Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-12 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 Call to Order/Roll Call 3 4 Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Beth 5 Bunnenberg, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen 6 7 Absent: Brandon Corey 8 9 Chair Bernstein: Welcome to the October 12th, 2017 meeting of the Historic Resources Board. Will staff 10 please call role? Thank you. 11 12 Oral Communications 13 14 Chair Bernstein: First on our agenda is oral communications if there are any members of the public that 15 would like to speak? I have one card from Council Member Holman, please and welcome. 16 17 Council Member Holman: Thank you. Before you, you have a sponsorship sheet from the CPF Conference 18 and I am here this morning as the Chair of the Committee to ask you as individual members of the 19 community and as members especially of the Historic Resources Board, to consider making a sponsorship 20 level contribution to the success of the CPF Conference. Obviously, the HRB does not have a budget so 21 this would be something that you as individuals collaborate on and decide about what level of 22 sponsorship you would like to provide to support the conference. The conference has not been here for 23 30-years so – as of next year and so it’s really important that this be a successful conference. We want to 24 represent our City and our Palo Alto Stanford community very, very well. Last night at the Palo Alto 25 Stanford Heritage Board meeting, $5,000 was committed by that Board. They said it could be used as a 26 matching challenge as well. You’ll notice – I’m hoping that the Board will see fit to do something along 27 those lines but you’ll notice at the pillar $2,500 range, that actually has seven entrances. So, what that 28 means is like for the California Preservation Conference it has two – the pillar has – I’m sorry, the pillar 29 has three memberships for that – registration for that, the (inaudible) circle reception two people can go 30 to that, the opening reception two people can go to that so that happens to be seven people. You can 31 divide them up as you wish or you could prorate them however you wish but I’m hoping as individuals 32 you will get together so the Historic Resources Board can be represented in a very obvious and public 33 way at the CPF Conference. Thank you very much and also, CPF Board is or CPF staff is a little bit short-34 handed right now so just know that those of you who have volunteered to serve on the Committees, 35 there will be a meeting next Tues – excuse me, next Wednesday at 2:30 if you haven’t seen the email yet 36 this morning. I appreciate your consideration and maybe through the Chair, you could communicate back 37 to me about any commitment that you’re interested in making. Thank you. 38 39 Board Member Bunnenberg: And… 40 41 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Yes? 42 43 Board Member Bunnenberg: Is there a place that we should say something or agree to some sponsorship 44 money or how do we handle that? 45 46 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: October 12, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman, do you care to respond to Beth (inaudible) comments? 1 2 Council Member Holman: I’m not clear on the question. What do you mean someplace? You could have – 3 you’ll have – depending on the level of contribution, you can see where – here where the marketing 4 benefits are so what the publication opportunities are with sponsorship levels. That way there would be 5 published sponsorship recognition of the Historic Resources Board. Does that answer the question Beth? 6 7 Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) 8 9 Chair Bernstein: We need your – Beth, we need your light on, please. 10 11 Board Member Bunnenberg: I don’t see a paper that’s the color of yours and… 12 13 Council Member Holman: Oh, it’s the same thing, this is just – I just wanted to make sure that I kept one 14 for me, it’s the same thing. We can talk offline if you’d like because this is a – not specifically an HRB 15 action. It’s one that I just hope the HRB will back but it’s an individual decision of money of HRB 16 Members but I am happy to talk with anybody who has questions. 17 18 Board Member Kohler: Is there on here a date? 19 20 Council Member Holman: Yes. 21 22 Board Member Kohler: I didn’t see that. 23 24 Council Member Holman: It’s not on here but the Conference is next May; as it always is its preservation 25 month in California. It will be May 17th-20th and it may possibly be the 18th to 20th but right now its 26 scheduled for the 17th to the 20th. 27 28 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. 29 30 Council Member Holman: Anything else? 31 32 Chair Bernstein: Beth, you have your light on, anything else? Ok. 33 34 Council Member Holman: Again, we can talk offline if anybody has any questions and I appreciate your 35 consideration. Thank you. 36 37 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. Any other members of the public who would like to speak to us on any 38 item, not on the agenda? Seeing none. 39 40 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 41 42 Chair Bernstein: Moving to if there are any agenda changes, additions, and deletions? 43 44 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. 45 46 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. 47 48 City Official Reports 49 50 1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments 51 52 Chair Bernstein: City official reports, Historic Resources Board meeting schedule, and assignments. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. French: I’d like to just report that the meeting of October 26th will be canceled. We don’t have any 1 items that are critical for that but we are going to meet on November 9th, assuming we have a quorum. 2 So, if any of you know that you’re not going to be here, that would be good to know and make sure we 3 do have a quorum for that meeting. We also have the 23rd is canceled for obvious reasons, it’s 4 Thanksgiving and then December 14th we’ll have a meeting but of course, another obvious cancellation is 5 December 28th. 6 7 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. 8 9 Study Session 10 11 2. INFORMATIONAL REPORT: Eichler Design Guidelines and Process for Developing 12 Potential Regulatory Options 13 14 Chair Bernstein: Next would be a study session and where public comment is permitted, 3-minutes per 15 speaker. Informational report on Eichler Design Guidelines and process for developing potential 16 regulatory options. Does staff have a report for us? 17 18 Ms. French: Yes briefly, we did provide an informational report regarding this project which was 19 authorized and directed by City Council last December. You – we’ve talked about this and several of you 20 have attended these outreach events. We’ve had several workshops now to ascertain what the public, 21 the Eichler owners, in particular, think about going with Eichler Design Guidelines; what’s important to 22 them and the values of these neighborhoods. We’ve had several workshops and we’ve had a workshop 23 with the two historic districts -- the National Register historic Eichler districts. We’ve had the memory 24 event which some of you attended as well, which went during I think July it was; possibly August. Excuse 25 me, air quality problems and that’s what we’ve done to date. Our consultants have drafted the 26 Administrative Draft Guidelines and so we are in the process of working through those and getting those 27 into a publication at the end of this month, October. We have targeted and reserved a room November 28 28th, after Thanksgiving, in the downtown library here for people to come and learn about the guidelines, 29 provide input, and discuss so that’s on the immediate calendar there. A couple things about the 30 guidelines – oh, and I should say that the next steps after that are indicated on the last page of this 31 particular report; packet page 10 indicates our plans going forward beyond November 28th. We do intend 32 to bring those to you in December, the first meeting in December or the only meeting of December. We 33 will come to the HRB with – for discussion of those guidelines. Of course, you will get them at the end of 34 October so you will have a month to digest and consider your comments. Then going forward after 35 December, we would come in January – I’m sorry, in December we would also visit with the Planning and 36 Transportation Commission and probably the ARB as well, to share with them what we’re doing as far as 37 potential code modifications; which we are working on developing possible code changes that people can 38 weigh in on and the Council can decide if they want to direct us to move in a direction of regulations of 39 any kind. Right, getting back to that so Eichler’s – I should say we’ve received some comments on this – 40 recent comments. One email came and noted that CCNRs are not in every Eichler tract. CCNRs being 41 covenants and code restrictions that talk about restricting to one-story or other restrictions and I don’t 42 think that was intended to – in the report I said other Eichler tracts, I didn’t mean all other Eichler tracts. 43 There are Eichler tracts that have CCNRs and we know of several so we can in the next report, report on 44 this. We can describe which ones we are aware of that have these CCNRs. Excuse me, the other 45 comment that we did get was somebody commenting on just Eichler tracts and not being appreciative of 46 the City getting involved with any kind of regulations or guidelines with respect to Eichler’s. I think I am 47 going to stop there. If you’ve read the report you can kind of get a gist of where we’re going with this. 48 We’ll have more to tell you in probably our November meeting and you will have a chance to give us 49 some input before we have our public workshop if you’d like at that meeting. 50 51 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. On that public works, did you mention or do you know that community 52 workshop on November 28th, where the location is? 53 54 Ms. French: The downtown library, right across the street from here on Forest. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. 1 2 Board Member Kohler: Martin, can I? 3 4 Chair Bernstein: Yes, Rodger, go ahead. 5 6 Board Member Kohler: Let’s see, about a year and a half ago or so I worked with some folks for an 7 Eichler right off Charleston. It turned out to be a really sad and kind of not a good situation where these 8 owners wanted to do two-story home and the neighbors came out in force and complained. We then did 9 some drawings for a one-story home and the owners just gave up. Part of the things that you have to be 10 careful of when you recommend one-story only is that having lived here all these years and worked on 11 many Eichler’s and I live just a half mile away, you can do these one-story homes that literally they fill up 12 the entire site. So, there’s hardly any open space, there’s hardly any room for trees and it becomes this 13 big blob of house. They are really not, in my mind, very comforting for the neighborhood because you 14 end up – these homes -- I don’t know how you control it but in theory, one-story homes can be 17-feet 15 high. You end up with these houses that are just huge, 15-17-feet high, and they pop out. Now, unless 16 your guidebook that you’re proposing here specifically says you have to do an Eichler style home, that 17 might help but I should have brought – next time I’ll bring my site plans that I did. It’s just shocking how 18 little yard area is left when you do one-story homes on a property. So, I’m not a huge – I just don’t 19 understand the problem and I think I’d rather have a neighbor with lots of trees and foliage going and a 20 two-story home with the windows set up so that they can’t look anywhere. To me, that’s a much better 21 solution than these – I’ll have to bring it to show you. It’s startling because there’s just hardly any yard 22 left at all. I mean you have the 20-feet in the back but sometimes that’s projected by another 4-feet or 23 so and so it’s just kind of shocking that you – a lot of these Eichler’s have redwood trees and everything 24 so they aren’t going to be able to expand anyway. If you – if they can’t – because of the redwood trees, 25 which is (inaudible) property there, they won’t be able to expand their maximum floor area because they 26 can’t tear down the – take down the redwood trees. I think there’s – I just think it’s easy to say we all 27 should have one-story but two-story homes can be designed in such a way as an individual review. You 28 provide modest windows, covered windows and all kinds of things that will keep the privacy continuing. I 29 don’t know what to say about all that but I just think it’s too bad if it ends up that way. 30 31 Chair Bernstein: My understanding is the maximum lot coverage is equal to the FAR, is that current 32 regulation? 33 34 Ms. French: When building a one-story home, by choice anybody can in any district, Eichler or not, build 35 up to the floor area ratio maximum for the site. There’s no design review or anything else discretionary 36 there. One – can I – because Rodger is – as an HRB Member, I feel like I need to… 37 38 Board Member Kohler: Correct me. 39 40 Ms. French: Well, make sure that you’re – because you’re an ambassador of what we are doing here with 41 the Eichler Guidelines, that I’d like to make it clear. This grew out of the single-story overlay broken 42 process, I’ll just call it that, which was that people self-select to be a single-story overlay. They come 43 forward, the support level erodes and it fails; we had that happen twice. As part of that action Council 44 said, what we really need is guidelines so that when people build a two-story home there are guidelines 45 for how to fit it into the neighborhood to be compatible. So, really what I was referring to early about the 46 CCNRs is background material and I brought it up because I had an email about it. People seem to think 47 by my mentioning that many neighborhoods have those or some neighborhoods – Eichler neighborhoods 48 have those that that is somehow what we’re doing; we’re not and that’s just a background piece. You 49 know when I have the report and the guidelines in front of you to help everyone understand, you will 50 understand that it’s guidelines for two-story development, as well as guidelines for compatible additions 51 to a one-story addition so it’s the whole gambit. It’s not just for two-story homes, it’s not just for one-52 story homes. 53 54 Chair Bernstein: Yes, Vice Chair Bower. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Bower: I have a couple of questions that I don’t expect you would answer but I hope that in 1 the report are answered. The map that you’ve provided us on page 7 is very helpful because it shows us 2 in the pink where the single-story overlays are in effect and like the two green districts are the historic 3 register districts. What I was hoping to see and I thought I had seen in the first community meeting is 4 what the total area of impact would be. In other words, another color that would show what 5 neighborhoods would be – that wherein the Eichler Design Guidelines would be effective. The yellow – so 6 the three colors that are here, yellow was every other single-family home in the City. I guess the 7 question – the reason why I bring this up is that I think it’s important that we figure out some kind of 8 graphic that will show homeowners if they’re in or not. Is every Eichler going to be subject to the 9 Guidelines or just the neighborhoods? 10 11 Ms. French: I’ll – that’s nuanced, subjected to implies regulations. At this point in time, there are no 12 regulations that are being worked on other than the potential for regulations but the guidelines can be 13 used, along with the IR two-story review process, to ensure that the two-story home that ends up is 14 compatible and to help with that. As far as subject to and required, there’s no edict coming forward with 15 these guidelines. 16 17 Vice Chair Bower: It’s not going to be – it’s not similar to the Professorville Design Guidelines which are 18 whether – they are guidelines that I think determine the design – the ultimate design of additions and 19 new buildings in Professorville. This would not be similar? 20 21 Ms. French: So, what’s – so let’s review on that. Professorville is regulated by the City’s historic 22 ordinance. All of the Eichler’s in town are not regulated by the City’s historic ordinance so there’s no 23 required discretionary review in those districts now and there’s wouldn’t be unless the Council directs us 24 to do so. 25 26 Vice Chair Bower: So, these guidelines aren’t by the way, going to put a single-story lay anywhere and 27 they don’t really address that. 28 29 Ms. French: They can be used in single-story overlay neighborhoods that already exist. For 30 neighborhoods that want to elect in the future to be a single-story overlay, they can use them. People 31 can use them even without single-story overlay because when they proposed a two-story or a single-32 story home, they are useful as guidance. 33 34 Vice Chair Bower: Ok but every individual review project would have to look at – I’m not sure what the 35 right terminology is but would use these Eichler Design Guidelines as part of that review process, is that 36 right? 37 38 Ms. French: Yes, there would be a connection to the individual review which is a discretionary process. 39 For a discretionary process requiring discretionary City review, these would have some tie into that and 40 that’s the intent of having them. One of the intents – the most important intent is to ensure that the two-41 story home that comes along has greater compatibility than what we’ve seen without these guidelines. 42 43 Vice Chair Bower: Another question which is related to the email that we received as Board Members 44 from a community member. Two of the districts, the single-story overlay districts did not reach a level of 45 support by the neighborhood to put that in place but I note here that there are nine of that where 46 successful. Do you know what the -- can you describe what the vote or the neighborhood participation 47 level has to be in order for a single-story overlay to become effective? 48 49 Ms. French: Yes, there’s the simple answer which is an application by the neighborhood for such a single-50 story overlay rezoning, in a – there are percentages. There’s seventy percent participant – of the 51 participants, seventy percent of the neighborhood supporting it. If there are CCNRs that restrict the 52 neighborhood to one-story when Eichler put it together, it’s sixty percent. However, the ordinance that 53 we have in place for single-story overlays is not clear what happens when the support – when people 54 change their minds during the process. That’s what happened with Royal Manor and Fair Court, they are 55 City of Palo Alto Page 6 the two that failed. They first came in with an application so they met the requirement but during the 1 process with the Planning Commission and Council, people changed their minds and reversed from a yes, 2 I support this to a no, I don’t support this and so that’s why those failed. 3 4 Vice Chair Bower: Ok but in the nine districts that did have adequate support, they had to have seventy 5 percent or sixty percent minimum if there was a CCNR… 6 7 Ms. French: Correct. 8 9 Vice Chair Bower: … but that – so – ok, let me move onto CCNR because those are pretty powerful and 10 they are not subject to – well they are subject to change if the community can – you know if the 11 community decides to change them by a vote, I presume. Are there design guidelines in the CCNRs in 12 some of these neighborhoods? I mean I’m trying to get a sense of how much design oversight the 13 communities themselves have and whether there are lot – 2,000 Eichler’s and they are in little tiny 14 groups. Any kind of… 15 16 Ms. French: So, I can tell you what I know and the first thing is that I’m absolutely positive there are two 17 Architectural Control Committees that are active in this City. One is Charleston Meadows which we’ve met 18 with Charleston Meadows group and they do look at all project coming that affect the exterior of Eichler’s 19 in the Charleston Meadows neighborhoods or they try too. Sometimes they are not successful convincing 20 people to come to the water trough. There is Green Meadow and that is a very large single-story overlay 21 and historic National Register district. A representative of that district is here, Penny [Elson], in the 22 audience and if you would like to ask a question about that, she is here. Basically, they do have an 23 Architectural Control Committee and they look at things like color even; they have an active group. 24 25 Vice Chair Bower: I’m assuming as you develop the final language in the report that will come back to us, 26 that you will quantify and explain the very things you are talking about here; that there where eleven 27 proposed single-story overlays. Well, explain what that is and then describing the thresholds for 28 participation and for inclusion in a single-story overlay district. The fact that two of them lost support, I 29 think those things are important for the community. I’d be interested in knowing how that support – if 30 they reach the seventy percent level to get to a review by planning and maybe Council, where did they 31 end up – where did the support sag too or how much support was withdrawn? Seventy percent is a very 32 high bar, that’s higher than required to pass a tax increase and the only tax increase vote that I know of 33 in Palo Alto that is routinely higher than the sixty-six percent requirement is the school district bonds, 34 which last time I think received eighty-two percent support. That’s a really significant number and it, I 35 think will help the homeowners who own the Eichler’s understand how this works and the history of these 36 zones. So, I’d like to better understand I guess the – how Eichler Design Guidelines would affect an 37 individual house that’s not in a registered district and not in a single-story overlay district? 38 39 Ms. French: That would definitely be part of what our plan is as far as getting to a workshop. We have – 40 and I think sufficient time before then to a matrix to help people understand the relationship of the 41 guidelines to existing programs like the IR program – review program and single-story overlays. There 42 are definitely background reports written over the last year that I’ve written that I can certainly forward 43 links to and have a – even for the next meeting, provide another informational report to help everyone to 44 understand how we got here, why the SSO (single-story overlay) has been problematic and is not 45 achieving – is not the perfect vehicle because of the erosion problem etc. 46 47 Vice Chair Bower: The last thing is that I think that the Charleston Meadows group and the Green 48 Meadow Homeowners Associations, because they have CCNRs, that those need to be highlighted and 49 described in a different way. I would imagine the CCNRs and the architectural review groups of those two 50 homeowner’s associations would drive – would be the first level of design and review that the Eichler 51 Design Guidelines that we develop as a City might – their review I would gather – I would imagine is 52 more thorough and probably more strict but I’d like to know what that is too. Maybe it’s just a simple I 53 want to do a second story, I want to do a first story addition, there’s no review or it’s minimal but we 54 City of Palo Alto Page 7 need to understand how that works because I’m imagining they will have greater control than what we 1 develop here. 2 3 Ms. French: Thank you, I think that’s a great suggestion. I would like to perhaps invite those two groups 4 that we’re aware of, the ACC groups, to present and talk about it as far as how it goes and I can ask 5 them. I’m in contact with those groups. 6 7 Vice Chair Bower: I don’t mean to take up all the time here but the reason that CCNRs is important to me 8 as I had a condo at Pajaro Dunes down in Watsonville for 15 – almost 15-years and we went through two 9 CCRNs revisions and I got very deep into the weeds about what those mean. They have design review 10 there that’s quite strict, it’s all exterior so I’d be – I mean it was much more stringent than any of the 11 Building Department or Planning Department requirements so it’s important. Maybe you could ask them 12 to forward them – a summary of the CCNRs as they relate to design to us… 13 14 Ms. French: Yeah, I think that’s… 15 16 Vice Chair Bower: …before a big report. 17 18 Ms. French: That’s a good idea. I would say let’s just call out an example of a project that was reviewed 19 by the CCNRs of the Green Meadow and then came to this Board. The Green Meadow – the new building 20 at the community center so that’s an example of well, it came to us already looking Eichler compatible 21 and it needed to be tweaked but there was already a qualifying review or what have you. 22 23 Vice Chair Bower: I think we made modest small changes to their design because of that review. Anyway, 24 these are just some ideas that I think would help the community and help the Board Members 25 understand where we’re going with this. 26 27 Chair Bernstein: Any other Board Members for comments or questions? I do, I have one. The – is it true 28 as these things are – as the guidelines are being developed, the only buildings that involve the HRB are 29 ones that are listed on the National Historic Register or is it all Eichler’s that the HRB is going to be 30 involved in if these guidelines become published? 31 32 Ms. French: That’s not the plan, that the HRB would be involved in every Eichler’s so that’s definitely not 33 the plan. The guidelines are to help the customers, the homeowners, the architects because now we 34 don’t bring National Register Eichler homes to the Board and that’s not going to change either. National 35 Register homes is not a designation that is subject to our ordinance. 36 37 Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you for that. You mentioned the Architecture Control Committee on some – 38 one or two of the neighborhoods. What that Committee decides, is there any enforcement to what their 39 group suggests to property owners, do you know? 40 41 Ms. French: Not by the City, it’s an entirely separate activity; they are looking at what’s happening out 42 there. That’s a private – CCNRs are an agreement, a private agreement that the City is not a party too. 43 44 Chair Bernstein: If the guidelines do become published and adopted by the City Council, when does the 45 City involve that? It looks like – I saw that in the report that it’s something about the individual review 46 process and that’s when the City of Palo Alto gets involved in reviewing additions? 47 48 Ms. French: These are items that we’ll definitely cover in the December report because we are studying 49 the connections – possible connection on the potential for the Council to consider making these 50 connections in a zoning code kind of way for the single-family home neighborhoods. 51 52 Chair Bernstein: I do see the reference to individual review so right now individual review ordinance only 53 involved two-story homes, correct? 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Ms. French: That continues to be the case, that’s only for two-story homes or second-floor additions. 1 2 Chair Bernstein: Right, ok. Also, I see in our report today limitation Eichler Design Guidelines, it’s not 3 prescribing an architectural style so – (inaudible) Eichler Guidelines would help in reinforcing the 4 importance of compatibility but they would not legislate or prescribe in enforcement way architectural 5 styles that fit within existing homes. It sounds like as of now the strongest message about compatibility is 6 neighborhood Architectural Control Committees, is that the current… 7 8 Ms. French: Currently yes, there is no – the City does not review Eichler one-story anywhere in town. We 9 don’t look at one-story homes except for Professorville. 10 11 Chair Bernstein: Are guidelines essentially just suggestions? 12 13 Ms. French: That’s correct. They are intended to be helpful suggestions that link with an implementation 14 plan for code modifications or connections written in a code to the IR program. I mean that’s when they 15 would become more useful for the City when reviewing projects but they are intended to be useful for 16 homeowners and architects to – until that time, they would be that kind of a document. 17 18 Chair Bernstein: Alright, any other comments? Board Member --Vice Chair Bower. 19 20 Vice Chair Bower: Is – Green Meadow is a National Historic district – registered district and it has 21 architectural review through the CCNR process but does Green Gables? It’s also… 22 23 Ms. French: No, does not. 24 25 Vice Chair Bower: It does not. 26 27 Ms. French: They have CCNRs…(crosstalk) 28 29 Vice Chair Bower: But no architectural… 30 31 Ms. French: …for part of that tract but they do not have an Architectural Control Committee. In fact, we 32 had invited a representative from that neighborhood to the Green Meadows workshop that we held for 33 those two National Districts. We only had one person attend from that neighborhood and she was 34 amazed at just how involved the Green Meadow ACC is in terms of what they are looking at because they 35 don’t do that in Green Gables. 36 37 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. 38 39 Chair Bernstein: I do see members of the public who have arrived. If there are any members of the 40 public who would like to speak to us on this for information or comments, have you – welcome. Oh, I see 41 a member of the – if you could just state your name for the record if any member of the public does care 42 to speak to us. Hi, welcome so because we are recorded we just need your name for the record please 43 and welcome. 44 45 Mr. ??: My name is [??] and I live in Royal Manor actually. Sorry, so I was actually involved in the last 46 time that we had the (inaudible) work in Royal Manor. I actually was part of the group that was fighting 47 against it very much so most of the things that I want to say here is the things I learned through that 48 process and working with the people of the neighborhood through that process. I think we had from one 49 side where people that were very worried about privacy and the houses – people might come build or 50 builders might come build to – their very against the look and the feel of the community. The other side 51 – sorry, people including like me who were worried about the space (inaudible). You know we came here 52 to raise our family and sometimes that because of lack of space, we have to build that second story. 53 Some of the lots in the neighborhood really doesn’t provide you enough space on the first floor because 54 of the setbacks and where the lot is located and the context; you have to build a second story. So, what I 55 City of Palo Alto Page 9 want again here is to kind of remind myself and the team here that I think people had a lot of pushback 1 against (inaudible) relation that would kind of limit what they can build. They did feel that a lot of people 2 have worked very hard for many years to be able to come and buy a house in Palo Alto and they want to 3 be able to use that land to provide a space for their family. At the same time, I think the same people 4 who live in the same (inaudible) that I just mentioned, they will be open to that conversation to build 5 something that is considerate to their neighbors but they definitely want to use their space. At the same 6 time of that conversation, I think the initial support that it got or the continued support that it had by the 7 time that this got to the City Council was mainly around privacy. People were worried about privacy so I 8 think from my point of view, the main conversation here or the main challenge here is how to actually 9 provide a way for people to build a second-story or build the space they need for their family and try to 10 be considerate to the neighbors; think about the privacy and think about the look of the building. You 11 know how it’s situated in the neighborhood and how’s the effect of that new building to the neighbors? 12 I’m a little bit worried that the conversation only goes on about preserving Eichler’s or preserving Eichler 13 neighborhoods. It very quickly goes back to the conversation of either no second-story or a lot of 14 limitation on what a second-story – how big it can be? I’m worried that then it gets us to the same 15 situation we had (inaudible) so that we had a lot of pushback from the community, unfortunately. We 16 had a lot of conversations – I didn’t go to the (inaudible) with a lot of friction inside the community. I 17 definitely want to avoid that situation to come back to us. Again, I think the main worries there was how 18 much people can build? Can they -- they have real needs for their family and they want to use the space 19 that they are allowed to build. At the same time, we had the worry about privacy. I think if you limit 20 those issues or think about the main concerns people have, I’m hoping that there is a solution for it. I 21 think – I almost didn’t see anybody on the side of the people (inaudible), they don’t like (inaudible). They 22 say we wouldn’t be considerate to our neighbor when you build a second story but at the same time, 23 they didn’t want to have a lot of limitations. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any other members of the public who would like to speak? Welcome and if 26 you could state your name for the record, please. 27 28 [Ms. Penny Elson:] Sure. First of all, thank you for discussing this item today. My name is Penny [Elson] 29 and I’m a resident of the Green Meadow Community Association. For today’s purposes, I’m speaking as 30 an individual though previously I’ve been here as a representative for the neighborhood. We’ve taken no 31 votes on this matter and Green Meadow operates on democratic rules so I can’t speak for the 32 neighborhood without their approval. I can tell you that when the SSO was approved in Green Meadow, a 33 vote was taken and it exceeded eighty percent support and we have those records in our archives if you 34 are interested in looking at them from that whole period. We also have a very active ARC; Green Meadow 35 has an elected – annually elected Board and we operate many Committees because we have shared 36 property and one of those Committees is the ARC. They are very active and as you say, they did look at 37 the neighborhood project but it’s a little different when they are looking at individual homes. What we’re 38 talking about here is neighbors reviewing neighbors and so what it comes down to in a meeting is a 39 matter of persuasion. So, the people who are on the ARC are very dedicated to maintaining the character 40 of our historic Eichler neighborhood but really, we don’t have an enforcement mechanism and we’ve sort 41 of rely on neighbors respecting the supermajority choice of the neighborhood too – we also voted, by the 42 way on the supporting the historic place designation. The people who lived in the neighborhood at that 43 time will remember that; you know we all agreed on this. That was sort of statement of support and we 44 can fall back on that but it’s – all it is a persuasive argument. It’s not – we don’t have an enforcement 45 mechanism so I wanted to just offer that clarifying information because it sounded like maybe there was 46 some misunderstanding of that. Then I just want to really quickly mention that I’ve had a personal 47 experience with this. I have a neighbor who built a big window, raised a floor, raised the roof so that her 48 Eichler now looks into my Eichler in a way that invades my privacy in my master bedroom, my master 49 bathroom, my living, my kitchen and my family room. This – when her lights go on at night, my backyard 50 is lite up so these homes are designed in a way where they really – Eichler and his architects design them 51 to speak to each other in a neighborhood like Green Meadow. I know that some of the neighborhoods 52 you are looking at have sort of scattered Eichler’s next door to different houses. Perhaps we should be 53 looking at historic neighborhoods differently and this is my personal opinion. I want to just clarify again 54 this is Green Meadow’s opinion but my thought is that I am observing as the ADUs are moving forward in 55 City of Palo Alto Page 10 the neighborhood, we’re seeing more and more additions on houses. I’m observing casement windows 1 going in on the facades of our Eichler homes and people are making choices that – it’s getting harder and 2 harder for the ARC to manage this, I think. I would just encourage you to – we’re looking forward to 3 reading the guidelines in Green Meadow and I’m here today mostly to learn but I want you to be aware 4 that enforcement is not something neighborhood associations do very well. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Bernstein: Penny, I have a question for you. Oh, please – ok, thanks and then Rodger. You 7 mentioned about the privacy concerns for your personal experience. Do you know if the house next door 8 – was that done prior of the ordinance to individual review where privacy is looked at, do you know? 9 10 Ms. Elson: I think it was prior to that but honestly, I can’t remember when it passed. 11 12 Ms. French: I’m just going to jump in because the individual review has no application in Green Meadow. 13 14 Chair Bernstein: Oh, even for two-story? 15 16 Ms. French: They can’t do two-stories because they have a single-story overlay. 17 18 Ms. Elson: See we’re SSO, we’re single-story overlay. 19 20 Chair Bernstein: But you said something about privacy – second floor – did you say windows are looking 21 into your… 22 23 Ms. Elson: No, she raised her floor. When an Eichler – if you raise – so now like their heads and 24 shoulders above the fence that separates our two homes. So, where I use to have privacy, I don’t 25 anymore. So, the simple matter of raising a floor makes a difference is what I was getting at. Adding a 26 window in the wrong place and raising the floor, when you have a house that’s glass on one side, it 27 matters. 28 29 Chair Bernstein: Alright, so it sounds like that case was – it was no higher than 17-feet, therefore no IR 30 review, ok. 31 32 Ms. Elson: And no two-stories, right. Well, they couldn’t – they can’t do two-stories. 33 34 Chair Bernstein: The idea – so I just want to get the logistics of geometry. The privacy issue is if it’s still – 35 if it’s only 17-feet so the floor level is high enough to look in? That’s what I’m… 36 37 Ms. Elson: That’s correct. 38 39 Chair Bernstein: Oh, ok and that’s not considered a two-story even though you’ve raised the floor level. 40 Alright, that’s why I’m… 41 42 Ms. Elson: I mean well, I will differ to Amy who’s the expert. 43 44 Ms. French: Yeah so there’s no floor height regulation – finished floor height regulation unless there’s a 45 basement underneath. 46 47 Chair Bernstein: Ok yeah but in 17-feet you could raise the floor and that’s how you get the privacy 48 concern. Oh, ok. 49 50 Ms. Elson: Well and also just putting windows on that side of the house. If it’s high enough and you’ve 51 got a big enough window and you put lights at the top, those lights will light the house next door. They 52 will light the backyard and the house next door. So, it’s -- these things – this is the kind of thing we 53 should be looking at. Where there any further questions? 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Bernstein: On that, is there anything in the – in your Architectural Review Committee that prohibits 1 basements? If homeowners wanted to expand floor area? 2 3 Ms. Elson: I don’t know the answer to that question but I’m pretty sure a basement in Green Meadow, 4 given our groundwater issues, is not likely. 5 6 Chair Bernstein: Well, if there’s – ok, I understand but in general for Eichler’s, if there are no 7 groundwater issues basements are not prohibited? 8 9 Ms. French: That’s correct. 10 11 Ms. Elson: I’ll let Amy get that, I don’t know. I’m not on the ARC so I don’t know the details of what they 12 do; I’m on the Civic Affairs Committee. Our Architectural Review Committee is separate from what I do 13 but I have been talking with them about this because they can’t always get to these meetings and so 14 we’re tag teaming. 15 16 Chair Bernstein: Another question that I just have quickly on design compatibility. I have seen some 17 Eichler’s, including one-story Eichler’s, where the galvanized piping for the heating system is disintegrated 18 and homeowners are electing to put ductwork on the roofs of these. Are you fair with any of your 19 neighborhood guidelines that talk about not having the ducts visible from the street because of that 20 effects neighborhood character? 21 22 Ms. Elson: I don’t know the answer to that question. Again, I don’t get into the details of it and I haven’t 23 had that problem personally so I don’t know how you deal with it. I do know that in my -- actually, I 24 should say there is – there are a couple of Eichler’s in my immediate vicinity that have on the roof 25 ductwork and you cannot see it from the street. Whether or not that’s because of the ARC, I don’t know. 26 27 Chair Bernstein: Ok, great. Board Member Kohler, you had a comment or question. 28 29 Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I did but you covered almost everything I was asking questions but I do 30 know that there aren’t many options when you go from concrete heating system to on the roof there. In 31 Eichler’s especially you can’t – it has to go up there and there’s no other way to do it a far as I know. Go 32 where tell me? 33 34 Vice Chair Bower: You could do it inside, flat very… 35 36 Ms. Elson: Well actually, many people are doing it on the floor now so you can – I’ve added – I don’t 37 want to get into the weeds of this but you can do it on your floor internally. You can lay a subfloor that it 38 goes into and I’ve done that actually and we added a room on our house and did that. 39 40 Chair Bernstein: Oh yes, oh yes, and there’s one more speaker too. 41 42 Ms. Elson: All set? 43 44 Chair Bernstein: Thank you so much and welcome. Please state your name for the record, thank you. 45 46 [Mr. Eumay Shorduct]: Hi, morning. My name [phonetics] [Eumay Shorduct] and I’m a resident of Royal 47 Manor. Thank you for your time and I just jotted down a few comments. I wanted to start off with Mr. 48 Kohler bringing up – I’m sorry, am I addressing you the right way, Mr. Kohler. He’s bringing up the right 49 point about having a big benefit of bigger backyards, that is absolutely invaluable. If you expand on a 50 single-story you absolutely lose all the room so that’s a great point. As (inaudible) mentioned the single-51 story application in Royal Manor were rejected mainly because our lots are constrained. There are so 52 many different constraints on each individual lot that we cannot build on single-story if that was an 53 option. Finally, to the previous speaker's point, single-stories can also be raised. Royal Manor entirely lies 54 in a flood zone and that means that anytime there’s new construction, we will have to build a new house 55 City of Palo Alto Page 12 that’s like 3-feet or 4-feet raised. The main point is that in the guidelines – the Eichler Design Guidelines 1 privacy, how do we tackle privacy issues? That’s probably the number one concern and pretty much 2 restricting on single-story is not really going to help privacy that means. To end with it, I have a couple of 3 questions, one is that the perception that I got when I read the report – the draft report is the Royal 4 Manor SSO still shows up At Place as proposed because even though it’s rejected and there is no 5 proposal on the table anymore. I think that proposed language should be removed, that’s one. A second 6 question is there any effort in the – as part of the Design Review Guidelines to provide concrete 7 examples as these are single-story houses that are compatible with – sorry, these are two-story houses 8 that are compatible with Eichler neighborhoods. That’s something that I am looking forward to in the 9 report and yeah, I’m definitely looking forward to the report for – to answer how we can solve this 10 (inaudible) challenge together. Thank you. 11 12 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Let me just make a comment that I think that’s an excellent suggestion, 13 having some good drawing examples. I know in some of our other guideline publications there are 14 examples of somethings that are considered compatible or good and somethings that are considered not 15 compatible and not good. I think that will help from the educational point of view. I think Board Member 16 Wimmer had – you had a question or comment? Ok, Vice Chair Bower. 17 18 Vice Chair Bower: Sorry, to monopolize this meeting but I think one of the advantages of guidelines is 19 that they let the community, I’m using that in the broadest sense, know what is excepted. In the 20 Professorville Guidelines development, which I participated in, we ended up having exactly the kinds of 21 things that the last speaker suggested would be helpful. That is certain types of windows where more 22 compatible, certain windows were not, roof styles, landscaping, and driveways. I mean there’s a lot of 23 information and some of the problems I think that individual homeowners have when they approach to 24 design is the architects, as Rodger described earlier in his experience, there are no limits. So, then what 25 happens is the first-time neighbors see a project, they’re surprised, there’s a certain nimby attitude about 26 any development here. Guidelines can actually focus attention and I think to limit some of the more 27 extreme architectural styles in a district or in a neighborhood like an Eicher neighborhood. The purpose 28 of this is actually to help all of the neighborhoods deal with development and development is going to 29 happen because those buildings were all built pre-earthquake and pre-economic pressure that we have in 30 this City. They change and of course the example of the neighbor whose house is raised because it’s in a 31 flood zone, that’s a big issue and maybe one of the things that the guidelines will suggest is that in cases 32 where that happens, fences could exceed the 7-foot high limit that they now – that the City now imposes 33 or suggests. They don’t really impose it and there are lots of fences that are higher than 7-feet. Again, 34 we use to be able to screen with planting but if you have solar panels on your roof, you can’t shade those 35 by landscape screening so it’s a big issue. Anyway, I’m looking forward to seeing the report. 36 37 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler your light is on. 38 39 Board Member Kohler: Oh, sorry. Well, I think this has been a really good discussion because it’s not 40 going to go away and as long as the Eichler – well, homes in general in Palo Alto age and some of them 41 are now 50, 60, 70-years old. They are starting to disappear and there’s not only that but there are also 42 folks who are remodeling because they move into these homes and they aren’t quite as large as they 43 hope so they plan on remodeling. This would be good to have clear set guidelines as to what needs to be 44 done or what can be done. I actually didn’t – today’s meeting, I thought there was an overlay in some of 45 the Eichler’s near where I live down on the map here but anyway, it’s a good thing to happen. Anything 46 that you can do to help the homeowners understand what their situation is, is a good thing and that’s 47 part of the problem, that sometimes they don’t know that they can come down here and get that or that 48 sometimes there’s is not enough for them to know. Also, there’s – just a side table, there seems to be 49 some – sometimes when I come here to get answers from staff that just happen to be there but we’re 50 finding that some of the – totally out of the (inaudible) but some of the things that people are told in the 51 department across the street doesn’t seem to jive with what I understand as the zoning ordinance. 52 Homeowners are coming back and saying oh, they couldn’t do this or this or this and I say well I don’t 53 think so. Next time it happens I will let you know what it is. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. 1 2 Board Member Wimmer: I too agree that the guidelines are going to be really critical because it’s sort of 3 a lasting legacy of these neighborhoods that we have to think forward because the people who live there 4 now are not going to forever live there. How do you pass that on to the next generation of residents and 5 owners? I think it’s really imperative for I guess the real estate agent community when those properties 6 come up for sale, that any prospective buyer is well informed as to what the neighborhood expectations 7 are and that maybe – I think these guidelines, hopefully, will fall into the hands of those real estate 8 agents. Some real estate agents I know specialize in these homes and these neighborhoods and I think 9 just leaving a lasting legacy that will continue onto the next generation of homeowners. I do see the 10 challenge of the guidelines are set in place but they’re not supported by any legal binding but I think the 11 fact that they are in place, I think most people will abide by them and listen. I think it makes – maintains 12 the character of the neighborhoods so I think – I mean I think it’s nothing but positive. I think it’s great 13 to get the community like you guys who came and spoke today, I think that’s one of the most valuable 14 aspects of this meeting today is hearing from you. I think that’s – I really appreciate hearing what you 15 have to say. 16 17 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen. 18 19 Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Martin. I think it’s – the guidelines are a very idea and I think it’s 20 also a good thing to reflect upon Eichler who was really the legacy of Frank Lloyd Wright. Eichler was 21 really a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright and he tended to build a house that was affordable in a Frank Lowd 22 Wright style. So, that’s an important legacy to remember here that we’re carrying forward a tradition of a 23 pretty prominent architect. Personally, I have owned a Frank Lowd Wright house back in the mid-west 24 and really enjoyed the style of it and that’s kind of the Eichler’s follow onto that as a more affordable 25 concept. I guess the other question that I have is where you able to survey any other communities to see 26 what they used in the way of guidelines and information you might have gained that would be helpful in 27 the effort of creating our guidelines for Palo Alto? 28 29 Ms. French: Yes, Cupertino and Sunnyvale, those are the local examples of – and our consultant is well 30 aware of those and has those, we have those. Some of those are regulations, Eichler overlay zone kind of 31 thing and some of them are guidelines. Regulations come in the form of the zoning code that has 32 prescriptive requirements. Overlay zone is kind of like a single-story overlay zone conservation district 33 what have you and the other one is guidelines and they’re examples of all of those. 34 35 Chair Bernstein: Rodger Kohler. 36 37 Board Member Kohler: Thank you, it’s Rodger Kohler, yes, ok. I just – thinking about this, I’ve lived down 38 near the Eichler’s for a long time when I was a kid and all that. The common story is that these things 39 where being built and the Super Intendant got a phone call and he’d go over to lot X5 and he says, well 40 the owners don’t want this and they want to move this wall over here and they would just do it. It’s -- 41 they had an easy way of the building if they – literally, every house – a lot of homes look the same on 42 the outside but when you get inside there’s sometimes the walls are different, this or that and they just 43 went ahead and built them and sold them. It was a pretty good set up that they had going, not like today 44 in Palo Alto where you know you have to get everything checked two or three times. I think the Eichler’s 45 are really – I’ve been in them a lot and worked on a bunch of them and at homeowner – some of the 46 kids – not to drag on but good. I’m glad we’re getting this resolve so everyone who wants to do 47 something will have guidelines as to what to do and how to approach it. That’s a pretty big deal. 48 Whoops, sorry, thank you. Turn it off. 49 50 Chair Bernstein: Is that an electrified train? 51 52 Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible). 53 54 Chair Bernstein: Alright, the… 55 City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) 2 3 Chair Bernstein: Is there a – what was the general source for engaging on the idea of a potential 4 guideline for Eichler? Is it just coming through – yeah, what… 5 6 Ms. French: City Council. 7 8 Chair Bernstein: City Council? 9 10 Ms. French: Yes. 11 12 Chair Bernstein: So, City – not neighborhood (inaudible)(crosstalk)… 13 14 Ms. French: Well, no, City Council and the neighborhood during the single-story overlay processes that 15 we went through. There was the – in 2016, we had two successful and two unsuccessful single-story 16 overlays. During that process of that year, we had some folks say we just want some guidelines. We 17 don’t want to be a single-story overlay. That statement was paraphrasing of course but that was the 18 sentiment of some that we don’t want to have a restriction of a one-story, we want to be able to build, 19 we value our privacy as was said, so help us with some alternative. 20 21 Chair Bernstein: Council Member Holman, please. 22 23 Council Member Holman: Amy, did depict that very clearly. It’s – there are some neighborhoods that are 24 predominately Eichler that also have spotted around a few two-story homes. So, a single-story overlay 25 doesn’t necessarily apply on those and that seems to have been a point of a lot of contention on the 26 neighborhoods where single-story overlays are sought. That was one thing and another is that when 27 there is even a neighborhood that has CCNRs, as you brought up Vice Mayor Bower in your questioning, 28 that not all neighborhoods that are CCNRs – that have CCNRs have a Review Committee either. Even 29 with that, if there are a disagreement and Amy said this and I’ll say it in a different way. Even with that -- 30 even if there is a CCNR – our CCNRs and even if there is a Design Review Committee, there is no 31 enforcement. The only enforcement would be a lawsuit by neighbors against neighbors and people don’t 32 really want to go do that. I think what Board Member Wimmer brought up is like having the guidelines 33 that would help take some burden and provide some clarity for the neighborhoods because right now it 34 could get to be a neighbor versus neighbor thing. The other thing that this conversation and that you’ve 35 raised some really good questions and have made some really good comments is that perhaps there 36 could be an opt-in or however, I’m not going to try to say how it should be. I don’t know how it should 37 be at this point but maybe some could adopt it as requirements and some as guidelines. There might be 38 some interest in that by some neighborhoods but that’s for another discussion but just maybe it isn’t a 39 one size fits all. 40 41 Chair Bernstein: Any other Board Member comments or questions? Staff or Council Member, any other 42 comments? Board Member Bower. 43 44 Vice Chair Bower: So, in following up on Council Women Holman’s comments, I would assume that 45 guidelines would be superseded by any CCNRs by a local Eichler Homeowners Association. That would be 46 important because CCNRs can be changed by the homeowners with whatever appropriate vote but it’s 47 usually a pretty high bar. I wouldn’t want the City’s guidelines to superseded a neighborhood guideline 48 and that’s falling on the notion that one size doesn’t necessarily have to fit every community – I mean 49 every neighborhood community. 50 51 Chair Bernstein: Ok, anything else on this topic? I just want to conclude that I agree having guidelines 52 that are published again, it’s useful for owners and property owners. Also, I would suggest that it’s also 53 useful for developers that want to increase or modify homes in these areas by having examples published 54 of here’s something that’s recommended, something that’s not recommended. I think it just helps speed 55 City of Palo Alto Page 15 up that review process, to get something that will be more compatible and useful for the neighborhood. 1 So, I am also in support of these guidelines. Anything else before we move on? Ok, thank you so much 2 for that. 3 4 Action Items 5 6 None. 7 8 Approval of Minutes 9 10 3. Draft Minutes of the Historic Resources Board Meeting of September 14, 2017. 11 12 Chair Bernstein: Alright, next on our agenda item is – I think it’s approval of minutes. Yeah, approval of 13 minutes from September 14th. Any amendments or a motion? Thank you for members of the public for 14 coming, thank you so much, I appreciate it. Any motion to amend or approve the minutes of September 15 14th? 16 17 Board Member Wimmer: Yes, I wanted to clarify two things. One was when I was talking about the 18 architectural tour in San Jose and I bought a book that was – it was by the architects called Wolf and 19 Higgins and in the minutes, it’s said [Wolfen] Higgins; just in case someone is looking back. 20 21 Chair Bernstein: Someone’s looking – what page? What packet page? 22 23 Board Member Wimmer: I guess there’s on packet page 23 at the bottom on the far right, it says 24 [Wolfen] and then there was another sighting of it on page 24 at the top, the third line down on the right 25 also. Then also something I said on packet page 22, I was – we were talking about the Mills Act and I 26 was suggesting that Pat Di Cicco possibly be one of our pilot program participants. Where is says in that 27 first paragraph, it’s the second line from the bottom, I said she is very adverse but I think I was trying to 28 say she is well versed because she – I was suggesting her because she has a Mills Act contract I believe 29 in Southern California so she wouldn’t be adverse, she is well versed. Yeah and recently we were talking 30 at our subcommittee and we were talking about how important to read the minutes because something 31 like that is a perfect example. I’m getting better at reading the minutes and I’m going to correct my 32 adverse statements. 33 34 Vice Chair Bower: I was just going to say that these little inaccuracies are intentionally put in here to see 35 if we read these. 36 37 Chair Bernstein: Ok, a motion to approve as amended. 38 39 MOTION 40 41 Board Member Wimmer: I’ll move to approve as amended. 42 43 Chair Bernstein: Ok, any second? 44 45 Board Member Bunnenberg: I’ll second. 46 47 Chair Bernstein: It’s been seconded, thank you. All those in favor say, aye? Thank you. 48 49 Vice Chair Bower: I abstain. 50 51 MOTION PASSED 5-0 WITH VICE CHAIR BOWER ABSTAINING AND BOARD MEMBER COREY 52 ABSENT 53 54 Subcommittee Items 55 City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 4. Mills Act Pilot Program Next Steps - Followup from August 28, 2017, HRB/CC Meeting 2 3 Chair Bernstein: Next item on our agenda is subcommittee items and I see none listed here. Any 4 subcommittee reports? 5 6 Vice Chair Bower: Well, the Mills Act subcommittee met last week and with Emily’s help, tremendous 7 help, we’re flushing out the – what we hope will be an ordinance presentation and I think the timeline is 8 that this Board would review and hopefully approve the plan that we’re developing in March? Yeah, 9 probably March. We have another meeting scheduled for early November, primarily because it’s difficult – 10 I’m out of town for the next two weeks but we’re making great progress. 11 12 Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Any other subcommittee comments? Ok. 13 14 Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 15 16 Chair Bernstein: Next is Board Member questions, comments, and announcements. Council Member 17 Holman suggested that Board Members take a look at and perhaps discuss the idea of a sponsorship level 18 for the 2017 conference. This says 2017 on this piece of paper so I’m assuming… 19 20 Council Member Holman: Yes, the new brochure has not yet published so those are the sponsorship 21 levels for 2017. If there’s any change it would be minor for 2018. 22 23 Chair Bernstein: Right, ok, thank you. Alright, does any Board Member like to bring up this topic of 24 sponsorship? 25 26 Council Member Holman: Can I just inter… 27 28 Chair Bernstein: Oh, I’m sorry. 29 30 Council Member Holman: I have to run off to another meeting but I’d be happy to answer any questions 31 individually or if the Chair would like to convene some folks because this wouldn’t be a Brown Act I think 32 because it’s not an HRB action, correct? I mean run that through staff just to make sure because you’d 33 be hopefully publicizing your support as the HRB so just clarify with staff if there wouldn’t be any Brown 34 Act issue. I’d be happy to talk with anybody and one thing that I didn’t say earlier that I should say is 35 that even though it’s not until 2018, the earlier sponsorship is very helpful in the CPF entity in being able 36 to make plans for the conference and those plans are being put in place very, very soon. So, a decision 37 about whatever sponsorship you might be interested entertaining would be helpful and brought forward 38 soon. 39 40 Chair Bernstein: Very good. 41 42 Council Member Holman: Thank you. 43 44 Board Member Wimmer: I actually have one question before Karen leaves. This last meeting, we were 45 brainstorming and talking about what great topics we’d like to listen to at the conference but then we 46 realized well maybe the conference has already been sort of mapped out and they don’t need any 47 suggestions. I mean we spent like 5-minutes throwing out great ideas of what they could talk about but 48 we don’t know if it’s – is it too late to suggest? 49 50 Council Member Holman: No, not at all. 51 52 Board Member Wimmer: Oh. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Council Member Holman: Not at all and that’s one of the purposes also of the meeting next Wednesday 1 at 2:30. Do we have – I don’t have a confirmation yet but we’re trying to get the conference room out 2 here in the lobby where we met last time so not at all. There’s a structure that’s established that’s kind of 3 like their template for how they do the conference but the subject for tours and topics and stuff isn’t 4 established. There are suggestions throughout but it’s not established. 5 6 Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) 7 8 Council Member Holman: Out here is where we’re hoping to get confirmed. City Hall but we’re hoping the 9 Council conference room out there. 10 11 Board Member Wimmer: So, maybe knowing that Karen has to leave, maybe as a group we can just 12 come up with a couple of those ideas that maybe we had last time and whoever can go to the meeting 13 might talk on our behalf as to what items we might have been interested in. 14 15 Chair Bernstein: Does that need to be agendize or we can discuss those ideas? 16 17 Board Member Wimmer: Well, we don’t have a meeting before the next… 18 19 Chair Bernstein: Oh, yeah. 20 21 Ms. French: I think just a recall would be – you know put the recall button. I recall something -- maybe 22 this is how my mind works but I recall something about a kind of cocktails and something the day before 23 – the Wednesday before the conference. Some kind of pre-conference something that isn’t officially in 24 the conference schedule per say but it’s for the community and in celebration of this conference being 25 here; some kind of – something for officials. 26 27 Board Member Wimmer: I know one item that Chair Bernstein mentioned was compatibility, 28 differentiation of the Interior -- Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. I think it was what 29 some of the things that the Council was asking us to sort of train them on. We thought that could be a 30 possible good topic. 31 32 Vice Chair Bower: Martin? 33 34 Chair Bernstein: Yes. 35 36 Vice Chair Bower: Because I am a member of the past Board, last night the past organization I think is 37 fairly – it’s not quite decided but they have an annual meeting in May and the discussion was to put that 38 meeting at the end of the conference on Sunday. That’s a public meeting, it’s open to anybody and we 39 also talked about having the meeting – that meeting and it’s an awards presentation, the Wednesday 40 before. I think we decided that it wouldn’t be the Wednesday before but it would be the Sunday 41 afternoon because the conference ends on Sunday morning. There are a few events Sunday mornings 42 and then most people who are out of town leave but – so we might want to coordinate something if the 43 HRB is going to do something. Certainly, anyone who wants to come talks about compatibility, that would 44 be terrific and I’m sure we could work that in. So, I just wanted to make everybody aware of that. I had 45 one other thing that actually occurred to me last week, I’ve been watching the discussion mostly in the 46 newspaper about the grade separation on the Caltrain corridor. One of the really significant crossings is 47 San Francisquito Creek which is a historic structure in Palo Alto and I don’t think anybody has been 48 talking about that because that’s just a train crossing. I wonder if Amy you could make the Committee – 49 since it’s a City Committee that’s looking into this, aware of the fact that there’s a historic structure there 50 and that’s going to be part of the discussion, I think. 51 52 Chair Bernstein: What is the historic structure? 53 54 Vice Chair Bower: It’s the train – the trestle between… 55 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Bernstein: The trestle. 1 2 Vice Chair Bower: Now, the grade separations are really at Churchill and East Meadow and Charleston 3 that are most difficult but the bridge, I think in this upgrade, is also going to be part of the discussion. 4 Although I suspect it will just be destroyed or maybe we could take it out to the Bay Lands. I don’t know, 5 anyway. 6 7 Chair Bernstein: We say it’s historic – it’s not a listed historic structure. 8 9 Vice Chair Bower: It’s actually – it is – Amy, correct me if I am wrong but I think it’s on the list for 10 potential historic structures because when I was scanning all of that information in, that was in the 11 Dames and Moore report in 1990 and it was listed as a potential. Actually, it – I don’t know what 1890 or 12 something? It’s really old. 13 14 Chair Bernstein: That structure spans two counties I think. Also, two Cities and two counties. 15 16 Vice Chair Bower: Yeah it does because San Francisquito Creek is a separation line between San Mateo 17 and Santa Clara. 18 19 Chair Bernstein: Alright, any other comments regarding the sponsorship issue? 20 21 Board Member Makinen: I had one. 22 23 Chair Bernstein: Yeah, go ahead. 24 25 Board Member Makinen: Is the CPF a 501C3? Non-profit? 26 27 Chair Bernstein: As Council Member Holman mentioned there’s no historic resources budget; we don’t 28 have a budget. 29 30 Ms. French: There is a budget for training that’s required for the HRB to maintain their – under the CLG 31 rules or whatever. 32 33 Chair Bernstein: As far as donations, again it seems like that’s just going to be individual Members 34 donating. 35 36 Vice Chair Bower: I would like to suggest that since this is not an official Board action but is a private 37 action by Board Members, that we wouldn’t necessarily – if we decided to get together and make a single 38 contribution that met of the levels of sponsorship, that it would be an individual sponsorship by Members 39 of the HRB and that would be it. So, it’s a private contribution and its individuals coming together and 40 thus I think that doesn’t violate the Brown Act requirements. 41 42 Board Member Makinen: I think you’d want to have the attorney give a judgment on that because it 43 sounds like you’re still making a quasi HRB. 44 45 Vice Chair Bower: I just think it would be individuals are sponsoring – are making a contribution as a 46 sponsor and they happen to also be HRB Members. So, we’re not – we would not be representing the 47 HRB thus representing the City. We would be doing this as individuals and it would I imagine fall under 48 the socialization kind of exemption. So, if we all got together and had dinner and didn’t discuss Board 49 business, that’s not a Brown Act violation. 50 51 Ms. French: I would say the City is already a sponsor – yeah, a sponsor and your part of the City too. 52 Let’s face it, this is not a development project, this is something different than that. I think we don’t have 53 too much concern how it plays out. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Vice Chair Bower: So, we don’t necessarily have to have this conversation on camera. 1 2 Ms. French: Right. 3 4 Vice Chair Bower: So, I would suggest we have it off camera. 5 6 Chair Bernstein: Ok, anything else before we move toward adjournment? Any announcements or 7 anything else from staff? Alright, anything else? Board Member Kohler or Board Member Rodger or Board 8 Member…. 9 10 Board Member Kohler: Just brought up the horrible fires that are going up north of us and all the historic 11 structures that were up there are now gone. It’s huge. We have friends who are just over the hill and he 12 has a big property and we did a house there but it’s now creeping up on him on the other – Glen Ellen 13 over the hill and so it’s still moving. 14 15 Vice Chair Bower: It’s terrible. 16 17 Board Member Kohler: What? 18 19 Vice Chair Bower: The winds are getting worse today. 20 21 Board Member Kohler: Oh, the wind, oh gosh. 22 23 Chair Bernstein: Anything else before we adjourn? 24 25 MOTION 26 27 Vice Chair Bower: I move that we adjourn. 28 29 Chair Bernstein: Ok, good. We are adjourned, thank you, bye bye, thank you. 30 31 Adjournment 32