Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-13 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz; Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Christian Pease and Caroline Willis Absent: Board Members Gogo Heinrich, Michael Makinen and Margaret Wimmer Public Comment Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Official Reports 1.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chief Planning Official Amy French announced that the Council adopted an ordinance to decrease the number of Historic Resources Board (HRB) members to five and would take effect in July. On June 17, 2024, the Council plans to review five applications for two vacancies and provide directions for interviews. Starting in July, a quorum will require three HRB members. Two current members, whose terms have expired, are invited to attend to maintain a five-member board. Besides the scheduled meeting on August 8th, a special HRB meeting might be convened on August 22nd, following the appointment of new members. Action Items 2.Review and Approve Changes to the Historic Resources Board Bylaws for Consistency with Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27, Historic Resources Board Ms. French suggested that the HRB should examine and approve modifications to the HRB Bylaws to align with amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.27, Historic Resources Board. The bylaws now indicate that a quorum consists of three members and regular monthly meetings are to be held, with a minimum of four meetings annually. Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz opened the floor for comments from both the public and the Board. There were no responses. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz that the HRB accept the bylaw changes as proposed. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried (4-0-3) 3.Recommendation on Tailored Mills Act Program Historic Preservation Planner Steven Switzer presented the staff report and provided an overview of the Tailored Mills Act Program Outline. He discussed the letter with recommendations submitted to the City Council and the strategy on presenting a Tailored Mills Act Program proposal to the City Council. The staff had consulted with historic preservation staff from other jurisdictions, including cities in the Bay Area and HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES, June 13, 2024 Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 others with basic aid school districts. He displayed a slide showing some of the City revenue loss limits enacted by other jurisdictions to mitigate resource impacts. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments from the public. Ben DiCicco, a resident at 860 University Avenue, expressed his interest in enrolling his property on University Avenue in the pilot program, if possible. He mentioned that his home, which is Category 1 nationally and locally and houses one of the largest Tiffany stained-glass windows in North America, would be a suitable candidate for this type of program. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited discussion from the Board. Board Member Willis suggested exploring alternatives to house-front signage, adding that the internet may be helpful for that. She expressed her concern that signage could be an aesthetic distraction. Vice Chair Rohman asked Board Member Willis which page in the pilot program includes the requirement for signage. Board Member Willis responded that on packet page 21, the Tailored Program Summary paragraph states “and display an interpretive panel along the public right of way that is visible to the public.” She suggested that the Board consider an alternative approach. Vice Chair Rohman stated that especially for the pilot program, the resources required to research, vote, and place an adequate sign might not be available. She suggested listing the history of the house on a City of Palo Alto webpage dedicated to the Mills Act pilot program as an acceptable alternative. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if including this information on the City website would pose any problems. Ms. French responded that having a webpage about the program was an excellent idea, but it would require wide outreach. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz proposed giving people a choice. Board Member Willis expressed her concern about creating something that could become a distraction rather than an asset. Vice Chair Rohman agreed, adding that the interpretive panels are currently very controversial regarding what they should say, who they should recognize, and why houses should be recognized. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz sought clarification on whether a requirement for more limited signage, potentially like a smaller bronze plaque, would be acceptable. Board Member Willis suggested that even stamping the sidewalk would suffice and reiterated her belief that the Board should be cautious with signage. Vice Chair Rohman thought that a webpage on the Mills Act pilot program, including the houses and their histories, might meet the HRB’s goals. She opposed having it in front of the house, stating that it is somewhat of an eyesore. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if their address would become part of the public record as part of the discussions to obtain a Mills Act contract. Ms. French confirmed that the information would be part of the public record. She proposed the idea of a small QR code on a fence, which people could scan to learn about the Mills Act Program. Vice Chair Rohman expressed her enthusiasm for this idea, noting that most people carry their phones while out and about. Board Member Pease asked if there was any information available about similar initiatives in other cities. Historic Preservation Planner Switzer shared that his research did not reveal any on-site signage in other jurisdictions. However, he noted that all the jurisdictions detailed in the staff report had an online presence. Some even provided a comprehensive list of all properties and the dates they were contracted. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the Board would support an update to include a web page option. The Board unanimously voiced their support. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Rohman suggested that the Board could consult with the pilot program owners to gauge their support or any desired changes regarding what is being proposed. Board Member Willis sought clarification on the State Contract Requirements on page 23, specifically the discussion about phasing it out after five years, which she found contradictory. Historic Preservation Planner Switzer clarified that the minimum contract term of ten years is a State requirement. To comply with the California Government Code section detailed in the packet, a ten-year period would be necessary. Vice Chair Rohman pointed out the Local Mills Act Program Regulations on page 24, which mention a notice of nonrenewal in the 5th year, except the term can extend up to 15 years, so the nonrenewal should occur in the 10th year. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz questioned if this was an administrative workaround to achieve a 15-year contract, as a ten-year followed by a five-year contract would not be feasible, but a five-year followed by a ten-year contract could be implemented. Historic Preservation Planner Switzer believed that was correct. Board Member Willis asked about the 10-year phase-out period and whether it could commence after the first ten years or after the notice of nonrenewal. She expressed confusion over the terms of the contract being altered in the fifth year and asked if this had been reviewed by the legal department. Ms. French informed that there had been no discussions with the legal department yet, but it was a possibility. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz believed that the intention was to provide a fifteen-year contract option, and this was the method to achieve it. However, she emphasized that the legal department would need to review it at some point for any potential issues. Ms. French agreed, adding that the legal department would be fully engaged before scheduling anything with the City Council for a Study Session. Board Member Willis, referring to page 25 (c) Ranking System, suggested rephrasing the bullet point that states, “Will result in more affordable housing units”. She also asked if the City has a City Tax Collector. Ms. French clarified that the County is the Tax Collection Agency and that the bullet point may have been copied from another Mills Act. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz recommended revising the wording to state, “shall be paid at such time and in such manner as this City shall prescribe.” Board Member Willis, referring to the top of page 26 about the Submittal Date, suggested changing “Applications will only be accepted and approved during the month of June” to “Applications will only be reviewed during the month of June.” She emphasized that the Board should accept applications at any time but make it clear that they are only reviewed in June. She also suggested distinguishing between approval by the HRB or Council. Vice Chair Rohman proposed updating it to state that applications will be accepted on a rolling basis but approved during the month of June. Board Member Willis suggested a revision to the Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plans (b), proposing that the phrase “Qualified rehabilitation and restoration work that commenced up to two years before the establishment of the contract may be indicated on the ten-year rehabilitation plan” be rephrased. Vice Chair Rohman inquired if the Board’s legal counsel would review the document before it is presented to the Council. Ms. French clarified that the Attorney’s Office is actively involved in reviewing any Council staff reports. After the HRB’s decision at the current meeting, a meeting with the City Attorney will be scheduled. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz initiated a discussion among the Board Members about the letter intended for the Council. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Vice Chair Rohman mentioned that she had received several comments and additions to the current draft of the letter. She emphasized that this was not the final version, but a draft for further feedback. She also noted that she had received comments and additions from the Chair, which would be incorporated. Ms. French advised that any further comments from the Board Members should be directed to the Staff, who would then relay them to Vice Chair Rohman. Vice Chair Rohman welcomed any immediate comments or concerns. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz expressed hope that the Board could review a final draft at the next meeting and then decide about its submission to the Council. She was uncertain if the legal department would have had an opportunity to review it by then. Ms. French suggested that a review could be possible given the month-long gap between meetings. Councilmember Lydia Kou asked if the Board wished to propose a joint session with the Council. Despite a tight schedule, she suggested that a joint session with the Council might be feasible after the break. Vice Chair Rohman explained that the Board was considering the next steps, including whether to forward the letter and the Mills Act to the Council in conjunction with the Study Session, or to transition from the Study Session to a Workshop before forwarding everything. She emphasized the need for clarity on this matter. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz sought confirmation that the letter included a request for a Study Session with the Council. Vice Chair Rohman confirmed this and noted that adjustments could be made as necessary. Ms. French mentioned a discussion about requesting the Council to include this topic in their Work Plan for the upcoming Fiscal Year (FY), starting in July. Councilmember Kou justified her suggestion for a joint study session, explaining that it would allow the Council to ask questions about the letter and request, and the Board could provide feedback and updates on the HRB’s activities. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the request for a joint session should be made through a letter like this or through the Staff. Ms. French proposed that a direct interaction with a Council member might be a more effective way to facilitate real-time dialogue. She committed to discussing this with the Director. Board Member Willis suggested that the Board should define “multi-family” and consider improvements to the category under Property Value Limitations (c) on page 24 of the packet. Vice Chair Rohman speculated that the pre-contract assessed value limitations were likely designed to minimize the impact on schools and the diversion of tax money. However, if the Board intended to have a limited program, she wondered if the HRB would consider raising the limits. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the Legal Department could provide guidance on this matter. Board Member Pease proposed the exclusion of commercial properties that do not provide housing, arguing that the greatest lack of incentives was for individual and multi-family housing. Board Member Willis believed that commercial properties should be considered, albeit as a lower priority. Board Member Pease advocated for further discussion, citing a significant imbalance that might not be clear to the public or even the Council. He expressed a desire to maximize the benefits for historic housing, which he believed could impact the concept of naturally affordable housing. Vice Chair Rohman agreed that further discussion was warranted and suggested that if the HRB decided to take a stance on this issue, it could be incorporated into the ranking system. Board Member Pease suggested considering an increase in the amount for residential properties, arguing that if a property merits it, it should not be limited. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz proposed that the Board should plan to review the completed letter, potentially with legal review, at the next meeting and then decide on a recommendation for outreach to the Council. The Board Members unanimously agreed. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments from the public. Ben DiCicco shared that his family owns a property in Coronado, California, which was not initially designated. The property is listed on the local County and Coronado websites. The contract, established in 2000 for a home built in 1888, is perpetual and costs approximately $5,000 per year. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of April 11, 2024 Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz invited comments/changes to the minutes. Board Member Willis questioned the term “Queen Anne Free Classic” on page 33, line 9, and asked if it should be removed. Ms. French committed to checking this. Historic Preservation Planner Switzer explained that “Queen Anne Free Classic” is an actual architectural style with certain characteristics shared with the Queen Anne style, but with distinct features that set it apart. It features a large porch and an Americana feel, somewhat like a toned-down Queen Anne style. Vice Chair Rohman expressed that she had learned something new. MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to approve the minutes of June 13, 2024. Seconded by Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried (4-0-3) by voice vote. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Ms. French announced that the CPF Organization had drafted a letter opposing a State legislation that had unanimously passed one of the Houses of Legislature in California. Historic Preservation Planner Switzer added that this is Assembly Bill (AB) 2580, which was just recently passed in the State Assembly on May 21, 2024, and it is going to the Senate on June 18, 2024. He briefly discussed highlights of AB 2580, stating that it would require that the Housing Element include an analysis of historic preservation practices and the policies in an assessment of how the existing and proposed historic designations affect the local jurisdiction’s ability to share the housing need. It frames historic preservation as a constraint to affordable housing and housing development and presumes that local historical preservation nominations and designations are used to block housing development. He said it was mostly opposed by a majority of the State’s preservation foundations and organizations. He stated that he would be happy to share the opposition letter with the Board and distribute it. Ms. French noted that the bill was asking cities to compile information that is already compiled each year for the CLGs, which she considered a duplication and inefficient government. She stated that it may not be additional work on the City’s part to compile the information because there are other jurisdictions in the State that are not CLGs that have historic resources. Councilmember Kou announced that the City Council has a lobbyist and suggested that this issue be elevated through Staff to the Deputy Assistant Manager, who is the direct contact with the lobbyist. Vice Chair Rohman announced upcoming training by a preservation group at the end of August. The cost of the training is $50 for members and $100 for nonmembers. She invited any interested Board Members to let Ms. French know. Adjournment MOTION Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Vice Chair Rohman, the motion carried unanimously by voice vote. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The meeting was adjourned at 9:21 a.m.