The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-12-14 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Historic Resources Board Regular Meeting Agenda: December 14, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Discussion of Potential Retreat Topics for 2018 Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. PUBLIC HEARING: HRB Discussion and Comments on Eichler Design Guidelines 4. STUDY SESSION: 755 Hamilton Avenue: Request for Study Session Review of an Individual Review application for a 1,088 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,536 square foot single story home. Zone District: R-1 (Single Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Historic Resources Board Draft Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2017 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Historic Resources Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers are: Chair Martin Bernstein Vice Chair David Bower Boardmember Brandon Corey Boardmember Beth Bunnenberg Boardmember Roger Kohler Boardmember Michael Makinen Boardmember Margaret Wimmer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8751) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Meeting Schedule and Assignments Title: Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate. Background Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. No action is required by the HRB for this item. Attachments:  Attachment A: HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments (PDF) 2017 Schedule Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/12/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/26/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/9/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 2/23/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Retreat 3/9/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/23/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular David Bower 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Joint ARB David Bower, Brandon Corey 4/13/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/27/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/11/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 5/25/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/8/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/22/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Brandon Corey 7/13/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Joint ARB Brandon Corey 7/27/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 8/10/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular David Bower 8/24/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/14/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/28/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Martin Bernstein 10/12/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/26/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 11/9/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/23/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 12/14/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/28/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 2018 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8724) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Discussion of Retreat Topics Title: Discussion of Potential Retreat Topics for 2018 From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Decide on retreat topics and confirm the targeted January 11, 2018 retreat date. Report Summary This report transmits links to the 2017 retreat staff report and minutes. Staff is targeting January 11, 2018 for the HRB retreat and also for the HRB review of the CLG report due to the State Office of Historic Preservation January 22, 2018. Background The HRB’s last retreat was held February 23, 2017. The http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55979 The minutes of the retreat are found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56747 Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8331) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Eichler Guidelines Title: PUBLIC HEARING: HRB Discussion and Comments on Eichler Design Guidelines From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide comments on the Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines (Guidelines), including Process Improvement Suggestions (Guidelines Chapter 8); and 2. Either: A. Recommend Council approval of the guidelines, or B. Continue the discussion to January 25, 2018 to allow: (1) the public comment period to close (January 12, 2018), and (2) action after the mid-January workshop at Mitchell Park Community Center. Background This report transmits information regarding the upcoming events related to the draft Guidelines that were published November 9, 2017. The City’s dedicated webpage (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/special_projects/eichler_neighborhood_design_ guidelines_.asp) is updated to reflect the current schedule for public comment, community workshop, Board and Commission hearings and Council review. HRB Review On October 12th staff presented background information to the HRB. On November 9th, staff provided the HRB members with a presentation and hard copy Guidelines and emailed process participants a link to the Eichler Guidelines. Staff is now seeking HRB comments on the Guidelines. In January, staff will present an overview of potential code changes that Council will have a chance to choose from to direct staff to bring forward for community input and adoption in 2018. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Acknowledging the HRB’s November 9, 2017 suggestion that staff to return to the HRB for final comments after the community workshop, staff anticipates the HRB may wish to defer its formal recommendation on these Guidelines until January 25, 2018, which would be after conclusion of the public comment period and community workshop in January 2018. The meeting minutes from the November 9th HRB meeting are attached (Attachment B). The HRB suggestion for page numbering was a good one, and the next distribution of the Guidelines will reflect such numbering. Eichler Guidelines Project Update The Guidelines are viewable via the City’s Eichler project webpage at the link provided above. Community Workshop #3 The Eichler Guidelines team (staff of the Planning and Community Environment Department and City’s consultant Page & Turnbull) had conducted two Spring 2017 workshops plus the Summer 2017 Eichler Memories Event, briefly described in the October 12, 2017 HRB report. The third community workshop, initially targeted for November 28, 2017, has been moved to the week of January 15th at the Mitchell Park Community Center. The postponement of the November workshop date led to a rescheduling of the public hearings. Staff reserved two January dates in case the State of the City event takes one of the two dates. The exact workshop date may not be finalized until after the first Council meeting of 2018. Next Steps Planning and Transportation Commission Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will conduct a study session following the community workshop and the end of the comment period, and after the HRB review and recommendation. The PTC may also provide comments on the Guidelines as a Council- appointed commission, though there is no requirement for the PTC to do so. City Council Action Staff is preparing a draft Resolution for City Council to adopt these Guidelines. The Resolution will reflect any relevant policies from the Comprehensive Plan Council adopted on November 13, 2017. Single Story Overlay Regulations In 2018, staff intends to publish a draft modification to Chapter 18.12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Staff is preparing language to respond to the Council’s direction for improvements to the Single Story Overlay (SSO) rezoning process. Staff intends to take the opportunity to also include references to the existence and intended purpose of two sets of residential guidelines (the Professorville Guidelines and the Eichler Guidelines). Range of Regulatory Options The potential regulatory options under staff consideration at moment follow a tiered regulatory format. The options may be cited in an Implementation Plan Council may consider using to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 direct staff to make changes to IR Guidelines and City Zoning regulations. Staff intends to gather public and board comments to inform an implementation plan for potential options, and share the plan with the City Council, along with the Guidelines.  “Tier 1” regulations could be employed for the two National Register districts and any future tracts self-selected as a National Register District or Eichler Conservation District.  “Tier 2” regulations for non-National Register tracts with Single Story Overlays (SSOs) may be considered.  “Tier 3” regulations could be employed for all new replacement homes in Eichler Tracts. Upcoming Schedule  On January 16 or 18, 2018, staff will hold a community workshop to receive feedback from participants and solicit feedback on potential regulatory options.  In late January (25th) staff intends to share the workshop input with the HRB and, if the HRB has not yet recommended the Guidelines, staff will solicit the recommendation.  In late January (31st) staff will visit the Planning and Transportation Commission in a study session, to request comments on potential code modifications.  In February, any revisions to the draft Guidelines would be made and staff would refine the potential regulatory options to share with Council for direction.  In March, staff would bring to Council: o the Draft Guidelines, revised to address board and commission input, and o a Draft Implementation Plan to seek Council direction regarding potential code and policy options. Should Council direct staff to proceed with zoning code amendments, staff would hold public hearings. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Form a subcommittee to assist staff with the potential regulatory options. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: October 12, 2017 HRB Report (PDF)  Attachment B: Excerpt HRB Minutes of November 9 2017 (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8489) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/12/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Eichler Design Guidelines Update Title: INFORMATIONAL REPORT: Eichler Design Guidelines and Process for Developing Potential Regulatory Options From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation This is an informational item to update the Historic Resources Board (HRB) regarding the Eichler Design Guidelines project. No action is requested. Report Summary This report provides background information to accompany staff’s update regarding the Draft Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines (Guidelines). Staff is preparing to publish draft Guidelines in late October, and to hold a community workshop November 28, 2017 in the Downtown Library meeting room for public discussion of the draft Guidelines. In Spring 2018, Council will review the draft Guidelines and consider whether or not to direct staff to amend the City’s ordinances, or create new regulatory measures to implement the Guidelines. Potential regulatory options are under development and staff intends to publish a matrix of options prior to the Guidelines workshop. Staff will schedule public hearings, beginning with the HRB, at the end of 2017. Updates to the review schedule may be viewed on the City’s Eichler project webpage, at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/special_projects/eichler_neighborhood_design_g uidelines_.asp Background Eichler Tracts in Palo Alto and Comprehensive Plan Goal Eichler Homes used plans designed by well-known architects and built approximately 11,000 homes in the California after World War II. Eichler Homes built over 2,000 homes in Palo Alto from 1951 through 1959. The 31 Eichler tracts in Palo Alto are shown on a map found at this webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56865. Of these, staff is aware of only two tracts that have active Architectural Control Committees (ACC) as referenced City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 in the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CCR) established by Eichler Homes. These tracts (Green Meadow and Charleston Meadows) and other Eichler tracts have CC&Rs restricting homes to one-story construction. Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Goal L-3 promotes “Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods each with its own distinct character…” and includes information about how Eichler neighborhoods were designed so homes may serve as private enclaves. Privacy is one of several critical neighbor concerns in Eichler tracts, when two-story homes or second floor additions are proposed. The Single Family Individual Review (IR) program and guidelines provide some guidance to mitigate privacy reduction, but these guidelines are not specific to Eichler tracts. Limitations of IR Guidelines The IR discretionary process and Guidelines are applicable to new two-story, single family- homes and second floor additions to existing one-story homes. The IR process does not apply to tall one-story homes. The IR Guidelines do not prescribe how to best achieve compatibility with an Eichler neighborhood scale and pattern. The IR Guidelines do not sufficiently address compatibility of new two story homes in Eichler tracts in three fundamental areas:  They do not prescribe a maximum second floor area in terms such as a limitation on the number of rooms or a percentage of the first floor area,  They do not limit the height of a one story or second floor volume within an Eichler neighborhood and  They do not mandate use of a mid-century modern style. Such limitations cannot be mandated via voluntary guidelines, but could be imposed via amendments to the R-1 Zone development standards. Single Story Overlay Rezoning Many Eichler-built tracts in Palo Alto are zoned ‘Single-Story Overlay’, or ‘SSO’, and the Individual Review Guidelines and program do not apply to these tracts. Two of these SSOs are also National Register districts (Greenmeadow and Green Gables), and are afforded an ‘honorary’ historic status. The City’s historic preservation ordinance is not applicable, since these districts are not designated local historic districts. A City webpage provides links and basic information about establishing SSOs, staff’s role in the SSO rezoning process, and non- complying two-story homes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/new_projects/single_story_overlay.asp. A map of existing SSOs (shown in pink) and two ‘failed’ SSOs (shown in green as proposed) is below. The consultants have noted that three SSOs have larger boundaries than Eichler tract boundaries. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Within SSO tracts, only one habitable floor is allowed, and SSO regulations prevent:  new one-story homes or home additions over 17 feet in height (except in flood zones),  new two-story homes, and  the addition of a new second story to one story homes within those tracts. However, SSO zoning:  Does not ensure the retention of Eichler-designed homes,  Allows homes to reach a height of up to 17 feet to the roof peak in non-flood zone areas, and a height of up to 20 feet in flood zones.  Does not include any evaluation by City staff of architectural or neighborhood compatibility, or of potential privacy impacts of new construction. Council Direction and Actions Regarding the Eichler Guidelines and SSOs During consideration in 2016 of SSO rezoning applications, Council directed staff to return with a preliminary evaluation of Eichler zoning or guidelines, and potential code changes for processing and evaluating SSOs. In May 2016, staff submitted a memorandum to Council that discussed the estimated effort to produce Eichler guidelines (see Attachment B of PTC report at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53365). Council then provided direction to staff regarding the work program, and approve the use of a contingency fund to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 prepare Guidelines. City Council authorized the funding in November 2016 (summary report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54568). Council also asked staff to “return to Council with a strengthening of the Individual Review (IR) Guidelines to incorporate Eichler design and privacy compatibility where appropriate, and depending on the context of the lot, make allowance for second stories, adjustments to setbacks and possibly other accommodations”. Council anticipated staff would conduct community outreach and consult with Council before proposing zone regulations changes (to Chapter 18.12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)). Limitation of Eichler Guidelines Like the IR Guidelines, the Eichler Guidelines will not include prescriptive regulations to achieve better compatibility for new one and two story homes. The Eichler Guidelines could be used in conjunction with the IR Guidelines for new two-story homes and second floor additions. The Eichler Guidelines would help by reinforcing the importance of compatibility with neighborhood scale and pattern; however, the Eichler Guidelines cannot legislate, or prescribe in an enforceable way, architectural styles that fit with existing homes within an Eichler tract. Only implementation of Eichler conservation districts or overlays, or modifications to R-1 Zone Development Standards for Eichler tracts, could ensure compatible one- and two-story home designs in Eichler tracts. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Council recently approved an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57420. Along with ordinance adoption, Council directed staff to “return with potential Eichler Design Guidelines relating to ADUs, including lower height limits.” The Guidelines are to provide an introduction and reference to the City’s ordinance pertaining to ADUs. The Guidelines could also propose best practices for ADUs on Eichler home properties, but again, without implementing ordinances, Guidelines provide guidance only. Workshops and Events Staff and the consultant, Page and Turnbull, conducted two community workshops in the Spring of 2017. These events were well attended. Following the second workshop, an online survey was conducted, with a high level of participation. The consultant reviewed the responses as part of the preparation of the draft Guidelines. There were 78 pages of comments from Community Meeting #1 and the online survey. The themes that came out of the early public feedback are synthesized in one of the early chapters of the document. Staff and the consultant also conducted a community event on August 15, 2017, prior to preparation of the draft Guidelines. Discussion Guidelines Workshop in November City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Staff is tentatively targeting November 28, 2017 for the third community workshop to present the Guidelines and receive feedback from the participants. The format will be similar to the first workshop, with a consultant and staff presentation, and opportunities for participants to provide feedback on the draft Guidelines and learn about staff’s efforts to provide Council with options for potential regulatory measures. Potential Regulatory Options and/or Implementation Plan Staff has begun working on a ‘menu’ of potential regulatory options for the Council and community to consider. This menu would be shared with the HRB, Architectural Review Board, and Planning and Transportation Commission, along with the draft Guidelines. Staff would gather public and board comments to inform an implementation plan for potential regulations, and share the plan with the City Council, along with the Guidelines. This would allow Council to provide further direction on whether and/or when to amend or create regulatory policies and/or ordinances to implement the Guidelines beyond voluntary use. Historic Planner Consultation for National Register Eichler District Homes The HRB currently does not review modifications to homes in the two National Register District Eichler tracts. Under the City’s preservation ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49, the HRB’s purview is exterior alterations of downtown area historic structures or sites or to significant buildings (Inventory categories 1 and 2) elsewhere in the city, and new construction on a parcel having a historic structure or within a historic district, such as Professorville. However, the City’s historic preservation planner may be consulted for single- story modifications to the single story-restricted homes in the two Eichler National Register Historic Districts (Green Gables and Greenmeadow) although such review is not required by PAMC Chapter 16.49. The historic preservation planner also reviews ADU proposals, both conversions and new construction, regarding compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for contributing properties within the Eichler National Register Historic Districts. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Workshops and Community Events Staff and the consultant, Page and Turnbull, conducted two workshops in Spring 2017. The first workshop was a citywide workshop at Mitchell Park. The power point presentation is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57001. The event was attended by at least one HRB member. The workshop was quickly followed by a workshop for the two National Register Eichler Districts (Greenmeadow and Green Gables), and an on-line community survey to receive feedback about Eichlers. The feedback will be summarized for the public and future staff reports on this topic. The Eichler Memory Community Event, held on August 15th at the Rinconada Library, was attended by two HRB members. Next Steps Staff anticipates implementing the following tentative schedule for the balance of this work effort: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  On November 28, 2017, staff plans to hold a community workshop to present the Guidelines to receive feedback from the participants and to solicit feedback on potential regulatory options.  In early December, staff intends to present the Guidelines to the Historic Resources Board and Planning and Transportation Commission for feedback on the draft Guidelines and regarding potential regulatory options.  In January, staff would revise the draft Guidelines and refine a matrix of regulatory options after board and commission input, into a potential “implementation plan”.  In February, staff would bring to Council: o the Draft Guidelines, revised to address board and commission input, and o a Draft Implementation Plan to seek Council direction regarding potential code and policy options.  Should Council direct staff to proceed with code or policy amendments, staff would hold public hearings in Spring 2017 on any draft ordinance and/or policy documents. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Absent: Chair Martin Bernstein 3. Eichler Design Guidelines Update Vice Chair Bower: Alright, if there are no other comments we can move onto the next item which is the Eichler Design Guidelines review. Ms. French: Thank you. We have today Christina Dikas of Page and Turnbull and she is here to present a PowerPoint on the Eichler Design Guidelines for neighborhoods. We have been at this project for a while. We got approval last December 2016 to hire our consultant to work on these. As of yesterday, we have the guidelines in draft form and we are intending to send through an E-blast today to the stakeholders who have been following this, as well as upload them on our webpage. So, you are the first in the community to see, everyone at this table and in this room, the hard copy of the guidelines. So, I’ll let Christina take it away. On the screen – oh wait, let’s – ok, drive on this one. Ok, technical difficulties. We have had new two-story homes in Palo Alto that have been subject to the Individual Review Guidelines and Individual Review Program and Process. These have included homes in Eichler neighborhoods that did not have a single-story overlay; new one-story homes, in these neighborhoods and elsewhere, do not have any kind of design review process; they are simply just a building permit. We’ve had a concern for lack of compatibility in the Eichler neighborhoods, and that has led to some neighborhoods coming forward to elect to place a single-story overlay on their neighborhoods to, at least, keep the homes one- story and compatible in that way. There are guidelines in place to help architects and homeowners to see what – how to sensitively add to an Eichler or a replacement building that would be compatible with the homes in the tract. So, I already noted that the Council approved this contract to go forward with Eichler Design Guidelines. These are not regulatory, these are tools, so as noted we have the single-story overlay applicable to some Eichler neighborhoods and one non-Eichler neighborhood that is looking sort of Eichler-like (I call them Feichler’s or Likelers I think is another term). And then we have the – we also have flood zones and this is not a tool; it’s more of a – there’s – in the code – the zoning code for R-1 neighborhoods - a new home in a flood zone can be taller than other homes because the first finished floor needs to be taller. So, in an Eichler neighborhood – you’re already starting much higher than other - homes that are slab-on-grade in the tract. We also have accessory dwelling unit legislation that came through this year and the City adopted local guidelines that are helpful. These Eichler Guidelines also address the Accessory Dwelling Unit Guidelines. Then, as you know, we have two historic districts – National Register Historic Districts - and they are not listed on the City’s inventory so they don’t come before this Board. They’re historic and so we have a chance to look at those to make sure they are compatible with Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Some neighborhoods have covenant codes and restrictions and we know of three neighborhoods that have Architectural Control Committees. So, in those neighborhoods, there has been another layer, that is a private matter, that helps with maintenance of one-story homes in those neighborhoods. It’s not – those Architectural Control Committees don’t have all the tools they need. Obviously, these – the enforcement is very difficult and they do have issues in those neighborhoods as well. The goals of the guidelines… (do you want to do this one?) HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING EXCERPT MINUTES: November 9, 2017 Eichler Guidelines Study Session City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Christina Dikas: Sure, the goals of this document are to develop illustrated guidelines for preserving the distinctive character of the Eichler neighborhoods in Palo Alto, to provide a design tool for homeowners and architects, and to adopt as a reference for Palo Alto review bodies. In addition to this document, we are exploring with the City the possibility of establishing an Eichler overlay or other regulatory updates where specific standards would apply in lieu of or in addition to the existing single- story overlay and individual review guidelines. So, that’s something that we’re exploring and we’ll discuss more in the future. The next slide is our calendar and where we are today. We have this informational hearing and I will be coming back to you on December 14th to hear your comments so you have a good month or more to really dive into this document. We certainly recommend or we certainly welcome any comments that you have. Yes, that document. Vice Chair Bower: Could I stop you right there for a second? I see that the Planning and Transportation Commission is going to get this document on the 13th December and then we’ll look at it the following day. What’s the – what’s Planning and Transportation going to do with this if we haven’t yet reviewed it and approved it to move forward? Ms. French: Right, so we are – this will be their first look at it and we are going to describe the fact that we are also looking at potential code changes. Certainly, one of the code changes is necessary - and that is to reference these guidelines. As well as a cleanup item to reference the Professorville Guidelines, which the code does not do right now. So, it’s about the zoning code changes that are necessary and potential zoning code changes that we would return to them after Council provides directions on some of these things. It’s a conversation, and the guidelines - they can recommend adoption of those guidelines on that night, just as you can the next day. I hear what you are saying, you would rather maybe have the Planning Commission go after the HRB to hear what the HRB’s comments are on the guidelines. Vice Chair Bower: So, that’s why I bring this up. It seems to me that the process is backward here. Planning and Transportation has a legitimate role here but they ought to hear from us first because we’re the Board that actually has expertise in historic issues. I think that this is what happens with the ARB frequently, they are making their decisions separate from our input. Ms. French: Sure. Vice Chair Bower: Sometimes they just ignore our input which I think is inappropriate but – so I just – so… Ms. French: We could just do a study session to talk with them and/or cancel that one. It’s a difficulty of holiday agendas so we – so the next time we could come to them is in late January. Vice Chair Bower: I think it would be more informative for the Planning and Transportation Commissioners to actually hear from us first. I mean hear what we have to say about it so I would – since I didn’t see them on this timeline later, that’s why I am interrupting and bringing this up. Ms. French: They would certainly be later if and when the Council were to direct zoning code changes. Then that would be a more important meeting from their standpoint. This is more of a how to look at these and… Vice Chair Bower: So, that’s fine. Now I understand that this is more like a study session for them and then the following day we will actually review these for substance and recommendation. Ok, so I apologize for interrupting. Ms. Dikas: We are targeting a public review period that starts today. The document will be put on the website later today and ending in mid-January so the general public will have a good two months – two? Two months to review. Board Member Kohler: Where would we find the – how to get to that site? Is that under our… City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. French: We will – as Emily showed you earlier, there’s the Eichler Guidelines dedicated website and it will be placed there. Certainly, we will send a link to the HRB and others that are stakeholders in this that have been following all this, and they will get the link that will make it easy for them to click on. Board Member Kohler: Good because I just have at least one or maybe two people who are interested in that so good. Thank you. Ms. Dikas: We have a list of contact information from people who have been attending the community meetings that we’ve held throughout the year and others who are interested community members. So, there will be an e-blast with all the information so people can take a look. We’re targeting an April completion, hopefully. Next slide? The next slide I’m going to present to you is just a quick overview so that you can get a sense of what the design guidelines are and then again you have a good amount of time to really read them fully before we come back to you. This is the table of contents and I’ll be going through each of these chapters in subsequent slides. We have an introduction, brief history of Eichler homes and Eichler residential development in Palo Alto. That also includes a section on character-defining features of different styles of Eichler homes. Chapter Three is an overview of community values and concerns and then we get into the guidelines. We have Chapter Four guidelines on maintaining Eichler homes, guidelines for architectural compatibility and neighborhood cohesion. So, this includes new additions to existing Eichler residences and new construction within Eichler neighborhoods. Chapter Six is guidelines on the shared landscape, streetscape and a sense of nature. We kind of weaved through these chapters so some of those values and concerns that we heard from community members earlier this year so that’s where the sense of nature comes in. Then Chapter Seven is special considerations and we have a special section on the two historic districts and then we have a section on accessory dwelling units. I will mention that the only true historic resources are the buildings that are contributors to the two National Register Historic Districts. So that is the only section of this that really uses of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and basically says that if you’re a contributor to one of those two historic districts, ideally you would have a higher bar for any alterations that you may make. There’s a certain amount of flexibility that’s provided in the rest of the design guidelines that are not preservation guidelines per say but loosely follow our Secretary of Interior’s Standards. There is just a little bit more flexibility there so I just want to make that clear. The next slide, these are our Eichler tracts and Palo Alto has the most Eichlers, I think of any City of 11,000 Eichler houses that were developed by Eichler Homes. There are over 2,500 in Palo Alto so we have found 31 tracts of Eichler and you can see the two National Register Historic Districts are in green. This information was really derived from efforts that Page and Turnbull put into trying to identify the specific Eichler tracts. There’s a google document that was online and we’re not sure who developed it. It’s kind of an open source map of Eichler tracts but it wasn’t complete so we also went to the County and we were able to get tract maps. Then we went out and we drove every single street in these areas to really define is this an Eichler? Is this a likelier? So, we could identify these boundaries so we hope that this is quite accurate. There are some possibilities that there are tiny pockets of a couple of Eichlers here and there that aren’t represented on this map but this is pretty thorough. This is part of the first chapter, the introduction and we include that map and then we have the section on how to use these design guidelines. There is an overarching concept and if you’re familiar with the Professorville Design Guidelines that we produced last year, similar kind of a format. We have a statement explaining the objective or general approaches and then we have clarifying bullets that follow and when applicable we have some sidebars with links. Chapter Two includes a brief history of Eichler homes and these are just some of the images that we include. If you’re not familiar, Joseph Eichler started Eichler Homes in 1949 and the first Eichler tract that was developed in Palo Alto was University Gardens in 1950. It’s interesting to see how some of the Eichler designs change over time. He had a contractor who worked on this first tract and it’s a little different. It has brick fireplace chimneys that are prominent on the front façade, which you don’t see in later ones. Later on, he had several well- known and highly reputable mid-century modern architects who worked with him. One of them is Anshen and Allen out of San Francisco. They did the Fairmeadow tract and a number of others but this is an example of theirs. Jones and Emmons, A. Quincy Jones, designed Green Meadow in 1954 to 1955 and next slide, Claude Oakland’s work on some of the later Eichler tracts and an example is the Los Arboles Addition number two in 1974, which are really interesting with this center gable roof. Yes, Chapter Two in much more detail. We also discuss a general history about Joseph Eichler’s concept for affordable yet City of Palo Alto Page 4 modern design in the post-war period. So, this is an example of an advertisement that was made at the time. Next slide; and then some of the interesting neighborhood layouts. We talk a little bit about the Green Meadow Community Center. Again, that was Jones and Emmons and then the Community Center landscape was also done by Thomas Church who is a very well-known mid-century landscape architect. Then as I mentioned earlier this chapter not only includes a history of Eichlers but also the defining character features. We’ve broken them down into different typologies of Eichlers so this is straight out of the document. This is a front gabled Eichler and we have some illustrations that pull out into bullet points of some features that can identified with additional character-defining features over on the side in bullet points. I lost my page. Flat-roofed Eichlers with these interesting tall and narrow windows on the front and next slide there’s a flat with shed roof version and we have a series of photo variety. I love the one at the bottom right with the yellow car in the driveway as well. Then the last one that we have is this flat with gable roof and there are variations of it that you can see in the photos below the main one with a side gable and kind of flat trunk aided roof gable. Those are the ones from Claude Oakland from the 1979s. Then Chapter Three as I mentioned earlier there’s an overview of community values and concerns. We have – we hosted two community meetings in the spring, one was a general community meeting where we introduced this project and the other one was specifically for the two National Register Districts to find out if they had any specific concerns or comments that they wanted to provide us. We heard from people but not everybody was able to attend these meetings so we took the questions that we had posted in the meetings and we posted them online in a survey monkey link. We ended up receiving I don’t know how many hundreds of comments from the community and we documented all of those. We distilled them down in to these six general concepts of comments that we received so in this chapter will be summarized of what we heard from the community. Then we tried to weave those through the guidelines that are in the following chapters. This is kind of an interesting approach and something that we haven’t had in other design guidelines that we have produced for Professorville or for other Cities just because we really wanted to use all of this commentary that we received from the community. This page just kind of illustrates the first three topics of a sense of community, a shared landscape, streetscape and sense of nature and valuing privacy. This is a quote from one of the community members, ‘Eichler owners and residents are very social with each other. Members of our Eichler neighborhood meet twice a year for block parties, twice a year for solstice parties, monthly for book clubs and daily for informal chat sessions. I’ve never lived in a place where the neighbors are more tightly connected and welcoming.’ So that is a comment that we received and categorized into that sense of community value. Next slide; and then the last three are comments about the modern architectural style, concerns or comments about architectural compatibility with new construction in the neighborhood or other changes and valuing neighborhood cohesion. One comment about the architectural style is this quote here that somebody mentioned a uniquely California modern indigenous style. The fifth community value and concern involved adaptability and I think we also discussed the need for upgrades and sometimes some difficulties that Eichler homes present for upgrades. Then lastly those who do value preservation and there are a lot of different opinions about Eichlers. Some people love them, some people don’t care so much for them so we tried to be objective and not chapter but kind of report back what we heard. Alright, these next slides are just a few examples of guidelines that we have in each of the chapters, just so you get a little sense of that. Chapter Four is on maintaining Eichler homes and a couple examples of the guidelines are to maintain/replace windows while representing the design characteristics of Eichler homes. We have the illustrations that show that you should really try to maintain those large plate glass expanses verses inserting windows with lots of divisions. To treat entry doors and garage doors in a manner that maintains the patterns found in Eichler neighborhoods. We have a yes on solid front doors preferably and garage doors that have a cladding that similar to the wall cladding of the rest of the house versus the kind of modern or contemporary garages doors and front doors that you may see. As I mentioned the – with the National Register Historic Districts we have – we use more of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards so this is a little bit looser guideline. You know preferable to keep what you see in your neighborhood. Chapter Seven or sorry, Five involve architectural compatibility and neighborhood cohesion. This is where we talk about additions, one-story additions and two-story additions so 5.2.1 discusses placing a new residence or new construction within its lot so that it conforms to the streetscape pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. Then we have bullet points that follow with more detail and 5.2.2, to develop a new house design with an appropriate massing and height that City of Palo Alto Page 5 blends well with the surrounding neighborhood so there’s a no on that bottom graphics. Then Chapter Six involves landscape, 6.3.1 is an example to place fences and other boundary features. Board Member Kohler: Can I ask a quick question just -- on this page you were just going through showing the good and bad and then the ‘X’? Is there – where do you… Vice Chair Bower: What page are you one? Board Member Kohler: I’m having a hard time figuring out what page we’re on. Vice Chair Bower: It’s over here up on the upper right corner. Board Member Kohler: I know, it’s 84 (inaudible). I’m just curious is there anywhere where you talk about one-story versus two-story? (Inaudible)… Ms. Dikas: Yes, we have guidelines that are specific to one-story additions and then we have guidelines that are specific to two-story additions. We also have guidelines on new buildings, whether one or two- story. Board Member Kohler: In this? Ms. Dikas: In the document, yes. These – this presentation is really just quick highlights so a couple of examples. Board Member Kohler: Ok, I just wanted to get – figure out where we were here. Ok, thank you. Ms. Dikas: Chapter Six on landscape, just a couple of examples that we’ve provided are to place fences and other boundary features where they will not obstruct views of an Eichler residence. Board Member Kohler: Sorry to interrupt again but in this case, it might great on this big green page to have a six because you have to look in here to figure out where you are. Ms. Dikas: Ok, thank you, I’ll keep that in mind. Board Member Kohler: That’s what’s confusing, I go (inaudible) -- ok, alright, thank you. Ms. Dikas: We have some check marks on examples that have front yards that do have fences but they are semi-permeable or are setback close to the house versus all the way at the front of the street where the entire front yard would be a block off and that’s not recommended. Chapter Seven, this is that special consideration chapter on the National Register Historic Districts and ADUs. This is an example of an – one of the ADU Guidelines to design detached ADUs with as low height and roof slope as possible in order to reduce the buildings visibility from surrounding residences. The ADU topic is interesting because they – because of the State legislation they are allowed even though in Eichler neighborhoods the backyards are very important because that’s where the full window walls occur. So, we’ve tried to provide some guidelines generally too place ADUs that might be built in appropriate places and try to minimize their mass as much as possible. Then our Chapter Eight involves process improvement suggestions. This chapter is a bit of a work in progress. It – part of it really relates to these regulatory changes that we’re still exploring so there’s actually a placeholder right now where a matrix may end up being inserted. It discusses some of our recommendations for project review for the National Register Historic Districts, design review training and raising awareness of the neighborhood Architectural Control Committees, and designation of additional National Register Historic Districts you recommend. We found that when we were driving around there were actually a couple of tracts that we noticed that had perhaps even higher integrity than at least one of the National Register Districts. So, there are certainly others out there that could be eligible for similar reasons. Then again, this potential modification to zone code related to Eichler neighborhoods. We have – we currently have some of the background information about what City of Palo Alto Page 6 we’re exploring but not really the meat of those recommendations yet. That concludes my presentation, thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Great, thank you for running through that for us. I have some comments but does anyone else want to start? Ok. Board Member Wimmer: I was just going to ask, once we have a chance to review the document, how do we – if we see suggestions and things like that, how are we going to just go—at a future meeting and each individual person make their suggestions? How would you like to receive comments I guess is what my question is? Ms. French: Thank you. We could do one of two things or both, we do plan to come back to you, as noted, December 14th so if you wanted to make notes etc. and – on your copy in red or something and bring those to the meeting on the 14th, that would be great. Also, if there’s some critical issue that is formatting something that needs – it doesn’t need discussion but needs – you need to alert us to something, I would ask that you go ahead and email that to me. We can – I can collect anything that comes forward in the next month and ship that over to Christina. Ms. Dikas: Yeah, so we’re definitely accepting written comments, whether an email to Amy or a marked- up copy that you want to hand over, or verbal comments at the next meeting that we attend. Vice Chair Bower: I’ll lead off then. I think Roger’s suggestion about numbering the title pages is a really good one because I had the same problem. Ms. Dikas: Ok, great. Vice Chair Bower: On the map that you’ve created which I am very appreciative of; when I first looked at it, I couldn’t understand why the dates of – the building dates of these tracts where so haphazard - and then I realized that you’ve listed the tract alphabetically. I wonder if you could sort that by – also provide a map sorted by date so we have a sense of the oldest and the youngest. I’m not sure how complicated that would be but it’s probably just sorting the list – tract name list. Ms. Dikas: We do have a table of the tracts where we tried to find the architects but we haven’t been able to – I forget – oh, I think it’s at the end of Chapter Two; let’s see. Vice Chair Bower: End of Chapter Two? Ms. Dikas: Where was it? Vice Chair Bower: Which is what page? Ms. Dikas: Well, I can’t find it now but I’ll see if it was organized by year for that one. Oh, I just found it, it’s on page 40. Oh, and I just saw a typo. This also looks to be ordered by – in alphabetical order so that’s a great comment, thank you. Vice Chair Bower: What’s really helpful is to see – as I was looking at the map, I was most interested in what – where the first tracts or the first clusters, I think is a better term, where built. Ms. Vance: That can – if I could just kind of follow up on that? I think that’s a great idea to show it chronologically and what you could do, I’ve done this in the past, is you do like a gradient shading so you can see going light to dark. That kind of provides this geographic context as well, and to see where they are coming from - but I like that idea a lot. Ms. Dikas: So, it would be an additional… City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ms. Vance: Yeah, I was kind of envisioning it as another map. The same one but just doing a color scheme to show the order in which the neighborhoods where built. Vice Chair Bower: In the Professorville Guidelines they do – your firm did shade the buildings by era. Ms. Dikas: Eras, yeah. Vice Chair Bower: Not quick by date of when they were built but I think they clustered – they identified them as – by design. Anyway, I think it would – I’m not trying to push another page in here but I think that’s important. I’m wondering about the setback; did you look at average setbacks on these Eichler houses? It looks – I mean my intuition is that they are about 25-feet from the property line. Ms. Dikas: I believe we did. Vice Chair Bower: It seems to me that one of the most important parts of the Eichler neighborhoods is the streetscape. You can’t really get into a person’s house unless you’re invited but everybody can see the architecture from the street and it’s really startling how many different design patterns there are and you’ve done a really excellent job of bringing that out. I’m wondering if there shouldn’t be effectively a façade easement suggestion or even an ordinance that will preserve what the public sees. What you do in your backyard I’m less concerned about, although I am concerned about the impact on the neighbors but it’s really the streetscape that we’re trying to preserve. That’s the part of the public history that we can see. Last comment – two comments, one is it seems to me in reviewing this and also as part of the Professorville Guidelines review, that single-story review is critically important in these neighborhoods where there is a historic designation because if you lose – if single-story buildings are not included in discretionary review, somebody can go in there and build any style of architecture. This begins to bleed off the critical mass that makes Historic District important. At the past, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Board Meeting last night, one of the Board Members had mentioned that one of the Eichler districts is worried about losing their Historic District statues because they’ve had so many infill projects. So, I’m not sure how to move this forward in terms of the ordinance but it seems to me that that’s something that the Council ought to consider. I’m not sure how it would fit into this process but it could be a recommendation from Staff or it could be a recommendation from our Board. Last item, again, I don’t mean to be picking apart your timeline – your public hearing timeline but I’m wondering about the advisability of having the Historic Resources Board evaluate and move this forward in the legislative process before the end of the public comment period. So, there will be a month – pretty much a month from today that we’ll be looking at it but the public comment period goes on a month beyond that. I worry about the impression that we’re racing to judgment before the public comment period ends. I would have felt somewhat more comfortable having our meeting after the public comment period ended. Now I understand all of the complexity about that but I’m just saying that I’m a little bit uncomfortable about that. Ms. French: I’ll just say originally, we had the meeting set up for November 28th and I think I announced that but there was a conflicting Rail meeting that came up and so we had to cancel it, change our plans and put it off into February now. Vice Chair Bower: I understand. There’s nothing else going on in the City but historic preservation review but nonetheless, I just – it’s a perception issue more. It’s not that we couldn’t – we could come back as a Board and incorporate any comments that come after our meeting but I just think that’s problematic. Anyone else has a comment about this? Michael. Board Member Makinen: Just one comment, I was glad to see that on page 31 that you do recognize the fact that Eichlers are basically an extension of Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian houses. Wright – the Eichler was really designed as a low-cost version of the Usonia house for the working man. It would be nice to have a little example of a Usonian house and how the Eichler derived from the Usonian house; just a little picture there of how they relate to one another. Wright was greatly influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright - and that’s the genius for all these Eichlers, was Frank Lloyd Wright. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Corey: One question, all – I think it looks good overall. I’m going to go through and mark up some comments at a later date. One question I had kind of and I don’t know if it’s a particular issue as far as from the front façade but my observation from Eichlers before and being in them with friends is they have very prominent chimneys on the inside. I noticed on page 71 about the chimneys, there’s a discussion about seek strategies to structurally stabilize the chimney. My understanding is there are ordinances now with the City where you effectively can’t touch brick and mortar chimneys to stabilize rather than replace because there are concerns about wood burning. It would be good to get clarification at some point on what that is. So, you can’t get a permit to stabilize because they encourage people to tear down and rebuild it; it’s for air quality. Vice Chair Bower: And earthquake safety. Board Member Corey: Sorry? Yeah, no, sorry. It’s the replace rather than repair because of the wood burning and because of earthquakes safety, there’s a lot of concerns around doing that so I just wanted to kind of throw that in. Again, I don’t think there’re a lot of fronts, but I notice this is – because they are very prominent on the inside, these huge like ceiling to wall fireplaces. I don’t know if you can come back with any info on that. Vice Chair Bower: There is no repair of an existing masonry fireplace. Board Member Corey: You literally have to tear it down. Vice Chair Bower: Because it doesn’t have enough steel in it, it’s not built to current standards. They probably need points if you can get into the flue and seal that again, that would be useful but most likely – I mean the City Building Department had no interest in trying to patch together an old fireplace. Ms. French: I guess the comment on that, that I would have, is the good news - that there is only one Eichler tract that has chimneys facing the streets. So, from the public standpoint, that won’t be as much of a problem as far as the look of it but yeah, we should get a handle on that. Thank you. Vice Chair Bower: Beth. Board Member Bunnenberg: Is there any mention in here of the problems with the heating coils that were put into the cement? Ms. Dikas: Yes, we do have a guideline or two that have to do with the slab heating. Vice Chair Bower: There’s a terrible example of adding heating and cooling to the top of an Eichler building near the Eichler Edgewood Plaza. It’s astoundingly bad, it’s probably about 2 ½-feet above the roof plane, it totally ruins the Eichler design lines, and it’s just lazy in my opinion. It could have been made much smaller and flatter but I don’t know, it’s something you’ve addressed here I presume? Ms. Dikas: We do have a guideline that discusses adding mechanical or other things to the roof, whether it’s HVAC or heater or otherwise. I think we just say that to try to keep it as low as possible so that it’s not particularly visible. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, any other comments? Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, I was going to mention something. I was just kind of thinking beyond the guidelines and how this sort of impacts our community and things. I was wondering because we’re always talking about incentives, are there any – could there be any creative incentives just for Eichler people who want to preserve their Eichler? Maybe we could keep that in mind as – in further discussion to make it – kind of give them some incentives so they feel somewhat rewarded for preserving what they have. Also, I was wondering now that these are becoming more of a historic structure, would we want to City of Palo Alto Page 9 think about coming up with a plaque? In Professorville we have those really neat plaques on the houses and maybe we come up with a different look. Maybe not the oval plaque but maybe something square or something, I don’t know. I think that could be kind of neat idea because it really makes it more –feels – that contributes to the sense of community, the sense of preservation. I know a lot of people don’t like those plaques on their houses but I don’t know, maybe some people – the Eichler people would like that. I don’t know, just an idea. Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Council… Board Member Kohler: Can I ask one more question? I have a client who started out doing a new home and they’re right off Charleston. I’m looking through here to see in the guidelines for new homes and looking at page 81, in that area there’s a check off on a house that’s ok and it’s got a continuous wall of the second floor in the back behind the – I guess (inaudible) beyond the existing Eichler. Then over on the other side – I guess it’s the little glass window but – so you’re encouraging this shape of home for new homes or second-floor additions on page 81 in the lower left-hand side? Is it got the little green arrow? Ms. Dikas: We have guidelines that discuss pushing second-story additions back from the street and things of that nature. So, I think this image is an example of somebody who’s done that in the neighborhood. Board Member Kohler: This is the section that someone who is going to do a new home looks at it for guidance. Ms. Dikas: This specific section is on second-story additions to existing Eichlers. Board Member Kohler: I’m assuming that if you’re doing a new home you’d have to look at this section. Ms. Dikas: 5.1, the title to this section is new additions to existing Eichler residences and then I think later, 5.2 is new home construction within Eichler neighborhoods. Then we have a couple of photo examples of new homes on page 84. They both happen to be one-story which is generally what we’re recommending but we’re not excluding second-story homes. Board Member Kohler: But I mean – are you saying you can do two-story homes or are you saying… Ms. Dikas: Yes. Board Member Kohler: This is the guideline that you’ll refer too? Well, I’m not sure that’s enough guidelines and maybe there need to be more sketches or something. I just – for the average person to look at this, I – essentially you want the back of the house to be – if it’s two-story in the back part, not up toward the front is what you’re saying I think. Is that… Ms. Dikas: That image was for an addition to an existing Eichler. Board Member Kohler: Ok, well I’m just trying to say, is there guidelines in here too – that has sketches of new homes and how they might work or not work or have anything because the Eichlers are great homes but they are not so well holding up at this age point. There have been lots of problems and people are – would like --- would rather do a new home than refurbish one that’s – the heating doesn’t work and all these kinds of things; the windows are double paned. Ms. Dikas: We’ve mostly included photos of buildings in the neighborhoods that we found to be more successful examples of new home construction within Eichlers versus using illustrations of a potential design. We do recommend not a historicism design but using a modern vocabulary to be more compatible with Eichlers, using certain roof forms… City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Kohler: That’s here – in the book here? Ms. Dikas: Yes, it’s all under 5.2 and there are -- there’s 5.2.1 through 5.2.8 so there are eight different recommendations for a new home construction. Board Member Kohler: Ok but I’m not seeing – there’s no visual. Vice Chair Bower: Right, there’s no visual. Board Member Kohler: It’s all writings. Ms. French: (Inaudible) Board Member Kohler: Well, even your guidebooks for regular homes have got more detail. Ms. French: What I’m hearing Rodger is that you’re saying that like the IR Guidelines that have don’t do this, do something more like this, in drawn elevations. Is that what you’re saying you’d like (crosstalk) something like that. Board Member Kohler: People reading this aren’t – they don’t know what a facia board is. Ms. French: There’s a possibility that we could modify the IR Guidelines to have a whole couple of pages on Eichlers with those types of drawings. Board Member Kohler: Actually, that would probably be a good idea because it might actually encourage more people to build Eichler type homes instead of the more modern homes. I don’t know I’m just trying to say, an average person looking through here, who is going to do a new home, and it’s just a lot of words so it doesn’t… Ms. French: Right. Board Member Kohler: In this kind of world you need more visual I think. Ms. French: Right so for those who are choosing to do a new two-story home, they are going to have to go through the IR Guidelines. And this is to supplement that. It has guidelines written that it’s possible that we could… Board Member Kohler: Sorry to add more work to you. Ms. French: Well, it won’t happen immediately. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, ok. Ms. Dikas: We’re exploring that anyway, updating the IR Guidelines to include some Eichler specifics. Board Member Kohler: When we do new homes we always meet with Arnold but I suppose Arnold will have a lot of this under his packet of ideas so he will be a big help. Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Council Member Holman had a comment. Council Member Holman: Yeah, just a couple suggestions. Firs thank you for getting this far, it’s a lot of work and Page and Turnbull is a very accomplished at how to do these. So, they are very clear and laid out very well. Just a clarifying thing maybe, as Rodger had mentioned putting in a chapter number on the cover page I think or the chapter page. I think it also might be good to put them at the chapter pages themselves otherwise you’re looking like this and people who aren’t familiar – you know there are pages City of Palo Alto Page 11 that don’t have any 4.2.3 so you don’t know what chapter you’re in when you look so just adding the number up here would be helpful. Page 17 and obviously we just got this At Places so there hasn’t been time to review it but page 17 talks about repairing and replacing windows and doors but all the language there is about replacing windows. I don’t see anything about repairing or retaining so that’s one comment and windows are such a huge, big deal and that’s something that I caught, to begin with right off. I really do concur with the Chair’s comments about the review process in terms of sequencing. There’s currently no architect on the Planning Commission and I think if the Planning Commission doesn’t benefit from an action item of this body reviewing this document after they have had a chance to review it, I think there’s going to be a lot of confusion back and forth and discontinuity in terms of intention and progress. I think it’s going to lead to maybe the community and very likely the Council being like well what are we, you know? It seems like it would be a lot more effective to have a December 7th if that date could be arranged without changing the Planning Commission meeting. I mean look at December 7th to have an HRB meeting. Ms. French: That’s an ARB date. Council Member Holman: That’s an ARB date, ok. Well, I would really strongly suggest for everybody’s benefit to have this body have a chance to review this document and make comments in an action item setting prior to going to the Planning Commission. Again, especially because there’s nobody there with preservation experience and there’s not even an architect there. A couple other just quick comments is as the question – I appreciate the questions and comments from the Board Members. As I – oh, one thing that’s about Joseph Eichler, I really appreciate the history that’s in here about how he stood for no discrimination. I mean he was really a visionary and a social leader in that regard. You might consider adding in there, even to the extent that he resigned or was expelled, I forgotten which, from the – what was it? The State Construction Board or something? It’s – that information is available but it went that far that he was no longer apart of that body because they would not include his nondiscrimination policy. The other comment is if I understand and again, this is not from having read this, it’s just from hearing comments and questions. That someone could build a new two-story home in Greenmeadow – well, no, not in Greenmeadow because that has a single-story overlay but somebody could build a new two-story in any Eichler neighborhood according to these. So, what seems like to make sense is either in parallel with this or in – as a part of this, how neighborhoods could apply for National Register status. The other thing before you go, I know you have an answer ready, but the other thing is the replacement of even single-story homes in National Register Districts because right now they get no City review but they are listed on the National Register. Two neighborhoods are listed on the National Register and there’s no review so I heard the Chair saying that some people are concerned about – I think it was you who said some people are concerned about even the eligibility of the National Register because of how much change is happening in the neighborhood. As I’ve listened to the neighborhood over the last – and the neighbors and the community over the last couple 3-years, they want to see not only the character retained but they want to see the National Register status of their neighborhoods retained too. How would this possibly get them there? Ms. French: The guidelines themselves wouldn’t. That is why there’s a two-part program here to get these guidelines before the Council in addition to the potential code modifications that the Council could then direct to go forward. There are – there’s a menu of possibilities, there are Eichler overlays, there are independent development standards that could be added, and so there’s a host of things. We’re working on those as potential for the Council to direct to move forward after they get a good handle on what those options are. Council Member Holman: I was understanding that the community, and what they were looking for actually is these, yes, but I thought that what the community was looking for was Eichler overlays. Ms. French: We’ve heard that from some, not from everybody. Council Member Holman: I’ve heard it from a lot. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Ms. French: Sure, but people come talk to you because they want that. There are other people that don’t want that action so we have the whole host of residents that have interest and we need to bring those forward to the -- that’s one of the reasons the community workshop is pushed off until next year. That’s because we are working on these potential code changes and when you bring up the National Register tracts – I mean because they are not listed on the City’s inventory, they are not protected by our City’s ordinance. That – has not even been identified in these potential code changes that we’re working on was modifying the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is always a hot topic. Yeah, that’s another ordinance that’s been long overdue to modify and we talk about it here, Categories Threes and Fours and Ones and Twos and those are all in the ordinance. That would be a change and if you wanted to say there’s only Category One and Two, one is significant and one isn’t or ones just contributing. Those kinds of changes would have to come forward to the Planning Commission and to the Council. Council Member Holman: I guess the question to make it not a many-years-long processes is could those opportunities, suggestions, hindrances, or whatever, come forward to the community in parallel to this so they are not looking at this and going, oh this is what we get. When some might want one thing and some might want another thing. Could they come in parallel to each other so again, we’re not extending this out several years? Ms. French: Yeah, we are not interested in years, we’re interested in months. What we’re interested in is getting these guidelines to the Council for adoption. We’re also interested at the same time getting to the Council the menu of direct Staff to go forward with A, B, and C’s, so that’s going to be a Council decision. We’re going to come forward with proposals after having vetted those with the Planning Commission. It was going to be December 13th to start talking about those, and now we’ll push that off until January it seems like, if that’s an interest. So, that will be something that comes to the Council in March to direct Staff to then resume and go forward for the next whatever-6-months, to get it done. Council Member Holman: Hopefully while I’m still in Council and thank you. Vice Chair Bower: If there are no further comments then I encourage Board members to forward their concerns or any suggestions to Emily or Amy so we can have them included before we meet to discuss this as a Board. So, if there’s no further discussion about this let’s do some housekeeping and move on with the day. I do not see any members of the public here, let alone members who would like to speak so I think we don’t have any public comments. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8697) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 755 Hamilton Avenue Study Session Title: STUDY SESSION: 755 Hamilton Avenue: Request for Study Session Review of an Individual Review application for a 1,088 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,536 square foot single story home. Zone District: R-1 (Single Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s):  Review the plans submitted to date with the Individual Review application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards); and  Provide informal direction to the property owner regarding any revisions to the project plans that would result in a project having greater consistency with the Standards. Background The property is listed in the State’s database as a National Register Eligible resource. Integrity of the home must be retained to remain eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Relevant aspects include retaining original material (like multipaned windows and masonry), design, workmanship and feeling. The City’s historic preservation planner reviewed the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and believes there may be a potential impact from the proposed changes; staff is therefore referring this proposal to the HRB pursuant to the “Group B” review process. (see Attachment D) IR Application The IR application, filed August 25, 2017, is a request to add a 1,088 square foot second story addition to the existing 1,855 sf ground floor of a single-family residential home. The applicant also requests Public Works Engineering (PWE) approval of an exception from the requirements for flood zone construction; approval of the PWE flood zone variance would allow an existing basement to continue to be located in the flood zone, despite major changes to the structure. It City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 appears a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) would need to be requested to allow for an approximately six (6) inch vertical extension of the existing street side building wall that encroaches into the required sixteen foot street side yard setback. The plans indicate a nine (9) foot floor to ceiling height on the ground floor and an eight foot (8) floor to ceiling height on the proposed second floor. The applicant has also indicated they will demolish the existing 766 sf detached garage and construct a new 506.8 sf two car detached garage in the rear yard setback. The reduced square footage of the garage allows for more floor area to be allocated for the site to allow for a larger proposed second story. Additionally, exterior changes along existing legal non-conforming building walls may be subject to the valuation process as described in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.70.100.b. Staff received a public comment from the resident at 536 Fulton citing concerns about the size and construction impacts. The comment is included as an attachment in this report. Historic Resource The existing 3-bedroom home was surveyed during the City’s last historic survey update, 1997- 2000. The survey form is provided as Attachment A to this report. The form describes the home as an ‘archetypal example of the California Bungalow of the 1920’s’; one-story, wood- framed, stucco-clad, low-pitch, multiple-gabled roof, apparently based on a pattern book design from that era. The property is listed as an historical resource in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation. It was formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the Palo Alto Historical Survey Update, 1997-2000. The filed discretionary development application is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for potential impacts to a historical resource, since 755 Hamilton Avenue has a historical status under the State of California’s environmental regulations, implemented by the City. The Historic Resources and Permit Review Requirements (Attachment D) reviewed by the HRB in October 2016, provide guidance to staff and applicants regarding the process for historic resources. Project Information Owner: Hui Tan Architect: Martin Bernstein Representative: Martin Bernstein Legal Counsel: NA Property Information Address: 755 Hamilton Avenue Neighborhood: Crescent Park Lot Dimensions & Area: Corner lot; 60’ x 150’ with total area of 9,000 s.f. Flood Zone: AH45.2 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Housing Inventory Site: NA Located w/in a Plume: NA Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, in City Planter strip Historic Resource(s): National Register Eligible (among 165 such properties filed with OPH) Existing Improvement(s): 1770 s.f. 2-story home; 756 s.f. 2-car garage; built 1918 Existing Land Use(s): Single Family Residential Aerial View of Property: Source: Palo Alto’s Geographic Information System Recent Pre-Application History The applicant and new property owners began meeting with the City in June 2017 regarding the flood zone designation and exceptions available to allow basement retention. The applicant’s approach was to retain the historic resource to qualify for a variance from flood zone requirements for basements. Staff met with the applicant to review preliminary designs. Post Application Submittal and Suggested Approaches Staff provided comments regarding the design reflected in the August 25th plans, specifically noting lack of compliance with (a) the Zoning Code and Individual Review Guidelines, and (b) the Standards. The review documents are attached as Attachments B and C, respectively. Staff then met with the applicant to suggest exploration of three design approaches, to meet the intent of the IR Guidelines: (1) Create a hyphen to connect the existing building to a new structure, (2) Abut the addition to the existing building at the back, and overlap the upper floor over a portion of the existing house, so the extension looks more like a wing addition, but still somewhat integrated, or (3) Narrow and shift the upper floor to maintain more of the first floor roof as seen from the street, while limiting the width of the second floor gable facing Forest, along with not raising the first City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 floor roof. The IR Guidelines call for a balanced and integrated design, and the Standards call for distinction between the existing historic construction and the new construction. Recent Submittal The applicant recently submitted revised plans for the second floor addition. Staff determined the best course was to visit the HRB to discuss the potential impact to a historic resource. This process is outlined in the historic review bulletin the HRB recommended in September 2016. The increased first floor height, new windows on the primary facades and a large, somewhat more compatible second story addition are significant changes that staff believes are inconsistent with the Standards. Staff now seeks the HRB’s advice. Discussion In evaluating applications, the HRB shall consider the architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials and color, and any other pertinent factors. The prime concern should be the exterior appearance of the building site. The proposed alterations should not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics nor the historical, architectural or aesthetic value of the building and its site; or the relationship of the building, in terms of harmony and appropriateness, with its surroundings, including neighborhood structures.1 In 1987, the City Council adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for use by the HRB. The Standards promote historic preservation best practices that help to protect our nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources. Analysis The plans on file are currently incomplete as described in the Notice of Incomplete (NOI, Attachment E). The project plans submitted by the applicant are included as Attachment F. The following table includes staff’s analysis of the initial plans for consistency with the Standards. In summary, staff finds that the project is not consistent with the Standards because it would result in the alteration and removal of materials, features, and architectural elements that characterize the existing historic structures, and the addition of new elements that are not compatible with the historic property, such that the significance and integrity of a historical resource would be impaired. Standards for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The residence will continue to be single family. 1 Section 16.49.050 (b) (2). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Standards for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. ☐ Consistent ☒ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The project would remove existing historic materials and architectural features that characterize the property including original windows and would add a large second floor addition to a historically one-story home. The cumulative effects of the changes will negatively impact the historic resource, resulting in a loss of integrity. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. ☐ Consistent ☒ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The project would change the existing architectural character of the historic structure by adding a large second-story addition and other architectural elements. The second floor addition needs to be appropriately scaled so as to not create a false sense of historical development. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: There appear to be no changes that have acquired their own significance. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. ☐ Consistent ☒ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: First floor modifications include changing the number, location, size and glazing pattern of windows, removing original windows on the west and north facades. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Standards for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis While these facades are secondary, the cumulative impact of all changes needs to be taken into consideration. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. ☐ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☒ Not applicable Explanation: There is no indication that existing historic materials or features are deteriorated. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. ☐ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☒ Not applicable Explanation: There is no indication that such treatments are proposed or expected to be needed. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. ☒ Consistent ☐ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: There are no known archeological resources on the site. If archeological resources are discovered, the applicant would be required to comply with all applicable federal and State regulations pertaining to archeological resources. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the ☐ Consistent ☒ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The size and scale of the new second floor addition is out of proportion in relation to the historic building, thus City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Standards for Rehabilitation Staff Analysis historic integrity of the property and its environment. diminishing the historic character; The addition appears to duplicate the exact form, material, style and detailing of the historic building so that the new work appears to be part of the historic building (can be avoided by detailing differentiation); The new garage would be compatible with and submissive to the main house. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ☐ Consistent ☒ Not consistent ☐ Not applicable Explanation: The proposed project could have a permanent impact on the essential form and integrity of the existing historic residence, especially with the proposed increase in wall height. Next Steps Following the conclusion of the HRB session on December 14, 2017, the applicant may choose to submit a complete plan set for Individual Review or revised the plans to be consistent with the HRB’s recommendations. The applicant may also choose to submit a Home Improvement Exception application. Report Author & Contact Information HRB2 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: State of California DPR Form 755 Hamilton (PDF)  Attachment B: Historic Comments 755 Hamilton 17PLN-00314 (PDF)  Attachment C: 755 Hamilton-IR-Eval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Historic Resources Review Info Bulletin 10.13.16 (PDF)  Attachment E: 755 Hamilton NOI (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX)  Attachment G: Public Comment 536 Fulton Street (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Page 1 of 2 Development Review - Department Comments City Department: Planning - Historic Preservation Staff Contact: Emily Vance, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 617-3125 emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org Date: 9/13/2017 Project Address/File #: 755 Hamilton Ave/ 17PLN-00314 The house at 755 Hamilton, built around 1920, is an archetypal example of the California Bungalow and principal stylistic features of the house are its projecting front porch with tapered columns, overhanging eaves with exposed rafters and (fake) beams, multiple gables, bay window and tapered brick chimney. The original 1922 garage was replaced with a four-car garage in 1950. It is historically known as the Beal House as Ralph R. and Merle Beal were the first occupants. Ralph Beal was a leader in the early electronics industry in Palo Alto and made significant contributions to American military technology in World War I and II. The home has been found eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under criteria B (people) and C (architecture) and eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources due to NR eligibility. Due to the NR and CA eligibility, the project is subject to review for potential impacts to a historical resource pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to CEQA, properties identified in an historical resource survey are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a property is not historically or culturally significant. Also according to CEQA, a project that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would not have a significant adverse impact on a resource. Additionally, City of Palo Alto Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations (effective June 8, 2017) state that for properties considered a historic resource, compliance with the appropriate Secretary of the Interior’s Standards shall be required. The conversion of the garage, which was built outside the period of significance and possesses no historic or architectural merit of its own, complies with the Standards in that no historic material that characterizes the property is removed or destroyed, the multipaned windows are complimentary yet submissive to the features on the main building and the new ADU work is compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. However, the work on the main residence is not considered minor and, based on review of the current submittal, does not appear to be consistent with the Standards as stated below. To be clear, modifications and a second story can be appropriate (Craftsman homes are typically one or one-and- one-half-stories but two-story examples occur in every subtype) but the cumulative effects of the changes will negatively impact the integrity of the historic resource:  The size and scale of the new second floor addition is out of proportion in relation to the historic building, thus diminishing the historic character;  The addition appears to duplicate the exact form, material, style and detailing of the historic building so that the new work appears to be part of the historic building (can be avoided by detailing differentiation);  The addition is not set far back from the wall plane and is exposed and prominent from all views;  First floor modifications include changing the number, location, size and glazing pattern of windows, removing original windows and adding conjectural multipaned windows (with entirely new fenestrations on primary facades), resulting in diminished historic character;  Masonry features (chimney), which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building, are radically changed, resulting in a loss historic integrity. Integrity of the home needs to be retained in order to remain eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Relevant aspects include retaining original material (like multipaned windows and masonry), design, workmanship and feeling. Historic Resources Board review is recommended. A. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to Planning entitlement approval: 1. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the historic property shall be preserved. 2. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. How the new work on the main house is differentiated from the old needs to appear on plans (simplified brackets, different material, etc.). New work on ADU is appropriate. 3. Current plans only depict south and east elevations. Plans need to show all elevations. B. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 4. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 5. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. Page 1 of 5 Development Review - Department Comments City Department: Planning Staff Contact: Arnold Mammarella (Consulting Architect) 510-763-4332 arnold@mammarellaarchitecture.com Date: 9/25/2017 Project Address/File #: 755 Hamilton Avenue 17PLN-00314 INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES — GENERAL INFORMATION: The Individual Review Guidelines are broadly intended to preserve the unique character of existing individual Palo Alto neighborhoods and maintain privacy between adjacent properties. There are five specific guidelines that must be met for a project to be approved. Each guideline has an approval criterion as well as “key points” that staff reviews the proposal against. Illustrations are also provided to provide visual clarification of intent and examples of situations, which would or would not meet the guideline. For additional information about the goals and requirements of the guidelines, the property owner and designer are directed to review the updated Palo Alto Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines booklet dated June 10, 2005. Please note that neighbors may comment at any time during an open application. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES — EVALUATION Staff has reviewed the proposed plans filed on August 25, 2017 for alterations to a single story home with a second floor addition and a detached garage/accessory structure for compliance with the IR Guidelines. This evaluation focuses on the five IR guidelines, although it is noted that the project requires historic review as the existing home was deemed NRHP eligible in 1998. Additional comments follow. Site and Neighborhood Context Information The property is a corner lot at the north side of the Fulton Street, Hamilton Avenue intersection. It is 60 feet wide facing Hamilton Avenue by 150 feet deep facing Fulton Street. It is bounded on the east/right side by lots of similar size with mostly two-story homes along Hamilton Avenue. Directly across the street on the Hamilton side (750 Hamilton Ave.) is a one-story home. Diagonally across the intersection and directly across the street on the Fulton side (731 Hamilton Ave.) are two story homes. Nearby homes are generally traditionally styled with period styles from the early 1900’s. Directly behind the property is a multi-family development. Note: IR Guidelines do not evaluate privacy considerations of multifamily property. Presently the subject lot has a one-story Craftsman/California Bungalow home with a detached garage. The particularly noteworthy features of the home include:  The house has a low-slung profile on the street due to its wide simple gables with 3:12 pitch, first floor being set uncharacteristically close to grade (12 inches or less), broad-low porch opening on the Hamilton side, low roof edge between the gables on the Fulton side, and deep eave and rake overhangs.  There are two entry walks, porches. One from each street side, although the primary entrance is on narrow frontage on the Hamilton Avenue side.  The deep fascia/oversized end rafters with distinctive end shaping supported by large wood knee braces.  Cottage Style windows with square grids.  Distinctive brick chimney facing Fulton Street. Addition Summary: The addition/alteration includes the following major features:  The height of the principle roof at the first floor including the rakes/eaves/ridges facing the Hamilton Avenue (excluding the porch) and Fulton Street would be raised about 1.5 feet. It appears the wall plate height of the first floor would be raised 1 foot (from 9 to 10 feet) and the second floor framing would be set on top of the wall plates raising the eave height additionally about 6 inches depending on the framing detail.  A second floor with a simple gable roof would be added. It would be centered on the first floor gables as seen from the Fulton Street side and set back from the first floor on the rear elevation and Hamilton Avenue side.  A small cross gable over the second floor deck facing Fulton Street would be centered on the patio below, and the low roof that bridges the two gables would be eliminated.  The brick chimney would be extended in height, although it is not clear on the drawing the material of the extended portion of the chimney. It is also not clear that the fireplace is wood- burning, but this is suggested by the height of the chimney.  Windows on the first floor appear to be changed out. The general appearance would be similar except the taller proportions of the windows and the facades. The second floor windows appear to match the first floor windows. Specific information on materials and detailing were not provided.  The eaves and rakes appear to be similar in dimensions and detailing with the existing house as does the stucco texture although notes to this effect were not provided. G1 — Basic Site Planning: Placement of Driveway, Garage, and House Approval Criterion: The driveway, garage, and house shall be placed and configured to reinforce the neighborhood’s existing site patterns (i.e. Building footprint, configuration and location, setbacks, and yard areas) and the garage and driveway shall be subordinate to the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry as seen from the street. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Minimize the driveway’s presence and paving; 2. Locate the garage to be subordinate to the house; 3. Configure the house footprint to fit the neighborhood pattern; 4. Create landscaped open spaces between homes; 5. Locate the upper floor back from the front facade and/or away from side lot lines when next to one-story homes; and 6. Do not place the second floor so that it emphasizes the garage.] Comments: Presently the project has two curb cuts on the Fulton Street side with one curb cut accessing the parking court and garage and the second in the yard area forward of the garage at the garage’s sidewall. While most of the site planning is not changing from the existing conditions, the accessory structure has been changed to front the garage door onto the street and the project is a large remodel addition. Typically two curb cuts are not permitted along a street frontage. And per this guideline driveway presence and paving should be minimized as viewed from the street. In this case if the goal is to access the garage directly from the street with the remodel with a street facing garage door than the second curb cut-driveway should be eliminated in favor of landscaping. Alternatively if the existing garage access point and parking court were maintained the curb cut forward of the garage could be removed as well as the driveway and landscape provided. Additionally, the garage which looks to be two 2-car garages but each two car garage would not meet present zoning could be maintained as a nonconforming conditions for two cars if accessed off the parking court. If this were the case than it might be beneficial to locate the ADU facing the street where it could benefit from a landscaped patio area. G2 — Neighborhood Compatibility for Height, Mass, and Scale Approval Criterion: The scale (perceived size), mass (bulk or volume) and height (vertical profile) of a new house or upper story addition shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention to adapting to the height and massing of adjacent homes. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Do not overwhelm an adjacent one-story home; 2. Do not accentuate mass and scale with high first floor level relative to grade, tall wall planes, etc.; 3. Minimize height offsets to adjacent neighbors’ roof edges, including adjacent one-story roof edges; 4. Place floor area within roof forms to mitigate mass and scale; 5. Locate smaller forms forward of larger forms to manage perceived height; and 6. Use roof volume rather than wall plate height to achieve interior volume.] Comments: The overall height, mass, and scale of the proposed house with addition would be generally consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of mostly two-story houses. Setting the upper floor back/in from the first floor walls helps mitigate mass and scale. G3 — Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing, and Rooflines Approval Criterion: The architectural form and massing shall be carefully crafted to reduce visual mass and distinguish the house’s architectural lines or style. Roof profiles shall enhance the form, scale, and proportion of primary and secondary house volumes, while rendering garage and entry forms subordinate in mass and scale to principal building forms. Upper floor additions shall also be balanced and integrated with the existing building. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Adjust floor plans to work for building form; 2. Use the vocabulary of a particular style to compose forms and rooflines; 3. Avoid awkwardly placed additions; 4. Use a few well- proportioned masses to avoid a cluttered appearance of too many elements; and 5. Adjust roof layouts, ridge orientations, eave lines, etc. to reduce mass and enhance form.] Comments: Form and massing of rooflines is looked at somewhat differently with the IR guidelines that with the historic review criteria. A primary concern is that the resulting forms with the addition are integrated and balanced. Here as in under guideline four there is not priority placed on differentiating old and new. There are also concerns about form, scale and proportion as well as crafting the massing to reduce visual mass and distinguish the home’s architectural lines. While overall, the massing retains Craftsman/California Bungalow inspired architecture the proportions have changed and mass and scale are more amplified with the addition where they could have been crafted to reduce visual mass. Specifically,  Raising the roofline of the existing house about 1.5 feet depletes the first story’s rooflines of their horizontal profile and makes the front porch seem less integrated. While taller room heights on the first floor may be desirable it impacts the massing considerably and adds bulk and mass to the house. Raising the roof at the first floor also creates possible zoning issues of increasing the height of nonconforming elements (walls or eaves in setbacks). This should be verified with planning staff as to whether this is permitted under zoning or requires additional permits such as an HIE. The recommendation is to retain the existing roof height at the first floor and adjust the detailing of structural members to support the second floor without altering the first floor roofline.  The chimney extension is quite tall and awkward to the building massing. Maintaining the existing chimney and converting the fireplace to a gas fireplace is recommended.  How the balcony off bedroom 2’s closet sits on the roof below looks rather tentative. It’s not clear if the framing is integrated or the balcony abuts the roof etc. This should be clarified. As an alternative a bay window could be used with adjustments to the design of the closet and bath 5. If a bay window were used the roof over the bay window could not be the gable unless the bay window were counted towards floor area as the roof over the bay window cannot exceed the height of the adjacent roof unless the bay window is counted as floor area. G4 — Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries Approval Criterion: Publicly viewed facades shall be composed with a clear and cohesive architectural expression (i.e. The composition and articulation of walls, fenestration, and eave lines), and include visual focal point(s) and supportive use of materials and detailing. Entries shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and integrated with the home in composition, scale and design character. The carport or garage and garage door shall be consistent with the selected architectural style of the home. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Compose facades to have a unified/cohesive character; 2. Use stylistically consistent windows and proportion and adequate spacing between focal points; 3. Add visual character with architecturally distinctive eaves, window patterns and materials; 4. Do not use monumental entries/ relate entry type and scale to neighborhood patterns; and 5. Design garage openings and door panels to be modest in scale and architecturally consistent with the home.] Comments: Generally the design of facades, materials and detailing are moving in the right direction except the taller windows with the extra subdivision below he transom seem out of sync with the architectural style. These could be proportioned to be a taller cottage style window without the extra sash or kept at the existing height with the recommended retention of the existing roofline. Also, the garage door material needs to be noted and the door panel design refined so that is reflects the building architecture as required by this guideline. A stained wood door reflecting detailing of the entry door or a painted wood door related to the window design are options. It could match the windows for a pattern of glazing at the upper panel and lower panels should have a less horizontal presentation. The door should have stile and rail construction and not be molded metal or fiberglass door if it faces the street. Notes or details should be provided indicating that eaves and windows/window trim match the existing. G5 — Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy Approval Criterion: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Gather information on neighbors’ privacy sensitive windows, patios, yards; 2. Mitigate privacy impacts with obscure glazing, high sill windows, permanent architectural screens or by relocating/reorienting windows; 3. Avoid windowless/unarticulated building walls, especially where visible from the street; and 4. Limit upper story deck size and locate decks to result in minimal loss of privacy to side or rear facing property.] Comments: It appears that the wide side-facing window at bedroom 3 would look into the neighbor’s yard and possibly into the neighbor’s wide first floor window along the driveway or the second floor window. The landscape does not appear tall enough to screen views. Obscure glazing could be used for the lower portion of the window for mitigation. Note: show both first and second floor windows on the neighbor’s facing wall on the privacy diagram. The window at the stair could also be an issue, as the neighbor appears to have windows on the first floor along the driveway side that would be impacted from views downward from occupants on the stair. This could also be mitigated with obscure glazing. Historic Resources & Permit Review Requirements What is a “Group A” Historic Resource? A “Group A” historic resource is an existing property that is listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, and which is subject to Historic Resources Board (HRB) review under the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. A “Group A” resource may also be subject to CEQA review as explained on the reverse page. “Group A” resources include historic properties that are one or more of the following: •Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 1-2; or •Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located in the Downtown Area; or •Located in one of the City's locally designated historic districts, Professorville or Ramona Street. What is a “Group B” Historic Resource? A “Group B” historic resource is an existing property that was previously designated or formally evaluated, and which may be subject to CEQA review as explained on the reverse page. “Group B” resources are subject to HRB review if CEQA review indicates that a resource may be impacted. “Group B” resources include historic properties that are one or more of the following: •Listed in the City's Inventory as Historic Category 3-4 and located outside of the Downtown Area and local historic districts; or •Listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CR); or •Listed in the Palo Alto Historic Survey Update (Dames & Moore, 1997-2000) as NR-eligible or CR-eligible; or •Previously determined CR-eligible through a development application review procedure. When Does a Property Require Evaluation as a Historic Resource? A property that has not yet been evaluated or designated may qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA review. In the case of a development application being filed for certain properties which have not yet been evaluated or designated, a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report to determine CR-eligibility may be required in order to complete a CEQA review. The City of Palo Alto may require an HRE report to be completed for an existing property if the property meets all of the following conditions: •A “discretionary” development application proposes demolition, new construction, new addition, or other substantial exterior alterations; and •The existing development on the property is more than 45 years old; and •The existing property is not a single-family residence in a Single-Family Residential zone. (A single-family residence in any non-Single Family Residential zone, or a non-single family residence in any zone, is subject.) See the reverse page for application review procedures. Historic resources enrich the quality of life in Palo Alto. They include buildings, structures, sites, and areas of historical, architectural, and cultural significance. The Planning Department groups historic resources according to the development application review procedures that apply. Some development projects involving historic resources are subject to review under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 16.49) and/or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as explained further below and on the reverse page. For information on a specific property, please review a Parcel Report for the subject property, available at the City's website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/parcel.asp, or request a Parcel Report from City staff at: Development Services, 285 Hamilton Avenue; (650) 329-2496; planner@cityofpaloalto.org. APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES AND PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE (PAMC 16.49) REVIEW PROCEDURES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW PROCEDURES “GROUP A” HISTORIC RESOURCES See the reverse page for explanation of properties that qualify as “Group A” Historic Resources. Route any permit applications for exterior changes (including ministerial) to the Historic Resources Planner.  The Planner reviews the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation* (“Standards”) and the Historic Preservation Ordinance.  If the project is inconsistent with the Standards, or it exceeds the scope of a “minor exterior alteration” according to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Planner refers the application to the HRB. Route discretionary development applications** for exterior changes to the Historic Resources Planner.  The Planner reviews the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation* and potential impacts to a historic resource per CEQA.  If CEQA analysis indicates that there may be a potential impact to a historic resource, the Planner refers the application to the HRB. “GROUP B” HISTORIC RESOURCES See the reverse page for explanation of properties that qualify as “Group B” Historic Resources. Not subject to the review procedures in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. (Only “Group A” properties are subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. For more information, see PAMC 16.49.050.) Route discretionary development applications** for exterior changes to the Historic Resources Planner.  The Planner reviews the application for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation* and potential impacts to a historic resource per CEQA.  If CEQA analysis indicates that there may be a potential impact to a historic resource, the Planner refers the application to the HRB. PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE EVALUATION AS HISTORIC RESOURCES See the reverse page for explanation of when a property requires evaluation as a historic resource. Not subject to the review procedures in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. (Only “Group A” properties are subject to review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. For more information, see PAMC 16.49.050.) Route discretionary development applications** for demolition, new construction, addition, or substantial exterior alterations to the Historic Resources Planner.  The Planner determines if a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report is required in order to conduct and complete CEQA review. If a property is found to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Places, it is reviewed as a “Group B” historic resource. *The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are found on the National Park Service’s website at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm. **Discretionary development applications include: Architectural Review; Design Enhancement Exception; Home Improvement Exception; Neighborhood Preservation Exception; Single Family Individual Review; Site and Design Review; Variance. September 19, 2017 Martin Bernstein P.O. Box 1739 Palo Alto, CA 94302 Email: martinberstein617@gmail.com RE: 755 Hamilton; Single Family Individual Review; 17PLN-00314 Thank you for submitting your Individual Review, Historic Review, and Variance application for a second story addition to an existing single story home in the R-1 zoning district. The application was reviewed to ensure conformance with applicable Zoning regulations and the City’s Individual Review Guidelines. The signed application was submitted on August 25, 2017 for review by Planning Staff, but cannot be deemed complete at this time. A revised set of plans incorporating the following information and requirements must be submitted for review: A. PROJECT DATA and VICINITY MAP – • Note if project site in a Special Flood Hazard Area. (1) If Yes, project must be discussed with Public Works Dept. prior to application submittal. A Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and elevation of the lowest floor of the proposed structure shall be provided. B. NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT • Neighborhood privacy diagram - Show proposed 2nd floor plan including windows and major on-site vegetation. For all adjacent sites show major vegetation, building footprints, windows (indicate size and location), and patios within 40 feet of the property lines. Provide info on site plan or as a separate diagram. C. SITE PLAN • Fences/walls on the site (note fence height and material). Indicate if existing fence to remain or be replaced. • Dimension both driveway widths • Dimension all required and proposed setbacks including any special setbacks and contextual front setback (if contextual setback is greater than standard setbacks) i) Include dimension for street side yard and accessory structure (side and rear) • Show all adjacent building footprints including patios, windows and landscaping within 25 feet of the property (can be done on privacy diagram) • Label outdoor mechanical equipment • Topographic elevation of the first floor level and spot elevations of existing and finished grade around property to determine daylight plane compliance and adjacent to building footprint for height measurement. 755 Hamilton, 17PLN-00314 Page 2 of 6 D. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN • Topographic survey prepared by a qualified surveyor illustrating the legal boundaries, dimensions of all property lines, easements, right-of-way, trails, public utilities and utility poles, location of all existing improvements/structures, setback of existing improvements/ structures, tree trunks, tree species (if possible) and accurate depiction of tree canopies/drip line along with spot elevations across the site, including designated spot elevations from where the building height and daylight planes will be measured. i) Topo Survey should be stamped by licensed surveyor who prepared the document. • If located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, provide the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and the elevation of the lowest floor of the proposed structure. • Submit any pending FEMA applications or approved documents for Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F). E. GREEN BUILDING (GB) PROGRAM SHEET • The appropriate GB application shall be completed, signed, and included as a sheet in the plan set. F. TREE PROTECTION PLAN SHEET • Completed T-1 sheet filled out and signed by the property owner or applicant. G. FLOOR PLANS • Show interior dimensions for garage H. BUILDING ELEVATIONS • Elevations of all sides of all buildings, including accessory structures and street facing fences/walls. • Indicate existing grade and finished floor elevation for existing structure and dimension overall height for existing elevation • Daylight planes and average grade elevation i) Include left side daylight plane on front elevation ii) Include daylight plane for accessory structure. Note that accessory structure daylight plane is different for accessory structures. • Note on plans indicating the daylight plane grade reference point. The note shall state: “Grade for the purpose of establishing daylight plane shall be an average of the grade at the midpoint of the building and grade at the closet point on the adjacent lot.” • Grade elevation from where the maximum height is measured and finished floor elevation • Show window operation and label height of any obscured glazing • Label height of window sills above second floor finished floor for side • Note material and finish for roofing, siding, windows, entry and garage doors, trim, railing, chimney, eaves, etc. I. ROOF PLANS • Show roof pitches and dimension overhang depths • Provide a detail for all eaves that are proposed beyond a required setback or daylight plane. J. SECTIONS (Two sections minimum) • Provide an additional longitudinal cross section for the proposed house. 755 Hamilton, 17PLN-00314 Page 3 of 6 • Indicate roof pitch, floor to floor heights, topographic height of first floor, floor to grade heights, plate heights at upper levels, attic, stairs, cathedral ceilings, outlines of building eaves and rakes (separate details may need to be provided for eaves/rakes), etc. The following comments are required to be incorporated into a revised plan set prior to Planning entitlement approval: ZONING REVIEW: 1) Cover Sheet/ Site Plan a. The 175 sf ADU floor area bonus cannot be counted towards the total floor area for the site. The extra 175 square foot bonus is only allowed for sites that are already built out to the max floor area, and would exceed the maximum floor area with the addition of a new ADU. In this case, the square footage for the ADU is existing (within accessory garage), the site is not built out to it’s max 3,450 sf, and therefore would not qualify for the FAR exception. Please revise floor area accordingly, so that the max floor area does not exceed 3,450 sf. iii. FAR. When the development of a new one-story accessory dwelling unit on a parcel with an existing single family residence would result in the parcel exceeding the maximum floor area, an additional 175 square feet of floor area above the maximum amount of floor area otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning district shall be allowed. This additional area shall be permitted only to accommodate the development of the accessory dwelling unit. b. Within the project data breakdown, please separate the garage floor area from the proposed ADU since the ADU is new. c. Roof eaves are permitted to encroach up to 2’ in required side yard setbacks. Please include a dimension for proposed roof eaves. It appears they are slightly over the 2’ max encroachment as proposed. d. Include dimension from property line for street facing balcony. e. Please include calculation which shows the area of the accessory structure that is within the rear yard. As required by Section 18.12.060, accessory structure in setbacks shall not occupy an area exceeding fifty percent of the required rear yard. Additionally, the length of the garage on the Site Plan does not dimension to 36’-2” as shown on the floor plan. Please review and revise where applicable. 2) Streetscape Elevations a. The height of homes included in the streetscape needs to be revised for accuracy. Staff confirmed the home at 771 Hamilton is 25 feet in height. Please confirm other heights. 3) Floor Plan a. The first floor data on the floor area plan on Sheet A3.3 totals to 1,727.82, but you indicate 1,770 for the total first floor square footage. Please review and revise. b. Will there be any new walls on first floor or is the patio enclosure the only portion being demolished? Include wall legend for first floor plan if there are more walls to be removed and or new walls to be built (including areas where windows are being removed). c. Include wall legend for new walls, existing walls, and demolished walls in accessory structure. d. Indicate where windows are New and/or Existing on the Ground floor of the main house. 755 Hamilton, 17PLN-00314 Page 4 of 6 e. Since the street side yard setback is legal non-conforming at 15.8’ (where 16 feet is required) and work is proposed which will modify that wall potentially to a degree that the noncomplying wall cannot realistically be maintained in its existing condition, a valuation process may be required to determine if the proposed work can occur per the Code Section referenced below. Per Section 18.70.100(b), When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or reconstruction to such damaged portion shall be accomplished in such manner as not to reinstate the noncompliance or degree of noncompliance caused by the destroyed or damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title; however, if the cost to replace or reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the facility to its previous configuration does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost to replace or reconstruct the facility in conformance with this subsection, then the damaged noncomplying portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous configuration. In no event shall such replacement or construction create, cause, or increase any noncompliance with the requirements of this title. Thus, the options moving forward would be… a) Provide a valuation (by a licensed contractor) for the cost to replace/reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the home to its previous noncomplying configuration. That valuation must demonstrate that it does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total cost to move the wall and bring the structure into compliance with the current zoning standard (i.e. 16’ street side yard setback). Using simplified numbers for example purposes, if it cost $1,000 to move the entire wall to bring the portion of the home into compliance, the cost to modify the wall structure (add/modify windows, supporting framework, structural support, labor, et cetera) must not exceed $500. This valuation will be reviewed and requires approval by the City’s Chief Building Official. If approved, a condition of approval would be put in place requiring field inspections to ensure any additional alteration, demolition or construction to the existing noncomplying project area (outside of the approved work) has been done. b) Revise the design and scope-of-work to bring the structure into conformance (i.e. move the wall out of the setback) with current municipal code of 16’ street side yard setback. c) Maintain the existing conditions of the structure. f. Per Section 18.54.020, the required interior dimensions for a two car garage are 20’ x 20’. This area shall be free and clear of any obstructions such as washing machines, water heaters, mechanical equipment, etc. On the proposed floor plan the depth of the garage dimensions to appx 17’-6” up to the water heater and washer/dryer. This is too short for the required 20’ x 20’ required interior dimensions. The width requirement also needs to be 20’. Please include a width dimension as well to demonstrate compliance. 4) Elevations a. In addition, to providing additional elevations (and daylight plane) for the accessory structure, please provide additional detail on material changes, roof changes, etc for the accessory structure (on all sides). If the structure does not meet the daylight plane requirement, there may be issues with the extent of work permitted on the structure given its nonconformity. 755 Hamilton, 17PLN-00314 Page 5 of 6 K. For your information: Impact Fees and other ADU requirements Per Section 18.42.040 and effective on June 8, 2017 and applicable to this project. • New ADUs require the payment of development impact fees at time of building permit issuance. The estimated cost for the fees are approximately $9,500. Prior to any future planning entitlement, a final estimate will be given to the applicant. • Sale of Units: The Accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residence. • Short term rentals. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be rented for periods of less than 30 days. • Number of Units Allowed: Only one accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit may be located on any residentially zoned lot. • Existing Development: A single-family dwelling shall exist on the lot or shall be constructed on the lot in conjunction with the construction of the accessory dwelling unit. • Occupancy: The owner of a parcel proposed for accessory dwelling use shall occupy as a principal residence either the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling, unless both the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling are rented to the same tenant and such tenant is prohibited from sub- leasing the primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling. • Prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall record a deed restriction in a form approved by the city that: includes a prohibition on the sale of the accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family residence; requires owner-occupancy consistent with subsection (a)(9)E. above; does not permit short-term rentals; and restricts the size and attributes of the accessory dwelling unit to those that conform with this section. • Accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence. • Street Address Required: Street addresses shall be assigned to all accessory dwellings to assist in emergency response. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES: comments forthcoming DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Attached are memorandum(s) from other departments/ divisions and outside agencies as indicated below. These comments are preliminary and are intended to notify you about potential requirements for development. As required, comments contained in the attached memos shall be incorporated into the revised plan sets. Concerns about any of these issues should be brought to my attention so that I can coordinate with appropriate City staff on your behalf. • Public Works Engineering – see attached conditions • Urban Forestry Division – see attached conditions • Historic – comments attached TIMELINE The Current Planning Division has a goal of processing Individual Review applications within four months of submittal. In order to meet this processing goal, we request that revised plans be submitted to the 5th floor of City Hall within 14-21 days of receiving this letter. Please submit one (1) full-size set, two (2) reduced set of plans, an electronic copy for review, and a letter describing the changes that have been made to address staff’s comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at 650-329-2662 or by email at haleigh.king@cityofpaloalto.org. 755 Hamilton, 17PLN-00314 Page 6 of 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS The public comment period ended 21 days after a notice regarding the application for Single Family Individual Review was posted on your property. However, public comments may be received at anytime during the application process. The City has received comment letters from one (1) nearby property owner at this time (see attachment). Please note that this letter does not constitute a final staff review of your application submittal. Additional comments may arise following the receipt of plans and/or materials requested in this letter. Sincerely, /s/ Haleigh King Associate Planner Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the Planning and Community Environment Director. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “755 Hamilton” and open the record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Revised Plans_11.30.17_Combined” Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8752) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/14/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: HRB Draft Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2017 Title: Historic Resources Board Draft Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2017 From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):  November 9, 2017 Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft HRB Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2017 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 Call to Order/Roll Call 3 4 Present: Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, 5 Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen 6 7 Absent: Chair Martin Bernstein 8 9 Vice Chair Bower: Could we call roll? Thank you. 10 11 Oral Communications 12 13 None. 14 15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 16 17 None. 18 19 City Official Reports 20 21 1. Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments 22 23 Vice Chair Bower: First order of business is the meeting schedule and I don’t think there’s any change in 24 that. I’m disappointed we’re not meeting on Thanksgiving Day. 25 26 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Well, it maybe not too late to send out a notice if you really are 27 sorely disappointed. 28 29 Vice Chair Bower: I don’t have a pass to get into the building. 30 31 Ms. French: But there will be a subcommittee meeting of you and someone else. 32 33 Vice Chair Bower: Oh, I see and the December 28th meeting looks real? That’s the week between 34 Christmas. Do you think… 35 36 Ms. French: December 28th will be canceled. 37 38 Vice Chair Bower: Ok so we have – after today we’ll have one meeting on the 12th or 14th of December if 39 you have… 40 41 Ms. French: Correct. 42 43 Vice Chair Bower: Ok, great. 44 45 Study Session 46 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: November 9, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 2. City of Palo Alto New Historic Preservation Website 1 2 Vice Chair Bower: Alright next we have two study sessions up today. The first is the – well, either – it 3 doesn’t matter which one but on the agenda the first one is the new Historic Preservation website and 4 the second item under that heading would be the Eichler Design Guidelines update. We can do those in 5 that order if you want or we could do them in reverse order since Page and Turnbull's representative is 6 here and then you can get on with your day. 7 8 Ms. French: Let’s keep the order as is. 9 10 Vice Chair Bower: Fine, let’s do the website then. 11 12 Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Sure, good morning everyone and this shouldn’t take too long. I just 13 wanted to bring to your attention the new Historic Preservation website for the City of Palo Alto. I’m sure 14 you guys are familiar with the old one which was just one kind of big page full of text but now when you 15 navigate to the City’s Historic Preservation page you will be confronted with just some – you’ll 16 immediately notice some changes. The older website was a little confusing and the information, while 17 there, wasn’t very readily available and you have to kind of – yeah. You kind of have to parse through it 18 so here my goal was to get the information as clear and as accessible as possible while highlighting some 19 of the success stories of our program. As well as incentives and the design review process loud and clear 20 since those are the questions I get most asked. When you start off the home page is now a nice big 21 welcome sign, a lovely gift of our beautiful –some of our beautiful buildings. You’ll find information, news 22 and updates, some success stories about Stanford Theatre, Women’s Club and out contact information. 23 What I want to share with you today though are these new pages that we have created so the first one 24 being project review. This is going to be where anyone who has any questions about what they can and 25 can’t do with their home, they’ll find all that information here. This is a very good – very useful resource 26 for us at the City. The next page is our preservation incentives that we offer historic property owners and 27 so this is something that the public is very interested in and here we have all of that clearly laid out, 28 easily digestible, and it just goes on and on. We also have a new page devoted to the Historic Registers 29 so we have our Local, California and National Register, as well as explaining what those mean and what 30 the criteria are. What is a Category One? What is a Category Two? It’s all laid out nice and clearly and we 31 have pictures and the inventories loaded up of every single National Register individually listed building. 32 People can come and actually read those nominations and there’s a nice little picture. Ok, I’ll go back up. 33 We now also have a page devoted to our Historic Districts and the historic surveys that have occurred in 34 Palo Alto so we have Professorville, Ramona, and links to the nominations themselves, as well as 35 guidelines for Professorville and further information – further reading linking too past for example, some 36 of their information. Then for the surveys, we talk about the 1979 survey and it’s got some nice images 37 that came out of that, as well as the Dames and Moore and some of their context summaries that they 38 put together. So, there are lots – that information is now readily available, it’s up and anyone can come 39 and read that and learn about the history and all the work that went into those. The next – the final page 40 we put together is an actual history of Palo Alto and this was written by Steve Staiger, our resident 41 Historian, and so we actually have a nice summary of the history here in Palo Alto. At the bottom, this 42 will be of interest to all you on the HRB, it’s every historic preservation resource online that you could 43 possibly want. So, we have all of our City resources, as well as County, Bay Area, State and National so 44 you’ll find information about the OHP, the CLG Program, historic building code, etc. That it’s and I just 45 wanted to give you a quick rundown of our new site. I encourage you to look it over and provide any 46 feedback if somethings missing, if you want to include some more information or if you see something 47 that you’d like to change or to add onto. 48 49 Board Member Wimmer: I just had a quick question, were – are – is there a link to the Professorville 50 Guidelines and then there will be an eventual link to the Eichler Guidelines? 51 52 Ms. Vance: Yeah, so we – here, I’ll just bring this up since we’re here. We do have our Eichler page so 53 there will be a link to the Eichler Guidelines on the district page. As well as here are our Eichler Neighbor 54 Design Guidelines page so this is being updated as we’re going along with an updated schedule. There’s 55 City of Palo Alto Page 3 the pictures from the last event, the memory event which was fun. Yeah, I’ve already (inaudible) so 1 yeah, there’s an updated schedule and the draft guidelines will go up here, as well as the final – yeah. 2 3 Vice Chair Bower: Where would I, as a homeowner, find the 2000 Dames and Moore information? 4 5 Ms. Vance: That’s a great question because I tried to build this as if I’m not a preservationist, I’m just a 6 homeowner and I’m just a citizen of Palo Alto and I come to this front page and I read and I see 7 something that says here Historic Districts and Historic Resources surveys. So, I assume I would click 8 that and I would scroll to the bottom where we have our survey section and here’s the Dames and Moore 9 section. I can’t read it but it’s one of these links that you would click; probably that one. 10 11 Vice Chair Bower: So, I’m following you on my computer here and so you go down the bottom where 12 there are all these boxes. Final survey report? 13 14 Ms. Vance: Yeah so, the final survey reports, as well as a summary, are uploaded. It might take a while 15 to upload because it’s very big but it’s (inaudible). 16 17 Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, very big. 18 19 Ms. Vance: So, these – I thought these where very interesting because (inaudible) are the context 20 summary that Dames and Moore put together on something like 46 topics – unique topics to Palo Alto. 21 While they are not interactive at this point, it gives you an idea like you say oh, I want to read about 22 Leslie Nichols. I can go into the final report and read about him or her. 23 24 Vice Chair Bower: Is it – the first thing I did when I saw those boxes, I thought great, click on them. 25 26 Ms. Vance: Right so we are still in – so originally you could click on these and you would get a nice big 27 picture of – I love these drawings from the 1979 survey. It’s still a work in progress. You’ll notice at the 28 top of our website it will say thank you, we’re still working out bugs until November 30th. 29 30 Vice Chair Bower: It’s been there what 20-years? 31 32 Ms. Vance: No, we just got – it’s brand new. So, I’m still going to be working on getting these… 33 34 Vice Chair Bower: Ok, I – this is a fabulous arrangement of information and it’s a huge amount. I think it 35 might be a little intimidating for your average resident because there’s so much here but at least it’s 36 here, at least it’s accessible. 37 38 Ms. Vance: Well, I’m hoping… 39 40 Vice Chair Bower: But they can call you Emily if they have questions. 41 42 Ms. Vance: Yes. You can send them right to me. I think what people are mostly going to be looking for 43 though are the links about the HRB meetings, the project review and preservation incentives that we 44 offer. It’s very nice to have all the other information just available and accessible. 45 46 Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, I mean I assume it’s a kind of duel level approach to this information. There will 47 be the professionals who need to have information like Martin, Rodger, and Margaret and need to be in 48 the weeds here. Then there will be the homeowners who are interested in the general overview of what 49 historic preservation means to their properties. Well, I think this is a huge improvement and thank you 50 for – anyone has comments? Ok, let’s move onto… 51 52 Board Member Corey: I was going to say that I think it’s great overall, although one thing that I did find 53 though that I had trouble searching for it. So, if you search for historic preservation, it actually didn’t 54 come up and you had to navigate through. So maybe that’s just the – something we – if you go to the 55 City of Palo Alto Page 4 main page and you search – if you go to the search box and you search for historic preservation, that 1 page doesn’t come up. 2 3 Vice Chair Bower: Right you have to… 4 5 Board Member Corey: So probably worth… 6 7 Ms. Vance: That is very good to know, thank you. 8 9 Vice Chair Bower: Yeah, you have to do that through google and when you do that, then you get right to 10 the page. 11 12 Board Member Corey: Yeah but it’s – but the search box at the top it just didn’t come up so that’s – I 13 mean assume that’s easy to fix. 14 15 Ms. French: Thank you. There might other such errors and we’ve had to overhaul our whole website, not 16 just these pages, and went to a different system. So that’s why it took so long to actually launch all the 17 work that Emily and our intern did this summer. We’ve had to wait for the new regime of the website. 18 19 Board Member Corey: Overall though it looks fantastic; it’s great. 20 21 Vice Chair Bower: Council Member Holman. 22 23 Council Member Holman: Yeah, I had a couple of observations that I had made earlier too which is when 24 you click on – well when you’re on the homepage. Do you want to go back to the home page? So, it’s the 25 last bullet here is a little confusing. It looks like it’s the listing for all of them and they – at the same time, 26 there’s one earlier which is also Palo Alto listed properties so I think people might find that confusing why 27 they are both there. 28 29 Ms. Vance: So, when you click on the Palo Alto listed properties, it’s literally just the PDF of all of the 30 properties that are listed. 31 32 Council Member Holman: Ah, ok. 33 34 Ms. French: It’s just the inventory; it’s not the Cal. Register ones which are different from the (inaudible). 35 36 Council Member Holman: Yeah, I think it might be – if there’s a way to differentiate those like on the 37 subject because – I don’t know, it might be a little bit confusing. The other thing I noticed was when you 38 do go to the link that is the Palo Alto inventory, California Register and such when it lists the benefits – it 39 does here. I know I saw it earlier so somewhere. I know I wasn’t that sleepy when I was looking at this 40 earlier. (crosstalk) Yeah, I don’t know why I am not finding it here but two things, one is it doesn’t list 41 the stages for building code either there for National or local so it seems like that would be an important 42 thing to have one there. It’s mentioned somewhere else but it’s not mentioned hereunder benefits. The 43 other question I had was from the Dames and Moore report or survey, there were some – there was a 44 conclusion drawn of how many of those and which of those were actually eligible for the National 45 Register. I couldn’t tell looking at this that any of those houses had been added to this list. 46 47 Ms. Vance: No, so these are the actual individually listed; a nomination was prepared and sent to MPF 48 and there are only 16 of those. The other ones have been deemed eligible but they are not actually 49 listed. 50 51 Council Member Holman: Where would one find those that are eligible for the National Register? It seems 52 like it would be important for the Planning Department as well as the Building Department. 53 54 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ms. Vance: Yeah so those are listed in our internal GIS, as well as on – if you go to a parcel report, you’ll 1 see that it says been deemed eligible so that’s one way. 2 3 Council Member Holman: Excuse me. 4 5 Ms. Vance: I believe it might be in the summary report but I don’t – probably not. I don’t think there’s an 6 actual list of all of the ones that were deemed eligible out of that report. 7 8 Council Member Holman: Is there a reason not to have them on the website? I mean somebody might 9 want to know that they – hey my property is eligible for the National Register. 10 11 Ms. Vance: No, there’s no reason to not put them up. I can put them up in that section. There’s an – I 12 have another – there’s another part on how to – is your property historic and you go to the parcel report 13 and it links the parcel report. You put in your address and it will tell you if it’s considered a historic 14 resource (inaudible) City. 15 16 Council Member Holman: Ok. I concur with the comments that have been made up here that this is a 17 huge, huge, huge improvement and this woman to my right is a great asset and addition to the City 18 Staff. 19 20 Vice Chair Bower: I bet. I just finished loading that and it’s a huge file but what I was looking for where 21 the individual reports that Councilwomen Holman has just been talking about. I was hoping to see those 22 up here because I think those are really valuable. Especially the 200 that are potentially eligible for 23 listing. All of them – I did the – I scanned all those in and had a fabulous time looking at the inventory 24 and think it would be a really valuable resource. By the way at the end there’s a note here that says, the 25 DPR-523 records, I have no idea what that is but… 26 27 Board Member Makinen: (Inaudible) 28 29 Vice Chair Bower: What’s that? 30 31 Board Member Makinen: Department of Parks and Recreation. 32 33 Vice Chair Bower: Oh, Department of Parks and Recreation… 34 35 Ms. Vance: That’s… 36 37 Vice Chair Bower: …there are 291 individual properties evaluated in the survey may be found that the 38 Guy Miller Archives, City of Palo Alto Library. Not here but somewhere else so anyway, a link to that 39 might be… 40 41 Ms. Vance: Yeah, that’d be great and this is wonderful feedback. Since you guys are going to be using 42 this probably a lot more than most people so again if you have any other comments, feel free to just 43 send them to me and let me know. 44 45 Vice Chair Bower: For the 11-years that I’ve been on the – 10-years that I’ve been on the Historic 46 Resources Board, we’ve never had this much information put on the website so this is a huge step 47 forward. Rodger, you had a comment? 48 49 Board Member Kohler: (Inaudible) 50 51 Ms. Vance: Oh that – so we haven’t put those up yet but that will – the place to find those will be on the 52 Eichler – the special Eichler page and we’ll have the draft guidelines available for the public to download. 53 54 Vice Chair Bower: Ok, Council – Karen. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Council Member Holman: One other… 1 2 Board Member Kohler: Just a – is there somewhere – I haven’t looked at this thoroughly but if I have 3 (crosstalk)… 4 5 Council Member Holman: That’s the next item. 6 7 Vice Chair Bower: It’s our next item. 8 9 Board Member Kohler: Ok. 10 11 Vice Chair Bower: Karen. 12 13 Council Member Holman: So back to the website, this is – you’ve been so busy in doing so many great 14 things and I am wondering if this information is going to be disseminated to the realty community so 15 they can use it for a resource for clients? It’s great information and I concur with David by the way that 16 the buttons that you have listed, I think it would just be remarkably interesting for pretty much anybody 17 on having those as hot links would be terrific when you get to it. 18 19 Ms. Vance: Yeah, that was kind of the end goal is to have a little – with the information because they are 20 nice little essays, you know a page or two, to have that information. That’s the end goal for sure and yes, 21 it would be good to get this information to different communities so we can work on that certainly. 22 23 Vice Chair Bower: Ok, any other comments? Michael. 24 25 Board Member Makinen: I think it was an excellent project right here (inaudible). One comment I had – 26 it’s not anything to do with the way you organized it but the Categories Three and Four, it leaves one 27 wondering what the differentiation is so much so maybe we should address that at this point. It goes to 28 Three and Four but there’s – really, why do we have Three and Four there if there’s no differentiation? Is 29 it just three you know? I don’t know I think we should put some flesh on that. It would probably be 30 helpful, in addition to that, if we had some type of definition of any of the terms that are kind of strange 31 to somebody who’s looking on here; like a glossary or something that they can go to and quickly find out 32 what a term is and back. I think that would be very helpful for a novice who’s looking at this so they 33 don’t get confused. 34 35 Ms. Vance: Yeah, that’s a great idea and that’s something we can easily put together. 36 37 Board Member Makinen: Put it as an additional item. 38 39 3. Eichler Design Guidelines Update 40 41 Vice Chair Bower: Alright, if there are no other comments we can move onto the next item which is the 42 Eichler Design Guidelines review. 43 44 Ms. French: Thank you. We have today Christina Dikas of Page and Turnbull and she is here to present a 45 PowerPoint on the Eichler Design Guidelines for neighborhoods. We have been at this project for a while. 46 We got approval last December 2016 to hire our consultant to work on these. As of yesterday, we have 47 the guidelines in draft form and we are intending to send through an E-blast today to the stakeholders 48 who have been following this, as well as upload them on our webpage. So, you are the first in the 49 community to see, everyone at this table and in this room, the hard copy of the guidelines. So, I’ll let 50 Christina take it away. On the screen – oh wait, let’s – ok, drive on this one. Ok, technical difficulties. We 51 have had new two-story homes in Palo Alto that have been subject to the Individual Review Guidelines 52 and Individual Review Program and Process. These have included homes in Eichler neighborhoods that 53 did not have a single-story overlay; new one-story homes, in these neighborhoods and elsewhere, do not 54 have any kind of design review process; they are simply just a building permit. We’ve had a concern for 55 City of Palo Alto Page 7 lack of compatibility in the Eichler neighborhoods, and that has led to some neighborhoods coming 1 forward to elect to place a single-story overlay on their neighborhoods to, at least, keep the homes one-2 story and compatible in that way. There are guidelines in place to help architects and homeowners to see 3 what – how to sensitively add to an Eichler or a replacement building that would be compatible with the 4 homes in the tract. So, I already noted that the Council approved this contract to go forward with Eichler 5 Design Guidelines. These are not regulatory, these are tools, so as noted we have the single-story 6 overlay applicable to some Eichler neighborhoods and one non-Eichler neighborhood that is looking sort 7 of Eichler-like (I call them Feichler’s or Likelers I think is another term). And then we have the – we also 8 have flood zones and this is not a tool; it’s more of a – there’s – in the code – the zoning code for R-1 9 neighborhoods - a new home in a flood zone can be taller than other homes because the first finished 10 floor needs to be taller. So, in an Eichler neighborhood – you’re already starting much higher than other -11 homes that are slab-on-grade in the tract. We also have accessory dwelling unit legislation that came 12 through this year and the City adopted local guidelines that are helpful. These Eichler Guidelines also 13 address the Accessory Dwelling Unit Guidelines. Then, as you know, we have two historic districts – 14 National Register Historic Districts - and they are not listed on the City’s inventory so they don’t come 15 before this Board. They’re historic and so we have a chance to look at those to make sure they are 16 compatible with Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Some neighborhoods have covenant codes and 17 restrictions and we know of three neighborhoods that have Architectural Control Committees. So, in 18 those neighborhoods, there has been another layer, that is a private matter, that helps with maintenance 19 of one-story homes in those neighborhoods. It’s not – those Architectural Control Committees don’t have 20 all the tools they need. Obviously, these – the enforcement is very difficult and they do have issues in 21 those neighborhoods as well. The goals of the guidelines… (do you want to do this one?) 22 23 Ms. Christina Dikas: Sure, the goals of this document are to develop illustrated guidelines for preserving 24 the distinctive character of the Eichler neighborhoods in Palo Alto, to provide a design tool for 25 homeowners and architects, and to adopt as a reference for Palo Alto review bodies. In addition to this 26 document, we are exploring with the City the possibility of establishing an Eichler overlay or other 27 regulatory updates where specific standards would apply in lieu of or in addition to the existing single-28 story overlay and individual review guidelines. So, that’s something that we’re exploring and we’ll discuss 29 more in the future. The next slide is our calendar and where we are today. We have this informational 30 hearing and I will be coming back to you on December 14th to hear your comments so you have a good 31 month or more to really dive into this document. We certainly recommend or we certainly welcome any 32 comments that you have. Yes, that document. 33 34 Vice Chair Bower: Could I stop you right there for a second? I see that the Planning and Transportation 35 Commission is going to get this document on the 13th December and then we’ll look at it the following 36 day. What’s the – what’s Planning and Transportation going to do with this if we haven’t yet reviewed it 37 and approved it to move forward? 38 39 Ms. French: Right, so we are – this will be their first look at it and we are going to describe the fact that 40 we are also looking at potential code changes. Certainly, one of the code changes is necessary - and that 41 is to reference these guidelines. As well as a cleanup item to reference the Professorville Guidelines, 42 which the code does not do right now. So, it’s about the zoning code changes that are necessary and 43 potential zoning code changes that we would return to them after Council provides directions on some of 44 these things. It’s a conversation, and the guidelines - they can recommend adoption of those guidelines 45 on that night, just as you can the next day. I hear what you are saying, you would rather maybe have 46 the Planning Commission go after the HRB to hear what the HRB’s comments are on the guidelines. 47 48 Vice Chair Bower: So, that’s why I bring this up. It seems to me that the process is backward here. 49 Planning and Transportation has a legitimate role here but they ought to hear from us first because we’re 50 the Board that actually has expertise in historic issues. I think that this is what happens with the ARB 51 frequently, they are making their decisions separate from our input. 52 53 Ms. French: Sure. 54 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Bower: Sometimes they just ignore our input which I think is inappropriate but – so I just – 1 so… 2 3 Ms. French: We could just do a study session to talk with them and/or cancel that one. It’s a difficulty of 4 holiday agendas so we – so the next time we could come to them is in late January. 5 6 Vice Chair Bower: I think it would be more informative for the Planning and Transportation 7 Commissioners to actually hear from us first. I mean hear what we have to say about it so I would – 8 since I didn’t see them on this timeline later, that’s why I am interrupting and bringing this up. 9 10 Ms. French: They would certainly be later if and when the Council were to direct zoning code changes. 11 Then that would be a more important meeting from their standpoint. This is more of a how to look at 12 these and… 13 14 Vice Chair Bower: So, that’s fine. Now I understand that this is more like a study session for them and 15 then the following day we will actually review these for substance and recommendation. Ok, so I 16 apologize for interrupting. 17 18 Ms. Dikas: We are targeting a public review period that starts today. The document will be put on the 19 website later today and ending in mid-January so the general public will have a good two months – two? 20 Two months to review. 21 22 Board Member Kohler: Where would we find the – how to get to that site? Is that under our… 23 24 Ms. French: We will – as Emily showed you earlier, there’s the Eichler Guidelines dedicated website and it 25 will be placed there. Certainly, we will send a link to the HRB and others that are stakeholders in this that 26 have been following all this, and they will get the link that will make it easy for them to click on. 27 28 Board Member Kohler: Good because I just have at least one or maybe two people who are interested in 29 that so good. Thank you. 30 31 Ms. Dikas: We have a list of contact information from people who have been attending the community 32 meetings that we’ve held throughout the year and others who are interested community members. So, 33 there will be an e-blast with all the information so people can take a look. We’re targeting an April 34 completion, hopefully. Next slide? The next slide I’m going to present to you is just a quick overview so 35 that you can get a sense of what the design guidelines are and then again you have a good amount of 36 time to really read them fully before we come back to you. This is the table of contents and I’ll be going 37 through each of these chapters in subsequent slides. We have an introduction, brief history of Eichler 38 homes and Eichler residential development in Palo Alto. That also includes a section on character-defining 39 features of different styles of Eichler homes. Chapter Three is an overview of community values and 40 concerns and then we get into the guidelines. We have Chapter Four guidelines on maintaining Eichler 41 homes, guidelines for architectural compatibility and neighborhood cohesion. So, this includes new 42 additions to existing Eichler residences and new construction within Eichler neighborhoods. Chapter Six is 43 guidelines on the shared landscape, streetscape and a sense of nature. We kind of weaved through these 44 chapters so some of those values and concerns that we heard from community members earlier this year 45 so that’s where the sense of nature comes in. Then Chapter Seven is special considerations and we have 46 a special section on the two historic districts and then we have a section on accessory dwelling units. I 47 will mention that the only true historic resources are the buildings that are contributors to the two 48 National Register Historic Districts. So that is the only section of this that really uses of the Secretary of 49 the Interior’s Standards and basically says that if you’re a contributor to one of those two historic 50 districts, ideally you would have a higher bar for any alterations that you may make. There’s a certain 51 amount of flexibility that’s provided in the rest of the design guidelines that are not preservation 52 guidelines per say but loosely follow our Secretary of Interior’s Standards. There is just a little bit more 53 flexibility there so I just want to make that clear. The next slide, these are our Eichler tracts and Palo Alto 54 has the most Eichlers, I think of any City of 11,000 Eichler houses that were developed by Eichler Homes. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 9 There are over 2,500 in Palo Alto so we have found 31 tracts of Eichler and you can see the two National 1 Register Historic Districts are in green. This information was really derived from efforts that Page and 2 Turnbull put into trying to identify the specific Eichler tracts. There’s a google document that was online 3 and we’re not sure who developed it. It’s kind of an open source map of Eichler tracts but it wasn’t 4 complete so we also went to the County and we were able to get tract maps. Then we went out and we 5 drove every single street in these areas to really define is this an Eichler? Is this a likelier? So, we could 6 identify these boundaries so we hope that this is quite accurate. There are some possibilities that there 7 are tiny pockets of a couple of Eichlers here and there that aren’t represented on this map but this is 8 pretty thorough. This is part of the first chapter, the introduction and we include that map and then we 9 have the section on how to use these design guidelines. There is an overarching concept and if you’re 10 familiar with the Professorville Design Guidelines that we produced last year, similar kind of a format. We 11 have a statement explaining the objective or general approaches and then we have clarifying bullets that 12 follow and when applicable we have some sidebars with links. Chapter Two includes a brief history of 13 Eichler homes and these are just some of the images that we include. If you’re not familiar, Joseph 14 Eichler started Eichler Homes in 1949 and the first Eichler tract that was developed in Palo Alto was 15 University Gardens in 1950. It’s interesting to see how some of the Eichler designs change over time. He 16 had a contractor who worked on this first tract and it’s a little different. It has brick fireplace chimneys 17 that are prominent on the front façade, which you don’t see in later ones. Later on, he had several well-18 known and highly reputable mid-century modern architects who worked with him. One of them is Anshen 19 and Allen out of San Francisco. They did the Fairmeadow tract and a number of others but this is an 20 example of theirs. Jones and Emmons, A. Quincy Jones, designed Green Meadow in 1954 to 1955 and 21 next slide, Claude Oakland’s work on some of the later Eichler tracts and an example is the Los Arboles 22 Addition number two in 1974, which are really interesting with this center gable roof. Yes, Chapter Two in 23 much more detail. We also discuss a general history about Joseph Eichler’s concept for affordable yet 24 modern design in the post-war period. So, this is an example of an advertisement that was made at the 25 time. Next slide; and then some of the interesting neighborhood layouts. We talk a little bit about the 26 Green Meadow Community Center. Again, that was Jones and Emmons and then the Community Center 27 landscape was also done by Thomas Church who is a very well-known mid-century landscape architect. 28 Then as I mentioned earlier this chapter not only includes a history of Eichlers but also the defining 29 character features. We’ve broken them down into different typologies of Eichlers so this is straight out of 30 the document. This is a front gabled Eichler and we have some illustrations that pull out into bullet points 31 of some features that can identified with additional character-defining features over on the side in bullet 32 points. I lost my page. Flat-roofed Eichlers with these interesting tall and narrow windows on the front 33 and next slide there’s a flat with shed roof version and we have a series of photo variety. I love the one 34 at the bottom right with the yellow car in the driveway as well. Then the last one that we have is this flat 35 with gable roof and there are variations of it that you can see in the photos below the main one with a 36 side gable and kind of flat trunk aided roof gable. Those are the ones from Claude Oakland from the 37 1979s. Then Chapter Three as I mentioned earlier there’s an overview of community values and 38 concerns. We have – we hosted two community meetings in the spring, one was a general community 39 meeting where we introduced this project and the other one was specifically for the two National Register 40 Districts to find out if they had any specific concerns or comments that they wanted to provide us. We 41 heard from people but not everybody was able to attend these meetings so we took the questions that 42 we had posted in the meetings and we posted them online in a survey monkey link. We ended up 43 receiving I don’t know how many hundreds of comments from the community and we documented all of 44 those. We distilled them down in to these six general concepts of comments that we received so in this 45 chapter will be summarized of what we heard from the community. Then we tried to weave those 46 through the guidelines that are in the following chapters. This is kind of an interesting approach and 47 something that we haven’t had in other design guidelines that we have produced for Professorville or for 48 other Cities just because we really wanted to use all of this commentary that we received from the 49 community. This page just kind of illustrates the first three topics of a sense of community, a shared 50 landscape, streetscape and sense of nature and valuing privacy. This is a quote from one of the 51 community members, ‘Eichler owners and residents are very social with each other. Members of our 52 Eichler neighborhood meet twice a year for block parties, twice a year for solstice parties, monthly for 53 book clubs and daily for informal chat sessions. I’ve never lived in a place where the neighbors are more 54 tightly connected and welcoming.’ So that is a comment that we received and categorized into that sense 55 City of Palo Alto Page 10 of community value. Next slide; and then the last three are comments about the modern architectural 1 style, concerns or comments about architectural compatibility with new construction in the neighborhood 2 or other changes and valuing neighborhood cohesion. One comment about the architectural style is this 3 quote here that somebody mentioned a uniquely California modern indigenous style. The fifth community 4 value and concern involved adaptability and I think we also discussed the need for upgrades and 5 sometimes some difficulties that Eichler homes present for upgrades. Then lastly those who do value 6 preservation and there are a lot of different opinions about Eichlers. Some people love them, some 7 people don’t care so much for them so we tried to be objective and not chapter but kind of report back 8 what we heard. Alright, these next slides are just a few examples of guidelines that we have in each of 9 the chapters, just so you get a little sense of that. Chapter Four is on maintaining Eichler homes and a 10 couple examples of the guidelines are to maintain/replace windows while representing the design 11 characteristics of Eichler homes. We have the illustrations that show that you should really try to maintain 12 those large plate glass expanses verses inserting windows with lots of divisions. To treat entry doors and 13 garage doors in a manner that maintains the patterns found in Eichler neighborhoods. We have a yes on 14 solid front doors preferably and garage doors that have a cladding that similar to the wall cladding of the 15 rest of the house versus the kind of modern or contemporary garages doors and front doors that you 16 may see. As I mentioned the – with the National Register Historic Districts we have – we use more of the 17 Secretary of Interior’s Standards so this is a little bit looser guideline. You know preferable to keep what 18 you see in your neighborhood. Chapter Seven or sorry, Five involve architectural compatibility and 19 neighborhood cohesion. This is where we talk about additions, one-story additions and two-story 20 additions so 5.2.1 discusses placing a new residence or new construction within its lot so that it conforms 21 to the streetscape pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. Then we have bullet points that follow with 22 more detail and 5.2.2, to develop a new house design with an appropriate massing and height that 23 blends well with the surrounding neighborhood so there’s a no on that bottom graphics. Then Chapter Six 24 involves landscape, 6.3.1 is an example to place fences and other boundary features. 25 26 Board Member Kohler: Can I ask a quick question just -- on this page you were just going through 27 showing the good and bad and then the ‘X’? Is there – where do you… 28 29 Vice Chair Bower: What page are you one? 30 31 Board Member Kohler: I’m having a hard time figuring out what page we’re on. 32 33 Vice Chair Bower: It’s over here up on the upper right corner. 34 35 Board Member Kohler: I know, it’s 84 (inaudible). I’m just curious is there anywhere where you talk 36 about one-story versus two-story? (Inaudible)… 37 38 Ms. Dikas: Yes, we have guidelines that are specific to one-story additions and then we have guidelines 39 that are specific to two-story additions. We also have guidelines on new buildings, whether one or two-40 story. 41 42 Board Member Kohler: In this? 43 44 Ms. Dikas: In the document, yes. These – this presentation is really just quick highlights so a couple of 45 examples. 46 47 Board Member Kohler: Ok, I just wanted to get – figure out where we were here. Ok, thank you. 48 49 Ms. Dikas: Chapter Six on landscape, just a couple of examples that we’ve provided are to place fences 50 and other boundary features where they will not obstruct views of an Eichler residence. 51 52 Board Member Kohler: Sorry to interrupt again but in this case, it might great on this big green page to 53 have a six because you have to look in here to figure out where you are. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Ms. Dikas: Ok, thank you, I’ll keep that in mind. 1 2 Board Member Kohler: That’s what’s confusing, I go (inaudible) -- ok, alright, thank you. 3 4 Ms. Dikas: We have some check marks on examples that have front yards that do have fences but they 5 are semi-permeable or are setback close to the house versus all the way at the front of the street where 6 the entire front yard would be a block off and that’s not recommended. Chapter Seven, this is that special 7 consideration chapter on the National Register Historic Districts and ADUs. This is an example of an – one 8 of the ADU Guidelines to design detached ADUs with as low height and roof slope as possible in order to 9 reduce the buildings visibility from surrounding residences. The ADU topic is interesting because they – 10 because of the State legislation they are allowed even though in Eichler neighborhoods the backyards are 11 very important because that’s where the full window walls occur. So, we’ve tried to provide some 12 guidelines generally too place ADUs that might be built in appropriate places and try to minimize their 13 mass as much as possible. Then our Chapter Eight involves process improvement suggestions. This 14 chapter is a bit of a work in progress. It – part of it really relates to these regulatory changes that we’re 15 still exploring so there’s actually a placeholder right now where a matrix may end up being inserted. It 16 discusses some of our recommendations for project review for the National Register Historic Districts, 17 design review training and raising awareness of the neighborhood Architectural Control Committees, and 18 designation of additional National Register Historic Districts you recommend. We found that when we 19 were driving around there were actually a couple of tracts that we noticed that had perhaps even higher 20 integrity than at least one of the National Register Districts. So, there are certainly others out there that 21 could be eligible for similar reasons. Then again, this potential modification to zone code related to 22 Eichler neighborhoods. We have – we currently have some of the background information about what 23 we’re exploring but not really the meat of those recommendations yet. That concludes my presentation, 24 thank you. 25 26 Vice Chair Bower: Great, thank you for running through that for us. I have some comments but does 27 anyone else want to start? Ok. 28 29 Board Member Wimmer: I was just going to ask, once we have a chance to review the document, how do 30 we – if we see suggestions and things like that, how are we going to just go—at a future meeting and 31 each individual person make their suggestions? How would you like to receive comments I guess is what 32 my question is? 33 34 Ms. French: Thank you. We could do one of two things or both, we do plan to come back to you, as 35 noted, December 14th so if you wanted to make notes etc. and – on your copy in red or something and 36 bring those to the meeting on the 14th, that would be great. Also, if there’s some critical issue that is 37 formatting something that needs – it doesn’t need discussion but needs – you need to alert us to 38 something, I would ask that you go ahead and email that to me. We can – I can collect anything that 39 comes forward in the next month and ship that over to Christina. 40 41 Ms. Dikas: Yeah, so we’re definitely accepting written comments, whether an email to Amy or a marked-42 up copy that you want to hand over, or verbal comments at the next meeting that we attend. 43 44 Vice Chair Bower: I’ll lead off then. I think Roger’s suggestion about numbering the title pages is a really 45 good one because I had the same problem. 46 47 Ms. Dikas: Ok, great. 48 49 Vice Chair Bower: On the map that you’ve created which I am very appreciative of; when I first looked at 50 it, I couldn’t understand why the dates of – the building dates of these tracts where so haphazard - and 51 then I realized that you’ve listed the tract alphabetically. I wonder if you could sort that by – also provide 52 a map sorted by date so we have a sense of the oldest and the youngest. I’m not sure how complicated 53 that would be but it’s probably just sorting the list – tract name list. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Ms. Dikas: We do have a table of the tracts where we tried to find the architects but we haven’t been 1 able to – I forget – oh, I think it’s at the end of Chapter Two; let’s see. 2 3 Vice Chair Bower: End of Chapter Two? 4 5 Ms. Dikas: Where was it? 6 7 Vice Chair Bower: Which is what page? 8 9 Ms. Dikas: Well, I can’t find it now but I’ll see if it was organized by year for that one. Oh, I just found it, 10 it’s on page 40. Oh, and I just saw a typo. This also looks to be ordered by – in alphabetical order so 11 that’s a great comment, thank you. 12 13 Vice Chair Bower: What’s really helpful is to see – as I was looking at the map, I was most interested in 14 what – where the first tracts or the first clusters, I think is a better term, where built. 15 16 Ms. Vance: That can – if I could just kind of follow up on that? I think that’s a great idea to show it 17 chronologically and what you could do, I’ve done this in the past, is you do like a gradient shading so you 18 can see going light to dark. That kind of provides this geographic context as well, and to see where they 19 are coming from - but I like that idea a lot. 20 21 Ms. Dikas: So, it would be an additional… 22 23 Ms. Vance: Yeah, I was kind of envisioning it as another map. The same one but just doing a color scheme 24 to show the order in which the neighborhoods where built. 25 26 Vice Chair Bower: In the Professorville Guidelines they do – your firm did shade the buildings by era. 27 28 Ms. Dikas: Eras, yeah. 29 30 Vice Chair Bower: Not quick by date of when they were built but I think they clustered – they identified 31 them as – by design. Anyway, I think it would – I’m not trying to push another page in here but I think 32 that’s important. I’m wondering about the setback; did you look at average setbacks on these Eichler 33 houses? It looks – I mean my intuition is that they are about 25-feet from the property line. 34 35 Ms. Dikas: I believe we did. 36 37 Vice Chair Bower: It seems to me that one of the most important parts of the Eichler neighborhoods is 38 the streetscape. You can’t really get into a person’s house unless you’re invited but everybody can see 39 the architecture from the street and it’s really startling how many different design patterns there are and 40 you’ve done a really excellent job of bringing that out. I’m wondering if there shouldn’t be effectively a 41 façade easement suggestion or even an ordinance that will preserve what the public sees. What you do 42 in your backyard I’m less concerned about, although I am concerned about the impact on the neighbors 43 but it’s really the streetscape that we’re trying to preserve. That’s the part of the public history that we 44 can see. Last comment – two comments, one is it seems to me in reviewing this and also as part of the 45 Professorville Guidelines review, that single-story review is critically important in these neighborhoods 46 where there is a historic designation because if you lose – if single-story buildings are not included in 47 discretionary review, somebody can go in there and build any style of architecture. This begins to bleed 48 off the critical mass that makes Historic District important. At the past, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage Board 49 Meeting last night, one of the Board Members had mentioned that one of the Eichler districts is worried 50 about losing their Historic District statues because they’ve had so many infill projects. So, I’m not sure 51 how to move this forward in terms of the ordinance but it seems to me that that’s something that the 52 Council ought to consider. I’m not sure how it would fit into this process but it could be a 53 recommendation from Staff or it could be a recommendation from our Board. Last item, again, I don’t 54 mean to be picking apart your timeline – your public hearing timeline but I’m wondering about the 55 City of Palo Alto Page 13 advisability of having the Historic Resources Board evaluate and move this forward in the legislative 1 process before the end of the public comment period. So, there will be a month – pretty much a month 2 from today that we’ll be looking at it but the public comment period goes on a month beyond that. I 3 worry about the impression that we’re racing to judgment before the public comment period ends. I 4 would have felt somewhat more comfortable having our meeting after the public comment period ended. 5 Now I understand all of the complexity about that but I’m just saying that I’m a little bit uncomfortable 6 about that. 7 8 Ms. French: I’ll just say originally, we had the meeting set up for November 28th and I think I announced 9 that but there was a conflicting Rail meeting that came up and so we had to cancel it, change our plans 10 and put it off into February now. 11 12 Vice Chair Bower: I understand. There’s nothing else going on in the City but historic preservation review 13 but nonetheless, I just – it’s a perception issue more. It’s not that we couldn’t – we could come back as a 14 Board and incorporate any comments that come after our meeting but I just think that’s problematic. 15 Anyone else has a comment about this? Michael. 16 17 Board Member Makinen: Just one comment, I was glad to see that on page 31 that you do recognize the 18 fact that Eichlers are basically an extension of Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian houses. Wright – the Eichler 19 was really designed as a low-cost version of the Usonia house for the working man. It would be nice to 20 have a little example of a Usonian house and how the Eichler derived from the Usonian house; just a little 21 picture there of how they relate to one another. Wright was greatly influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright - 22 and that’s the genius for all these Eichlers, was Frank Lloyd Wright. 23 24 Board Member Corey: One question, all – I think it looks good overall. I’m going to go through and mark 25 up some comments at a later date. One question I had kind of and I don’t know if it’s a particular issue 26 as far as from the front façade but my observation from Eichlers before and being in them with friends is 27 they have very prominent chimneys on the inside. I noticed on page 71 about the chimneys, there’s a 28 discussion about seek strategies to structurally stabilize the chimney. My understanding is there are 29 ordinances now with the City where you effectively can’t touch brick and mortar chimneys to stabilize 30 rather than replace because there are concerns about wood burning. It would be good to get clarification 31 at some point on what that is. So, you can’t get a permit to stabilize because they encourage people to 32 tear down and rebuild it; it’s for air quality. 33 34 Vice Chair Bower: And earthquake safety. 35 36 Board Member Corey: Sorry? Yeah, no, sorry. It’s the replace rather than repair because of the wood 37 burning and because of earthquakes safety, there’s a lot of concerns around doing that so I just wanted 38 to kind of throw that in. Again, I don’t think there’re a lot of fronts, but I notice this is – because they are 39 very prominent on the inside, these huge like ceiling to wall fireplaces. I don’t know if you can come back 40 with any info on that. 41 42 Vice Chair Bower: There is no repair of an existing masonry fireplace. 43 44 Board Member Corey: You literally have to tear it down. 45 46 Vice Chair Bower: Because it doesn’t have enough steel in it, it’s not built to current standards. They 47 probably need points if you can get into the flue and seal that again, that would be useful but most likely 48 – I mean the City Building Department had no interest in trying to patch together an old fireplace. 49 50 Ms. French: I guess the comment on that, that I would have, is the good news - that there is only one 51 Eichler tract that has chimneys facing the streets. So, from the public standpoint, that won’t be as much 52 of a problem as far as the look of it but yeah, we should get a handle on that. Thank you. 53 54 Vice Chair Bower: Beth. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Bunnenberg: Is there any mention in here of the problems with the heating coils that 1 were put into the cement? 2 3 Ms. Dikas: Yes, we do have a guideline or two that have to do with the slab heating. 4 5 Vice Chair Bower: There’s a terrible example of adding heating and cooling to the top of an Eichler 6 building near the Eichler Edgewood Plaza. It’s astoundingly bad, it’s probably about 2 ½-feet above the 7 roof plane, it totally ruins the Eichler design lines, and it’s just lazy in my opinion. It could have been 8 made much smaller and flatter but I don’t know, it’s something you’ve addressed here I presume? 9 10 Ms. Dikas: We do have a guideline that discusses adding mechanical or other things to the roof, whether 11 it’s HVAC or heater or otherwise. I think we just say that to try to keep it as low as possible so that it’s 12 not particularly visible. 13 14 Vice Chair Bower: Ok, any other comments? 15 16 Board Member Wimmer: Yeah, I was going to mention something. I was just kind of thinking beyond the 17 guidelines and how this sort of impacts our community and things. I was wondering because we’re 18 always talking about incentives, are there any – could there be any creative incentives just for Eichler 19 people who want to preserve their Eichler? Maybe we could keep that in mind as – in further discussion 20 to make it – kind of give them some incentives so they feel somewhat rewarded for preserving what they 21 have. Also, I was wondering now that these are becoming more of a historic structure, would we want to 22 think about coming up with a plaque? In Professorville we have those really neat plaques on the houses 23 and maybe we come up with a different look. Maybe not the oval plaque but maybe something square or 24 something, I don’t know. I think that could be kind of neat idea because it really makes it more –feels – 25 that contributes to the sense of community, the sense of preservation. I know a lot of people don’t like 26 those plaques on their houses but I don’t know, maybe some people – the Eichler people would like that. 27 I don’t know, just an idea. 28 29 Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Council… 30 31 Board Member Kohler: Can I ask one more question? I have a client who started out doing a new home 32 and they’re right off Charleston. I’m looking through here to see in the guidelines for new homes and 33 looking at page 81, in that area there’s a check off on a house that’s ok and it’s got a continuous wall of 34 the second floor in the back behind the – I guess (inaudible) beyond the existing Eichler. Then over on 35 the other side – I guess it’s the little glass window but – so you’re encouraging this shape of home for 36 new homes or second-floor additions on page 81 in the lower left-hand side? Is it got the little green 37 arrow? 38 39 Ms. Dikas: We have guidelines that discuss pushing second-story additions back from the street and 40 things of that nature. So, I think this image is an example of somebody who’s done that in the 41 neighborhood. 42 43 Board Member Kohler: This is the section that someone who is going to do a new home looks at it for 44 guidance. 45 46 Ms. Dikas: This specific section is on second-story additions to existing Eichlers. 47 48 Board Member Kohler: I’m assuming that if you’re doing a new home you’d have to look at this section. 49 50 Ms. Dikas: 5.1, the title to this section is new additions to existing Eichler residences and then I think 51 later, 5.2 is new home construction within Eichler neighborhoods. Then we have a couple of photo 52 examples of new homes on page 84. They both happen to be one-story which is generally what we’re 53 recommending but we’re not excluding second-story homes. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Kohler: But I mean – are you saying you can do two-story homes or are you saying… 1 2 Ms. Dikas: Yes. 3 4 Board Member Kohler: This is the guideline that you’ll refer too? Well, I’m not sure that’s enough 5 guidelines and maybe there need to be more sketches or something. I just – for the average person to 6 look at this, I – essentially you want the back of the house to be – if it’s two-story in the back part, not 7 up toward the front is what you’re saying I think. Is that… 8 9 Ms. Dikas: That image was for an addition to an existing Eichler. 10 11 Board Member Kohler: Ok, well I’m just trying to say, is there guidelines in here too – that has sketches 12 of new homes and how they might work or not work or have anything because the Eichlers are great 13 homes but they are not so well holding up at this age point. There have been lots of problems and 14 people are – would like --- would rather do a new home than refurbish one that’s – the heating doesn’t 15 work and all these kinds of things; the windows are double paned. 16 17 Ms. Dikas: We’ve mostly included photos of buildings in the neighborhoods that we found to be more 18 successful examples of new home construction within Eichlers versus using illustrations of a potential 19 design. We do recommend not a historicism design but using a modern vocabulary to be more 20 compatible with Eichlers, using certain roof forms… 21 22 Board Member Kohler: That’s here – in the book here? 23 24 Ms. Dikas: Yes, it’s all under 5.2 and there are -- there’s 5.2.1 through 5.2.8 so there are eight different 25 recommendations for a new home construction. 26 27 Board Member Kohler: Ok but I’m not seeing – there’s no visual. 28 29 Vice Chair Bower: Right, there’s no visual. 30 31 Board Member Kohler: It’s all writings. 32 33 Ms. French: (Inaudible) 34 35 Board Member Kohler: Well, even your guidebooks for regular homes have got more detail. 36 37 Ms. French: What I’m hearing Rodger is that you’re saying that like the IR Guidelines that have don’t do 38 this, do something more like this, in drawn elevations. Is that what you’re saying you’d like (crosstalk) 39 something like that. 40 41 Board Member Kohler: People reading this aren’t – they don’t know what a facia board is. 42 43 Ms. French: There’s a possibility that we could modify the IR Guidelines to have a whole couple of pages 44 on Eichlers with those types of drawings. 45 46 Board Member Kohler: Actually, that would probably be a good idea because it might actually encourage 47 more people to build Eichler type homes instead of the more modern homes. I don’t know I’m just trying 48 to say, an average person looking through here, who is going to do a new home, and it’s just a lot of 49 words so it doesn’t… 50 51 Ms. French: Right. 52 53 Board Member Kohler: In this kind of world you need more visual I think. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Ms. French: Right so for those who are choosing to do a new two-story home, they are going to have to 1 go through the IR Guidelines. And this is to supplement that. It has guidelines written that it’s possible 2 that we could… 3 4 Board Member Kohler: Sorry to add more work to you. 5 6 Ms. French: Well, it won’t happen immediately. 7 8 Board Member Kohler: Yeah, ok. 9 10 Ms. Dikas: We’re exploring that anyway, updating the IR Guidelines to include some Eichler specifics. 11 12 Board Member Kohler: When we do new homes we always meet with Arnold but I suppose Arnold will 13 have a lot of this under his packet of ideas so he will be a big help. 14 15 Vice Chair Bower: Alright, Council Member Holman had a comment. 16 17 Council Member Holman: Yeah, just a couple suggestions. Firs thank you for getting this far, it’s a lot of 18 work and Page and Turnbull is a very accomplished at how to do these. So, they are very clear and laid 19 out very well. Just a clarifying thing maybe, as Rodger had mentioned putting in a chapter number on the 20 cover page I think or the chapter page. I think it also might be good to put them at the chapter pages 21 themselves otherwise you’re looking like this and people who aren’t familiar – you know there are pages 22 that don’t have any 4.2.3 so you don’t know what chapter you’re in when you look so just adding the 23 number up here would be helpful. Page 17 and obviously we just got this At Places so there hasn’t been 24 time to review it but page 17 talks about repairing and replacing windows and doors but all the language 25 there is about replacing windows. I don’t see anything about repairing or retaining so that’s one comment 26 and windows are such a huge, big deal and that’s something that I caught, to begin with right off. I really 27 do concur with the Chair’s comments about the review process in terms of sequencing. There’s currently 28 no architect on the Planning Commission and I think if the Planning Commission doesn’t benefit from an 29 action item of this body reviewing this document after they have had a chance to review it, I think there’s 30 going to be a lot of confusion back and forth and discontinuity in terms of intention and progress. I think 31 it’s going to lead to maybe the community and very likely the Council being like well what are we, you 32 know? It seems like it would be a lot more effective to have a December 7th if that date could be 33 arranged without changing the Planning Commission meeting. I mean look at December 7th to have an 34 HRB meeting. 35 36 Ms. French: That’s an ARB date. 37 38 Council Member Holman: That’s an ARB date, ok. Well, I would really strongly suggest for everybody’s 39 benefit to have this body have a chance to review this document and make comments in an action item 40 setting prior to going to the Planning Commission. Again, especially because there’s nobody there with 41 preservation experience and there’s not even an architect there. A couple other just quick comments is as 42 the question – I appreciate the questions and comments from the Board Members. As I – oh, one thing 43 that’s about Joseph Eichler, I really appreciate the history that’s in here about how he stood for no 44 discrimination. I mean he was really a visionary and a social leader in that regard. You might consider 45 adding in there, even to the extent that he resigned or was expelled, I forgotten which, from the – what 46 was it? The State Construction Board or something? It’s – that information is available but it went that far 47 that he was no longer apart of that body because they would not include his nondiscrimination policy. 48 The other comment is if I understand and again, this is not from having read this, it’s just from hearing 49 comments and questions. That someone could build a new two-story home in Greenmeadow – well, no, 50 not in Greenmeadow because that has a single-story overlay but somebody could build a new two-story 51 in any Eichler neighborhood according to these. So, what seems like to make sense is either in parallel 52 with this or in – as a part of this, how neighborhoods could apply for National Register status. The other 53 thing before you go, I know you have an answer ready, but the other thing is the replacement of even 54 single-story homes in National Register Districts because right now they get no City review but they are 55 City of Palo Alto Page 17 listed on the National Register. Two neighborhoods are listed on the National Register and there’s no 1 review so I heard the Chair saying that some people are concerned about – I think it was you who said 2 some people are concerned about even the eligibility of the National Register because of how much 3 change is happening in the neighborhood. As I’ve listened to the neighborhood over the last – and the 4 neighbors and the community over the last couple 3-years, they want to see not only the character 5 retained but they want to see the National Register status of their neighborhoods retained too. How 6 would this possibly get them there? 7 8 Ms. French: The guidelines themselves wouldn’t. That is why there’s a two-part program here to get 9 these guidelines before the Council in addition to the potential code modifications that the Council could 10 then direct to go forward. There are – there’s a menu of possibilities, there are Eichler overlays, there are 11 independent development standards that could be added, and so there’s a host of things. We’re working 12 on those as potential for the Council to direct to move forward after they get a good handle on what 13 those options are. 14 15 Council Member Holman: I was understanding that the community, and what they were looking for 16 actually is these, yes, but I thought that what the community was looking for was Eichler overlays. 17 18 Ms. French: We’ve heard that from some, not from everybody. 19 20 Council Member Holman: I’ve heard it from a lot. 21 22 Ms. French: Sure, but people come talk to you because they want that. There are other people that don’t 23 want that action so we have the whole host of residents that have interest and we need to bring those 24 forward to the -- that’s one of the reasons the community workshop is pushed off until next year. That’s 25 because we are working on these potential code changes and when you bring up the National Register 26 tracts – I mean because they are not listed on the City’s inventory, they are not protected by our City’s 27 ordinance. That – has not even been identified in these potential code changes that we’re working on 28 was modifying the Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is always a hot topic. Yeah, that’s another 29 ordinance that’s been long overdue to modify and we talk about it here, Categories Threes and Fours and 30 Ones and Twos and those are all in the ordinance. That would be a change and if you wanted to say 31 there’s only Category One and Two, one is significant and one isn’t or ones just contributing. Those kinds 32 of changes would have to come forward to the Planning Commission and to the Council. 33 34 Council Member Holman: I guess the question to make it not a many-years-long processes is could those 35 opportunities, suggestions, hindrances, or whatever, come forward to the community in parallel to this so 36 they are not looking at this and going, oh this is what we get. When some might want one thing and 37 some might want another thing. Could they come in parallel to each other so again, we’re not extending 38 this out several years? 39 40 Ms. French: Yeah, we are not interested in years, we’re interested in months. What we’re interested in is 41 getting these guidelines to the Council for adoption. We’re also interested at the same time getting to the 42 Council the menu of direct Staff to go forward with A, B, and C’s, so that’s going to be a Council decision. 43 We’re going to come forward with proposals after having vetted those with the Planning Commission. It 44 was going to be December 13th to start talking about those, and now we’ll push that off until January it 45 seems like, if that’s an interest. So, that will be something that comes to the Council in March to direct 46 Staff to then resume and go forward for the next whatever-6-months, to get it done. 47 48 Council Member Holman: Hopefully while I’m still in Council and thank you. 49 50 Vice Chair Bower: If there are no further comments then I encourage Boardmembers to forward their 51 concerns or any suggestions to Emily or Amy so we can have them included before we meet to discuss 52 this as a Board. So, if there’s no further discussion about this let’s do some housekeeping and move on 53 with the day. I do not see any members of the public here, let alone members who would like to speak 54 so I think we don’t have any public comments. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Action Items 1 2 None. 3 4 Approval of Minutes 5 6 4. Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of October 12, 2017 7 8 Vice Chair Bower: Approval of minutes, I wanted to suggest that – let’s see, the minutes from October 9 12th. I noticed – this is when we were first looking at Eichler Guidelines. In the minutes I think there is a 10 place where I’m discussing the CC&R’s of Greenmeadow and in the literal translation that came out as 11 CCNRs so I think that’s… 12 13 Ms. Vance: What page are you… 14 15 Vice Chair Bower: Well, it’s on many pages but you can see it on 21. 16 17 Ms. Vance: Oh, I see. 18 19 Vice Chair Bower: You can see it basically – if you do a keyword search on that, every single place that 20 CC&R’s are mentioned it is put as ‘N’ instead of – what is that, ampersand? Is that the correct term? Ok, 21 other than that I don’t have any corrections. Anyone else has corrections? I don’t see any. I’m sure we’ve 22 all read these thoroughly. Do I have a motion to approve? 23 24 MOTION 25 26 Board Member Wimmer: I move to approve the minutes. 27 28 Vice Chair Bower: Second? 29 30 Board Member Kohler: I’ll second it. 31 32 Vice Chair Bower: Ok, Rodger you seconding? Alright, all in favor? Ok, that’s unanimous. 33 34 MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6-0 WITH CHAIR BERNSTEIN ABSENT. 35 36 Subcommittee Items 37 38 Vice Chair Bower: Alright subcommittee items, this is the first draft of the Mills Act. It came out – Emily 39 sent this out to the subcommittee members. It is a draft because we haven’t looked at it and reviewed it 40 but it’s a very impressive document. Thank you very much. I second Council Member Holman’s note – 41 comment earlier that you are a rare find and we are very lucky to have your energy and intelligent and 42 thoroughness in the City. The subcommittee will meet again I think in the next couple of weeks to try to 43 move this forward but this is a huge improvement. This is why we’ve never been able to move this idea 44 forward because just the discussions the subcommittee had didn’t begin to cover the amount of 45 information that’s in this document. I think we’re going – we’re actually going to be able to move this 46 forward next year. I don’t think there are any other subcommittee reports, are there? Roger. 47 48 Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I have a subcommittee – has anyone been down off California Avenue lately 49 or along the railroad tracks? You know where Fry’s is? If you start down at Fry’s and you go toward 50 California Avenue there’s now – all the big buildings are already done and there are two or three new 51 ones going up. I mean that’s going to be one continuous wall and it’s really amazing site. Then they are 52 going to start doing that new building, when is that going to start that’s going to have the parking and 53 everything? It’s just one busy place so it’s amazing. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Vice Chair Bower: That’s an art – blame the architects for that. 1 2 Board Member Kohler: Yeah, right. I just really noticed that if you – I use to go to Keeble and Shuchat all 3 the time for all my cameras and stuff like and of course they went away. Now – then the arts and crafts 4 people had to move out because that building got changed so now they are going to be -- in part of the 5 old Keeble and Shuchat building. I’ve been meaning to go down there because it’s going to be divided I 6 think into two or three spaces so California Avenue is a real hopping place. It’s just amazing. 7 8 Vice Chair Bower: Any other comments? Board Members? Alright, hearing none. 9 10 Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 11 12 MOTION 13 14 Vice Chair Bower: There’s aren’t any announcements and so I would entertain a motion to adjourn. 15 (Crosstalk) Oh, everyone moved to adjourn, alright. All in favor? Good, see you next meeting. 16 17 MOTION PASSED 6-0 WITH CHAIR BERSTEIN ABSENT. 18 19 Adjournment 20