Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-08 Historic Resources Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES: August 8, 2024 Council Chambers 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Historic Resources Board (HRB) of the City of Palo Alto met on August 8, 2024, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:43 AM. Present: Chair Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz, Vice Chair Samantha Rohman; Board Members Christian Pease, Caroline Willis, and Margaret Wimmer Absent: None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None Public Comment None City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments Chief Planning Official Amy French announced that this meeting is a Historic Resources Board Retreat which is open to the public. Three people attended via Zoom. Ms. French turned the meeting over to Mr. Switzer. Mr. Switzer discussed the remaining meetings scheduled this year. The quorum presently has three members. The two members whose terms have expired were invited to attend and participate. Interviews were conducted on August 5 to replace those 2 board members. Those appointments are scheduled to take place at the August 12 meeting. The newly appointed members will be introduced during the September 12 meeting. The election for the new chair and vice chair will be held on October 10. A City Council meeting will be held on August 19 regarding the 2023 Recognizance Survey, adding 5 properties to the inventory: 211 Quarry Road, 825 Kipling Street, 1215 Emerson Street, 904 Bryant Street, and 751 Channing Ave. HRB staff had been doing website maintenance and updates to the HRB and Historical Preservation pages. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Study Session 2. Historic Resources Board Retreat: Discussion of the Following Potential Topics: (1) Draft Mills Act Letter; (2) Historic Review Bulletin; (3) Historic Preservation Awards; (4) HRB Workplan; (5) Historic Status Label in Parcel Report Public Comment None Mr. Switzer noted that this will be the finalization of the Draft Mills Act Letter, which will be sent to the City Council and will satisfy HRB’s FY 23-24 Workplan Goal 5. Board Member Pease sent an attachment to this item regarding the Tailored Mills Act Program, which was distributed to the Board for their review. Ms. French invited questions and comments from the Board. Board Member Willis questioned the best way to revise the document to present to the City Council. Mr. Switzer thought the latest version of the Pilot Program document was updated in 2018. He said Board Member Pease requested more staff time be devoted to making applicable revisions to the document. Board Member Willis commented that the HRB could rewrite the document and prepare it for the Board’s approval. It was her opinion that the document had not changed since last month’s meeting. She questioned if the letter is sent to City Council now, would the Pilot Program be attached in its current form. Vice Chair Rohman said the intention was to send it to the City Council as a working document open to revision. She marked the document with notes and questions she had for the City Council and was treating it as a working document. Mr. Switzer added that the City Council might provide a more tailored program, as the name itself suggests, and any modifications could be implemented at the local level. Board Member Willis pleaded for a more polished document. She asked if the City’s attorney had reviewed the document because she is bothered by the agreement term and is concerned that making changes to the terms of the agreement may not be legal. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz felt it would be more efficient to send the letter now and get a general sense of the City Council’s position before wasting staff resources on altering a document they are uninterested in pursuing. Board Member Willis wanted the document to go to the City Council for review. She claimed there were three Council members who strongly supported this. Board Member Willis did not want to hesitate and wanted to present the strongest case possible to get each member’s support. Mr. Switzer agreed. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Rohman questioned what a realistic timeline would be to get the document revised and sent to the City Council. Ms. French suggested having staff weigh in on the revisions and then send the document to the City Council asking for their feedback, as per normal practice and City Council’s expectation. As far as the timing, Ms. French is unsure. Mr. Switzer agreed to send the letter. Board Member Wimmer said she was on this subcommittee in 2017 and 2018. She spent a lot of time working on this. She felt it was presentable in its current state. It is up-to-date and comprehensive, and she is ready to share it with Council to get their feedback. She thought that revisions, reevaluations, and changes will need to be made once they receive Council’s feedback. Ms. French noted that when staff prepares the staff reports for the City Council, the City attorneys will review the report but have not looked at the document to date. It will be reviewed after the Board revises the document. Board Member Willis suggested putting a timeline in place for the Tailored Program outline. She wondered if they could agree to get any revisions completed within the current year. Mr. Switzer said it could be done. Ms. French thought it could be feasible because this Board has seen it multiple times and have had opportunities to amend it and had not done so. Board Member Willis suggested changing the revision date on the document from January 2018 to July 2024 but Ms. French pointed out that there were not any revisions made, therefore, the date could not be changed. Board Member Willis expressed her desire to revise the document before the City Council views it. She felt that once the City attorney reviews the contract, he is going to have revisions and feedback. Ms. French explained that the staff reports would bring forward any studies and the Board could then comment and critique the proposed document. They will alert the Board if the City attorney discovers any issues. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz reminded the Board that if the letter went to the City Council, it is still open to modification at a variety of points during the process. She thanked Vice Chair Rohman for her hard work preparing and drafting the letter. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if there were any additional comments or questions about the letter. Board Member Pease made a motion to send the document to the City Council. Chair Eagleston- Ciezlewicz seconded the motion. Board Member Willis asked for clarification on whether this vote means that they are sending the document before the staff and the Board has the chance to make revisions. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz and Mr. Switzer explained that there will be an attachment sent with the letter. Board Member Willis had a few corrections she wanted to address on the draft report. On Page 6 of the document, it says City Tax Collector instead of Santa Clara County Tax Collector. Mr. Switzer clarifies that the letter does reference further revisions could be implemented on this program. If the City is going to pursue a Mills Act contract and program, they have to meet minimum State requirements. At the local level, they will be able to implement further requirements and restrictions. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Wimmer agreed that there will be many opportunities to make revisions later in the process. She said there was a chance that it could be completely rewritten. Board Member Willis agreed. She wants to see this developing and not stagnant. Motion Motion made by Board Member Pease to send the letter to City Council. Seconded by Chair Eagleston- Ciezlewicz. Vote: Motion carried (5-0) Mr. Switzer discussed updates to the Historic Review Bulletin, which included some minor text changes for shorter and more succinct sentences, changing the orientation of the table on the second page of the bulletin, modifying table orientation, and removing the “potentially eligible” references. He welcomed any comments or suggestions from the Board. Board Member Willis had a question. While reviewing the Historic Resources Application Review Procedures slide entitled “When does a property require evaluation,” she questioned whether it referred to every property in Palo Alto or specific properties. Mr. Switzer explained that, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), there are four discretionary projects. Any structure that is 45 years of age or older could be considered a historic resource, which was noted on the slide. It also referenced that should any discretionary projects be involved, it may require further historic resource evaluation to determine the status of the structure or site. Mr. Switzer asked for permission from the Board to upload it to the website. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz wondered whether a vote would be needed. Ms. French did not believe a vote was taken in October to update it, so a vote was not required. Public Comment Darlene Yaplee commented via Zoom. She was looking for clarification on evaluation as a historic resource. She claimed it read, “The City of Palo Alto may require an HRE report, as long as both of the following conditions apply,” and wanted to know what criteria would determine whether it may be required. Mr. Switzer explained that it would constitute a Discretionary Development Application, which could include a two-story development, any commercial development, and anything that would require an architectural review or variance. Items under CEQA that require a Discretionary Application are items such as ministerial permits, building permits, business licenses. Things that are ministerially approved are not subject to this requirement. The second qualifier is that the existing development is more than 45 years of age, which is a State requirement. There is a Public Resource Code section that provides that language. Ms. Yaplee asked for clarification because it says, “may require,” which sounds like she may not need to do it even if she met those two conditions. She wanted the language clarified. Mr. Switzer explained there are certain instances where a structure has sustained multiple renovations, if it is over 45 years of age, then a Historic Resource Evaluation may not be required because there is evidence in the City records or State records that would determine the non-eligible status, or the structure may not meet the criteria of designation for a historic resource. The City will not require a property owner to City of Palo Alto Page 5 conduct a resource evaluation on a structure that would not meet the designation for criteria. It is a case-by-case analysis. Mr. Switzer addressed the Board on the topic of Historic Preservation Awards. Mr. Switzer discussed that Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.6 provides that the City shall promote an awards programs and other forms of public recognition for exemplary works of historic preservation projects. The Board will potentially collaborate with PAHA and PAST. The Board could consider an HRB awards program for historical preservation awards, as well as centennial plaques that will be offered to any structure 100 years of age. The frequency of the awards, the criteria for selection, and time and location of the awards ceremony would be included in the FY 24-25 Workplan. To solidify the criteria for selection and frequency, it would require a revision of the bylaws. The City’s Architectural Review Board has an awards program. The Board may be able to compile a list of projects that have been approved, reviewed, and constructed for the Board’s consideration. Board Member Wimmer felt PAHA and PAST did an excellent job with their awards program and she would be more comfortable strengthening their effort as opposed to starting an HRB awards program. Board Member Willis said she originally agreed with Board Member Wimmer but she is now coming around to the idea of an HRB awards program. She thought that adding their own voice to strengthening preservation in the community is important and PAST would appreciate the support with awards and plaques costs as well as promotional and educational materials. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz asked if the awards would only be for projects that came before the HRB. PAST’s awards program is very established and recognized in the community. PAST has a broader range of projects to consider because they can choose any project. Mr. Switzer stated that the Board may choose the criteria for selection. Board Member Pease thought the program was qualitatively different and was a promising idea. Mr. Switzer reminded the Board that this would be placed on the FY 24-25 Workplan, which would track with the Architectural Review Board’s Awards Ceremony. Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz thinks this is worth placing on the workplan and reviewing it further. Vice Chair Rohman agreed it was worth exploring. Board Member Wimmer thought they might be able to collaborate with the ARB to make one combined awards program. Jodie Clark-Gerhardt, Manager of Planning and ARB liaison, introduced herself. She said the ARB awards program term is every five years and they only consider projects that came before the ARB, which is a smaller subset. Board Member Pease thought there is a distinction between these two ceremonies and they should stand alone. Board Member Willis agreed this should move forward and placed on the workplan. She thought past Board members might have an interest in becoming part of the awards program subcommittee. After City of Palo Alto Page 6 some discussion, Board Member Wimmer agreed that this would be valid and worthy but an actual award ceremony might be too much of an undertaking. Board Member Willis suggested biannually or every five years might be easier to accomplish at first. Board Member Pease commented that if this were to go into the FY 24-25 Workplan and they chose the 5-year cycle, there would not be an award ceremony until 2030. Mr. Switzer suggested that staff could compile a list of eligible projects. Board Member Pease thought the recognition would be good for the community. Board Member Willis would like to see the award ceremony align with PAST’s awards ceremony, which is held during Preservation Week. Motion Motion by Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz to place Historic Preservation Awards on the FY 24-25 Workplan. Board Member Willis seconded the motion. Vote: Motion carried (5-0) Public Comment None Mr. Switzer reminded the Board that the previously scheduled City Council meeting on August 12, 2024, for approval of the HRB Workplan had been cancelled. A new date will be determined at a later time. The Preservation Awards will be added to the FY 24-25 Workplan. Mr. Switzer asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board. Board Member Willis asked Mr. Switzer to rephrase Goal 3. Mr. Switzer referred her to Attachment E of her packet. Mr. Switzer explained Project Goal 3 reads, “Conduct a survey of the local inventory resources listed prior to the 2023 Historic Reconnaissance Survey to determine historic conditions.” If Council directs a survey update, that will require resources and may extend into next year’s workplan. He further elaborated that it would be a cleanup effort of any structures that have been demolished or existing inventory and looking at any of the category upgrades that have gone before the Board as well as Council, and offering additional preservation incentives. The Board agreed that no vote was needed. Public Comments 1. Amy Sung is a local resident. She had a question regarding the proposal to address the Historic Status Label in the parcel report and the “potentially eligible” status. She wondered what the difference was from removing the status from the parcel report and if the properties were subject to an internal review. Ms. Sung would also like to know what criteria will be applied to properties that fall under “Not evaluated, may need evaluation.” What is the difference between the current status and the proposed solution and how many properties would be impacted by these changes? 2. Darlene Yaplee is concerned with the parcel report. The wording “recognized” in Code 3 seemed ambiguous, especially considering the reconnaissance process the Council recently went City of Palo Alto Page 7 through. Ms. Yaplee said Code 1 and Code 2 are very confusing to people who are property eligible. She would like to see a breakdown of how each goal is different from the next goal in terms of the implications to properties. She asked if Palo Alto is the only city that has the label “may need evaluation” on their parcel report. She felt it would raise questions and concerns from homebuyers. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz turned the meeting over to Mr. Switzer to present the staff report, which should answer most of these questions. Mr. Switzer noted that at the April 22 City Council meeting, they directed staff to explore some alternatives to the “potentially eligible” status in the parcel report. The staff explored alternatives and provided four options for discussion and consideration. A lot of comments were regarding aligning the status with the California Build Environment Resource Directory (BERD); however, those requirements come from the State and were taken verbatim from their status code list. The five governing status codes appeared on the slide presented to the Board. Mr. Switzer went through each of the five codes and categories that would be applied to properties. Code 5, “Not evaluated for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation” would replace the “potentially eligible” status. He discussed another alternative the City could pursue, which would be removing the historic status altogether from the parcel reports. Other alternatives would be to add “Further information may be inquired by planning staff” or keeping the “potentially eligible” status as is. Mr. Switzer asked if the Board had any questions or comments. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz agreed with the newly proposed language because it expressed that a property may need evaluation or that it is unevaluated but may trigger things at the State level. She also pointed out that this is to comply with State law and CEQA. She felt that removing the historic status altogether from the parcel reports would be less transparent than the proposed alternative. Vice Chair Rohman fears that if the historic status is removed entirely, the owner will be subject to these regulations if they ever decide to demo or update their property. She pointed out that the property will eventually have to go through CEQA evaluation when the property attains 45 years of age or older. She was not certain that removing the designations from the parcel report would be helpful to the owners, so she supported this proposed language that is in line with the State. Board Member Wimmer agrees with Vice Chair Rohman. She suggested that if a property qualifies for historic status, changing “historic status” to either “National Register” or “California Register.” She suggested making a blanket statement for all projects, “Historic screening evaluation is required for all new development projects.” The City Planner reviews the parcel reports of any new project submitted to the City and would see the historic status. Board Member Willis was unclear which properties this applied to. She suggested that when a property falls under “not eligible for listing or designation,” it would be helpful to articulate that the property was evaluated and deemed not eligible. She asked whether “not evaluated” meant the property was not yet 45 years old. Mr. Switzer noted that the Planning staff would be investigating any discretionary projects, City of Palo Alto Page 8 pursuant to CEQA, for structures 45 years of age. As properties age, there will be a rotating list that will be updated through the parcel report system as well as their mapping efforts. Board Member Willis questioned whether this new system would eliminate their current list of the 500 “potentially eligible” properties. Mr. Switzer explained that the new status codes would address those properties in addition to providing more succinct language for all properties listed in the inventory and those that have been evaluated. Board Member Willis addressed the need for further clarification of categories “Not eligible for listing or designation” and “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation.” Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz explained that aside from properties that were already evaluated, it is the presence of a previous evaluation that will determine what group the property falls into. If a property does not have an evaluation, then it will fall into one of the two categories, “Not eligible for listing or designation” or “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation.” Board Member Willis asked if every property over 45 years old would fall into one of the five categories. Mr. Switzer thought that could potentially be an alternative the Board and staff could explore. Board Member Pease pointed out that the key point is that this is a State requirement. Mr. Switzer remarked that this applied to discretionary projects. Ministerial projects, such as building permits, would not be subject to this level of review or requirements. Board Member Willis suggested putting a supplemental explanation on the website that discusses, “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation,” more in-depth. Ms. French thought she would be able to compile an exhaustive list of what is discretionary and what is ministerial for the website. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz asked if a vote was needed on the language change. Mr. Switzer did not believe so. Council directed staff to investigate these alternatives and present them to the Board for collaboration. Staff prepared a report, which will go before the City Council. Ms. French explained that the City Council on August 19 will review on consent the 5 additional properties in the report. Board Member Willis added that she would like to see the language, “Not eligible for listing or designation” changed to reference that the property has been evaluated and not found eligible. Regarding, “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation,” she asked that the comma be replaced with a semicolon. Public Comments Ms. French noted there was no comment for the minutes but there was public comment on the parcel report. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz reopened the parcel report to public comment. 1. Amy Sung asked with what kind of certainty were they replacing the current “potentially eligible” status. She was looking for clear articulation on what makes a property fall into this category and wondered if the City considers any property that is 45 years old. She questioned how many properties fell into this category and how the City planned to accommodate this City of Palo Alto Page 9 expansion. She questioned how they planned to track the properties with their current resources and what criteria and review would be put into place. 2. Leannah Hunt is concerned with the five items proposed this morning. She did not believe the Board was responding to the conversation that took place at the City Council earlier this year. Ms. Hunt is concerned with the 45-year threshold because that would include around 75 percent of the housing market in Palo Alto. She felt as though the list was not narrowed down, as Council suggested. She felt that Codes 4 and 5 are very ambiguous. She is concerned that the phrase “may need evaluation,” will give staff total discretion to order that any homeowner go through that process using the outside contractor for historic evaluation, which is an extremely expensive process and it would delay construction projects. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz reiterated that this review relates to a State law, CEQA. She invited staff to address these concerns. Vice Chair Rohman added that the 45-year threshold is not something the City chose. It is a State mandate. Mr. Switzer explained, as noted in the staff report, the 45 years of age is from the evaluation pursuant to CEQA in the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1(g). He explained that the “potentially eligible” status was applied to properties from the Dames & Moore survey and 1948 was the cutoff threshold. The current statuses on parcel reports are a result of a large survey conducted by the City. The staff is aligning status codes with State law pursuant to CEQA. Ms. French said it was option to remove “potentially eligible” from parcel reports. It is possible to say, “Talk with Planning staff,” as a label for everything that is unknown. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz reiterated that depending upon the specifics of the project and the property, it is still subject to CEQA regardless of what any website says. Vice Chair Rohman suggested if they were to remove the “not evaluated” status when a homeowner views their parcel report, it would not have any information. She was concerned that if they decided to do a home improvement project later, it would be a surprise that they were subject to CEQA. Board Member Wimmer mentioned changing the language in Code 5, “Not eligible for National Register or California Register, may need further evaluation,” to include the local Palo Alto Register if they were to adopt that language. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz said they have typically been using the National Register or California Register eligibility as the trigger for local inventory eligibility. Ms. French added that the language conveys the CEQA State law. It does not matter if it has been evaluated locally if it is eligible for the National or California Register. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13, 2024 Public Comment None Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz asked if anybody had any changes that needed to be made to the Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13, 2024. City of Palo Alto Page 10 On Page 35 of the packet, Board Member Willis thought “worldwide outreach” was erroneous. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz said it may be a transcription error. Board Member Willis pointed out that on Page 38, third paragraph, Ben said that it cost him approximately $5,000 per year. She felt that was inaccurate. Ms. French noted that if Ben said that, then that is what it reads. This was Board Member Wimmer’s last meeting on the Board, and Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz thanked her for her many years of service. Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz and the Board congratulated Ms. French on her retirement. Chair Eagleston- Ciezlewicz thanked Ms. French for her work with the HRB over the years and her service to Palo Alto with a standing ovation. Motion Chair Eagleston-Ciezlewicz moved to approve the minutes from the June 13 meeting following review and any corrections. Seconded by Board Member Pease. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Adjournment Motion Motion by Chair Eagleston-Cieslewicz to adjourn. Seconded by Board Member Pease. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 AM.