, given current situations that might be more and more the case. Chair Bernstein: A few months ago, several of our Board members, we attended the training at Preservation Park in Oakland and that’s on your presentation today. My feeling about the – speaking about feelings regarding the integrity - it felt like a museum of old houses. It didn’t feel like a historic district or a historic neighborhood. My analogy is, I see all the musical instruments but where’s the music? That was my sense of – that’s a good example of well, here are all these nice little relics but it felt like a museum of pieces, not a historic district. Mr. Rusch: You sometimes hear ‘architectural petting zoo’, referring to these types of places and I think that they definitely serve their purpose in a certain ideology at a time for what made sense for preserving buildings. I think that the guidance has evolved so much since then that it’s hard to look at that as an (inaudible) that should be copied, for sure. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: I was just going to say that I think the – one reason it is that way is that probably the landscaping of those homes and had a – I think set up a little differently than they would have been originally. I think that contributes to that, however, being able to see a group of homes like that, I thought was pretty neat. I took a lot of photos because it really is history right there. Not exactly the – I’m just – I would rather see them like this than see them gone. I pretty good about the way that worked out. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Yes, one example that comes to my mind is Williamsburg. That appears to be an example where they did not alter the locations of a lot of the properties unless I am wrong about that but they tried to maintain the setting as it originally existed. I think that’s a good example of working in the right direction and taking into consideration the setting aspect. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: I had a question, earlier you had talked about when a property has a significance because of a person or event associated with it. I think you had mentioned that if it was the last property associated with that people or event, can you clarify that? Mr. Rusch: Sure. I think the idea is that something like the – I don’t know if the HP garage is a great example because it’s the only one that ever has existed but let’s say – I know an example of projects that have been related to Japanese Internment Camps from the second World War; where many of those buildings were moved off of the original location of the camp after the war and sold off to farmers and other people who just wanted to have a spare storage building. These former barracks essentially, where moved and used for different purposes on –agricultural purposes in Colorado. The idea – I mean, this was numerous buildings but I had a friend who worked on a project to locate where these buildings had City of Palo Alto Page 8 wounded up after the war essentially. This is 70-years later and I think the idea was that even though – she found that most of these buildings because they were really just built as temporary structures, where demolishes so there are only – there were very, very few of these buildings left dating to this original Internment Camp. Even though they might have been moved hundreds of miles, if there are just a few of them left, the idea would be that they would still potentially be eligible for the National Register just because they are extremely rare examples of this building type that has a very direct relationship, although not in the same location anymore, as this very significant site. I think that’s one example that comes to mind quickly if that makes sense. Chair Bernstein: I… (Crosstalk) Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: … oh yes, go ahead Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: I had a little bit experience with this. There’s the – years ago, we remodeled or added onto the oldest home in Atherton. The way that worked was we – since it was a large property, the contractors – we picked up the building and the house and moved it away. Then built a new basement and everything and then brought the house back and it went right back where it was before. There were some additions in the back which were probably – if you were an expert, you would know that they were an addition but if you were an average person, it would look like part of the old home. I know that’s not supposable a good thing but this was for a private family and they didn’t want it to look distinctive. I think those where relative with new windows and in the front part had the old windows. Then there’s Monica [Rema’s] house down the street here. We added a basement under that. There are two other homes in Barron Park or I mean Professorville where we added – it can be done and it’s without – unless you’re an expert when they’ve added basements and things like that, you would probably not even know that they were added. I don’t know if that’s good or not. Mr. Rusch: Those locations or those examples are both where they were brought back to their original location and placed in pretty much the same exact site. I don’t see that as being as big of an issue as if a building has shifted even on its lot. It might just be the necessary measures that you need to take to add into a new basement in some cases; I’m not sure. It sounds like that’s more an of the measure during construction less than a permanent move. Board Member Kohler: Well, actually in some cases there are some of the older homes like in Professorville, they may not meet the required setback requirements but because you’re adding the basement and not changing the heights. I think you’re pretty much allowed to do that but that is an issue I guess, are zoning and smaller properties. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Yes, I recall at Moffett Field when we were working with the State Historic Preservation Office, there was a gentleman by the name of [Bob Mackinson] who worked for the (inaudible). I don’t know if any of you know him but we were always concerned with the contextuality of a development that was proposed. I still recall one of his famous sayings that – he said if a Veteran came back here, that was at Moffett Field in the 30’s or maybe even the 40’s, would he still recognize the property after your proposed change? That’s kind of the test I go back to many times. Whether it’s appropriate – the contextuality is appropriate for a development or even perhaps moving a property. To consider what would it look like at the time of its period of significances for a person coming back. Chair Bernstein: Thank you, Jonathan, for including in your presentation that Professorville Historic Design District Guidelines 4.4.2. Is that part of our Historic Ordinance now? Ms. French: There’s no change to the ordinance since back in the day, but any changes that could be proposed would have to go through that big process we talked about at the retreat. It is online, it is City of Palo Alto Page 9 something that we look at when homes come through here, in addition to the Secretary of Interior Standards. This is timely that we’re showing this because there may be other homes coming forward. The ones that we looked at today pre-dated the Professorville Guidelines and those were in Professorville. Going forward, we have this very clear paragraph. Chair Bernstein: It’s not in our ordinance though so it’s not like the applicant has to obey this idea. Correct? Ms. French: They have to – again, every time we have a discretionary application, they must obey because it’s got conditions of approval and we can enforce whatever we want, policy-wise, in addition to ordinances. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. Also… (crosstalk) Board Member Kohler: Actually… Chair Bernstein: Let’s see, Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: I have concerns as we go along, there are some provisions that talk about making a property or a structure usable for the modern era. We have more and more requests to move a property so they can put in a pool or tennis courts or things of that kind. I’m wondering how much weight do we put on that kind of need? Mr. Rusch: I would say that from a strong preservation perspective, those aren’t – they do not need so much. I know that… Ms. French: (Inaudible) Mr. Rusch: … yeah, exactly. I mean that’s an excellent – a really excellent question, where I don’t – for instance here, we mentioned practical hardships and it’s – as opposed to the example of – is it the sea Base? Ms. French: Right, sea level rise. Mr. Rush: It’s a different situation for sure. Does that mean that it’s – I don’t know. I guess I’m – I guess I struggle with that too. Where just updating for modern lifestyles – I mean, preservation is about finding a balance between current needs and what we’ve inherited. I mean, somewhere in there, there should be a negotiation process about what the most important needs are and/or desires of the applicant. It’s just easier for me to say that that type of feature should just be minimized as much as possible but that’s kind of – that’s just the conversation that needs to happen. Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower, go ahead. Board Member Wimmer: I was going to mention – we talk about the contextual setting of some of these properties and we look – we might have a photo of a property and its sort of original setting or a setting that might have occurred 20-30-years ago. Then we look at some of these properties now and there’s a perfect example on Forest and I just drove by it this morning. It’s that cute little blue house that we looked at as a Board because – and we reviewed it actually because a developer wanted to build a residential, multi-family residential unit to – if you’re facing the house, to the right of it; which is now under construction. That poor little blue house is now in the shadows of this very modern, tall building. It's contextual setting has changed even though the original house has never been relocated or never moved. I think that’s – I feel like that’s more of a profound concern of mine. It’s almost as if that little blue house had been moved to a downtown urban setting. It’s like because the setting surrounding these properties evolves and changes and developments, the original contextual setting is lost through the virtue of that I think. I think that’s a huge impact that’s what is going on now. There’s even another City of Palo Alto Page 10 example of it on, I think Waverley. You know that? There’s two little cute houses and then boom, there’s this tall big modern glass structure and a lot of people are – I’ve heard from some people in the public coming to me and saying, how can you let that happen? It’s happening. I just feel like – I just wanted to say that the contextual setting is changing regardless of the relocation of these properties on its own site, unfortunately. Chair Bernstein: I’ve had people come up to me also regarding the house on Waverley Street or the new building and say, how can you let that happen? My answer was because zoning allows it. Ms. French: Yeah, I would weigh in – Amy French here. Zoning allows it and the Historic Preservation Ordinance that we have is out – it is what is it. It doesn’t go farther than – I mean, it doesn’t say that projects next to a historic resource have any – that there’s anything that has to be done with respect the Historic Resources Board. Chair Bernstein: That speaks to the weight of our Historic Preservation Ordinance. Rodger Kohler? Board Member Kohler: I don’t know what happen but today I happened to bring my laminates. I don’t know why but I did. Here’s a picture of where we are right now, there’s the old building that uses to the be the City Hall. Then across the street, here’s the building that just got all remodeled. You look down – here’s the main drag, here’s El Palo Alto the tree and there’s nothing around it. I just happened to grab these. Everything on this page is basically all gone; the trees, here’s the under – the circle. It’s just life. Chair Bernstein: I think that speaks to Amy French’s comment that just development happens and zoning allows it. Also, I’m glad that…(crosstalk) Board Member Kohler: Oh, my gosh, wait a minute. Chair Bernstein: Yeah? Board Member Kohler: We just found out that this house here is this gentlemen’s home. It’s not all gone. You look old too, that’s ok. Chair Bernstein: I’m also glad you, Jonathan, brought in the 221 Kingsley Fowler Mansion regarding the rotation of that and yeah, there was quite a bit of discussion by the HRB. I’m curious also about what you included in your presentation about California Register Guidance. It says that the State Historic Resources Commission encourages the retention of historical resources on site and discourages the non-historic grouping (inaudible). However, it is recognized that moving a historic building structure or object is sometimes necessary to prevent its destruction. There is no threat of destruction of that – 221 Kingsley when the project came to us. Then I’m reading what you underlined, therefore, a moved building, structure or object that is otherwise eligible, may be listed – if it was moved to prevent its demolition. It was not moved to prevent – therefore, it’s – I guess the Fowler Mansion could be considered to be losing it’s delisting from California Register based on this interpretation. Mr. Rusch: I also think that it’s important to mention that it’s a contributor to a district so that does change the discussion a little bit. If it were an individual resource, which potentially it was – I don’t know. It could have been eligible potentially, as an individual resource. I think you’re right, as for a change of that magnitude for an individually eligible resource, I think that would be quite a shock to its eligibility. Chair Bernstein: Yeah and it was also my public vote during that agenda item that it’s – the character of the building – by moving it, changed the character of that whole district there. Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: Even if you look at the 442, except for moving it off the site, it violated every single one of those suggestions. Yeah, 221 Kingsley – No, 221 Kingsley. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Bernstein: I think you for that presentation, so is our ordinance going to become stronger by having this information today? Ok, so there’s no change in the ordinance but we thank you for the information. It helps us in our deliberations. Thank you. Yes, go ahead Board Member Kohler? Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to declare – I’d like to say that Bill Turnbull was a -- he should hear what I’m saying here to this gentleman here. Bill Turnbull was a critical person in my history, just to let you know because he was a visiting critic when I was the University of Oregon I think he came up at least 2-years that I was there and then, [Don Lyndon] was the Dean at Oregon when I was there for 2- years. Then, he went to MIT after that. He was a pretty sharp guy because – did you work with him or… Mr. Rusch: Well, I have to say something really disappointing at this point. There are actually two Turnbulls… Board Member Kohler: Oh no. Mr. Rush: …who are architects in San Francisco and there are two firms that have the name Turnbull and it’s – Bill Turnbull was the other one. Board Member Kohler: Oh really, because I mentioned… Mr. Rush: Jay Turnbull is the founder of our firm. It’s a very common mistake. Board Member Kohler: Because I mentioned that one of your employees and they didn’t mention anything to me about that. I’m sorry. Mr. Rush: That’s alright, we do hear it quite a bit. I don’t think we mind catching that luster because Bill Turnbull was very, very important. Board Member Kohler: I’ve actually mentioned that to at least two different employees of your group and they didn’t say anything about it. I’ll keep that in mind, sorry. Mr. Rush: Oh no, it’s no problem. They probably just – we hear it a lot so maybe it was just politeness. Board Member Kohler: Thanks for coming. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Ms. French: Now, we have to let him go because he’s got something else to do. Chair Bernstein: Yes, good, yes. 3. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Discussion Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is a study session number three. It’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) discussion and please - is there any report for us, please? Ms. French: Yes, so you have the information that we transmitted to you. I should say that the staff report says that it’s going – the updated ordinance will be going to the Council on April 10th; that is not true, it’s going on the 11th. Apparently, there was a move in dates and so you have – last time we spoke, you didn’t have anything in front of you. I think Elena Lee talked to you about what was going on and there was access via a link to the staff report that went to Council. Now, what we have is just bullets in this report and it talks about what the State legislation, that became effective in January of this year, allows and encourages. Then, you also have the Council proposed changes and clarifications, and so this is what happened on March 7th. This is on page 3 of your staff report. The key section that the HRB may City of Palo Alto Page 12 wish to understand/review is on page 3 or packet page 9 and it’s number 1 on that page, a full paragraph that says this, “the language was added to address potential impacts on historic properties from new detached and attached ADUs,” in quotes there. The legal language is this, “for properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places or considered a historic resource after completion of a historic resource evaluation. Compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior Standards will be required as determined by the Planning Director.” Now, this does not mean that somebody that comes in for an accessory dwelling unit in Professorville or some other context where there’s a historic resource, this does not mean that it’s going to be coming to the HRB for review. This is going to be a staff level situation because it does not – cannot be contrary to the State’s mandate that we facilitate these and encourage these and expedite these; just to be clear about that. Staff did add this in to acknowledge that we need to look at the Secretary of Interior Standards and it would appear that we are going to require compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Board Member Kohler: Maybe you should clarify what you are talking about, these detached structures, is this the one that the State mandated that you can do any unit in the back of your house, no matter what the zoning ordinance says? Is that what you’re talking about? Ms. French: What I am talking about is the ordinance that’s going back to Council that has some wording regarding when a detached structure or attached structure – they’re called Junior Units, are going through our process. It’s just a building permit but as part of that, we are… Board Member Kohler: But you’re not talking about the one that was last week that was a big deal. This… Ms. French: Yes, I am talking about that. Board Member Kohler: Ok, so there’s – according to that – what I’m hearing about this and I may be wrong but you are allowed to do 150-square foot building in your back yard no matter what the (inaudible) situation is. If you’re maxed out, you can build 150-square foot building. Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible) Board Member Kohler: But – if it isn’t, then maybe we should find out about it because that means anyone can build a 150-square foot building… Chair Bernstein: It’s not 150. Ms. French: Rodger, I think… Board Member Kohler: No, no, no, I have it. I have it and I should have brought it. There’s two of them. There’s 120 but there’s 150 one as well. I think… Ms. French: Can I just – I just want to make sure that we’re not getting too deep in the weeds as far as zoning because I really want this to just be transmitting information to alert you to the fact that we are inserting into this for Council adoption that these accessory dwelling units, that we’re supposed to facilitate, will be looked at for Secretary of Interior Standards compliance and will be required to have compliance. Despite the fact that it’s only a building permit - so this is actually a win because currently when something is in – only requiring a building permit, it’s – these are all encouragements to follow the Secretary of Interior Standards, but people might come in and do something different at the building permit stage. It’s actually great that this is in there. Chair Bernstein: Excuse me Board Member Kohler; the April 11th, is that the first reading of the ordinance? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Ms. French: Well, it’s the second first reading. The first reading happened on March 7th and then the changes were so significant that they are doing another first reading. Chair Bernstein: It’s still considered first reading so there won’t be any adoption of an ordinance on April… Ms. French: They would have the opportunity to say, yes, we approve this ordinance and then it comes back to them on second reading… Chair Bernstein: Oh, I understand, yes. Ms. French: …which is. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Board Member Kohler: Is this ordinance just for Professorville or are you talking… Chair Bernstein: No, it’s for the whole City. Board Member Kohler: The whole City, ok. Chair Bernstein: Great. Board Member Kohler: You’re relating to it because it will impact us in historic buildings? Chair Bernstein: We’re going to… Ms. French: I don’t know if it will impact you because we are not going to bring them to the HRB. What will be impactful is to your knowledge. Your knowledge is that we are looking at these things for Secretary of Interior Standards compliance so if you asked out in the public, “are these coming in and they are just being plopped onto a historic property without review of Secretary of Interior Standards?”, you can say, “oh no, they will be reviewed, just not by us as a Board, but by staff.” I’m going to introduce Chitra, who is responsible for the next staff report, and if you want to ask her for further questions about other things. Chair Bernstein: Welcome and can you pronounce your name again, please? Mrs. Chitra Moitra: Chitra. Chitra Moitra, Planning -- Planner. Chair Bernstein: Chichum? Ms. Moitra: Chitra, C-H-I-T-R-A. Chair Bernstein: I’m sorry. Ms. Moitra: I just want to add something to what Amy said. We are – the City Council is hearing this item on April 11th as a consent item and the Council will decide whether to hear it on that night or may decide to pull it off so based on the Council’s decision, we’ll know more – what happens. Chair Bernstein: During that April 11th meeting, is there a process where an HRB Member can speak to the Council asking that that consent item to be pulled from the agenda as a consent item? Ms. French: It would not be a consent item. Chair Bernstein: Oh, I just heard it was. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. French: If it’s a first reading, I don’t believe that that is on consent, is it? Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: Hi, Mr. Lait, welcome. Mr. Lait: Hello, good evening. Good evening? I attend night meetings so it’s programmed that way. (Crosstalk)(Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: We did have a time change recently, your right. Mr. Lait: I’m Jonathan Lait and I’m the Assistant Director to the Planning and Community Environment Department that we work for. This ordinance did actually have a first reading already before the City Council and they gave us some – I think it was about eight or ten discreet changes to make to the ordinance. The City Attorney has advised that we need to do another first reading of that ordinance but that’s going to be on the consent calendar. To the question that was asked, certainly, any member of the public could approach the Council and ask that any item be taken off the consent calendar. It’s the Council’s discretion to do so. Chair Bernstein: Procedure, can an HRB Member address the Council during that consent discussion – and speak to the ADU Ordinance or does it need to be pulled off consent before a Member of the HRB can speak to the Council at that meeting? Do you know? Mr. Lait: I think during the consent, there is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to items on the consent calendar before the Council makes an action to pull it or not pull it. Chair Bernstein: Can that member of the public be a Member of the HRB? Mr. Lait: Yes. Sorry, yes. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Alright, any other comments from Staff? Ok. Alright. I’m glad you’re here Jonathan. I’ll have a series of questions and comments regarding the proposed ordinance but I’ll see to any other -- Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Just a little clarification. I was reading over this material and I think you touched on it just a minute ago, Amy. The junior accessory unit and it’s JADU, I saw that pop up as a term but it was never defined and I really hate it when I read documents and they don’t give a clear definition on what these terms are. Now, where was that actually defined what a JADU is? Chair Bernstein: That is a – well, you’re just making a rhetorical comment, right? Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I think we should know what it is. Chair Bernstein: Well, it’s a junior accessory dwelling unit, is what it is but – I understand. Ms. French: Yeah so, we believe that the State defines that as a 500-square foot unit, in our staff report packet page 9. There is a local modification to increase the maximum size of an attached ADU to 600- square feet. I don’t know how that relates to the junior accessory. Ms. Moitra: For a detached ADU – I’m sorry, for a junior accessory dwelling unit, the State regulation requires you to have a maximum size of 500-square feet and that is to be included in the building envelope. Like it should be a conversion of an existing room, maybe a bedroom, to a junior accessory unit. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Makinen: Ok, so that’s within an existing structure, then? Ms. Moitra: That’s detached – attached ADU, that’s different. There’s a little bit of confusion here. For attached ADUs the existing size was 450-square feet and the Council at the March 7th discussion has requested Staff to increase that to 600-square feet so an addition of 150-sqaure feet. Chair Bernstein: Right. If we add the – if that gets approved, the 600-square feet, if that puts the total FAR of the property over the allowable that’s ok by this proposed ordinance? Ms. Moitra: It should be within the existing FAR. Chair Bernstein: Ok, so then 600 is not a right then? Ms. French: It would be a building permit… Chair Bernstein: But if that exceeds the FAR… Ms. French: but wouldn’t exceed the FAR to get a building permit only. Mr. Lait: Thank you. Jonathan Lait again. The – to answer the first question, a junior accessory dwelling unit is a defining term in the ordinance. In the draft ordinance that went to Council, it’s defined as a unit that – as Chitra has mentioned - it means that a unit that is no more than 500-square feet in size and contained entirely within the existing single family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure. That is a defining term. With respect to the floor area question, the – all accessory dwelling units do need to meet the City’s floor area requirements and the City Council gave – in a couple instances, did exempt – I think it was 50 additional square feet for one type of accessory unit and like another 150-square foot for floor area, where they added that to the base standards. The codes being changed to accommodate a little bit more floor area. Chair Bernstein: Do that mean that the FAR – let’s see. If the 600-sqare feet, if that exceeds the FAR on the property, that’s – you cannot do the 600-sqare feet, is that correct? Mr. Lait: Is the question, can the accessory dwelling unit exceed 600-feet or the 600-feet in combined with the primary residence exceeded what the code has established as the maximum buildable floor area? Chair Bernstein: It says, increases the – oh I see. (Inaudible) it says, the maximum size is 600-square feet but you still have to comply to the FAR so you meet… Mr. Lait: That’s correct. Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. Thank you. Yes, Board Member…(crosstalk) Board Member Bunnenberg: I have a question… Chair Bernstein: …Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: … along that line. What are the setback requirements or are there setback requirements? Ms. Moitra: Yes, there are setback requirements for new accessory dwelling units. Council’s recommendation on March 6th was no more than 6-feet required side and rear setbacks for ADUs but for converted – existing garage conversion to an ADU, there is no setback requirement and that’s for a single story. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Bernstein: Right, good. Board Member Wimmer: But it still has to comply with the daylight plane if it’s detached. Ms. Moitra: Yes. Chair Bernstein: Unless (inaudible) – unless it’s an existing, non-conforming situation, right. Thank you. Board – Beth, your lights still on, do you have a question? Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Nothing at the present time, Chair. Chair Bernstein: I just saw your light on. Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: Is there still an assessment that is going to be charged for the secondary dwelling units? I believe there were two assessments and there was a $18,000 one-time assessment for an ADU that was less than a certain square footage. Then a higher assessment charge if the ADU was a higher square footage, is that still in the plan, an impact fee. Ms. French: When we’re saying assessment, we are talking – yeah, development impact fee. Board Member Wimmer: Development impact fee. It’s a one-time fee, is that still being planned? Ms. Moitra: I’m not sure on that but I will get back to you on that. As far as I know, it will be charged but there would be no requirement for new utility hookups or any other kind of utility hookups and fire sprinklers, if the main dwelling unit does not have it for attached. Board Member Wimmer: If the main dwelling unit does not have fire sprinklers, then the ADU is not required to…(crosstalk) Ms. Moitra: Not required to have (inaudible). Board Member Wimmer: …have fire sprinklers because that’s how -- Los Altos has the same rule. However, I do this in different Cities, I have several ADU projects and Palo Alto is the only one that is proposing an impact fee. I just thought that was interesting. Chair Bernstein: Where does – is the fee listed? Is it published somewhere? Ms. Moitra: Yes, the impact fees are published. Chair Bernstein: Huh? What? Ms. Moitra: The impact fees are published. Chair Bernstein: I’d like to learn that. For an applicant to apply for an AD Unit, there’s a $18,000 fee? Ms. French: That’s – ok – that is – it sounds like you’re talking about a permit fee, that’s not a permit fee. Development impact fees are assessed at the time of building permit to be paid to cover any new dwelling unit… Chair Bernstein: Oh, I see. Ms. French: … which an accessory dwelling unit is, to pay into the parks, libraries, and community facilities fees. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Bernstein: Ok, so that’s nothing new then? Ms. French: Nothing new, yes. Whether – it sounds like this ordinance is not addressing that. In other words, not changing that fact in Palo Alto. Ms. Moitra: Yes. Board Member Wimmer: On top of that, would you still need to pay school impact fees? Chair Bernstein: Great question. Ms. Moitra: There’s no change. There’s no change to that. You have… Board Member Wimmer: That means because – I think if you’re adding more than 500-square feet, you have to pay school impact fees, right? I think that’s the trigger point, 500-square feet? Mr. Lait: Yeah, I’m sorry Board Member. I don’t know that we know all the different fees that are assigned to the different projects right now but this ordinance that’s going to Council does not change any fee structure that we have presently. If there is a concern about the existing fee system that we apply to these units, then I think that’s an appropriate conversation or a comment that we could understand. We can also take a look at that when our fee study goes to the Council, I think it’s in June this year. If there’s an additional fee – if there is somehow a fee that is discouraging this, we can take a look at that and identify that. We’ll take that comment and try to explore the different fees that would apply to any accessory dwelling unit, whether it’s an existing or a conversion to a JADU and see what that looks like and how that might need to change if at all. Chair Bernstein: Go ahead, Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: I guess I’m – I read a pretty long article about all this and it sounds like Palo Alto’s – is incorporating as part of their ordinance of what to do because what I read about this was that there weren’t going to be any zoning rules other than square feet. That’s good to hear that Palo Alto will still have a daylight plane because the article I read was kind of scary. You could – there were no rules, you had this 150 or whatever the number square feet and you could build it and it was not required to go through any other rules. I’m mean, I ‘m glad you’re – what you’re saying is what will be here in Palo Alto because I think that’s going to be a much more reasonable approach to this situation. The one I read was floor area wasn’t (inaudible), if you wanted to add this square foot, you could do it. That’s probably in general but I’m glad to hear Palo Alto has this limit. I think that’s good. Ms. French: One thing I would call the attention to when we talk about existing zoning standards and what this is talking about. Currently, you can’t have a living area within the rear setback. You can have a garage but it can’t be used for living. What this says is that there will be no greater setback than 6-feet at the side and rear yards. Now, with this ordinance, you will be able to have a living unit six feet from the rear property line, and that’s a change. Board Member Kohler: That’s a pretty big change. Chair Bernstein: My understanding of the proposal, there are three types of accessory dwelling units. There’s detached, there’s attached and then a junior, correct? There are three kinds? Ms. Moitra: Correct. Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you for that. What I understand, the detached maximum proposed is 900- sqare feet? Ms. Moitra: Yes, correct. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Ms. French: That is no change from the existing. Chair Bernstein: Right. Then the attached ADU is 450. There might be – correct? 450 is the current proposal? Ms. Moitra: Existing is 450 and Council proposed attached to be 600. Chair Bernstein: Up to 600 and then the junior ADU is – State is – is 500-square feet? Ms. Moitra: 500-sqare feet. Chair Bernstein: I’m going to repeat it so that I get this right. Detached - 900-square feet, attached is proposed 600-square feet and then junior ADU is 500-square feet. Thank you. Board Member Brandon Corey? Board Member Corey: One clarification, is the only difference between an attached and junior the max square footage or is there something – I did hear the junior must be attached by I’m still not 100% clear. Ms. Moitra: Yes, a junior is when you carve out the existing 500-sqare feet from an existing bedroom or a spare living space that you have. Board Member Corey: Isn’t that also an attached – the attached? How is that different? Ms. Moitra: Attached can be added. Chair Bernstein: An attached would be an addition – house addition basically. Ms. Moitra: A house addition, it can be added but the junior is something from the existing. Board Member Corey: From the existing so you can’t add to create a junior? Ms. Moitra: No, you cannot add a junior. Board Member Corey: Add a junior so that’s the difference. It’s just whether or not it’s existing or not, ok. Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you. Board Member Corey: Can you create – if you have existing, can you make that an attached or that would just automatically become a junior based on that? Ms. Moitra: Right. Board Member Corey: Interesting. Board Member Wimmer: Can I have – ask a follow-up question. Mr. Lait: Hold on, I think there are a couple of things here. The other distinction is the junior accessory structure can rely on the sanitation facilities within the primary residences. Whereas, an attached accessory dwelling unit needs to provide full, independent living on its own. Merely taking an existing one and attaching it to that house, doesn’t make it a JADU. It’s the conversion of an existing bedroom and meeting these other things within the existing structure. We have a primary residence and an adjacent detached structure and you wanted to merge those together somehow, there may be a way to do that in the code but that doesn’t make it a JADU, it may make it an attached accessory dwelling unit. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Corey: Then if you removed the separate sewage system, wouldn’t it them become a junior? Is that the only difference then? Mr. Lait: I think the – the purpose of the junior accessory dwelling unit is to create a lower threshold opportunity to – for a unit in the home. It’s sort of a lower bar to do an accessory dwelling unit. You don’t have to meet the same standards as you – not all the same standards that you do for the accessory dwelling unit. Right. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: Somehow, I always pictured the attached dwelling unit on the back. Is there any provision against you taking in a large front porch that – this was done a lot in Professorville before we had – or adding a thing to the changing the front façade? Is that allowed? Mr. Lait: If you're – and if you interest specifically in Professorville, in general? Ok. To the extent that the code would allow – to the extent that the development standards that are in place today, would allow for that kind of a conversion. That would be reviewed and it could be approved. In Professorville or for any historic resource, there is a requirement that it be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, which Staff will review with a consultant to ensure that it doesn’t detract from the character defining features. Board Member Bunnenberg: There are a lot of houses that are just out of Professorville but have similar kinds of construction and I could view a lot of front porches being taken in. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I have a copy of the draft ordinance and I just highlighted a couple questions to help my understanding of it. The first one is, this is – I’ll give you the page number or the chapter number so it’s 18.42.040A8(VI). Let’s see, it’s page number 15 or its was the Council’s packet page 450. It’s page 15 of the ordinance. Do you have that Jonathan? Ok, thanks. It’s the paragraph where it says, under VI, it says that there shall be no windows, doors, mechanical equipment or venting exhaust system located within 6-feet of a property line. The California Fire Code that the City of Palo Alto Council adopted allows those opening to be 5-feet from the property line. My suggestion for Council review would be that changed from 6-feet to 5-feet so it’s consistent with the fire – California State Fire Code that the City of Palo Alto adopted or are they having that different? Mr. Lait: Thank you for that comment and I will say that the Council did give us direction to remove the design review and other similar requirements. I think that might be a provision that is slated to be removed. Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Also, on that same page, I’ll give you the location, 18.42.040(A8) (IV) and that’s also on page 15. Let me – let’s see – let me look for it here. IV — here it is right there. It says – I’ll read it, it says “Design the detached accessory structure so that’s a separate building, shall be similar to the main residence with respect to style, roof pitch, color, and materials.” The Secretary of Interior Standards require compatibility and differentiation. If that’s the only statement that an applicant reads, that it must be similar. There’s a chance that it could be a replication of a style and it could be considered to be leading toward false historicism if it’s – if there is a tutor style main house and then the new dwelling unit looks exactly the same amount of details. It might look like it’s a historic structure and that’s conflicting with SISR. Mr. Lait: Right and… Chair Bernstein: So, there should be a – somehow if the ordinance can somehow address SISR. Mr. Lait: That provision is going to be struck in the new ordinance that’s going to the Council on April 11th as that is a design standard that will be modified. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you for that. Next page, it’s 18 – let’s see, it would be page 17 and it’s 18.42.040(B2VI) and VII. Let me find those here. The code says – I’ll read it, a junior accessory dwelling unit must be created within the existing walls and the existing primary dwelling – and must include conversion of an existing bedroom. It should just be – why does it specify that it must be – include a bedroom? For example, if you look at an Eichler, there may be no bedrooms in the back, all the bedrooms are in the front. If you must attach it to a bedroom, that puts that ADU in the front. It should – a bedroom to me becomes too much of a prescription of where that ADU has to – I think this should not have a prescribed room. Mr. Lait: That just comes from – straight from State law. That’s how the State drafted it. Chair Bernstein: If we look at the Eichlers where the bedrooms are in the front and none in the back, that puts the ADU in the front, if you follow that prescription. That’s what that means. Mr. Lait: Yeah and I don’t – is there something inherently wrong with that? Chair Bernstein: Let’s see, from a – we have some National Historic Districts of Eichlers, I guess that may end up with ADUs in the front. Mr. Lait: The building doesn’t change. Chair Bernstein: Ok, that’s true. That’s a true statement but you need a separate entrance. Ok. Ms. French: Obviously, they can still do a 600-sqaure foot attached ADU at the back but – they build it new and you won’t see it. That might be the choice of many people. Chair Bernstein: The explanation was that’s verbally from State law so that’s by that word is there. Alright, then Chein, you said? Ms. Moitra: Chitra. Chair Bernstein: Chitra also mentioned that there are some revisions on the square footages so that’s just a technicality. Thank you for that. On 18.42.040b2VIIB, for the kitchen requirements for the junior accessory, you’re limited for cooking only an electric range. Do you know why a gas range would not be allowed? Mr. Lait: Again, this is State law. It’s explicitly spelled out (inaudible) State provision. Chair Bernstein: Could be some energy concerns there or environmental concerns. Ok, well that explains that. On 18.42.040b2(XI), it talks about deed restrictions and it says do not permit short term rentals. Short terms should be defined so that a building owner understands what a short-term definition is. Is it one week or one year or 30 days or whatever. That should be specified unless that’s just verbatim from State law. Mr. Lait: Right, I think the – elsewhere in the code we talk about a minimum rental of – yeah, short term rentals. It’s up above on page 17. Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Mr. Lait: It’s short term rentals, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for periods of less than 30 days. Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Thanks. Next is on – there’s a map of accessory dwelling unit parking exemption areas and I’ll just hold that up for the camera. There’s a diagram that talks about the shuttle stops and if I look on the map in Professorville, I think there’s a Palo Alto bus stop on Embarcadero that’s City of Palo Alto Page 21 outside that circle. As I understand, there are exception that if you’re near public transportation but Palo Alto shuttle bus stop -- I think that’s a listed public transportation thing. Mr. Lait: The code also defines what public transit is and I’m not sure the local shuttle meets the standard. Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok. Mr. Lait: Nevertheless, the City Council has waived or at least proposed – announced its intent to waive any parking requirement for any ADUs and so the whole radius around train stations or bus lines is relevant. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Thanks for that. Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: I also wanted to mention that there’s also the second impact of some these secondary dwelling units, for instance, the attached secondary dwelling units. I know today that we are just talking about planning issues but then once an applicant actually applies for one of these things, then there’s a layer of building codes and things like that, that are then realized. One of those codes is that if the secondary dwelling unit is attached, you have to create a firewall between the main dwelling and the secondary dwelling, which is a special – a specified wall system that goes from the foundation up to the roof. An attached secondary dwelling has to have its own HVAC system because you can’t penetrate through this wall unless you have fire dampers, which is a very expensive HVAC ducting system. The secondary dwellings have to have their own exclusive HVAC system. That’s something that I’m again, realizing with the experience that I’m doing on these projects in other Cities. I just think it’s something to be aware of – the constructability that what the building department will require. It can be very involved and complicated, especially, if you’re altering – like with a junior accessory dwelling, where you’re taking existing square footage, you are going to have to alter the structure to really realize that and make that happen. Sometimes these – when we talk about it in planning, it seems doable but then that – you also have to focus on what is required by the code. I’m just putting that out there. Mr. Lait: (Crosstalk) If I can… Chair Bernstein: Board Member… Mr. Lait: … take a moment to respond to that. The – you’re correct, the accessory dwelling unit – an attached accessory dwelling unit would need to meet the required life safety provisions to be established. However, for the junior accessory dwelling units, there’s a provision that says, for the purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation or for the purpose of providing service for water, sewer or power, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new unit. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey, you had a… Board Member Corey: I have to excuse myself to leave. Thank you. Sorry. Chair Bernstein: Thank you for your attendances so far. Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I have going to… Chair Bernstein: You need your mic on. Board Member Kohler: I have a scheduled meeting. I need to run too, thank you. Chair Bernstein: Ok, 1, 2, 3, 4. We still have a quorum present, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for your – ok. Thank you, I just have some other comments regarding the proposed ordinance and I also see City of Palo Alto Page 22 Jonathan, that you and staff and Council are doing a good job of trying to fine tune this. Go through all the historic issues – I’m sorry, what? Board Member Wimmer: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: I do have some concerns that I would like to express and I have some notes that I would just like to read. I’m just going to read my notes here so I don’t miss anything. I’m concerned about the design of proposed new construction on properties with listed historic resources. How will they be designed to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards of Rehabilitation? The City of Palo Alto is a Certified Local Government (CLG). The Historic Resources Board is the agency that meets this certification requirement to be a CLG and then you can see the 5 requirements. I put that At Places, I put that at the public desk and I gave it to the members of Staff also and that’s being distributed to Staff right now. Those are the five requirements to – for a CLG such as the City of Palo Alto and the Historic Resources Board is the agency that meets that certification requirement. My next note is failing to meet these requirements puts the City of Palo Alto at risk of becoming de-certified as a CLG and on my next page, the Staff and public and HRB Members can see the de-certification process. To remain a CLG, the CLG must enforce the local Preservation Ordinance. This means that new construction on properties with listed historic resources must be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards of Rehabilitation. As a CLG, HRB Members require annual State mandated training for applying the standards for historic review. The Secretary of Interior Standards are not prescriptive standards, they are subject to scholarly interpretation based on the required annual training that HRB Members need to receive. The newly enacted State legislation permitting ADUs and JADUs, require ministerial review of ADUs. If all reviews of ADU and JADU applications involving historic structures are restricted to Staff review, how will the CLG requirement be met without input from the certified CLG agency of the HRB? This is today’s challenge. The answer that challenge is that CLG allows the City of Palo Alto to enact appropriate local historic preservation to meet the requirements of CLG. So, suggestions for local legislation to allow HRB input into the ADU/JADU review processing include a no fee study session with the full HRB, a no-fee study session with an HRB subcommittee, a full HRB public hearing or HRB participation in some manner. To my point, my concluding comment is that local ordinances are in response to our cultural values. The City values historic preservation as evidence by our Historic Preservation Ordinance. Our ordinance requires new construction involving historic resources to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. HRB Members receive the required State mandated training for reviewing applications for new construction. It is appropriate that the HRB in some manner review proposed new construction involving historic resources. I look forward to continuing with Council and Staff to ensure the cultural values of historic preservation continue to strengthen. I look forward to any other comments from HRB Members of the importance of the HRB involvement during this review of any changes or new construction on historic properties or any other comments from Staff too. Ms. French: I would just comment, for sure JADUs which are contained in existing structures, that statement would not relate to that, (inaudible) speaking to just additions. Chair Bernstein: I agree, ok. With an attached ADU, that is a new addition to – if a project that’s listed on a historic (inaudible), that’s a new addition to a historic structure, correct? An attached ADU? Ms. French: That’s my understanding. Chair Bernstein: Then no HRB review of an attachment – let’s say you have a Category – say the Squire House, for example. If an owner wants, and if it meets all the requirements for FAR, for example. If you can do a non-compatible addition to the Squire House, correct? This State law would allow that? Ms. French: The Staff would be entrusted – delegated really in this situation to ensure Secretary of Interior Standards compliance. That’s how it’s currently going to the Council. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Bernstein: Does a CLG certification allow a non-HRB member to address the Secretary of Interior Standard Compliance or consistency because the CLG specifically says that the HRB is the agency for that. Ms. French: Yes, well… Chair Bernstein: If the HRB is not involved how does that meet the CLG requirement? (Crosstalk) Ms. French: I believe that we have instances and – where Staff on minor – the code does allow – the Preservation Code 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code does allow Staff to act on behalf of the HRB for minor modifications and that has occurred over the years with qualified staff and consultants that assist staff as is the current situation. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Alright. It sounds like then that there’s going to be some kind of good monitoring of any proposed additions to historic structures. Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: It does seem to me that I would support your position. Chair Bernstein: I think that wasn’t recorded. Can you repeat the comment? Board Member Bunnenberg: It does seem to me that I would support your point that it needed to be a subcommittee or someone from the HRB involved. Chair Bernstein: Go ahead, Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: Just to clarify what you’re asking. If there a historic category house and they’re proposing to create a secondary dwelling – if it’s attached and they are altering and doing an addition to the house, then yes, that would come to the Board I would guess because that would just go through – just because it’s an accessory dwelling unit, that doesn’t dismiss it from having to be reviewed. I guess if it’s detached, that’s the wild card. If it’s a detached structure in their yard, does that trigger an HRB review? Is that what you’re – is that kind of summarizing? I’m trying to understand better – I think that’s what you are asking. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, if it’s a new – if it’s a house addition to a historic structure and it’s a list historic structure… Board Member Wimmer: It would come to the Board. Chair Bernstein: …does it come to the Board even if it’s an ADU application? Board Member Wimmer: That shouldn’t dismiss it. I don’t know. Ms. French: It would seem that the ordinance is saying that it would no longer come to the Board if it’s specifically an accessory dwelling unit but I’ll let Jon correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Lait: We have consulted with the City’s Attorney’s office about this issue because we know it’s important to the HRB to – I mean, you’re interested in protecting these wonderful historic resources that we have in the community. Understandably, if somebody is building a new 600 or 900-square foot accessory structure, you want to make sure that it’s not detracting from the character of what’s going on or impacting the key character-defining features of a residence. However, our attorney’s office has informed us that they believe that a review process such as coming to the HRB for the accessory dwelling unit would be inconsistent with the intent of the State legislation and that’s why the Council has added the provision, which I think is in the Staff report, requiring the review of any accessory dwelling unit that’s on the City’s historic resources inventory to have this assessment that’s being done. If it’s a minor thing and we have a staff member available to assist us with this -- we now have the one vacant position City of Palo Alto Page 24 and because of that, we have a consultant that is helping us. Page and Turnbull are helping us with some reviews and that’s how we would continue to do that. That review would ensure – there would be two reviews. One, there would be the consultant review and then there would be the staff sort of review of that work too – that works with this Board and has been working with these issues. That’s how we feel like that we are going to ensure consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards. I was looking at the five requirements for CLG Certification and I don’t think anything in the process that we’ve laid out here would be in conflict with that. The CLG is granted to the local government. It’s the City of Palo Alto that is a CLG City and the five basic perimeter’s talk about enforcing State and local regulations for designated resources and our attorney’s office has (inaudible) that State law for the ADUs is moving those to a ministerial process, as efficiently as possible is the State’s concern, and having a review process where it comes to the HRB would be in conflict with that. I don’t think we’re, as a City, running into a legal challenge but I do understand the interest of wanting to be engaged in that discussion. That’s one of the things we are trying to understand and balance more. Chair Bernstein: If an applicant proposes a non-compatible addition to a historic structure and if the staff says no, isn’t that discretionary? Mr. Lait: No, we would treat that as an objective development standard in terms of its compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ideally, though, we’re working with – we do this all the time, where we are working with applicants to identify those concerns up front and have them design a structure that is in compliance. However, if it is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, we will not issue a building permit for the construction of that accessory dwelling unit. Chair Bernstein: Standard 9, it’s not a checklist of yes or no like – so I take some judgment. Mr. Lait: It does. Chair Bernstein: Isn’t that discretionary if there’s judgment involved because ministerial says that it meets the seismic code or not. That’s yes or no, that’s just mathematics. Mr. Lait: There is a certain amount of – even in an applying objective – so there are the clear objective standards where you can’t go above 30-feet in height… Chair Bernstein: Correct. Mr. Lait: …or whatever that is and zoning codes from time to time have objective standards that blur the line a little bit and this ordinance included some other standards such as design compatibility. You read a couple under the record which are also subjective but the balance is – one of the questions that we asked the Council is are these descriptive enough to give enough guidance to somebody for – to do this without it being too subjective in its review and therefore ministerial? If we have a question -- I would say to go to your scenario that you described. If we’ve done a review and we’ve concluded no, it’s not consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, we’d probably give the applicant an opportunity for us to get another third-party consultant if they wanted to challenge that because we understand that there can be different points of views. In the end, we’re going to look for where the evidence leaning toward and make a decision based on that. Chair Bernstein: Can that third party review be the HRB? Mr. Lait: I don’t know. I think we would have to figure that out. Chair Bernstein: Well, you’ve got the seven people who pretty well understand what’s going on in Palo Alto regarding historic properties. Mr. Lait: Yeah, no, I listen, I understand (inaudible)(crosstalk) City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Bernstein: That’s why we were appointed. Mr. Lait: … I’m not – I’m trying to give you – I’m trying to be responsive to your question but then also be mindful of the direction that we’ve received from the City’s Attorney’s Office but I think you can be an opportunity – probably at this point because we are going April 11th and I don’t think you’re having another meeting before then. It could be worthwhile for individual Board Members to write letters to the Council expressing your point of view of certainly come up to the – show up to the meeting. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, great. Ok. Ms. French: Can I also say one thing? You had – in your discussion, you had mentioned study sessions. Of course, we can encourage anybody, including those that are looking to do accessory dwelling units to come as a study session at the earliest opportunity. Whether we catch those people or not at that earlier stage is a question but it’s not a requirement so it’s voluntary and it could be helpful to people to get to that point of compliance. We would still encourage people. Chair Bernstein: Yeah, that’s why this is added as a way for the HRB to at least see the proposed application. Just so the applicant hears our comments and that’s what we’ve been encouraging even before this proposed ordinance came. If there is some way that – again, that goes back to my question a long time ago is how would an applicant that goes to the Development Center know that there’s this free, no fee study session with the HRB? That would be a good – I don’t have an answer to how the Development People know to say that. Ms. French: Because the ordinance hasn’t been passed, there’s nothing that’s being said at this point but following passage, certainly administrative policy and practices are something that we can – in flyers and website announcements is all within the realm of things that staff can do without Council weighing in on that. Chair Bernstein: Right. Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: I would think that if an applicant came with an addition that – if it wasn’t a secondary dwelling unit and if that addition needed to be reviewed by the HRB, then I think – I guess whether or not, it’s a secondary dwelling unit. If an addition would traditionally trigger a review by the HRB then I think that should remain a requirement, whether or not it’s an accessory dwelling unit or not. I can – I guess I can kind of see how because the City is trying to expedite this process that if it’s a detached structure that doesn’t – would not alter the existing historic main buildings, then that can be Staff reviewed just because coming to the HRB is -- it’s a time requirement and doing drawings and presentation. I can see that being ok – I mean, it would be ok with me, as a Board Member, if an applicant wanted to come and do a detached structure. They – it meets all the planning codes and yes, we want it to be differentiated and naturally, it’s going to be because it’s probably going to be a different looking building. I would entrust that the end result with the Staff review would be admissible or acceptable. That’s just my comment. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: I also think that it’s important for all of us to think about that there are – we’re often talking about lots that are in the middle of the block but there are corner lots that their open space will be very visible from the street. That would be an extremely important point to have something that is very compatible because it will have a distinct visual impact on the historic structure. Chair Bernstein: Any other items regarding this agenda item? Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: I think also once the ordinance is put into place and then these applications start coming through and these accessory dwelling units become – are realized in our community, it’s kind of not until then that we can see the impact of what’s really – how this is really going to play out City of Palo Alto Page 26 and I think the Council has the power to adjust the ordinance. If – once we put the wheels in motion and the wheels are going off to the wrong path, I think the City Council will correct it. I think I do have faith in that sometimes we just need a little history to see how this thing is really going to impact the community and I’m sure community members will complain or offer their opinions, then the City Council can make adjustments at that time. Action Items None. Approval of Minutes 3. March 9th, 2017, Draft Minutes Chair Bernstein: Any other things on this agenda? Ms. French: We did have the approval of minutes but you know, let me know. You have a quorum to approve them so that’s also on the agenda. Chair Bernstein: Jonathan thank you so much and thank you. Next on our agenda item is approval of minutes from March 9th. Is there a motion to amend or approve? Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Excuse me. Going through your minutes, I think there’s one minor correction on page number 2. You may agree with Chair Bernstein. You’re quoted as saying that’s excepted, I think you mean that’s a-c-c-e-p-t. It’s about nine lines down. Ms. French: Tell us what page you’re on, please. Board Member Makinen: We’re on the minutes of March 9th, 2017, on page 2, about 9 lines down. Chair Bernstein says that’s accepted, any discussion on a nomination? Chair Bernstein: Yeah, I’d say accepted, a-c-c – correct. Board Member Makinen: Excepted would mean you didn’t… Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Yeah, I agree with that correction. Ms. French: We are not doing quality control on these minutes. We get them from the transcriptionist and that’s how they stay. Sorry about that but we can correct that. Chair Bernstein: Then also down on the minute’s page 6, at the very bottom -- second to the last line on page 6 says HCDL, what is HCDL? Ms. French: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: Yeah, second line to the bottom. What is HCDL? Ms. French: Ms. Lee, that was Elena Lee. I’m just guessing that that must be a State agency or some kind of agency. Chair Bernstein: Ok. Ms. French: Yeah, she must have said it but I can verify with her that those are the acronym she said and then I get back to you on what that acronym means. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. I have no other corrections or amendments to offer. Is there – Board Member… MOTION Board Member Wimmer: I’ll move to approve the minutes. Chair Bernstein: Ok, all those in favor – saying second? Second – is there a second? Board Member Makinen: Second. Chair Bernstein: There is a second by Board Member Makinen. Ok, all in favor say aye. Chair Bernstein, Board Member Wimmer, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Bunnenberg: Aye. Chair Bernstein: Apposed? Ok, that passes unanimously by four members present. Thank you. PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH 3 ABSENT Chair Bernstein: Michael, yes. Subcommittee Items Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is – any subcommittee items? None to report. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Chair Bernstein: Board Member questions, comments, and announcements. Yes, Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I’d like to report that I did attend the webinar yesterday, a Tale of Three Cities: Case Examples and Preservation Management. I don’t know if anybody else attended it but there was a considerable amount of discussion. The three Cities that were represented were Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Orange. Probably the principle item of discussion that took maybe half the time there was the fact that the Mills Act contracts and Anaheim has 341 contracts of the Mills Act. Sana Ana has 239 and Orange 229. What I take away – took from this is that this is a very effective incentive for historic preservation and it clearly shows that Palo Alto is way behind the – way behind in initiating this action on Mills Act as being a meaningful incentive. I think we really need to address the fact of why we aren’t involved with Mills Act more aggressively. It really reflects poorly upon the City of Palo Alto. Ms. French: Are you recommending that we agendize that for a future HRB meeting? Board Member Makinen: Yes, I think we need to discuss this more seriously. I think it’s a – three other major Cities are citing this as a major incentive to bolster their historic preservation program and I think we have what, two Mills Act contracts? Board Member Bunnenberg: We have one. Ms. French: We have one and that one has requested to walk away from that contract. April 27th is our next regular HRB meeting because the next meeting on April 6th is a joint meeting. If you would like, I can – with the Board concurrence, I can put that on that agenda for discussion. Board Member Makinen: It was apparent to me that we are clearly not consistent which is what is being done in other major communities for incentives. We don’t have a lot of incentives as it is, so this is a major tool we have to work with. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Bernstein: We’ll put that as – ok, the Board is agreeing to put that on the agenda, thank you. Alright. Will staff be able to confirm that there will be a quorum of HRB Members at the April 6th joint meeting… Ms. French: Yes, there’s a quorum. Chair Bernstein: … because if there is not a quorum then that joint meeting won’t happen. Ms. French: There is a quorum. Chair Bernstein: Ok, excellent. Wonderful. I think we are ready for adjournment and we are adjourned. Thank you. Adjournment