HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-10 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Board Member Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen
Absent: Vice Chair Bower, Brandon Corey
Chair Bernstein: Good morning everybody. I’d like to welcome everyone to the August 10th meeting of
the Historic Resources Board. Would staff please call roll?
Oral Communications
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is oral communications. The public may speak to any item not on
the agenda and I do have one card from David Carnahan, welcome.
Mr. David Carnahan, City Clerk’s Office: Good morning Chair Bernstein and Board Members. David Carnahan of the City Clerk’s Office and I am here to speak with you about a great opportunity for members of the community to give back to the community and help shape the feature of the Palo Alto community. The City is currently recruiting for two terms on the Architectural Review Board, four on the Historic Resources Board and two on the Planning and Transportation Commission. The application
deadline is September 19th at 4:30 PM. I’m going to hand out a flyer for each of you and put some of
them in the back of the room. I am encouraging you to reach out to two people and to encourage them –
people that you know that you think would be a good fit for one of these Boards and Commissions and
encouraging them to apply. Again, the reminder that the deadline is September 19th, 4:30 PM.
Applications are available on the City Clerk’s website, cityofpaloalto.org\clerk. Thank you.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you, David. Ok, I see no other cards.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Bernstein: Are there any agenda changes, additions or deletions today?
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None.
Chair Bernstein: Good, thank you.
City Official Reports
1.Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Chair Bernstein: Any City official reports?
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
MINUTES: August 10,2017
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ms. French: Yes, just looking at your agenda coming for meetings, we are having the second meeting of
August, which is the 24th and I believe we have a quorum for that date. We have a couple of exciting
items for that one; one of which was requested by the Board about the ITT building and just an update
on that. We also have agenda items for the September 14th meeting. Now just a reminder, we are on the
docket for a joint meeting with City Council on August 28th. Obviously, we’re talking about potential topics
today. We have an opportunity to finalize that conversation on the 24th if need be and we are looking
actively to have a meeting with the Chair, Vice Chair, Mayor, Vice Mayor in the coming weeks. Chair Bernstein: Good, thank you. Study Session 2. HRB Discussion of Potential Topics for Joint Meeting with City Council
Chair Bernstein: Next is a study session, HRB discussion of potential topics for joint meeting with City
Council. Will there be any Staff report on this item?
Ms. French: Yes, just briefly. You have a report that we prepared based on some background that we
have shared before, the fact that the last time we did this was in May of 2015, so it’s been a while, and
background information for you to cull through. We have had our retreat this year, we talked about
potential topics and the projects that rise to the top as far as what we’re interested in tackling this year in the work program. Then typically these meetings – again, I mentioned that we do have a brief meeting with the Mayor, Vice Mayor, Chair and Vice Chair to talk about the topics that we will expect to cover. Then we always leave a little room for something else so we have to really limit what we’re planning to talk about because the meeting is a short one. I’ll let Martin lead the…
Chair Bernstein: Great, thank you and welcome Council Member Holman. Alright, so as Board Members
have seen in our report today there are some suggestions and of course, we’re open to other suggestions
too of topics to discuss. Any Board Member’s like to start? Board Member Kohler.
Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to remind everybody that every time we do this, we have all these
schedules and everything and we’re – we get to meet with the Council and Council starts talking and the
next thing you know, it’s all non-related to what we were going to talk about. So, it’s – I mean I think we
should do this but it’s almost humorous because we work so hard to do all these topics and the next
thing you know, we get to the Council and they kind of take charge and talk about what they want to talk about. Sometimes it’s been really helpful and other times it doesn’t seem to get us what we were trying to do. Ms. French: If I can respond to that and perhaps Karen – Council Member Holman - would as well. I
think sometimes the more successful of these joint meetings, there’s been some sort of brief presentation
or a handout to kind of summarize the activities of the Historic Resources Board. I have prepared a CMR
that has already been reviewed and is ready to go out to kind of say what we’ve been up to. I think if the
HRB Members are interested in supplementing with something else, we might take a proactive approach
that way, just so they make – we make sure that they understand what’s been going on in the last year
or two.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, I…
Chair Bernstein: Oh, oh, I’m sorry. Please, Council Member Holman; I’m sorry. Council Member Holman: I was -- thank you for the opportunity. I was willing to supplement what Amy
said. So, two things, one is will the HRB staff have or will the HRB Members have – I’m sorry - will the
City of Palo Alto Page 3
HRB Members have an opportunity to see the CMR and comment on it? You were mentioning
supplementing it so could – will they see it when?
Ms. French: Yes, it is in a draft form right now as far as hasn’t been reviewed finally but I believe I can
share that. It’s a briefer kind of version of what I’ve prepared for today’s meeting, as far as what we’ve
been up to. It does have a recommendation for what we’d like the Council to provide leadership on.
Council Member Holman: Ok and then the other thing to Rodger’s point, from my perspective from having been on both sides of this with Council Members, the most effective – from my perspective, the most effective joint meetings are the one where, as Amy said, the presentations are relatively brief and where a variety of the Board or Commission Members participate in a brief manner but cover a different topic. Then there is a specific question posed to the Council because it is left open ended and the Council
can go anywhere but if there are specific questions posed to the Council that you’re requesting direction
on, that’s how you’re most likely to elicit direct guidance and response. What would you say, Amy?
Ms. French: I think that’s good. As noted in the report for today, I reminded all as I did in the last Mills
Act discussion that we had or one of those reports that something did – was said by one Council Member
about the Mills Act. We ran with that; so I think to have some – I don’t know if it was a question posed
but it certainly had a bit of a focus, so that we could have a little nugget of something to respond to. So,
I think that’s a well-taken recommendation to ask -- hone down one or two questions that are the most
important, or one. Board Member Kohler: I’ll start us off if you want. David and I have had some discussions that after the meeting we – to review the replacement fire station in the park. That basically all our comments were totally ignored by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). So, they – we suggested a various option to the
glass box that’s going to go in there and it had no – there was no – from what we could tell, no
discussion hardly about that option. They just went ahead and did the glass box, which I think everyone
on the Board was not happy with. It’s a glass…
Chair Bernstein: So, as far as our meeting today Roger, what would be your suggestion for a topic?
Board Member Kohler: Well, I don’t know exactly how to – the topic I guess is when we have a meeting
that eventually goes to City Council or others, I don’t know how we arrange it such that hopefully part
what we’re asking for gets done.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so it sounds like the question that you would be – we would discuss as the retreat would be is there a process for HRB comments to get more directly reflected in the Council’s actions? Is that…
Board Member Kohler: Well, I guess. I mean we do what we do but I’m just saying that somehow in the
past that usually what happens is, the Council goes off and talks about their own stuff.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so more directed questions that…
Board Member Kohler: If there is some way to ask or hope for to have some discussion.
Chair Bernstein: Ok.
Board Member Kohler: I mean it’s not as bad as I’m making it sound but it – I mean after the last
meeting, we just sort of left and it was sort of taken away the discussion about the – part of the HRB sort of got lost (inaudible)(crosstalk). It wandered off into… Ms. French: Can I have a little bit – so, there’s one example of a project that had some constraints and
you had comments about it. The HRB comments and then the ARB had looked at those constraints and
studies of something different than what they’d been shown and then they came to their own
City of Palo Alto Page 4
recommendation. I understand the feelings of maybe not having been heard but of course, the minutes
are provided. What I would say is the Junior Museum and Zoo, maybe take a look at that as another
project that’s a City project that is going through the process that the HRB has very much listened to and
the ARB took up the charge, not only about the Girl Scout House. In fact, I think they were part of
leading that charge, but also about the pitched roof etc. So, I mean I think I wouldn’t extrapolate with
one project with its constraints and say that’s happening universally. So, I just – I’m sorry, I just had to
weigh in on that. Board Member Kolher: My only point is that in the past, I’ve been going to these for twenty some years so it just basically – it’s a good meeting because I think it’s good for all of us to see the Council and for them to see us but to – just in the past, it’s sort of gone – actually, I should say that all the things that have wandered off have not been a negative or they have not been something that wasn’t important. It’s
just that when we make our list and try to get answers, it’s not a big deal. I’m just…
Ms. French: So, I’ll just – if I may because, maybe I was a little defensive on that since I am doing the
City projects; sorry about that. What I would just say is that governance has been a topic in the past, it’s
in your staff report about that and it was talked about. Certainly, reporting out that it was talked about
and wondering if there need to be ordinance changes in the feature; it’s something to be considered and
that kind of thing. I mean I think maybe not focusing on a project or at least when you do, don’t think
about just one project and maybe we need more conversation this.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you and I agree with Amy French about the ARB response to HRB comments. Ms. French: I’m sorry - that we had a small side conversation about the value of joint meetings with ARB and HRB and we talked about doing that. We were attempting to do that before the last time the HRB
and ARB met about a specific project, but there were some issues with the number of items on the
agenda. So, we still have that out there as something worth doing because I think yeah, any time you
talk amongst yourselves, without going up the chain, that’s nice to get some things aired perhaps. I’m
sorry - you said something that I didn’t hear.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, (inaudible) I agree with Amy French’s observation about the ARB response to the
HRB’s comments regarding the children’s zoo. We were listened to and acknowledged and the ARB did
kind of take over the comments that we provided on that so there are examples where we are listened
to. So, thanks and I agree with your observation on that. Alright…
Ms. French: Just to finalize that, I think we could resume the attempt and hopefully we’re successful to have a joint meeting with the ARB. I mean I think that would be a value and I’ll just bring that up again with Management.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah, I agree that those are very valuable too. It’s – that way words are expressed
directly one way. I know – do you want to comment on this subject? Oh yeah please and then we’ll go
back to you.
Board Member Wimmer: Just a quick question, so what triggers a joint meeting with the ARB because I
know we just recently had one about the residents on that – on the corner of what? Waverley and
Channing and that was a group meeting but what triggered that as opposed to not having it for the new
fire house or other projects?
Ms. French: So, we had thought that having a joint meeting before the consideration of that SOFA II
project would be a nice way to segue into that project actually on the same meeting, and it just didn’t work out that way. Certainly, SOFA II projects or SOFA projects are an opportunity for the Boards to meet – because it’s mandated in the code as a coordinated development permit. So, those are opportunities to have discussions but it’s just that it’s about the project at hand and I think you are
seeking a more general discussion about the relationship and interaction.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Chair Bernstein: Good question, former Vice Chair Wimmer. Yes, Beth?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, in sort of thinking of the big picture of our historic resources, I thought
that it might be very important to check to see – I would recommend that we have in our inventory, the
buildings that are on the National Register and the buildings that are on the California Register. Most of
them are but there are some I believe that is not so I’ll send this down to the Board Members and here is
a list for the – our staff and Council women. It just seems to make sense to every so often check this because things have been added and there are also some interesting points of interests that might be looked at. Chair Bernstein: I see staff is taking notes of our comments today. For the meeting with Chair and Vice Chair and Mayor and Vice Mayor, the notes that I see Emily taking today, would that be – it would be
helpful to hear all of our comments and see them if you are taking notes so when we meet with the
Mayor and Vice Mayor we could -- or should we take our own notes so everything that…
Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Good morning everyone. These are just kind of my personal notes so
(inaudible) just trying to gather ideas and expand on things – on my own ideas. We will have obviously
minutes available for everyone.
Chair Bernstein: Will the minutes be available before the meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor?
Ms. French: Yes, I don’t believe we’re going to meet next week so it takes our transcriptionist sometime to do this. So, I think what I – just – back to the – that’s Board Member Bunnenberg’s comments. This is a list that you’ve handed out of Palo Alto National State and County landmarks. I guess are you suggesting that this appears on our website in some way or links to the things or are you actually saying
that you think these should be added to the Palo Alto inventory?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Look at adding them to our inventory and then take whatever steps are
needed to do that.
Ms. French: I guess the inventory has individually listed properties and for instance, the National Historic
Districts that are you are suggesting be added to the inventory, it – how that – that was kind of a
voluntary thing in an honorary recognition for that – for those tracks. I think taking the next step and
saying that’s worthy of an inventory is – it needs to be further looked at. So as far individual sites, I think
those could warrant discussion but I think it’s – we need a lot of discussions and some focus on this. Chair Bernstein: Alright, any other suggestions? The reason that – thank you for the – that we’ll see our comments in the minutes because since Vice Chair Bower is not here, that way he can hear what we are talking about today. So, in our packet, there have been some suggestions of things to bring up for our
joint City Council/HRB meeting. Any additional comments or additions to this list? Alright, I have some
thoughts about that and how’s the Board feel about adding this to our list. When I look at chapter
18.12.120, it lists for the R-1 district home improvement exceptions and there are several as we all know.
One of the restrictions of this home improvement exception process includes limited it when it comes to
historic properties to Category One or Category Two. Since there are four categories, my suggestions
that we briefly discuss is to add to the list is why not include Categories Three and Four. For example,
the former University Arts building, (inaudible) tenant building, that’s Category Three. That’s just an
example of where the categories don’t seem to be in line with the historical significant so instead of
trying to re-categorize threes and fours that may be reviewed as Categories One and Two, why not just
kind of tweak the ordinance to include One, Two, Three, Four? That makes it a lot easier for every owner
of a historic property, rather than – the reason I point that out is we’ve seen some project before us where they were just small little cottages listed as a Category Three, just as the Shinola building is Category Three. Then to use the encouragement of historic preservation by using ordinances such as home improvement exceptions or another kind, the applicant had to write a report saying oh, this should
be a Category Two. Well, why force an applicant to go to through that process? That doesn’t seem very
user-friendly and if it’s a cultural goal of Palo Alto to preserve listed historical structures, don’t make it
City of Palo Alto Page 6
such administrative hoop that someone has to go through. If it’s historic, it’s historic and if it’s not then
apply for the exceptions so that would be my suggestion of an action item to request Council to look at
how do we fine tune? It’s not making a new ordinance that’s the administrative action, if it can be – if the
Council can agree that oh, that’s just an administrative fine tuning, just –that’s one of my suggestions.
Make the process – if historic preservation is important, well then let historic properties apply.
Ms. French: Chair Bernstein, I just want to make sure that the umbrella of this is understood. So, the HIE process is available to all Categories One through Four. The bonus square footage is the perk that you’re talking about basically. The additional 200-square feet allowable to add into a resource so that’s the incentive that you are talking about; specific to floor area because the HIE is available to all homes in Palo Alto, historic or not.
Chair Bernstein: Thank you for that clarification.
Board Member Wimmer: Martin, can I make a comment about…
Chair Bernstein: Yes.
Board Member Wimmer: Just your comments reminded me of a prior discussion that we had about re-
examined the categories One through Four and we did have lengthy discussions about that. I think in
even one of our workshops but we never really came to a resolution about due to the current categories -- are they still effective? Are they still accurate? I know one discussion was have it either historic or not; just have one category. We never – I guess we never got – we never really made any changes to how we view the different categories. I don’t know if that’s still something that we’re working on or something that we’ve discussed and it just kind of came and went. His last comment just reminded me of that;
those prior discussions.
Ms. French: So, I’ll weigh in on that. Again, this gets back to the fact that our ordinance is dated and has
all of those categories and defined and what have you. So, this gets to a – the elephant in the room,
which is our historic ordinance and are we continuing on with that indefinitely or is there some future
date that we can tackle that because that is the elephant.
Chair Bernstein: I think there was one other specific thing to about it – the exceptions. It was at the – if
the – I think it’s only for Category One and Two according to the ordinance that if the first floor is higher
than 3-feet, then the basement of the historic house doesn’t count toward FAR but if it’s Category Three or Four, it does. So, there are two examples where ok gee, I’m going to try to make that structure – the applicant is going to say, I need that Category two so you know – but it forces the administrative stuff so why to make it challenging if you have a historic property if historic properties are important for the City of Palo Alto? There are two examples. Yeah, Board Member Wimmer?
Board Member Wimmer: So, maybe in light of all things that we are talking about, I think could we at our
joint meeting have – let’s just say that we have five – I can’t imagine we can really have time to discuss
more than four or maybe five but maybe we identify these individual things and the ordinance – updating
the ordinance would be one of those things. Give them bullet points of all the things that we’ve been
discussing and let them respond with a prioritized list. Like we give them these – the Mills Act, we’ve
been talking about that for a long time. The ordinance, we talk about that quite frequently. I mean the
context statement is sort of an ongoing project it seems like and then the inventory, that’s another thing
that we’ve – that’s been on our list of things. So, maybe we just say these are the profound things that
we feel like need to be pushed forward. Council, what is your opinion on what our priorities are and
what’s our leeway? How – can we just rewrite the ordinance? I mean I know we can’t but I am just saying like do we even attempt to do that or do we attempt to figure out how to improve the listing of the inventory. I mean how – I mean there is one thing to come up with bullet points but them how do we put those into place. How do we make those things happen? I guess that would be a second phase but I
think if they gave us feedback – that’s what we’re looking for, is some kind of feedback from them. If
they’d give us feedback and say hey yeah, now it’s time to work on Mills Act, that should be your priority
City of Palo Alto Page 7
and we want to see how you can take that a step further. Maybe that’s not – maybe their priority is
something – the ordinance may be. So, I think that would be valuable for us and that would be a
successful meeting. A joint meeting if we came – if we presented to them the things that we’ve been
discussing for a couple years and then they give us feedback on what ones that they think that is the
most important for us to continue to work on and pursue.
Chair Bernstein: That’s in light with Rodger’s initial sentiment, is keeping the – really focused and so yeah, that’s a good idea. Board Member Kohler: No, we’ve been doing this… Chair Bernstein: Yeah but that’s our – that’s part of our responsibility to is to help keep it focused too and
we can do that. Another comment I’ve thought about is when – how does the Board feel about this for
adding a topic? Again, it goes back to process and I guess that would be under governance. Often a
project that comes to the HRB, say it’s a commercial project, a mixed-use project, residential, retail or
office space, it might be a three-story project that comes to us fully designed, fully drawn showing all the
details – minutia of details. Then it comes to the HRB for our response and for comments towards the –
for the ARB’s review but a fully designed building; three-stories, 40 or 50,000-square foot structure and
then the Staff report asks for our review. HRB, what do you think? Well, if HRB unanimous decision or
majority decision is well, we think that three-story portion should be put towards the back of the
structure, I can’t see how a developer who has just spent about $250,000 in fees and administrative review process is going to say oh sure, I’ll just redesign the whole thing. That seems like an unfair request or burden on a property owner who’s invested that much time and money to get to that point and then it comes to the HRB. So, somehow about the process that if it’s going to affect some historical aspect of the community, then it comes before us way before an applicant has spent that kind of effort
and money and time. I mean that’s an investors money and I can’t see how that can make an applicant
very pleased with the process when it comes to historic preservation. So, again maybe just the step in
which it comes to the HRB before it gets fully (inaudible). Vice Chair Bower and I, we’ve done several
projects in San Francisco and in San Francisco the first step is what’s the historic – what’s the impact on
the historic structures and it’s a fantastic system. There is an example where the culture of San Francisco
is that there is a certain character to the City and the first step is what’s the historical impact? The first
step before you move on and the example I just gave is – it’s – HRB is kind of one of the – almost the
last step in the review process. So, it’s very difficult for the HRB to say something to make a major
change if that seems appropriate for the historical aspect, that that’s going to get implemented. So, how
useful is that I guess, for everyone? I guess part of the governance is when does a major project come to the HRB if it’s affecting a historic structure? In San Francisco, if the answer at that day one is at no impact or not a significant impact, then the developer gets to do his or her thing and then move on with the rest of the process but that’s my observation on major projects that come before us. Board Member Makinen?
Board Member Makinen: Well, it sounds like you're recommending that the process is not the best we
have right here to be polite and that we should make some recommendations that the process is
changed. I think that’s the essences of it that we are handicapped by the current process.
Chair Bernstein: So, my belief – (inaudible) one more comment and then I’ll go to you. My comment is
that all of the processes are dictated by ordinance. Ordinances are a reflection of each City’s culture so
San Francisco, the culture is historic and is important, the character is important and the reason for that
historic process is to help maintain the desired community character. I guess it’s how strong is the
historic preservation for the culture of Palo Alto and the ordinance reflects that. Good. Roger?
Board Member Kohler: I would just quickly say that you know it’s the role of the owner and the architect or designer of a building that he does his duty to figure out what he has to go through before he starts doing anything. So, to say it’s – they wouldn’t have done this building if they had known about the rules.
Well, they should have found the rules out ahead of time. I mean anybody who works in any City – I
don’t do much work in San Bruno and that kind of stuff – well, I did one but you know, I go up there and
City of Palo Alto Page 8
find out everything I need to know before I get started. So, to have a couple – like the building one block
over, they didn’t do their homework. I mean they didn’t go talk to the Planning Department to see what’s
up. (Crosstalk)
Chair Bernstein: In San Francisco, you can’t proceed unless you go through that step.
Board Member Kohler: Right and I guess the point is, is that I think it’s not totally our issue that they haven’t followed the rules or have this problem and that they didn’t do – you know it’s easy to come here and have a preliminary meeting with just some sketches. I think it’s important to try and encourage all that but I’m saying that I’m not going to – I’m not going to be too upset if a builder comes in and has all these plans and we say no. I mean they didn’t do their homework and that’s the way I feel about it.
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: But supposable right now, a part of the press process is that the people who
come in and ask for a building permit across the street or where ever it is now. It’s supposed to be – the
addresses are supposed to be checked but it appears that some of them are following through the cracks
and maybe not getting checked. So, maybe we’re asking for a little more management of that thing that’s
probably on their computer, to see that even buildings that we have some question about, that still get
looked at.
Board Member Wimmer: I think that – I’m going to chime in on that. I think it’s the burden of the applicant and the initial meetings with staff that should sort that out. I think for our Board, that’s too much for us to try to conquer; you know helping applicants get too far down the road before they come to us. That’s not our – I mean we can recognize that that’s unfortunate that happens. I really don’t see
any easy process for us, as a Board, to remedy that. I think it’s up to the applicant and it’s up to the staff
– the initial advice of staff. If that’s what happens, that’s what happens and they wouldn’t be the first or
the last ones to experience that. I don’t think that’s something that we should necessarily worry about
too much. Good to mention but I don’t think we should worry about that.
Chair Bernstein: In our staff report the – we can see the different items that the staff reported – gave to
us about topics. There’s training, governance, potential projects, outreach, inventory tracking, and Mills
Act program; those are the items listed here. Context statement? Oh yeah, I see that (inaudible). So, any
other additions for our meeting minutes today so when Vice Chair Bower and I meet with the Mayor and
Vice Mayor to add to the list? Vice – oh, I’m sorry. Ms. French: Can I just clarify… Chair Bernstein: Oh, yes.
Ms. French: …the report was intended not to say number one training, I think you should talk to the
Council about that. That’s not what’s this – the intent of this is. You don’t need to talk to Council about
training. This is just a hey, we – you guys asked for this, we did it and this is just kind of summarizing
your year to some extent. I think the potential projects and the governance are the areas that you want
to focus on. Where the potential projects are, I think the Mills Act Program and the modern context –
modern age context statement - are the two that we would need leadership from Council on. As I
mentioned, I can send out the draft report certainly, to the Chair and have that conversation – and the
Vice Chair and have a conversation about what staff is asking the Council to do as far as leadership. Then
we can have a conversation about that before our meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor. Certainly, any
kind of a presentation or even a handout of hey, we’ve been busy, look what we’ve been doing, I think would – could draw from this. If somebody wanted to collaborate with staff on that, I’m happy to do that. If we want to have any kind of images; you know it’s always kind of fun to have a 5-minute PowerPoint of you know, look at the projects we looked at this year kind of thing. If you wanted to do something
along those lines, I’d be happy to help on that.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Bernstein: Ok, so after today’s meeting, the next conversation is going to be with Vice Chair Bower
and myself as Chair with the Mayor and Vice Mayor so all the comments that we’re hearing today will –
David and I will have those. Go ahead.
Board Member Wimmer: Where you going to do that before our joint meeting? When is your meeting
happening?
Chair Bernstein: David and I will be meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor before… Board Member Wimmer: Before the joint meeting, ok. Ms. French: And before our final opportunity to talk about this, which is on August 24th. We have a place
holder in that meeting with the full Board to recap…
Chair Bernstein: Excellent.
Ms. French: …the plan for the – four days later.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, good. Ok, yeah, so David and I will be able to report what that discussion with the
Mayor and Vice Mayor is on the 24th before our joint meeting. Ok, good, excellent. Council Member
Holman? Council Member Holman: As one Council Member, one of the things that I would like to hear is if someone of you and maybe staff can do it but it would be great if you guys could do it but go through – you mentioned some of the incentives. Like for instance the 3-feet above grade and the HIE bonus
square footage. If the incentives were consistent across the board to be implacable to all four Categories
and potential California and National Register or those listed on California or National Register because
some – several of them are implacable to all of those. I know from back in my Planning Commission
days, they were applied across the board but we didn’t review everything so if those could be made
consistent, that’s way of getting some incentives for historic properties without changing the ordinance, I
think.
Ms. French: Yeah, so I mean I think – if I can weigh in then. The two that were mentioned here were the
floor area and the basement finish floor level under which the basement is counted or not. Those were
specifically in the ordinance, Chapter 18.12 of the municipal code regarding single family homes,
Categories One and Two. So, that would be an ordinance change if those – if that’s the critical incentives that you’re looking at but yes, there are other incentives in the code that are published on our website etc. for subdivision incentives and others. So, to the extent that an ordinance change would broaden that to Categories One through Four, that can be on your list of things and I can certainly let Hilary or Director
Gitelman know that is of interest. I don’t think the Board has had a full discussion on that.
Chair Bernstein: Right. Ok, good. The other point I want to make and I’ve always believed this and I
think it’s also true, is that any application for an exception is only an application so none of these
exceptions are rights. So, you still have to apply for them and go through the process and then each
governing body can review and then make a recommendation to the Director. I think that can relax
anyone who’s concerned about oh, look at all these exceptions to regulations. Well, they are not rights so
yeah, findings have to be made for example. Excellent suggestion, Council Member Holman. Any other
topics, any other comments on this agenda item? Roger.
Board Member Kohler: I would say that I’ve been sitting here and listening to all this and looking at my report. I have to admit; you guys do a really good at the Planning Department up there. To come through with all this every week and we try to read and everything but I think we really appreciate the effort you guys do or tend to forget the amount of work that it takes to put this together. Which is very
useful for us and well, for history as well but I’m just saying I thought I would just say a nice compliment
for – because we tend not to do that enough. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Bernstein: Any other comments from HRB or staff or Council Member on this subject?
Ms. French: I think we’ll back again on the 24th and perhaps on the 24th there can be further discussion
as Council Member Holman suggested that it’s kind of nice when three or more perhaps, Board Members
volunteer to present on one of the items to be discussed as part of the presentation. So, that might be a
good time to hash that out. Chair Bernstein: Right, good, ok. Anything else before we move on? Ok, alright, thank you. Approval of Minutes 3. Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 22, 2017
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is reviewing of draft minutes of June 22, 2017. Any motion to
amend -- Board Member Bunnenberg.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I just have one and it’s on page 19 and it…
Chair Bernstein: Is that packet page 19 or report 19?
Board Member Bunnenberg: Packet page 19. Chair Bernstein: Thank you.
Board Member Bunnenberg: Let’s see, now is that – at any rate, it has to do with asking about a little
tree out by Middlefield Road and I was quoted as being inaudible and it was that it was a tree for
Josephine O’Hara.
Chair Bernstein: I don’t see your quote on page – on packet page 19.
Board Member Bunnenberg: I’ve somehow must have looked at the wrong page but…
Ms. French: Quoted on packet page 27, I think that might be where the material is.
Chair Bernstein: Yeah. Ms. French: The – it’s a typo then…
Board Member Bunnenberg: Yes, you’re right. (crosstalk)
Ms. French: …O’Hara? It’s O’Hara, is that…
Board Member Bunnenberg: O’Hara, Josephine O H-A-R-A; who was the first Director of the Junior
Museum so we want to see that protected.
Chair Bernstein: Ok, any other corrections or amendments or motion to approve as amended?
MOTION
Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) Chair Bernstein: Second?
Board Member Wimmer: I’ll second.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Chair Bernstein: Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Thank you.
MOTION PASSED 5-0 WITH VICE CHAIR BOWER AND BOARD MEMBER COREY ABSENT
Subcommittee Items
Chair Bernstein: Next is any subcommittee items? Any subcommittee to report? Seeing none. Ms. French: None. Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Chair Bernstein: Board member questions, comments, and announcements? Seeing none. Any other
issues for staff to bring up?
Ms. French: None.
Chair Bernstein: Seeing none. Ok, I think we are ready to adjourn and we are adjourned. Thank you.
Adjournment