HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-27 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity 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:
Chair Bernstein: Welcome everybody. I’d like to welcome everyone and members of the public to our
meeting today of April 27th of the Historic Resources Board. Would the staff please call role?
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Next on our agenda is oral communications. The public may speak to any
item, not on our agenda. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak make yourselves
known? I see none, thank you.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Next are any – if there are any agenda changes, additions or deletions?
Ms. Arm French, Chief Planning Official: There are no changes to the agenda.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
City Official Reports
1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule Assignments
Chair Bernstein: Under our agenda, it says City official reports, a Historic Resources Board meeting
schedule assignments. Did I overhear that there’s the next meeting on a certain date?
Ms. French: Yes, we do have our regular meeting dates on our – in our packet here showing as May 11th
and May 25th. Due to lack of projects that are coming forward on the 11th, we are not – and absents, we
are going to cancel that meeting and go with May 25th. Assuming that we have a quorum for May 25th so
I’m just making sure that we do have a quorum for that meeting because I do have some projects for
that one.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Thank you.
2. Eichler Design Guidelines
Chair Bernstein: Next listed is Eichler Design Guidelines discussion only. Any comments on that?
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
MINUTES: April 27, 2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ms. French: Yes, I just wanted to update you where we are on that. We have a consultant, Page and
Turnbull, I think I had mentioned that. Last year the Council had approved that contract and we had our
first meeting at Mitchell Park on April 11th and had a good turnout. We have a second meeting, a
workshop, with the National Register Districts – Eichler Districts and that’s going to be at Green Meadow
Center so it’s focused on just Green Meadow and Green Gables. Those two neighborhoods because there
are specific processes that go with those districts and concerns perhaps, so we’re going to go ahead and
do that. Now, we do have a website that’s uploaded and I can send you all the link to it but there is a
survey going on that people can take. You know to click the button and answer the ten questions.
They’re the same ten questions basically, that we asked at the Mitchell Park workshop. That projector –
it’s in the process and we’re getting some interesting feedback and we look forward to coming to the
HRB as our first public hearing after these workshops.
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Ms. French: We don’t have a schedule yet because we’re developing – we’re having workshops.
Chair Bernstein: Beth, we need your light on to hear your comments. Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: Amy, did you say May 2nd is the next…
Ms. French: May 3rd is next Wednesday and it’s only for those two neighborhoods, Green Meadow and
Green Gables and it’s held at the Green Meadow Community Center. We’re keeping it kind of small just to
keep it to that – those two groups.
Vice Chair Bower: Could I make a comment about the first meeting?
Ms. French: Yes.
Vice Chair Bower: I attended the first meeting and I was astounded at the number of people who –
neighbors who showed up for that meeting. When we did the Professorville Guidelines process, we had
the same process that I think you’re using for this. We had seven people show up. There were more than
sixty people and in fact, they were standing – (inaudible) standing room. There was a – ever opinion on
the spectrum from I don’t want anything done -- no guidelines to I want absolutely stark and rigid
guidelines. I think it will be a very interesting discussion. Different than the Professorville Guidelines.
Chair Bernstein: What – on May 3rd, what time is that meeting?
Ms. French: I believe we’re doing that at 6:30 – 8.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, it’s at Green Meadow Community Center.
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible)
Ms. French: 6:30 – 8. So, if the HRB Members are interested in attending that and meeting some of those
folks who are living in a National Register District Eichler homes.
Board Member Kohler: I don’t. I had a very terrible situation with trying to design a home for them – a
person Carlson Circle and it – the people were just really terrible.
Ms. French: Carlson Circle is not the group that we’re meeting with. They are not a Historic District. We
are only meeting with Green Gables…
Board Member Kohler: So…
Ms. French: …and Green Meadows.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Board Member Kohler: …there are only certain (inaudible). So, that Carlson Circle will not have the
guidelines?
Ms. French: No, this is a workshop that we’re having to introduce the project, the Eichler Guidelines
project, to specifically those two National Register Districts. Carlson Circle is not in a National Register
District. To answer your question fully, the Eichler Guidelines is a process that we’re going into that will –
would apply to Eichler’s Citywide -- the Eichler neighborhoods Citywide.
Board Member Kohler: Oh, I see. Ok. Alright.
Chair Bernstein: Is there an issue if a quorum of HRB Members attends that meeting? Is there any issue
there?
Ms. French: Yeah, I mean I think – it’s a public meeting. As long as the HRB Members are not
participating; that’s hard to do but if you could control your – bring some Duct tape. I don’t know. How
does that work?
Board Member Kohler: We’ll have to wear dark glasses so someone knows who you are.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, alright. Just a procedural question. Alright, thank you for that. (Crosstalk) That’s
funny.
Study Session
3. HRB discussion of Mills Act
Chair Bernstein: Alright, next on our – yeah? Ok, next on our agenda will be a study session and it’s
regarding Historic Resources Board discussion of Mills Act. Shall staff have any introduction on this
subject?
Ms. French: Sure, I’ll just briefly cover the points that are in the staff report. I did do a background
summary the last time that Council and the HRB had a joint session. That was in May of 2015 and we
didn’t have one last year and I don’t know – there’s nothing on the schedule for this year yet. At that
meeting, there was some discussion about the Mills Act because it did appear as one of the incentives on
our list of incentives for historic preservation. I captured here Council Member Dubois’s statement about
that, as far as what he suggested for the HRB to do so I quoted that in our background here. Then I did
a little bit of research on looking at some other Cities. I looked at Oakland in particular, because that’s
where our Historic Planner went for his next job and I thought, oh, that’s interesting, it’s very robust over
there. They had a pilot program, they have a Historic Preservation Element in their Comprehensive Plan,
it’s a very robust program. I had some – I put some links in here in the Staff report for anybody on the
Board or the public to go in and find out about that. I do want to state that – that’s in the report as well
but Squire House is our only Mills Act contract at this point and they have requested to end that contract;
the Mills Act contract. So, 10-years from now, basically, we will have no Mills Act contract properties in
Palo Alto. Unless somebody else comes forward and seeks one of those contracts. Now is a good time to
have that discussion because we’re listed as a City with Mills Act contract program and I think it would be
nice to have one or two or more.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. I do see on packet page 17, where is says locate criteria for
eligibility and there are three criteria. It has to be Category one, must be individually listed, and only a
single-family home outside downtown CD – commercial downtown district. I’m curious if anyone knows
how many Category One, non-CD zone, single family residents are there in Palo Alto? Did…
Board Member Kohler: What page are you on?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Chair Bernstein: Packet page 17.
Board Member Kohler: Ok.
Ms. French: So, I – can I just put a context around this page and this Staff report? This is a Staff report
from former planner Dennis Backlund…
Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok.
Ms. French: … that was a proposed – looks like a Staff proposed criteria. I don’t – I didn’t find any
evidence that this was adopted or…
Chair Bernstein: Oh ok, alright.
Ms. French: …yeah, so this is – this was ruminations and I couldn’t even find the minutes that went with
these to say what the HRB thoughts of these.
Ms. French:
I do see it says proposed local policy, ok. Alright, good. Alright – but responding to Council Member
DuBois comment about what are the some of the parameters? That might include, in our discussion
today, that does it have to be a Category One single family residence? Can it be a duplex unit, for
example? Does it need to be – can it be within the commercial – anyway, we have lots of flexibility that
we can discuss today because today is a discussion. Alright, so I look forward to any – I’d like to also put
on the record that Board Member Brandon Corey has – is – has joined us. Welcome. The – for Board
Members, why don’t we just head down and see if we have any comments or suggestions on day one for
our next discussion on Mills Act. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: My memory – if my memory is correct, we did have a – the City did have a
Mills Act on the Juana Briones House but that one had a very sad outcome and I think left a (inaudible)
to proceeded with more properties. That has lasted us quite a while and yet, former Board Member Pat
Di Cicco talked about the rules for her house down in, I think it’s Coronado. That it had been working
very successfully but with two special provisions. That each year the people owning the properties had to
report what they had done with what was their tax saving. That seems to me to be a very important part.
Then I think the big question is, how do you lay out that plan so that property owners can see what
steps they can take first and what needs to wait a while till it’s another year or whatever?
Board Member Kohler: Oh, I’m sorry.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: Oh, Corey has his light on.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Brandon or Corey.
Board Member Corey: Yeah, so I actually attended a recent workshop as well on the Mills Act. I had some
– I got some pretty interesting data out of that. Shannon [Lochner] who runs the program for the State
of California was there and she actually gave a presentation on it. A couple of things that were
interesting. First I heard that there are 290 contracts in Santa Clara County, which is actually pretty
extensive. I thought that was kind of – that was surprising. I think Oakland has 50 so that was – I guess
that’s not even in Santa Clara County so I thought that was kind of interesting given our – give what
we’ve kind of come too. Also, interesting, I had asked questions and talked to a handful of people in
other Cities in the area who had actually adopted this. The overall – they kind of came to two
conclusions. First of all, everyone was always nervous about the properties tax impact and while nobody
had any conclusive data on any impacts of the schools that they could put together. Of course, there was
nothing that kind of discounted any possible impact either but even Shannon had said that she had been
City of Palo Alto Page 5
doing it for a long time and they’d never had any report of any really bad side effect from a school for
this. The interesting thing was that a lot of Cities – what they had talked about was Los Gatos, I
remember in particular, had a plan where they tried to have a pilot program where they added say – they
allowed up for up to five initially, as a way to kind of have City Council feel better about the impact. Then
they could kind of let that grow over time depending on how it went. It seemed like they – I hadn’t – of
course, this isn’t to say that there hasn’t been anybody but it generally sounded like that seems like a
reasonable approach because if you had more of a pilot program or some limited number to start with.
Then you could kind of gauge the interest as well but then you would be able to mitigate this by having a
cap so I thought that was pretty interesting. Then there’s – then overall in California, there are many
places that have it. I think San Diego has over 1,000 of them they said so it’s all very City dependent.
There’s a lot of flexibility as far as the local designation and what you can do there. The other thing that
was -- Board Member Bunnenberg had mentioned this, as far as having to keep track of what was on the
property. That was or what you’d spent money on the property, I think that was important. Another thing
that was added in the last couple years, I think it was 2015, but I guess it was revised; maybe it was
2014. Where the City has the requirement, although there’s some flexibility in what that means, to
actually inspect the property to verify that those improvements have been made so that’s something that
we would have to consider as well as far as what the impact would be. They said something – I think LA
was one of the strictest where they actually went underneath the house and inspected down to the detail
of the foundation and everything. Then there are other Cities that do drive-by inspections so it’s just –
again, it’s up to the local authority but that is part of the plan now. I think that was the gist of it but it
was a lot of good information.
Chair Bernstein: Well, thanks for that report. I mean, that suggests that there is just a lot of flexibility.
Each City can decide what is appropriate and acceptable.
Board Member Corey: Yeah, I think overall the message was a lot – all – there are many, many Cities
that do it. (Inaudible) there are 90 separate programs in California; I forgot to mention that. So, different
cities and they all – they have – there’s just a lot of local flexibility on what they want to implement that’s
right for them.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, good. Ok. Alright, other Board Members? Yeah?
Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, sure.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I mean, I think – it seems to me like the City needs to review what the Mills Act
offers and how – we need to define it for ourselves. Also, I think there’s a bit of a Staff impact if we have
a lot of contracts out because it’s the City – the City Staff that would have to monitor it or be involved in
it so I guess that’s one of the number one questions. I know that the Staff is pretty overworked, rumor
has it. Is that even something that the – that we can take on and maybe that’s primarily why we don’t
encourage people to have Mills Act contracts because maybe Staff isn’t prepared or doesn’t have the
ability to have – to monitor those. I don’t know. That’s not something that I can answer but it would be
interesting to know why our one and only contract – why they are interested in breaking their contract. I
thought it was because they are required to have the house open once a year. I remember this recent
year when it was open and I think Karen had announced at the meeting that morning that – you guys,
the Squire House is open and so you need to email them and request to be put on the list. Of course,
right after the meeting I instantly emailed and they said sorry it’s full. I just went anyway. I just thought
I’m going to show up and see if I can go because I was really interested in seeing the house. No one was
really monitoring a list at the door. So, I – maybe it would be good to know why – I guess the
advantages and disadvantages for these people to have these contracts -- maybe that’s the primary
disadvantages of having to have to have your house open once a year and also the bookkeeping aspect
of it. It might be hard – I mean for some people maybe that outweighs the benefits but I think that the
City has to embrace this program and define it for themselves. Then offer it to people because I don’t
think that people are coming to us saying hey, I have a historical house. I want to participate in the Mills
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Act. They just don’t – people don’t know about it. I think the City has to offer this as a program if the City
wants this to truly be an incentive. I’ve actually – I have a -- I think a Category two project that I worked
on. Gosh, it’s been like 12-years ago and I actually contacted them and said, do you know about this
program? Would you be interested in participating? They’d never heard of it and I don’t know if they
would participate. I mean it would almost be interesting – I think our first step is to see – to define the
Mills Act for the City of Palo Alto and define what Palo Alto wants to offer within the realm of the Mills
Act. Then find one or two people who –homeowners who would like to participate in it and sort of
witness – walk them through it and witness what are the experiences like so we can all – it feels like we
all need to participate in it. To that degree where we sign up two or three houses or whoever is
interested in it and go through the application process and go through the first year with them and
support them and see what their feedback is and have them – like a pilot program I guess. Have – give –
have them say, yeah this is great. I’m saving 50% of my property taxes or I can go on vacation now or is
it like wow, this is a lot harder. All this paperwork, we don’t really have the ability to fill out these forms. I
mean, it would just be interesting to go – to experience that with someone or a group of people so that
we have a better understanding of it altogether.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: Well, I think the evidence is rather clear that it is a popular program across the
State and sadly to say that we’re just behind the eight ball as far as promoting this type of incentive. I
think it’s really – does not reflect well upon the City of Palo Alto when we hear much smaller Cities and
less economical endowed Cities like Santa Ana, having over 300 type contracts and what do we have?
One that may be – I think the program is a popular program. Just – well, the City needs to get behind it
and start promoting it as a preservation tool.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I think that it’s important for the members of the public to see that it is – I
believe the top cap amount it $10,000 on a Mills Act. Certainly, there are many properties, for instance in
the Professorville and even throughout the City, that need the seismic strengthening, need the – perhaps
basement reinforced, may need complete re-wiring and all those things are quite expensive these days.
Those might be samples of the kinds of things that people would be asking for. I feel like it is a positive
program and that – one that is well worth making at least a trial. The other possible problem is a
reduction in the amount of money that the school district gets because it shares those incomes that we
pay on property tax.
Chair Bernstein: The – I heard – I recall – I think one of the two – when we had two Mills Act contracts
intact, I thought the organization – private organization, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, was administering
that so I think that gave good relief to the City Staff I believe. Council Member Holman, comment on it?
Yeah.
Council Member Holman: I don’t know about the Mills Act but I’m – I’ve been involved with a couple of
projects where covenants were put on the properties. One of them is on Melville and that one Palo Alto
Stanford Heritage is the inspector if you will, according to that covenants and that’s one example but at
least so far, that one’s been very positive. I was involved in another project where I’m – Staff is over
worked but the City is the overseer and I’d say that that hasn’t been – had such a positive outcome to
this point in time. Again, each one of those is just one example. To Board Member Wimmer’s point, I
mean Staff does have a large load but I think Palo Alto Stanford Heritage, I think is a willing participant.
Also, Board Member Wimmer’s question about why don’t we have more here? It has -- as Board Member
Bunnenberg said, my experience for a long, long time has been that the school district has always been
very touchy about whether we have these or not but the extent of impact on the school district, I think
would be compared to their size of a budget so it would be pretty minimal. I don’t know that there’s a –
I just don’t know if there’s a $10,000 limit or not. I thought it was kind of what the City and the property
owner would negotiate as far as the agreement was concerned. There also – something that I haven’t
heard mentioned yet, is that there’s also like what kinds of properties? I mean, the Staff report on page
City of Palo Alto Page 7
17 that you mentioned, the reason for properties outside of the CD district is because there are other
incentives there like TDRs and seismic bonuses and that sort of thing but you might look at also, what
kinds of properties like – which kind of properties is the most threatened? I have my own perspective but
it’s not for me to say, but what’s the most threatened and is it also to maybe help somebody to get into a
home in exchange for reduced property taxes and a covenant for the public benefit on that home. You
know how do you – there are ways to flavor it, if you will, that you might consider as well.
Vice Chair Bower: Martin.
Chair Bernstein: That includes even what Categories are considered – are allowed to apply for a Mills Act
and I always bring up the example of the former University Art Building as a Category three so maybe
the Category is not so important. It’s just the attribute of the historic resource. Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, I share all of my fellow Board Member’s comments. I’d like to move to a discussion
of specifics because I think that’s where this discussion needs to go. I’d like to first say that in the
seminars that I have attended either on the web or in person that the California Preservation Foundation
has presented, the issues of property tax reduction are a slight misnomer. It’s not a reduction but a
redirection of property taxes. In both the seminars that I attended, they pointed out that when a Mills Act
contract is signed, the tax savings is actually redirected into the preservation of the building and the
contract specifies that every year the homeowners has to spend the money that their saving on their
buildings. They can accumulate that amount – that savings and do large projects with the approval of the
Building Department or the Planning Department but that’s part of the definition process and that’s really
what a Mills Act needs. When we create this act, we have to have definitions and the first one is that you
have to decide as a City, what is the maximum amount of money or evaluate – property evaluation that
we will identify as redirected taxes? Again, in both seminars, they said a million dollars seems to be the
appropriate level. That’s the maximum so I would suggest that we start there. That’s roughly $12,000 in
taxes and in the case of a property that is not worth a million dollars and I don’t think that there are any
properties in Palo Alto that are under a million, sadly. We might make – we might have an alternative
evaluation that is a percentage of the value so it’s a maximum of a million that could be redirected – in
value redirected in taxes to your house. The second issue would be how you define the projects that this
redirected funding will support and again, the most important one that was identified in these seminars
was foundation upgrades and building anchors to a new foundation. That doesn’t mean that you have to
replace the foundation. You can do parallel foundations as I did on my daughter’s house in the Liberty
Hills Historic District in San Francisco. Where we left the brick foundation intact and we just built a new
foundation next to it and that supports the building and the old brick foundation has some load but
basically doesn’t take the earthquake loading. In a situation where you have a foundation anchoring
project, those are pretty expensive and you’re not going to do it for $12,000. Especially if you are adding
foundation or replacing foundations so that might be a 3-year project and it is – the homeowner would
need to propose that to the Planning Department, create a set of drawings and then create a funding
program so that the project is identified, specified in both timeline and cost and scope. Then the building
department typically would manage the actual construction and then notify the Planning Department that
the project is complete or that it’s underway. The next item is – and by the way, you – they suggest that
the projects that this redirect – sorry – the redirected funding would be targeted to, would be
foundations first, electrical systems, mechanical systems, plumbing, so you’re – and roofing and outside
the enclosure, waterproofing and insulation. Specifically, you don’t want somebody taking their money
and remodeling their kitchen, which might be needing it but not necessarily the best use of the funds.
Definitions are really critical and so you’re target projects have to be part of this. We’ve already spoken
about a yearly review of projects and use of funds. I think that could be because the City has so many
different entities that might participate in this. At least the building department and Public Works and of
course planning, we don’t need to duplicate that effort. So, if a building permit has been issued, the
Building Department – the building permit system could notify planning that there is a project underway,
it would probably come through planning anyway because they’d have to review it, tag it in some way,
and then let the building inspector do his job – his or her job. Then planning just gets a report that this is
done. Somebody is just going to have to look at it every year but right now we’re talking about zero
projects so we can do this. We can figure that out as we go. I already talked about the accumulation of
City of Palo Alto Page 8
funds for a large project. They did say that these should not be more than 3-years so if you can’t do it in
3-years – you don’t want to have a 10-year project, which allows a homeowner to accumulate $120,000
say as the $12,000 max and then say, oh whoops, sorry. We didn’t save the money, we can’t do it now. I
found the assessed evaluation models in the Mills Act -- there are three different ways you can calculate
the value -- to be incredibly complicated. I don’t understand them and I read them, I’ve listened to the
explanation in two seminars and I still don’t get it. Clearly, articulated assessment evaluation in the local
ordinance is necessary; a clear description. So, a homeowner – if I can’t understand it after two seminars
and as Historic Resources Board Member, I don’t know how a homeowner would. I would make Category
One – Four eligible. I don’t see any reason why only Category One homes need to be eligible. I just think
that’s an arbitrary issue and the last – one of the last things is in terms of definitions. Establishing in the
ordinance a day of the year that all houses have to be open at the same time and ought to establish in
the definition what part of the house has to be available to the public. I can understand the (inaudible) of
a homeowner having to open their entire house to the public and not knowing who the public is and
wondering if the people here are actually casing their house for burglaries. I mean, you know those
privacy issues are important so I think there are ways of dealing with it. Having a sign up, for instance,
having a maximum number – a reasonable maximum number and maybe have a four to eight-hour
window or maybe two days. So, this is – these are the things that I think we want to continue to think
about as ways to accommodate the public access but at the same time, preserve the privacy of the
people who are a part of this. The people – the homeowners who take advantage of this program have a
benefit and as part of that benefit, the public needs to see what it is. So, I wanted to just finish by taking
two examples of properties near me; I live in Crescent Park. The house next door to me was purchased
in 1981 by friends of ours for $81,000. It sold in 2015 for $1.7 million. The property taxes prior to a sale
were $1,800 a year. The property taxes today are $20,400 and I’m using the 1.2%. They are higher
because there is other school district adds but that is clearly a tenfold increase in property taxes in one
hit. There is another property on Hamilton Avenue that was sold in 2013 to a developer for $3 million.
Prior – I don’t know the tax rate prior to that sale but the new sale was basically $3 million so the tax
rate in 2013 went to $35,000 – basically $36,000. The new house that was built on that was sold for $8.5
million and the property tax rate today or in 2015 when it was sold, was $102,000 so we saw a fourfold
increase in – a little less than a fourfold increase in property taxes in two years but over – if we could get
to the original tax rate prior to that last sale, it would be probably in the $2,400 - $3,000 amount because
that house had been owned by the same family – a prominent local family in Palo Alto. I’ve lived in Palo
Alto for 66-years. I went to Palo Alto’s schools for 13-years. From kindergarten through 12th grade. I
cannot remember a time when the Palo Alto school district ever had enough money. They are – they
have a budget – if I’m – I think that last budget that they show in our materials today -- that we got for
today. I think the last budget was 20 – in 2005, $20 million. Now, I may be reading this wrong but they
have a significant budget. They have a significant task and all of the community supports the task. We’re
talking about $12,000 per – maximum per Mills Act contract. Even if we had ten Mills Act contracts, that’s
$120,000 as opposed to – well, a $20 million budget in 2005. It’s higher, I know today because that was
12-years ago. I think we have a number of initiatives in Palo Alto that need attention. Schools aren’t the
only one, I know they are important but this is a very, very small piece and it’s important to do.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you Vice Chair Bower. That’s a good formula that you’ve presented that can help
and perhaps turn into a welcome program. Picking up on Board Member Wimmer’s comment about how
do property owners learn about this? I think that whatever kind of outreach program, we encourage to
happen and make happen. It would be great. Ok. Picking up on Bower’s comment about specifics and
how will the comments presented by Board Member Bower and other Board Members, how does that
become more – how do we put that into effect I guess? There’s already a Mills contract program that
already exists. There’s a required contract provision. Essentially, is it City Council agendize and then to –
it’s already – the Mills Act already exists already so I guess, what action would -- what’s the next way to
make this into effect? But it’s already in effect so it’s – I guess maybe just publication.
Ms. French: Yeah, I mean the Mills Act is not a City program per say.
Chair Bernstein: Right, right.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Ms. French: It’s a – the County assessor. We don’t have an ordinance and we don’t have anything in our
code that I am aware of that I could find. So, it’s a resolution, is there some kind of recommendation? I
think that’s what DuBois had a suggestion that some kind of recommendations come from the HRB as to
the parameters of how we would do it in Palo Alto. Then, if there’s some legal instrument that we could
have the Council adopt, that would be one way to do it. Then from there, do the publications, the
pamphlets, what have you, the website. We have on our website links to Mills Act but is it decipherable to
the average person, certainly, the math sounds like it’s not.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: So, would it be reasonable – if we have no ordinance and I think that’s what’s required
here. I don’t know. Council Member Holman, do you have a sense of the history of how the Squire House
Mills Act contract was created if there is no ordinance or maybe – actually, my question should be –
that’s not really relevant. In the seminars that I attended they, in both cases, said that you need an
ordinance so I’m assuming that’s where we should move.
Council Member Holman: So, if I remember this correctly, the Squire House has an easement on it so the
outside of the house is already protected. That happened when the fate of the Squire House was in
jeopardy. This happened, gosh, I think the 80’s maybe.
Vice Chair Bower: 70’s I think or even (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Council Member Holman: I’m not sure exactly the timing but it was a long time ago. Longer ago than any
of us think to – care to think about actually. Then the owner –when the Mario’s, who use to be an HRB
Member, (inaudible) was. They actually requested the Mills Act because they wanted further protections
on the house and they did a lot of restoration on the house too. That’s – I’m confident of a couple of
those things. That there’s an easement on the house that protects the outside and the Mario’s requested
the Mills Act and that they did a lot of restoration on the house so that’s a – can’t tell you exactly what
years but that’s how it came about.
Vice Chair Bower: Is – should we be crafting language for an ordinance then? Definitions and the scopes?
Council Member Holman: I think – well, and Amy will have her own comments to make with this but I
think it’s cleaner and simpler if you have an ordinance and somebody who wants to apply has some
guidance on what the parameters are. I think the City always doesn’t want to look at these as one offs
either. We’re talking about a burden on Staff. I mean, they need something to refer to say ok, this
application does or doesn’t comply or conform to what the ordinance says in terms of parameters. Maybe
Amy has something to add to that but that would be my perspective. Otherwise, you’re just doing one-
offs and I don’t think that’s…
Vice Chair Bower: No.
Council Member Holman: … very effective or an efficient way to do it.
Ms. French: You know, I would just echo that it’s nice to have something that’s discoverable in a legal
document that people can see at the same time there saying, what are my setbacks? What is – I mean –
so that would be nice to have something in the zoning code that may be refers you to a different section
of the Municipal Code pertaining to this tax benefit.
Chair Bernstein: Who are the signatories on a Mills contract? The property owner, City of Palo Alto, State
of California, does anybody know?
Board Member Wimmer: I – Corey, you could correct me if I am wrong but I think it’s the City and the
property owner.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, it has to be the owner of the property because it’s a – it’s like a covenant. If the
property were to be sold within the 10-year contract period, it would remain throughout the end of the
contract. I think it’s the City and the owner.
Chair Bernstein: Does anybody know if a property owner today wanted to enter a Mills contract, they can
just request it?
Ms. French: I can tell you – I think I read about this a little bit in the report but there is a fee…
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, I saw that.
Ms. French: …on our – yeah, it’s not expensive but (crosstalk)…
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible)
Ms. French: …to establish – yeah…
Chair Bernstein: $1,936.
Ms. French: …yeah, to enter into – so what that means is that you’re getting support from a planner, me
probably, and the City attorney’s office Staff, to invent the contract for that property and take it through
the process. Then they have to record it at the Country from the date of recordation and that starts the
10-years.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so no Council action to enter a contract?
Ms. French: Correct.
Vice Chair Bower: I would like to suggest that we take Dennis Backlund’s 2006…
Chair Bernstein: Proposed.
Vice Chair Bower: …proposal – I guess this was a recommendation and modify it to reflect the things that
we’ve discussed today because this document is a very broad outline but lacks enough specifics to
actually give guidance to Council. Then propose that this move to Council for consideration. Whatever –
I’m – if we could do a planning – make this part of the Planning Department documents. I don’t know.
That part of it is beyond me but I think we could – we as a Board can refine the requirements as we see
are necessary and then propose that and let the Council – help the Council move this into a real program.
I would like – I think a pilot program makes some sense. Say we limit the number of properties in the
first 10-years to some number and allow for some flexibility to come back and redefine needs as we, the
community and the City and the homeowners, experience them.
Ms. French: So, that might be – I would just weigh in on that, if you’re going to think about this pilot
program concept. I mean the way Oakland, it was the one I studied, did it is they did that and then came
forward with an ordinance so an ordinance would have to go to the Planning Commission for at least a
zoning code ordinance. That might be the next step after establishing the pilot program and that would
be to go through that process of an ordinance.
Vice Chair Bower: That sounds like – that’s fine. I mean, I don’t have a problem with that. It’s 10-years.
How long did Oakland’s – I didn’t actually get to that document because I was looking at all the other
more historic ones. How did their pilot program last? 5-years?
Ms. French: I believe it was 2-years.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Vice Chair Bower: 2-years, interesting. Ok, well, so that’s different.
Chair Bernstein: From the – when the City of Palo Alto signs this contract in addition to the property
owners, is it – whose signs? The City’s Manager’s office, Planning Director? Who signs the contract from
the City?
Ms. French: Well, I’m – at least attorneys as to the form of the legal working and I’d have to go look at
the one contract that exists and see what that says. I can show that – I think that’s a public document. I
can show that to you.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah. Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Oh, I was just going to say that I think it would be advisable for – because
you’re the experts on historic preservation, other than our City Staff so it might be good if you guys took
a look at the contract itself and see if you saw any holes in it or any suggestions – recommendations
based on past history or what you hear from other communities.
Board Member Kohler: I have to just make a small…
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: …modest comment about time marches on. You look at this date hereof a regular
meeting November 5th, 1997, talking about what we’re talking about today. I see that Martin Bernstein
was on the Board and I was on the Board. I didn’t know you’d been on the Board that long, Martin, but
it’s just amazing to think how things go. I think it’s about time – maybe we would do something after 22
– 21 –22-years of mulling it around; it’s a good idea. I vote for it.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer.
Board Member Wimmer: I definitely think that I’m so glad that this conversation is started. I think that
we need to do a little bit of – I guess more research on our – individually and then come back so I think
we should continue this item for sure. Maybe a month from now we can continue this discussion but I
know that I’ve done a little bit of research on it 2-years ago. I wish I had brought that. I kind of forgot
where I left off because I was trying – because I was looking at some information that you had to do an
application through the County so I’m going to go back and see what research that I had done. Also, I
mean, Pat Di Cicco, a past Board Member, she – I mean maybe we could even – so she has a Mills Act in
Coronado but she also has a significant historic house in Palo Alto. I’m just curious to know why she
doesn’t seek – has not sought out having a Mills Act contract on her house in Palo Alto. That would be an
interesting question to ask her. Maybe she could be – participate in our pilot program. I don’t know. I
just – a good questions.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: I had asked around about this a while ago with some of my neighbors as far as if –
my – the feedback that I got and this is actually, I think going back -- even back to Dennis’s time. Was
that we – that there is no process for getting a Mills Act so people clearly don’t know this is the case.
That if anyone – if it needs – if you wanted to go and approach that, it would definitely have to be
brought to City Council for approval because of the cost impact so that’s – you know, maybe that was 5-
years ago but that seemed to be the consensus from the people who did know about it. Who had actually
contacted the City and were told that there’s no process right now beyond what -- the existing ones.
Maybe this is hearsay but…
Ms. French: (Inaudible)
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Board Member Corey: There’s no published process so – and those who had contracted Dennis, it
sounded like there wasn’t a process in place so it was kind of an unknown.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen.
Board Member Makinen: I think the evidence is rather clear that this is a workable program, it’s been
demonstrated through a number of different communities throughout California. I think it’s just a – we’re
just dragging our feet here, saying that this how to do this thing. Ever other communities in the State are
doing it. Let’s move ahead and do it.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Board Member Makinen: If we keep thinking of reasons of why we can’t do it or the technicalities, it’s
never going to happen. We got to get behind it and push it.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey.
Board Member Corey: I can volunteer to contact the State and see if we can get any update contracts or
any various contracts they have because they certainly seem willing to – she certainly seemed willing to
help and I got her card and we talked for a while so I can do that if that’s helpful. Yeah.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that. May I suggest that a subcommittee takes a look at this. Board
Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: The last Mills Act discussion that I remember attending, there was some talk
about that it’s really important to tailor it to your community. That was one of the points but on page 18
of our packet – of our – in our packet, there is a list of basic portions – basic things that are usually
included. So, we at least have that much of a framework.
Chair Bernstein: Doing the idea of the specifics as Vice Chair Bower had suggested, I think it would be
really important because as Board Member Corey mentioned, when the signatory is the representative of
the City of Palo Alto and that maybe be then the Council may have to approve entering that contract.
Then having the specifics so that if any school administrators have issues with property tax, if there’s
some limit of that, then that can help reduce any anxiety of the school district regarding the loss of
revenue. Board Member Corey has suggested to be a part of the – to take a look at this. How’s the Board
feel about creating a subcommittee to examine this? (Crosstalk) Alright. We have one Board Member who
volunteered to be on that subcommittee. Board Member – are there any – ok, Board -- Vice Chair Bower.
We can up to one more and then Board Member Wimmer, ok. That will be the subcommittee so it will be
Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Corey, and Vice – and then former Vice Chair Wimmer to be on the
subcommittee for this. Great, good.
Vice Chair Bower: So, Amy…
Chair Bernstein: We need your light.
Vice Chair Bower: …could you send us – find the contract and send it to the three of us and any
documentation like the actual contract. Then maybe a moment after our meeting, Margaret and Corey
and I can get together and just plain strategy.
Ms. French: I guess you could, if you wanted to, I heard come back in a month so the meeting in a
month would be the meeting of May 25th. If that is of interest, that the subcommittee could come make a
statement there about what you’d done.
Chair Bernstein: I think the timing of this is actually good because we’re going soon be without any Mills
contracts enforced in the City. (Crosstalk). Yeah, ok. Additional comments on this agenda item? Ok.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Alright, thank you very much. Ok, I think that concludes. Any other comments from Staff before me
move ahead on this topic? Ok.
Ms. French: Nope.
Chair Bernstein: OK, thank you.
Action Items
Chair Bernstein: Alright, next is action items. I see none listed. I do want to – I already asked for
members of the public and I see no interest for members of the public to speak to use today. Ok.
Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Minutes for February 27th, March 9th, and ARB/HRB Joint
meeting excerpt April 6, 2017
Chair Bernstein: Alright, next would be approval of minutes. First, we have minutes of February 27th, any
motion…
Ms. French: 23rd, sorry.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok.
Ms. French: There’s a typo on the agenda.
Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok, thank you for that. February 23rd – yes?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, correction.
Chair Bernstein: Yes, Beth?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, this is for the minutes of February the 23rd and on page 17, it says –
mentions a house on Coal Ridge and it is spelled C-o-a-l and then the word ridge, which is very
phonetically correct but that’s not the way we spell it. It should be C-o-l-e-r-i-d-g-e and it’s named for an
English author, Samuel P. Taylor – Coleridge.
MOTION
Vice Chair Bower: Well, the robots aren’t perfect, Beth. I’d move to approve the minutes if there are no
other changes.
Board Member Makinen: I have a modification that I would like to suggest. On the March 9th meetings on
page 1…
Chair Bernstein: Did you want to start on the – why don’t we do one at a time.
Board Member Makinen: Ok.
Chair Bernstein: So, we’re still on March – February 23rd and then we’ll catch that. Ok, it’s been moved,
any second for approval? (Crosstalk) Ok, that’s been seconded.
Vice Chair Bower: We have to have a second before we vote.
Board Member Kohler: We did.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Vice Chair Bower: No, we didn’t.
Board Member Kohler: We had these two seconds.
Vice Chair Bower: Oh.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, it’s (crosstalk)…
Vice Chair Bower: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: …been seconded.
Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible)
Vice Chair Bower: I moved and Rodger and Beth jointly seconded.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, good. Ok, all in favor signal by saying aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
Chair Bernstein: Next is agenda or Board meetings of March 9th. Board Member Makinen?
Board Member Makinen: Ok, I would like to suggest one modification. A statement at the bottom of page
one is attributed to me. I think it was really was Rodger’s statement, where it says ‘is it on? Ok.’
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I think that’s…
Board Member Makinen: I think that was you, Rodger.
Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I think that’s the case. It was Rodger.
Board Member Kohler: What did I say?
Board Member Makinen: The bottom line of page one.
Vice Chair Bower: It’s right there.
Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Ok, it’s been…
Board Member Makinen: Kohler. Change Makinen to Kohler.
Chair Bernstein: (Inaudible). Ok, any other corrections? Any other corrections? Ok, is there a motion to
approve as amended?
MOTION
Vice Chair Bower: So, moved.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, a second?
Board Member Makinen: I second.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Bernstein: Second, ok. That’s a – any – let’s vote to approve, all signal aye. Opposed? That passed
unanimously. Thank you.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0
Chair Bernstein: Next are the minutes of the joint Architectural Review Board meeting of April 6th. Any
amendments? I have one on page 47. The second to the last line where is starts off, proposed or
revisited. Change the word revisited to remodeled. Then on page 48 near the top, it says Board Member
Kohler talks about compatible with the little one-story homes. I believe Rodger, maybe you meant to say
the one-story commercial buildings. There are no homes right next to it but I’m just asking? Page 48 and
near the top it says Board Member Kohler, you mentioned compatible with little one-story homes but next
store to that property there are no homes, there are just commercial buildings.
Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible)
Chair Bernstein: Ok, good. Those are my only amendments to this. Board Member Bunnenberg?
Board Member Bunnenberg: I have one on page 43 and it is talking about the Peninsula Creamery and I,
Bunnenberg, commented that it is a little, somewhat and it has inaudible and I’m sure that I said
streamline moderne structure.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Board Member Bunnenberg: So, it should be moderne.
Chair Bernstein: Ok. It is heartening to know that HRB meetings – Members are reading 48 pages of
minutes.
Board Member Corey: You included.
Board Member Makinen: Some Members.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, any other correction before we move? Anyone move to accept these
amendments?
MOTION
Board Member Bunnenberg: I move acceptance of the minutes.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, I second. Ok, all in favor say aye. Opposed? None.
Vice Chair Bower: I will abstain.
Chair Bernstein: And one abstention. Ok.
Board Member Corey: I guess I should abstain too.
Vice Chair Bower: No, you don’t have to but I just am not comfortable approving something that I didn’t
attend.
Board Member Corey: Can we still pass it if I abstain?
Chair Bernstein: Yes.
Board Member Corey: Well, I’ll abstain then.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so there are 2 abstentions and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in favor. Thank you so much.
MOTION PASSED 5—WITH 2 ABSTENTIONS
Subcommittee Items
Chair Bernstein: Ok, subcommittee items. I don’t believe there are anything to report right now on that.
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Board Member questions, comments, and announcements. Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: I’d just like to let everyone know that the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage group will
celebrate its 30th anniversary on 7th at Lucie Stern Community Center and one of our Board Members is –
projects is going to be recognized at that meeting; that’s 251 Lincoln that Margaret designed. 601
Melville will be recognized. The Laning Chateau will be recognized as a commercial renovation. The
Stanford Chemistry building, a building that was damaged in the 1989 earthquake and recently, finally,
renovated and with a significant addition in the back, will be recognized and the Stanford Winery, which
we all know is a Stanford barn will be recognized. Please join the past for – I think it’s 2-6 – Nah, 2-4.
Ms. French: May 7th is a Sunday?
Vice Chair Bower: Sunday, May 7th, 2-6.
Vice Chair Bower: 2 o’clock. It starts at 2 and it will end whenever.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg, you had your light on.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, just a little historic note. The annual May Fete Parade is coming up and
unbelievably, it’s the 95th year of the May Parade and the theme is my hero is.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Council Member Holman: Can I add just a quick comment about May Fete Parade? It’s the longest
continual parade – local parade. It’s been in existence longer than the Macy Thanksgiving Day Parade.
Chair Bernstein: Alright, cool. Good. Any other Board Member comments? I have one that is recently the
City Council approved a 5-story parking garage right across from Birge Clark’s downtown post office
building. Certainly, what a common comment you hear at City Council meetings is when there’s a new
structure that may have some impact on a nearby historic structure and that is the idea of compatibility.
Will the proposed 5-story parking garage – is it scheduled or when would it come in front of the Historic
Resources Board being a National Listed Category One building? Is there a time when that’s going to be –
during preliminary designs so that we don’t see a project completed and say HRB, what do you guys
think? Is there a process when that’s going to be coming to us (inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Ms. French: I can answer. I’m the assigned planner for those major City projects, such as the Cal. Ave or
the Sherman Ave public safety building and garage and the downtown one. The process is that they
started off with hiring an environmental consultant and there was a scoping meeting for – on April 12th
with the Planning and Transportation Commission on the Sherman Avenue projects. Then there will be a
scoping meeting before the Planning and Transportation Commission at the end of this month. I was
going to check the date. I’m sorry, at the end of May, which would be at the Planning Commission so
May 24th or no, sorry, May 31st. May 31st is the scoping meeting for the downtown project and the notice
of preparation is what is the first step. The consultants prepare the project description, that is sent to the
County and then a 30-day comment period on what should be studied in the draft EIR ensues. Right
City of Palo Alto Page 17
now, we’re in the comment period for the Sherman Avenue projects so comments on what should the
draft EIR study. Then – and I can certainly forward that NOP to the HRB and then soon, there will be a
NOP for the downtown project saying what should that study? In the first case, the Sherman Avenue
projects, I did the work to look at where are the nearby historic structures and made sure that the NOP
cited cultural resources as something to study in the draft EIR. I will do the same thing with this notice of
preparation to make sure that the cultural resources are part of that study with the draft EIR. There has
not been an application for either one of these projects coming forward yet so we’ll be receiving those.
There a preliminary application on file now for the Sherman Avenue projects so to the extent that we
have something for the ARB to look at. How does that work with the HRB? It’s – I think the Antonio’s Nut
House is the potentially eligible or whatever. It was one of those eligible type buildings from the Dames
and Moore study. To the extent that does the HRB want to have a look at a building going next to a
historic –we don’t have anything in our zoning or sorry, in Chapter 1649, the Historic Preservation
Ordinance that says any project that’s next to a historic resource must come to the HRB. There’s nothing
like that so I don’t think that’s a given but certainly comments on the – both what should be studied in
the EIR and once the cultural resources section is prepared and comes out for public comment on the
EIR, that’s a time to weigh in but there’s no plan at this point to come to the HRB for either project.
Chair Bernstein: So, Vice Chair Bower and I have done projects in San Francisco. We’ve mentioned this in
other public meetings. Is – if there’s going to be a potential impact on a historic structure, that’s the first
step and so that way any project designers take that information early. Not design a large building and
then present to the HRB because developers, they’re not going to knock off a million dollars’ worth of or
$500,000 worth of fees later so that’s my…
Ms. French: To the extent that the HRB would like to, I guess agendize a discussion about what is our
ordinance say and how does – when there’s a building across the street – I mean, the ordinance doesn’t
say and go to the HRB to discuss a building across the street from a National Register Landmark. It just
doesn’t.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Council Member Holman.
Council Member Holman: Yes, I was just asking Amy earlier, the Board has commented on some of these
things previously and I was just asking what the next steps on getting some of that stuff to come forward
to comply it and get it into some kind of document to present to the Board and have final discussion on
it. Then get it to Council for a potential joint session or recommendations from Council. You’ve had a lot
of good conversations and I applaud you for that. They have been really good conversations with a lot of
meat to them and so then, what’s the next steps with that? I would hate to see all the conversation that
you’ve had and the good work that you’ve done be showing up in a Staff 2-years from now like the Mills
Act contract discussion. You might want to think about that.
Chair Bernstein: Vice Chair Bower.
Vice Chair Bower: Isn’t the downtown parking structure partially underground or is it – all 5-storys above
ground?
Chair Bernstein: Newspaper was talking about 2-storys I think down and then 5-storys up so it’ll be 7-
storys altogether.
Vice Chair Bower: So, it will be as big as the AT&T building? Jesus.
Chair Bernstein: Anyway, so that (inaudible) is my comment. That’s – just like we do in our businesses,
you get all the information first and then design, don’t design and then say now, what’s the impact?
Alright, is there any – so as far as action, to find out how do we encourage the designers to talk to us
first? There’s no requirement for that to happen. What can the HRB – what – any suggestions from Staff
of how that communication happens to the designer to hear from the HRB? Board Member – Vice Chair
Bower.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Vice Chair Bower: Maybe we could fold that into the discussion about HRB reporting directly to the
Council. I – that has been sort of been on the back burner because I need to meet with Amy to work out
– to understand where the ordinance – the actual ordinance needs to be changed and it seems to me
that’s an – this – that opportunity of having direct reporting to the Council would invite this kind – a
similar ordinance change that say that – what is Michael’s – Michael, what is your term? Something…
Board Member Makinen: Well, this is a – in federal terminology, this would clearly be an area of
potentially affect consideration.
Vice Chair Bower: Thank you.
Board Member Makinen: How that works and translates into a local municipality language I’m not quite
clear but it’s the area of potentially effects really is if you have a project that you have control of it that
impacts a historic resource, you must take in consideration the actions before you implement your plan.
Vice Chair Bower: Ok, so if we’re going to make a recommendation to the Council to have the HRB report
directly to the Council or to the Planning Director and not through the ARB, we also ought to – I think we
could take that opportunity to add language that includes the area of potential effect of a project on a
historic structure or within – so, on the structure or within a historic district or – so, downtown district,
Professorville or whatever.
Ms. French: I guess this is kind of getting into a longer discussion but you know, when a – we have a
CEQA review process. California Environmental Quality Act allows us to look at impacts on historic
resources as part of it so to the extent, if there’s an adjacent historic resource a budding the site and
putting a garage, let’s say, will – could with the vibrations and the whatever activity, could cause damage
to that structure. That would certainly be something that is an impact to be looked at and mitigation
measures developed around that. When we’re talking about a historic district, which the downtown is not
a historic district, it’s an important area with lots of historic resources but it’s not in and of itself a district
of – that’s historic – National Register historic.
Vice Chair Bower: So, ok, the downtown isn’t a historic district, yet all projects in the downtown zone
potentially, come before the HRB.
Ms. French: No, that’s not true.
Vice Chair Bower: So, what triggers an HRB review of downtown buildings?
Ms. French: I just feel like we’re getting into a larger discussion and I would want to…
Vice Chair Bower: Sure but…so, this is old business and this tie back to the – so, maybe I’ll visit this with
you privately.
Board Member Kohler: Could I just – tell me again where the site is that we’re talking about for this giant
garage?
Ms. French: The downtown parking garage, which is going to be scheduled for a scoping session at the
end of May with the Planning Commission is across the street from – the parking – it’s the surface
parking lot that is across the street from the post office and next to the AT&T or is that what it is? What
is that building?
Board Member Kohler: It’s across the street but not next to it.
Ms. French: It’s not next to the post office, correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Chair Bernstein: They reasons – yeah. The reason I brought this question up is that the Council hears
often enough from members of the public about the idea of compatibility of new large structures next to
cultural significant structures. Then there’s appeals and all that stuff so again, if the designers are taking
into consideration historic concerns early, then it just – it makes this, I think, a smoother process. At the
Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on May 31st, I’ve seen a few instances where Board
Members will speak at a meeting like that and then that Board Member needs to be recused from any
future conversations. Boy, a scoping meeting would be a good chance for HRB members to speak but I
think there are limitations on how that can happen, unfortunately.
Ms. French: Well, I would suggest that if you have – because the point of that meeting is to allow the
public – any member of the public, including HRB Members, to state what they think should be studied in
the draft DIR. That is not putting bias by asking that the consultant study ‘X’.
Council Member Holman: Can I just add that since there have been conversations about the parking
garage, let’s just use that for an example. HRB Members are always and I would hope encouraged to
comment on the EIR – the DEIR. Scoping is one opportunity but then the comments on the DEIR are
also. Whether a project comes to the Board or not officially, Board Members could comment on the DEIR
and anybody who isn’t familiar it’s like any comment that is received – Amy and I were kind of laughing
about and Wynne Furth were kind of laughing about some of the comments that come in response to the
former Preservation Ordinance but no matter what the comment is, there is a requirement that all
questions and comments be responded too in the final EIR. It doesn’t help to make comments on the
final EIR. You have to make the comments at the DEIR stage.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, yeah. So, I would say that – excuse me for a second. So, any comment that an
HRB Member makes at that PTC meeting should not be in any way suggesting how an HRB Member
might vote if it becomes a review process.
Ms. French: Correct, that’s at the scoping meeting where it’s going – all of the comments are collected
and provided to the consultant as to what they should be looking at when they study that particular item.
Board Member Kohler: If all of us went and made comments at that meeting, we couldn’t – the Board
couldn’t talk about it again in an official meeting?
Ms. French: If the comments are restricted to what should be studied in the EIR, not I don’t like this
building. I wouldn’t say something like that or I really like this building because yes, that would show bias
as to your future – if you’re going to be considering it in the future. I don’t know that you will be.
Board Member Kohler: Well, that’s clarification.
Chair Bernstein: Good. Thank you for that. Those are – any other Board Member questions, comments,
and announcements before we move to adjournment? Ok, seeing none. We are adjourned. Thank you.
Adjournment